Wesley Corpus

And it being generally believed, that I was able to give the clearest account of these things, (as having been one of the first to whom that name was given, and the person by whom the rest were supposed to be directed), I have been called upon, in all manner of ways, and with the utmost earnestness, so to do. I yield as last to the continued importunity both of friends and enemies; and do now give the clearest account I can, in the presence of the Lord and Judge of heaven and earth, of the principles and practice whereby those who are called Methodists are distinguished from other men. In plain English, Wesley is setting out to explain the distinctives of Methodists - what makes them different from other Christians. Here's a brief note on terminology. In mainstream usage Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism are all religions. Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals, Catholics, etc., are denominations of Christianity. 3. I say those who are called Methodists; for, let it be well observed, that this is not a name which they take to themselves, but one fixed upon them by way of reproach, without their approbation or consent. It was first given to three or four young men at Oxford, by a student of Christ Church; either in allusion to the ancient sect of Physicians so called, from their teaching, that almost all diseases might be cured by a specific method of diet and exercise, or from their observing a more regular method of study and behaviour than was usual with those of their age and station. Wesley begins explaining how the name came about. When the movement first started, Wesley and his friends were students at Oxford University. They wanted to know God more and to obey him faithfully. They put much effort into what they did and were very Methodical about it. In fact they were so methodical that people started using it as an insult: “You're just a bunch of Methodists!” Wesley took the insult and claimed it as his own. By the way one of the other insults people used was “Bible Moths.” If you've ever seen how moths flutter endlessly around a light, you know what they had in mind, having seen how Wesley and his friends devoted themselves to reading, studying, and obeying the bible. Notice this: the Methodist movement was started by college students.

Notice this: the Methodist movement was started by college students. Can young people do a similar thing today? How would you receive it if they did? If people were to offer insults to Methodists today, what do you think they'd choose? What are our practices that currently stand out? 4. I should rejoice (so little ambitious am I to be at the head of any sect or party) if the very name might never be mentioned more, but be buried in eternal oblivion. But if that cannot be, at least let those who will use it, know the meaning of the word they use. Let us not always be fighting in the dark. Come, and let us look one another in the face. And perhaps some of you who hate what I am called, may love what I Can by the grace of God; or rather, what "I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus." For Wesley, names (like “Methodist”) were mostly irrelevant. How much do names of groups matter today? Why? 1. THE distinguishing marks of a Methodist are not his opinions of any sort. His assenting to this or that scheme of religion, his embracing any particular set of notions, his espousing the judgment of one man or of another, are all quite wide of the point. Whosoever, therefore, imagines that a Methodist is a man of such or such an opinion, is grossly ignorant of the whole affair; he mistakes the truth totally. We believe, indeed, that "all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God;" and herein we are distinguished from Jews, Turks, and Infidels. We believe the written word of God to be the only and sufficient rule both of Christian faith and practice; and herein we are fundamentally distinguished from those of the Romish Church. We believe Christ to be the eternal, supreme God; and herein we are distinguished from the Socinians and Arians. But as to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think. So that whatsoever they are, whether right or wrong they are no distinguishing marks of a Methodist. Wesley's usual style when trying to demonstrate the nature of something (in this case, a Methodist), began with an examination what it wasn't.

Wesley's usual style when trying to demonstrate the nature of something (in this case, a Methodist), began with an examination what it wasn't. In this paragraph Wesley claims that as far as beliefs go, Methodism is mainstream Christianity. Along with other Christian denominations we share basic beliefs about Jesus, God, sin, salvation, etc. When you compare Methodists with, say, Baptists, Pentecostals, or Episcopalians, most of what they believe they believe in common. Methodists differ from the Catholic church - and this difference is common to other Protestant churches (Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc., are all considered Protestant churches) - in a reliance on the bible as the “sufficient rule both of Christian faith and practice.” (Note: In the 18th century they called the Catholic church, the “Romish” church sometimes.) Two questions to discuss: What beliefs “strike at the root of Christianity?” What beliefs have you observed that you have in common with friends from other churches? Have you noticed in peculiarly Methodist ways of talking? Which movements or groups in our world today should we be contrasting ourselves with? 2. Neither are words or phrases of any sort. We do not place our religion, or any part of it, in being attached to any peculiar mode of speaking, any quaint or uncommon set of expressions. The most obvious, easy, common words, wherein our meaning can be conveyed, we prefer before others, both on ordinary occasions, and when we speak of the things of God. We never, therefore, willingly or designedly, deviate from the most usual way of speaking; unless when we express scripture truths in scripture words, which, we presume, no Christian will condemn. Neither do we affect to use any particular expressions of Scripture more frequently than others, unless they are such as are more frequently used by the inspired writers themselves. So that it is as gross an error, to place the marks of a Methodist in his words, as in opinions of any sort. This was truer in Wesley's day than today. All groups that continue for any length of time develop peculiar vocabularies and ways of speaking. Wesley's objective was to - as he said elsewhere - “speak plain truth for plain people.” Though high educated, he sought to speak in a way that his audiences could understand. He didn't baby them or coddle them, but he started where they were.

He didn't baby them or coddle them, but he started where they were. The one characteristic that distinguished them was that since all their thinking was immersed in scripture, biblical phrases and concepts are sprinkled throughout. What are Christian teachers and preachers doing today to speak in a way that ordinary people can understand? What could they do better? 3. Nor do we desire to be distinguished by actions, customs, or usages, of an indifferent nature. Our religion does not lie in doing what God has not enjoined, or abstaining from what he hath not forbidden. It does not lie in the form of our apparel, in the posture of our body, or the covering of our heads; nor yet in abstaining from marriage, or from meats and drinks, which are all good if received with thanksgiving. Therefore, neither will any man, who knows whereof he affirms, fix the mark of a Methodist here,--in any actions or customs purely indifferent, undetermined by the word of God. Wesley adds this section because of the number of Christian groups throughout the ages who have defined themselves this way. Methodists are not people who wear a particular kind of clothing, make particular hand motions, or practice strict dietary customs. American Methodists have moved from Wesley's position and officially taught that abstinence from alcohol is the best choice. While Wesley preached against drunkenness (both because of the scriptural teaching to that effect and because he'd seen the ruin in brought to many individuals and families), complete abstinence was not an issue in 18th century England. Questions: Can you pick out any outward customs that distinguish Methodists from other groups? Are there any practice that you think ought to differentiate us? 4. Nor, lastly, is he distinguished by laying the whole stress of religion on any single part of it. If you say, "Yes, he is; for he thinks 'we are saved by faith alone:'" I answer, You do not understand the terms. By salvation he means holiness of heart and life. And this he affirms to spring from true faith alone. Can even a nominal Christian deny it? Is this placing a part of religion for the whole? "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid!

Thou art the strength of my heart, and my portion forever!" Wesley's first characteristic of a Methodist here is somewhat unhelpful. While it does a good job of describing a characteristic of the Methodists - a living relationship with God through the Holy Spirit - this characteristic is not peculiar to Methodists. Wesley knows this. He's trying to describe Methodists as ordinary Christians. When this tract was written, Methodism was not a church, but what we today would call a “parachurch organization” (like the American Bible Society, Campus Crusade, etc.). This point then, distinguishes the Methodist not from other Christians, but from nominal Christians. A nominal Christian is one who checks the “Christian” box on the survey form, may go to church on occasion, but there is little or nothing in the way of an ongoing relationship with God. In fact, in Wesley's day, many preachers thought it was odd - bordering on the heretical - to think an ordinary Christian would have a relationship with God. Wesley, to the contrary, taught that it was the privilege of every Christian. This is why when we take our young people through Confirmation we're not out merely to give them something akin to a diploma. It's not just about acquiring knowledge, it's entering a relationship with God and learning how to talk about that relationship and grow in it. Question: What are the main things that help you know God better? What are you doing to develop your relationship with God? As a leader in the church, what can you do to (a) help people come into a relationship with Christ, and (b) begin to take responsibility for their own spiritual growth? 6. He is therefore happy in God, yea, always happy, as having in him "a well of water springing up into everlasting life," and overflowing his soul with peace and joy.

Question: Do you think this poll picture fits your experience of congregational life to any degree? If so, what might we do about it? What would Wesley have to say about it? What kinds of arguments might he use? 17. These are the principles and practices of our sect; these are the marks of a true Methodist. By these alone do those who are in derision so called, desire to be distinguished from other men. If any man say, "Why, these are only the common fundamental principles of Christianity!" thou hast said; so I mean; this is the very truth; I know they are no other; and I would to God both thou and all men knew, that I, and all who follow my judgment, do vehemently refuse to be distinguished from other men, by any but the common principles of Christianity,--the plain, old Christianity that I teach, renouncing and detesting all other marks of distinction. And whosoever is what I preach, (let him be called what he will, for names change not the nature of things,) he is a Christian, not in name only, but in heart and in life. He is inwardly and outwardly conformed to the will of God, as revealed in the written word. He thinks, speaks, and lives, according to the method laid down in the revelation of Jesus Christ. His soul is renewed after the image of God, in righteousness and ion all true holiness. And having the mind that was in Christ, he so walks as Christ also walked. Wesley’s objective was not to begin a new denomination. He remained a priest in the Church of England until his death. He took the Methodist movement to be a “back to basics” movement, getting back to simple, original Christianity. For him, it was being a follower of Jesus, seeking to live like Jesus, that mattered. From the time of Wesley until the present, Methodism has rejected the idea that there is One True Church. We recognize that what we believe and practice is mostly the same as what other Christian churches believe and practice. What are some present-day consequences of believing there isn’t “One True Church?” How is our life as a church affected by the belief that we and other churches are on the “same team?” 18.

What are some present-day consequences of believing there isn’t “One True Church?” How is our life as a church affected by the belief that we and other churches are on the “same team?” 18. By these marks, by these fruits of a living faith, do we labor to distinguish ourselves from the unbelieving world, from all those whose minds or lives are not according to the Gospel of Christ. But from real Christians, of whatsoever denomination they be, we earnestly desire not to be distinguished at all, not from any who sincerely follow after what they know they have not yet attained. No: "Whosoever doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." And I beseech you, brethren, by the mercies of God, that we be in no wise divided among ourselves. Is thy heart right, as my heart is with thine? I ask no farther question. If it be, give me thy hand. For opinions, or terms, let us not destroy the work of God. Dost thou love and serve God? It is enough. I give thee the right hand of fellowship. Ii there be any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies; let us strive together for the faith of the Gospel; walking worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called; with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; remembering, there is one body, and one Spirit, even as we are called with one hope of our calling; "one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." While Lutheran and Reformed theologies tend to find their home in Galatians and Romans, Wesley seems to find his in Ephesians. Is there any particular section of Scripture in which contemporary United Methodism finds its home? Having read The Character of a Methodist, what do you think we most need to learn from Wesley now? From the Thomas Jackson edition of The Works of John Wesley, 1872.

possible Sort, and as far as is possible, to all Men : F*** To their Bodies, of the Ability which G OD giveth, by giving Food to the Hun- gry, by cloathing the Naked, by visiting or helping them that are Sick, or in Prison. 5 To their Souls, by instructing, reproving e exhorting all we have any Intercourse r i a neo as DO OT 7 Ne -- ds ** -- L : ere * N 1 -- these Societies, that they should continue ray Wich: Fare We ET F ve with: Trampling under Foot chat Enthu-- siastickx Doctrine of Devils, that „ we are © not to do Good, unless our Heart be «free i tt - By doing Good cspecially to: them that are of the Floushold of Faith, or groaning so to be: Employing them preferably to others, buying one of another, helping each other in Business ; and fo much the more, because the World will love its own, and them only. By all possible Diligence and Frug ality, that the Gospel be not blamed : By running with Patience the Race that is set before them; denying then/efves, and taking up their Cr 5 daily; submitting to bear the Reproach of CHRIST, to be as the Filth and Off-scouring of the World; mand looking that Men should say all mann r of Evil of them falsely, for their Lok p's sake. 6. It is expected of all who defire to continue in these Societies, that they should continue to evidence their Desire of Salvation; 5 Thirdly, By attending upon all the Ordinances of GOD : Such are The publick Worship of GOD; The Miniftry of the Word, either read Or expounded ; The Supper of the Logo ; Private 1 "TRE r S ane 2 » 1 . . $4 *. * Ay * . 24) % Private Pr ayer ; Searching the Scriptures ; and Failing ar Abstinence, 7. These are the General Rules of our Societies; all which we are taught of GOD to observe, even in his written Word, the only Rule, and the sufficient Rule both of our. Faith and Practice: And all these we know his Spirit writes on every truly awaken'd Heart. Tf there be any among us who observe them not, who habitually break any one of them, let it be made known un-

II. What is the salvation which is through faith. III. How we may answer some objections. I. What faith it is through which we are saved. 1. And, first, it is not barely the faith of a heathen. Now, God requireth of a heathen to believe, "that God is; that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him;" and that he is to be sought by glorifying him as God, by giving him thanks for all things, and by a careful practice of moral virtue, of justice, mercy, and truth, toward their fellow creatures. A Greek or Roman, therefore, yea, a Scythian or Indian, was without excuse if he did not believe thus much: the being and attributes of God, a future state of reward and punishment, and the obligatory nature of moral virtue. For this is barely the faith of a heathen. 2. Nor, secondly, is it the faith of a devil, though this goes much farther than that of a heathen. For the devil believes, not only that there is a wise and powerful God, gracious to reward, and just to punish; but also, that Jesus is the Son of God, the Christ, the Saviour of the world. So we find him declaring, in express terms, "I know Thee who Thou art; the Holy One of God" (Luke 4:34). Nor can we doubt but that unhappy spirit believes all those words which came out of the mouth of the Holy One, yea, and whatsoever else was written by those holy men of old, of two of whom he was compelled to give that glorious testimony, "These men are the servants of the most high God, who show unto you the way of salvation." Thus much, then, the great enemy of God and man believes, and trembles in believing, --that God was made manifest in the flesh; that he will "tread all enemies under his feet;" and that "all Scripture was given by inspiration of God." Thus far goeth the faith of a devil.

3. Thirdly. The faith through which we are saved, in that sense of the word which will hereafter be explained, is not barely that which the Apostles themselves had while Christ was yet upon earth; though they so believed on him as to "leave all and follow him;" although they had then power to work miracles, to "heal all manner of sickness, and all manner of disease;" yea, they had then "power and authority over all devils;" and, which is beyond all this, were sent by their Master to "preach the kingdom of God." 4. What faith is it then through which we are saved It may be answered, first, in general, it is a faith in Christ: Christ, and God through Christ, are the proper objects of it. herein, therefore, it is sufficiently, absolutely distinguished from the faith either of ancient or modern heathens. And from the faith of a devil it is fully distinguished by this: it is not barely a speculative, rational thing, a cold, lifeless assent, a train of ideas in the head; but also a disposition of the heart. For thus saith the Scripture, "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness;" and, "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." 5. And herein does it differ from that faith which the Apostles themselves had while our Lord was on earth, that it acknowledges the necessity and merit of his death, and the power of his resurrection. It acknowledges his death as the only sufficient means of redeeming man from death eternal, and his resurrection as the restoration of us all to life and immortality; inasmuch as he "was delivered for our sins, and rose again for our justification." Christian faith is then, not only an assent to the whole gospel of Christ, but also a full reliance on the blood of Christ; a trust in the merits of his life, death, and resurrection; a recumbency upon him as our atonement and our life, as given for us, and living in us; and, in consequence hereof, a closing with him, and cleaving to him, as our "wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption," or, in one word, our salvation. II. What salvation it is, which is through this faith, is the Second thing to be considered.

3. But does not preaching this faith lead men into pride We answer, Accidentally it may: therefore ought every believer to be earnestly cautioned, in the words of the great Apostle "Because of unbelief," the first branches "were broken off: and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear. If God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God! On them which fell, severity; but towards thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." And while he continues therein, he will remember those words of St. Paul, foreseeing and answering this very objection (Rom. 3:27), "Where is boasting then It is excluded. By what law of works Nay: but by the law of faith." If a man were justified by his works, he would have whereof to glory. But there is no glorying for him "that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly" (Rom. 4:5). To the same effect are the words both preceding and following the text (Eph. 2:4ff.): "God, who is rich in mercy, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ (by grace ye are saved), that he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves." Of yourselves cometh neither your faith nor your salvation: "it is the gift of God;" the free, undeserved gift; the faith through which ye are saved, as well as the salvation which he of his own good pleasure, his mere favour, annexes thereto. That ye believe, is one instance of his grace; that believing ye are saved, another. "Not of works, lest any man should boast." For all our works, all our righteousness, which were before our believing, merited nothing of God but condemnation; so far were they from deserving faith, which therefore, whenever given, is not of works. Neither is salvation of the works we do when we believe, for it is then God that worketh in us: and, therefore, that he giveth us a reward for what he himself worketh, only commendeth the riches of his mercy, but leaveth us nothing whereof to glory.

4. But here let no man deceive his own soul. "It is diligently to be noted, the faith which bringeth not forth repentance, and love, and all good works, is not that right living faith, but a dead and devilish one. For, even the devils believe that Christ was born of a virgin: that he wrought all kinds of miracles, declaring himself very God: that, for our sakes, he suffered a most painful death, to redeem us from death everlasting; that he rose again the third day: that he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father and at the end of the world shall come again to judge both the quick and dead. These articles of our faith the devils believe, and so they believe all that is written in the Old and New Testament. And yet for all this faith, they be but devils. They remain still in their damnable estate lacking the very true Christian faith." [Homily on the Salvation of Man.] 5. "The right and true Christian faith is (to go on m the words of our own Church), "not only to believe that Holy Scripture and the Articles of our Faith are true, but also to have a sure trust and confidence to be saved from everlasting damnation by Christ. It is a sure trust and confidence which a man hath in God, that, by the merits of Christ, his sins are forgiven, and he reconciled to the favour of God; whereof doth follow a loving heart, to obey his commandments." 6. Now, whosoever has this faith, which "purifies the heart" (by the power of God, who dwelleth therein) from "pride, anger, desire, from all unrighteousness" from "all filthiness of flesh and spirit;" which fills it with love stronger than death, both to God and to all mankind; love that doeth the works of God, glorying to spend and to be spent for all men, and that endureth with joy, not only the reproach of Christ, the being mocked, despised, and hated of all men, but whatsoever the wisdom of God permits the malice of men or devils to inflict, --whosoever has this faith thus working by love is not almost only, but altogether, a Christian.

7. But who are the living witnesses of these things I beseech you, brethren, as in the presence of that God before whom "hell and destruction are without a covering--how much more the hearts of the children of men" --that each of you would ask his own heart, "Am I of that number Do I so far practise justice, mercy, and truth, as even the rules of heathen honesty require If so, have I the very outside of a Christian the form of godliness Do I abstain from evil, --from whatsoever is forbidden in the written Word of God Do I, whatever good my hand findeth to do, do it with my might Do I seriously use all the ordinances of God at all opportunities And is all this done with a sincere design and desire to please God in all things" 8. Are not many of you conscious, that you never came thus far; that you have not been even almost a Christian; that you have not come up to the standard of heathen honesty; at least, not to the form of Christian godliness --much less hath God seen sincerity in you, a real design of pleasing him in all things. You never so much as intended to devote all your words and works. your business, studies, diversions, to his glory. You never even designed or desired, that whatsoever you did should be done "in the name of the Lord Jesus, and as such should be "a spiritual sacrifice, acceptable to God through Christ.

4. The Spirit of Christ is that great gift of God, which at sundry times, and in divers manners, he hath promised to man, and hath fully bestowed since the time that Christ was glorified. Those promises, before made to the fathers, he hath thus fulfilled: "I will put My spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes" (Ezek. 36:27). "I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground; I will pour My Spirit upon thy seed, and My blessing upon thine offspring (Isa. 44:3). 5. Ye may all be living witnesses of these things; of remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. "If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth." "Who among you is there that feareth the Lord, and" yet walketh on "in darkness, and hath no light" I ask thee, in the name of Jesus, Believest thou that his arm is not shortened at all that he is still mighty to save that he is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever that he hath now power on earth to forgive sins "Son, be of good cheer; thy sins are forgiven." God, for Christ's sake, hath forgiven thee. Receive this, "not as the word of man; but as it is indeed, the word of God;" and thou art justified freely through faith. Thou shalt be sanctified also through faith which is in Jesus, and shalt set to thy seal, even thine, that "God hath given unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son."

6. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you, and suffer ye the word of exhortation, even from one the least esteemed in the Church. Your conscience beareth you witness in the Holy Ghost, that these things are so, if so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. "This is eternal life, to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent." This experimental knowledge, and this alone, is true Christianity. he is a Christian who hath received the Spirit of Christ. he is not a Christian who hath not received him. Neither is it possible to have received him, and not know it. "For, at that day" (when he cometh, saith our Lord), "ye shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you." This is that "Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you" (John 14:17). 7. The world cannot receive him, but utterly reject the Promise of the Father, contradicting and blaspheming. But every spirit which confesseth not this is not of God. Yea, "this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come into the world; and even now it is in the world." he is Antichrist whosoever denies the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, or that the indwelling Spirit of God is the common privilege of all believers, the blessing of the gospel, the unspeakable gift, the universal promise, the criterion of a real Christian. 8. It nothing helps them to say, "We do not deny the assistance of God's Spirit; but only this inspiration, this receiving the Holy Ghost: and being sensible of it. It is only this feeling of the Spirit, this being moved by the Spirit, or filled with it, which we deny to have any place in sound religion." But, in only denying this, you deny the whole Scriptures; the whole truth, and promise, and testimony of God.

9. Our own excellent Church knows nothing of this devilish distinction; but speaks plainly of "feeling the Spirit of Christ" [Article 17]; of being "moved by the Holy Ghost" [Office of consecrating Priests] and knowing and "feeling there is no other name than that of Jesus," [Visitation of the Sick] whereby we can receive" life and salvation. She teaches us all to pray for the "inspiration of the Holy Spirit" [Collect before Holy Communion]; yea, that we may be "filled with the Holy Ghost" [Order of Confirmation]. Nay, and every Presbyter of hers professes to receive the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands. Therefore, to deny any of these, is, in effect, to renounce the Church of England, as well as the whole Christian revelation. 10. But "the wisdom of God" was always "foolishness with men." No marvel, then, that the great mystery of the gospel should be now also "hid from the wise and prudent," as well as in the days of old; that it should be almost universally denied, ridiculed, and exploded, as mere frenzy; and that all who dare avow it still are branded with the names of madmen and enthusiasts! This is "that falling away" which was to come--that general apostasy of all orders and degrees of men, which we even now find to have overspread the earth. "Run to and fro in the streets of Jerusalem, and see if ye can find a man," a man that loveth the Lord his God with all his heart, and serveth him with all his strength. How does our own land mourn (that we look no farther) under the overflowings of ungodliness! What villanies of every kind are committed day by day; yea, too often with impunity, by those who sin with a high hand, and glory in their shame! Who can reckon up the oaths, curses, profaneness blasphemies; the lying, slandering, evil-speaking; the Sabbath-breaking, gluttony, drunkenness, revenge; the whoredoms, adulteries, and various uncleanness; the frauds, injustice, oppression, extortion, which overspread our land as a flood

2. I beseech you, brethren, by the mercies of God, if ye do account me a madman or a fool, yet, as a fool bear with me. It is utterly needful that some one should use great plainness of speech towards you. It is more especially needful at this time; for who knoweth but it is the last? Who knoweth how soon the righteous Judge may say, "I will no more be entreated for this people?" "Though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in this land, they should but deliver their own souls." And who will use this plainness, if I do not? Therefore I, even I, will speak. And I adjure you, by the living God, that ye steel not your breasts against receiving a blessing at my hands. Do not say in your hearts, Non persuadebis, etiamsi persuaseris;" or, in other words, "Lord, thou shalt not send by whom thou wilt send; let me rather perish in my blood, than be saved by this man!" 3. Brethren, "I am persuaded better things of you, though I thus speak." Let me ask you then, in tender love, and in the spirit of meekness, Is this city a Christian city? Is Christianity, scriptural Christianity, found here? Are we, considered as a community of men, so "filled with the Holy Ghost," as to enjoy in our hearts, and show forth in our lives, the genuine fruits of that Spirit? Are all the Magistrates, all heads and Governors of Colleges and Halls, and their respective Societies (not to speak of the inhabitants of the town), "of one heart "and one soul?" Is "the love of God shed abroad in our hearts?" Are our tempers the same that were in him? And are our lives agreeable thereto? Are we "holy as he who hath called us is holy? in all manner of conversation?" 4. I entreat you to observe, that here are no peculiar notions now under consideration; that the question moved is not concerning doubtful opinions of one kind or another, but concerning the undoubted, fundamental branches (if there be any such) of our common Christianity. And for the decision thereof, I appeal to your own conscience, guided by the Word of God. He therefore that is not condemned by his own heart, let him go free.

2. Neither is that far-fetched conceit, that justification is the clearing us from accusation, particularly that of Satan, easily provable from any clear text of holy writ. In the whole scriptural account of this matter, as above laid down, neither that accuser nor his accusation appears to be at all taken in. It can not indeed be denied, that he is the "accuser" of men, emphatically so called. But it does in nowise appear, that the great Apostle hath any reference to this, more or less, in all he hath written touching justification, either to the Romans or the Galatians. 3. It is also far easier to take for granted, than to prove from any clear scripture testimony, that justification is the clearing us from the accusation brought against us by the law: At least if this forced, unnatural way of speaking mean either more or less than this, that, whereas we have transgressed the law of God, and thereby deserved the damnation of hell, God does not inflict on those who are justified the punishment which they had deserved. 4. Least of all does justification imply, that God is deceived in those whom he justifies; that he thinks them to be what, in fact, they are not; that he accounts them to be otherwise than they are. It does by no means imply, that God judges concerning us contrary to the real nature of things; that he esteems us better than we really are, or believes us righteous when we are unrighteous. Surely no. The judgment of the all-wise God is always according to truth. Neither can it ever consist with his unerring wisdom, to think that I am innocent, to judge that I am righteous or holy, because another is so. He can no more, in this manner, confound me with Christ, than with David or Abraham. Let any man to whom God hath given understanding, weigh this without prejudice; and he cannot but perceive, that such a notion of justification is neither reconcilable to reason nor Scripture.

5. The righteousness, then, which is of the law, speaketh on this wise: "Thou, O man of God, stand fast in love, in the image of God wherein thou art made. If thou wilt remain in life, keep the commandments, which are now written in thy heart. Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart. Love, as thyself, every soul that he hath made. Desire nothing but God. Aim at God in every thought, in every word and work. Swerve not, in one motion of body or soul, from him, thy mark, and the prize of thy high calling; and let all that is in thee praise his holy name, every power and faculty of thy soul, in every kind, in every degree, and at every moment of thine existence. `This do, and thou shalt live:' Thy light shall shine, thy love shall flame more and more, till thou art received up into the house of God in the heavens, to reign with him for ever and ever." 6. "But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise: Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven that is, to bring down Christ from above;" (as though it were some impossible task which God required thee previously to perform in order to thine acceptance;) "or, Who shall descend into the deep that is, to bring up Christ from the dead;" (as though that were still remaining to be done, for the sake of which thou wert to be accepted;) "but what saith it The word," according to the tenor of which thou mayest now be accepted as an heir of life eternal, "is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart; that is, the word of faith which we preach," -- the new covenant which God hath now established with sinful man, through Christ Jesus.

3. You should farther consider, that the righteousness of the law requires, not only the obeying every command of God, negative and positive, internal and external, but likewise in the perfect degree. In every instance whatever, the voice of the law is, "Thou shalt serve the Lord thy God with all thy strength." It allows no abatement of any kind: It excuses no defect: It condemns every coming short of the full measure of obedience, and immediately pronounces a curse on the offender: It regards only the invariable rules of justice, and saith, "I know not to show mercy." 4. Who then can appear before such a Judge, who is "extreme to mark what is done amiss" How weak are they who desire to be tried at the bar where "no flesh living can be justified!" -- none of the offspring of Adam. For, suppose we did now keep every commandment with all our strength; yet one single breach which ever was, utterly destroys our whole claim to life. If we have ever offended in any one point, this righteousness is at an end. For the law condemns all who do not perform uninterrupted as well as perfect obedience. So that, according to the sentence of this, for him who hath once sinned, in any degree, "there remaineth only a fearful looking for of fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries" of God. 5. Is it not then the very foolishness of folly, for fallen man to seek life by this righteousness for man, who was "shapen in wickedness, and in sin did his mother conceive him" man, who is, by nature, all "earthly, sensual, devilish;" altogether corrupt and abominable;" in whom, till he find grace, "dwelleth no good thing;" nay, who cannot of himself think one good thought; who is indeed all sin, a mere lump of ungodliness, and who commits sin in every breath he draws; whose actual transgressions, in word and deed, are more in number than the hairs of his head What stupidity, what senselessness must it be for such an unclean, guilty, helpless worm as this, to dream of seeking acceptance by his own righteousness, of living by "the righteousness which is of the law!"

6. Now, whatsoever considerations prove the folly of trusting in the "righteousness which is of the law," prove equally the wisdom of submitting to the "righteousness which is of God by faith." This were easy to be shown with regard to each of the preceding considerations. But, to wave this, the wisdom of the first step hereto, the disclaiming our own righteousness, plainly appears from hence, that it is acting according to truth, to the real nature of things. For, what is it more, than to acknowledge, with our heart as well as lips, the true state wherein we are to acknowledge that we bring with us into the world a corrupt, sinful nature; more corrupt, indeed, than we can easily conceive, or find words to express that hereby we are prone to all that is evil, and averse from all that is good; that we are full of pride, self will, unruly passions, foolish desires, vile and inordinate affections; lovers of the world, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God that our lives have been no better than our hearts, but many ways ungodly and unholy; insomuch that our actual sins, both in word and deed, have been as the stars of heaven for multitude; that, on all these accounts, we are displeasing to Him who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, and deserve nothing from him but indignation and wrath and death, the due wages of sin that we cannot, by any of our righteousness, (for indeed we have none at all,) nor by any of our works, (for they are as the tree upon which they grow,) appease the wrath of God, or avert the punishment we have justly deserved; yea, that, if left to ourselves, we shall only wax worse and worse, sink deeper and deeper into sin, offend God more and more, both with our evil works, and with the evil tempers of our carnal mind, till we fill up the measure of our iniquities, and bring upon ourselves swift destruction And is not this the very state wherein by nature we are To acknowledge this, then, both with our heart and lips, that is, to disclaim our own righteousness, "the righteousness which is of the law," is to act according to the real nature of things, and, consequently, is an instance of true wisdom.

12. This holiness and happiness, joined in one, are sometimes styled, in the inspired writings, "the kingdom of God," (as by our Lord in the text,) and sometimes, "the kingdom of heaven." It is termed "the kingdom of God," because it is the immediate fruit of God's reigning in the soul. So soon as ever he takes unto himself his mighty power, and sets up his throne in our hearts, they are instantly filled with this "righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." It is called "the kingdom of heaven" because it is (in a degree) heaven opened in the soul. For whosoever they are that experience this, they can aver before angels and men, Everlasting life is won, Glory is on earth begun, according to the constant tenor of Scripture, which everywhere bears record, God "hath given unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son" (reigning in his heart) "hath life," even life everlasting. (1 John 5:11, 12.) For "this is life eternal, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3.) And they, to whom this is given, may confidently address God, though they were in the midst of a fiery furnace, Thee, Lord, safe shielded by thy power, Thee, Son of God, JEHOVAH, we adore; In form of man descending to appear: To thee be ceaseless hallelujahs given, Praise, as in heaven thy throne, we offer here; For where thy presence is display'd, is heaven. 13. And this "kingdom of God," or of heaven, "is at hand." As these words were originally spoken, they implied that "the time" was then fulfilled, God being "made manifest in the flesh," when he would set up his kingdom among men, and reign in the hearts of his people. And is not the time now fulfilled For, "Lo! (saith he,) I am with you always," you who preach remission of sins in my name, "even unto the end of the world." (Matt. 28:20.) Wheresoever, therefore, the gospel of Christ is preached, this his "kingdom is nigh at hand." It is not far from every one of you. Ye may this hour enter thereinto, if so be ye hearken to his voice, "Repent ye, and believe the gospel."

8. The gospel, (that is, good tidings, good news for guilty, helpless sinners,) in the largest sense of the word, means, the whole revelation made to men by Jesus Christ; and sometimes the whole account of what our Lord did and suffered while he tabernacled among men. The substance of all is, "Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners;" or, "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, to the end we might not perish, but have everlasting life;" or, "He was bruised for our transgressions, he was wounded for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." 9. Believe this, and the kingdom of God is thine. By faith thou attainest the promise. "He pardoneth and absolveth all that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy gospel." As soon as ever God hath spoken to thy heart, "Be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee," his kingdom comes: Thou hast "righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." 10. Only beware thou do not deceive thy own soul with regard to the nature of this faith. It is not, as some have fondly conceived, a bare assent to the truth of the Bible, of the articles of our creed, or of all that is contained in the Old and New Testament. The devils believe this, as well as I or thou! And yet they are devils still. But it is, over and above this, a sure trust in the mercy of God, through Christ Jesus. It is a confidence in a pardoning God. It is a divine evidence or conviction that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their" former "trespasses;" and, in particular, that the Son of God hath loved me, and given himself for me; and that I, even I, am now reconciled to God by the blood of the cross.

The First Fruits of the Spirit "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Rom. 8:1 1. By "them which are in Christ Jesus," St. Paul evidently means, those who truly believe in him; those who, "being justified by faith, have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." They who thus believe do no longer "walk after the flesh," no longer follow the motions of corrupt nature, but "after the Spirit"; both their thoughts, words, and works are under the direction of the blessed Spirit of God. 2. "There is therefore now no condemnation to" these. There is no condemnation to them from God; for he hath justified them "freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus." he hath forgiven all their iniquities, and blotted out all their sins. And there is no condemnation to them from within; for they "have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that they might know the things which are freely given to them of God" (1 Cor. 2:12); which Spirit "beareth witness with their spirits, that they are the children of God." And to this is added the testimony of their conscience, "that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, they have had their conversation in the world" (2 Cor. 1:12). 3. But because this scripture has been so frequently misunderstood, and that in so dangerous a manner; because such multitudes of "unlearned and unstable men" (oi amaqeis kai asthriktoi, men untaught of God, and consequently unestablished in the truth which is after godliness) have wrested it to their own destruction; I propose to show, as clearly as I can, first who those are "which are in Christ Jesus," and "walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit:" and, secondly, how "there is no condemnation to" these. I shall conclude with some practical inferences.

The Spirit of Bondage and of Adoption "Ye have not received the spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba, Father." Romans 8:15. 1. ST. PAUL here speaks to those who are the children of God by faith. "Ye," saith he, who are indeed his children, have drank into his Spirit; "ye have not received the spirit of bondage again unto fear;" "but, because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts." "Ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." 2. The spirit of bondage and fear is widely distant from this loving Spirit of adoption: Those who are influenced only by slavish fear, cannot be termed "the sons of God;" yet some of them may be styled his servants, and are "not far from the kingdom of heaven." 3. But it is to be feared, the bulk of mankind, yea, of what is called the Christian world, have not attained even this; but are still afar off, "neither is God in all their thoughts." A few names may be found of those who love God; a few more there are that fear him; but the greater part have neither the fear of God before their eyes, nor the love of God in their hearts. 4. Perhaps most of you, who, by the mercy of God, now partake of a better spirit, may remember the time when ye were as they, when ye were under the same condemnation. But at first ye knew it not, though ye were wallowing daily in your sins and in your blood; till, in due time, ye "received the spirit of fear;" (ye received, for this also is the gift of God;) and afterwards, fear vanished away, and the Spirit of love filled your hearts. 5. One who is in the first state of mind, without fear of love, is in Scripture termed a "natural man:" One who is under the spirit of bondage and fear, is sometimes said to be "under the law:" (Although that expression more frequently signifies one who is under the Jewish dispensation, or who thinks himself obliged to observe all the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish law:) But one who has exchanged the spirit of fear for the Spirit of love, is properly said to be "under grace."

Now, because it highly imports us to know what spirit we are of, I shall endeavour to point out distinctly, First, the state of a "natural man:" Secondly, that of one who is "under the law:" And Thirdly, of one who is "under grace." I. 1. And, First, the state of a natural man. This the Scripture represents as a state of sleep: The voice of God to him is, "Awake thou that sleepest." For his soul is in a deep sleep: His spiritual senses are not awake; They discern neither spiritual good nor evil. The eyes of his understanding are closed; They are sealed together, and see not. Clouds and darkness continually rest upon them; for he lies in the valley of the shadow of death. Hence having no inlets for the knowledge of spiritual things, all the avenues of his soul being shut up, he is in gross, stupid ignorance of whatever he is most concerned to know. He is utterly ignorant of God, knowing nothing concerning him as he ought to know. He is totally a stranger to the law of God, as to its true, inward, spiritual meaning. He has no conception of that evangelical holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord; nor of the happiness which they only find whose "life is hid with Christ in God."

6. It in not surprising, if one in such circumstances as these, dosed with the opiates of flattery and sin, should imagine, among his other waking dreams, that he walks in great liberty. How easily may he persuade himself, that he is at liberty from all vulgar errors, and from the prejudice of education; judging exactly right, and keeping clear of all extremes. "I am free," may he say, "from all the enthusiasm of weak and narrow souls; from superstition, the disease of fools and cowards, always righteous over much; and from bigotry, continually incident to those who have not a free and generous way of thinking." And too sure it is, that he is altogether free from the "wisdom which cometh from above," from holiness, from the religion of the heart, from the whole mind which was in Christ. 7. For all this time he is the servant of sin. He commits sin, more or less, day by day. Yet he is not troubled: He "is in no bondage," as some speak; he feels no condemnation. He contents himself (even though he should profess to believe that the Christian Revelation is of God) with, "Man is frail. We are all weak. Every man has his infirmity." Perhaps he quotes Scripture: "Why, does not Solomon say, -- The righteous man falls into sin seven times a day! -- And, doubtless, they are all hypocrites or enthusiasts who pretend to be better than their neighbours." If, at any time, a serious thought fix upon him, he stifles it as soon as possible, with, "Why should I fear, since God is merciful, and Christ died for sinners" Thus, he remains a willing servant of sin, content with the bondage of corruption; inwardly and outwardly unholy, and satisfied therewith; not only not conquering sin, but not striving to conquer, particularly that sin which doth so easily beset him. 8. Such is the state of every natural man; whether he be a gross, scandalous transgressor, or a more reputable and decent sinner, having the form, though not the power of godliness. But how can such an one be convinced of sin How is he brought to repent To be under the law To receive the spirit of bondage unto fear This is the point which in next to be considered.

2. The inward, spiritual meaning of the law of God now begins to glare upon him. He perceives "the commandment is exceeding broad," and there is "nothing hid from the light thereof." He is convinced, that every part of it relates, not barely to outward sin or obedience, but to what passes in the secret recesses of the soul, which no eye but God's can penetrate. If he now hears, "Thou shalt not kill," God speaks in thunder, "He that hateth his brother is a murderer;" "he that saith unto his brother, Thou fool, is obnoxious to hell-fire." If the law say, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," the voice of the Lord sounds in his ears, "He that looketh on a woman to lust after he hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." And thus, in every point, he feels the word of God "quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword." It "pierces even to the dividing asunder of his soul and spirit, his joints and marrow." And so much the more, because he is conscious to himself of having neglected so great salvation; of having "trodden under foot the son of God," who would have saved him from his sins, and "counted the blood of the covenant an unholy," a common, unsanctifying thing. 3. And as he knows, "all things are naked and open unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do," so he sees himself naked, stripped of all the fig-leaves which he had sewed together, of all his poor pretenses to religion or virtue, and his wretched excuses for sinning against God. He now sets himself like the ancient sacrifices, cleft in sunder, as it were, from the neck downward, so that all within him stands confessed. His heart is bare, and he sees it is all sin, "deceitful above all things, desperately wicked;" that it is altogether corrupt and abominable, more than it is possible for tongue to express; that there dwelleth therein no good thing, but unrighteousness and ungodliness only; every motion thereof, every temper and thought, being only evil continually.

The Witness of the Spirit: Discourse One "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Rom. 8:16 1. How many vain men, not understanding what they spake, neither whereof they affirmed, have wrested this Scripture to the great loss if not the destruction of their souls! How many have mistaken the voice of their own imagination for this witness of the Spirit of God, and thence idly presumed they were the children of God while they were doing the works of the devil! These are truly and properly enthusiasts; and, indeed, in the worst sense of the word. But with what difficulty are they convinced thereof, especially if they have drank deep into that spirit of error! All endeavours to bring them to the knowledge of themselves they will then account fighting against God; and that vehemence and impetuosity of spirit which they call "contending earnestly for the faith," sets them so far above all the usual methods of conviction that we may well say, "With men it is impossible." 2. Who can then be surprised if many reasonable men, seeing the dreadful effects of this delusion, and labouring to keep at the utmost distance from it, should sometimes lean toward another extreme -- if they are not forward to believe any who speak of having this witness concerning which others have so grievously erred -- if they are almost ready to set all down for enthusiasts, who use the expressions which have been so terribly abused -- yea, if they should question whether the witness or testimony here spoken of, be the privilege of ordinary Christians, and not, rather, one of those extraordinary gifts which they suppose belonged only to the apostolic age 3 . But is there any necessity laid upon us of running either into one extreme or the other May we not steer a middle course -- keep a sufficient distance from that spirit of error and enthusiasm, without denying the gift of God, and giving up the great privilege of his children Surely we may. In order thereto, let us consider, in the presence and fear of God, First. What is this witness or testimony of our spirit; what is the testimony of God's Spirit; and, how does he "bear witness with our spirit that we are the children of God"

2. With regard to the latter, the foundation thereof is laid in those numerous texts of Scripture which describe the marks of the children of God; and that so plain, that he which runneth may read them. These are also collected together, and placed in the strongest light, by many both ancient and modern writers. If any need farther light, he may receive it by attending on the ministry of God's Word; by meditating thereon before God in secret; and by conversing with those who have the knowledge of his ways. And by the reason or understanding that God has given him, which religion was designed not to extinguish, but to perfect; -- according to that of the Apostle, "Brethren, be not children in understanding; in malice" or wickedness "be ye children; but in understanding be ye men;" (1 Cor. 14:20;) -- every man applying those scriptural marks to himself, may know whether he is a child of God. Thus, if he know, First, "as many as are led by the Spirit of God," into all holy tempers and actions, "they are the sons of God;" (for which he has the infallible assurance of holy writ;) Secondly, I am thus "led by the Spirit of God;" he will easily conclude, -- "Therefore I am a son of God." 3. Agreeable to this are all those plain declarations of St. John, in his First Epistle: "Hereby we know that we do know him, if we keep his commandments." (1 John 2:3.) "Whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected; Hereby know we that we are in him;" that we are indeed the children of God. (1 John 2:5.) "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that everyone that doeth righteousness is born of him." (1 John 2:29.) "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren." (1 John 3:14) "Hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him;" namely, because we "love one another not in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth." "Hereby know we that we dwell in him, because he hath given us of his" loving "Spirit." (1 John 4:13.) And, "hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the" obedient "spirit which he hath given us." (1 John 3:24.)

6. Now this is properly the testimony of our own spirit; even the testimony of our conscience, that God hath given us to be holy of heart, and holy in outward conversation. It is a consciousness of our having received, in and by the Spirit of adoption, the tempers mentioned in the Word of God as belonging to his adopted children; even a loving heart toward God and toward all mankind; hanging with childlike confidence on God our Father, desiring nothing but him, casting all our care upon him, and embracing every child of man with earnest, tender affection: -- A consciousness that we are inwardly conformed, by the Spirit of God, to the image of his Son, and that we walk before him in justice, mercy, and truth, doing the things which are pleasing in his sight. 7. But what is that testimony of God's Spirit, which is superadded to, and conjoined with, this How does he "bear witness with our spirit that we are the children of God" It is hard to find words in the language of men to explain "the deep things of God." Indeed, there are none that will adequately express what the children of God experience. But perhaps one might say, (desiring any who are taught of God to correct, to soften or strengthen the expression,) The testimony of the Spirit is an inward impression on the soul, whereby the Spirit of God directly witnesses to my spirit, that I am a child of God; that Jesus Christ hath loved me, and given himself for me; and that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I, am reconciled to God.

10. Not that I would by any means be understood, by anything which has been spoken concerning it, to exclude the operation of the Spirit of God, even from the testimony of our own spirit. In no wise. It is he that not only worketh in us every manner of thing that is good, but also shines upon his own work, and clearly shows what he has wrought. Accordingly, this is spoken of by St. Paul, as one great end of our receiving the Spirit, "that we may know the things which are freely given to us of God:" That he may strengthen the testimony of our conscience, touching our 'simplicity and godly sincerity;" and give us to discern, in a fuller and stronger light, that we now do the things which please him. 11. Should it still be inquired, "How does the Spirit of God bear witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God,' so as to exclude all doubt, and evince the reality of our sonship" -- the answer is clear from what has been observed above. And, First, as to the witness of our spirit: The soul as intimately and evidently perceives when it loves, delights, and rejoices in God, as when it loves and delights in anything on earth. And it can no more doubt, whether it loves, delights, and rejoices or no, than whether it exists or no. If, therefore this be just reasoning, He that now loves God, that delights and rejoices in him with an humble joy, and holy delight, and an obedient love, is a child of God; But I thus love, delight, and rejoice in God; Therefore, I am a child of God: -- Then a Christian can in no wise doubt of his being a child of God. Of the former proposition he has as full an assurance as he has that the Scriptures are of God; and of his thus loving God, he has an inward proof, which is nothing short of self-evidence. Thus, the testimony of our own spirit is with the most intimate conviction manifested to our hearts, in such a manner, as beyond all reasonable doubt to evince the reality of our sonship.

3. I answer, the Holy Scriptures abound with marks, whereby the one may be distinguished from the other. They describe, in the plainest manner, the circumstances which go before, which accompany, and which follow, the true, genuine testimony of the Spirit of God with the spirit of a believer. Whoever carefully weighs and attends to these will not need to put darkness for light. He will perceive so wide a difference, with respect to all these, between the real and the pretended witness of the Spirit, that there will be no danger, I might say, no possibility, of confounding the one with the other. 4. By these, one who vainly presumes on the gift of God might surely know, if he really desired it, that he hath been hitherto "given up to a strong delusion," and suffered to believe a lie. For the Scriptures lay down those clear, obvious marks, as preceding, accompanying, and following that gift, which a little reflection would convince him, beyond all doubt, were never found in his soul. For instance: The Scripture describes repentance, or conviction of sin, as constantly going before this witness of pardon. So, "Repent; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt. 3:2.) "Repent ye, and believe the gospel." (Mark 1:15.) "Repent, and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38.) "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." (Acts 3:19.) In conformity whereto, our Church also continually places repentance before pardon, or the witness of it. "He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy gospel." "Almighty God -- hath promised forgiveness of sins to all them, who, with hearty repentance and true faith, turn unto him." But he is a stranger even to this repentance: He hath never known a broken and a contrite heart: "The remembrance of his sins" was never "grievous unto him," nor "the burden of them intolerable." In repeating those words, he never meant what he said; he merely paid a compliment to God. And were it only from the want of this previous work of God, he hath too great reason to believe that he hath grasped a mere shadow, and never yet known the real privilege of the sons of God.

5. Again, the Scriptures describe the being born of God, which must precede the witness that we are his children, as a vast and mighty change; a change "from darkness to light," as well as "from the power of Satan unto God;" as a "passing from death unto life," a resurrection from the dead. Thus the Apostle to the Ephesians: "You hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins." (Eph. 2:1.) And again, "when we were dead in sins, he hath quickened us together with Christ; and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." (Eph. 2:5, 6.) But what knoweth he, concerning whom we now speak, of any such change as this He is altogether unacquainted with this whole matter. This is a language which he does not understand. He tells you he always was a Christian. He knows no time when he had need of such a change. By this also, if he give himself leave to think, may he know, that he is not born of the Spirit; that he has never yet known God; but has mistaken the voice of nature for the voice of God.

6. But waving the consideration of whatever he has or has not experienced in time past; by the present marks may we easily distinguish a child of God from a presumptuous self-deceiver. The Scriptures describe that joy in the Lord which accompanies the witness of his Spirit, as a humble joy; a joy that abases to the dust, that makes a pardoned sinner cry out, "I am vile! What am I, or my father's house Now mine eye seeth thee, I abhor myself in dust and ashes!" And wherever lowliness is, there is meekness, patience, gentleness, long-suffering. There is a soft, yielding spirit; a mildness and sweetness, a tenderness of soul, which words cannot express. But do these fruits attend that supposed testimony of the Spirit in a presumptuous man Just the reverse. The more confident he is of the favour of God, the more is he lifted up; the more does he exalt himself, the more haughty and assuming is his whole behaviour. The stronger witness he imagines himself to have, the more overbearing is he to all around him; the more incapable of receiving any reproof; the more impatient of contradiction. Instead of being more meek, and gentle, and teachable, more "swift to hear, and slow to speak," he is more slow to hear, and swift to speak; more unready to learn of anyone; more fiery and vehement in his temper, and eager in his conversation. Yea, perhaps, there will sometimes appear a kind of fierceness in his air, his manner of speaking, his whole deportment, as if he were just going to take the matter out of God's hands, and himself to "devour the adversaries."

7. Once more: the Scriptures teach, "This is the love of God," the sure mark thereof, "that we keep his commandments." (1 John 5:3.) And our Lord himself saith, "He that keepeth my commandments, he it is that loveth me." (John 14:21.) Love rejoices to obey; to do, in every point whatever is acceptable to the beloved. A true lover of God hastens to do his will on earth as it is done in heaven. But is this the character of the presumptuous pretender to the love of God Nay, but his love gives him a liberty to disobey, to break, not keep, the commandments of God. Perhaps, when he was in fear of the wrath of God, he did labour to do his will. But now, looking on himself as "not under the law," he thinks he is no longer obliged to observe it. He is therefore less zealous of good works: less careful to abstain from evil; less watchful over his own heart; less jealous over his tongue. He is less earnest to deny himself, and to take up his cross daily. In a word, the whole form of his life is changed since he has fancied himself to be at liberty. He is no longer "exercising himself unto godliness;" "wrestling not only with flesh and blood, but with principalities and powers," enduring hardships, "agonizing to enter in at the strait gate." No; he has found an easier way to heaven; a broad, smooth flowery path, in which he can say to his soul, "Soul, take thy ease; eat, drink, and be merry." It follows, with undeniable evidence, that he has not the true testimony of his own spirit. He cannot be conscious of having those marks which he hath not; that lowliness, meekness, and obedience: Nor yet can the Spirit of the God of truth bear witness to a lie; or testify that he is a child of God when he is manifestly a child of the devil.

The Witness of the Spirit: Discourse Two "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Rom. 8:16 I. 1. None who believe the Scriptures to be the word of God, can doubt the importance of such a truth as this; -- a truth revealed therein, not once only, not obscurely, not incidentally; but frequently, and that in express terms; but solemnly and of set purpose, as denoting one of the peculiar privileges of the children of God. 2. And it is the more necessary to explain and defend this truth, because there is a danger on the right hand and on the left. If we deny it, there is a danger lest our religion degenerate into mere formality; lest, "having a form of godliness," we neglect, if not "deny, the power of it." If we allow it, but do not understand what we allow, we are liable to run into all the wildness of enthusiasm. It is therefore needful, in the highest degree, to guard those who fear God from both those dangers by a scriptural and rational illustration and confirmation of this momentous truth. 3. It may seem, something of this kind is the more needful, because so little has been wrote on the subject with any clearness; unless some discourses on the wrong side of the question, which explain it quite away. And it cannot be doubted, but these were occasioned, at least in a great measure, by the crude, unscriptural, irrational explication of others, who "knew not what they spake, nor whereof they affirmed." 4. It more nearly concerns the Methodists, so called, clearly to understand, explain, and defend this doctrine; because it is one grand part of the testimony which God has given them to bear to all mankind. It is by this peculiar blessing upon them in searching the Scriptures, confirmed by the experience of his children, that this great evangelical truth has been recovered, which had been or many years well nigh lost and forgotten.

II. 1. But what is the witness of the Spirit The original word marturia may be rendered either (as it is in several places) the witness, or less ambiguously, the testimony, or the record: So it is rendered in our translation, (1 John 5:11,) "This is the record," the testimony, the sum of what God testifies in all the inspired writings, "that God hath given unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." The testimony now under consideration is given by the Spirit of God to and with our spirit: He is the Person testifying. What he testifies to us is, "that we are the children of God." The immediate result of this testimony is, "the fruit of the Spirit;" namely, "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness:" and without these, the testimony itself cannot continue. For it is inevitably destroyed, not only by the commission of any outward sin, or the omission of known duty, but by giving way to any inward sin; in a word, by whatever grieves the Holy Spirit of God. 2. I observed many years ago, "It is hard to find words in the language of men, to explain the deep things of God. Indeed there are none that will adequately express what the Spirit of God works in his children. But perhaps one might say, (desiring any who are taught of God, to correct, soften, or strengthen the expression,) By the testimony of the Spirit, I mean, an inward impression on the soul whereby the Spirit of God immediately and directly witnesses to my spirit, that I am a child of God; that Jesus Christ hath loved me, and given himself for me; that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I, am reconciled to God." 3. After twenty years' further consideration, I see no cause to retract any part of this. Neither do I conceive how any of these expressions may be altered, so as to make them more intelligible. I can only add, that if any of the children of God will point out any other expressions, which are more clear, or more agreeable to the word of God, I will readily lay these aside.

4. Meantime let it be observed, I do not mean hereby, that the Spirit of God testifies this by any outward voice; no, nor always by an inward voice, although he may do this sometimes. Neither do I suppose, that he always applies to the heart (though he often may) one or more texts of Scripture. But he so works upon the soul by his immediate influence, and by a strong, though inexplicable operation, that the stormy wind and troubled waves subside, and there is a sweet calm; the heart resting as in the arms of Jesus, and the sinner being clearly satisfied that God is reconciled, that all his "iniquities are forgiven, and his sins covered." 5. Now what is the matter of dispute concerning this Not whether there be a witness or testimony of the Spirit. Not whether the Spirit does testify with our spirit, that we are the children of God. None can deny this, without flatly contradicting the Scriptures, and charging a lie upon the God of truth. Therefore, that there is a testimony of the Spirit is acknowledged by all parties. 6. Neither is it questioned whether there is an indirect witness or testimony, that we are the children of God. This is nearly, if not exactly, the same with the testimony of a good conscience towards God; and is the result of reason, or reflection on what we feel in our own souls. Strictly speaking, it is a conclusion drawn partly from the word of God, and partly from our own experience. The word of God says, every one who has the fruit of the Spirit is a child of God; experience, or inward consciousness, tells me, that I have the fruit of the Spirit; and hence I rationally conclude, "Therefore I am a child of God." This is likewise allowed on all hands, and so is no matter of controversy. 7. Nor do we assert, that there can be any real testimony of the Spirit without the fruit of the Spirit. We assert, on the contrary, that the fruit of the Spirit immediately springs from this testimony; not always indeed in the same degree, even when the testimony is first given: and much less afterwards neither joy nor peace is always at one stay; no, nor love; as neither is the testimony itself always equally strong and clear.

7. But this is confirmed, not only by experience of the children of God; -- thousands of whom can declare that they never did know themselves to be in the favour of God till it was directly witnessed to them by his Spirit; --but by all those who are convinced of sin, who feel the wrath of God abiding on them. These cannot be satisfied with any thing less than a direct testimony from his Spirit, that he is "merciful to their unrighteousness, and remembers their sins and iniquities no more." Tell any of these, "You are to know you are a child, by reflecting on what he has wrought in you, on your love, joy, and peace; and will he not immediately reply, "By all this I know I am a child of the devil I have no more love to God than the devil has; my carnal mind is enmity against God. I have no joy in the Holy Ghost; my soul is sorrowful even unto death. I have no peace; my heart is a troubled sea; I am all storm and tempest." And which way can these souls possibly be comforted, but by a divine testimony not that they are good, or sincere, or conformable to the Scripture in heart and life, but) that God justifieth the ungodly --him that, till the moment he is justified, is all ungodly, void of all true holiness; him that worketh not, that worketh nothing that is truly good, till he is conscious that he is accepted, not for any works of righteousness which he hath done, but by the mere, free mercy of God; wholly and solely for what the Son of God hath done and suffered for him. And can it be any otherwise, if "a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law" If so, what inward or outward goodness can he be conscious of, antecedent to his justification Nay, is not the having nothing to pay, that is, the being conscious that "there dwelleth in us no good thing," neither inward nor outward goodness, essentially, indispensably necessary, before we can be "justified freely, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ" Was ever any man justified since his coming into the world, or can any man ever be justified, till he is brought to that point, I give up every plea beside, --

Lord, I am damn'd; but Thou has died 8. Every one, therefore, who denies the existence of such a testimony, does in effect deny justification by faith. It follows, that either he never experienced this, either he never was justified, or that be has forgotten, as St. Peter speaks, tou kaqarismou tvn palai amartivn, the purification from his former sins, the experience he then had himself; the manner wherein God wrought in his own soul, when his former sins were blotted out. 9. And the experience even of the children of the world here confirms that of the children of God. Many of these have a desire to please God: Some of them take much pains to please him: But do they not, one and all, count it the highest absurdity for any to talk of knowing his sins are forgiven Which of them even pretends to any such thing And yet many of them are conscious of their own sincerity. Many of them undoubtedly have, in a degree, the testimony of their own spirit, a consciousness of their own uprightness. But this brings them no consciousness that they are forgiven; no knowledge that they are the children of God. Yea, the more sincere they are, the more uneasy they generally are, for want of knowing it; plainly showing that this cannot be known, in a satisfactory manner, by the bare testimony of our own spirit, without God's directly testifying that we are his children. IV. But abundance of objections have been made to this; the chief of which it may be well to consider. 1. It is objected, First, "Experience is not sufficient to prove a doctrine which is not founded on Scripture." This is undoubtedly true; and it is an important truth; but it does not affect the present question; for it has been shown, that this doctrine is founded on Scripture: Therefore experience is properly alleged to confirm it. 2. But madmen, French prophets, and enthusiasts of every kind, have imagined they experienced this witness. They have so; and perhaps not a few of them did, although they did not retain it long: But if they did not, this is no proof at all that others have not experienced it; as a madman's imagining himself a king, does not prove that there are no real kings.

"Nay, many who pleaded strongly for this, have utterly decried the Bible." Perhaps so; but this was no necessary consequence: Thousands plead for it who have the highest esteem for the Bible. "Yea, but many have fatally deceived themselves hereby, and got above all conviction." And yet a scriptural doctrine is no worse though men abuse it to their own destruction. 3. "But I lay it down as an undoubted truth, the fruit of the Spirit is the witness of the Spirit." Not undoubted; thousands doubt of, yea, flatly deny it: But let that pass. If this witness be sufficient, there is no need of any other. But it is sufficient, unless in one of these cases, 1. The total absence of the fruit of the Spirit. And this is the case, when the direct witness is first given. 2. The not perceiving it. But to contend for it in this case, is to contend for being in the favour of God, and not knowing it. True; not knowing it at that time any otherwise than by the testimony which is given for that end. And this we do contend for; we contend that the direct witness may shine clear, even while the indirect one is under a cloud.

4. It is objected, Secondly, "The design of the witness contended for is, to prove that the profession we make is genuine. But it does not prove this. I answer, the proving this is not the design of it. It is antecedent to our making any profession at all, but that of being lost, undone, guilty, helpless sinners. It is designed to assure those to whom it is given, that they are the children of God; that they are "justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ." And this does not suppose that their preceding thoughts, words, and actions, are conformable to the rule of Scripture; it supposes quite the reverse; namely, that they are sinners all over; sinners both in heart and life. Were it otherwise, God would justify the godly and their own works would be counted to them for righteousness. And I cannot but fear that a supposition of our being justified by works is at the root of all these objections; for, whoever cordially believes that God imputes to all that are justified righteousness without works, will find no difficulty in allowing the witness of his Spirit, preceding the fruit of it. 5. It is objected, Thirdly, "One Evangelist says, `Your heavenly Father will give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him.' The other Evangelist calls the same thing `good gifts;' abundantly demonstrating that the Spirit's way of bearing witness is by giving good gifts." Nay, here is nothing at all about bearing witness, either in the one text or the other. Therefore till this demonstration is better demonstrated, I let it stand as it is.

6. It is objected, Fourthly, "The Scripture says, `The tree is known by its fruits. Prove all things. Try the spirits. Examine yourselves.'" Most true: Therefore, let every man who believes he hath the witness in himself, try whether it be of God; if the fruit follow, it is; otherwise it is not. For certainly "the tree is known by its fruit:" Hereby we prove if it be of God. "But the direct witness is never referred to in the Book of God." Not as standing alone; not as a single witness; but as connected with the other; as giving a joint testimony; testifying with our spirit, that we are children of God. And who is able to prove, that it is not thus referred to in this very Scripture "Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your ownselves, that Jesus Christ is in you" It is by no means clear, that they did not know this by a direct as well as a remote witness. How is it proved, that they did not know it, First, by an inward consciousness; and Then, by love, joy and peace 7. "But the testimony arising from the internal and external change is constantly referred to in the Bible. It is so: And we constantly refer thereto, to confirm the testimony of the Spirit. "Nay, all the marks you have given, whereby to distinguish the operations of God's Spirit from delusion, refer to the change wrought in us and upon us. This, likewise, is undoubtedly true. 8. It is objected, Fifthly, that "the direct witness of the Spirit does not secure us from the greatest delusion. And is that a witness fit to be trusted, whose testimony cannot be depended on That is forced to fly to something else, to prove what it asserts" I answer: To secure us from all delusion, God gives us two witnesses that we are his children. And this they testify conjointly. Therefore, "what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." And while they are joined, we cannot be deluded: Their testimony can be depended on. They are fit to be trusted in the highest degree, and need nothing else to prove what they assert.

V. 1. The sum of all this is: The testimony of the Spirit is an inward impression on the souls of believers, whereby the Spirit of God directly testifies to their spirit, that they are children of God. And it is not questioned, whether there is a testimony of the Spirit; but whether there is an direct testimony; whether there is any other than that which arises from a consciousness of the fruit of the Spirit. We believe there is; because this is the plain natural meaning of the text, illustrated both by the preceding words, and by the parallel passage in the Epistle to the Galatians; because, in the nature of the thing, the testimony must precede the fruit which springs from it and because this plain meaning of the word of God is confirmed by the experience of innumerable children of God; yea, and by the experience of all who are convinced of sin, who can never rest till they have a direct witness; and even of the children of the world, who, not having the witness in themselves, one and all declare, none can know his sins forgiven.

2. And whereas it is objected, that experience is not sufficient to prove a doctrine unsupported by Scripture; -- that madmen and enthusiasts of every kind have imagined such a witness that the design of that witness is to prove our profession genuine, which design it does not answer; -- that the Scripture says, "The tree is known by its fruit;" "examine yourselves; prove your ownselves;" and, meantime, the direct witness is never referred to in all the Book of God; -- that it does not secure us from the greatest delusions; and, Lastly,, that the change wrought in us is a sufficient testimony, unless in such trials as Christ alone suffered: -- We answer, 1. Experience is sufficient to confirm a doctrine which is grounded on Scripture. 2. Though many fancy they experience what they do not, this is no prejudice to real experience. 3.The design of that witness is, to assure us we are children of God; and this design it does answer. 4. The true witness of the Spirit is known by its fruit, "love, peace, joy;" not indeed preceding, but following it. 5. It cannot be proved, that the direct as well as the indirect witness is not referred to in that very text, "Know ye not your ownselves, that Jesus Christ is in you 6. The Spirit of God, witnessing with our spirit, does secure us from all delusion: And, Lastly, we are all liable to trials, wherein the testimony of our own spirit is not sufficient; wherein nothing less than the direct testimony of God's Spirit can assure us that we are his children.

6. But what is the rule whereby men are to judge of right and wrong Whereby their conscience is to be directed The rule of Heathens, as the Apostle teaches elsewhere is "the law written in their hearts;" by the finger of God; "their conscience also bearing witness," whether they walk by this rule or not, "and their thoughts the mean while accusing, or even excusing," acquitting, defending them; h kai apologoumenvn. (Rom. 2:14, 15.) But the Christian rule of right and wrong is the word of God, the writings of the Old and New Testament; all that the Prophets and "holy men of old" wrote "as they were moved by the Holy Ghost;" all that Scripture which was given by inspiration of God, and which is indeed profitable for doctrine, or teaching the whole will of God; for reproof of what is contrary thereto; for correction or error; and for instruction, or training us up, in righteousness. (2 Tim. 3:16.) This is a lantern unto a Christian's feet, and a light in all his paths. This alone he receives as his rule of right or wrong, of whatever is really good or evil. He esteems nothing good, but what is here enjoined, either directly or by plain consequence, he accounts nothing evil but what is here forbidden, either in terms, or by undeniable inference. Whatever the Scripture neither forbids nor enjoins, either directly or by plain consequence, he believes to be of an indifferent nature; to be in itself neither good nor evil; this being the whole and sole outward rule whereby his conscience is to be directed in all things.

7. And if it be directed thereby, in fact, then hath he "the answer of a good conscience toward God." "A good conscience is what is elsewhere termed by the Apostle, "a conscience void of offense." So, what he at one time expresses thus, "I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day;" (Acts 23:1;) he denotes at another, by that expression, "Herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offense toward God, and toward men." (Acts 24:16.) Now in order to this there is absolutely required, First, a right understanding of the word of God, or his "holy, and acceptable, and perfect will" concerning us, as it is revealed therein. For it is impossible we should walk by a rule, if we do not know what it means. There is, Secondly, required (which how few have attained!) a true knowledge of ourselves; a knowledge both of our hearts and lives, or our inward tempers and outward conversation: Seeing, if we know them not, it is not possible that we should compare them with our rule. There is required, Thirdly, an agreement of our hearts and lives, or our tempers and conversation, or our thoughts, and words, and works, with that rule, with the written word of God. For, without this, if we have any conscience at all, it can be only an evil conscience. There is, Fourthly, required, an inward perception of this agreement with our rule: And this habitual perception, this inward consciousness itself, is properly a good conscience; or, in other phrase of the Apostle, "a conscience void of offense, toward God, and toward men."

III. 1. "But was he not then freed from all sin, so that there is no sin in his heart" I cannot say this; I cannot believe it; because St. Paul says the contrary. He is speaking to believers, and describing the state of believers in general, when he says, "The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: These are contrary the one to the other." (Gal. 5:17) Nothing can be more express. The Apostle here directly affirms that the flesh, evil nature, opposes the Spirit, even in believers; that even in the regenerate there are two principles, "contrary the one to the other." 2. Again: When he writes to the believers at Corinth, to those who were sanctified in Christ Jesus, (1 Cor. 1:2) he says, "I, brethren, could not speak unto you, as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ. Ye are yet carnal: For whereas there is among you envying and strife, are ye not carnal" (1 Cor. 3:1-3) Now here the Apostle speaks unto those who were unquestionably believers, -- whom, in the same breath, he styles his brethren in Christ, -- as being still, in a measure, carnal. He affirms, there was envying, (an evil temper,) occasioning strife among them, and yet does not give the least intimation that they had lost their faith. Nay, he manifestly declares they had not; for then they would not have been babes in Christ. And (what is most remarkable of all) he speaks of being carnal, and babes in Christ, as one and the same thing; plainly showing that every believer is (in a degree) carnal, while he is only a babe in Christ. 3. Indeed this grand point, that there are two contrary principles in believers, -- nature and grace, the flesh and the Spirit, runs through all the Epistles of St. Paul, yea, through all the Holy Scriptures; almost all the directions and exhortations therein are founded on this supposition; pointing at wrong tempers or practices in those who are, notwithstanding, acknowledged by the inspired writers to be believers. And they are continually exhorted to fight with and conquer these, by the power of the faith which was in them.

7. And as this position, "There is no sin in a believer, no carnal mind, no bent to backsliding," is thus contrary to the word of God, so it is to the experience of his children. These continually feel an heart bent to backsliding; a natural tendency to evil; a proneness to depart from God, and cleave to the things of earth. They are daily sensible of sin remaining in their heart, -- pride, self-will, unbelief; and of sin cleaving to all they speak and do, even their best actions and holiest duties. Yet at the same time they "know that they are of God;" they cannot doubt of it for a moment. They feel his Spirit clearly "witnessing with their spirit, that they are the children of God." They "rejoice in God through Christ Jesus, by whom they have now received the atonement." So that they are equally assured, that sin is in them, and that "Christ is in them the hope of glory." 8. "But can Christ be in the same heart where sin is" Undoubtedly he can; otherwise it never could be saved therefrom. Where the sickness is, there is the Physician, Carrying on his work within, Striving till he cast out sin. Christ indeed cannot reign, where sin reigns; neither will he dwell where any sin is allowed. But he is and dwells in the heart of every believer, who is fighting against all sin; although it be not yet purified, according to the purification of the sanctuary. 9. It has been observed before, that the opposite doctrine, -- That there is no sin in believers, -- is quite new in the church of Christ; that it was never heard of for seventeen hundred years; never till it was discovered by Count Zinzendorf. I do not remember to have seen the least intimation of it, either in any ancient or modern writer; unless perhaps in some of the wild, ranting Antinomians. And these likewise say and unsay, acknowledging there is sin in their flesh, although no sin in their heart. But whatever doctrine is new must be wrong; for the old religion is the only true one; and no doctrine can be right, unless it is the very same "which was from the beginning."

10. One argument more against this new, unscriptural doctrine may be drawn from the dreadful consequences of it. One says, "I felt anger to-day." Must I reply, "Then you have no faith" Another says, "I know what you advise is good, but my will is quite averse to it." Must I tell him, "Then you are an unbeliever, under the wrath and the curse of God" What will be the natural consequence of this Why, if he believe what I say, his soul will not only be grieved and wounded, but perhaps utterly destroyed; inasmuch as he will "cast away" that "confidence which hath great recompense of reward:" And having cast away his shield, how shall he "quench the fiery darts of the wicked one" How shall he overcome the world -- seeing "this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." He stands disarmed in the midst of his enemies, open to all their assaults. What wonder then, if he be utterly overthrown; if they take him captive at their will; yea, if he fall from one wickedness to another, and never see good any more I cannot, therefore, by any means receive this assertion, that there is no sin in a believer from the moment he is justified; First, because it is contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture; -- Secondly, because it is contrary to the experience of the children of God; -- Thirdly, because it is absolutely new, never heard of in the world till yesterday; -- and Lastly, because it is naturally attended with the most fatal consequences; not only grieving those whom God hath not grieved, but perhaps dragging them into everlasting perdition.

IV. 1. However, let us give a fair hearing to the chief arguments of those who endeavour to support it. And it is, First, from Scripture they attempt to prove that there is no sin in a believer. They argue thus: "The Scripture says, Every believer is born of God, is clean, is holy, is sanctified, is pure in heart, has a new heart, is a temple of the Holy Ghost. Now, as `that which is born of the flesh is flesh,' is altogether evil, so `that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,' is altogether good. Again: A man cannot be clean, sanctified, holy, and at the same time unclean, unsanctified, unholy. He cannot be pure and impure, or have a new and an old heart together. Neither can his soul be unholy, while it is a temple of the Holy Ghost.

2. "However, there is one Scripture more which will put the matter out of question: `If any man be' a believer `in Christ, he is a new creature. Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.' (2 Cor. 5:17.) Now certainly a man cannot be a new creature and an old creature at once." Yes, he may: He may be partly renewed, which was the very case with those at Corinth. They were doubtless "renewed in the spirit of their mind," or they could not have been so much as "babes in Christ." yet they had not the whole mind which was in Christ, for they envied one another. "But it is said expressly, `Old things are passed away: All things are become new.'" But we must not so interpret the Apostle's words, as to make him contradict himself. And if we will make him consistent with himself, the plain meaning of the words is this: His old judgment concerning justification, holiness, happiness, indeed concerning the things of God in general, is now passed away; so are his old desires, designs, affections, tempers, and conversation. All these are undeniably become new, greatly changed from what they were; and yet, though they are new, they are not wholly new. Still he feels, to his sorrow and shame, remains of the old man, too manifest taints of his former tempers and affections, though they cannot gain any advantage over him, as long as he watches unto prayer.

9. "But let experience speak: All who are justified do at that time find an absolute freedom from all sin." That I doubt; But, if they do, do they find it ever after Else you gain nothing. -- "If they do not, it is their own fault." That remains to be proved. 10. "But, in the very nature of things, can a man have pride in him, and not be proud; anger, and yet not be angry" A man may have pride in him, may think of himself in some particulars above what he ought to think, (and so be proud in that particular,) and yet not be a proud man in his general character. He may have anger in him, yea, and a strong propensity to furious anger, without giving way to it. -- "But can anger and pride be in that heart, where only meekness and humility are felt" No; but some pride and anger may be in that heart, where there is much humility and meekness. "It avails not to say, These tempers are there, but they do not reign: For sin cannot, in any kind or degree, exist where it does not reign; for guilt and power are essential properties of sin. Therefore, where one of them is, all must be." Strange indeed! "Sin cannot, in any kind or degree, exist where it does not reign" Absolutely contrary this to all experience, all Scripture, all common sense. Resentment of an affront is sin; it is anomia, disconformity to the law of love. This has existed in me a thousand times. Yet it did not, and does not, reign. -- "But guilt and power are essential properties of sin; therefore where one is, all must be." No: In the instance before us, if the resentment I feel is not yielded to, even for a moment, there is no guilt at all, no condemnation from God upon that account. And in this case, it has no power: though it "lusteth against the Spirit," it cannot prevail. Here, therefore, as in ten thousand instances, there is sin without either guilt or power.

V. 1. The sum of all is this: There are in every person, even after he is justified, two contrary principles, nature and grace, termed by St. Paul the flesh and the Spirit. Hence, although even babes in Christ are sanctified, yet it is only in part. In a degree, according to the measure of their faith, they are spiritual; yet, in a degree they are carnal. Accordingly, believers are continually exhorted to watch against the flesh, as well as the world and the devil. And to this agrees the constant experience of the children of God. While they feel this witness in themselves, they feel a will not wholly resigned to the will of God. They know they are in him; and yet find an heart ready to depart from him, a proneness to evil in many instances, and a backwardness to that which is good. The contrary doctrine is wholly new; never heard of in the church of Christ, from the time of his coming into the world, till the time of Count Zinzendorf; and it is attended with the most fatal consequences. It cuts off all watching against our evil nature, against the Delilah which we are told is gone, though she is still lying in our bosom. It tears away the shield of weak believers, deprives them of their faith and so leaves them exposed to all the assaults of the world, the flesh, and the devil. 2. Let us, therefore, hold fast the sound doctrine "once delivered to the saints," and delivered down by them with the written word to all succeeding generations: That although we are renewed, cleansed, purified, sanctified, the moment we truly believe in Christ, yet we are not then renewed, cleansed, purified altogether; but the flesh, the evil nature, still remains (though subdued) and wars against the Spirit. So much the more let us use all diligence in "fighting the good fight of faith." So much the more earnestly let us "watch and pray" against the enemy within. The more carefully let us take to ourselves, and "put on, the whole armor of God;" that, although "we wrestle" both "with flesh, and blood, and with the principalities, and with powers, and wicked spirits in high places," we may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand."

2. Indeed when we first know this; when we first find the redemption in the blood of Jesus; when the love of God is first shed abroad in our hearts, and his kingdom set up therein; it is natural to suppose that we are no longer sinners, that all our sins are not only covered but destroyed. As we do not then feel any evil in our hearts, we readily imagine none is there. Nay, some well-meaning men have imagined this not only at that time, but ever after; having persuaded themselves, that when they were justified, they were entirely sanctified: yea, they have laid it down as a general rule, in spite of Scripture, reason, and experience. These sincerely believe, and earnestly maintain, that all sin is destroyed when we are justified; and that there is no sin in the heart of a believer; but that it is altogether clean from that moment. But though we readily acknowledge, "he that believeth is born of God," and "he that is born of God doth not commit sin;" yet we cannot allow that he does not feel it from within: it does not reign, but it does remain. And a conviction of the sin which remains in our heart, is one great branch of the repentance we are now speaking of. 3. For it is seldom long before he who imagined all sin was gone, feels there is still pride in his heart. He is convinced both that in many respects he has thought of himself more highly than he ought to think, and that he has taken to himself the praise of something he had received, and gloried in it as though he had not received it; and yet he knows he is in the favour of God. He cannot, and ought not to, "cast away his confidence." "The Spirit" still "witnesses with" his "spirit, that he is a child of God."

13. And how much sin, if their conscience is thoroughly awake, may they find cleaving to their actions also! Nay, are there not many of these, which, though they are such as the world would not condemn, yet cannot be commended, no, nor excused, if we judge by the Word of God Are there not many of their actions which, they themselves know, are not to the glory of God many, wherein they did not even aim at this; which were not undertaken with an eye to God And of those that were, are there not many, wherein their eye is not singly fixed on God -- wherein they are doing their own will, at least as much as his; and seeking to please themselves as much, if not more, than to please God -- And while they are endeavouring to do good to their neighbour, do they not feel wrong tempers of various kinds Hence their good actions, so called, are far from being strictly such; being polluted with such a mixture of evil: such are their works of mercy. And is there not the same mixture in their works of piety While they are hearing the word which is able to save their souls, do they not frequently find such thoughts as make them afraid lest it should turn to their condemnation, rather than their salvation Is it not often the same case, while they are endeavouring to offer up their prayers to God, whether in public or private Nay, while they are engaged in the most solemn service, even while they are at the table of the Lord, what manner of thoughts arise in them! Are not their hearts sometimes wandering to the ends of the earth; sometimes filled with such imaginations, as make them fear lest all their sacrifice should be an abomination to the Lord So that they are now more ashamed of their best duties, than they were once of their worst sins.

1. The person by whom God will judge the world, is his only-begotten Son, whose "goings forth are from everlasting;" "who is God over all, blessed for ever." Unto him, being "the outbeaming of his Father's glory, the express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3), the Father "hath committed all judgement, because he is the Son of Man" (John 5:22, 27); because, though he was "in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God, yet he emptied himself, taking upon him the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men" (Phil. 2:6, 7); yea, because, "being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself" yet farther, "becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God hath highly exalted him," even in his human nature, and "ordained him," as Man, to try the children of men, "to be the Judge both of the quick and the dead;" both of those who shall be found alive at his coming, and of those who were before gathered to their fathers. 4 2. The time, termed by the prophet, "the great and the terrible day," is usually, in Scripture, styled the day of the Lord. The space from the creation of man upon the earth, to the end of all things, is the day of the sons of men; the time that is now passing over us is properly our day; when this is ended, the day of the Lord will begin. But who can say how long it will continue "With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8). And from this very expression, some of the ancient fathers drew that inference, that, what is commonly called the day of judgement would be indeed a thousand years: and it seems they did not go beyond the truth; nay, probably they did not come up to it. For, if we consider the number of persons who are to be judged, and of actions which are to be inquired into, it does not appear that a thousand years will suffice for the transactions of that day; so that it may not improbably comprise several thousand years. But God shall reveal this also in its season. 5

3. With regard to the place where mankind will be judged, we have no explicit account in Scripture. An eminent writer (but not he alone; many have been of the same opinion) supposes it will be on earth, where the works were done, according to which they shall be judged; and that God will, in order thereto, employ the angels of his strength --. To smooth and lengthen out the boundless space, And spread an area for all human race. But perhaps it is more agreeable to our Lord's own account of his coming in the clouds, to suppose it will be above the earth, if not "twice a planetary height." And this supposition is not a little favored by what St. Paul writes to the Thessalonians: "The dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who remain alive shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air" (1 Thess. 4:16, 17). So that it seems most probable, the great white throne will be high exalted above the earth. 6 4 . The persons to be judged, who can count, any more than the drops of rain, or the sands of the sea "I beheld," saith St. John, "a great multitude which no man can number, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands." How immense then must be the total multitude of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues; of all that have sprung from the loins of Adam, since the world began, till time shall be no more! If we admit the common supposition, which seems no ways absurd, that the earth bears, at any one time, no less than four hundred millions of living souls, men, women, and children; what a congregation must all those generations make, who have succeeded each other for seven thousand years ! Great Xerxes' world in arms, proud Cannae's host, They all are here; and here they all are lost. Their numbers swell to be discern'd in vain; Lost as a drop in the unbounded main.

3. It has indeed been imagined by some great and good men, that as it requires that same almighty power to annihilate things as to create; to speak into nothing or out of nothing; so no part of, no atom in, the universe, will be totally or finally destroyed. Rather, they suppose that, as the last operation of fire, which we have yet been able to observe, is to reduce into glass what, by a smaller force, it had reduced to ashes; so, in the day God hath ordained, the whole earth, if not the material heavens also, will undergo this change, after which the fire can have no farther power over them. And they believe this is intimated by that expression in the Revelation made to St. John: "Before the throne there was a sea of glass, like unto crystal" (Rev. 4:6). We cannot now either affirm or deny this; but we shall know hereafter. 4. If it be inquired by the scoffers, the minute philosophers, "How can these things be Whence should come such an immense quantity of fire as would consume the heavens and the whole terraqueous globe" we would beg leave, first, to remind them, that this difficulty is not peculiar to the Christian system. The same opinion almost universally obtained among the unbigoted Heathens. So one of these celebrated freethinkers speaks, according to the generally received sentiment, -- Esse quoque in fatis reminiscitur, affore tempus, Quo mare, quo tellus, correptaque regia coeli Ardeat, et mundi moles operosa laboret. [The following is Dryden's translation of this quotation from Ovid: -- Rememb'ring, in the fates, a time when fire Should to the battlements of heaven aspire; And all the blazing world above should burn, And all the' inferior globe to cinders turn. -- EDIT.]

5. There is one circumstance more which will follow the judgement, that deserves our serious consideration: "We look," says the Apostle, "according to his promise, for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Pet. 3:13). The promise stands in the prophecy of Isaiah: "Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered" (Isa. 65:17), so great shall the glory of the latter be! These St. John did behold in the visions of God. "I saw," saith he, "a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away" (Rev. 21:1). And only righteousness dwelt therein: accordingly, he adds, "And I heard a great voice from" the third "heaven, saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God" (21:3). Of necessity, therefore, they will all be happy: "God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain" (21:4). "There shall be no more curse; but they shall see his face" (21:3,4), -- shall have the nearest access to, and thence the highest, resemblance of, him. This is the strongest expression in the language of Scripture, to denote the most perfect happiness. "And his name shall be on their foreheads;" they shall be openly acknowledged as God's own property, and his glorious nature shall most visibly shine forth in them. "And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever." IV. It remains only to apply the preceding considerations to all who are here before God. And are we not directly led so to do, by the present solemnity, which so naturally points us to that day, when the Lord will judge the world in righteousness This, therefore, by reminding us of that more awful season, may furnish many lessons of instruction. A few of these I may be permitted just to touch on. May God write them on all our hearts!

Paul's was very large and very attentive. The judge, immediately after sermon, sent me an invitation to dine with him; but having no time I was obliged to send my excuse, and set out between one and two." He had to reach Epworth for the Sunday, and got to Stilton, about thirty miles, by seven. Next morning he started between four and five, and through frost and flood covered the ninety miles to Epworth by ten that night. He says, "I was little more tired than when I rose in the morning!" -- tough, wiry little man that he was! The judge on this occasion was Sir Edward Clive, who had been made a Judge of the Common Pleas and knighted in 1753. He was just a year younger than John Wesley, and died in 1771. A caricature of him may be found in Hogarth's plate "The Bench," published in this very year, 1758. He is sitting between the Lord Chief Justice Willes and Mr. Justice Bathurst, who has fallen asleep. He is represented with a small head almost lost in his full-bottomed wig, a long, thin nose, and a nut-cracker chin. The sermon was published separately by Trye in the same year at the request of the High Sheriff and others, and went through some ten editions in Wesley's lifetime. The Rev. Richard Green calls it "a model sermon," and says, "It is well-formed, plain, practical, earnest; the statements are all supported by apt scripture, and the truth faithfully applied to the conscience." The title "The Great Assize" was a familiar name for the Last Judgement; it is found as early as 1340 in Hampole's Prick of Conscience, 5514, and several other instances are given in the Oxford Dictionary, s.v. "Assize." The preliminary note, "Preached at the Assizes," etc., in the modern editions is from the title-page of the second edition, also published in London by Trye; it appears in an abbreviated form in the 1771 edition, without the last clause "Published at the request," etc.

1. "Our gracious Sovereign" is George II. Wesley was always intensely loyal. In 1744 he wrote an Address from his Societies to the King in which he says, "we are ready to obey your Majesty to the uttermost, in all things which we conceive to be agreeable [to the Word of God]. And we earnestly exhort all with whom we converse, as they fear God to honor the King." The Address was not sent, mainly because it might have been taken to imply that the Methodists were "a body distinct from the National Church." in 1745, the year of the Young Pretenders's invasion of England, he wrote to the Mayor of Newcastle, "All I can do for his Majesty, whom I honor and love -- I think not less than I did my own father -- is this: I cry unto God, day by day, to put all his enemies to confusion," etc. When George II died in October 1760 he records in his Journal (October 25), "King George was gathered to his fathers. When will England have a better Prince" One thinks of Carlyle (Sartor 1.9). "Has not your Red hanging-individual a horsehair wig, squirrel-skins, and a plush-gown, whereby all mortals know that he is a JUDGE. Society, which the more I think of it astonishes me the more, is founded upon Cloth." Wesley never despised form and ceremonial; he robed himself even for his Bible studies with his Societies in London and Bristol and for his open-air services.

12. Cicero is the author of the phrase "minute philosophers." He speaks in de Senect.= 23 of "Quidam minuti philosophi," meaning trifling, insignificant. In English use it rather means meticulous, over-precise, speculators. All this discussion as to quantity of fire is absurd: fire is not a thing , but a state of violent chemical combination; a match is quite enough to kindle a conflagration if there be fuel enough. Wesley was keenly interested in electrical phenomena, and was the first man in England to make use of it as a curative agent. His pamphlet called The Desideratum; or, Electricity made Plain, and Useful, published in 1760, details many of Franklin's experiments, such as drawing sparks out of the human body or from the fur of a cat. This is what he is thinking of when he says that our bodies are full of fire. "Freethinker" was a name claimed by the Deists and other rejecters of the Christian revelation at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Here Wesley uses it of Ovid, the Roman poet, with a kind of suggestion that the modern freethinkers were akin to him in their religious views. The quotation is from the Metamorphoses, 1.256, where Jupiter, preparing to hurl his thunderbolts, hesitates to do so lest he should set the ether aflame, "for he remembers that it is amongst the decrees of the Fates that a time will come when the sea, the earth, and the palace of heaven shall catch fire and blaze, and the mass of the world, so laboriously constructed, shall be imperilled." 13. "Your in conscience;" so the author of the old Kentish Poema Morale says: "Elch man sceal him then biclupien and ecach sceal him demen; His aye weorc and his ithanc to witnesse he sceal temen", which is, being interpreted. Every man shall accuse himself there, and every man shall judge himself; His own work and his conscience he shall bring to witness. "See! See! He cometh!" One of Wesley's finest and most impassioned perorations.

5. Yet in their fervent zeal against the horrid profanation of God's ordinances, some spoke as if outward religion were absolutely nothing, having no place in Christ's religion. They may not have expressed themselves with sufficient caution, leading unwary hearers to believe they condemned all outward means as unprofitable. Some holy men, cut off from ordinances--"wandering up and down, having no certain abiding-place, or dwelling in dens and caves of the earth"--experienced God's grace without outward means and inferred that grace would be given to those deliberately abstaining from them. 6. This notion spreads easily, especially among those awakened from spiritual death and burdened by sin's weight. These people are impatient and ready to catch at anything promising ease. Having tried outward means without finding relief--perhaps finding only "remorse, and fear, and sorrow, and condemnation"--they're easily persuaded to abstain. They're weary of striving seemingly in vain and glad of any excuse to "cast aside that wherein their soul has no pleasure, to give over the painful strife, and sink down into an indolent inactivity." II. Definition and Allowances Regarding Means of Grace 1. By "means of grace," I understand "outward signs, words, or actions, ordained of God, and appointed for this end, to be the ordinary channels whereby he might convey to men, preventing, justifying, or sanctifying grace." This expression has been used in the Christian church for ages, particularly by our own Church, which directs us to bless God for "the means of grace, and hope of glory" and teaches that a sacrament is "an outward sign of inward grace, and a means whereby we receive the same." The chief means are prayer, whether secret or public; searching the Scriptures (reading, hearing, meditating); and receiving the Lord's Supper, eating bread and drinking wine in remembrance of Christ. These we believe God ordained as "the ordinary channels of conveying his grace to the souls of men."

2. We allow that the whole value of means depends on their actual subservience to religion's end. Consequently, "all these means, when separate from the end, are less than nothing and vanity." If they don't actually conduce to knowledge and love of God, they're "not acceptable in his sight; yea, rather, they are an abomination before him, a stink in his nostrils." Using them as substitutes for the religion they were designed to promote is "an enormous folly and wickedness of thus turning God's arms against himself; of keeping Christianity out of the heart by those very means which were ordained for the bringing it in." 3. We allow likewise that all outward means, separate from God's Spirit, "cannot profit at all, cannot conduce, in any degree, either to the knowledge or love of God." "Without controversy, the help that is done upon earth, He doeth it himself. It is He alone who, by his own almighty power, worketh in us what is pleasing in his sight; and all outward things, unless He work in them and by them, are mere weak and beggarly elements." Whoever imagines there's intrinsic power in any means greatly errs. There's no inherent power in prayer's words, Scripture's letter, or bread and wine received in the Lord's Supper. "It is God alone who is the Giver of every good gift, the Author of all grace; that the whole power is of him." He's able to give the same grace though no means existed on earth. In this sense, regarding God, there is no such thing as means, since He's "equally able to work whatsoever pleaseth him, by any, or by none at all." 4. We allow further that all means' use will never atone for one sin. "It is the blood of Christ alone, whereby any sinner can be reconciled to God; there being no other propitiation for our sins, no other fountain for sin and uncleanness." Every believer is convinced "there is no merit but in Him; that there is no merit in any of his own works; not in uttering the prayer, or searching the Scripture, or hearing the word of God, or eating of that bread and drinking of that cup." If "Christ is the only means of grace" means He's the only meritorious cause, this cannot be gainsaid by those knowing God's grace.

5. We allow, though melancholy, that large numbers called Christians abuse means of grace to their souls' destruction. This applies to all resting content in godliness's form without its power--those who presume they're Christians because they perform certain actions, though Christ was never revealed in their hearts, or suppose they'll certainly become Christian merely by using these means, idly dreaming either that inherent power will eventually make them holy, or that merit in using them will move God to give them holiness or accept them without it. 6. Such people little understand that great Christian foundation: "By grace are ye saved." You're saved from sins' guilt and power, restored to God's favor and image, "not for any works, merits, or deservings of yours, but by the free grace, the mere mercy of God, through the merits of his well-beloved Son. Ye are thus saved, not by any power, wisdom, or strength, which is in you, or in any other creature; but merely through the grace or power of the Holy Ghost, which worketh all in all." 7. The main question remains: "We know this salvation is the gift and the work of God; but how may I attain thereto?" If told "Believe, and thou shalt be saved!" the response is "True; but how shall I believe?" and "Wait upon God." But "how am I to wait? In the means of grace, or out of them? Am I to wait for the grace of God which bringeth salvation, by using these means, or by laying them aside?" 8. God couldn't leave us undetermined on so important a matter. The Son of God, who came for our salvation, wouldn't leave this question unresolved when our salvation so nearly concerns it. He hasn't left us undetermined; He's shown us the way. We need only consult God's oracles and abide by their decision. III. The Three Principal Means of Grace 1. First: Prayer as a Means of Grace According to Scripture's decision, all desiring God's grace are to wait for it using the means He ordained, using them, not laying them aside.

If objected, "But this is no direction to unbelievers; to those who know not God's pardoning grace: For the Apostle adds, 'But let him ask in faith; otherwise, 'let him not think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord,'" I answer: The word "faith" in this place is fixed by the Apostle himself, as if purposely to obviate this objection, in the following: "Let him ask in faith, nothing wavering," nothing doubting. Not doubting but God heareth his prayer and will fulfil his heart's desire. The gross, blasphemous absurdity of supposing faith here means full Christian faith appears thus: It's supposing the Holy Ghost directs a man who knows he hasn't faith (which is termed wisdom here) to ask it of God, with a positive promise that "it shall be given him"; then immediately subjoin that it shall not be given unless he have it before asking! Who can bear such a supposition? From this Scripture, as well as those cited above, we must infer that all desiring God's grace are to wait for it through prayer. Second: Searching the Scriptures as a Means of Grace 7. Secondly, all desiring God's grace are to wait for it in searching the Scriptures. Our Lord's direction regarding this means is likewise plain and clear. "Search the Scriptures," saith he to unbelieving Jews, "for they testify of me." (John 5:39.) He directed them to search the Scriptures so they might believe in Him. The objection that "this is not a command, but only an assertion, that they did search the Scriptures" is shamelessly false. It's as peremptory as words can make it--it's a clear command. What blessing from God attends this means' use appears from what's recorded concerning the Bereans; who, after hearing St. Paul, "searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed;" -- found God's grace in the way He ordained. (Acts 17:11, 12.) It's probable that in some who had "received the word with all readiness of mind," "faith came...by hearing," and was only confirmed by reading the Scriptures. But as noted, under "searching the Scriptures," hearing, reading, and meditating are all contained.

8. That this means whereby God not only gives but also confirms and increases true wisdom, we learn from St. Paul to Timothy: "From a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim. 3:15.) The same truth--that this is the great means God ordained for conveying His manifold grace to man--is delivered most fully in the words immediately following: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God; consequently, all Scripture is infallibly true; and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; to the end that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim. 3:16, 17.) 9. Observe that this is spoken primarily of the Scriptures Timothy had known from childhood--the Old Testament, for the New wasn't then written. How far was St. Paul (though he was "not a whit behind the very chief of the Apostles") from making light of the Old Testament! Behold this, lest ye one day "wonder and perish," ye who make so small account of one half of God's oracles! That half of which the Holy Ghost expressly declares it "is profitable...for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; to the end that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 10. Nor is this profitable only for men of God, those walking already in God's light; but also for those yet in darkness, seeking Him whom they know not. Thus St. Peter: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy...confirmed by our being 'eye-witnesses of his Majesty,' and 'hearing the voice which came from the excellent glory'; unto which--prophetic word; so he styles the Holy Scriptures--'ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the Day-star arise in your hearts.'" (2 Peter 1:19.) Let all, therefore, desiring that day to dawn upon their hearts, wait for it in searching the Scriptures. Third: The Lord's Supper as a Means of Grace

1. As plainly as God hath pointed out the way wherein He will be inquired after, innumerable objections men, "wise in their own eyes," have raised against it. Though they lack weight in themselves, they've been used to "turn the lame out of the way; yea, to trouble and subvert those who did run well, till Satan appeared as an angel of light." The first and chief objection is: "You cannot use these means without trusting in them." I pray, where is this written? Show me plain Scripture for your assertion. Otherwise I dare not receive it; for I'm not convinced you're wiser than God. If this were true, Christ must have known it. If He'd known it, He would surely have warned us long ago. Therefore, because He hasn't, because there's no tittle of this in Jesus Christ's whole revelation, I'm as fully assured your assertion is false as that this revelation is of God. "However, leave them off for a short time, to see whether you trusted in them or no." So I'm to disobey God, to know whether I trust in obeying Him! Do you avow this advice? Do you deliberately teach to "do evil, that good may come"? O tremble at God's sentence against such teachers! Their "damnation is just." "Nay, if you're troubled when you leave them off, it is plain you trusted in them." By no means. If I'm troubled when I willfully disobey God, His Spirit is still striving with me; but if I'm not troubled at willful sin, I'm given up to a reprobate mind. But what do you mean by "trusting in them"--looking for God's blessing therein; believing that if I wait this way, I shall attain what otherwise I should not? So I do. And so I will, God being my helper, even my life's end. By God's grace I will thus trust in them, till my death's day; that is, I will believe that whatever God hath promised, He is faithful also to perform. And seeing He hath promised to bless me this way, I trust it shall be according to His word.

4. "But does not the Scripture" (it has been objected, Fourthly) "direct us to wait for salvation? Does not David say, 'My soul waiteth upon God, for of him cometh my salvation'? And does not Isaiah teach us the same thing, saying, 'O Lord, we have waited for thee'?" All this cannot be denied. Seeing it is the gift of God, we are undoubtedly to wait on him for salvation. But how shall we wait? If God himself has appointed a way, can you find a better way of waiting for him? But that he hath appointed a way hath been shown at large, and also what that way is. The very words of the Prophet, which you cite, put this out of the question. For the whole sentence runs thus: -- "In the way of thy judgments," or ordinances, "O Lord, have we waited for thee." (Isaiah 26:8.) And in the very same way did David wait, as his own words abundantly testify: "I have waited for thy saving health, O Lord, and have kept thy law. Teach me, O Lord, the way of thy statutes, and I shall to keep it unto the end." 5. "Yea," say some, "but God has appointed another way. -- 'Stand still, and see the salvation of God.'" Let us examine the Scriptures to which you refer. The first of them, with the context, runs thus: -- "And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lifted up their eyes; and they were sore afraid. And they said unto Moses, Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not; stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord. And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto the children of Israel that they go forward. But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it. And the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea." (Exod. 14:10, &c.) This was the salvation of God, which they stood still to see, by marching forward with all their might!

With regard to the former, there is a kind of order, wherein God Himself is generally pleased to use these means in bringing a sinner to salvation. A stupid, senseless wretch is going on in his own way, not having God in all his thoughts, when God comes upon him unawares, perhaps by an awakening sermon or conversation, perhaps by some awful providence, or, it may be, an immediate stroke of His convincing Spirit, without any outward means at all. Having now a desire to flee from the wrath to come, he purposely goes to hear how it may be done. If he finds a preacher who speaks to the heart, he is amazed, and begins searching the Scriptures, whether these things are so. The more he hears and reads, the more convinced he is; and the more he meditates thereon day and night. Perhaps he finds some other book which explains and enforces what he has heard and read in Scripture. And by all these means, the arrows of conviction sink deeper into his soul. He begins also to talk of the things of God, which are ever uppermost in his thoughts; yea, and to talk with God; to pray to him; although, through fear and shame, he scarce knows what to say. But whether he can speak or no, he cannot but pray, were it only in "groans which cannot be uttered." Yet, being in doubt, whether "the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity" will regard such a sinner as him, he wants to pray with those who know God, with the faithful, in the great congregation. But here he observes others go up to the table of the Lord. He considers, "Christ has said, 'Do this!' How is it that I do not? I am too great a sinner. I am not fit. I am not worthy." After struggling with these scruples a while, he breaks through. And thus he continues in God's way, in hearing, reading, meditating, praying, and partaking of the Lord's Supper, till God, in the manner that pleases him, speaks to his heart, "Thy faith hath saved thee. Go in peace."

2. By observing this order of God, we may learn what means to recommend to any particular soul. If any of these will reach a stupid, careless sinner, it is probably hearing, or conversation. To such, therefore, we might recommend these, if he has ever any thought about salvation. To one who begins to feel the weight of his sins, not only hearing the Word of God, but reading it too, and perhaps other serious books, may be a means of deeper conviction. May you not advise him also, to meditate on what he reads, that it may have its full force upon his heart? Yea, and to speak thereof, and not be ashamed, particularly among those who walk in the same path. When trouble and heaviness take hold upon him, should you not then earnestly exhort him to pour out his soul before God; "always to pray and not to faint;" and when he feels the worthlessness of his own prayers, are you not to work together with God, and remind him of going up into the house of the Lord, and praying with all that fear him? But if he does this, the dying word of his Lord will soon be brought to his remembrance; a plain intimation that this is the time when we should second the motions of the blessed Spirit. And thus may we lead him, step by step, through all the means which God has ordained; not according to our own will, but just as the Providence and the Spirit of God go before and open the way.

7. "All things are possible to him that" thus "believeth." "The eyes of his understanding being enlightened," he sees what is his calling; even to glorify God, who hath bought him with so high a price, in his body and in his spirit, which now are God's by redemption, as well as by creation. He feels what is "the exceeding greatness of this power," who, as he raise up Christ from the dead, so is able to-quicken us, dead in sin," by his Spirit which dwelleth in us." "This is the victory which overcometh the world, even our faith;" that faith, which is not only an unshaken assent to all that God hath revealed in Scripture, -- and in particular to those important truths, "Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners;" "He bare our sins in his own body on the tree;" "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world;" [N.B. The following part of this paragraph is now added to the Sermon formerly preached.] -- but likewise the revelation of Christ in our hearts; a divine evidence or conviction of his love, his free, unmerited love to me a sinner; a sure confidence in his pardoning mercy, wrought in us by the Holy Ghost; a confidence, whereby every true believer is enabled to bear witness, "I know that my Redeemer liveth," that I have an "Advocate with the Father," and that "Jesus Christ the righteous" is my Lord, and "the propitiation for my sins," -- I know he hath "loved me, and given himself for me," -- He hath reconciled me, even me, to God; and I "have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." 8. Such a faith as this cannot fail to show evidently the power of Him that inspires it, by delivering his children from the yoke of sin, and "purging their consciences from dead works;" by strengthening them so, that they are no longer constrained to obey sin in the desires there of; but instead of yielding their members unto it, as instruments of unrighteousness," they now "yield themselves" entirely "unto God, as those that are alive from the dead."

2. Another truth, which naturally follows from what has been said, is, that none shall obtain the honor that cometh of God, unless his heart be circumcised by faith; even a "faith of the operation of God:" Unless, refusing to be any longer led by his senses, appetites, or passions, or even by that blind leader of the blind, so idolized by the world, natural reason, he lives and walks by faith; directs every step, as "seeking Him that is invisible;" "looks not at the things that arc seen, which are temporal, but at the things that arc not seen, which are eternal;" and governs all his desires, designs, and thoughts, all his actions and conversations, as one who is entered in within the veil, where Jesus sits at the right hand of God. 3. It were to be wished, that they were better acquainted with this faith, who employ much of their time and pains in laying another foundation; in grounding religion on the eternal fitness of things on the intrinsic excellence of virtue, and the beauty of actions flowing from it; on the reasons as they term them, of good and evil, and the relations of beings to each other. Either these accounts of the grounds of Christian duty coincide with the scriptural, or not. If they do, why are well meaning men perplexed, and drawn from the weightier matters of the law, by a cloud of terms, whereby the easiest truths are explained into obscurity If they are not, then it behooves them to consider who is the author of this new doctrine; whether he is likely to be an angel from heaven, who preacheth another gospel than that of Christ Jesus; though, if he were, God, not we, hath pronounced his sentence: "Let him be accursed."

The Marks of the New Birth "So is every one that is born of the Spirit." John 3:8. 1. How is every one that is "born of the Spirit," -- that is, born again, -- born of God What is meant by the being born again, the being born of God, or being born of the Spirit What is implied in the being a son or a child of God, or having the Spirit of adoption That these privileges, by the free mercy of God, are ordinarily annexed to baptism (which is thence termed by our Lord in a preceding verse, the being "born of water and of the Spirit") we know; but we would know what these privileges are: What is the new birth 2. Perhaps it is not needful to give a definition of this, seeing the Scripture gives none. But as the question is of the deepest concern to every child of man; since, "except a man be born again," born of the Spirit, "he cannot see the kingdom of God;" I propose to lay down the marks of it in the plainest manner, just as I find them laid down in Scripture. I. 1. The First of these, and the foundation of all the rest, is faith. So St. Paul, "Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:26.) So St. John, "To them gave he power" (exousian, right or privilege, it might rather be translated) "to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name; which were born," when they believed, "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh," not by natural generation, "nor of the will of man," like those children adopted by men, in whom no inward change is thereby wrought, "but of God." (John 1:12,13.) And again in his General Epistle, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." (1 John 5:1.)

2. But it is not a barely notional or speculative faith that is here spoken of by the Apostles. It is not a bare assent to this proposition, Jesus is the Christ; nor indeed to all the propositions contained in our creed, or in the Old and New Testament. It is not merely an assent to any or all these credible things, as credible. To say this, were to say (which who could hear) that the devils were born of God; for they have this faith. They, trembling, believe, both that Jesus is the Christ, and that all Scripture, having been given by inspiration of God, is true as God is true. It is not only an assent to divine truth, upon the testimony of God, or upon the evidence of miracles; for they also heard the words of his mouth, and knew him to be a faithful and true witness. They could not but receive the testimony he gave, both of himself, and of the Father which sent him. They saw likewise the mighty works which he did, and thence believed that he "came forth from God." Yet, notwithstanding this faith, they are still "reserved in chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

5. The same invaluable privilege of the sons of God is as strongly asserted by St. John; particularly with regard to the former branch of it, namely, power over outward sin. After he had been crying out, as one astonished at the depth of the riches of the goodness of God, -- "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God! Beloved, now are we the sons of God: And it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know, that when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is;" (1 John 3:1, &c.) -- he soon adds, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: And he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (1 John 3:9.) But some men will say, "True: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin habitually." Habitually! Whence is that I read it not. It is not written in the Book. God plainly saith, "He doth not commit sin;" and thou addest, habitually! Who art thou that mendest the oracles of God -- that "addest to the words of this book" Beware, I beseech thee, lest God "add to thee all the plagues that are written therein!" especially when the comment thou addest is such as quite swallows up the text: So that by this meqodeia planhs, artful method of deceiving, the precious promise is utterly lost; by this kubeia anqrvpvn, tricking and shuffling of men, the word of God is made of none effect. O beware, thou that thus takest from the words of this book, that, taking away the whole meaning and spirit from them, leavest only what may indeed be termed a dead letter, lest God take away thy part out of the book of life!

5. And thus is the Scripture fulfilled, "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted." For it is easy to believe, that though sorrow may precede this witness of God's Spirit with our spirit; (indeed must, in some degree, while we groan under fear, and a sense of the wrath of God abiding on us;) yet, as soon as any man feeleth it in himself, his "sorrow is turned into joy." Whatsoever his pain may have been before; yet, as soon as that "hour is come, he remembereth the anguish no more, for joy" that he is born of God. It may be, many of you have now sorrow, because you are "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel;" because you are conscious to yourselves that you have not this Spirit; that you are "without hope and without God in the world." But when the Comforter is come, "then your heart shall rejoice;" yea, "your joy shall be full," and "that joy no man taketh from you." (John 16:22.) "We joy in God," will ye say, "through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement;" "by whom we have access into this grace," this state of grace, of favour, or reconciliation with God, "wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." (Rom. 5:2.) "Ye," saith St. Peter, whom God hath "begotten again unto a lively hope, are kept by the power of God unto salvation: Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations; that the trial of your faith may be found unto praise, and honour, and glory, at the appearing of Jesus Christ: In whom, though now ye see him not, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." (1 Peter 1:5, &c.) Unspeakable indeed! It is not for the tongue of man to describe this joy in the Holy Ghost. It is "the hidden manna, which no man knoweth, save he that receiveth it." But this we know, it not only remains, but overflows, in the depth of affliction. "Are the consolations of God small" with his children, when all earthly comforts fail Not so.

IV. 1. Thus have I plainly laid down those marks of the new birth which I find laid down in Scripture. Thus doth God himself answer that weighty question, What is it to be born of God Such, if the appeal be made to the oracles of God, is "every one that is born of the Spirit." This it is, in the judgment of the Spirit of God, to be a son or a child of God: It is, so to believe in God, through Christ, as "not to commit sin," and to enjoy at all times, and in all places, that "peace of God which passeth all understanding." It is, so to hope in God through the Son of his love, as to have not only the "testimony of a good conscience," but also the Spirit of God "bearing witness with your spirits, that ye are the children of God;" whence cannot but spring the rejoicing in Him, through whom ye "have received the atonement." It is, so to love God, who hath thus loved you, as you never did love any creature: So that ye are constrained to love all men as yourselves; with a love not only ever burning in your hearts, but flaming out in all your actions and conversations, and making your whole life one "labour of love," one continued obedience to those commands, "Be ye merciful, as God is merciful;" "Be ye holy, as I the Lord am holy:" "Be ye perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

II. But when is it that any of us may truly say, "the Lord our righteousness" In other words, when is it that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, and in what sense is it imputed 1. Look through all the world, and all the men therein are either believers or unbelievers. The first thing, then, which admits of no dispute among reasonable men is this: To all believers the righteousness of Christ is imputed; to unbelievers it is not. But when is it imputed When they believe. In that very hour the righteousness of Christ is theirs. It is imputed to every one that believes, as soon as he believes: Faith and the righteousness of Christ are inseparable. For if he believes according to Scripture, he believes in the righteousness of Christ. There is no true faith, that is, justifying faith, which hath not the righteousness of Christ for its object. 2. It is true believers may not all speak alike; they may not all use the same language. It is not to be expected that they should: we cannot reasonably require it of them. A thousand circumstances may cause them to vary from each other, in the manner of expressing themselves: But a difference of expression does nor necessarily imply a difference of sentiment. Different persons may use different expressions, and yet mean the same thing. Nothing is more common than this, although we seldom make sufficient allowance for it. Nay, it is not easy for the same persons, when they speak of the same thing at a considerable distance of time, to use exactly the same expressions, even though they retain the same sentiments: How then can we be rigorous in requiring others to use just the same expressions with us

3. And what is it which He is teaching The Son of God, who came from heaven, is here showing us the way to heaven; to the place which he hath prepared for us; the glory he had before the world began. He is teaching us the true way to life everlasting; the royal way which leads to the kingdom; and the only true way, -- for there is none besides; all other paths lead to destruction. From the character of the Speaker, we are well assured that he hath declared the full and perfect will of God. He hath uttered not one tittle too much, -- nothing more than he had received of the Father; nor too little, -- he hath not shunned to declare the whole counsel of God; much less hath he uttered anything wrong, anything contrary to the will of him that sent him. All his words are true and right concerning all things, and shall stand fast for ever and ever. And we may easily remark, that in explaining and confirming these faithful and true sayings, he takes care to refute not only the mistakes of the Scribes and Pharisees, which then were the false comments whereby the Jewish Teachers of that age had perverted the word of God, but all the practical mistakes that are inconsistent with salvation, which should ever arise in the Christian Church; all the comments whereby the Christian Teachers (so called) of any age or nation should pervert the word of God, and teach unwary souls to seek death in the error of their life.

But may we not justly inquire, who told them this, that some parts of this discourse concerned only the Apostles, or the Christians of the apostolic age, or the Ministers of Christ Bare assertions are not a sufficient proof to establish a point of so great importance. Has then our Lord himself taught us, that some parts of his discourse do not concern all mankind Without doubt, had it been so, he would have told us; he could not have omitted so necessary an information. But has he told us so Where In the discourse itself No: Here is not the least intimation of it. Has he said so elsewhere in any other of his discourses Not one word so much as glancing this way, can we find in anything he ever spoke, either to the multitudes, or to his disciples. Has any one of the Apostles, or other inspired writers, left such an instruction upon record No such thing. No assertion of this kind is to be found in all the oracles of God. Who then are the men who are so much wiser than God -- wise so far above that is written 6. Perhaps they will say, that the reason of the thing requires such a restriction to be made. If it does, it must be on one of these two accounts; because, without such a restriction, the discourse would either be apparently absurd, or would contradict some other scripture. But this is not the case. It will plainly appear, when we come to examine the several particulars, that there is no absurdity at all in applying all which our Lord hath here delivered to all mankind. Neither will it infer any contradiction to anything else he has delivered, nor to any other scripture whatever. Nay, it will farther appear, that either all the parts of this discourse are to be applied to men in general, or no part; seeing they are all connected together, all joined as the stones in an arch, of which you cannot take one away, without destroying the whole fabric.

7. We may, Lastly, observe, how our Lord teaches here. And surely, as at all times, so particularly at this, he speaks "as never man spake." Not as the holy men of old; although they also spoke "as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Not as Peter, or James, or John, or Paul: They were indeed wise master-builders in his Church; but still in this, in the degrees of heavenly wisdom, the servant is not as his Lord. No, nor even as himself at any other time, or on any other occasion. It does not appear, that it was ever his design, at any other time or place, to lay down at once the whole plan of his religion; to give us a full prospect of Christianity; to describe at large the nature of that holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. Particular branches of this he has indeed described, on a thousand different occasions; but never, besides here, did he give, of set purpose, a general view of the whole. Nay, we have nothing else of this kind in all the Bible; unless one should except that short sketch of holiness delivered by God in those Ten Words or Commandments to Moses, on mount Sinai. But even here how wide a difference is there between one and the other! "Even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth." (2 Cor. 3:10.)

But if God would forgive him all that is past, on this one condition, that he should sin no more; that for the time to come he should entirely and constantly obey all his commands; he well knows that this would profit him nothing, being a condition he could never perform. He knows and feels that he is not able to obey even the outward commands of God; seeing these cannot be obeyed while his heart remains in its natural sinfulness and corruption; inasmuch as an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit. But he cannot cleanse a sinful heart: With men this is impossible: So that he is utterly at a loss even how to begin walking in the path of God's commandments. He knows not how to get one step forward in the way. Encompassed with sin, and sorrow, and fear, and finding no way to escape, he can only cry out, "Lord, save, or I perish!" 7. Poverty of spirit then, as it implies the first step we take in running the race which is set before us, is a just sense of our inward and outward sins, and of our guilt and helplessness. This some have monstrously styled, "the virtue of humility;" thus teaching us to be proud of knowing we deserve damnation! But our Lord's expression is quite of another kind; conveying no idea to the hearer, but that of mere want, of naked sin, of helpless guilt and misery. 8. The great Apostle, where he endeavours to bring sinners to God, speaks in a manner just answerable to this. "The wrath of God," saith he, "is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men;" (Rom. 1:18, &c.;) a charge which he immediately fixes on the heathen world, and thereby proves they are under the wrath of God. He next shows that the Jews were no better than they, and were therefore under the same condemnation; and all this, not in order to their attaining "the noble virtue of humility," but "that every mouth might be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God."

2. Not that we can imagine this promise belongs to those who mourn only on some worldly account; who are in sorrow and heaviness merely on account of some worldly trouble or disappointment, -- such as the loss of their reputation or friends, or the impairing of their fortune. As little title to it have they who are afflicting themselves, through fear of some temporal evil; or who pine away with anxious care, or that desire of earthly things which "maketh the heart sick." Let us not think these "shall receive anything from the Lord:" He is not in all their thoughts. Therefore it is that they thus "walk in a vain shadow, and disquiet themselves in vain." "And this shall ye have of mine hand," saith the Lord, "ye shall lie down in sorrow."

7. But all this wisdom of God is foolishness with the world. The whole affair of mourning and poverty of spirit is with them stupidity and dullness. Nay, it is well if they pass so favourable a judgment upon it; if they do not vote it to be mere moping and melancholy, if not downright lunacy and distraction. And it is no wonder at all, that this judgment should be passed by those who know not God. Suppose, as two persons were walking together, one should suddenly stop, and with the strongest signs of fear and amazement, cry out, "On what a precipice do we stand! See, we are on the point of being dashed in pieces! Another step, and we fall into that huge abyss! Stop! I will not go on for all the world!" -- when the other, who seemed, to himself at least, equally sharp-sighted, looked forward and saw nothing of all this; what would he think of his companion, but that he was beside himself; that his head was out of order; that much religion (if he was not guilty of "much learning") had certainly made him mad!

8. But let not the children of God, "the mourners in Sion," be moved by any of these things. Ye, whose eyes are enlightened, be not troubled by those who walk on still in darkness. Ye do not walk on in a vain shadow: God and eternity are real things. Heaven and hell are in very deed open before you; and ye are on the edge of the great gulf. It has already swallowed up more than words can express, nations, and kindreds, and peoples, and tongues; and still yawns to devour, whether they see it or no, the giddy, miserable children of men. O cry aloud! Spare not! Lift up your voice to Him who grasps both time and eternity, both for yourselves and your brethren, that ye may be counted worthy to escape the destruction that cometh as a whirlwind! that ye may be brought safe through all the waves and storms into the haven where you would be! Weep for yourselves, till he wipes away the tears from your eyes. And even then, weep for the miseries that come upon the earth, till the Lord of all shall put a period to misery and sin, shall wipe away the tears from all faces, and "the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth, as the waters cover the sea."

4. Meekness, therefore, seems properly to relate to ourselves[.] But it may be referred either to God or our neighbour. When this due composure of mind has reference to God, it is usually termed resignation; a calm acquiescence in whatsoever is his will concerning us, even though it may not be pleasing to nature; saying continually, "It is the Lord; let him do what seemeth him good." When we consider it more strictly with regard to ourselves, we style it patience or contentedness. When it is exerted toward other men, then it is mildness to the good, and gentleness to the evil. 5. They who are truly meek, can clearly discern what is evil; and they can also suffer it. They are sensible of everything of this kind, but still meekness holds the reins. They are exceeding "zealous for the Lord of hosts;" but their zeal is always guided by knowledge, and tempered, in every thought , and word, and work, with the love of man, as well as the love of God. They do not desire to extinguish any of the passions which God has for wise ends implanted in their nature; but they have the mastery of all: They hold them all in subjection, and employ them only in subservience to those ends. And thus even the harsher and more unpleasing passions are applicable to the noblest purposes; even hatred, and anger, and fear, when engaged against sin, and regulated by faith and love, are as walls and bulwarks to the soul, so that the wicked one cannot approach to hurt it. 6. It is evident, this divine temper is not only to abide but to increase in us day by day. Occasions of exercising, and thereby increasing it, will never be wanting while we remain upon earth. "We have need of patience, that after we have done" and suffered "the will of God, we may receive the promise." We have need of resignation, that we may in all circumstances say, "Not as I will, but as thou wilt." And we have need of "gentleness toward all men;" but especially toward the evil and unthankful: Otherwise we shall be overcome of evil, instead of overcoming evil with good.

13. But there seems to be a yet farther meaning in these words, even that they shall have a more eminent part in "the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness;" in that inheritance, a general description of which (and the particulars we shall know hereafter) St. John has given in the twentieth chapter of the Revelation: "And I saw an angel come down from heaven, -- and he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, -- and bound him a thousand years. -- And I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and of them which had not worshipped the Beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again, until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: On such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." [Rev. 20:1-6] II. 1. Our Lord has hitherto been more immediately employed in removing the hindrances of true religion: Such is pride, the first, grand hindrance of all religion, which is taken away by poverty of spirit; levity and thoughtlessness, which prevent any religion from taking root in the soul, till they are removed by holy mourning; such are anger, impatience, discontent, which are all healed by Christian meekness. And when once these hindrances are removed, these evil diseases of the soul, which were continually raising false cravings therein, and filling it with sickly appetites, the native appetite of a heaven-born spirit returns; it hungers and thirsts after righteousness: And "blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness; for they shall be filled." 2. Righteousness, as was observed before, is the image of God, the mind which was in Christ Jesus. It is every holy and heavenly temper in one; springing from, as well as terminating in, the love of God, as our Father and Redeemer, and the love of all men for his sake.

2. Because of the vast importance of this love, -- without which, "though we spake with the tongues of men and angels, though we had the gift of prophecy, and understood all mysteries, and all knowledge; though we had all faith, so as to remove mountains; yea, though we gave all our goods to feed the poor, and our very bodies to be burned, it would profit us nothing," -- the wisdom of God has given us, by the Apostle Paul, a full and particular account of it; by considering which we shall most clearly discern who are the merciful that shall obtain mercy. 3. "Charity," or love, (as it were to be wished it had been rendered throughout, being a far plainer and less ambiguous word,) the love of our neighbour as Christ hath loved us, "suffereth long;" is patient toward all men: It suffers all the weakness, ignorance, errors, infirmities, all the frowardness and littleness of faith, of the children of God; all the malice and wickedness of the children of the world. And it suffers all this, not only for a time, for a short season, but to the end; still feeding our enemy when he hungers; if he thirst, still giving him drink; thus continually "heaping coals of fire," of melting love, "upon his head." 4. And in every step toward this desirable end, the "overcoming evil with good," "love is kind:" (crhsteuetai, a word not easily translated:) It is soft, mild, benign. It stands at the utmost distance from moroseness, from all harshness or sourness of spirit; and inspires the sufferer at once with the most amiable sweetness, and the most fervent and tender affection.

7. It follows, love "is not puffed up:" It does not incline or suffer any man "to think more highly of himself than he ought to think;" but rather to think soberly: Yea, it humbles the soul unto the dust. It destroys all high conceits, engendering pride; and makes us rejoice to be as nothing, to be little and vile, the lowest of all, the servant of all. They who are "kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love," cannot but "in honour prefer one another." Those who, having the same love, are of one accord, do in lowliness of mind "each esteem other better than themselves." 8. "It doth not behave itself unseemly:" It is not rude, or willingly offensive to any. It "renders to all their due; fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour;" courtesy, civility, humanity to all the world; in their several degrees "honouring all men." A late writer defines good breeding, nay, the highest degree of it, politeness, "A continual desire to please, appearing in all the behaviour." But if so, there is none so well-bred as a Christian, a lover of all mankind. For he cannot but desire to "please all men for their good to edification:" And this desire cannot be hid; it will necessarily appear in all his intercourse with men. For his "love is without dissimulation:" It will appear in all his actions and conversation; yea, and will constrain him, though without guile, "to become all things to all men, if by any means he may save some."

9. And in becoming all things to all men, "love seeketh not her own." In striving to please all men, the lover of mankind has no eye at all to his own temporal advantage. He covets no man's silver, or gold, or apparel: He desires nothing but the salvation of their souls: Yea, in some sense, he may be said, not to seek his own spiritual, any more than temporal, advantage; for while he is on the full stretch to save their souls from death, he, as it were, forgets himself. He does not think of himself, so long as that zeal for the glory of God swallows him up. Nay, at some times he may almost seem, through an excess of love, to give up himself, both his soul and his body; while he cries out, with Moses, "O, this people have sinned a great sin; yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin -- ; and if not, blot me out of the book which thou hast written;" (Exod. 32:31, 32;) -- or, with St. Paul, "I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh!" (Rom. 9:3.) 10. No marvel that such "love is not provoked:" ou paroxunetai. Let it be observed, the word easily, strangely inserted in the translation, is not in the original: St. Paul's words are absolute. "Love is not provoked:" It is not provoked to unkindness toward any one. Occasions indeed will frequently occur; outward provocations of various kinds; but love does not yield to provocation; it triumphs over all. In all trials it looketh unto Jesus, and is more than conqueror in his love.

11. Love prevents a thousand provocations which would otherwise arise, because it "thinketh no evil." Indeed the merciful man cannot avoid knowing many things that are evil, he cannot but see them with his own eyes, and hear them with his own ears. For love does not put out his eyes, so that it is impossible for him not to see that such things are done; neither does it take away his understanding, any more than his senses, so that he cannot but know that they are evil. For instance: When he sees a man strike his neighbour, or hears him blaspheme God, he cannot either question the thing done, or the words spoken, or doubt of their being evil. Yet, ou logizetai to kakon. The word logizetai, "thinketh," does not refer either to our seeing and hearing, or to the first and involuntary acts of our understanding; but to our willingly thinking what we need not; our inferring evil, where it does not appear; to our reasoning concerning things which we do not see; our supposing what we have neither seen nor heard. This is what true love absolutely destroys. It tears up, root and branch, all imagining what we have not known. It casts out all jealousies, all evil surmisings, all readiness to believe evil. It is frank, open, unsuspicious; and, as it cannot design, so neither does it fear, evil. 12. It "rejoiceth not in iniquity;" common as this is, even among those who bear the name of Christ, who scruple not to rejoice over their enemy, when he falleth either into affliction, or error, or sin. Indeed, how hardly can they avoid this, who are zealously attached to any party! How difficult is it for them not to be pleased with any fault which they discover in those of the opposite party, -- with any real or supposed blemish, either in their principles or practice! What warm defender of any cause is clear of these Yea, who is so calm as to be altogether free Who does not rejoice when his adversary makes a false step, which he thinks will advantage his own cause Only a man of love. He alone weeps over either the sin or folly of his enemy, takes no pleasure in hearing or in repeating it, but rather desires that it may be forgotten for ever.

So shall "the merciful obtain mercy;" not only by the blessing of God upon all their ways, by his now repaying the love they bear to their brethren a thousand fold into their own bosom; but likewise by "an exceeding and eternal weight of glory," in the "kingdom prepared for them from the beginning of the world."

Surely all these things shall come to an end, and the inhabitants of the earth shall learn righteousness. "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they know war any more." "The mountains of the Lord's house shall be established on the top of the mountains;" and "all the kingdoms of the earth shall become the kingdoms of our God." "They shall not" then "hurt or destroy in all his holy mountain;" but they shall call their "walls salvation, and their gates praise." They shall all be without spot or blemish, loving one another, even as Christ hath loved us. -- Be thou part of the first-fruits, if the harvest is not yet. Do thou love thy neighbor as thyself. The Lord God fill thy heart with such a love to every soul, that thou mayest be ready to lay down thy life for his sake! May thy soul continually overflow with love, swallowing up every unkind and unholy temper, till he calleth thee up into the region of love, there to reign with him for ever and ever!

Two steps only it may not be improper to take before such an absolute and final separation. First, try whether the unclean spirit may not be driven out by fasting and prayer, and by carefully abstaining from every action, and word, and look, which thou hast found to be an occasion of evil. Secondly, if thou art not by this means delivered, ask counsel of him that watcheth over thy soul, or, at least, of some who have experience in the ways of God, touching the time and manner of that separation; but confer not with flesh and blood, lest thou be "given up to a strong delusion to believe a lie." 5. Nor may marriage itself, holy and honourable as it is, be used as a pretence for giving a loose to our desires. Indeed, "it hath been said, Whosoever will put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:" And then all was well; though he alleged no cause, but that he did not like her, or liked another better. "But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the case of fornication,' (that is, adultery; the word porneia signifying unchastity in general, either in the married or unmarried state,) "causeth her to commit adultery," if she marry again: "And whosoever shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery." (Matt 5:31, 32.) All polygamy is clearly forbidden in these words, wherein our Lord expressly declares, that for any woman who has a husband alive, to marry again is adultery. By parity of reason, it is adultery for any man to marry again, so long as he has a wife alive, yea, although they were divorced; unless that divorce had been for the cause of adultery: In that only case there is no scripture which forbids to marry again.

But our Lord here absolutely forbids all common swearing, as well as all false swearing; and shows the heinousness of both, by the same awful consideration, that every creature is God's, and he is everywhere present, in all, and over all. "I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God's throne;" (Matt. 5:34;) and, therefore, this is the same as to swear by Him who sitteth upon the circle of the heavens: "Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool;" (Matt. 5:35;) and he is as intimately present in earth as heaven: "Neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King;" and God is well known in her palaces. "Neither shalt thou swear by thy head; because thou canst not make one hair white or black;" (Matt. 5:36;) because even this, it is plain, is not thine, but God's, the sole disposer of all in heaven and earth. "But let your communication," (Matt. 5:37,) your conversation, your discourse with each other "be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay;" a bare, serious affirming or denying; "for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil:" ek tou ponhrou estin, is of the evil one; proceedeth from the devil, and is a mark of his children.

By all these Scriptures it manifestly appears who they are that are persecuted; namely, the righteous: He "that is born of the Spirit;" "all that will live godly in Christ Jesus;" they that are "passed from death unto life;" those who are "not of the world;" all those who are meek and lowly in heart, that mourn for God, that hunger after his likeness; all that love God and their neighbour, and therefore, as they have opportunity, do good unto all men.

7. But the persecution which attends all the children of God is that our Lord describes in the following words: "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you," -- shall persecute by reviling you, -- "and say all manner of evil against you, falsely, for my sake." This cannot fail; it is the very badge of our discipleship; it is one of the seals of our calling; it is a sure portion entailed on all the children of God: If we have it not, we are bastards and not sons. Straight through evil report, as well as good report, lies the only way to the kingdom. The meek, serious, humble, zealous lovers of God and man are of good report among their brethren; but of evil report with the world, who count and treat them "as the filth and offscouring of all things."

2. If religion, therefore, were carried no farther than this, they could have no doubt concerning it; they should have no objection against pursuing it with the whole ardour of their souls. "But why," say they, "is it clogged with other things What need of loading it with doing and suffering These are what damps the vigour of the soul, and sinks it down to earth again. Is it not enough to `follow after charity;' to soar upon the wings of love Will it not suffice to worship God, who is a Spirit, with the spirit of our minds, without encumbering ourselves with outward things, or even thinking of them at all Is it not better, that the whole extent of our thought should be taken up with high and heavenly contemplation; and that instead of busying ourselves at all about externals, we should only commune with God in our hearts" 3. Many eminent men have spoken thus; have advised us "to cease from all outward action;" wholly to withdraw from the world; to leave the body behind us; to abstract ourselves from all sensible things; to have no concern at all about outward religion, but to work all virtues in the will; as the far more excellent way, more perfective of the soul, as well as more acceptable to God. 4. It needed not that any should tell our Lord of this masterpiece of the wisdom from beneath, this fairest of all the devices wherewith Satan hath ever perverted the right ways of the Lord! And O! what instruments hath he found, from time to time, to employ in this his service, to wield this grand engine of hell against some of the most important truths of God! -- men that would "deceive, if it were possible, the very elect," the men of faith and love; yea, that have for a season deceived and led away no inconsiderable number of them, who have fallen in all ages into the gilded snare, and hardly escaped with the skin of their teeth.

But the Apostle does not forbid us to have any intercourse at all, even with the men that know not God: "For then," says he, "ye must needs go out of the world;" which he could never advise them to do. But, he subjoins, "If any man that is called a brother," that professes himself a Christian, "be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner;" (1 Cor. 5:11;) now I have written unto you not to keep company' with him; "with such an one, no not to eat." This must necessarily imply, that we break off all familiarity, all intimacy of acquaintance with him. "Yet count him not," saith the Apostle elsewhere, "as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother;" (2 Thes. 3:15;) plainly showing that even in such a case as this we are not to renounce all fellowship with him. So that here is no advice to separate wholly, even from wicked men. Yea, these very words teach us quite the contrary.

7. Indeed were we wholly to separate ourselves from sinners, how could we possibly answer that character which our Lord gives us in these very words "Ye" (Christians, ye that are lowly, serious and meek; ye that hunger after righteousness, that love God and man, that do good to all, and therefore suffer evil; ye) "are the salt of the earth:" It is your very nature to season whatever is round about you. It is the nature of the divine savour which is in you, to spread to whatsoever you touch; to diffuse itself, on every side, to all those among whom you are. This is the great reason why the providence of God has so mingled you together with other men, that whatever grace you have received of God may through you be communicated to others; that every holy temper, and word, and work of yours, may have an influence on lo them also. By this means a check will, in some measure, be given to the corruption which is in the world; and a small part, at least, saved from the general infection, and rendered holy and pure before God.

8. That we may the more diligently labour to season all we can with every holy and heavenly temper, our Lord proceeds to show the desperate state of those who do not impart the religion they have received; which indeed they cannot possibly fail to do, so long as it remains in their own hearts. "If the salt have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted It is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and trodden under foot of men:" If ye who were holy and heavenly-minded, and consequently zealous of good works, have no longer that savour in yourselves, and do therefore no longer season others; if you are grown flat, insipid, dead, both careless of your own soul and useless to the souls of other men; `wherewith shall ye be salted How shall ye be recovered What help What hope Can tasteless salt be restored to its savour No; "it is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out," even as the mire in the streets, "and to be trodden under foot of men," to be overwhelmed with everlasting contempt. If ye had never known the Lord, there might have been hope, -- if ye had never been "found in him:" But what can you now say to that, his solemn declaration, just parallel to what he hath here spoken "Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he, the Father, "taketh away. He that abideth in me, and I in him, bringeth forth much fruit." "If a man abide not in me," or do not bring forth fruit." "he is cast out as a branch, and withered; and men gather them," not to plant them again, but "to cast them into the fire." (John 15:2, 5, 6.)

9. Toward those who have never tasted of the good word, God is indeed pitiful and of tender mercy. But justice takes place with regard to those who have tasted that the Lord is gracious, and have afterwards turned back "from the holy commandment" then "delivered to them." "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened;" (Heb. 6:4, &c;) in whose hearts God had once shined, to enlighten them with the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ; "who have tasted of the heavenly gift" of redemption in his blood, the forgiveness of sins; "and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost," of lowliness, of meekness, and of the love of God and man shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost which was given unto them; and "have fallen away," -- kai parapesontas -- (here is not a supposition, but a flat declaration of matter of fact) "to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." But that none may misunderstand these awful words, it should be carefully observed, (1.) Who they are that are here spoken of; namely they, and they only, who were once thus "enlightened;" they only, "who did taste of" that "heavenly gift, and were" thus "'made partakers of the Holy Ghost." So that all who have not experienced these things are wholly unconcerned in this Scripture. (2.) What that falling away is which is, here spoken of: It is an absolute, total apostasy. A believer may fall, and not fall away. He may fall and rise again. And if he should fall, even into sin, yet this case, dreadful as it is, is not desperate. For "we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins." But let him above all things beware, lest his "heart be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin;" lest he should sink lower and lower, till he wholly fall away, till he become as salt that hath lost its savour: For if we thus sin wilfully, after we have received the experimental "knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins; but a certain, fearful looking for of fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries."

II. 1. "But although we may not wholly separate ourselves from mankind, although it be granted we ought to season them with the religion which God has wrought in our hearts, yet may not this be done insensibly May we not convey this into others in a secret and almost imperceptible manner, so that scarce anyone shall be able to observe how or when it is done -- even as salt conveys its own savour into that which is seasoned thereby, without any noise, and without being liable to any outward observation. And if so, although we do not go out of the world, yet we may lie hid in it. We may thus far keep our religion to ourselves; and not offend lo those whom we cannot help." 2. Of this plausible reasoning of flesh and blood our Lord was well aware also. And he has given a full answer to it in those words which come now to be considered; in explaining which, I shall endeavour to show, as I proposed to do in the Second place, that so long as true religion abides in our hearts, it is impossible to conceal it, as well as absolutely contrary to the design of its great Author.

6. Thus hath God in all ages spoken to the world, not only by precept, but by example also. He hath "not left himself without witness," in any nation where the sound of the gospel hath gone forth, without a few who testified his truth by their lives as well as their words. These have been "as lights shining in a dark place." And from time to time they have been the means of enlightening some, of preserving a remnant, a little seed which was "counted unto the Lord for a generation." They have led a few poor sheep out of the darkness of the world, and guided their feet into the way of peace. 7. One might imagine that, where both Scripture and the reason of things speak so clearly and expressly, there could not be much advanced on the other side, at least not with any appearance of truth. But they who imagine thus know little of the depths of Satan. After all that Scripture and reason have said, so exceeding plausible are the pretences for solitary religion, for a Christian's going out of the world, or at least hiding himself in it, that we need all the wisdom of God to see through the snare, and all the power of God to escape it; so many and strong are the objections which have been brought against being social, open, active Christians. III. 1. To answer these, was the Third thing which I proposed. And, First, it has been often objected, that religion does not lie in outward things, but in the heart, the inmost soul; that it is the union of the soul with God, the life of God in the soul of man; that outside religion is nothing worth; seeing God "delighteth not in burnt-offerings," in outward services, but a pure and holy heart is "the sacrifice he will not despise." I answer, It is most true that the root of religion lies in the heart, in the inmost soul; that this is the union of the soul with God, the life of God in the soul of man. But if this root be really in the heart, it cannot but put forth branches. And these are the several instances of outward obedience, which partake of the same nature with the root; and consequently, are not only marks or signs, but substantial parts of religion.

I answer, "God is a Spirit; and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth." Yea, and this is enough: We ought to employ the whole strength of our mind therein. But then I would ask, What is it to worship God, a Spirit, in spirit and in truth' Why, it is to worship him with our spirit; to worship him in that manner which none but spirits are capable of. It is to believe in him as a wise, just, holy Being, of purer eyes than to behold iniquity; and yet merciful, gracious, and long-suffering; forgiving iniquity, and transgression and sin; casting all our sins behind his back, and accepting us in the Beloved. It is, to love him, to delight in him, to desire him, with all our heart, and mind, and soul, and strength; to imitate him we love, by purifying ourselves, even as he is pure; and to obey him whom we love, and in whom we believe, both in thought, and word, and work. Consequently, one branch of the worshipping God in spirit and in truth is, the keeping his outward commandments. To glorify him, therefore with our bodies, as well as with our spirits; to go through outward work with hearts lifted up to him; to make our daily employment a sacrifice to God; to buy and sell, to eat and drink, to his glory; -- this is worshipping God in spirit and in truth, as much as the praying to him in a wilderness.

3. "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Some have conceived our Lord to mean, -- I am come to fulfil this by my entire and perfect obedience to it. And it cannot be doubted but he did, in this sense, fulfil every part of it. But this does not appear to be what He intends here, being foreign to the scope of his present discourse. Without question, his meaning in this place is, (consistently with all that goes before and follows after,) -- I am come to establish it in its fullness, in spite of all the glosses of men: I am come to place in a full and clear view whatsoever was dark or obscure therein: I am come to declare the true and full import of every part of it; to show the length and breadth, the entire extent of every commandment contained therein, and the height and depth, the inconceivable purity and spirituality of it in all its branches. 4. And this our Lord has abundantly performed in the preceding and subsequent parts of the discourse before us, in which He has not introduced a new religion into the world, but the same which was from the beginning: -- a religion the substance of which is, without question, as old as the creation, being coeval with man, and having proceeded from God at the very time when "man became a living soul;" (the substance, I say; for some circumstances of it now relate to man as a fallen creature;) -- a religion witnessed to both by the Law and by the Prophets, in all succeeding generations. Yet was it never so fully explained, nor so thoroughly understood till the great Author of it Himself condescended to give mankind this authentic comment on all the essential branches of it; at the same time declaring it should never be changed, but remain in force to the end of the world. II. 1. "For verily I say unto you," (a solemn preface, which denotes both the importance and certainty of what is spoken,) "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled."

"One jot:" -- It is literally, not one iota, not the most inconsiderable vowel: "Or one tittle," mia keraia, -- one corner, or point of a consonant. It is a proverbial expression which signifies that no one commandment contained in the moral law, nor the least part of any one, however inconsiderable it might seem, should ever be disannulled. "Shall in no wise pass from the law:" ou mh parelqh apo tou nomou. The double negative, here used, strengthens the sense, so as to admit of no contradiction: And the word parelqh, it may be observed, is not barely future, declaring what will be; but has likewise the force of an imperative, ordering what shall be. It is a word of authority, expressing the sovereign will and power of Him that spake; of Him whose word is the law of heaven and earth, and stands fast for ever and ever. "One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass till heaven and earth pass;" or as it is expressed immediately after, evs an panta genhtai, -- till all ( or rather, all things) be fulfilled, till the consummation of all things. Here is therefore no room for that poor evasion (with which some have delighted themselves greatly) that "no part of the law was to pass away till all the law was fulfilled: But it has been fulfilled by Christ, and therefore now must pass, for the gospel to be established." Not so; the word all does not mean all the law, but all things in the universe; as neither has the term fulfilled any reference to the law, but to all things in heaven and earth.

2. From all this we may learn, that there is no contrariety at all between the law and the gospel; that there is no need for the law to pass away, in order to the establishing of the gospel. Indeed neither of them supersedes the other, but they agree perfectly well together. Yea, the very same words, considered in different respects, are parts both of the law and of the gospel. If they are considered as commandments, they are parts of the law: if as promises, of the gospel. Thus, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart," when considered as a commandment, is a branch of the law; when regarded as a promise, is an essential part of the gospel; -- the gospel being no other than the commands of the law proposed by way of promises. Accordingly poverty of spirit, purity of heart, and whatever else is enjoined in the holy law of God, are no other, when viewed in a gospel light, than so many great and precious promises. 3. There is, therefore, the closest connexion that can be conceived between the law and the gospel. On the one hand, the law continually makes way for, and points us to the gospel; on the other, the gospel continually leads us to a more exact fulfilling of the law. The law, for instance, requires us to love God, to love our neighbour, to be meek, humble, or holy. We feel that we are not sufficient for these things; yea, that "with man this is impossible:" But we see a promise of God, to give us that love, and to make us humble, meek, and holy: We lay hold of this gospel, of these glad tidings; it is done unto us according to our faith; and "the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us," through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

We may yet farther observe, that every command in holy writ is only a covered promise. For by that solemn declaration, "This is the covenant I will make after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws in your minds, and write them in your hearts," God hath engaged to give whatsoever he commands. Does he command us then to "pray without ceasing" To "rejoice evermore" "To be holy as He is holy" It is enough. He will work in us this very thing. It shall be unto us according to his word. 4. But if these things are so, we cannot be at a loss what to think of those who in all ages of the Church, have undertaken to change or supersede some commands of God, as they professed, by the peculiar direction of his Spirit. Christ has here given us an infallible rule, whereby to judge of all such pretensions. Christianity, as it includes the whole moral law of God, both by way of injunction and of promise, if we will hear him is designed of God to be the last of all his dispensations. There is no other to come after this. This is to endure till the consummation of all things. Of consequence, all such new revelations are of Satan, and not of God; and all pretences to another more perfect dispensation fall to the ground of course. "Heaven and earth shall pass away;" but this word "shall not pass away." III. 1. "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

8. The most surprising of all the circumstances that attend this strong delusion, is, that they who are given up to it, really believe that they honour Christ by overthrowing his law, and that they are magnifying his office, while they are destroying his doctrine! Yea, they honour him just as Judas did, when he said, "Hail, Master!" and kissed him. And he may as justly say to every one of them, "Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss" It is no other than betraying him with a kiss, to talk of his blood, and take away his crown; to set light by any part of his law, under pretence of advancing his gospel. Nor, indeed, can anyone escape this charge, who preaches faith in any such manner as either directly or indirectly tends to set aside any branch of obedience; who preaches Christ so as to disannul, or weaken, in anywise, the least of the commandments of God.

Many of the Scribes were of the sect of the Pharisees. Thus St. Paul himself, who was educated for a Scribe, first at the university of Tarsus, and after that in Jerusalem, at the feet of Gamaliel, (one of the most learned Scribes or Doctors of the law that were then in the nation,) declares of himself before the Council, "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee;" (Acts 23:6;) and before King Agrippa, "After the straitest sect of our religion, I lived a Pharisee." (Acts 26:5.) And the whole body of the Scribes generally esteemed and acted in concert with the Pharisees. Hence we find our Saviour so frequently coupling them together, as coming in many respects under the same consideration. In this place they seem to be mentioned together as the most eminent professors of religion; the former of whom were accounted the wisest, -- the latter, the holiest of men. 3. What "the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees" really was, it is not difficult to determine. Our Lord has preserved an authentic account which one of them gave of himself: And he is clear and full in describing his own righteousness; and cannot be supposed to have omitted any part of it. He went up indeed "into the temple to pray;" but was so intent upon his own virtues, that he forgot the design upon which he came. For it is remarkable, he does not properly pray at all: He only tells God how wise and good he was. "God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers; or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week: I give tithes of all that I possess." His righteousness therefore consisted of three parts: First, saith he, "I am not as other men are;" I am not an extortioner, not unjust, not an adulterer; not "even as this publican." Secondly, "I fast twice in the week:" And, Thirdly, "I give tithes of all that I possess."

"I am not as other men are." This is not a small point. It is not every man that can say this. It is as if he had said, -- "I do not suffer myself to be carried away by that great torrent, custom. I live not by custom, but by reason; not by the examples of men, but the word of God. I am not an extortioner, not unjust, not an adulterer; however common these sins are, even among those who are called the people of God; (extortion, in particular, -- a kind of legal injustice, not punishable by any human law, the making gain of another's ignorance or necessity, having filled every corner of the land;) nor even as this publican, not guilty of any open or presumptuous sin; not an outward sinner; but a fair, honest man of blameless life and conversation." 4. "I fast twice in the week." There is more implied in this, than we may at first be sensible of. All the stricter Pharisees observed the weekly fasts; namely, every Monday and Thursday. On the former day they fasted in memory of Moses receiving on that day (as their tradition taught) the two tables of stone written by the finger of God; on the latter, in memory of his casting them out of his hand, when he saw the people dancing round the golden calf. On these days, they took no sustenance at all, till three in the afternoon; the hour at which they began to offer up the evening sacrifice in the temple. Till that hour, it was their custom to remain in the temple, in some of the corners, apartments, or courts thereof; that they might be ready to assist at all the sacrifices, and to join in all the public prayers. The time between they were accustomed to employ, partly in private addresses to God, partly in searching the Scriptures, in reading the Law and the Prophets, and in meditating thereon. Thus much is implied in, "I fast twice in the week;" the second branch of the righteousness of a Pharisee.

6. This was "the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees;" a righteousness which, in many respects, went far beyond the conception which many have been accustomed to entertain concerning it. But perhaps it will be said, "It was all false and feigned; for they were all a company of hypocrites." Some of them doubtless were; men who had really no religion at all, no fear of God, or desire to please him; who had no concern for the honour that cometh of God, but only for the praise of men. And these are they whom our Lord so severely condemns, so sharply reproves, on many occasions. But we must not suppose, because many Pharisees were hypocrites, therefore all were so. Nor indeed is hypocrisy by any means essential to the character of a Pharisee. This is not the distinguishing mark of their sect. It is rather this, according to our Lord's account, "They trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others." This is their genuine badge. But the Pharisee of this kind cannot be a hypocrite. He must be, in the common sense, sincere; otherwise he could not "trust in himself that he is righteous." The man who was here commending himself to God unquestionably thought himself righteous. Consequently, he was no hypocrite; he was not conscious to himself of any insincerity. He now spoke to God just what he thought, namely, that he was abundantly better than other men. But the example of St. Paul, were there no other, is sufficient to put this out of all question. He could not only say, when he was a Christian, "Herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward men;" (Acts 24:16;) but even concerning the time when he was a Pharisee, "Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day." (Acts 23:1) He was therefore sincere when he was a Pharisee, as well when he was a Christian. He was no more a hypocrite when he persecuted the Church, than when he preached the faith which once he persecuted. Let this then be added to "the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees," -- a sincere belief that they are righteous, and in all things "doing God service."

But to come closer. Can we use his first plea with God, which is, in substance, "I do no harm: I live in no outward sin. I do nothing for which my own heart condemns me." Do you not Are you sure of that Do you live in no practice for which your own heart condemns you If you are not an adulterer, if you are not unchaste, either in word or deed, are you not unjust The grand measure of justice, as well as of mercy, is, "Do unto others as thou wouldst they should do unto thee." Do you walk by this rule Do you never do unto any what you would not they should do unto you, Nay, are you not grossly unjust Are you not an extortioner Do you not make a gain of anyone's ignorance or necessity; neither in buying nor selling Suppose you are engaged in trade: Do you demand, do you receive, no more than the real value of what you sell Do you demand, do you receive, no more of the ignorant than of the knowing, -- of a little child, than of an experienced trader If you do, why does not your heart condemn you You are a barefaced extortioner! Do you demand no more than the usual price of goods of any who is in pressing want, -- who must have, and that without delay, the things which you only can furnish him with If you do, this also is flat extortion. Indeed you do not come up to the righteousness of a Pharisee.

8. A Pharisee, Secondly, (to express his sense in our common way,) used all the means of grace. As he fasted often and much, twice in every week, so he attended all the sacrifices. He was constant in public and private prayer, and in reading and hearing the Scriptures. Do you go as far as this Do you fast much and often -- twice in the week I fear not! Once, at least, "on all Fridays in the year" (So our Church clearly and peremptorily enjoins all her members to do; to observe all these as well as the vigils and the forty days of Lent, as days of fasting or abstinence.) Do you fast twice in the year I am afraid some among us cannot plead even this! Do you neglect no opportunity of attending and partaking of the Christian sacrifice How many are they who call themselves Christians, and yet are utterly regardless of it, -- yet do not eat of that bread, or drink of that cup, for months, perhaps years, together Do you, every day, either hear the Scriptures, or read them and meditate thereon Do you join in prayer with the great congregation, daily, if you have opportunity; if not, whenever you can; particularly on that day which you "remember to keep it holy" Do you strive to "make opportunities" Are you glad when they say unto you, "We will go into the house of the Lord" Are you zealous of, and diligent in, private prayer Do you suffer no day to pass without it Rather are not some of you so far from spending therein (with the Pharisee) several hours in one day that you think one hour full enough, if not too much Do you spend an hour in a day, or in a week, in praying to your Father which is in secret yea, an hour in a month Have you spent one hour together in private prayer ever since you was born Ah, poor Christian! Shall not the Pharisee rise up in the judgment against thee and condemn thee His righteousness is as far above thine, as the heaven is above the earth!

12. Whosoever therefore thou art, who bearest the holy and venerable name of a Christian, see, First, that thy righteousness fall not short of the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees. Be not thou "as other men are!" Dare to stand alone, to be "against example, singularly good." If thou "follow a multitude" at all, it must be "to do evil." Let not custom or fashion be thy guide, but reason and religion. The practice of others is nothing to thee: "Every man must give an account of himself to God." Indeed, if thou canst save the soul of another, do; but at least save one, -- thy own. Walk not in the path of death because it is broad, and many walk therein. Nay, by this very token thou mayst know it. Is the way wherein thou now walkest, a broad, well-frequented, fashionable way Then it infallibly leads to destruction. O be not thou "damned for company!" Cease from evil; fly from sin as from the face of a serpent! At least, do no harm. "He that committeth sin is of the devil." Be not thou found in that number. Touching outward sins, surely the grace of God is even now sufficient for thee. "Herein," at least, "exercise thyself to have a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men." Secondly. Let not thy righteousness fall short of theirs with regard to the ordinances of God. If thy labour or bodily strength will not allow of thy fasting twice in the week, however, deal faithfully with thy own soul, and fast as often as thy strength will permit. Omit no public, no private opportunity of pouring out thy soul in prayer. Neglect no occasion of eating that bread and drinking that cup which is the communion of the body and blood of Christ. Be diligent in searching the Scriptures: read as thou mayst, and meditate therein day and night. Rejoice to embrace every opportunity of hearing "the word of reconciliation" declared by the "ambassadors of Christ," the "stewards of the mysteries of God." In using all the means of grace, in a constant and careful attendance on every ordinance of God, live up to (at least till thou canst go beyond) "the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees."

Therefore should we "serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice unto him with reverence." Therefore should we think, speak, and act, as continually under the eye, in the immediate presence, of the Lord, the King. 7. "Hallowed be thy name." -- This is the first of the six petitions, whereof the prayer itself is composed. The name of God is God himself; the nature of God, so far as it can be discovered to man. It means, therefore, together with his existence, all his attributes or perfections; His Eternity, particularly signified by his great and incommunicable name, JEHOVAH, as the Apostle John translates it: to A kai to W, arch kai telos, o vn kai o hn kai o ercomenos, -- "the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end; He which is, and which was, and which is to come;" -- His Fullness of Being, denoted by his other great name, I AM THAT I AM! -- His omnipresence; -- His omnipotence; who is indeed the only Agent in the material world; all matter being essentially dull and inactive, and moving only as it is moved by the finger of God; and he is the spring of action in every creature, visible and invisible, which could neither act nor exist, without the continual influx and agency of his almighty power; -- His wisdom, clearly deduced from the things that are seen, from the goodly order of the universe; -- His Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity, discovered to us in the very first line of his written word; bara' 'elohim -- literally, the Gods created, a plural noun joined with a verb of the singular number; as well as in every part of his subsequent revelations, given by the mouth of all his holy Prophets and Apostles; -- His essential purity and holiness; -- and, above all, his love, which is the very brightness of his glory. In praying that God, or his name, may "be hallowed" or glorified, we pray that he may be known, such as he is, by all that are capable thereof, by all intelligent beings, and with affections suitable to that knowledge; that he may be duly honoured, and feared, and loved, by all in heaven above and in the earth beneath; by all angels and men, whom for that end he has made capable of knowing and loving him to eternity.

How is it done by the angels of God in heaven, -- those who now circle his throne rejoicing They do it willingly; they love his commandments, and gladly hearken to his words. It is their meat and drink to do his will; it is their highest glory and joy. They do it continually; there is no interruption in their willing service. They rest not day nor night, but employ every hour (speaking after the manner of men; otherwise our measures of duration, days, and nights, and hours, have no place in eternity) in fulfilling his commands, in executing his designs, in performing the counsel of his will. And they do it perfectly. No sin, no defect belongs to angelic minds. It is true, "the stars are not pure in his sight," even the morning-stars that sing together before him. "In his sight," that is, in comparison of Him, the very angels are not pure. But this does not imply, that they are not pure in themselves. Doubtless they are; they are without spot and blameless. They are altogether devoted to his will, and perfectly obedient in all things. If we view this in another light, we may observe, the angels of God in heaven do all the will of God. And they do nothing else, nothing but what they are absolutely assured is his will. Again they do all the will of God as he willeth; in the manner which pleases him, and no other. Yea, and they do this, only because it is his will; for this end, and no other reason. 10. When therefore we pray, that the will of God may "be done in earth as it is in heaven," the meaning is, that all the inhabitants of the earth, even the whole race of mankind, may do the will of their Father which is in heaven, as willingly as the holy angels; that these may do it continually, even as they, without any interruption of their willing service; yea, and that they may do it perfectly, -- that "the God of peace, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, may make them perfect in every good work to do his will, and work in them all "which is well-pleasing in his sight."

12. "Give us:" -- For we claim nothing of right, but only of free mercy. We deserve not the air we breathe, the earth that bears, or the sun that shines upon, us. All our desert, we own, is hell: But God loves us freely; therefore, we ask him to give, what we can no more procure for ourselves, than we can merit it at his hands. Not that either the goodness or the power of God is a reason for us to stand idle. It is his will that we should use all diligence in all things, that we should employ our utmost endeavours, as much as if our success were the natural effect of our own wisdom and strength: And then, as though we had done nothing, we are to depend on Him, the giver of every good and perfect gift. "This day:" -- For we are to take no thought for the morrow. For this very end has our wise Creator divided life into these little portions of time, so clearly separated from each other, that we might look on every day as a fresh gift of God, another life, which we may devote to his glory; and that every evening may be as the close of life, beyond which we are to see nothing but eternity. 13. "And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us." -- As nothing but sin can hinder the bounty of God from flowing forth upon every creature, so this petition naturally follows the former; that, all hinderances being removed, we may the more clearly trust in the God of love for every manner of thing which is good. "Our trespasses:" -- The word properly signifies our debts. Thus our sins are frequently represented in Scripture; every sin laying us under a fresh debt to God, to whom we already owe, as it were, ten thousand talents. What then can we answer when he shall say, "Pay me that thou owest" We are utterly insolvent; we have nothing to pay; we have wasted all our substance. Therefore, if he deal with us according to the rigour of his law, if he exact what he justly may, he must command us to be "bound hand and foot, and delivered over to the tormentors."

15. "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." --"[And] lead us not into temptation." The word translated temptation means trial of any kind. And so the English word temptation was formerly taken in an indifferent sense, although now it is usually understood of solicitation to sin. St. James uses the word in both these senses; first, in its general, then in its restrained, acceptation. He takes it in the former sense when he saith, "Blessed is the man that endureth temptation; For when he is tried," or approved of God, "he shall receive the crown of life." (James 1:12, 13.) He immediately adds, taking the word in the latter sense, "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust," or desire, exelkomenos, drawn out of God, in whom alone he is safe, -- "and enticed;" caught as a fish with a bait. Then it is, when he is thus drawn away and enticed, that he properly "enters into temptation." Then temptation covers him as a cloud; it overspreads his whole soul. Then how hardly shall he escape out of the snare! Therefore, we beseech God "not to lead us into temptation," that is, (seeing God tempteth no man,) not to suffer us to be led into it. "But deliver us from evil:" Rather "from the evil one,"; apo tou ponhrou. O ponhros is unquestionably the wicked one, emphatically so called, the prince and god of this world, who works with mighty power in the children of disobedience. But all those who are the children of God by faith are delivered out of his hands. He may fight against them; and so he will. But he cannot conquer, unless they betray their own souls. He may torment for a time, but he cannot destroy; for God is on their side, who will not fail, in the end, to "avenge his own elect, that cry unto him day and night." Lord, when we are tempted, suffer us not to enter into temptation! Do thou make a way for us to escape, that the wicked one touch us not!

3. In the same manner have the end and the means of religion been set at variance with each other. Some well-meaning men have seemed to place all religion in attending the Prayers of the Church, in receiving the Lord's supper, in hearing sermons, and reading books of piety; neglecting, mean time, the end of all these, the love of God and their neighbour. And this very thing has confirmed others in the neglect, if not contempt, of the ordinances of God, -- so wretchedly abused to undermine and overthrow the very end they were designed to establish. 4. But of all the means of grace there is scarce any concerning which men have run into greater extremes, than that of which our Lord speaks in the above-mentioned words, I mean religious fasting. How have some exalted this beyond all Scripture and reason; -- and others utterly disregarded it; as it were revenging themselves by undervaluing as much as the former had overvalued it! Those have spoken of it, as if it were all in all; if not the end itself, yet infallibly connected with it: These, as if it were just nothing, as if it were a fruitless labour, which had no relation at all thereto. Whereas it is certain the truth lies between them both. It is not all, nor yet is it nothing. It is not the end, but it is a precious means thereto; a means which God himself has ordained, and in which therefore, when it is duly used, he will surely give us his blessing. In order to set this in the clearest light, I shall endeavour to show, First, what is the nature of fasting, and what the several sorts and degrees thereof: Secondly, what are the reasons, grounds, and ends of it: Thirdly, how we may answer the most plausible objections against it: And Fourthly, in what manner it should be performed.

3. As to the degrees or measures of fasting, we have instances of some who have fasted several days together. So Moses, Elijah, and our blessed Lord, being endued with supernatural strength for that purpose, are recorded to have fasted, without intermission, "forty days and forty nights." But the time of fasting, more frequently mentioned in Scripture, is one day, from morning till evening. And this was the fast commonly observed among the ancient Christians. But beside these, they had also their half-fasts (Semijejunia, as Tertullian styles them) on the fourth and sixth days of the week, (Wednesday and Friday,) throughout the year; on which they took no sustenance till three in the afternoon, the time when they returned from the public service. 4. Nearly related to this, is what our Church seems peculiarly to mean by the term abstinence; which may be used when we cannot fast entirely, by reason of sickness or bodily weakness. This is the eating little; the abstaining in part; the taking a smaller quantity of food than usual. I do not remember any scriptural instance of this. But neither can I condemn it; for the Scripture does not. It may have its use, and receive a blessing from God. 5. The lowest kind of fasting, if it can be called by that name, is the abstaining from pleasant food. Of this, we have several instances in Scripture, besides that of Daniel and his brethren, who from a peculiar consideration, namely, that they might "not defile themselves with the portion of the King's meat, nor with the wine which he drank," (a daily provision of which the King had appointed for them,) requested and obtained, of the prince of the eunuchs, pulse to eat and water to drink. (Daniel 1:8, &c.) Perhaps from a mistaken imitation of this might spring the very ancient custom of abstaining from flesh and wine during such times as were set apart for fasting and abstinence; -- if it did not rather arise from a supposition that these were the most pleasant food, and a belief that it was proper to use what was least pleasing at those times of solemn approach to God.

5. Perhaps we need not altogether omit (although I know not if we should do well to lay any great stress upon it) another reason for fasting, which some good men have largely insisted on; namely, the punishing themselves for having abused the good gifts of God, by sometimes wholly refraining from them; thus exercising a kind of holy revenge upon themselves, for their past folly and ingratitude, in turning the things which should have been for their health into an occasion of falling. They suppose David to have had an eye to this, when he said, "I wept and chastened," or punished, "my soul with fasting;" and St. Paul, when he mentions "what revenge" godly sorrow occasioned in the Corinthians. 6. A Fifth and more weighty reason for fasting is, that it is an help to prayer; particularly when we set apart larger portions of time for private prayer. Then especially it is that God is often pleased to lift up the souls of his servants above all the things of earth, and sometimes to rap them up, as it were, into the third heavens. And it is chiefly, as it is an help to prayer, that it has so frequently been found a means, in the hand of God, of confirming and increasing, not one virtue, not chastity only, (as some have idly imagined, without any ground either from Scripture, reason, or experience,) but also seriousness of spirit, earnestness, sensibility and tenderness of conscience, deadness to the world, and consequently the love of God, and every holy and heavenly affection. 7. Not that there is any natural or necessary connexion between fasting, and the blessings God conveys thereby. But he will have mercy as he will have mercy; he will convey whatsoever seemeth him good by whatsoever means he is pleased to appoint. And he hath, in all ages, appointed this to be a means of averting his wrath, and obtaining whatever blessings we, from time to time, stand in need of.

Yea, that blessings are to be obtained in the use of this means, which are no otherwise attainable, our Lord expressly declares in his answer to his disciples, asking, "Why could not we cast him out Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: For verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard-seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. Howbeit, this kind" of devils "goeth not out but by prayer and fasting:" (Matt. 17:19, &c.:) -- These being the appointed means of attaining that faith whereby the very devils are subject unto you. 11. These were the appointed means: For it was not merely by the light of reason, or of natural conscience, as it is called, that the people of God have been, in all ages, directed to use fasting as a means to these ends; but they have been, from time to time, taught it of God himself, by clear and open revelations of his will. Such is that remarkable one by the Prophet Joel: "Therefore saith the Lord, Turn you to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning: -- Who knoweth if he will return and repent, and leave a blessing behind him Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly: -- Then will the Lord be jealous over his land, and will pity his people. Yea, I will send you corn, and wine, and oil: -- I will no more make you a reproach among the Heathen." (Joel 2.12. &c.)

III. 1. The most plausible of these I come now to consider. And, First, it has been frequently said, "Let a Christian fast from sin, and not from food: This is what God requires at his hands." So he does; but he requires the other also. Therefore this ought to be done, and that not left undone. View your argument in its full dimensions; and you will easily judge of the strength of it: -- If a Christian ought to abstain from sin, then he ought not to abstain from food: But a Christian ought to abstain from sin. Therefore he ought not to abstain from food. That a Christian ought to abstain from sin, is most true; but how does it follow from hence that he ought not to abstain from food Yea, let him do both the one and the other. Let him, by the grace of God, always abstain from sin; and let him often abstain from food, for such reasons and ends as experience and Scripture plainly show to be answered thereby. 2. "But is it not better" (as it has, Secondly, been objected) "to abstain from pride and vanity, from foolish and hurtful desires, from peevishness, and anger, and discontent, than from food" Without question, it is. But here again we have need to remind you of our Lord's words: "These things ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." And, indeed, the latter is only in order to the former; it is a means to that great end. We abstain from food with this view, -- that, by the grace of God conveyed into our souls through this outward means, in conjunction with all the other channels of his grace which he hath appointed, we may be enabled to abstain from every passion and temper which is not pleasing in his sight. We refrain from the one, that, being endued with power from on high, we may be able to refrain from the other. So that your argument proves just the contrary to what you designed. It proves that we ought to fast. For if we ought to abstain from evil tempers and desires, then we ought thus to abstain from food; since these little instances of self-denial are the ways God hath chose, wherein to bestow that great salvation.

5. "But if fasting be indeed of so great importance, and attended with such a blessing, is it not best," say some, Fifthly, "to fast always not to do it now and then, but to keep a continual fast to use as much abstinence, at all times, as our bodily strength will bear" Let none be discouraged from doing this. By all means use as little and plain food, exercise as much self-denial herein, at all times, as your bodily strength will bear. And this may conduce, by the blessing of God, to several of the great ends above-mentioned. It may be a considerable help, not only to chastity, but also to heavenly-mindedness; to the weaning your affections from things below, and setting them on things above. But this is not fasting, scriptural fasting; it is never termed so in all the Bible. It, in some measure, answers some of the ends thereof; but still it is another thing. Practise it by all means; but not so as thereby to set aside a command of God, and an instituted means of averting his judgments, and obtaining the blessings of his children. 6. Use continually then as much abstinence as you please; which, taken thus, is no other than Christian temperance; but this need not at all interfere with your observing solemn times of fasting and prayer. For instance: Your habitual abstinence or temperance would not prevent your fasting in secret, if you were suddenly overwhelmed with huge sorrow and remorse, and with horrible fear and dismay. Such a situation of mind would almost constrain you to fast; you would loathe your daily food; you would scarce endure even to take such supplies as were needful for the body, till God "lifted you up out of the horrible pit, and set your feet upon a rock, and ordered your goings." The same would be the case if you were in agony of desire, vehemently wrestling with God for his blessing. You would need none to instruct you not to eat bread till you had obtained the request of your lips.

3. Not that we are to imagine, the performing the bare outward act will receive any blessing from God. "Is it such a fast that I have chosen, saith the Lord; a day for a man to afflict his soul Is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him" Are these outward acts, however strictly performed, all that is meant by a man's "afflicting his soul" -- "Wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the Lord" No, surely: If it be a mere external service, it is all but lost labour. Such a performance may possibly afflict the body; but as to the soul, it profiteth nothing. 4. Yea, the body may sometimes be afflicted too much, so as to be unfit for the works of our calling. This also we are diligently to guard against; for we ought to preserve our health, as a good gift of God. Therefore care is to be taken, whenever we fast, to proportion the fast to our strength. For we may not offer God murder for sacrifice, or destroy our bodies to help our souls. But at these solemn seasons, we may, even in great weakness of body, avoid that other extreme, for which God condemns those who of old expostulated with him for not accepting their fasts. "Wherefore have we fasted, say they, and thou seest not -- Behold, in the day of your fast you find pleasure, saith the Lord." If we cannot wholly abstain from food, we may, at least, abstain from pleasant food; and then we shall not seek his face in vain.

2. This our blessed Lord declares in the liveliest manner in those strong and comprehensive words which he explains, enforces, and enlarges upon, throughout this whole chapter. "The light of the body is the eye: If therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light: but if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness." The eye is the intention: what the eye is to the body, the intention is to the soul. As the one guides all the motions of the body, so does the other those of the soul. This eye of the soul is then said to be single when it looks at one thing only; when we have no other design but to "know God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent," -- to know him with suitable affections, loving him as he hath loved us; to please God in all things; to serve God (as we love him) with all our heart and mind and Soul and strength; and to enjoy God in all and above all things, in time and in eternity. 3. "If thine eye be" thus "single," thus fixed on God, "thy whole body shall be full of light." "Thy whole body:" -- all that is guided by the intention, as the body is by the eye. All thou art, all thou doest thy desires, tempers, affections; thy thoughts, and words, and actions. The whole of these "shall be full of light;" full of true divine knowledge. This is the first thing we may here understand by light. "In his light thou shalt see light." "He which of old commanded light to shine out of darkness, shall shine in thy heart:" He shall enlighten the eyes of thy understanding with the knowledge of the glory of God. His Spirit shall reveal unto thee the deep things of God. The inspiration of the Holy One shall give thee understanding, and cause thee to know wisdom secretly. Yea, the anointing which thou receivest of him "shall abide in thee and teach thee of all things."

It might as well be still hid in its original Greek for any notice they take of it. In what Christian city do you find one man of five hundred who makes the least scruple of laying up just as much treasure as he can -- of increasing his goods just as far as he is able There are indeed those who would not do this unjustly; there are many who will neither rob nor steal; and some who will not defraud their neighbour; nay, who will not gain either by his ignorance or necessity. But this is quite another point. Even these do not scruple the thing, but the manner of it. They do not scruple the "laying up treasures upon earth," but the laying them up by dishonesty. They do not start at disobeying Christ, but at a breach of heathen morality. So that even these honest men do no more obey this command than a highwayman or a house-breaker. Nay, they never designed to obey it. From their youth up it never entered into their thoughts. They were bred up by their Christian parents, masters, and friends, without any instruction at all concerning it; unless it were this, -- to break it as soon and as much as they could, and to continue breaking it to their lives' end. 10. There is no one instance of spiritual infatuation in the world which is more amazing than this. Most of these very men read or hear the Bible read, -- many of them every Lord's day. They have read or heard these words an hundred times, and yet never suspect that they are themselves condemned thereby, any more than by those which forbid parents to offer up their sons or daughters unto Moloch. O that God would speak to these miserable self-deceivers with his own voice, his mighty voice! That they may at last awake out of the snare of the devil, and the scales may fall from their eyes! 11. Do you ask what it is to "lay up treasures on earth" It will be needful to examine this thoroughly. And let us, First, observe what is not forbidden in this command, that we may then clearly discern what is.

We are not forbidden in this command, First, to "provide things honest in the sight of all men," to provide wherewith we may render unto all their due, -- whatsoever they can justly demand of us. So far from it that we are taught of God to "owe no man anything." We ought therefore to use all diligence in our calling, in order to owe no man anything: this being no other than a plain law of common justice which our Lord came "not to destroy but to fulfil." Neither, Secondly, does he here forbid the providing for ourselves such things as are needful for the body; a sufficiency of plain, wholesome food to eat, and clean raiment to put on. Yea, it is our duty, so far as God puts it into our power, to provide these things also; to the end we may "eat our own bread," and be burdensome to no man. Nor yet are we forbidden, Thirdly, to provide for our children, and for those of our own household. This also it is our duty to do, even upon principles of heathen morality. Every man ought to provide the plain necessaries of life both for his own wife and children, and to put them into a capacity of providing these for themselves when he is gone hence and is no more seen. I say, of providing these, the plain necessaries of life; not delicacies, not superfluities; -- and that by their diligent labour; for it is no man's duty to furnish them any more than himself with the means either Of luxury or idleness. But if any man provides not thus far for his own children (as well as for the widows of his own house, of whom primarily St. Paul is speaking in those well-known words to Timothy), he hath practically "denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel," or Heathen.

17. And if it should be that one of these, by the mighty power of God, awoke and asked, "What must I do to be saved" the answer, according to the oracles of God, is clear, full, and express. God doth not say to thee, "Sell all that thou hast." Indeed he who seeth the hearts of men saw it needful to enjoin this in one peculiar case, that of the young, rich ruler. But he never laid it down for a general rule to all rich men, in all succeeding generations. His general direction is, first, "Be not high minded." God seeth not as man seeth." He esteems thee not for thy riches, grandeur or equipage, for any qualification or accomplishment which is directly or indirectly owing to thy wealth, which can be bought or procured thereby. All these are with him as dung and dross: let them be so with thee also. Beware thou think not thyself to be one jot wiser or better for all these things. Weigh thyself in another balance: estimate thyself only by the measure of faith and love which God hath given thee. If thou hast more of the knowledge and love of God than he, thou art on this account, and no other, wiser and better, more valuable and honourable than him who is with the dogs of thy flock. But if thou hast not this treasure those art more foolish, more vile, more truly contemptible, I will not say, than the lowest servant under thy roof, but than the beggar laid at thy gate, full of sores. 18. Secondly. "Trust not in uncertain riches." Trust not in them for help: And trust not in them for happiness.

First. Trust not in them for help. Thou art miserably mistaken if thou lookest for this in gold or silver. These are no more able to set thee above the world than to set thee above the devil. Know that both the world, and the prince of this world, laugh at all such preparations against them. These will little avail in the day of trouble-even if they remain in the trying hour. But it is not certain that they will; for how oft do they "make themselves wings and fly away!" But if not, what support will they afford, even in the ordinary troubles of life The desire of thy eyes, the wife of thy youth, thy son, thine only son, or the friend which was as thy own soul, is taken away at a stroke. Will thy riches re-animate the breathless clay, or call back its late inhabitant Will they secure thee from sickness, diseases, pain Do these visit the poor only Nay, he that feeds thy flocks or tills thy ground has less sickness and pain than thou. He is more rarely visited by these unwelcome guests: and if they come there at all they are more easily driven away from the little cot than from the "cloud-topt palaces." And during the time that thy body is chastened with pain, or consumes away with pining sickness, how do thy treasures help thee Let the poor Heathen answer, -- Ut lippum pictae tabulae, fomenta podugrum Auriculas citharae collecta sorde dolentes. [Such help as pictures to sore eyes afford, As heap'd-up tables to their gouty lord.]

20. And trust not in them for happiness: For here also they will be found "deceitful upon the weights." Indeed this every reasonable man may infer from what has been observed already. For if neither thousands of gold and silver, nor any of the advantages or pleasures purchased thereby, can prevent our being miserable, it evidently follows they cannot make us happy. What happiness can they afford to him who in the midst of all is constrained to cry out, To my new coutst sad thougth deos still repair, And round my gilded roofs hangs hovering care Indeed experience is here so full, strong, and undeniable, that it makes all other arguments needless. Appeal we therefore to fact. Are the rich and great the only happy men And is each of them more or less happy in proportion to his measure of riches Are they happy at all I had well nigh said, they are of all men most miserable! Rich man, for once, speak the truth from thy heart. Speak, both for thyself, and for thy brethren! Amidst our plenty something still,- To me, to thee, to him is wanting! That cruel something unpossessed Corrodes and leavens all the rest. Yea, and so it will, till thy wearisome days of vanity are shut up in the night of death. Surely then, to trust in riches for happiness is the greatest folly of all that are under the sun! Are you not convinced of this Is it possible you should still expect to find happiness in money or all it can procure What! Can silver and gold, and eating and drinking, and horses and servants, and glittering apparel, and diversions and pleasures (as they are called) make thee happy They can as soon make thee immortal!

21. These are all dead show. Regard them not. Trust thou in the living God; so shalt thou be safe under the shadow of the Almighty; his faithfulness and truth shall be thy shield and buckler. He is a very present help in time of trouble such an help as can never fail. Then shalt thou say, if all thy other friends die, "The Lord liveth, and blessed be my strong helper!" He shall remember thee when thou liest sick upon thy bed; when vain is the help of man. When all the things of earth can give no support, he will "make all thy bed in thy sickness." He will sweeten thy pain; the consolations of God shall cause thee to clap thy hands in the flames. And even when this house of earth" is well nigh shaken down, when it is just ready to drop into the dust, he will teach thee to say, "O death, where is thy sting O grave, where is thy victory Thanks be unto God, who giveth" me "the victory, through" my "Lord Jesus Christ." O trust in Him for happiness as well as for help. All the springs of happiness are in him. Trust in him "who giveth us all things richly to enjoy," pareconti plousivs panta eis apolausin.-- who, of his own rich and free mercy holds them out to us as in his own hand, that receiving them as his gift, and as pledges of his love, we may enjoy all that we possess. It is his love gives a relish to all we taste, -- puts life and sweetness into all, while every creature leads us up to the great Creator, and all earth is a scale to heaven. He transfuses the joys that are at his own right hand into all he bestows on his thankful children; who, having fellowship with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ, enjoy him in all and above all.

26. The true way of employing what you do not want yourselves you may, Fourthly, learn from those words of our Lord which are the counterpart of what went before: "Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven; where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through and steal." Put out whatever thou canst spare upon better security than this world can afford. Lay up thy treasures in the bank of heaven; and God shall restore them in that day. "He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord, and look, what he layeth out, it shall be paid him again." "Place that," saith he, "unto my account. Howbeit, thou owest me thine own self besides!" Give to the poor with a single eye, with an upright heart, and write, "So much given to God." For "Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." This is the part of a "faithful and wise steward:" Not to sell either his houses or lands, or principal stock, be it more or less, unless some peculiar circumstance should require it; and not to desire or endeavour to increase it, any more than to squander it away in vanity; but to employ it wholly to those wise and reasonable purposes for which his Lord has lodged it in his hands. The wise steward, after having provided his own household with what is needful for life and godliness, makes himself friends with all that remains from time to time of the "mammon of unrighteousness; that when he fails they may receive him into everlasting habitations," -- that whensoever his earthly tabernacle is dissolved, they who were before carried into Abraham's bosom, after having eaten his bread, and worn the fleece of his flock., and praised God for the consolation, may welcome him into paradise, and to "the house of God, eternal in the heavens."

And thus to believe in God implies, to trust in him as our strength, without whom we can do nothing, who every moment endues us with power from on high, without which it is impossible to please him; as our help, our only help in time of trouble, who compasseth us about with songs of deliverance; as our shield, our defender, and the lifter up of our head above all our enemies that are round about us. It implies, to trust in God as our happiness; as the centre of spirits; the only rest of our souls; the only good who is adequate to all our capacities, and sufficient to satisfy all the desires he hath given us. It implies, (what is nearly allied to the other,) to trust in God as our end; to have an eye to him in all things; to use all things only as means of enjoying him; wheresoever we are, or whatsoever we do, to see him that is invisible, looking on us well-pleased, and to refer all things to him in Christ Jesus. 5. Thus to believe, is the First thing we are to understand by serving God. The Second is, to love him. Now to love God in the manner the Scripture describes, in the manner God himself requires of us, and by requiring engages to work in us, -- is to love him as the ONE GOD; that is, "with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our mind, and with all our strength;" -- it is to desire God alone for his own sake; and nothing else, but with reference to him; -- to rejoice in God; -- to delight in the Lord; not only to seek, but find, happiness in him; to enjoy God as the chiefest among ten thousand; to rest in him, as our God and our all; -- in a word, to have such a possession of God as makes us always happy. 6. A Third thing we are to understand by serving God is to resemble or imitate him. So the ancient Father: Optimus Dei cultus, imitari quem colis: "It is the best worship or service of God, to imitate him you worship."

15. Therefore, "thou shalt worship the Lord thy God; and him only shalt thou serve." Thou shalt lay aside all thoughts of obeying two masters, of serving God and mammon. Thou shalt propose to thyself no end, no help, no happiness, but God. Thou shalt seek nothing in earth or heaven but him: Thou shalt aim at nothing, but to know, to love, and enjoy him. And because this is all your business below, the only view you can reasonably have, the one design you are to pursue in all things, -- "Therefore I say unto you," (as our Lord continues his discourse,) "Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on:" -- A deep and weighty direction, which it imports us well to consider and thoroughly to understand. 16. Our Lord does not here require, that we should be utterly without thought, even touching the concerns of this life. A giddy, careless temper is at the farthest remove from the whole religion of Jesus Christ. Neither does he require us to be "slothful in business," to be slack and dilatory therein. This, likewise, is contrary to the whole spirit and genius of his religion. A Christian abhors sloth as much as drunkenness; and flees from idleness as he does from adultery. He well knows, that there is one kind of thought and care with which God is well pleased; which is absolutely needful for the due performance of those outward works unto which the providence of God has called him. It is the will of God, that every man should labour to eat his own bread; yea, and that every man should provide for his own, for them of his own household. It is likewise his will, that we should "owe no man anything, but provide things honest in the sight of all men." But this cannot be done without taking some thought, without having some care upon our minds; yea, often, not without long and serious thought, not without much and earnest care. Consequently this care, to provide for ourselves and our household, this thought how to render to all their dues, our blessed Lord does not condemn. Yea, it is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour.

It is good and acceptable to God, that we should so take thought concerning whatever we have in hand, as to have a clear comprehension of what we are about to do, and to plan our business before we enter upon it. And it is right that we should carefully consider, from time to time, what steps we are to take therein; as well as that we should prepare all things beforehand, for the carrying it on in the most effectual manner. This care, termed by some, "the care of the head," it was by no means our Lord's design to condemn. 17. What he here condemns is, the care of the heart; the anxious, uneasy care; the care that hath torment; all such care as does hurt, either to the soul or body. What he forbids is, that care which, sad experience shows, wastes the blood and drinks up the spirits; which anticipates all the misery it fears, and comes to torment us before the time. He forbids only that care which poisons the blessings of to-day, by fear of what may be to-morrow; which cannot enjoy the present plenty, through apprehensions of future want. This care is not only a sore disease, a grievous sickness of soul, but also an heinous offence against God, a sin of the deepest dye. It is a high affront to the gracious Governor and wise Disposer of all things; necessarily implying, that the great Judge does not do right; that he does not order all things well. It plainly implies, that he is wanting, either in wisdom, if he does not know what things we stand in need of; or in goodness, if he does not provide those things for all who put their trust in him. Beware, therefore, that you take not thought in this sense: Be ye anxiously careful for nothing. Take no uneasy thought: This is a plain, sure rule, Uneasy care is unlawful care. With a single eye to God, do all that in you lies to provide things honest in the sight of all men. And then give up all into better hands; leave the whole event to God.

"His righteousness:" -- This is all his righteousness still: It is his own free gift to us, for the sake of Jesus Christ the righteous, through whom alone it is purchased for us. And it is his work; it is He alone that worketh it in us, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. 21. Perhaps the well observing this may give light to some other scriptures, which we have not always so clearly understood. St. Paul, speaking in his Epistle to the Romans concerning the unbelieving Jews, saith, "They, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." I believe this may be one sense of the words: They were "ignorant of God's righteousness," not only of the righteousness of Christ, imputed to every believer, whereby all his sins are blotted out, and he is reconciled to the favour of God: But (which seems here to be more immediately understood) they were ignorant of that inward righteousness, of that holiness of heart, which is with the utmost propriety termed God's righteousness; as being both his own free gift through Christ, and his own work, by his almighty Spirit. And because they were "ignorant" of this, they "went about to establish their own righteousness." They laboured to establish that outside righteousness which might very properly be termed their own. For neither was it wrought by the Spirit of God, nor was it owned or accepted of him. They might work this themselves, by their own natural strength; and when they had done, it was a stink in his nostrils. And yet, trusting in this, they would "not submit themselves unto the righteousness of God." Yea, they hardened themselves against that faith whereby alone it was possible to attain it. "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth." Christ, when he said, "It is finished!" put an end to that law, -- to the law of external rites and ceremonies, that he might bring in a better righteousness through his blood, by that one oblation of himself once offered, even the image of God, into the inmost soul of everyone that believeth.

22. Nearly related to these are those words of the Apostle, in his Epistle to the Philippians: "I count all things but dung that I may win Christ;" an entrance into his everlasting kingdom; "and be found in him," believing in him, "not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." -- "Not having my own righteousness, which is of the law;" a barely external righteousness, the outside religion I formerly had, when I hoped to be accepted of God because I was, "touching the righteousness which is of the law, blameless;" -- "but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith;" [Phil. 3:8-9] that holiness of heart, that renewal of the soul in all its desires, tempers, and affections, "which is of God," (it is the work of God, and not of man,) "by faith;" through the faith of Christ, through the revelation of Jesus Christ in us, and by faith in his blood; whereby alone we obtain the remission of our sins, and an inheritance among those that are sanctified. 23. "Seek ye first" this "kingdom of God" in your hearts; this righteousness, which is the gift and work of God, the image of God renewed in your souls; "and all these things shall be added unto you;" all things needful for the body; such a measure of all as God sees most for the advancement of his kingdom. These shall be added, -- they shall be thrown in, over and above. In seeking the peace and the love of God, you shall not only find what you more immediately seek, even the kingdom that cannot be moved; but also what you seek not, -- not at all for its own sake, but only in reference to the other. You shall find in your way to the kingdom, all outward things, so far as they are expedient for you. This care God hath taken upon himself: Cast you all your care upon Him. He knoweth your wants; and whatsoever is lacking he will not fail to supply.

24. "Therefore take no thought for the morrow." Not only, take ye no thought how to lay up treasures on earth, how to increase in worldly substance; take no thought how to procure more food than you can eat, or more raiment than you can put on, or more money than is required from day to day for the plain, reasonable purposes of life; -- but take no uneasy thought, even concerning those things which are absolutely needful for the body. Do not trouble yourself now, with thinking what you shall do at a season which is yet afar off. Perhaps that season will never come; or it will be no concern of yours; -- before then you will have passed through all the waves, and be landed in eternity. All those distant views do not belong to you, who are but a creature of a day. Nay, what have you to do with the morrow, more strictly speaking Why should you perplex yourself without need God provides for you to-day what is needful to sustain the life which he hath given you. It is enough: Give yourself up into his hands. If you live another day, he will provide for that also. 25. Above all, do not make the care of future things a pretence for neglecting present duty. This is the most fatal way of "taking thought for the morrow." And how common is it among men! Many, if we exhort them to keep a conscience void of offence, to abstain from what they are convinced is evil, do not scruple to reply, "How then must we live Must we not take care of ourselves and of our families" And this they imagine to be a sufficient reason for continuing in known, wilful sin. They say, and perhaps think, they would serve God now, were it not that they should, by and by, lose their bread. They would prepare for eternity; but they are afraid of wanting the necessaries of life. So they serve the devil for a morsel of bread; they rush into hell for fear of want; they throw away their poor souls, lest they should, some time or other, fall short of what is needful for their bodies!

Or perhaps you are now in heaviness of soul: God, as it were, hides his face from you. You see little of the light of his countenance: You cannot taste his redeeming love. In such a temper of mind, how natural is it to say, "O how I will praise God, when the light of his countenance shall be again lifted up upon my soul! How will I exhort others to praise him, when his love is again shed abroad in my heart! Then I will do thus and thus: I will speak for God in all places: I will not be ashamed of the gospel of Christ. Then I will redeem the time: I will use to the uttermost every talent I have received." Do not believe thyself. Thou wilt not do it then, unless thou doest it now. "He that is faithful in that which is little," of whatsoever kind it be, whether it be worldly substance, or the fear or love of God, "will be faithful in that which is much." But if thou now hidest one talent in the earth, thou wilt then hide five: That is, if ever they are given; but there is small reason to expect they ever will. Indeed "unto him that hath," that is, uses what he hath, "shall be given, and he shall have more abundantly. But from him that hath not," that is, uses not the grace which he hath already received, whether in a larger or smaller degree, "shall be taken away even that which he hath."

27. And take no thought for the temptations of to-morrow. This also is a dangerous snare. Think not, "When such a temptation comes, what shall I do how shall I stand I feel I have not power to resist. I am not able to conquer that enemy." Most true: You have not now the power which you do not now stand in need of. You are not able at this time to conquer that enemy; and at this time he does not assault you. With the grace you have now, you could not withstand the temptations which you have not. But when the temptation comes, the grace will come. In greater trials you will have greater strength. When sufferings abound, the consolations of God will, in the same proportion, abound also. So that, in every situation, the grace of God will be sufficient for you. He doth not suffer you "to be tempted" to-day "above that ye are able to bear;" and "in every temptation he will make a way to escape." "As thy days, so thy strength shall be."

Upon Our Lord's Sermon On The Mount: Discourse Ten "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine; lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For everyone that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh, findeth; and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, who, if his son ask bread, will give him a stone Or if he ask a fish, will give him a serpent If ye, then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good gifts to them that ask him Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." Matt. 7:1-12. 1. Our blessed Lord, having now finished his main design, having first delivered the sum of true religion, carefully guarded against those glosses of men whereby they would make the Word of God of none effect; and having, next, laid down rules touching that right intention which we are to preserve in all our outward actions, now proceeds to point out the main hindrances of this religion, and concludes all with a suitable application.

Only use the world, but enjoy God. Seek all thy happiness in him! Above all, cast out the grand beam, that supine carelessness and indifference! Deeply consider, that "one thing is needful;" the one thing which thou hast scarce ever thought of. Know and feel, that thou art a poor, vile, guilty worm, quivering over the great gulf! What art thou A sinner born to die; a leaf driven before the wind; a vapour ready to vanish away, just appearing, and then scattered into air, to be no more seen! See this! "And then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Then, if thou hast leisure from the concerns of thy own soul, thou shalt know how to correct thy brother also. 8. But what is properly the meaning of this word, "Judge not" What is the judging which is here forbidden It is not the same as evil-speaking, although it is frequently joined therewith. Evil-speaking is the relating anything that is evil concerning an absent person; whereas judging may indifferently refer either to the absent or the present. Neither does it necessarily imply the speaking at all, but only the thinking evil of another. Not that all kind of thinking evil of others is that judging which our Lord condemns. If I see one commit robbery or murder, or hear him blaspheme the name of God, I cannot refrain from thinking ill of the robber or murderer. Yet this is not evil judging: There is no sin in this, nor anything contrary to tender affection.

9. The thinking of another in a manner that is contrary to love is that judging which is here condemned; and this maybe of various kinds. For, First, we may think another to blame when he is not. We may lay to his charge (at least in our own mind) the things of which he is not guilty; the words which he has never spoke, or the actions which he has never done. Or we may think his manner of acting was wrong, although in reality it was not. And even where nothing can justly be blamed, either in the thing itself or in the manner of doing it, we may suppose his intention was not good, and so condemn him on that ground, at the same time that he who searches the heart sees his simplicity and godly sincerity. 10. But we may not only fall into the sin of judging by condemning the innocent; but also, Secondly, by condemning the guilty to a higher degree than he deserves. This species of judging is likewise an offence against justice as well as mercy; and yet such an offence as nothing can secure us from but the strongest and tenderest affection. Without this we readily suppose one who is acknowledged to be in fault to be more in fault than he really is. We undervalue whatever good is found in him. Nay, we are not easily induced to believe that anything good can remain in him in whom we have found anything that is evil. 11. All this shows a manifest want of that love which ou logizetai kakon, -- thinketh no evil; which never draws an unjust or unkind conclusion from any premises whatsoever. Love will not infer from a person's falling once into an act of open sin that he is accustomed so to do, that he is habitually guilty of it: And if he was habitually guilty once, love does not conclude he is so still, much less, that if he is now guilty of this, therefore he is guilty of other sins also. These evil reasonings all pertain to that sinful judging which our Lord here guards us against; and which we are in the highest degree concerned to avoid, if we love either God or our own souls.

12. But supposing we do not condemn the innocent, neither the guilty any farther than they deserve; still we may not be altogether clear of the snare: For there is a Third sort of sinful judging, which is the condemning any person at all where there is not sufficient evidence. And be the facts we suppose ever so true; yet that does not acquit us. For they ought not to have been supposed, but proved; and till they were, we ought to have formed no judgment; -- I say, till they were; for neither are we excused; although the facts admit of ever so strong proof, unless that proof be produced before we pass sentence, and compared with the evidence on the other side. Nor can we be excused if ever we pass a full sentence before the accused has spoken for himself. Even a Jew might teach us this, as a mere lesson of justice abstracted from mercy and brotherly love. "Doth our law," says Nicodemus, "judge any man before it hear him, and know what he doeth" (John 7:51.) Yea, a Heathen could reply, when the chief of the Jewish nation desired to have judgment against his prisoner, "It is not the manner of the Romans" to judge "any man, before he that is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him." 13. Indeed we could not easily fall into sinful judging were we only to observe that rule which another [Seneca] of those heathen Romans affirms to have been the measure of his own practice. "I am so far," says he, "from lightly believing every man's or any man's evidence against another, that I do not easily or immediately believe a man's evidence against himself. I always allow him second I thoughts, and many times counsel too." Go, thou who art called a Christian, and do likewise, lest the heathen rise and condemn thee in that day!

14. But how rarely should we condemn or judge one another, at least how soon would that evil be remedied, were we to walk by that clear and express rule which our Lord himself has taught us! -- "If thy brother shall trespass against thee," or if thou hear or believe that he hath, "go and tell him of his fault, between him and thee alone." This is the first step thou art to take. "But if he will not hear, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." This is the second step. "If he neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church," either to the overseers thereof, or to the whole congregation. Thou hast then done thy part. Then think of it no more, but commend the whole to God.

16. "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs." Beware of thinking that any deserve this appellation till there is full and incontestable proof, such as you can no longer resist. But when it is clearly and indisputably proved that they are unholy and wicked men, not only strangers to, but enemies to God, to all righteousness and true holiness; "give not that which is holy," to agion, -- "the holy thing," emphatically so called, unto these. The holy, the peculiar doctrines of the gospel -- such as were "hid from the ages and generations" of old, and are now made known to us only by the revelation of Jesus Christ and the inspiration of his Holy Spirit -- are not to be prostituted unto these men, who know not if there be any Holy Ghost. Not indeed that the ambassadors of Christ can refrain from declaring them in the great congregation, wherein some of these may probably be; we must speak, whether men will hear or whether they will forbear; but this is not the case with private Christians. They do not bear that awful character; nor are they under any manner of obligation to force these great and glorious truths on them who contradict and blaspheme, who have a rooted enmity against them. Nay, they ought not so to do, but rather to lead them as they are able to bear. Do not begin a discourse with these upon remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost; but talk with them in their own manner, and upon their own principles. With the rational, honourable, and unjust Epicure, reason of "righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come." This is the most probable way to make Felix tremble. Reserve higher subjects for men of higher attainments.

18. And yet you need not utterly despair even of these, who, for the present, "turn again and rend you." For if all your arguments and persuasives fail, there is yet another remedy left; and one that is frequently found effectual when no other method avails; this is prayer. Therefore whatever you desire or want, either for others or for your own soul, "ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." The neglect of this is a Third grand hindrance of holiness. Still we "have not, because we ask not." O how meek and gentle, how lowly in heart, how full of love both to God and men, might ye have been at this day, if you had only asked; -- if you had continued instant in prayer! Therefore, now, at least, "ask, and it shall be given unto you." Ask, that ye may throughly experience and perfectly practise the whole of that religion which our Lord has here so beautifully described. It shall then be given you, to be holy as he is holy, both in heart and in all manner of conversation. Seek, in the way he hath ordained, in searching the Scriptures, in hearing his word, in meditating thereon, in fasting, in partaking of the Supper of the Lord, and surely ye shall find: Ye shall find that pearl of great price, that faith which overcometh the world, that peace which the world cannot give, that love which is the earnest of your inheritance. Knock; continue in prayer, and in every other way of the Lord: Be not weary or faint in your mind. Press on to the mark: Take no denial: Let him not go until he bless you. And the door of mercy, of holiness, of heaven shall be opened unto you.

24. It may be understood either in a positive or negative sense. If understood in a negative sense, the meaning is, "Whatever ye would not that men should do to you, do not ye unto them." Here is a plain rule, always ready at hand, always easy to be applied. In all cases relating to your neighbour, make his case your own. Suppose the circumstances to be changed, and yourself to be just as he is now. And then beware that you indulge no temper or thought, that no word pass out of your lips, that you take no step which you should have condemned in him, upon such a change of circumstances. If understood in a direct and positive sense, the plain meaning of it is, "Whatsoever you could reasonably desire of him, supposing yourself to be in his circumstances, that do, to the uttermost of your power, to every child of man." 25. To apply this in one or two obvious instances. It is clear to every man's own conscience, we would not that others should judge us, should causelessly or lightly think evil of us; much less would we that any should speak evil of us, -- should publish our real faults or infirmities. Apply this to yourself. Do not unto another what you would not he should do unto you; and you will never more judge your neighbour, never causelessly or lightly think evil of anyone; much less will you speak evil; you will never mention even the real fault of an absent person, unless so far as you are convinced it is absolutely needful for the good of other souls.

Upon Our Lord's Sermon On The Mount: Discourse Eleven "Enter ye in at the strait gate: For wide is the gate, and broad is the way, which leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in threat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matt. 7:13, 14. 1. Our Lord, having warned us of the dangers which easily beset us at our first entrance upon real religion, the hinderances which naturally arise from within, from the wickedness of our own hearts; now proceeds to apprize us of the hinderances from without, particularly ill example and ill advice. By one or the other of these, thousands, who once ran well, have drawn back unto perdition; -- yea, many of those who were not novices in religion, who had made some progress in righteousness. His caution, therefore, against these he presses upon us with all possible earnestness, and repeats again and again, in variety of expressions, lest by any means we should let it slip. Thus, effectually to guard us against the former, "Enter ye in," saith he, "at the strait gate: For wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it:" To secure us from the latter, "Beware," saith he, "of false prophets." We shall, at present, consider the former only. 2. "Enter ye in," saith our blessed Lord, "at the strait gate: For wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." 3. In these words we may observe, First, the inseparable properties of the way to hell: "Wide is the gate, broad the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that go in thereat:" Secondly, the inseparable properties of the way to heaven: "Strait is that gate, and few there be that find it:" Thirdly, a serious exhortation grounded thereon, "Enter ye in at the strait gate."

I. 1. We may observe, First, the inseparable properties of the way to hell: "Wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that go in thereat." 2. Wide indeed is the gate, and broad the way, that leadeth to destruction! For sin is the gate of hell, and wickedness the way to destruction. And how wide a gate is that of sin! How broad is the way of wickedness! The "commandment" of God "is exceeding broad;" as extending not only to all our actions, but to every word which goeth out of our lips, yea, every thought that rises in our heart. And sin is equally broad with the commandment, seeing any breach of the commandment is sin. Yea, rather, it is a thousand times broader; since there is only one way of keeping the commandment; for we do not properly keep it, unless both the thing done, the manner of doing it, and all the other circumstances, are right: But there are a thousand ways of breaking every commandment; so that this gate is wide indeed. 3. To consider this a little more particularly: How wide do those parent-sins extend, from which all the rest derive their being; -- that carnal mind which is enmity against God, pride of heart, self-will, and love of the world! Can we fix any bounds to them Do they not diffuse themselves through all our thoughts, and mingle with all our tempers! Are they not the leaven which leavens, more or less, the whole mass of our affections May we not, on a close and faithful examination of ourselves, perceive these roots of bitterness continually springing up, infecting all our words, and tainting all our actions And how innumerable an offspring do they bring forth, in every age and nation! Even enough to cover the whole earth with darkness and cruel habitations.

5. "And many there are who go in at" that gate; many who walk in that way; -- almost as many as go in at the gate of death, as sink into the chambers of the grave. For it cannot be denied, (though neither can we acknowledge it but with shame and sorrow of heart,) that even in this which is called a Christian country, the generality of every age and sex, of every profession and employment, of every rank and degree, high and low, rich and poor, are walking in the way of destruction. The far greater part of the inhabitants of this city, to this day, live in sin; in some palpable, habitual, known transgression of the law they profess to observe; yea, in some outward transgression, some gross, visible kind of ungodliness or unrighteousness; some open violation of their duty, either to God or man. These then, none can deny, are all in the way that leadeth to destruction. Add to these, those who have a name indeed that they live, but were never yet alive to God; those that outwardly appear fair to men, but are inwardly full of all uncleanness; full of pride or vanity, of anger or revenge, of ambition or covetousness; lovers of themselves, lovers of the world, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God. These, indeed, may be highly esteemed of men; but they are an abomination to the Lord. And how greatly will these saints of the world swell the number of the children of hell! Yea, add all, whatever they be in other respects, whether they have more or less of the form of godliness, who, "being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness," as the ground of their reconciliation to God and acceptance with him, of consequence have not "submitted themselves unto the righteousness which is of God" by faith. Now, all these things joined together in one, how terribly true is our Lord's assertion, "Wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be who go in thereat!"

7. O how can unlearned and ignorant men maintain their cause against such opponents! And yet these are not all with whom they must contend, however unequal to the task: For there are many mighty, and noble, and powerful men, as well as wise, in the road that leadeth to destruction; and these have a shorter way of confuting, than that of reason and argument. They usually apply, not to the understanding, but to the fears, of any that oppose them; -- a method that seldom fails of success, even where argument profits nothing, as lying level to the capacities of all men; for all can fear, whether they can reason or no. And all who have not a firm trust in God, a sure reliance both on his power and love, cannot but fear to give any disgust to those who have the power of the world in their hands. What wonder, therefore, if the example of these is a law to all who know not God 8. Many rich are likewise in the broad way. And these apply to the hopes of men, and to all their foolish desires, as strongly and effectually as the mighty and noble to their fears. So that hardly can you hold on in the way of the kingdom, unless you are dead to all below, unless you are crucified to the world, and the world crucified to you, unless you desire nothing more but God. 9. For how dark, how uncomfortable, how forbidding is the prospect on the opposite side! A strait gate! A narrow way! And few finding that gate! Few walking in the way! Besides, even those few are not wise men, not men of learning or eloquence. They are not able to reason either strongly or clearly: They cannot propose an argument to any advantage. They know not how to prove what they profess to believe; or to explain even what they say they experience. Surely such advocates as these will never recommend, but rather discredit, the cause they have espoused.

3. It may appear, upon a transient view of these words, that their delaying to seek at all, rather than their manner of seeking, was the reason why they were not able to enter in. But it comes, in effect, to the same thing. They were, therefore, commanded to depart, because they had been "workers of iniquity;" because they had walked in the broad road; in other words, because they had not agonized to "enter in at the strait gate." Probably they did seek, before the door was shut; but that did not suffice: And they did strive, after the door was shut; but then it was too late. 4. Therefore strive ye now, in this your day, to "enter in at the strait gate." And in order thereto, settle it in your heart, and let it be ever uppermost in your thoughts, that if you are in a broad way, you are in the way that leadeth to destruction. If many go with you, as sure as God is true, both they and you are going to hell! If you are walking as the generality of men walk, you are walking to the bottomless pit! Are many wise, many rich, many mighty, or noble travelling with you in the same way By this token, without going any farther, you know it does not lead to life. Here is a short, a plain, an infallible rule, before you enter into particulars. In whatever profession you are engaged, you must be singular, or be damned! The way to hell has nothing singular in it; but the way to heaven is singularity all over. If you move but one step towards God, you are not as other men are. But regard not this. It is far better to stand alone, than to fall into the pit. Run, then, with patience the race which is set before thee, though thy companions therein are but few. They will not always be so. Yet a little while, and thou wilt "come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and Church of the first-born, and to the spirits of just men made perfect."

Upon Our Lord's Sermon On The Mount: Discourse Twelve "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Matt. 7:15-20. 1. It is scarce possible to express or conceive what multitudes of souls run on to destruction, because they would not be persuaded to walk in a narrow way, even though it were the way to everlasting salvation. And the same thing we may still observe daily. Such is the folly and madness of mankind, that thousands of men still rush on in the way to hell, only because it is a broad way. They walk in it themselves, because others do: Because so many perish, they will add to the number. Such is the amazing influence of example over the weak, miserable children of men! It continually peoples the regions of death, and drowns numberless souls in everlasting perdition! 2. To warn mankind of this, to guard as many as possible against this spreading contagion, God has commanded his watchmen to cry aloud, and show the people the danger they are in. For this end he has sent his servants, the Prophets, in their succeeding generations, to point out the narrow path, and exhort all men not to be conformed to this world. But what, if the watchmen themselves fall into the snare against which they should warn others What, if "the Prophets prophesy deceits" if they "cause the people to err from the way" What shall be done if they point out, as the way to eternal life, what is in truth the way to eternal death; and exhort others to walk, as they do themselves, in the broad, not the narrow way

3. Is this and unheard-of, is it an uncommon thing Nay, God knoweth it is not. The instances of it are almost innumerable. We may find them in every age and nation. But how terrible is this! -- when the ambassadors of God turn agents for the devil! -- when they who are commissioned to teach men the way to heaven do in fact teach them the way to hell! These are like the locusts of Egypt, "which eat up the residue that had escaped, that had remained after the hail." They devour even the residue of men that had escaped, that were not destroyed by ill example. It is not, therefore, without cause, that our wise and gracious Master so solemnly cautions us against them: "Beware," saith he, "of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." 4 A caution this of the utmost importance. -- That it may the more effectually sink into our hearts, let us inquire, First, who these false prophets are: Secondly, what appearance they put on: And, Thirdly, how we may know what they really are, notwithstanding their fair appearance. I. 1. We are, First, to inquire who these false prophets are. And this it is needful to do the more diligently, because these very men have so laboured to "wrest this scripture to their own," though not only their own, "destruction." In order, therefore, to cut off all dispute, I shall raise no dust, (as the manner of some is,) neither use any loose, rhetorical exclamations, to deceive the hearts of the simple; but speak rough, plain truths, such as none can deny, who has either understanding or modesty left, and such truths as have the closest connexion with the whole tenor of the preceding discourse: Whereas too many have interpreted these words without any regard to all that went before; as if they bore no manner of relation to the sermon in the close of which they stand. 2. By prophets here (as in many other passages of Scripture, particularly in the New Testament) are meant, not those who foretell things to come, but those who speak in the name of God; those men who profess to be sent of God, to teach others the way to heaven.

7. If it be asked, "Why, who ever did teach this, or who does teach it, as the way to heaven" I answer, Ten thousand wise and honourable men; even all those, of whatever denomination, who encourage the proud, the trifler, the passionate, the lover of the world, the man of pleasure, the unjust or unkind, the easy, careless, harmless, useless creature, the man who suffers no reproach for righteousness' sake, to imagine he is in the way to heaven. These are false prophets in the highest sense of the word. These are traitors both to God and man. These are no other than the first-born of Satan; the eldest sons of Apollyon, the Destroyer. These are far above the rank of ordinary cut-throats; for they murder the souls of men. They are continually peopling the realms of night; and whenever they follow the poor souls whom they have destroyed, "hell shall be moved from beneath to meet them at their coming!" II. 1. But do they come now in their own shape By no means. If it were so, they could not destroy. You would take the alarm, and flee for your life. Therefore they put on a quite contrary appearance: (Which was the Second thing to be considered:) "They come to you in sheep's clothing, although inwardly they are ravening wolves." 2. "They come to you in sheep's clothing;" that is, with an appearance of harmlessness. They come in the most mild, inoffensive manner, without any mark or token of enmity. Who can imagine that these quiet creatures would do any hurt to any one Perhaps they may not be so zealous and active in doing good as one would wish they were. However, you see no reason to suspect that they have even the desire to do any harm. But this is not all. 3. They come, Secondly, with an appearance of usefulness. Indeed to this, to do good, they are particularly called. They are set apart for this very thing. They are particularly commissioned to watch over your soul, and to train you up to eternal life. It is their whole business, to "go about doing good, and healing those that are oppressed of the devil." And you have been always accustomed to look upon them in this light, as messengers of God, sent to bring you a blessing.

4. They come, Thirdly, with an appearance of religion. All they do is for conscience' sake! They assure you, it is out of mere zeal for God, that they are making God a liar. It is out of pure concern for religion, that they would destroy it root and branch. All they speak is only from a love of truth, and a fear lest it should suffer; and, it may be, from a regard for the Church, and a desire to defend her from all her enemies. 5. Above all, they come with an appearance of love. They take all these pains, only for your good. They should not trouble themselves about you, but that they have a kindness for you. They will make large professions of their good-will, of their concern for the danger you are in, and of their earnest desire to preserve you from error, from being entangled in new and mischievous doctrines. They should be very sorry to see one who means so well, hurried into any extreme, perplexed with strange and unintelligible notions, or deluded into enthusiasm. Therefore it is that they advise you to keep still, in the plain middle way; and to beware of "being righteous overmuch," lest you should "destroy yourself." III. 1. But how may we know what they really are, notwithstanding their fair appearance This was the Third thing into which it was proposed to inquire. Our blessed Lord saw how needful it was for all men to know false prophets, however disguised. He saw, likewise, how unable most men were to deduce a truth through a long train of consequences. He therefore gives us a short and plain rule, easy to be understood by men of the meanest capacities, and easy to be applied upon all occasions: "Ye shall know them by their fruits."

2. Upon all occasions you may easily apply this rule. In order to know whether any who speak in the name of God are false or true prophets it is easy to observe, First, What are the fruits of their doctrine as to themselves What effect has it had upon their lives Are they holy and unblamable in all things What effect has it had upon their hearts Does it appear by the general tenor of their conversation that their tempers are holy, heavenly, divine that the mind is in them which was in Christ Jesus That they are meek, lowly, patient, lovers of God and man, and zealous of good works 3. You may easily observe, Secondly, what are the fruits of their doctrine as to those that hear them; -- in many, at least, though not in all; for the Apostles themselves did not convert all that heard them. Have these the mind that was in Christ And do they walk as he also walked And was it by hearing these men that they began so to do Were they inwardly and outwardly wicked till they heard them If so, it is a manifest proof that those are true Prophets, Teachers sent of God. But if it is not so, if they do not effectually teach either themselves or others to love and serve God, it is a manifest proof that they are false prophets; that God hath not sent them.

7. But perhaps it will be said, "He only directed to hear them, when they read the Scripture to the congregation." I answer, at the same time that they thus read the Scripture, they generally expounded it too. And here is no kind of intimation that they were to hear the one, and not the other also. Nay, the very terms, "All things whatsoever they bid you observe," exclude any such limitation. 8. Again: Unto them, unto false prophets, undeniably such, is frequently committed (O grief to speak! for surely these things ought not so to be) the administration of the sacrament also. To direct men, therefore, not to hear them, would be, in effect, to cut them off from the ordinances of God. But this we dare not do, considering the validity of the ordinance doth not depend on the goodness of him that administers, but on the faithfulness of Him that ordained it; who will and doth meet us in his appointed ways. Therefore, on this account, likewise, I scruple to say, "Hear not even the false prophets." Even by these who are under a curse themselves, God can and doth give us his blessing. For the bread which they break, we have experimentally known to be "the communion of the body of Christ:" And the cup which God blessed, even by their unhallowed lips, was to us the communion of the blood of Christ.

13. How can you possibly evade the force of our Lord's words, -- so full, so strong, so express How can ye evade knowing yourselves by your fruits, -- evil fruits of evil trees And how should it be otherwise "Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles" Take this to yourselves, ye to whom it belongs! O ye barren trees, why cumber ye the ground "Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit." See ye not, that here is no exception Take knowledge, then, ye are not good trees; for ye do not bring forth good fruit. "But a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit;" and so have ye done from the beginning. Your speaking, as from God, has only confirmed them that heard you in the tempers, if not works, of the devil. O take warning of Him in whose name ye speak, before the sentence he hath pronounced take place: "Every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit, is hewn down and cast into the fire."

14. My dear brethren, harden not your hearts! You have too long shut your eyes against the light. Open them now before it is too late; before you are cast into outer darkness! Let not any temporal consideration weigh with you; for eternity is at stake. Ye have run before ye were sent. O go no farther! Do not persist to damn yourselves and them that hear you! You have no fruit of your labours. And why is this Even because the Lord is not with you. But can you go this warfare at your own cost It cannot be. Then humble yourselves before him. Cry unto him out of the dust, that he may first quicken thy soul; give thee the faith that worketh by love; that is lowly and meek, pure and merciful, zealous of good works, rejoicing in tribulation, in reproach, in distress, in persecution for righteousness' sake! So shall "the Spirit of glory and of Christ rest upon thee," and it shall appear that God hath sent thee. So shalt thou indeed "do the work of an Evangelist, and make full proof of thy ministry." So shall the word of God in thy mouth be "an hammer that breaketh the rocks in pieces!" It shall then be known by thy fruits that thou art a Prophet of the Lord, even by the children whom God hath given thee. And having "turned many to righteousness," thou shalt "shine as the stars for ever and ever!"

6. It is to put this beyond all possibility of contradiction, that our Lord confirms it by that apposite comparison: "Every one," saith he, "who heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house;" -- as they will surely do, sooner or later, upon every soul of man; even the floods of outward affliction, or inward temptation; the storms of pride, anger, fear, or desire; -- "and it fell: And great was the fall of it:" So that it perished for ever and ever. Such must be the portion of all who rest in anything short of that religion which is above described. And the greater will their fall be, because they "heard those sayings, and" yet "did them not."

2. How truly wise is this man! He knows himself; -- an everlasting spirit, which came forth from God, and was sent down into an house of clay, not to do his own will, but the will of Him that sent him. He knows the world; -- the place in which he is to pass a few days or years, not as an inhabitant, but as a stranger and sojourner, in his way to the everlasting habitations; and accordingly he uses the world as not abusing it, and as knowing the fashion of it passes away. He knows God; -- his Father and his Friend, the parent of all good, the centre of the spirits of all flesh, the sole happiness of all intelligent beings. He sees, clearer than the light of the noon-day sun, that this is the end of man, to glorify Him who made him for himself, and to love and enjoy him for ever. And with equal clearness he sees the means to that end, to the enjoyment of God in glory; even now to know, to love, to imitate God, and to believe in Jesus Christ whom he hath sent.

4. Yet, let not such an one think that he shall not see war any more; that he is now out of the reach of temptation. It still remains for God to prove the grace he hath given: He shall be tried as gold in the fire. He shall be tempted not less than they who know not God: Perhaps abundantly more; for Satan will not fail to try to the uttermost those whom he is not able to destroy. Accordingly, "the rain" will impetuously descend; only at such times and in such a manner as seems good, not to the prince of the power of the air, but to Him "whose kingdom ruleth over all." "The floods," or torrents, will come; they will lift up their waves and rage horribly. But to them also, the Lord that sitteth above the water-floods, that remaineth a King for ever, will say, "Hitherto shall ye come, and no farther: Here shall your proud waves be stayed." "The winds will blow, and beat upon that house," as though they would tear it up from the foundation: But they cannot prevail: It falleth not; for it is founded upon a rock. He buildeth on Christ by faith and love; therefore, he shall not be cast down. He "shall not fear though the earth be moved, and though the hills be carried into the midst of the sea." "Though the waters thereof rage and swell, and the mountains shake at the tempest of the same;" still he "dwelleth under the defence of the Most High, and is safe under the shadow of the Almighty."

III. 1. How nearly then does it concern every child of man, practically to apply these things to himself! diligently to examine on what foundation he builds, whether on a rock or on the sand! How deeply are you concerned to inquire, "What is the foundation of my hope Whereon do I build my expectation of entering into the kingdom of heaven Is it not built on the sand upon my orthodoxy, or right opinions, which, by a gross abuse of words, I have called faith upon my having a set of notions, suppose more rational or scriptural than others have" Alas! what madness is this! Surely this is building on the sand, or, rather, on the froth of the sea! Say, "I am convinced of this: Am I not again building my hope on what is equally unable to support it Perhaps on my belonging to 'so excellent a church; reformed after the true Scripture model; blessed with the purest doctrine, the most primitive liturgy, the most apostolical form of government!" These are, doubtless, so many reasons for praising God, as they may be so many helps to holiness; but they are not holiness itself: And if they are separate from it, they will profit me nothing; nay, they will leave me the more without excuse, and exposed to the greater damnation. Therefore, if I build my hope upon this foundation, I am still building upon the sand.

2. You cannot, you dare not, rest here. Upon what next will you build your hope of salvation -- upon your innocence upon your doing no harm your not wronging or hurting anyone Well; allow this plea to be true. You are just in all your dealings; you are a downright honest man; you pay every man his own; you neither cheat nor extort; you act fairly with all mankind; and you have a conscience towards God; you do not live in any known sin. Thus far is well: But still it is not the thing. You may go thus far, and yet never come to heaven. When all this harmlessness flows from a right principle, it is the least part of the religion of Christ. But in you it does not flow from a right principle, and therefore is no part at all of religion. So that in grounding your hope of salvation on this, you are still building upon the sand. 3. Do you go farther yet Do you add to the doing no harm, the attending all the ordinances of God Do you, at all opportunities, partake of the Lord's supper use public and private prayer fast often hear and search the Scriptures, and meditate thereon These things, likewise, ought you to have done, from the time you first set your face towards heaven. Yet these things also are nothing, being alone. They are nothing without "the weightier matters of the law." And those you have forgotten: At least, you experience them not: -- Faith, mercy, and love of God; holiness of heart; heaven opened in the soul. Still, therefore, you build upon the sand.

8. Now add to your seriousness, meekness of wisdom. Hold an even scale as to all your passions, but in particular, as to anger, sorrow, and fear. Calmly acquiesce in whatsoever is the will of God. Learn in every state wherein you are, therewith to be content. Be mild to the good: Be gentle toward all men; but especially toward the evil and the unthankful. Beware, not only of outward expressions of anger, such as calling thy brother, Raca, or Thou fool; but of every inward emotion contrary to love, though it go no farther than the heart. Be angry at sin, as an affront offered to the Majesty of heaven; but love the sinner still: Like our Lord, who "looked round about upon the Pharisees with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts." He was grieved at the sinners, angry at sin. Thus be thou "angry, and sin not!" 9. Now do thou hunger and thirst, not for "the meat that perisheth, but for that which endureth unto everlasting life." Trample underfoot the world, and the things of the world; all these riches, honours, pleasures. What is the world to thee Let the dead bury their dead; but follow thou after the image of God. And beware of quenching that blessed thirst, if it is already excited in thy soul, by what is vulgarly called religion; a poor, dull farce, a religion of form, of outside show, which leaves the heart still cleaving to the dust, as earthly and sensual as ever. Let nothing satisfy thee but the power of godliness, but a religion that is spirit and life; the dwelling in God and God in thee; the being an inhabitant of eternity; the entering in by the blood of sprinkling "within the veil," and "sitting in heavenly places with Christ Jesus!"

The Original, Nature, Property, and Use of The Law "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Rom. 7:12 1. Perhaps there are few subjects within the whole compass of religion so little understood as this. The reader of this Epistle is usually told, by the law St. Paul means the Jewish law; and so, apprehending himself to have no concern therewith, passes on without farther thought about it. Indeed some are not satisfied with this account; but observing the Epistle is directed to the Romans, thence infer that the Apostle in the beginning of this chapter alludes to the old Roman law. But as they have no more concern with this, than with the ceremonial law of Moses, so they spend not much thought on what they suppose is occasionally mentioned barely to illustrate another thing.

5. And this he showed, not only to our first parents, but likewise to all their posterity, by "that true light which enlightens every man that cometh into the world." But, notwithstanding this light, all flesh had, in process of time, "corrupted their way before him;" till he chose out of mankind a peculiar people, to whom he gave a more perfect knowledge of his law; and the heads of this, because they were slow of understanding, he wrote on two tables of stone, which he commanded the fathers to teach their children, through all succeeding generations. 6. And thus it is, that the law of God is now made known to them that know not God. They hear, with the hearing of the ear, the things that were written aforetime for our instruction. But this does not suffice: they cannot, by this means, comprehend the height, and depth, and length, and breadth thereof. God alone can reveal this by his Spirit. And so he does to all that truly believe, in consequence of that gracious promise made to all the Israel of God: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel. And this shall be the covenant that I will make; I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people" (Jer. 31.31 & c.)

II. 1. The nature of that law which was originally given to angels in heaven and man in paradise, and which God has so mercifully promised to write afresh in the hearts of all true believers, was the second thing I proposed to show. In order to which, I would first observe, that although the "law" and the "commandment" are sometimes differently taken (the commandment meaning but a part of the law,) yet, in the text they are used as equivalent terms, implying one and the same thing. But we cannot understand here, either by one or the other, the ceremonial law. It is not the ceremonial law, whereof the Apostle says, in the words above recited, "I had not known sin, but by the law:" this is too plain to need a proof. Neither is it the ceremonial law which saith, in the words immediately subjoined, "Thou shalt not covet." Therefore the ceremonial law has no place in the present question. 2. Neither can we understand by the law mentioned in the text the Mosaic dispensation. It is true, the word is sometimes so understood; as when the Apostle says, speaking to the Galatians (Gal. 3:17,) "The covenant that was confirmed before;" namely, with Abraham, the father of the faithful, "the law," that is, the Mosaic dispensation, "which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul." But it cannot be so understood in the text; for the Apostle never bestows so high commendations as these upon that imperfect and shadowy dispensation. He nowhere affirms the Mosaic to be a spiritual law; or, that it is holy, and just, and good. Neither is it true, that God will write that law in the hearts of those whose iniquities he remembers no more. It remains, that "the law," eminently so termed, is no other than the moral law.

4. Therefore it is that the Apostle rejects with such abhorrence that blasphemous supposition, that the law of God is either sin itself, or the cause of sin. God forbid that we should suppose it is the cause of sin, because it is the discoverer of it; because it detects the hidden things of darkness, and drags them out into open day. It is true, by this means (as the Apostle observes, Rom. 7:13,) "sin appears to be sin." All its disguises are torn away, and it appears in its native deformity. It is true likewise, that "sin, by the commandment, becomes exceeding sinful:" Being now committed against light and knowledge, being stripped even of the poor plea of ignorance, it loses its excuse, as well as disguise, and becomes far more odious both to God and man. Yea, and it is true, that "sin worketh death by that which is good;" which in itself is pure and holy. When it is dragged out to light, it rages the more: when it is restrained, it bursts out with greater violence. Thus the Apostle (speaking in the person of one who was convinced of sin, but not yet delivered from it,) "Sin, taking occasion by the commandment" detecting and endeavouring to restrain it, disdained the restraint, and so much the more "wrought in me all manner of concupiscence" (Rom. 7:8;) all manner of foolish and hurtful desire, which that commandment sought to restrain. Thus, "when the commandment came, sin revived" (Rom. 7:9;) it fretted and raged the more. But this is no stain on the commandment. Though it is abused, it cannot be defiled. This only proves that "the heart of man is desperately wicked." But "the law" of God "is holy" still.

8. Again: If the law, the immutable rule of right and wrong, depends upon the nature and fitnesses of things, and on their essential relations to each other (I do not say, their eternal relations; because the eternal relation of things existing in time, is little less than a contradiction;) if, I say, this depends on the nature and relations of things, then it must depend on God, or the will of God; because those thing themselves, with all their relations, are the works of his hands. By his will, "for his pleasure" alone, they all "are and were created." 9. And yet it may be granted (which is probably all that a considerate person would contend for,) that in every particular case, God wills this or this (suppose, that men should honour their parents,) because it is right, agreeable to the fitness of things, to the relation wherein they stand.

IV. 1. It remains only to show, in the Fourth and last place, the uses of the law. And the First use of it, without question, is, to convince the world of sin. This is, indeed, the peculiar work of the Holy Ghost; who can work it with out any means at all, or by whatever means it pleaseth him, however insufficient in themselves, or even improper, to produce such an effect. And, accordingly, some there are whose hearts have been broken in pieces in a moment, either in sickness or in health, without any visible cause, or any outward means whatever; and others (one in an age) have been awakened to a sense of the "wrath of God abiding on them, by hearing that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." But it is the ordinary method of the Spirit of God to convict sinners by the law. It is this which, being set home on the conscience, generally breaketh the rocks in pieces. It is more especially this part of the word of God which is zvn kai energhs, -- quick and powerful, full of life and energy, "and sharper than any two edged sword." This, in the hand of God and of those whom he hath sent, pierces through all the folds of a deceitful heart, and "divides asunder even the soul and the spirit;" yea, as it were, the very "joints and marrow." By this is the sinner discovered to himself. All his fig-leaves are torn away, and he sees that he is "wretched, and poor, and miserable, and blind, and naked." The law flashes conviction on every side. He feels himself a mere sinner. He has nothing to pay. His "mouth is stopped," and he stands "guilty before God."

6. To explain this by a single instance: The law says, "Thou shalt not kill;" and hereby, (as our Lord teaches,) forbids not only outward acts, but every unkind word or thought. Now, the more I look into this perfect law, the more I feel how far I come short of it; and the more I feel this, the more I feel my need of his blood to atone for all my sin, and of his Spirit to purify my heart, and make me "perfect and entire, lacking nothing." 7. Therefore I cannot spare the law one moment, no more than I can spare Christ; seeing I now want it as much to keep me to Christ, as I ever wanted it to bring me to him. Otherwise, this "evil heart of unbelief" would immediately "depart from the living God." Indeed each is continually sending me to the other, -- the law to Christ, and Christ to the law. On the one hand, the height and depth of the law constrain me to fly to the love of God in Christ; on the other, the love of God in Christ endears the law to me "above gold or precious stones;" seeing I know every part of it is a gracious promise which my Lord will fulfil in its season.

2. It was easy to foresee an objection which might be made, and which has in fact been made in all ages; namely, that to say we are justified without the works of the law, is to abolish the law. The Apostle, without entering into a formal dispute, simply denies the charge. "Do we then," says he, "make void the law through faith God forbid! Yea, we establish the law." 3. The strange imagination of some, that St. Paul, when he says, "A man is justified without the works of the law," means only ceremonial law, is abundantly confuted by these very words. For did St. Paul establish the ceremonial law It is evident he did not. He did make void that law through faith, and openly avowed his doing so. It was the moral law only, of which he might truly say, We do not make void, but establish this through faith. 4. But all men are not herein of his mind. Many there are who will not agree to this. Many in all ages of the Church, even among those who bore the name of Christians, have contended, that "the faith once delivered to the saints" was designed to make void the whole law. They would no more spare the moral than the ceremonial law, but were for "hewing," as it were, "both in pieces before the Lord; "vehemently maintaining, "If you establish any law, Christ shall profit you nothing; Christ is become of no effect to you; ye are fallen from grace." 5. But is the zeal of these men according to knowledge Have they observed the connexion between the law and faith and that, considering the close connexion between them, to destroy one is indeed to destroy both -- that, to abolish the moral law, is, in truth, to abolish faith and the law together as leaving no proper means, either of bringing us to faith, or of stirring up that gift of God in our soul. 6. It therefore behoves all who desire either to come to Christ, or to walk in him whom they have received, to take heed how they "make void the law through faith;" to secure us effectually against which, let us inquire, First, Which are the most usual ways of making "void the law through faith" And, Secondly, how we may follow the Apostle, and by faith "establish the law."

I. 1. Let us, First, inquire, Which are the most usual ways of making void the law through faith Now the way for a Preacher to make it all void at a stroke, is, not to preach it at all. This is just the same thing as to blot it out of the oracles of God. More especially, when it is done with design; when it is made a rule, not to preach the law; and the very phrase, "a Preacher of the law," is used as a term of reproach, as though it meant little less than an enemy of the gospel. 2. All this proceeds from the deepest ignorance of the nature, properties, and use of the law; and proves, that those who act thus, either know not Christ, -- are utter strangers to living faith, -- or, at least, that they are but babes in Christ, and, as such, "unskilled in the word of righteousness."

3. Their grand plea is this: That preaching the gospel, that is, according to their judgment, the speaking of nothing but the sufferings and merits of Christ, answers all the ends of the law. But this we utterly deny. It does not answer the very first end of the law, namely, the convincing men of sin; The awakening those who are still asleep on the brink of hell. There may have been here and there an exempt case. One in a thousand may have been awakened by the gospel: But this is no general rule: The ordinary method of God is, to convict sinners by the law, and that only. The gospel is not the means which God hath ordained, or which our Lord himself used, for this end. We have no authority in Scripture for applying it thus, nor any ground to think it will prove effectual. Nor have we any more ground to expect this, from the nature of the thing. "They that be whole," as our Lord himself observes, "need not a physician, but they that are sick." It is absurd, therefore, to offer a physician to them that are whole, or that at least imagine themselves so to be. You are first to convince them that they are sick; otherwise they will not thank you for your labour. It is equally absurd to offer Christ to them whose heart is whole, having never yet been broken. It is, in the proper sense, "casting pearls before swine." Doubtless "they will trample them under foot;" and it is no more than you have reason to expect, if they also "turn again and rend you." 4. "But although there is no command in Scripture, to offer Christ to the careless sinner, yet are there not scriptural precedents for it" I think not: I know not any. I believe you cannot produce one, either from the four Evangelists, or the Acts of the Apostles. Neither can you prove this to have been the practice of any of the Apostles, from any passage in all their writings. 5. "Nay, does not the Apostle Paul say, in his former Epistle to the Corinthians, `We preach Christ crucified' (1:23,) and in his latter, `We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord' (4:5.)"

4. The case is not, therefore, as you suppose, that men were once more obliged to obey God, or to work the works of his law, than they are now. This is a supposition you cannot make good. But we should have been obliged, if we had been under the covenant of works, to have done those works antecedent to our acceptance. Whereas now all good works, though as necessary as ever, are not antecedent to our acceptance, but consequent upon it. Therefore the nature of the covenant of grace gives you no ground, no encouragement at all, to set aside any insistence or degree of obedience; any part or measure of holiness. 5. "But are we not justified by faith, without the works of the law" Undoubtedly we are; without the works either of the ceremonial or the moral law. And would to God all men were convicted of this! It would prevent innumerable evils; Antinomianism in particular: For generally speaking, they are the Pharisees who make the Antinomians. Running into an extreme so palpably contrary to Scripture, they occasion others to run into the opposite one. These, seeking to be justified by works, affright those from allowing any place for them. 6. But the truth lies between both. We are, doubtless, justified by faith. This is the corner-stone of the whole Christian building. We are justified without the works of the law, as any previous condition of justification; but they are an immediate fruit of that faith whereby we are justified. So that if good works do not follow our faith, even all inward and outward holiness, it is plain our faith is nothing worth; we are yet in our sins. Therefore, that we are justified by faith, even by our faith without works, is no ground for making void the law through faith; or for imagining that faith is a dispensation from any kind or degree of holiness. 7. "Nay, but does not St. Paul expressly say, `Unto him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness' And does it not follow from hence, that faith is to a believer in the room, in the place, of righteousness But if faith is in the room of righteousness or holiness, what need is there of this too"

Are they so still Is your conscience as tender now in these things as it was then Do you still follow the same rule both in furniture and apparel, trampling all finer, all superfluity, every thing useless, every thing merely ornamental, however fashionable, underfoot Rather, have you not resumed what you had once laid aside, and what you could not then use without wounding you conscience And have you not learned to say, "O, I am not so scrupulous now" I would to God you were! Then you would not sin thus, "because you are not under the law, but under grace!" 6. You was once scrupulous too of commending any to their face; and still more, of suffering any to commend you. It was a stab to your heart; you could not bear it; you sought the honour that cometh of God only. You could not endure such conversation; nor any conversation which was not good to the use of edifying. All idle talk, all trifling discourse, you abhorred; you hated as well as feared it; being deeply sensible of the value of time, of every precious, fleeting moment. In like manner, you dreaded and abhorred idle expense; valuing your money only less than your time, and trembling lest you should be found an unfaithful steward even of the mammon of unrighteousness. Do you now look upon praise as deadly poison, which you can neither give nor receive but at the peril of your soul Do you still dread and abhor all conversation which does not tend to the use of edifying; and labour to improve every moment, that it may not pass without leaving you better than it found you Are not you less careful as to the expense both of money and time Cannot you now lay out either, as you could not have done once Alas! how has that "which should have been for your health, proved to you an occasion of falling!" How have you "sinned because you was not under the law, but under grace!"

8. I cannot conclude this head without exhorting you to examine yourself, likewise, touching sins of omission. Are you as clear of these, now you "are under grace," as you was when "under the law" How diligent was you then in hearing the word of God! Did you neglect any opportunity Did you not attend thereon day and night Would a small hinderance have kept you away a little business a visitant a slight indisposition a soft bed a dark or cold morning -- Did not you then fast often; or use abstinence to the uttermost of your power Was not you much in prayer, (cold and heavy as you was,) while you was hanging over the mouth of hell Did you not speak and not spare even for and unknown God Did you not boldly plead his cause -- reprove sinners -- and avow the truth before an adulterous generation And are you now a believer in Christ Have you the faith that overcometh the world What! and are less zealous for your Master now, than you was when you knew him not less diligent in fasting, in prayer, in hearing his word, in calling sinners to God O repent! See and feel your grievous loss! Remember from whence you are fallen! Bewail your unfaithfulness! Now be zealous and do the first works; lest, if you continue to "make void the law through faith," God cut you off, and appoint you your portion with the unbelievers!

I. 1. We establish the law, First, by our doctrine; by endeavouring to preach it in its whole extent, to explain and enforce every part of it, in the same manner as our great Teacher did while upon earth. We establish it by following St. Peter's advice: "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God;" as the holy men of old, moved by the Holy Ghost, spoke and wrote for our instruction; and as the Apostles of our blessed Lord, by the direction of the same Spirit. We establish it whenever we speak in his name, by keeping back nothing from them that hear; by declaring to them, without any limitation or reserve, the whole counsel of God. And in order the more effectually to establish it, we use herein great plainness of speech. "We are not as many that corrupt the word of God;" -kaphleuontes, (as artful men their bad wines;) we do not cauponize, mix, adulterate, or soften it, to make it suit the taste of the hearers: -- "But as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, speak we in Christ;" as having no other aim, than "by manifestation of the truth to commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." 2. We then, by our doctrine, establish the law, when we thus openly declare it to all men; and that in the fullness wherein it is delivered by our blessed Lord and his Apostles; when we publish it in the height, and depth, and length, and breadth thereof. We then establish the law, when we declare every part of it, every commandment contained therein, not only in its full, literal sense, but likewise in its spiritual meaning; not only with regard to the outward actions, which it either forbids or enjoins, but also with respect to the inward principle, to the thoughts, desires, and intents of the heart.

4. But alas! the law of God, as to its inward, spiritual meaning, is not hid from the Jews or heathens only, but even from what is called the Christian world; at least, from a vast majority of them. The spiritual sense of the commandments of God is still a mystery to these also. Nor is this observable only in those lands which are overspread with Romish darkness and ignorance. But this is too sure, that the far greater part, even of those who are called Reformed Christians are utter strangers at this day to the law of Christ, in the purity and spirituality of it. 5. Hence it is that to this day, "'the Scribes and Pharisees," the men who have the form but not the power of religion, and who are generally wise in their own eyes, and righteous in their own conceits, -- "hearing these things, are offended;" are deeply offended, when we speak of the religion of the heart; and particularly when we show, that without this, were we to "give all our goods to feed the poor," it would profit us nothing. But offended they must be; for we cannot but speak the truth as it is in Jesus. It is our part, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear, to deliver our own soul. All that is written in the book of God we are to declare, not as pleasing men, but the Lord. We are to declare, not only all the promises, but all the threatenings, too, which we find therein. At the same time that we proclaim all the blessings and privileges which God hath prepared for his children, we are likewise to "teach all the things whatsoever he hath commanded." And we know that all these have their use; either for the awakening those that sleep, the instructing the ignorant, the comforting the feeble-minded, or the building up and perfecting of the saints. We know that "all Scripture, given by inspiration of God is profitable," either "for doctrine," or "for reproof," either "for correction or for instruction in righteousness;" and "that the man of God," in the process of the work of God in his soul, has need of every part thereof, that he may at length "be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

3. Let those who magnify faith beyond all proportion, so as to swallow up all things else, and who so totally misapprehend the nature of it as to imagine it stands in the place of love, consider farther, that as love will exist after faith, so it did exist long before it. The angels who, from the moment of their creation, beheld the face of their Father that is in heaven, had no occasion for faith, in its general notion, as it is the evidence of things not seen. Neither had they need of faith in its more particular acceptation, faith in the blood of Jesus: for he took not upon him the nature of angels, but only the seed of Abraham. There was therefore no place before the foundation of the world for faith either in the general or particular sense. But there was for love. Love existed from eternity, in God, the great ocean of love. Love had a place in all the children of God, from the moment of their creation. They received at once from their gracious Creator to exist, and to love. 4. Nor is it certain (as ingeniously and plausibly as many have descanted upon this) that faith, even in the general sense of the word, had any place in paradise. It is highly probable, from that short and uncircumstantial account which we have in Holy Writ, that Adam, before he rebelled against God, walked with him by sight and not by faith. For then his reason's eye was strong and clear, And (as an eagle can behold the sun) Might have beheld his Maker's face as near, As the' intellectual angels could have done. He was then able to talk with him face to face, whose face we cannot now see and live; and consequently had no need of that faith whose office it is to supply the want of sight.

5. Let us thus endeavour to establish the law in ourselves; not sinning "because we are under grace," but rather using all the power we receive thereby, "to fulfil all righteousness." Calling to mind what light we received from God while his Spirit was convincing us of sin, let us beware we do not put out that light; what we had then attained let us hold fast. Let nothing induce us to build again what we have destroyed; to resume anything, small or great, which we then clearly saw was not for the glory of God, or the profit of our own soul; or to neglect anything, small or great, which we could not then neglect, without a check from our own conscience. To increase and perfect the light which we had before, let us now add the light of faith. Confirm we the former gift of God by a deeper sense of whatever he had then shown us, by a greater tenderness of conscience, and a more exquisite sensibility of sin. Walking now with joy, and not with fear, in a clear, steady sight of things eternal, we shall look on pleasure, wealth, praise-all the things of earth, as on bubbles upon the water; counting nothing important, nothing desirable, nothing worth a deliberate thought, but only what is "within the veil," where Jesus "sitteth at the right hand of God."

11. As to the nature of enthusiasm, it is ,undoubtedly a disorder of the mind; and such a disorder as greatly hinders the exercise of reason. Nay, sometimes it wholly sets it aside: it not only dims but shuts the eyes of the understanding. It may, therefore, well be accounted a species of madness; of madness rather than of folly: seeing a fool is properly one who draws wrong conclusions from right premisses; whereas a madman draws right conclusions, but from wrong premisses. And so does an enthusiast suppose his premisses true, and his conclusions would necessarily follow. But here lies his mistake: his premisses are false. He imagines himself to be what he is not: and therefore, setting out wrong, the farther he goes, the more he wanders out of the way. 12. Every enthusiast, then, is properly a madman. Yet his is not an ordinary, but a religious, madness. By "religious," I do not mean, that it is any part of religion: quite the reverse. Religion is the spirit of a sound mind; and, consequently, stands in direct opposition to madness of every kind. But I mean, it has religion for its object; it is conversant about religion. And so the enthusiast is generally talking of religion, of God, or of the things of God, but talking in such a manner that every reasonable Christian may discern the disorder of his mind. Enthusiasm in general may then be described in some such manner as this: a religious madness arising from some falsely imagined influence or inspiration of God; at least, from imputing something to God which ought not to be imputed to Him, or expecting something from God which ought not to be expected from Him. 13. There are innumerable sorts of enthusiasm. Those which are most common, and for that reason most dangerous, I shall endeavour to reduce under a few general heads, that they may be more easily understood and avoided.

The first sort of enthusiasm which I shall mention, is that of those who imagine they have the grace which they have not. Thus some imagine, when it is not so, that they have redemption through Christ, "even the forgiveness of sins." These are usually such as "have no root in themselves;" no deep repentance, or thorough conviction. "Therefore they receive the word with joy." And "because they have no deepness of earth," no deep work in their heart, therefore the seed "immediately springs up." There is immediately a superficial change, which, together with that light joy, striking in with the pride of their unbroken heart, and with their inordinate self-love, easily persuades them they have already "tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come." 14. This is properly an instance of the first sort of enthusiasm: it is a kind of madness, arising from the imagination that they have that grace which, in truth, they have not: so that they only deceive their own souls. Madness it may be justly termed: for the reasonings of these poor men are right, were their premisses good; but as those are a mere creature of their own imagination, so all that is built on them falls to the ground. The foundation of all their reveries is this: they imagine themselves to have faith in Christ. If they had this, they would be "kings and priests to God;" possessed of a "kingdom which cannot be moved": but they have it not; consequently, all their following behaviour is as wide of truth and soberness as that of the ordinary madman who, fancying himself an earthly king, speaks and acts in that character. 15. There are many other enthusiasts of this sort. Such, for instance, is the fiery zealot for religion; or, more properly, for the opinions and modes of worship which he dignifies with that name. This man, also, strongly imagines himself to be a believer in Jesus; yea, that he is a champion for the faith which was once delivered to the saints. Accordingly, all his conduct is formed upon that vain imagination. And allowing his supposition to be just, he would have some tolerable plea for his behaviour; whereas now it is evidently the effect of a distempered brain, as well as of a distempered heart.

21. To this kind of enthusiasm they are peculiarly exposed, who expect to be directed of God, either in spiritual things or in common life, in what is justly called an extraordinary manner: I mean, by visions or dreams, by strong impressions or sudden impulses on the mind. I do not deny, that God has, of old times, manifested His will in this manner; or, that He can do so now: nay, I believe He does, in some very rare instances. But how frequently do men mistake herein! How are they misled by pride, and a warm imagination, to ascribe such impulses or impressions, dreams or visions, to God, as are utterly unworthy of Him! Now this is all pure enthusiasm; all as wide of religion, as it is of truth and soberness. 22. Perhaps some may ask, "Ought we not then to inquire what is the will of God in all things And ought not His will to be the rule of our practice" Unquestionably it ought. But how is a sober Christian to make this inquiry to know what is the will of God Not by waiting for supernatural dreams; not by expecting God to reveal it in visions; not by looking for any particular impressions or sudden impulses on his mind: no; but by consulting the oracles of God. "To the law and to the testimony!" This is the general method of knowing what is "the holy and acceptable will of God." 23. "But how shall I know what is the will of God, in such and such a particular case The thing proposed is, in itself, of an indifferent nature, and so left undetermined in Scripture." I answer, the Scripture itself gives you a general rule. applicable to all particular cases: "The will of God is our sanctification." It is His will that we should be inwardly and outwardly holy; that we should be good, and do good, in every kind and in the highest degree whereof we are capable. Thus far we tread upon firm ground. This is as clear as the shining of the sun. In order, therefore, to know what is the will of God in a particular case, we have only to apply this general rule.

26. This is the plain, scriptural, rational way to know what is the will of God in a particular case. But considering how seldom this way is taken, and what a flood of enthusiasm must needs break in on those who endeavour to know the will of God by unscriptural, irrational ways; it were to be wished that the expression itself were far more sparingly used. The using it, as some do, on the most trivial occasions, is a plain breach of the third commandment. It is a gross way of taking the name of God in vain, and betrays great irreverence toward Him. Would it not be far better, then, to use other expressions, which are not liable to such objections For example: instead of saying, on any particular occasion, "I want to know what is the will of God;" would it not be better to say, "I want to know what will be most for my improvement; and what will make me most useful" this way of speaking is clear and unexceptionable: it is putting the matter on a plain, scriptural issue, and that without any danger of enthusiasm. 27. A Third very common sort of enthusiasm (if it does not coincide with the former) is that of those who think to attain the end without using the means, by the immediate power of God. If, indeed, those means were providentially withheld, they would not fall under this charge. God can, and sometimes does, in cases of this nature, exert His own immediate power. But they who expect this when they have those means, and will not use them, are proper enthusiasts. Such are they who expect to understand the holy Scriptures, without reading them, and meditating thereon; yea, without using all such helps as are in their power, and may probably conduce to that end. Such are they who designedly speak in the public assembly without any premeditation. I say "designedly;" because there may be such circumstances as, at some times, make it unavoidable. But whoever despises that great means of speaking profitably is so far an enthusiast.

37. Beware you do not run with the common herd of enthusiasts, fancying you are a Christian when you are not. Presume not to assume that venerable name, unless you have a clear, scriptural title thereto; unless you have the mind which was in Christ, and walk as He also walked. 38. Beware you do not fall into the second sort of enthusiasm -- fancying you have those gifts from God which you have not. Trust not in visions or dreams; in sudden impressions, or strong impulses of any kind. Remember, it is not by these you are to know what is the will of God on any particular occasion, but by applying the plain Scripture rule, with the help of experience and reason, and the ordinary assistance of the Spirit of God. Do not lightly take the name of God in your mouth; do not talk of the will of God on every trifling occasion: but let your words, as well as your actions, be all tempered with reverence and godly fear. 39. Beware, lastly, of imagining you shall obtain the end without using the means conducive to it. God can give the end without any means at all; but you have no reason to think He will. Therefore constantly and carefully use all those means which He has appointed to be the ordinary channels of His grace. Use every means which either reason or Scripture recommends, as conducive (through the free love of God in Christ) either to the obtaining or increasing any of the gifts of God. Thus expect a daily growth in that pure and holy religion which the world always did, and always will, call "enthusiasm;" but which, to all who are saved from real enthusiasm, from merely nominal Christianity, is "the wisdom of God, and the power of God;" the glorious image of the Most High; "righteousness and peace;" a "fountain of living water, springing up into everlasting life!"

4. He may differ from us, Fourthly, not only in opinion, but likewise in some point of practice. He may not approve of that manner of worshipping God which is practised in our congregation; and may judge that to be more profitable for his soul which took its rise from Calvin or Martin Luther. He may have many objections to that Liturgy which we approve of beyond all others; many doubts concerning that form of church government which we esteem both apostolical and scriptural. Perhaps he may go farther from us yet: he may, from a principle of conscience, refrain from several of those which we believe to be the ordinances of Christ. Or, if we both agree that they are ordained of God, there may still remain a difference between us, either as to the manner of administering those ordinances, or the persons to whom they should be administered. Now the unavoidable consequence of any of these differences will be, that he who thus differs from us must separate himself, with regard to those points, from our society. In this respect, therefore, "he followeth not us": he is not (as we phrase it) "of our Church." 5. But in a far stronger sense "he followeth not us," who is not only of a different Church, but of such a Church as we account to be in many respects anti-scriptural and anti-Christian, --a Church which we believe to be utterly false and erroneous in her doctrines, as well as very dangerously wrong in her practice; guilty of gross superstition as well as idolatry, --a Church that has added many articles to the faith which was once delivered to the saints; that has dropped one whole commandment of God, and made void several of the rest by her traditions; and that, pretending the highest veneration for, and strictest conformity to, the ancient Church, has nevertheless brought in numberless innovations, without any warrant either from antiquity or Scripture. Now, most certainly, "he followeth not us," who stands at so great a distance from us.

7. I do not indeed conceive, that the person of whom the Apostle speaks in the text (although we have no particular account of him, either in the context, or in any other part of holy writ) went so far as this. We have no ground to suppose that there was any material difference between him and the Apostles, much less that he had any prejudice either against them or their Master. It seems we may gather thus much from our Lord's own words, which immediately follow the text: "There is no man which shall do a miracle in My name, that can lightly speak evil of me." But I purposely put the case in the strongest light, adding all the circumstances which can well be conceived, that, being forewarned of the temptation in its full strength, we may in no case yield to it, and fight against God. III. 1. Suppose, then, a man have no intercourse with us, suppose he be not of our party, suppose he separate from our Church, yea, and widely differ from us, both in judgement, practice, and affection; yet if we see even this man "casting out devils," Jesus saith, "Forbid him not." This important direction of our Lord I am, in the Third place, to explain. 2. If we see this man casting out devils: But it is well if, in such a case, we would believe even what we saw with our eyes, if we did not give the lie to our own senses. He must be little acquainted with human nature who does not immediately perceive how extremely unready we should be to believe that any man does cast out devils who "followeth not us" in all or most of the senses above recited: I had almost said, in any of them, seeing we may easily learn even from what passes in our own breasts, how unwilling men are to allow anything good in those who do not in all things agree with themselves.

6. "But I do not know that he is sent of God." "Now herein is a marvellous thing" (may any of the seals of his mission say, any whom he hath brought from Satan to God), "that ye know not whence this man is, and, behold, he hath opened mine eyes! If this man were not of God, he could do nothing." If you doubt the fact, send for the parents of the man: send for his brethren, friends, acquaintance. But if you cannot doubt this, if you must needs acknowledge "that a notable miracle hath been wrought" then with what conscience, with what face, can you charge him whom God hath sent, "not to speak any more in his name" 7. I allow, that it is highly expedient, whoever preaches in his name should have an outward as well as an inward call, but that it is absolutely necessary, I deny. "Nay, is not the Scripture express `No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron'" (Heb. 5:4). Numberless times has this text been quoted on the occasion, as containing the very strength of the cause; but surely never was so unhappy a quotation. For, First, Aaron was not called to preach at all: he was called "to offer gifts and sacrifice for sin." That was his peculiar employment. Secondly, these men do not offer sacrifice at all, but only preach; which Aaron did not. Therefore it is not possible to find one text in all the Bible which is more wide of the point than this. 8. "But what was the practice of the apostolic age" You may easily see in the Acts of the Apostles. In the eighth chapter we read, "There was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the Apostles" (verse 1). "Therefore they that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word" (verse 4). Now, were all these outwardly called to preach No man in his senses can think so. Here, then, is an undeniable proof, what was the practice of the apostolic age. Here you see not one, but a multitude of lay preachers, men that were only sent of God.

I. 1. In the first place I shall endeavor to show in what sense Christians are not perfect. And both from experience and Scripture it appears, First, that they are not perfect in knowledge: they are not so perfect in this life as to be free from ignorance. They know, it may be, in common with other men, many things relating to the present world; and they know, with regard to the world to come, the general truths which God hath revealed. They know, likewise, (what the natural man receiveth not, for these things are spiritually discerned,) "what manner of love" it is wherewith "the Father" hath loved them, "that they should be called the sons of God." [1 John 3:1] They know the mighty working of his Spirit in their hearts; [Eph. 3:16] and the wisdom of his providence, directing all their paths, [Prov. 3:6] and causing all things to work together for their good. [Rom. 8:28] Yea, they know in every circumstance of life what the Lord requireth of them, and how to keep a conscience void of offence both toward God and toward man. [Acts 24:16] 2. But innumerable are the things which they know not. Touching the Almighty himself, they cannot search him out to perfection. "Lo, these are but a part of his ways; but the thunder of his power who can understand" [Job 26:14] They cannot understand, I will not say, how "there are Three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one;" [1 John 5:7] or how the eternal Son of God "took upon himself the form of a servant;" [Phil. 2:7] -- but not any one attribute, not any one circumstance of the divine nature. [2 Pet. 1:4] Neither is it for them to know the times and seasons [Acts 1:7] when God will work his great works upon the earth; no, not even those which he hath in part revealed by his servants and Prophets since the world began. [see Amos 3:7] Much less do they know when God, having "accomplished the number of his elect, will hasten his kingdom;" when "the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat." [2 Pet. 3:10]

5. Nay, with regard to the Holy Scriptures themselves, as careful as they are to avoid it, the best of men are liable to mistake, and do mistake day by day; especially with respect to those parts thereof which less immediately relate to practice. Hence even the children of God are not agreed as to the interpretation of many places in holy writ: Nor is their difference of opinion any proof that they are not the children of God on either side; but it is a proof that we are no more to expect any living man to be infallible than to be omniscient. 6. If it be objected to what has been observed under this and the preceding head, that St. John, speaking to his brethren in the faith says, "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things:" (1 John 2:20:) The answer is plain: "Ye know all things that are needful for your souls' health." [cf. 3 John 2] That the Apostle never designed to extend this farther, that he could not speak it in an absolute sense, is clear, First from hence; -- that otherwise he would describe the disciple as "above his Master;" seeing Christ himself, as man, knew not all things: "Of that hour," saith he, "knoweth no man; no, not the Son, but the Father only." [Mark 13:32] It is clear, Secondly, from the Apostle's own words that follow: "These things have I written unto you concerning them that deceive you;" [cf. 1 John 3:7] as well as from his frequently repeated caution, "Let no man deceive you;" [see Mark 13:5; Eph. 5:6; 2 Thess. 2:3] which had been altogether needless, had not those very persons who had that unction from the Holy One [1 John 2:20] been liable, not to ignorance only, but to mistake also.

8. Nor can we expect, till then, to be wholly free from temptation. Such perfection belongeth not to this life. It is true, there are those who, being given up to work all uncleanness with greediness, [Eph. 4:19] scarce perceive the temptations which they resist not, and so seem to be without temptation. There are also many whom the wise enemy of souls, seeing to be fast asleep in the dead form of godliness, will not tempt to gross sin, lest they should awake before they drop into everlasting burnings. I know there are also children of God who, being now justified freely, [Rom. 5:1] having found redemption in the blood of Christ, [Eph. 1:7] for the present feel no temptation. God hath said to their enemies, "Touch not mine anointed, and do my children no harm." [see 1 Chron. 16:22] And for this season, it may be for weeks or months, he causeth them to "ride on high places;" [Deut. 32:13] he beareth them as on eagles' wings, [Exod. 19:4] above all the fiery darts of the wicked one. [Eph. 6:16] But this state will not last always; as we may learn from that single consideration, -- that the Son of God himself, in the days of his flesh, was tempted even to the end of his life. [Heb. 2:18; 4:15; 6:7] Therefore, so let his servant expect to be; for "it is enough that he be as his Master." [Luke 6:40] 9. Christian perfection, therefore, does not imply (as some men seem to have imagined) an exemption either from ignorance or mistake, or infirmities or temptations. Indeed, it is only another term for holiness. They are two names for the same thing. Thus every one that is perfect is holy, and every one that is holy is, in the Scripture sense, perfect. Yet we may, lastly, observe, that neither in this respect is there any absolute perfection on earth. There is no perfection of degrees, as it is termed; none which does not admit of a continual increase. So that how much soever any man hath attained, or in how high a degree soever he is perfect, he hath still need to "grow in grace," [2 Pet. 3:18] and daily to advance in the knowledge and love of God his Saviour. [see Phil. 1:9]

II. 1. In what sense, then, are Christians perfect This is what I shall endeavor, in the Second place, to show. But it should be premised, that there are several stages in Christian life, as in natural; some of the children of God being but new-born babes; others having attained to more maturity. And accordingly St. John, in his first Epistle, (1 John 2:12, &c.,) applies himself severally to those he terms little children, those he styles young men, and those whom he entitles fathers. "I write unto you, little children," saith the Apostle, "because your sins are forgiven you:" Because thus far you have attained, -- being "justified freely," you "have peace with God, through Jesus Christ." [Rom. 5:1] "I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one;" or (as he afterwards addeth,) "because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you." [1 John 2:13, 14] Ye have quenched the fiery darts of the wicked one, [Eph. 6:16] the doubts and fears wherewith he disturbed your first peace; and the witness of God, that your sins are forgiven, now abideth in your heart. "I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning." [1 John 2:13] Ye have known both the Father and the Son and the Spirit of Christ, in your inmost soul. Ye are "perfect men, being grown up to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." [Eph. 4:13]

2. It is of these chiefly I speak in the latter part of this discourse: For these only are properly Christians. But even babes in Christ are in such a sense perfect, or born of God, (an expression taken also in divers senses,) as, First, not to commit sin. If any doubt of this privilege of the sons of God, the question is not to be decided by abstract reasonings, which may be drawn out into an endless length, and leave the point just as it was before. Neither is it to be determined by the experience of this or that particular person. Many may suppose they do not commit sin, when they do; but this proves nothing either way. To the law and to the testimony we appeal. "Let God be true, and every man a liar." [Rom. 3:4] By his Word will we abide, and that alone. Hereby we ought to be judged. 3. Now the Word of God plainly declares, that even those who are justified, who are born again in the lowest sense, "do not continue in sin;" that they cannot "live any longer therein;" (Rom. 6:1, 2;) that they are "planted together in the likeness of the death" of Christ; (Rom. 6:5;) that their "old man is crucified with him," the body of sin being destroyed, so that henceforth they do not serve sin; that being dead with Christ, they are free from sin; (Rom. 6:6, 7;) that they are "dead unto sin, and alive unto God;" (Rom. 6:11;) that "sin hath no more dominion over them," who are "not under the law, but under grace;" but that these, "being free from sin, are become the servants of righteousness." (Rom. 6:14, 18)

4. The very least which can be implied in these words, is, that the persons spoken of therein, namely, all real Christians, or believers in Christ, are made free from outward sin. And the same freedom, which St. Paul here expresses in such variety of phrases, St. Peter expresses in that one: (1 Pet. 4:1, 2:) "He that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin, -- that he no longer should live to the desires of men, but to the will of God." For this ceasing from sin, if it be interpreted in the lowest sense, as regarding only the outward behaviour, must denote the ceasing from the outward act, from any outward transgression of the law. 5 . But most express are the well-known words of St. John, in the third chapter of his First Epistle, verse 8, &c.: "He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: And he cannot sin because he is born of God." [1 John 3:8, 9] And those in the fifth: (1 John 5:18:) "We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." 6. Indeed it is said this means only, He sinneth not wilfully; or he doth not commit sin habitually; or, not as other men do; or, not as he did before. But by whom is this said By St.John No. There is no such word in the text; nor in the whole chapter; nor in all his Epistle; nor in any part of his writings whatsoever. Why then, the best way to answer a bold assertion is simply to deny it. And if any man can prove it from the Word of God, let him bring forth his strong reasons.

7. And a sort of reason there is, which has been frequently brought to support these strange assertions, drawn from the examples recorded in the Word of God: "What!" say they, "did not Abraham himself commit sin, -- prevaricating, and denying his wife Did not Moses commit sin, when he provoked God at the waters of strife Nay, to produce one for all, did not even David, `the man after God's own heart,' commit sin, in the matter of Uriah the Hittite; even murder and adultery" It is most sure he did. All this is true. But what is it you would infer from hence It may be granted, First, that David, in the general course of his life, was one of the holiest men among the Jews; and, Secondly, that the holiest men among the Jews did sometimes commit sin. But if you would hence infer, that all Christians do and must commit sin as long as they live; this consequence we utterly deny: It will never follow from those premises.

8. Those who argue thus, seem never to have considered that declaration of our Lord: (Matt. 11:11:) "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: Notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." I fear, indeed, there are some who have imagined "the kingdom of heaven," here, to mean the kingdom of glory; as if the Son of God had just discovered to us, that the least glorified saint in heaven is greater than any man upon earth! To mention this is sufficiently to refute it. There can, therefore, no doubt be made, but "the kingdom of heaven," here, (as in the following verse, where it is said to be taken by force.) [Matt. 11:12] or, "the kingdom of God," as St. Luke expresses it, -- is that kingdom of God on earth whereunto all true believers in Christ, all real Christians, belong. In these words, then, our Lord declares two things: First, that before his coming in the flesh, among all the children of men there had not been one greater than John the Baptist; whence it evidently follows, that neither Abraham, David, nor any Jew was greater than John. Our Lord, Secondly, declares that he which is least in the kingdom of God (in that kingdom which he came to set up on earth, and which the violent now began to take by force) is greater than he: -- Not a greater Prophet as some have interpreted the word; for this is palpably false in fact; but greater in the grace of God, and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, we cannot measure the privileges of real Christians by those formerly given to the Jews. Their "ministration," (or dispensation,) we allow "was glorious;" but ours "exceeds in glory." [2 Cor. 3:7-9] So that whosoever would bring down the Christian dispensation to the Jewish standard, whosoever gleans up the examples of weakness, recorded in the Law and the Prophets, and thence infers that they who have "put on Christ" [Gal. 3:27] are endued with no greater strength, doth greatly err, neither "knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." [Matt. 22:29]

9. "But are there not assertions in Scripture which prove the same thing, if it cannot be inferred from those examples Does not the Scripture say expressly, "Even a just man sinneth seven times a day" I answer, No. The Scripture says no such thing. There is no such text in all the Bible. That which seems to be intended is the sixteenth verse of the twenty-fourth chapter of the Proverbs the words of which are these: "A just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again." [Prov. 24:16] But this is quite another thing. For, First, the words "a day" are not in the text. So that if a just man falls seven times in his life, it is as much as is affirmed here. Secondly, here is no mention of falling into sin at all; what is here mentioned is falling into temporal affliction. This plainly appears from the verse before, the words of which are these: "Lay not wait, O wicked man, against the dwelling of the righteous; spoil not his resting place." [Prov. 24:15] It follows, "For a just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again; but the wicked shall fall into mischief." As if he had said, "God will deliver him out of his trouble; but when thou fallest, there shall be none to deliver thee."

11. It is of great importance to observe, and that more carefully than is commonly done, the wide difference there is between the Jewish and the Christian dispensation; and that ground of it which the same Apostle assigns in the seventh chapter of his Gospel. (John 7:38, &c) After he had there related, those words of our blessed Lord, "He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water," he immediately subjoins, "This spake he of the Spirit," ou emellon lambanein oi pisteuontes eis auton, -- which they who should believe on him were afterwards to receive. For the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified." [John 7:39] Now, the Apostle cannot mean here, (as some have taught,) that the miracle-working power of the Holy Ghost was not yet given. For this was given; our Lord had given it to all the Apostles, when he first sent them forth to preach the gospel. He then gave them power over unclean spirits to cast them out; power to heal the sick; yea, to raise the dead. [Mark 10:8] But the Holy Ghost was not yet given in his sanctifying graces, as he was after Jesus was glorified. It was then when "he ascended up on high, and led captivity captive," that he "received" those "gifts for men, yea, even for the rebellious, that the Lord God might dwell among them." [Ps. 68:18; cf. Eph. 4:8] And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, [Acts 2:1] then first it was, that they who "waited for the promise of the Father" [Acts 1:4] were made more than conquerors [Rom. 8:37] over sin by the Holy Ghost given unto them.

12. That this great salvation from sin was not given till Jesus was glorified, St. Peter also plainly testifies; where, speaking of his brethren in the flesh, as now "receiving the end of their faith, the salvation of their souls," he adds, (1 Peter 1:9, 10, &c.,) "Of which salvation the Prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace" that is, the gracious dispensation, "that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ. and the glory," the glorious salvation, "that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven;" [1 Pet. 1:12] viz., at the day of Pentecost, and so unto all generations, into the hearts of all true believers. On this ground, even "the grace which was brought unto them by the revelation of Jesus Christ," [1 Pet. 1:13] the Apostle might well build that strong exhortation, "Wherefore girding up the loins of your mind, -- as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation." [1 Pet. 1:13] 13. Those who have duly considered these things must allow, that the privileges of Christians are in no wise to be measured by what the Old Testament records concerning those who were under the Jewish dispensation; seeing the fulness of times is now come; the Holy Ghost is now given; the great salvation of God is brought unto men, by the revelation of Jesus Christ. The kingdom of heaven is now set up on earth; concerning which the Spirit of God declared of old, (so far is David from being the pattern or standard of Christian perfection,) "He that is feeble among them at that day, shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them." (Zech. 12:8.)

16. As this scripture is one of the strong-holds of the patrons of sin, it may be proper to weigh it thoroughly. Let it be observed then, First, it does by no means appear that this thorn, whatsoever it was, occasioned St. Paul to commit sin; much less laid him under any necessity of doing so. Therefore, from hence it can never be proved that any Christian must commit sin. Secondly, the ancient Fathers inform us, it was bodily pain: "a violent headache, saith Tertullian; (De Pudic.;) to which both Chrysostom and St. Jerome agree. St. Cyprian [De Mortalitate] expresses it, a little more generally, in those terms: "Many and grievous torments of the flesh and of the body." [Carnis et corporis multa ac gravia tormenta.] Thirdly, to this exactly agree the Apostle's own words, "A thorn to the flesh to smite, beat, or buffet me." "My strength is made perfect in weakness:" -- Which same word occurs no less than four times in these two verses only. But, Fourthly, whatsoever it was, it could not be either inward or outward sin. It could no more be inward stirrings, than outward expressions, of pride, anger, or lust. This is manifest, beyond all possible exception from the words that immediately follow: "Most gladly will I glory in" these "my weaknesses, that the strength of Christ may rest upon me." [2 Cor. 12:9] What! Did he glory in pride, in anger, in lust Was it through these weaknesses, that the strength of Christ rested upon him He goes on: "Therefore I take pleasure in weaknesses; for when I am weak, then am I strong;" [2 Cor. 12:10] that is, when I am weak in body, then am I strong in spirit. But will any man dare to say, "When I am weak by pride or lust, then am I strong in spirit" I call you all to record this day, who find the strength of Christ resting upon you, can you glory in anger, or pride, or lust Can you take pleasure in these infirmities Do these weaknesses make you strong Would you not leap into hell, were it possible, to escape them Even by yourselves, then, judge, whether the Apostle could glory and take pleasure in them! Let it be, Lastly, observed, that this thorn was given to St. Paul above fourteen years before he wrote this Epistle; [2 Cor.

17. "But does not St. James directly contradict this His words are, 'In many things we offend all,' (Jas. 3:2:) And is not offending the same as committing sin" In this place, I allow it is: I allow the persons here spoken of did commit sin; yea, that they all committed many sins. But who are the persons here spoken of Why, those many masters or teachers whom God had not sent; (probably the same vain men who taught that faith without works, which is so sharply reproved in the preceding chapter;) [Jas. 2] not the Apostle himself, nor any real Christian. That in the word we (used by a figure of speech common in all other, as well as the inspired, writings) the Apostle could not possibly include himself or any other true believer, appears evidently, First, from the same word in the ninth verse: -- "Therewith," saith he, "bless we God and therewith curse we men. Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing." [Jas. 3:9] True; but not out of the mouth of the Apostle, nor of anyone who is in Christ a new creature. [2 Cor. 5:17] Secondly, from the verse immediately preceding the text, and manifestly connected with it: "My brethren, be not many masters," (or teachers,) "knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation." "For in many things we offend all." [Jas. 3:1] We! Who Not the Apostles, not true believers; but they who know they should receive the greater condemnation, because of those many offences. But this could not be spoke of the Apostle himself, or of any who trod in his steps, seeing "there is no condemnation to them who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." [Rom. 8:2] Nay, Thirdly, the very verse itself proves, that "we offend all," cannot be spoken either of all men, or of all Christians: For in it there immediately follows the mention of a man who offends not, as the we first mentioned did; from whom, therefore, he is professedly contradistinguished, and pronounced a perfect man.

The Scripture Way of Salvation "Ye are saved through faith." -- Ephesians 2:8. 1. Nothing can be more intricate, complex, and hard to be understood, than religion, as it has been often described. And this is not only true concerning the religion of the Heathens, even many of the wisest of them, but concerning the religion of those also who were, in some sense, Christians; yea, and men of great name in the Christian world; men who seemed to be pillars thereof. Yet how easy to be understood, how plain and simple a thing, is the genuine religion of Jesus Christ; provided only that we take it in its native form, just as it is described in the oracles of God! It is exactly suited, by the wise Creator and Governor of the world, to the weak understanding and narrow capacity of man in his present state. How observable is this, both with regard to the end it proposes, and the means to attain that end! The end is, in one word, salvation; the means to attain it, faith. 2. It is easily discerned, that these two little words, I mean faith and salvation, include the substance of all the Bible, the marrow, as it were, of the whole Scripture. So much the more should we take all possible care to avoid all mistake concerning them, and to form a true and accurate judgement concerning both the one and the other. 3. Let us then seriously inquire, I. What is Salvation II. What is that faith whereby we are saved And, III. How are we saved by it

9. It is thus that we wait for entire sanctification; for a full salvation from all our sins, --from pride, self-will, anger, unbelief; or, as the Apostle expresses it, "go unto perfection." But what is perfection The word has various senses: here it means perfect love. It is love excluding sin; love filling the heart, taking up the whole capacity of the soul. It is love "rejoicing evermore, praying without ceasing, in everything giving thanks." II. But what is faith through which we are saved This is the second point to be considered. 1. Faith, in general, is defined by the Apostle, elegcos pragmatvn ou blepomenvn. An evidence, a divine evidence and conviction (the word means both) of things not seen; not visible, not perceivable either by sight, or by any other of the external senses. It implies both a supernatural evidence of God, and of the things of God; a kind of spiritual light exhibited to the soul, and a supernatural sight or perception thereof. Accordingly, the Scripture speaks of God's giving sometimes light, sometimes a power of discerning it. So St. Paul: "God, who commanded light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." And elsewhere the same Apostle speaks of "the eyes of" our "understanding being opened." By this two-fold operation of the Holy Spirit, having the eyes of our soul both opened and enlightened, we see the things which the natural "eye hath not seen, neither the ear heard." We have a prospect of the invisible things of God; we see the spiritual world, which is all round about us, and yet no more discerned by our natural faculties than if it had no being. And we see the eternal world; piercing through the veil which hangs between time and eternity. Clouds and darkness then rest upon it no more, but we already see the glory which shall be revealed.

2. Taking the word in a more particular sense, faith is a divine evidence and conviction not only that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself," but also that Christ loved me, and gave Himself for me. It is by this faith (whether we term it the essence, or rather a property thereof) that we receive Christ; that we receive Him in all His offices, as our Prophet, Priest, and King. It is by this that He is "made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." 3. "But is this the faith of assurance, or faith of adherence" The Scripture mentions no such distinction. The Apostle says, "There is one faith, and one hope of our calling"; one Christian, saving faith; "as there is one Lord," in whom we believe, and "one God and Father of us all." And it is certain, this faith necessarily implies an assurance (which is here only another word for evidence, it being hard to tell the difference between them) that Christ loved me, and gave Himself for me. For "he that believeth" with the true living faith "hath the witness in himself": "the Spirit witnesseth with his spirit that he is a child of God." "Because he is a son, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into his heart, crying, Abba, Father"; giving him an assurance that he is so, and a childlike confidence in Him. But let it be observed, that, in the very nature of the thing, the assurance goes before the confidence. For a man cannot have a childlike confidence in God till he knows he is a child of God. Therefore, confidence, trust, reliance, adherence, or whatever else it be called, is not the first, as some have supposed, but the second, branch or act of faith. 4. It is by this faith we are saved, justified, and sanctified; taking that word in its highest sense. But how are we justified and sanctified by faith This is our third head of inquiry. And this being the main point in question, and a point of no ordinary importance, it will not be improper to five it a more distinct and particular consideration.

7. With this conviction of the sin remaining in our hearts, there is joined a clear conviction of the sin remaining in our lives; still cleaving to all our words and actions. In the best of these we now discern a mixture of evil, either in the spirit, the matter, or the manner of them; something that could not endure the righteous judgement of God, were He extreme to mark what is done amiss. Where we least suspected it, we find a taint of pride or self-will, of unbelief or idolatry; so that we are now more ashamed of our best duties than formerly of our worst sins: and hence we cannot but feel that these are so far from having anything meritorious in them, yea, so far from being able to stand in sight of the divine justice, that for those also we should be guilty before God, were it not for the blood of the covenant. 8. Experience shows that, together with this conviction of sin remaining in our hearts, and cleaving to all our words and actions; as well as the guilt which on account thereof we should incur, were we not continually sprinkled with the atoning blood; one thing more is implied in this repentance; namely, a conviction of our helplessness, of our utter inability to think one good thought, or to form one good desire; and much more to speak one word aright, or to perform one good action, but through His free, almighty grace, first preventing us, and then accompanying us every moment. 9. "But what good works are those, the practice of which you affirm to be necessary to sanctification" First, all works of piety; such as public prayer, family prayer, and praying in our closet; receiving the supper of the Lord; searching the Scriptures, by hearing, reading, meditating; and using such a measure of fasting or abstinence as our bodily health allows.

13. But to return. though it be allowed, that both this repentance and its fruits are necessary to full salvation; yet they are not necessary either in the same sense with faith, or in the same degree: --Not in the same degree; for these fruits are only necessary conditionally, if there be time and opportunity for them; otherwise a man may be sanctified without them. But he cannot be sanctified without faith. likewise, let a man have ever so much of this repentance, or ever so many good works, yet all this does not at all avail: he is not sanctified till he believes. But the moment he believes, with or without those fruits, yea, with more or less of this repentance, he is sanctified. --Not in the same sense; for this repentance and these fruits are only remotely necessary, --necessary in order to the continuance of his faith, as well as the increase of it; whereas faith is immediately and directly necessary to sanctification. It remains, that faith is the only condition which is immediately and proximately necessary to sanctification. 14. "But what is that faith whereby we are sanctified, --saved from sin, and perfected in love" It is a divine evidence and conviction, first, that God hath promised it in the holy Scripture. Till we are thoroughly satisfied of this, there in no moving one step further. And one would imagine there needed not one word more to satisfy a reasonable man of this, than the ancient promise, "Then will I circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord they God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." How clearly does this express the being perfected in love! --how strongly imply the being saved from all sin! For as long as love takes up the whole heart, what room is there for sin therein

He is waiting for you: He is at the door! Let your inmost soul cry out, Come in, come in, thou heavenly Guest! Nor hence again remove; But sup with me, and let the feast Be everlasting love.

4. But, in the mean time, what must we do with our Bibles -- for they will never agree with this. These accounts, however pleasing to flesh and blood, are utterly irreconcilable with the scriptural. The Scripture avers, that "by one man's disobedience all men were constituted sinners;" that "in Adam all died," spiritually died, lost the life and the image of God; that fallen, sinful Adam then "begat a son in his own likeness;" -- nor was it possible he should beget him in any other; for "who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean" -- that consequently we, as well as other men, were by nature "dead in trespasses and sins," "without hope, without God in the world," and therefore "children of wrath;" that every man may say, "I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin did my mother conceive me;" that "there is no difference," in that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," of that glorious image of God wherein man was originally created. And hence, when "the Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, he saw they were all gone out of the way; they were altogether become abominable, there was none righteous, no, not one," none that truly sought after God: Just agreeable this, to what is declared by the Holy Ghost in the words above recited, "God saw," when he looked down from heaven before, "that the wickedness of man was great in the earth;" so great, that "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." This is God's account of man: From which I shall take occasion, First, to show what men were before the flood: Secondly, to inquire, whether they are not the same now: And, Thirdly, to add some inferences.

I. 1. I am, First, by opening the words of the text, to show what men were before the flood. And we may fully depend on the account here given: For God saw it, and he cannot be deceived. He "saw that the wickedness of man was great:" -- Not of this or that man; not of a few men only; not barely of the greater part, but of man in general; of men universally. The word includes the whole human race, every partaker of human nature. And it is not easy for us to compute their numbers, to tell how many thousands and millions they were. The earth then retained much of its primeval beauty and original fruitfulness. The face of the globe was not rent and torn as it is now; and spring and summer went hand in hand. It is therefore probable, it afforded sustenance for far more inhabitants than it is now capable of sustaining; and these must be immensely multiplied, while men begat sons and daughters for seven or eight hundred years together. Yet, among all this inconceivable number, only "Noah found favour with God." He alone (perhaps including part of his household) was an exception from the universal wickedness, which, by the just judgment of God, in a short time after brought on universal destruction. All the rest were partakers in the same guilt, as they were in the same punishment. 2. "God saw all the imaginations of the thoughts of his heart;" -- of his soul, his inward man, the spirit within him, the principle of all his inward and outward motions. He "saw all the imaginations:" It is not possible to find a word of a more extensive signification. It includes whatever is formed, made, fabricated within; all that is or passes in the soul; every inclination, affection, passion, appetite; every temper, design, thought. It must of consequence include every word and action, as naturally flowing from these fountains, and being either good or evil according to the fountain from which they severally flow.

1. And this is certain, the Scripture gives us no reason to think any otherwise of them. On the contrary, all the above cited passages of Scripture refer to those who lived after the flood. It was above a thousand years after, that God declared by David concerning the children of men, "They are all gone out of the way, of truth and holiness; "there is none righteous, no, not one." And to this bear all the Prophets witness, in their several generations. So Isaiah, concerning God's peculiar people, (and certainly the Heathens were in no better condition,) "The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores." The same account is given by all the Apostles, yea, by the whole tenor of the oracles of God. From all these we learn, concerning man in his natural state, unassisted by the grace of God, that "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is" still "evil, only evil," and that "continually." 2. And this account of the present state of man is confirmed by daily experience. It is true, the natural man discerns it not: And this is not to be wondered at. So long as a man born blind continues so, he is scarce sensible of his want: Much less, could we suppose a place where all were born without sight, would they be sensible of the want of it. In like manner, so long as men remain in their natural blindness of understanding, they are not sensible of their spiritual wants, and of this in particular. But as soon as God opens the eyes of their understanding, they see the state they were in before; they are then deeply convinced, that "every man living," themselves especially, are, by nature, "altogether vanity;" that is, folly and ignorance, sin and wickedness.

2. Hence we may, Secondly, learn, that all who deny this, call it original sin, or by any other title, are put Heathens still, in the fundamental point which differences Heathenism from Christianity. They may, indeed, allow, that men have many vices; that some are born with us; and that, consequently, we are not born altogether so wise or so virtuous as we should be; there being few that will roundly affirm, "We are born with as much propensity to good as to evil, and that every man is, by nature, as virtuous and wise as Adam was at his creation." But here is the shibboleth: Is man by nature filled with all manner of evil Is he void of all good Is he wholly fallen Is his soul totally corrupted Or, to come back to the text, is "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart only evil continually" Allow this, and you are so far a Christian. Deny it, and you are but an Heathen still. 3. We may learn from hence, in the Third place, what is the proper nature of religion, of the religion of Jesus Christ. It is qerapeia yuchs, God's method of healing a soul which is thus diseased. Hereby the great Physician of souls applies medicines to heal this sickness; to restore human nature, totally corrupted in all its faculties. God heals all our Atheism by the knowledge of Himself, and of Jesus Christ whom he hath sent; by giving us faith, a divine evidence and conviction of God, and of the things of God, -- in particular, of this important truth, "Christ loved me" -- and gave himself for me." By repentance and lowliness of heart, the deadly disease of pride is healed; that of self-will by resignation, a meek and thankful submission to the will of God; and for the love of the world in all its branches, the love of God is the sovereign remedy. Now, this is properly religion, "faith" thus "working by love;" working the genuine meek humility, entire deadness to the world, with a loving, thankful acquiescence in, and conformity to, the whole will and word of God.

4. Indeed, if man were not thus fallen, there would be no need of all this. There would be no occasion for this work in the heart, this renewal in the spirit of our mind. The superfluity of godliness would then be a more proper expression than the "superfluity of naughtiness." For an outside religion, without any godliness at all, would suffice to all rational intents and purposes. It does, accordingly, suffice, in the judgment of those who deny this corruption of our nature. They make very little more of religion than the famous Mr. Hobbes did of reason. According to him, reason is only "a well-ordered train of words:" According to them, religion is only a well-ordered train of words and actions. And they speak consistently with themselves; for if the inside be not full of wickedness, if this be clean already, what remains, but to "cleanse the outside of the cup" Outward reformation, if their supposition be just, is indeed the one thing needful.

5. But ye have not so learned the oracles of God. Ye know, that He who seeth what is in man gives a far different account both of nature and grace, of our fall and our recovery. Ye know that the great end of religion is, to renew our hearts in the image of God, to repair that total loss of righteousness and true holiness which we sustained by the sin of our first parent. Ye know that all religion which does not answer this end, all that stops short of this, the renewal of our soul in the image of God, after the likeness of Him that created it, is no other than a poor farce, and a mere mockery of God, to the destruction of our own soul. O beware of all those teachers of lies, who would palm this upon you for Christianity! Regard them not, although they should come unto you with all the deceivableness of unrighteousness; with all smoothness of language, all decency, yea, beauty and elegance of expression, all professions of earnest good will to you, and reverence for the Holy Scriptures. Keep to the plain, old faith, "once delivered to the saints," and delivered by the Spirit of God to our hearts. Know your disease! Know your cure! Ye were born in sin: Therefore, "ye must be born again," born of God. By nature ye are wholly corrupted. By grace ye shall be wholly renewed. In Adam ye all died: In the second Adam, in Christ, ye all are made alive. "You that were dead in sins hath he quickened:" He hath already given you a principle of life, even faith in him who loved you and gave himself for you! Now, "go on from faith to faith," until your whole sickness be healed; and all that "mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus!"

The New Birth "Ye must be born again." John 3:7. 1. If any doctrines within the whole compass of Christianity may be properly termed fundamental, they are doubtless these two, -- the doctrine of justification, and that of the new birth: The former relating to that great work which God does for us, in forgiving our sins; the latter, to the great work which God does in us, in renewing our fallen nature. In order of time, neither of these is before the other: in the moment we are justified by the grace of God, through the redemption that is in Jesus, we are also "born of the Spirit;" but in order of thinking, as it is termed, justification precedes the new birth. We first conceive his wrath to be turned away, and then his Spirit to work in our hearts. 2. How great importance then must it be of, to every child of man, throughly to understand these fundamental doctrines! From a full conviction of this, many excellent men have wrote very largely concerning justification, explaining every point relating thereto, and opening the Scriptures which treat upon it. Many likewise have wrote on the new birth: And some of them largely enough; but yet not so clearly as might have been desired, nor so deeply and accurately; having either given a dark, abstruse account of it, or a slight and superficial one. Therefore a full, and at the same time a clear, account of the new birth, seems to be wanting still; such as may enable us to give a satisfactory answer to these three questions: First, Why must we be born again What is the foundation of this doctrine of the new birth Secondly, How must we be born again What is the nature of the new birth And, Thirdly, Wherefore must we be born again To what end is it necessary These questions, by the assistance of God, I shall briefly and plainly answer; and then subjoin a few inferences which will naturally follow.

Let this therefore, if you have not already experienced this inward work of God, be your continual prayer: "Lord, add this to all thy blessings, -- let me be born again! Deny whatever thou pleasest, but deny not this; let me be 'born from above!' Take away whatsoever seemeth thee good, -- reputation, fortune, friends, health, -- only give me this, to be born of the Spirit, to be received among the children of God! Let me be born, 'not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever;' and then let be daily 'grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!'"

10. But it is well to be observed, that the cause of our darkness (whatsoever it be, whether omission or commission, whether inward or outward sin) is not always nigh at hand. Sometimes the sin which occasioned the present distress may lie at a considerable distance. It might be committed days, or weeks, or months before. And that God now withdraws his light and peace on account of what was done so long ago is not (as one might at first imagine) an instance of his severity, but rather a proof of his longsuffering and tender mercy. He waited all this time if haply we would see, acknowledge, and correct what was amiss. And in default of this he at length shows his displeasure, if thus, at last, he may bring us to repentance. (II). 1. Another general cause of this darkness is ignorance; which is likewise of various kinds. If men know not the Scriptures, if they imagine there are passages either in the Old or New Testament which assert, that all believers without exception, must sometimes be in darkness; this ignorance will naturally bring upon them the darkness which they expect. And how common a case has this been among us! How few are there that do not expect it! And no wonder, seeing they are taught to expect it; seeing their guides lead them into this way. Not only the mystic writers of the Romish Church, but many of the most spiritual and experimental in our own, (very few of the last century excepted,) lay it down with all assurance as a plain, unquestionable Scripture doctrine, and cite many texts to prove it.

2. The force of those temptations which arise from within will be exceedingly heightened if we before thought too highly of ourselves, as if we had been cleansed from all sin. And how naturally do we imagine this during the warmth of our first love! How ready are we to believe that God has "fulfilled in us the" whole "work of faith with power!" that because we feel no sin, we have none in us; but the soul is all love! And well may a sharp attack from an enemy whom we supposed to be not only conquered but slain, throw us into much heaviness of soul; yea, sometimes, into utter darkness: Particularly when we reason with this enemy, instead of instantly calling upon God, and casting ourselves upon Him, by simple faith, who "alone knoweth how to deliver" his "out of temptation." III. These are the usual causes of this second darkness. Inquire we, Thirdly, What is the cure of it

7. Entirely different will be the manner of the cure, if the cause of the disease be not sin, but ignorance. It may be, ignorance of the meaning of Scripture; perhaps occasioned by ignorant commentators; ignorant, at least, in this respect, however knowing and learned they may be in other particulars. And, in this case that ignorance must be removed before we can remove the darkness arising from it. We must show the true meaning of those texts which have been misunderstood. My design does not permit me to consider all the passages of Scripture which have been pressed into this service. I shall just mention two or three, which are frequently brought to prove that all believers must, sooner or later, "walk in darkness." 8 One of these is Isaiah 50:10: "Who is among you that feareth the Lord, and obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness and hath no light Let him trust in the name of the Lord and stay upon his God." But how does it appear, either from the text or context, that the person here spoken of ever had light One who is convinced of sin, "feareth the Lord, and obeyeth voice of his servant." And him we should advise, though he was still dark of soul, and had never seen the light of God's countenance, yet to "trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God." This text, therefore, proves nothing less than that believer in Christ "must sometimes walk in darkness." 9. Another text which has been supposed to speak the same doctrine is Hosea 2:14: "I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto her." Hence it has been inferred, that God will bring every believer into the wilderness, into a state of deadness and darkness. But it is certain the text speaks no such thing; for it does not appear that it speaks of particular believers at all: It manifestly refers to the Jewish nation; and, perhaps, to that only. But if it be applicable to particular persons, the plain meaning of it is this: -- I will draw him by love; I will next convince him of sin; and then comfort him by pardoning mercy.

10. A third Scripture from whence the same inference has been drawn is that above recited, "Ye now have sorrow: But I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you." This has been supposed to imply, that God would after a time withdraw himself from all believers; and that they could not, till after they had thus sorrowed, have the joy which no man could take from them. But the whole context shows that our Lord is here speaking personally to the Apostles, and no others; and that he is speaking concerning those particular events, his own death and resurrection. "A little while," says he, "and ye shall not see me;" viz., whilst I am in the grave: "And again, a little while, and ye shall see me;" when I am risen from the dead. Ye will weep and lament, and the world will rejoice: But your sorrow shall be turned into joy." -- "Ye now have sorrow," because I am about to be taken from your head; "but I will see you again," after my resurrection, "and your heart shall rejoice; and your joy," which I will then give you, "no man taketh from you." All this we know was literally fulfilled in the particular case of the Apostles. But no inference can be drawn from hence with regard to God's dealings with believers in general. 11. A fourth text (to mention no more) which has been frequently cited in proof of the same doctrine, is 1 Peter 4:12: "Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you." But this is full as foreign to the point as the preceding. The text, literally rendered, runs thus: "Beloved, wonder not at the burning which is among you, which is for your trial." Now, however, this may be accommodated to inward trials, in a secondary sense; yet, primarily, it doubtless refers to martyrdom, and the sufferings connected with it. Neither, therefore, is this text anything at all to the purpose for which it is cited. And we may challenge all men to bring one text, either from the Old or New Testament, which is any more to the purpose than this.

12. "But is not darkness much more profitable for the soul than light Is not the work of God in the heart most swiftly and effectually carried on during a state of inward suffering Is not a believer more swiftly and thoroughly purified by sorrow, than by joy -- by anguish, and pain, and distress, and spiritual martyrdoms, than by continual peace" So the Mystics teach; so it is written in their books; but not in the oracles of God. The Scripture nowhere says, that the absence of God best perfects his work in the heart! Rather, his presence, and a clear communion with the Father and the Son: A strong consciousness of this will do more an hour, than his absence in an age. Joy in the Holy Ghost will far more effectually purify the soul than the want of that joy; and the peace of God is the best means of refining the soul from the dross of earthly affections. Away then with the idle conceit, that the kingdom of God is divided against itself; that the peace of God, and joy in the Holy Ghost, are obstructive of righteousness; and that we are saved, not by faith, but by unbelief; not by hope, but by despair! 13. So long as men dream thus, they may well "walk in darkness:" Nor can the effect cease, till the cause is removed. But yet we must not imagine it will immediately cease, even when the cause is no more. When either ignorance or sin has caused darkness, one or the other may be removed, and yet the light which was obstructed thereby may not immediately return. As it is the free gift of God, he may restore it, sooner or later, as it pleases him. In the case of sin, we cannot reasonably expect that it should immediately return. The sin began before the punishment, which may, therefore, justly remain after the sin is at an end. And even in the natural course of things, though a wound cannot be healed while the dart is sticking in the flesh; yet neither is it healed as soon as that is drawn out, but soreness and pain may remain long after.

2. Neither did their heaviness destroy their peace; the "peace that passeth all understanding;" which is inseparable from true, living faith. This we may easily gather from the second verse, wherein the Apostle prays, not that grace and peace may be given them, but only that it may "be multiplied unto them;" that the blessing which they already enjoyed might be more abundantly bestowed upon them. 3. The persons to whom the Apostle here speaks were also full of a living hope. For thus he speaks, (1 Pet. 1:3,) "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again," -- me and you, all of us who are "sanctified by the Spirit," and enjoy the "sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" -- "unto a living hope, unto an inheritance," -- that is, unto a living hope of an inheritance, "incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away." So that, notwithstanding their heaviness, they still retained an hope full of immortality. 4. And they still "rejoiced in hope of the glory of God." They were filled with joy in the Holy Ghost. So, (1 Pet. 1:8), the Apostle, having just mentioned the final "revelation of Jesus Christ" (namely, when he cometh to judge the world,) immediately adds, "In whom, though now ye see him not," not with your bodily eyes, "yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." Their heaviness, therefore, was not only consistent with living hope, but also with joy unspeakable: At the same time they were thus heavy, they nevertheless rejoiced with joy full of glory. 5. In the midst of their heaviness they likewise still enjoyed the love of God, which had been shed abroad in their hearts; -- "whom," says the Apostle, "having not seen, ye love." Though ye have not yet seen him face to face; yet, knowing him by faith, ye have obeyed his word, "My son, give me thy heart. "He is your God, and your love, the desire of your eyes, and your "exceeding great reward." Ye have sought and found happiness in Him; ye "delight in the Lord," and he hath given you your "hearts' desire."

7. It has been frequently supposed, that there is another cause; if not of darkness, at least, of heaviness; namely, God's withdrawing himself from the soul, because it is his sovereign will. Certainly he will do this, if we grieve his Holy Spirit, either by outward or inward sin; either by doing evil, or neglecting to do good; by giving way either to pride or anger, to spiritual sloth, to foolish desire, or inordinate affection. But that he ever withdraws himself because he will, merely because it is his good pleasure, I absolutely deny. There is no text in all the Bible which gives any colour for such a supposition. Nay, it is a supposition contrary, not only to many particular texts, but to the whole tenor of Scripture. It is repugnant to the very nature of God: It is utterly beneath his majesty and wisdom, (as an eminent writer strongly expresses it,) "to play at bo-peep with his creatures." It is inconsistent both with his justice and mercy, and with the sound experience of all his children. 8. One more cause of heaviness is mentioned by many of those who are termed Mystic authors. And the notion has crept in, I know not how, even among plain people who have no acquaintance with them. I cannot better explain this, than in the words of a late writer, who relates this as her own experience: -- "I continued so happy in my Beloved, that, although I should have been forced to live a vagabond in a desert, I should have found no difficulty in it. This state had not lasted long, when, in effect, I found myself led into a desert. I found myself in a forlorn condition, altogether poor, wretched, and miserable. The proper source of this grief is, the knowledge of ourselves; by which we find that there is an extreme unlikeness between God and us. We see ourselves most opposite to him; and that our inmost soul is entirely corrupted, depraved, and full of all kind of evil and malignity, of the world and the flesh, and all sorts of abominations." -- From hence it has been inferred, that the knowledge of ourselves, without which we should perish everlastingly, must, even after we have attained justifying faith, occasion the deepest heaviness.

IV. 1. For what ends, then, (which was the Fourth thing to be considered,) does God permit heaviness to befall so many of his children The Apostle gives us a plain and direct answer to this important question: "That the trial of their faith, which is much more precious than gold that perisheth, though it be tried by fire, may be found unto praise, and honour, and glory, at the revelation of Jesus Christ."(1 Pet. 1:7.) There may be an allusion to this, in that well-known passage of the fourth chapter; (Although it primarily relates to quite another thing, as has been already observed:) "Think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you: But rejoice that ye are partakers of the sufferings of Christ; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may likewise rejoice with exceeding great joy." (1 Pet. 4:12,&c.) 2. Hence we learn, that the first and great end of God's permitting the temptations which bring heaviness on his children, Is the trial of their faith, which is tried by these, even as gold by the fire. Now we know, gold tried in the fire is purified thereby; is separated from its dross. And so is faith in the fire of temptation; the more it is tried, the more it is purified; -- yea, and not only purified, but also strengthened, confirmed, increased abundantly, by so many more proofs of the wisdom and power, the love and faithfulness, of God. This, then, -- to increase our faith, -- is one gracious end of God's permitting those manifold temptations.

I. 1. I shall, First, endeavour to show, what it is for a man to "deny himself, and take up his cross daily." This is a point which is, of all others, most necessary to be considered and throughly understood, even on this account, that it is, of all others, most opposed by numerous and powerful enemies. All our nature must certainly rise up against this, even in its own defence; the world, consequently, the men who take nature, not grace, for their guide, abhor the very sound of it. And the great enemy of our souls, well knowing its importance, cannot but move every stone against it. But this is not all: Even those who have in some measure shaken off the yoke of the devil, who have experienced, especially of late years, a real work of grace in their hearts, yet are no friends to this grand doctrine of Christianity, though it is so peculiarly insisted on by their Master. Some of them are as deeply and totally ignorant concerning it, as if there was not one word about it in the Bible. Others are farther off still, having unawares imbibed strong prejudices against it. These they have received partly from outside Christians, men of a fair speech and behaviour, who want nothing of godliness but the power, nothing of religion but the spirit; -- and partly from those who did once, if they do not now, "taste of the powers of the world to come." But are there any of these who do not both practise self-denial themselves, and recommend it to others You are little acquainted with mankind, if you doubt of this. There are whole bodies of men who only do not declare war against it. To go no farther than London: Look upon the whole body of Predestinarians, who by the free mercy of God have lately been called out of the darkness of nature into the light of faith. Are they patterns of self-denial How few of them even profess to practise it at all! How few of them recommend it themselves, or are pleased with them that do!

14. We see plainly then both the nature and ground of taking up our cross. It does not imply the disciplining ourselves; (as some speak;) the literally tearing our own flesh: the wearing hair-cloth, or iron-girdles, or anything else that would impair our bodily health; (although we know not what allowance God may make for those who act thus through involuntary ignorance;) but the embracing the will of God, though contrary to our own; the choosing wholesome, though bitter medicines; the freely accepting temporary pain, of whatever kind, and in whatever degree, when it is either essentially or accidentally necessary to eternal pleasure. II. 1. I am, Secondly, to show, that it is always owing to the want either of self-denial, or taking up his cross, that any man does not throughly follow Him, is not fully a disciple of Christ. It is true, this may be partly owing, in some cases, to the want of the means of grace; of hearing the true word of God spoken with power; of the sacraments, or of Christian fellowship. But where none of these is wanting, the great hindrance of our receiving or growing in the grace of God is always the want of denying ourselves, or taking up our cross. 2. A few instances will make this plain. A man hears the word which is able to save his soul: He is well pleased with what he hears, acknowledges the truth, and is a little affected by it; yet he remains "dead in trespasses and sins," senseless and unawakened. Why is this Because he will not part with his bosom-sin, though he now knows it is an abomination to the Lord. He came to hear, full of lust and unholy desires; and he will not part with them. Therefore no deep impression is made upon him, but his foolish heart is still hardened: That is, he is still senseless and unawakened, because he will not deny himself.

6. But perhaps he has not made shipwreck of the faith: He has still a measure of the Spirit of adoption, which continues to witness with his spirit that he is a child of God. However, he is not "going on to perfection;" he is not, as once, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, panting after the whole image and full enjoyment of God, as the hart after the water-brook. Rather he is weary and faint in his mind, and, as it were, hovering between life and death. And why is he thus, but because he hath forgotten the word of God, -- "By works is faith made perfect" He does not use all diligence in working the works of God. He does not "continue instant in prayer," private as well as public; in communicating, hearing, meditation, fasting, and religious conference. If he does not wholly neglect some of these means, at least he does not use them all with his might. Or he is not zealous of works of charity, as well as works of piety. He is not merciful after his power, with the full ability which God giveth. He does not fervently serve the Lord by doing good to men, in every kind and in every degree he can, to their souls as well as their bodies. And why does he not continue in prayer Because in time of dryness it is pain and grief unto him. He does not continue in hearing at all opportunities, because sleep is sweet; or it is cold, or dark, or rainy. But why does he not continue in works of mercy Because he cannot feed the hungry, or clothe the naked, unless he retrench the expense of his own apparel, or use cheaper and less pleasing food. Beside which, the visiting the sick, or those that are in prison, is attended with many disagreeable circumstances. And so are most works of spiritual mercy; reproof, in particular. He would reprove his neighbour; but sometimes shame, sometimes fear, comes between: For he may expose himself, not only to ridicule, but to heavier inconveniences too. Upon these and the like considerations, he omits one or more, if not all, works of mercy and piety. Therefore, his faith is not made perfect, neither can he grow in grace; namely, because he will not deny himself, and take up his daily cross.

7. It manifestly follows, that it is always owing to the want either of self-denial, or taking up his cross, that a man does not throughly follow his Lord, that he is not fully a disciple of Christ. It is owing to this, that he who is dead in sin does not awake, though the trumpet be blown; that he who begins to awake out of sleep, yet has no deep or lasting conviction; that he who is deeply and lastingly convinced of sin does not attain remission of sins; that some who have received this heavenly gift retain it not, but make shipwreck of the faith; and that others, if they do not draw back to perdition, yet are weary and faint in their mind, and do not reach the mark of the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. III. 1. How easily may we learn hence, that they know neither the Scripture nor the power of God, who directly or indirectly, in public or in private, oppose the doctrine of self-denial and the daily cross! How totally ignorant are these men of an hundred particular texts, as well as of the general tenor of the whole oracles of God! And how entirely unacquainted must they be with true, genuine, Christian experience; -- of the manner wherein the Holy Spirit ever did, and does at this day, work in the souls of men! They may talk, indeed, very loudly and confidently, (a natural fruit of ignorance,) as though they were the only men who understood either the word of God, or the experience of his children. but their words are, in every sense, vain words; they are weighed in the balance, and found wanting.

"If thy brother shall sin against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he will not hear them, tell it to the Church. But if he does not hear the church, let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican." Matt. 18:15-17 1. "Speak evil of no man," says the great Apostle: -- As plain a command as, "Thou shalt do no murder." But who, even among Christians, regards this command Yea, how few are there that so much as understand it What is evil-speaking It is not, as some suppose, the same with lying or slandering. All a man says may be as true as the Bible; and yet the saying of it is evil-speaking. For evil-speaking is neither more nor less than speaking evil of an absent person; relating something evil, which was really done or said by one that is not present when it is related. Suppose, having seen a man drunk, or heard him curse or swear, I tell this when he is absent; it is evil-speaking. In our language this is also, by an extremely proper name, termed backbiting. Nor is there any material difference between this and what we usually style tale-bearing. If the tale be delivered in a soft and quiet manner (perhaps with expressions of good-will to the person, and of hope that things may not be quite so bad,) then we call it whispering. But in whatever manner it be done, the thing is the same; -- the same in substance, if not in circumstance. Still it is evil-speaking; still this command, "Speak evil of no man," is trampled under foot; if we relate to another the fault of a third person, when he is not present to answer for himself.

III. 1. That we may be thoroughly instructed in this weighty affair, our Lord has given us a still farther direction: "If he will not hear them," then, and not till then, "tell it to the church." This is the third step. All the question is, how this word, "the church," is here to be understood. But the very nature of the thing will determine this beyond all reasonable doubt. You cannot tell it to the national Church, the whole body of men termed "the Church of England." Neither would it answer any Christian end if you could; this, therefore, is not the meaning of the word. Neither can you tell it to that whole body of people in England with whom you have a more immediate connection. Nor, indeed, would this answer any good end: The word, therefore, is not to be understood thus. It would not answer any valuable end to tell the faults of every particular member to the church (if you would so term it,) the congregation or society, united together in London. It remains that you tell it to the elder or elders of the church, to those who are overseers of that flock of Christ to which you both belong, who watch over yours and his soul, "as they that must give account." And this should be done, if it conveniently can, in the presence of the person concerned, and, though plainly, yet with all the tenderness and love which the nature of the thing will admit. It properly belongs to their office, to determine concerning the behavior of those under their care, and to rebuke, according to the demerit of the offense, "with all authority." When, therefore, you have done this, you have done all which the Word of God, or the law of love, requireth of you: You are not now partaker of his sin; but if he perish, his blood is on his own head.

3. The directions which God has given us, touching the use of our worldly substance, may be comprised in the following particulars. If you desire to be a faithful and a wise steward, out of that portion of your Lord's goods which he has for the present lodged in your hands, but with the right of resuming whenever it pleases him, First, provide things needful for yourself; food to eat, raiment to put on, whatever nature moderately requires for preserving the body in health and strength. Secondly, provide these for your wife, your children, your servants, or any others who pertain to your household. If when this is done there be an overplus left, then "do good to them that are of the household of faith." If there be an overplus still, "as you have opportunity, do good unto all men." In so doing, you give all you can; nay, in a sound sense, all you have: For all that is laid out in this manner is really given to God. You "render unto God the things that are God's," not only by what you give to the poor, but also by that which you expend in providing things needful for yourself and your household. 4. If, then, a doubt should at any time arise in your mind concerning what you are going to expend, either on yourself or any part of your family, you have an easy way to remove it. Calmly and seriously inquire, "(1.) In expending this, am I acting according to my character Am I acting herein, not as a proprietor, but as a steward of my Lord's goods (2.) Am I doing this in obedience to his Word In what Scripture does he require me so to do (3.) Can I offer up this action, this expense, as a sacrifice to God through Jesus Christ (4.) Have I reason to believe that for this very work I shall have a reward at the resurrection of the just" You will seldom need anything more to remove any doubt which arises on this head; but by this four-fold consideration you will receive clear light as to the way wherein you should go.

only excepting those things which God Himself has been pleased to reveal to man. I will speak for one. After having sought for truth, with some diligence, for half a century, I am, at this day, hardly sure of anything but what I learn from the Bible. Nay, I positively affirm, I know nothing else so certainly, that I would dare to stake my salvation upon it. So much, however, we may learn from Solomon's words, that "there is no" such "knowledge or wisdom in the grave," as will be of any use to an unhappy spirit; "there is no device" there, whereby he can now improve those talents with which he was once entrusted. For time is no more; the time of our trial for everlasting happiness or misery is past. Our day, the day of man, is over; the day of salvation is ended! Nothing now remains but the "day of the Lord," ushering in wide, unchangeable eternity!

8. But still, our souls, being incorruptible and immortal, of a nature "little lower than the angels" (even if we are to understand that phrase of our original nature, which may well admit of a doubt,) when our bodies are mouldered into earth, will remain with all their faculties. Our memory, our understanding, will be so far from being destroyed, yea, or impaired, by the dissolution of the body, that, on the contrary, we have reason to believe, they will be inconceivably strengthened. Have we not the clearest reason to believe, that they will then be wholly freed from those defects which now naturally result from the union of the soul with the corruptible body It is highly probable, that, from the time these are disunited, our memory will let nothing slip; yea, that it will faithfully exhibit everything to our view which was ever committed to it. It is true, that the invisible world is, in Scripture, termed "the land of forgetfulness;" or, as it is still more strongly expressed in the old translation, "the land where all things are forgotten." They are forgotten; but by whom Not by the inhabitants of that land, but by the inhabitants of the earth. It is with regard to them that the unseen world is "the land of forgetfulness." All things therein are too frequently forgotten by these; but not by disembodied spirits. From the time they have put off the earthly tabernacle, we can hardly think they forget anything. 9. In like manner, the understanding will, doubtless, be freed from the defects that are now inseparable from it. For many ages it has been an unquestioned maxim, humanum est errare et nescire; -- ignorance and mistake are inseparable from human nature. But the whole of this assertion is only true with regard to living men; and holds no longer than while "the corruptible body presses down the soul." Ignorance, indeed, belongs to every finite understanding (seeing there is none beside God that knoweth all things;) but not mistake: When the body is laid aside, this also is laid aside, for ever.

III. 1. It now remains, that, being no longer stewards, we give an account of our stewardship. Some have imagined, this is to be done immediately after death, as soon as we enter into the world of spirits. Nay, the Church of Rome does absolutely assert this; yea, makes it an article of faith. And thus much we may allow, the moment a soul drops the body, and stands naked before God, it cannot but know what its portion will be to all eternity. It will have full in its view, either everlasting joy, or everlasting torment; as it is no longer possible to be deceived in the judgment which we pass upon ourselves. But the Scripture gives us no reason to believe, that God will then sit in judgment upon us. There is no passage in all the oracles of God which affirms any such thing. That which has been frequently alleged for this purpose seems rather to prove the contrary; namely (Heb. 9:27,) "It is appointed for men once to die, and after this the judgment:" For, in all reason, the word "once" is here to be applied to judgment as well as death. So that the fair inference to be drawn from this very text is, not that there are two judgments, a particular and a general; but that we are to be judged, as well as to die, once only: Not once immediately after death, and again after the general resurrection; but then only "when the Son of man shall come in His glory, and all His holy angels with Him." The imagination therefore of one judgment at death, and another at the end of the world, can have no place with those who make the written Word of God the whole and sole standard of their faith.

2. The time then when we are to give this account is, when the "great white throne comes down from heaven, and he that sitteth thereon, from whose face the heavens and the earth flee away, and there is found no place for them." It is then "the dead, small and great, will stand before God; and the books will be opened:" -- The book of Scripture, to them who were entrusted therewith; the book of conscience to all mankind. The "book of remembrance," likewise (to use another scriptural expression,) which had been writing from the foundation of the world, will then be laid open to the view of all the children of men. Before all these, even the whole human race, before the devil and his angels, before an innumerable company of holy angels, and before God the Judge of all, thou wilt appear, without any shelter or covering, without any possibility of disguise, to give a particular account of the manner wherein thou hast employed all thy Lord's goods!

8. "But if the end you aim at be really to reform sinners, you choose the wrong means. It is the Word of God must effect this, and not human laws; and it is the work of Ministers, not of Magistrates; therefore, the applying to these can only produce an outward reformation. It makes no change in the heart." It is true the Word of God is the chief, ordinary means, whereby he changes both the hearts and lives of sinners; and he does this chiefly by the Ministers of the gospel. But it is likewise true, that the Magistrate is "the minister of God;" and that he is designed of God "to be a terror to evil-doers," by executing human laws upon them. If this does not change the heart, yet to prevent outward sin is one valuable point gained. There is so much the less dishonour done to God, less scandal brought on our holy religion; less curse and reproach upon our nation; less temptation laid in the way of others; yea, and less wrath heaped up by the sinners themselves against the day of wrath. 9. "Nay, rather more; for it makes many of them hypocrites, pretending to be what they are not. Others, by exposing them to shame, and putting them to expense, are made impudent and desperate in wickedness; so that in reality none of them are any better, if they are not worse than they were before." This is a mistake all over. For, (1.) where are these hypocrites We know none who have pretended to be what they were not. (2.) The exposing obstinate offenders to shame, and putting them to expense, does not make them desperate in offending, but afraid to offend. (3.) Some of them, far from being worse, are substantially better, the whole tenor of their lives being changed. Yea, (4.) some are inwardly changed, even "from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God." 10. "But many are not convinced that buying or selling on the Lord's day is a sin."

On The Death of The Rev. Mr. George Whitefield Preached at the Chapel in Tottenham-Court Road on Sunday, November 18, 1770 and at the Tabernacle, near Moorfields, on Friday, November 23, 1770. "Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his!" Num. 23:10. 1. "Let my last end be like his!" How many of you join in this wish Perhaps there are few of you who do not, even in this numerous congregation! And O that this wish may rest upon your minds! -- that it may not die away till your souls also are lodged "where the wicked cease from troubling, and where the weary are at rest!" 2. An elaborate exposition of the text will not be expected on this occasion. It would detain you too long from the sadly-pleasing thought of your beloved brother, friend, and pastor; yea, and father too: for how many are here whom he hath "begotten in the Lord!" Will it not, then, be more suitable to your inclinations, as well as to this solemnity, directly to speak of this man of God, whom you have so often heard speaking in this place -- the end of whose conversation ye know, "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever." And may we not, I. Observe a few particulars of his life and death II. Take some view of his character and, III. Inquire how we may improve this awful providence, his sudden removal from us 1. We may, in the first place, observe a few particulars of his life and death. He was born at Gloucester, in December, 1714, and put to a grammar-school there, when about twelve years old. When he was seventeen, he began to be seriously religious, and served God to the best of his knowledge. About eighteen he removed to the University, and was admitted at Pembroke College in Oxford; and about a year after he became acquainted with the Methodists (so called), whom from that time he loved as his own soul.

On Eternity "From everlasting to everlasting thou art God." Psalm 90:2 1. I would fain speak of that awful subject, -- eternity. But how can we grasp it in our thought It is so vast, that the narrow mind of man is utterly unable to comprehend it. But does it not bear some affinity to another incomprehensible thing, -- immensity May not space, though an unsubstantial thing, be compared with another unsubstantial thing, -- duration But what is immensity It is boundless space. And what is eternity It is boundless duration. 2. Eternity has generally been considered as divisible into two parts; which have been termed eternity a parte ante, and eternity a parte post, -- that is, in plain English, that eternity which is past, and that eternity which is to come. And does there not seem to be an intimation of this distinction in the text "Thou art God from everlasting:" -- Here is an expression of that eternity which is past: "To everlasting:" -- Here is an expression of that eternity which is to come. Perhaps, indeed, some may think it is not strictly proper to say, there is an eternity that is past. But the meaning is easily understood: We mean thereby duration which had no beginning; as by eternity to come, we mean that duration which will have no end. 3. It is God alone who (to use the exalted language of Scripture) "inhabiteth eternity," in both these senses. The great Creator alone (not any of his creatures) is "from everlasting to everlasting:" His duration alone, as it had no beginning, so it cannot have any end. On this consideration it is, that one speaks thus, in addressing Immanuel, God with us: -- Hail, God the Son, with glory crown'd Ere time began to be; Throned with thy Sire through half the round Of wide eternity! And again: -- Hail, God the Son, with glory crown'd Ere time shall cease to be; Throned with the Father through the round Of whole eternity!

4. I dare not insist upon any one's using the word Trinity, or Person. I use them myself without any scruple, because I know of none better: But if any man has any scruple concerning them, who shall constrain him to use them I cannot: Much less would I burn a man alive, and that with moist, green wood, for saying, Though I believe the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; yet I scruple using the words Trinity and Persons, because I do not find those terms in the Bible." These are the words which merciful John Calvin cites as wrote by Servitus in a letter to himself. I would insist only on the direct words, unexplained, just as they lie in the text: "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: And these three are one."

12. You surely believe you have a body, together with your soul, and that each is dependent on the other. Run only a thorn into your hand; immediately pain is felt in your soul. On the other side is shame felt in your soul Instantly a blush overspreads your cheek. Does the soul feel fear or violent anger Presently the body trembles. These also are facts which you cannot deny; nor can you account for them. 13. I bring but one instance more: At the command of your soul, your hand is lifted up. But who is able to account for this For the connexion between the act of the mind, and the outward actions Nay, who can account for muscular motion at all; in any instance of it whatever When one of the most ingenious Physicians in England had finished his lecture upon that head, he added, Now, gentlemen, I have told you all the discoveries of our enlightened age; and now, if you understand one jot of the matter, you understand more than I do." The short of the matter is this: Those who will not believe anything but what they can comprehend, must not believe that there is a sun in the firmament; that there is light shining around them; that there is air, though it encompasses them on every side; that there is any earth, though they stand upon it. They must not believe they have a soul; no, nor that they have a body. 14. But, secondly, as strange as it may seem. in requiring you to believe, "there arc three that bear record in heaven the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: And these three are one;" you are not required to believe any mystery. Nay, that, great and good man, Dr. Peter Browne, sometime Bishop of Cork, has proved at large that the Bible does not require you to believe any mystery at all. Thee Bible barely requires you to believe such facts; not the manner of them. Now the mystery does not lie in the fact, but altogether in the manner.

I. 1. "In the beginning God created the matter of the heavens and the earth." (So the words, as a great man observes, may properly be translated.) He first created the four elements, out of which the whole universe was composed; earth, water, air, and fire, all mingled together in one common mass. The grossest parts of this, the earth and water, were utterly without form, till God infused a principle of motion, commanding the air to move "upon the face of the waters." In the next place, "the Lord God said, Let there be light: And there was light." Here were the four constituent parts of the universe; the true, original, simple elements. They were all essentially distinct from each other; and yet so intimately mixed together, in all compound bodies, that we cannot find any, be it ever so minute, which does not contain them all. 2. "And God saw that" every one of these "was good;" was perfect in its kind. The earth was good. The whole surface of it was beautiful in a high degree. To make it more agreeable, He clothed The universal face with pleasant green.

He adorned it with flowers of every hue, and with shrubs and trees of every kind. And every part was fertile as well as beautiful; it was no way deformed by rough or ragged rocks; it did not shock the view with horrid precipices, huge chasms, or dreary caverns; with deep, impassable morasses, or deserts of barren sand. But we have not any authority to say, with some learned and ingenious authors, that there were no mountains on the original earth, no unevenness on its surface. It is not easy to reconcile this hypothesis with those words of Moses: "The waters prevailed; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward" above the highest "did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." (Gen. 7:19, 20.) We have no reason to believe that these mountains were produced by the deluge itself: Not the least intimation of this is given: Therefore, we cannot doubt but they existed before it. -- Indeed, they answered many excellent purposes, besides greatly increasing the beauty of the creation, by a variety of prospects, which had been totally lost had the earth been one extended plain. Yet we need not suppose their sides were abrupt, or difficult of ascent. It is highly probable that they rose and fell by almost insensible degrees. 3. As to the internal parts of the earth, even to this day, we have scarce any knowledge of them. Many have supposed the centre of the globe to be surrounded with an abyss of fire. Many others have imagined it to be encompassed with an abyss of water; which they supposed to be termed in Scripture, "the great deep;" (Gen. 7:11;) all the fountains of which were broken up, in order to the General Deluge. But, however this was, we are sure all things were disposed therein with the most perfect order and harmony. Hence there were no agitations within the bowels of the globe, no violent convulsions, no concussions of the earth, no earthquakes; but all was unmoved as the pillars of heaven! There were then no such things as eruptions of fire; there were no volcanoes, or burning mountains. Neither Vesuvius, Etna, or Hecla, if they had any being, then poured out smoke and flame, but were covered with a verdant mantle from the top to the bottom.

8. On the second day God encompassed the terraqueous globe with that noble appendage, the atmosphere, consisting chiefly of air; but replete with earthly particles of various kinds, and with huge volumes of water, sometimes invisible, sometimes visible, buoyed up by that ethereal fire, a particle of which cleaves to every particle of air. By this the water was divided ed into innumerable drops, which, descending, watered the earth, and made it very plenteous, without incommoding any of its inhabitants. For there were then no impetuous currents of air; no tempestuous winds; no furious hail; no torrents of rain; no rolling thunders, or forky lightnings. One perennial spring was perpetually smiling over the whole surface of the earth. 9. On the third day God commanded all kind of vegetables to spring out of the earth; and then, to add thereto innumerable herbs, intermixed with flowers of all hues. To these were added shrubs of every kind; together with tall and stately trees, whether for shade, for timber, or for fruit, in endless variety. Some of these were adapted to particular climates, or particular exposures; while vegetables of more general use (as wheat in particular) were not confined to one country, but would flourish almost in every climate. But among all these there were no weeds, no useless plants, none that encumbered the ground; much less were there any poisonous ones, tending to hurt any one creature; but every thing was salutary in its kind, suitable to the gracious design of its great Creator. 10. The Lord now created "the sun to rule the day, and the moon to govern the night." The sun was Of this great world both eye and soul: --

11. The Lord God afterward peopled the earth with animals of every kind. He first commanded the waters to bring forth abundantly; -- to bring forth creatures, which, as they inhabited a grosser element, so they were, in general, of a more stupid nature; endowed with fewer senses and less understanding than other animals. The bivalved shell-fish, in particular, seem to have no sense but that of feeling, unless perhaps a low measure of taste; so that they are but one degree above vegetables. And even the king of the waters, (a title which some give the whale, because of his enormous magnitude,) though he has sight added to taste and feeling, does not appear to have an understanding proportioned to his bulk. Rather, he is inferior therein not only to most birds and beasts, but to the generality of even reptiles and insects. However, none of these then attempted to devour, or in anyway hurt, one another. All were peaceful and quiet, as were the watery fields wherein they ranged at pleasure. 12. It seems the insect kinds were at least one degree above the inhabitants of the waters. Almost all these too devour one another, and every other creature which they can conquer. Indeed, such is the miserably disordered state of the world at present, that innumerable creatures can no otherwise preserve their own lives than by destroying others. But in the beginning it was not so. The paradisiacal earth afforded a sufficiency of food for all its inhabitants; so that none of them had any need or temptation to prey upon the other. The spider was then as harmless as the fly, and did not then lie in wait for blood. The weakest of them crept securely over the earth, or spread their gilded wings in the air, that wavered in the breeze, and glittered in the sun, without any to make them afraid. Meantime, the reptiles of every kind were equally harmless, and more intelligent than they; yea, one species of them "was more subtil," or knowing, "than any of the" brute creation "which God had made."

I. 1. In the First place let us briefly consider the preceding part of this chapter. "Now the serpent was more subtil," or intelligent, "than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made;" (Gen. 3:1;) -- endued with more understanding than any other animal in the brute creation. Indeed, there is no improbability in the conjecture of an ingenious man, [The late Dr. Nicholas Robinson.] that the serpent was endued with reason, which is now the property of man. And this accounts for a circumstance which, on any other supposition, would be utterly unintelligible. How comes Eve not to be surprised, yea, startled and affrighted, at hearing the serpent speak and reason; unless she knew that reason, and speech in consequence of it, were the original properties of the serpent Hence, without showing any surprise, she immediately enters into conversation with him. "And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden" See how he, who was a liar from the beginning, mixes truth and falsehood together! Perhaps on purpose, that she might be the more inclined to speak, in order to clear God of the unjust charge. Accordingly, the woman said unto the serpent, (Gen. 3:2,) "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the tree in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." Thus far she appears to have been clear of blame. But how long did she continue so "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Gen. 3:4, 5.) Here sin began; namely, unbelief. "The woman was deceived," says the Apostle. She believed a lie: She gave more credit to the word of the devil, than to the word of God. And unbelief brought forth actual sin: "When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and pleasant to the eyes, and to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit, and did eat;" and so completed her sin.

As age increases, fewer and fewer of the vessels are pervious, and capable of transmitting the vital stream; except the larger ones, most of which are lodged within the trunk of the body. In extreme old age, the arteries themselves, the grand instruments of circulation, by the continual apposition of earth, become hard, and, as it were, bony, till, having lost the power of contracting themselves, they can no longer propel the blood, even through the largest channels; in consequence of which, death naturally ensues. Thus are the seeds of death sown in our very nature! Thus from the very hour when we first appear on the stage of life, we are travelling toward death: We are preparing, whether we will or no, to return to the dust from whence we came! 6. Let us now take a short review of the whole, as it is delivered with inimitable simplicity; what an unprejudiced person might, even from hence, infer to be the word of God. In that period of duration which He saw to be most proper, (of which He alone could be the judge, whose eye views the whole possibility of things from everlasting to everlasting,) the Almighty, rising in the greatness of his strength, went forth to create the universe. "In the beginning he created," made out of nothing, "the matter of the heavens and the earth:" (So, Mr. Hutchinson observes, the original words properly signify:) Then "the Spirit" or breath "from the Lord," that is, the air, "moved upon the face of the waters." Here were earth, water, air; three of the elements, or component parts of the lower world. "And God said, Let there be light: And there was light." By his omnific word, light, that is, fire, the fourth element, sprang into being. Out of these, variously modified and proportioned to each other, he composed the whole. "The earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed, and the tree yielding fruit after his kind;" and then the various tribes of animals, to inhabit the waters, the air, and the earth. But the very Heathen could observe, Sanctius his animal, mentisque capacius aluae Deerat adhuc!

On Predestination "Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son: -- Whom he did predestinate, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Romans 8:29, 30. Our beloved brother Paul," says St. Peter, "according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his Epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:15, 16) 2. It is not improbable, that among those things spoken by St. Paul, which are hard to be understood, the Apostle Peter might place what he speaks on this subject in the eighth and ninth chapters of his epistle to the Romans. And it is certain not only the unlearned, but many of the most learned men in the world, and not the "unstable" only, but many who seemed to be well established in the truths of the gospel, have for several centuries, "wrested" these passages "to their own destruction." 3. "Hard to be understood" we may well allow them to be, when we consider how men of the strongest understanding, improved by all the advantages of education, have continually differed in judgment concerning them. And this very consideration, that there is so wide a difference upon the head between men of the greatest learning, sense, and piety, one might imagine would make all who now speak upon the subject exceedingly wary and self-diffident. But I know not how it is, that just the reverse is observed in every part of the Christian world. No writers upon earth appear more positive than those who write on this difficult subject. Nay, the same men, who, writing upon any other subject, are remarkably modest and humble, on this alone lay aside all self-distrust, And speak ex cathedraa infallible.

14. Once more: As all that are called were predestinated, so all whom God has predestinated he foreknew. He knew, he saw them as believers, and as such predestinated them to salvation, according to his eternal decree, "He that believeth shall be saved." Thus we see the whole process of the work of God, from the end to the beginning. Who are glorified None but those who were first sanctified. Who are sanctified None but those who were first justified. Who are justified None but those who were first predestinated Who are predestinated None but those whom God foreknew as believers. Thus the purpose and word of God stand unshaken as the pillars of heaven: -- "He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned." And thus God is clear from the blood of all men; since whoever perishes, perishes by his own act and deed. "They will not come unto me," says the Savior of men; and "there is no salvation in any other." They "will not believe;" and there is no other way either to present or eternal salvation. Therefore, their blood is upon their own head; and God is still "justified in his saying" that he "willeth all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of his truth."

2. But how are these Scriptures reconcilable to the present state of things How are they consistent with what we daily see round about us, in every part of the creation If the Creator and Father of every living thing is rich in mercy towards all; if he does not overlook or despise any of the works of his own hands; if he wills even the meanest of them to be happy, according to their degree; how comes it to pass, that such a complication of evils oppresses, yea, overwhelms them How is it that misery of all kinds overspreads the face of the earth This is a question which has puzzled the wisest philosophers in all ages: And it cannot be answered without having recourse to the oracles of God. But, taking these for our guide we may inquire, I. What was the original state of the brute creation II. In what state is it at present And, III. In what state will it be at the manifestation of the children of God

III. 1. But will "the creature," will even the brute creation, always remain in this deplorable condition God forbid that we should affirm this; yea, or even entertain such a thought! While "the whole creation groaneth together," (whether men attend or not,) their groans are not dispersed in idle air, but enter into the ears of Him that made them. While his creatures "travail together in pain," he knoweth all their pain, and is bringing them nearer and nearer to the birth, which shall be accomplished in its season. He seeth "the earnest expectation" wherewith the whole animated creation "waiteth for" that final "manifestation of the sons of God;" in which "they themselves also shall be delivered" (not by annihilation; annihilation is not deliverance) "from the" present "bondage of corruption, into" a measure of "the glorious liberty of the children of God." 2. Nothing can be more express: Away with vulgar prejudices, and let the plain word of God take place. They "shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into glorious liberty," -- even a measure, according as they are capable, -- of "the liberty of the children of God." A general view of this is given us in the twenty-first chapter of the Revelation. When He that "sitteth on the great white throne" hath pronounced, "Behold, I make all things new;" when the word is fulfilled, "The tabernacle of God is with men, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them and be their God;" -- then the following blessing shall take place (not only on the children of men; there is no such restriction in the text; but) on every creature according to its capacity: "God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes. And there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying. Neither shall there be any more pain: For the former things are passed away."

5. Only "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord;" being "a just man, and perfect in his generations." Him, therefore, with his wife, his sons, and their wives, God preserved from the general destruction. And one might have imagined that this small remnant would likewise have been "perfect in their generations." But how far was this from being the case! Presently after this signal deliverance we find one of them, Ham, involved in sin, and under his father's curse. And how did "the mystery of iniquity" afterwards work, not only in the posterity of Ham, but in the posterity of Japheth; yea, and of Shem, -- Abraham and his family only excepted! 6. Yea, how did it work even in the posterity of Abraham; in God's chosen people! Were not these also, down to Moses, to David, to Malachi, to Herod the Great, a faithless and stubborn generation, a "sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity," continually forsaking the Lord, and "provoking the Holy One of Israel" And yet we have no reason to believe that these were worse than the nations that surrounded them, who were universally swallowed up in all manner of wickedness, as well as in damnable idolatries; not having the God of heaven "in all their thoughts," but working all uncleanness with greediness.

28. And this is the event which most Christian expositors mention with such triumph! yea, which some of them suppose to be typified in the Revelation, by "the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven!" Rather say, it was the coming of Satan and all his legions from the bottomless pit: Seeing from that very time he hath set up his throne over the face of the whole earth, and reigned over the Christian as well as the Pagan world with hardly any control. Historians, indeed, tell us, very gravely, of nations, in every century, who were by such and such (Saints without doubt!) converted to Christianity: But still these converts practised all kinds of abominations, exactly as they did before; no way differing, either in their tempers or in their lives, from the nations that were still called Heathens. Such has been the deplorable state of the Christian Church, from the time of Constantine till the Reformation. A Christian nation, a Christian city, (according to the scriptural model,) was nowhere to be seen; but every city and country, a few individuals excepted, was plunged in all manner of wickedness.

30. Is not this the falling away or apostasy from God, foretold by St. Paul in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (2 Thess. 2:3.) Indeed, I would not dare to say, with George Fox, that this apostasy was universal; that there never were any real Christians in the world, from the days of the Apostles till his time. But we may boldly say, that wherever Christianity has spread, the apostasy has spread also; insomuch that, although there are now, and always have been, individuals who were real Christians; yet the whole world never did, nor can at this day, show a Christian country or city. 31. I would now refer it to every man of reflection, who believes the Scriptures to be of God, whether this general apostasy does not imply the necessity of a general reformation Without allowing this, how can we possibly justify either the wisdom or goodness of God According to Scripture, the Christian religion was designed for "the healing of the nations;" for the saving from sin by means of the Second Adam, all that were "constituted sinners" by the first. But it does not answer this end: It never did; unless for a short time at Jerusalem. What can we say, but that if it has not yet, it surely will answer it The time is coming, when not only "all Israel shall be saved," but "the fullness of the Gentiles will come in." The time cometh, when "violence shall no more be heard in the earth, wasting or destruction within our borders;" but every city shall call her "walls Salvation, and her gates Praise;" when the people, saith the Lord, "shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land for ever; the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified." (Isa. 60:18, 21.)

2. How the Son of God was manifested to our first parents in paradise it is not easy to determine. It is generally, and not improbably, supposed that he appeared to them in the form of a man, and conversed with them face to face. Not that I can at all believe the ingenious dream of Dr. Watts concerning "the glorious humanity of Christ," which he supposes to have existed before the world began, and to have been endued with I know not what astonishing powers. Nay, I look upon this to be an exceeding dangerous, yea, mischievous hypothesis; as it quite excludes the force of very many scriptures which have been hitherto thought to prove the Godhead of the Son. And I am afraid it was the grand means of turning that great man aside from the faith once delivered to the saints; -- that is, if he was turned aside; if that beautiful soliloquy be genuine which is printed among his Posthumous Works, wherein he so earnestly beseeches the Son of God not to be displeased because he cannot believe him to be co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. 3. May we not reasonably believe it was by similar appearances that He was manifested, in succeeding ages, to Enoch, while he "walked with God;" to Noah, before and after the deluge; to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, on various occasions; and, to mention no more, to Moses This seems to be the natural meaning of the word: "My servant Moses is faithful in all my house. -- With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of Jehovah shall he behold;" namely, the Son of God. 4. But all these were only types of his grand manifestation. It was in the fulness of time (in just the middle age of the world, as a great man largely proves) that God "brought his first-begotten into the world, made of a woman," by the power of the Highest overshadowing her. He was afterwards manifested to the shepherds; to devout Simeon; to Anna, the Prophetess; and to "all that waited for redemption in Jerusalem."

4. Then error, pain, and all bodily infirmities cease: All these are destroyed by death. And death itself, "the last enemy" of man, shall be destroyed at the resurrection. The moment that we hear the voice of the archangel and the trump of God, "then shall be fulfilled the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory." "This corruptible" body "shall put on incorruption; this mortal" body "shall put on immortality;" and the Son of God, manifested in the clouds of heaven, shall destroy this last work of the devil! 5. Here then we see in the clearest, strongest light, what is real religion: A restoration of man by Him that bruises the serpent's head [Gen. 3:15], to all that the old serpent deprived him of; a restoration not only to the favour but likewise to the image of God, implying not barely deliverance from sin, but the being filled with the fullness of God. It is plain, if we attend to the preceding considerations, that nothing short of this is Christian religion. Every thing else, whether negative or external, is utterly wide of the mark. But what a paradox is this! How little is it understood in the Christian world; yea, in this enlightened age, wherein it is taken for granted, the world is wiser than ever it was from the beginning! Among all our discoveries, who has discovered this How few either among the learned or unlearned! And yet, if we believe the Bible, who can deny it Who can doubt of it It runs through the Bible from the beginning to the end, in one connected chain; and the agreement of every part of it, with every other, is, properly, the analogy of faith. Beware of taking any thing else, or anything less than this, for religion! Not any thing else: Do not imagine an outward form, a round of duties, both in public and private, is religion! Do not suppose that honesty, justice, and whatever is called morality, (though excellent in its place,) is religion! And least of all dream that orthodoxy, right opinion, (vulgarly called faith,) is religion. Of all religious dreams, this is the vainest; which takes hay and stubble for gold tried in the fire!

The General Spread of the Gospel "The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters covers the sea." Isa. 11:9. 1. In what a condition is the world at present! How does darkness, intellectual darkness, ignorance, with vice and misery attendant upon it, cover the face of the earth! From the accurate inquiry made with indefatigable pains by our ingenious countryman, Mr. Brerewood; (who travelled himself over a great part of the known world, in order to form the more exact judgment;) supposing the world to be divided into thirty parts, nineteen of them are professed Heathens, altogether as ignorant of Christ, as if he had never come into the world: Six of the remaining parts are professed Mahometans: So that only five in thirty are so much as nominally Christians! 2. And let it be remembered, that since this computation was made, many new nations have been discovered; numberless islands, particularly in the South Sea, large and well inhabited: But by whom By Heathens of the basest sort; many of them inferior to the beasts of the field. Whether they eat men or no, (which indeed I cannot find any sufficient ground to believe,) they certainly kill all that fall into their hands. They are, therefore, more savage than lions; who kill no more creatures than are necessary to satisfy their present hunger. See the real dignity of human nature! Here it appears in its genuine purity, not polluted either by those "general corrupters, kings," or by the least tincture of religion! What will Abbe Raynal (that determined enemy to monarchy and revelation) say to this 3. A little, and but a little, above the Heathens in religion, are the Mahometans. But how far and wide has this miserable delusion spread over the face of the earth! Insomuch that the Mahometans are considerably more in number (as six to five) than Christians. And by all the accounts which have any pretence to authenticity, these are also, in general, as utter strangers to all true religion as their four-footed brethren; as void of mercy as lions and tigers; as much given up to brutal lusts as bulls or goats. So that they are in truth a disgrace to human nature, and a plague to all that are under their iron yoke.

4. It is true, a celebrated writer (Lady Mary Wortley Montague) gives a very different character of them. With the finest flow of words, in the most elegant language, she labours to wash the Aethiop white. She represents them as many degrees above the Christians; as some of the most amiable people in the world; as possessed of all the social virtues; as some of the most accomplished of men. But I can in no wise receive her report: I cannot rely upon her authority. I believe those round about her had just as much religion as their admirer had when she was admitted into the interior parts of the Grand Seignior's seraglio. Notwithstanding, therefore, all that such a witness does or can say in their favour, I believe the Turks in general are little, if at all, better than the generality of the Heathens. 5. And little, if at all, better than the Turks, are the Christians in the Turkish dominions; even the best of them; those that live in the Morea, or are scattered up and down in Asia. The more numerous bodies of Georgian, Circassian, Mengrelian Christians, are a proverb of reproach to the Turks themselves; not only for their deplorable ignorance, but for their total, stupid, barbarous irreligion. 6. From the most authentic accounts we can obtain of the Southern Christians, those in Abyssinia, and of the Northern Churches, under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow, we have reason to fear they are much in the same condition, both with regard to knowledge and religion, as those in Turkey. Or if those in Abyssinia are more civilized, and have a larger share of knowledge, yet they do not appear to have any more religion than either the Mahometans or Pagans.

And this frequently continued, with shorter or longer intervals, for several weeks or months. But it gradually subsided, and then the work of God was carried on by gentle degrees; while that Spirit, in watering the seed that had been sown, in confirming and strengthening them that had believed, Deign'd his influence to infuse, Secret, refreshing as the silent dews. And this difference in his usual manner of working was observable not only in Great Britain and Ireland, but in every part of America, from South to North, wherever the word of God came with power. 16. Is it not then highly probable, that God will carry on his work in the same manner as he has begun That he will carry it on, I cannot doubt; however Luther may affirm, that a revival of religion never lasts above a generation, -- that is, thirty years; (whereas the present revival has already continued above fifty;) or however prophets of evil may say, "All will be at an end when the first instruments are removed." There will then, very probably, be a great shaking; but I cannot induce myself to think that God has wrought so glorious a work, to let it sink and die away in a few years. No: I trust, this is only the beginning of a far greater work; the dawn of "the latter day glory."

The New Creation Behold, I make all things new. Rev. 21:5. 1. What a strange scene is here opened to our view! How remote from all our natural apprehensions! Not a glimpse of what is here revealed was ever seen in the heathen world. Not only the modern, barbarous, uncivilized Heathens have not the least conception of it; but it was equally unknown to the refined, polished Heathens of ancient Greece and Rome. And it is almost as little thought of or understood by the generality of Christians: I mean, not barely those that are nominally such, that have the form of godliness without the power; but even those that in a measure fear God, and study to work righteousness. 2. It must be allowed that after all the researches we can make, still our knowledge of the great truth which is delivered to us in these words is exceedingly short and imperfect. As this is a point of mere revelation, beyond the reach of all our natural faculties, we cannot penetrate far into it, nor form any adequate conception of it. But it may be an encouragement to those who have in any degree tasted of the powers of the world to come to go as far as we can go, interpreting Scripture by Scripture, according to the analogy of faith. 3. The Apostle, caught up in the visions of God, tells us in the first verse of the chapter, "I saw a new heaven and a new earth;" and adds, (Rev. 21:5,) "He that sat upon the throne said," (I believe the only words which he is said to utter throughout the whole book,) "Behold, I make all things new."

4. Very many commentators entertain a strange opinion that this relates only to the present state of things, and gravely tell us that the words are to be referred to the flourishing state of the Church, which commenced after the heathen persecutions. Nay, some of them have discovered that all which the Apostle speaks concerning the "new heaven and the new earth" was fulfilled when Constantine the Great poured in riches and honours upon the Christians. What a miserable way is this of making void the whole counsel of God, with regard to all that grand chain of events, in reference to his Church, yea, and to all mankind, from the time that John was in Patmos unto the end of the world! Nay, the line of this prophecy reaches farther still: It does not end with the present world, but shows us the things that will come to pass when this world is no more. For, 5. Thus saith the Creator and Governor of the universe: "Behold, I make all things new;" -- all which are included in that expression of the Apostle, "A new heaven and a new earth." A new heaven: the original word in Genesis (Gen. 1) is in the plural number. And indeed this is the constant language of Scripture -- not heaven, but heavens. Accordingly, the ancient Jewish writers are accustomed to reckon three heavens; in conformity to which, the Apostle Paul speaks of his being "caught up into the third heaven." It is this, the third heaven, which is usually supposed to be the more immediate residence of God; so far as any residence can be ascribed to his omnipresent Spirit, who pervades and fills the whole universe. It is here (if we speak after the manner of men) that the Lord sitteth upon his throne, surrounded by angels and archangels, and by all his flaming ministers.

13. But it seems, a greater change will be wrought in the earth, than even in the air and water. Not that I can believe that wonderful discovery of Jacob Behmen, which many so eagerly contend for; that the earth itself with all its furniture and inhabitants, will then be transparent as glass. There does not seem to be the least foundation for this, either in Scripture or reason. Surely not in Scripture: I know not one text in the Old or New Testament which affirms any such thing. Certainly it cannot be inferred from that text in the Revelation: (Rev. 4:6:), "And before the throne there was a sea of glass, like unto crystal." And yet, if I mistake not, this is the chief, if not the only Scripture which has been urged in favour of this opinion! Neither can I conceive that it has any foundation in reason. It has indeed been warmly alleged, that all things would be far more beautiful if they were quite transparent. But I cannot apprehend this: Yea, I apprehend quite the contrary. Suppose every part of a human body were made transparent as crystal, would it appear more beautiful than it does now Nay, rather it would shock us above measure. The surface of the body, and in particular "the human face divine," is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful objects that can be found under heaven; but could you look through the rosy cheek, the smooth, fair forehead, or the rising bosom, and distinctly see all that lies within, you would turn away from it with loathing and horror! 14. Let us next take a view of those changes which we may reasonably suppose will then take place in the earth. It will no more be bound up with intense cold, nor parched up with extreme heat; but will have such a temperature as will be most conducive to its fruitfulness. If, in order to punish its inhabitants, God did of old Bid his angels turn askance This oblique lobe, thereby occasioning violent cold on one part, and violent heat on the other; he will, undoubtedly, then order them to restore it to its original position: So that there will be a final end, on the one hand, of the burning heat which makes some parts of it scarce habitable; and, on the other of

II. 1. Let us, in the Second place, consider, Who are those that we are called to reprove It is the more needful to consider this, because it is affirmed by many serious persons, that there are some sinners whom the Scripture itself forbids us to reprove. This sense has been put on that solemn caution of our Lord, in his Sermon on the Mount: "Cast not your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot, and turn again and rend you." But the plain meaning of these words is, Do not offer the pearls, the sublime doctrines or mysteries of the Gospel, to those whom you know to be brutish men, immersed in sins, and having no fear of God before their eyes. This would expose those precious jewels to contempt, and yourselves to injurious treatment. But even those whom we know to be, in our Lord's sense, dogs and swine, if we saw them do, or heard them speak, what they themselves know to be evil, we ought in any wise to reprove them; else we "hate our brother in our heart." 2. The persons intended by "our neighbour" are, every child of man, everyone that breathes the vital air, all that have souls to be saved. And if we refrain from performing this office of love to any, because they are sinners above other men, they may persist in their iniquity, but their blood will God require at our hands. 3. How striking is Mr. Baxter's reflection on this head, in his "Saints' Everlasting Rest! "Suppose thou wert to meet one in the lower world, to whom thou hadst denied this of fice of love, when ye were both together under the sun; what answer couldst thou make to his upbraiding `At such a time and place, while we were under the sun, God delivered me into thy hands. I then did not know the way of salvation, but was seeking death in the error of my life; and therein thou sufferedst me to remain, without once endeavouring to awake me out of sleep! Hadst thou imparted to me thy knowledge, and warned me to flee from the wrath to come, neither I nor thou need ever have come into this place of torment.'"

6. So much for the spirit wherewith you should speak when you reprove your neighbour. I now proceed to the outward manner. It has been frequently found that the prefacing a reproof with a frank profession of good-will has caused what was spoken to sink deep into the heart. This will generally have a far better effect, than that grand fashionable engine, -- flattery, by means of which the men of the world have often done surprising things. But the very same things, yea, far greater, have much oftener been effected by a plain and artless declaration of disinterested love. When you feel God has kindled this flame in your heart, hide it not; give it full vent! It will pierce like lightning. The stout, the hard-hearted, will melt before you, and know that God is with you of a truth. 7. Although it is certain that the main point in reproving is, to do it with a right spirit, yet it must also be allowed, there are several little circumstances with regard to the outward manner, which are by no means without their use, and therefore are not to be despised. One of these is, whenever you reprove, do it with great seriousness; so that as you really are in earnest, you may likewise appear so to be. A ludicrous reproof makes little impression, and is soon forgot; besides, that many times is taken ill, as if you ridiculed the person you reprove. And indeed those who are not accustomed to make jests, do not take it well to be jested upon. One means of giving a serious air to what you speak, is, as often as may be, to use the very words of Scripture. Frequently we find the word of God, even in a private conversation, has a peculiar energy; and the sinner, when he expects it least, feels it "sharper than a two-edged sword." 8. Yet there are some exceptions to this general rule of reproving seriously. There are some exempt cases, wherein, as a good judge of human nature observes, Ridiculum acri fortius --

6. St. John assigns this very reason for the Jews not understanding the things of God; namely, that in consequence of their preceding sins, and wilful rejecting the light, God had now delivered them up to Satan, who blinded them past recovery. Over and over, when they might have seen, they would not; they shut their eyes against the light: And now they can not see, God having given them up to an undiscerning mind : Therefore they do not believe, because that Isaiah said, (that is, because of the reason given in that saying of Isaiah,) "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, and be converted, and I should heal them." The plain meaning is, not that God did this by his own immediate power; it would be flat blasphemy to say, that God, in this sense, hardens any man; but his Spirit strives with them no longer, and then Satan hardens them effectually. 7. And as it was with them in ancient times, so it is with the present generation. Thousands of those who bear the name of Christ are now given up to an undiscerning mind. The god of this world hath so blinded their eyes, that the light cannot shine upon them; so that they can no more discern the signs of the times, than the Pharisees and Sadducees could of old. A wonderful instance of this spiritual blindness, this total inability to discern the signs of the times mentioned in Scripture, is given us in the very celebrated work of a late eminent writer; who supposes, the New Jerusalem came down from heaven, when Constantine the Great called himself a Christian. I say, called himself a Christian; for I dare not affirm that he was one, any more than Peter the Great. I cannot but believe, he would have come nearer the mark, if he had said, that it was the time when a huge cloud of infernal brimstone and smoke came up from the bottomless pit! For surely there never was a time wherein Satan gained so fatal an advantage over the Church of Christ, as when such a flood of riches, and honour, and power broke in upon it, particularly on the Clergy!

10. What excuse, then, have any that believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God, for not discerning the signs of these times, as preparatory to the general call of the Heathens What could God have done which he hath not done, to convince you that the day is coming, that the time is at hand, when he will fulfil his glorious promises; when he will arise to maintain his own cause, and to set up his kingdom over all the earth What, indeed, unless he had forced you to believe And this he could not do, without destroying the nature which he had given you: For he made you free agents; having an inward power of self-determination, which is essential to your nature. And he deals with you as free agents from first to last. As such, you may shut or open your eyes, as you please. You have sufficient light shining all around you; yet you need not see it unless you will. But be assured God is not well pleased with your shutting your eyes and then saying, "I cannot see." I counsel you to bestow an impartial examination upon the whole affair. After a candid inquiry into matter of fact, consider deeply, "What hath God wrought" "Who hath seen such a thing Who hath heard such a thing" Hath not a nation, as it were, been "born in a day" How swift, as well as how deep, and how extensive a work has been wrought in the present age! And certainly, "not by might, neither by power, but by the Spirit of the Lord." For how utterly inadequate were the means! how insufficient were the instruments to work any such effect; -- at least, those of which it has pleased God to make use of in the British dominions and in America! By how unlikely instruments has God been pleased to work from the beginning! "A few young raw heads," said the bishop of London, "what can they pretend to do" They pretended to be that in the hand of God, that a pen is in the hand of a man. They pretended, (and do so at this day,) to do the work whereunto they are sent; to do just what the Lord pleases.

4. And it is no wonder: For only God himself can give a clear, consistent, perfect account (that is, as perfect as our weak understanding can receive, in this our infant state of existence; or, at least, as is consistent with the designs of his government) of his manner of governing the world. And this he hath done in his written word: All the oracles of God, all the Scriptures, both of the Old Testament and the New, describe so many scenes of divine providence. It is the beautiful remark of a fine writer, "Those who object to the Old Testament in particular, that it is not a connected history of nations, but only a congeries of broken, unconnected events, do not observe the nature and design of these writings. They do not see, that Scripture is the history of God." Those who bear this upon their minds will easily perceive that the inspired writers never lose sight of it, but preserve one unbroken, connected chain from the beginning to the end. All over that wonderful book, as "life and immortality"(immortal life) is gradually "brought to light," so is Immanuel, God with us, and his kingdom ruling over all. 5. In the verses preceding the text, our Lord had been arming his disciples against the fear of man: "Be not afraid,"says he,(verse 4,)"of them that can kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do." He guards them against this fear, first, by reminding them of what was infinitely more terrible than anything which man could inflict: "Fear Him, who after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell." He guards them farther against it, by the consideration of an over-ruling providence: "Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God" Or, as the words are repeated by St. Matthew, with a very inconsiderable variation, (10:29, 30) "Not one of them shall fall on the ground without you Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered."

6. We must indeed observe, that this strong expression, through repeated by both the Evangelists, need not imply,(though if any one thinks it does, he may think so very innocently,) that God does literally number as the hairs that are on the heads of all his creatures: But it is a proverbial expression, implying, that nothing is so small or insignificant in the sight of men as not to be an object of the care and providence of God, before whom nothing is small that concerns the happiness of any of his creatures. 7. There is scarce any doctrine in the whole compass of revelation, which is of deeper importance than this. And ,at the same time, there is scarce any that is so little regarded, and perhaps so little understood. Let us endeavor then, with the assistance of God, to examine it to the bottom; to see upon what foundation it stands, and what it properly implies. 8. The eternal, almighty, all-wise, all-gracious God is the Creator of heaven and earth. He called out of nothing, by his all-powerful word, the whole universe, all that is. "Thus the heavens an the earth were created, and all the hosts of them." And after he had set all things else in array, the plants after their kinds, fish and fowl, beasts and reptiles, after their kinds, "He created man after his own image." And the Lord saw that every distinct part of the universe was good. But when he saw everything he had made, all in connection with each other, "behold, it was very good."

19. But what say the wise men of the world to this They answer, with all readiness, "Who doubts of this We are not Atheists. We all acknowledge a providence: That is, a general providence; for, indeed the particular providence, of which some talk, we know not what to make of: Surely the little affairs of men are far beneath the regard of the great Creator and Governor or the universe! Accordingly, "He sees with equal eyes, as Lord of all, A hero perish, or a sparrow fall." Does he indeed I cannot think it; because (whatever that fine poet did, or his patron, whom he so deeply despised, and yet grossly flattered) I believe the Bible; wherein the Creator and Governor of the world himself tells me quite the contrary. That he has a tender regard for the brute creatures, I know: He does, in a measure, "take care for oxen:" He "provideth food for the cattle,"as well as "herbs for the use of men." "The lions roaring after their prey, do seek their meat from God." "He openeth his hand, and filleth all things living with plenteousness." The various troops of sea and land In sense of common want agree; All wait on thy dispensing hand, And have their daily alms from Thee. They gather what thy stores disperse, Without their trouble to provide: Thou ope'st thy hand; the universe, The craving world, is all supplied. Our heavenly Father feedeth the fowls of the air: But mark! "Are no ye much better than they" Shall he not then "much more feed you," who are pre-eminent by so much odds He does not, in that sense, look upon you and them "with equal eyes;" set you on a level with them; least of all, does he set you on a level with brutes, in respect of life and death: "Right precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints." Do you really think the death of a sparrow is equally precious in his sight He tells us, indeed, that "not a sparrow falleth on the ground without our Father;" but he asks. at the same time, "Are ye not of more value than many sparrows 20. But, in support of a general, in contradiction to a particular providence, the same elegant poet lays it down as an unquestionable maxim,

The Universal Cause Acts not by partial, but by general laws: Plainly meaning, that he never deviates from those general laws in favor of any particular person. This is a common supposition; but which is altogether inconsistent with the whole tenor of Scripture: For if God never deviates from these general laws, then there never was a miracle in the world; seeing every miracle is a deviation from the general laws of nature. Did the Almighty confine himself to these general laws, when he divided the Red Sea when he commanded the waters to stand on a heap, and make a way for his redeemed to pass over Did he act by general laws, when he caused the sun to stand still for the space of a whole day No; nor in any of the miracles which are recorded either in the Old or New Testament. 21. But it is on supposition that the Governor of the world never deviates from those general laws, that Mr. Pope adds those beautiful lines in full triumph, as having now clearly gained the point: -- Shall burning Etna, if a sage requires, Forget to thunder, and recall her fires On air or sea new motions be imprest, O blameless Bethel! to relieve thy breast! When the loose mountain trembles from on high, Shall gravitation cease, if you go by Or some old temple, nodding to its fall, For Chartres' head reserve the hanging wall We answer, If it please God to continue the life of any of his servants, he will suspend that or any other law of nature: The stone shall not fall; the fire shall not burn; the foods shall not flow; or, he will give his angels charge, and in their hands shall they bear him up, through and above all dangers! 22. Admitting then, that, in the common course of nature, God does act by general laws, he has never precluded himself from making exceptions to them, whensoever he pleases; either by suspending that law in favor of those that love him, or by employing his mighty angels: By either of which means he can deliver out of all danger them that trust in him.

"What! You expect miracles then" Certainly I do, if I believe the Bible: For the Bible teaches me, that God hears and answers prayer: But every answer to prayer is, properly, a miracle. For if natural causes take their course, if things go on in their natural way, it is no answer at all. Gravitation therefore shall cease, that is, cease to operate, whenever the Author of it pleases. Cannot the men of the world understand these things That is no wonder: It was observed long ago, "An unwise man doth no consider this, and a fool doth not understand these things That is no wonder: It was observed long ago, "An unwise man doth not consider this, and a fool doth not understand it." 23. But I have not done with this same general providence yet. By the grace of God, I will sift it to the bottom: And I hope to show it is such stark-staring nonsense, as every man of sense ought to be utterly ashamed of. You say, "You allow a general providence, but deny a particular one." And what is a general, of whatever kind it be, that includes no particulars Is not every general necessarily made up of its several particulars Can you instance in any general that is not Tell me any genus, if you can, that contains no species What is it that constitutes a genus, but so many species added together What, I pray, is a whole that contains no parts Mere nonsense and contradiction! Every whole must, in the nature of things, be made up of its several parts; insomuch that if there be no parts, there can be no whole.

8. But this happy state did not continue long. See Ananias and Sapphira, through the love of money, ("the root of all evil,") making the first breach in the community of goods! See the partiality, the unjust respect of persons on the one side, the resentment and murmuring on the other, even while the Apostles themselves presided over the church at Jerusalem! See the grievous spots and wrinkles that were found in every part of the Church, recorded not only in the Acts, but in the Epistles of St. Paul, James, Peter, and John. A still fuller account we have in the Revelation: And, according to this, in what a condition was the Christian Church, even in the first century, even before St. John was removed from the earth; if we may judge (as undoubtedly we may) of the state of the church in general, from the state of the particular Churches (all but that of Smyrna and Philadelphia) to which our Lord directed his Epistles! And from this time, for fourteen hundred years, it was corrupted more and more, as all history shows, till scarce any either of the power or form of religion was left.

Lord, I have warned them! but if they will not be warned, what can I do more I can only "give them up unto their own heart's lusts, and let them follow their own imaginations!" 19. By not taking this warning, it is certain many of the Methodists are already fallen; many are falling at this very time; and there is great reason to apprehend, that many more will fall, most of whom will rise no more! But what method may it be hoped the all-wise God will take to repair the decay of his work If he does not remove the candlestick from this people, and raise up another people, who will be more faithful to his grace, it is probable he will proceed in the same manner as he has done in time past. And this has hitherto been his method: When any of the old Preachers left their first love; lost their simplicity and zeal, and departed from the work, he raised up young men, who are what they were, and sent them into the harvest in their place. The same he has done when he was pleased to remove any of his faithful labourers into Abraham's bosom. So when Henry Millard, Edward Dunstone, John Manners, Thomas Walsh, or others, rested from their labours, he raised up other young men, from time to time, willing and able to perform the same service. It is highly probable, he will take the very same method for the time to come. The place of those Preachers who either die in the Lord, or lose the spiritual life which God had given them, he will supply by others that are alive to God, and desire only to spend and be spent for him.

III. 1. Are we able to search out his works of grace any more than his works of providence Nothing is more sure than that "without holiness no man shall see the Lord." Why is it then that so vast a majority of mankind are, so far as we can judge, cut off from all means, all possibility of holiness, even from their mother's womb For instance: what possibility is there that a Hottentot, a New-Zealander, or an inhabitant of Nova-Zembla, if he lives and dies there, should ever know what holiness means Or consequently ever attain it Yea, but one may say: "He sinned before he was born, in a pre-existent state. Therefore he was placed here in so unfavourable a situation. And it is mere mercy that he should have a second trial." I answer: supposing such a pre-existent state, this which you call a second trial is really no trial at all. As soon as he is born into the world he is absolutely in the power of his savage parents and relations, who from the first dawn of reason train him up in the same ignorance, atheism, and barbarity with themselves. He has no chance, so to speak; he has no possibility of any better education. What trial has he then From the time he comes into the world till he goes out of it again he seems to be under a dire necessity of living in all ungodliness lo and unrighteousness. But how is this How can this be the case with so many millions of the souls that God has made Art thou not the God "of all the ends of the earth, and of them that remain in the broad sea" 2. I desire it may be observed that if this be improved into an objection against revelation it is an objection that lies full as much against natural as revealed religion. If it were conclusive it would not drive us into Deism, but into flat Atheism. It would conclude not only against the Christian revelation but against the being of a God. And yet I see not how we can avoid the force of it but by resolving all into the unsearchable wisdom of God, together with a deep conviction of our ignorance and inability to fathom his counsels.

The Case of Reason Impartially Considered "Brethren, be not children in understanding: Howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men." 1 Cor. 14:20. 1. It is the true remark of an eminent man, who had made many observations on human nature, "If reason be against a man, a man will always be against reason." This has been confirmed by the experience of all ages. Very many have been the instances of it in the Christian as well as the heathen world; yea, and that in the earliest times. Even then there were not wanting well-meaning men who, not having much reason themselves, imagined that reason was of no use in religion; yea, rather, that it was a hinderance to it. And there has not been wanting a succession of men who have believed and asserted the same thing. But never was there a greater number of these in the Christian Church, at least in Britain, than at this day. 2. Among them that despise and vilify reason, you may always expect to find those enthusiasts who suppose the dreams of their own imagination to be revelations from God. We cannot expect that men of this turn will pay much regard to reason. Having an infallible guide, they are very little moved by the reasonings of fallible men. In the foremost of these we commonly find the whole herd of Antinomians; all that, however they may differ in other respects, agree in "making void the law through faith." If you oppose reason to these, when they are asserting propositions ever so full of absurdity and blasphemy, they will probably think it a sufficient answer to say, "O, this is your reason;" or "your carnal reason:" So that all arguments are lost upon them: They regard them no more than stubble or rotten wood.

3. How natural is it for those who observe this extreme, to run into the contrary! While they are strongly impressed with the absurdity of undervaluing reason, how apt are they to overvalue it! Accordingly, we are surrounded with those (we find them on every side) who lay it down as an undoubted principle, that reason is the highest gift of God. They paint it in the fairest colours; they extol it to the skies. They are fond of expatiating in its praise; they make it little less than divine. They are wont to describe it as very near, if not quite, infallible. They look upon it as the all-sufficient director of all the children of men; able, by its native light, to guide them into all truth, and lead them into all virtue. 4. They that are prejudiced against the Christian revelation, who do not receive the Scriptures as the oracles of God, almost universally run into this extreme: I have scarce known any exception: So do all, by whatever name they are called, who deny the Godhead of Christ. (Indeed some of these say they do not deny his Godhead; but only his supreme Godhead. Nay, this is the same thing; for in denying him to be the supreme God, they deny him to be any God at all: Unless they will assert that there are two Gods, a great one and a little one!) All these are vehement applauders of reason, as the great unerring guide. To these over-valuers of reason we may generally add men of eminently strong understanding; who, because they do know more than most other men, suppose they can know all things. But we may likewise add many who are in the other extreme; men of eminently weak understanding; men in whom pride (a very common case) supplies the void of sense; who do not suspect themselves to be blind, because they were always so.

5. Is there, then, no medium between these extremes, -- undervaluing and overvaluing reason Certainly there is. But who is there to point it out -- to mark down the middle way That great master of reason, Mr. Locke, has done something of the kind, something applicable to it, in one chapter of his Essay concerning Human Understanding. But it is only remotely applicable to this: He does not come home to the point. The good and great Dr. Watts has wrote admirably well, both concerning reason and faith. But neither does anything he has written point out the medium between valuing it too little and too much. 6. I would gladly endeavor in some degree to supply this grand defect; to point out, First, to the under-valuers of it, what reason can do; and then to the over-valuers of it, what reason cannot do. But before either the one or the other can be done, it is absolutely necessary to define the term, to fix the precise meaning of the word in question. Unless this is done, men may dispute to the end of the world without coming to any good conclusion. This is one great cause of the numberless altercations which have been on the subject. Very few of the disputants thought of this; of defining the word they were disputing about. The natural consequence was, they were just as far from an agreement at the end as at the beginning.

3. Taking the word in this sense, let us now impartially consider, First, What is it that reason can do And who can deny that it can do much, very much, in the affairs of common life To begin at the lowest point: It can direct servants how to perform the various works wherein they are employed; to discharge their duty, either in the meanest offices or in any of a higher nature. It can direct the husbandman at what time, and in what manner, to cultivate his ground; to plough, to sow, to reap, to bring in his corn, to breed and manage his cattle, and to act with prudence and propriety in every part of his employment. It can direct artificers how to prepare the various sorts of apparel, and a thousand necessaries and conveniences of life, not only for themselves and their households, but for their neighbours, whether nigh or afar off. It can direct those of higher abilities to plan and execute works of a more elegant kind. It can direct the painter, the statuary, the musician, to excel in the stations wherein Providence has placed them. It can direct the mariner to steer his course over the bosom of the great deep. It enables those who study the laws of their country to defend the property or life of their fellow-subjects; and those who study the art of healing to cure most of the maladies to which we are exposed in our present state. 4. To ascend higher still: It is certain reason can assist us in going through the whole circle of arts and sciences; of grammar, rhetoric, logic, natural and moral philosophy, mathematics, algebra, metaphysics. It can teach whatever the skill or industry of man has invented for some thousand years. It is absolutely necessary for the due discharge of the most important offices; such as are those of Magistrates, whether of an inferior or superior rank; and those of subordinate or supreme Governors, whether of states, provinces, or kingdoms.

5. All this few men in their senses will deny. No thinking man can doubt but reason is of considerable service in all things relating to the present world. But suppose we speak of higher things, -- the things of another world; what can reason do here Is it a help or a hinderance of religion It may do much in the affairs of men; but what can it do in the things of God 6. This is a point that deserves to be deeply considered. If you ask, What can reason do in religion I answer, It can do exceeding much, both with regard to the foundation of it, and the superstructure.

The foundation of true religion stands upon the oracles of God. It is built upon the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone. Now, of what excellent use is reason, if we would either understand ourselves, or explain to others, those living oracles! And how is it possible without it to understand the essential truths contained therein a beautiful summary of which we have in that which is called the Apostles' Creed. Is it not reason (assisted by the Holy Ghost) which enables us to understand what the Holy Scriptures declare concerning the being and attributes of God -- concerning his eternity and immensity; his power, wisdom, and holiness It is by reason that God enables us in some measure to comprehend his method of dealing with the children of men; the nature of his various dispensations, of the old and new covenant, of the law and the gospel. It is by this we understand (his Spirit opening and enlightening the eyes of our understanding) what that repentance is, not to be repented of; what is that faith whereby we are saved; what is the nature and the condition of justification; what are the immediate and what the subsequent fruits of it. By reason we learn what is that new birth, without which we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven; and what that holiness is without which no man shall see the Lord. By the due use of reason we come to know what are the tempers implied in inward holiness; and what it is to be outwardly holy -- holy in all manner of conversation: In other words, what is the mind that was in Christ; and what it is to walk as Christ walked.

7. Many particular cases will occur with respect to several of the foregoing articles, in which we shall have occasion for all our understanding, if we would keep a conscience void of offence. Many cases of conscience are not to be solved without the utmost exercise of our reason. The same is requisite in order to understand and to discharge our ordinary relative duties; -- the duties of parents and children, of husbands and wives, and (to name no more) of masters and servants. In all these respects, and in all the duties of common life, God has given us our reason for a guide. And it is only by acting up to the dictates of it, by using all the understanding which God hath given us, that we can have a conscience void of offense towards God and towards man. 8. Here, then, there is a large field indeed, wherein reason may expatiate and exercise all its powers. And if reason can do all this, both in civil and religious things, what is it that it cannot do We have hitherto endeavoured to lay aside all prejudice, and to weigh the matter calmly and impartially. The same course let us take still: Let us now coolly consider, without prepossession on any side, what it is, according to the best light we have, that reason cannot do. II. 1. And, First, reason cannot produce faith. Although it is always consistent with reason, yet reason cannot produce faith, in the scriptural sense of the word. Faith, according to Scripture, is "an evidence," or conviction, "of things not seen." It is a divine evidence, bringing a full conviction of an invisible eternal world. It is true, there was a kind of shadowy persuasion of this, even among the wiser Heathens; probably from tradition, or from some gleams of light reflected from the Israelites. Hence many hundred years before our Lord was born, the Greek Poet uttered that great truth,-- Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth Unseen, whether we wake, or if we sleep. But this was little more than faint conjecture: It was far from a firm conviction; which reason, in its highest state of improvement, could never produce in any child of man.

6. If reason could have produced a hope full of immortality in any child of man, it might have produced it in that great man whom Justin Martyr scruples not to call " a Christian before Christ." For who that was not favoured with the written word of God, ever excelled, yea, or equalled, Socrates In what other Heathen can we find so strong an understanding, joined with so consummate virtue But had he really this hope Let him answer for himself. What is the conclusion of that noble apology which he made before his unrighteous judges "And now, O judges! ye are going hence to live; and I am going hence to die: Which of these is best, the gods know; but, I suppose, no man does." No man knows! How far is this from the language of the little Benjamite: "I desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better!" And how many thousands are there at this day, even in our own nation, young men and maidens, old men and children, who are able to witness the same good confession! 7. But who is able to do this, by the force of his reason, be it ever so highly improved One of the most sensible and most amiable Heathens that have lived since our Lord died, even though he governed the greatest empire in the world, was the Emperor Adrian. It is his well-known saying, "A prince ought to resemble the sun: He ought to shine on every part of his dominion, and to diffuse his salutary rays in every place where he comes." And his life was a comment upon his word: Wherever he went, he was executing justice, and showing mercy. Was not he then, at the close of a long life, full of immortal hope We are able to answer this from unquestionable authority, -- from his own dying words. How inimitably pathetic! Adani morientis ad animam suam "Dying Adrian to his soul" Animula, vagula, blandula, Hospes, comesque corporis, Quae nunc abibis in loca, Pallidula, rigida, nudula, Nec, ut soles, dabis jocos! Which to the English reader may see translated into our own language, with all the spirit of the original: --

Hence, it is probable, arose the numerous tales about the exploits of their demi-gods: Minorum Gentium. Hence their satyrs, fauns, nymphs of every kind; wherewith they supposed both the sea and land to be filled. But how empty, childish, unsatisfactory, are all the accounts they give of them! as, indeed, accounts that depend upon broken, uncertain tradition can hardly fail to be. 4. Revelation only is able to supply this defect: This only gives us a clear, rational, consistent account of those whom our eyes have not seen, nor our ears heard; of both good and evil angels. It is my design to speak, at present, only of the former; of whom we have a full, though brief account in these words: "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister unto them that shall be heirs of salvation" I. 1. The question is, according to the manner of the Apostle, equivalent to a strong affirmation. And hence we learn, First, that with regard to their essence, or nature, they are all spirits; not material beings; not clogged with flesh and blood like us; but having bodies, if any, not gross and earthly like ours, but of a finer substance; resembling fire or flame, more than any other of these lower elements. And is not something like this intimated in those words of the Psalmist: "Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire" (Psalm 104:4.) As spirits, he has endued them with understanding, will, or affections, (which are indeed the same thing; as the affections are only the will exerting itself various ways,) and liberty. And are not these, understanding, will, and liberty, essential to, if not the essence of, a spirit 2. But who of the children of men can comprehend what is the understanding of an angel Who can comprehend how far their sight extends Analogous to sight in men, though not the same; but thus we are constrained to speak through the poverty of human language. Probably not only over one hemisphere of the earth; yea, or, Ten-fold the length of this terrene;

5. Such is the knowledge and wisdom of the angels of God, as we learn from his own oracles. Such are their holiness and goodness. And how astonishing is their strength! Even a fallen angel is styled by an inspired writer, "the prince of the power of the air." How terrible a proof did he give of this power, in suddenly raising the whirlwind, which "smote the four corners of the house," and destroyed all the children of Job at once! (Job 1.) That this was his work, we may easily learn from the command to "save his life." But he gave a far more terrible proof of his strength, (if we suppose that "messenger of the Lord" to have been an evil angel, as is not at all improbable,) when he smote with death a hundred, four-score and five thousand Assyrians in one night; nay, possibly in one hour, if not one moment. Yet a strength abundantly greater than this must have been exerted by that angel (whether he was an angel of light or of darkness; which is not determined by the text) who smote, in one hour, "all the first-born of Egypt, both of man and beast." For, considering the extent of the land of Egypt, the immense populousness thereof, and the innumerable cattle fed in their houses, and grazing in their fruitful fields; the men and beasts who were slain in that night must have amounted to several millions! And if this be supposed to have been an evil angel, must not a good angel be as strong, yea, stronger than him For surely any good angel must have more power than even an archangel ruined. And what power must the "four angels" in the Revelation have, who were appointed to "keep the four winds of heaven!" There seems, therefore, no extravagance in supposing, that, if God were pleased to permit, any of the angels of light could heave the earth and all the planets out of their orbits; yea, that he could arm himself with all these elements, and crush the whole frame of nature. Indeed we do not know how to set any bounds to the strength of these first-born children of God.

8. And we may make one general observation: Whatever assistance God gives to men by men, the same, and frequently in a higher degree, he gives to them by angels. Does he administer to us by men, light when we are in darkness; joy, when we are in heaviness; deliverance, when we are in danger; ease and health, when we are sick or in pain It cannot be doubted but he frequently conveys the same blessings by the ministry of angels: Not so sensibly indeed, but full as effectually; though the messengers are not seen. Does he frequently deliver us, by means of men, from the violence and subtlety of our enemies Many times he works the same deliverance by those invisible agents. These shut the mouths of the human lions, so that they have no power to hurt us. And frequently they join with our human friends, (although neither they nor we are sensible of it,) giving them wisdom, courage, or strength, which all their labour for us would be unsuccessful. Thus do they secretly minister, in numberless instances, to the heirs of salvation; while we hear only the voices of men, and see none but men round about us. 9. But does not the Scripture teach, "The help which is done upon earth, God doeth it himself" Most certainly he does. And he is able to do it by his own immediate power. He has no need of using any instruments at all, either in heaven or earth. He wants not either angels or men, to fulfil the whole counsel of his will. But it is not his pleasure so to work. He never did; and we may reasonably suppose he never will. He has always wrought by such instruments as he pleases: But still it is God himself that doeth the work. Whatever help, therefore, we have, either by angels or men, is as much the work of God, as if he were to put forth his almighty arm, and work without any means at all. But he has used them from the beginning of the world: In all ages he has used the ministry both of men and angels. And hereby, especially, is seen "the manifold wisdom of God in the Church." Meantime the same glory redounds to him, as if he used no instruments at all.

Of Evil Angels "We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in heavenly places." Eph. 6:12. 1. It has been frequently observed that there are no gaps or chasms in the creation of God, but that all the parts of it are admirably connected together, to make up one universal whole. Accordingly there is one chain of beings, from the lowest to the highest point, from an unorganized particle of earth or water to Michael the archangel. And the scale of creatures does not advance per saltum, by leaps, but by smooth and gentle degrees; although it is true, these are frequently imperceptible to our imperfect faculties. We cannot accurately trace many of the intermediate links of this amazing chain, which are abundantly too fine to be discerned either by our senses or understanding. 2. We can only observe, in a gross and general manner, rising one above another, first, inorganical earth, then minerals and vegetables in their several orders; afterwards insects, reptiles, fishes, beasts, men, and angels. Of angels indeed we know nothing with any certainty but by revelation. The accounts which are left by the wisest of the ancients, or given by the modern heathens, being no better than silly, self-inconsistent fables, too gross to be imposed even upon children. But by divine revelation we are informed that they were all created holy and happy; yet they did not all continue as they were created: Some kept, but some left, their first estate. The former of these are now good angels; the latter, evil angels. Of the former I have spoke in the preceding discourse: I purpose now to speak of the latter. And highly necessary it is that we should well understand what God has revealed concerning them, that they may gain no advantage over us by our ignorance; that we may know how to wrestle against them effectually. For "we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in heavenly places."

6. One circumstance more we may learn from the Scripture concerning the evil angels: They do not wander at large, but are all united under one common head. It is he that is styled by our blessed Lord, "the prince of this world:" Yea, the Apostle does not scruple to call him, "the god of this world." He is frequently styled Satan, the adversary; being the great adversary both of God and man. He is termed "the devil," by way of eminence; -- "Apollyon," or the destroyer; -- "the old serpent," from his beguiling Eve under that form; -- and, "the angel of the bottomless pit." We have reason to believe that the other evil angels are under his command; that they are ranged by him according to their several orders; that they are appointed to their several stations, and have, from time to time, their several works and offices assigned them. And, undoubtedly, they are connected (though we know not how; certainly not by love) both to him and to each other. II. But what is the employment of evil angels This is the Second point to be considered.

2. "But has every man a particular evil angel, as well as a good one attending him" This has been an exceeding ancient opinion, both among the Christians, and the Jews before them: But it is much doubted whether it can be sufficiently proved from Scripture. Indeed it would not be improbable that there is a particular evil angel with every man, if we were assured there is a good one. But this cannot be inferred from those words of our Lord concerning little children: "In heaven their angels do continually see the face of their Father which is in heaven." This only proves that there are angels who are appointed to take care of little children: It does not prove that a particular angel is allotted to every child. Neither is it proved by the words of Rhoda, who, hearing the voice of Peter, said, "It is his angel." We cannot infer any more from this, even suppose his angel means his guardian angel, than that Rhoda believed the doctrine of guardian angels, which was then common among the Jews. But still it will remain a disputable point, (seeing revelation determines nothing concerning it,) whether every man is attended either by a particular good or a particular evil angel. 3. But whether or no particular men are attended by particular evil spirits, we know that Satan and all his angels are continually warring against us, and watching over every child of man. They are ever watching to see whose outward or inward circumstances, whose prosperity or adversity, whose health or sickness, whose friends or enemies, whose youth or age, whose knowledge or ignorance, whose blindness or idleness, whose joy or sorrow, may lay them open to temptation. And they are perpetually ready to make the utmost advantage of every circumstance. These skilful wrestlers espy the smallest slip we make, and avail themselves of it immediately; as they also are "about our bed, and about our path, and spy out all our ways." Indeed each of them "walketh about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour," or whom he may "beguile through his subtlety, as the serpent beguiled Eve." Yea, and in order to do this the more effectually, they transform themselves into angels of light. Thus, With rage that never ends, Their hellish arts they try; Legions of dire, malicious fiends, And spirits enthroned on high.

4. But it has been questioned by some, whether there be any fire in hell; that is, any material fire. Nay, if there be any fire, it is unquestionably material. For what is immaterial fire The same as immaterial water or earth! Both the one and the other is absolute nonsense, a contradiction in terms. Either, therefore, we must affirm it to be material, or we deny its existence. But if we granted them, there is no fire at all there, what would they gain thereby seeing this is allowed, on all hands, that it is either fire or something worse. And consider this: Does not our Lord speak as if it were real fire No one can deny or doubt of this. Is it possible then to suppose that the God of truth would speak in this manner if it were not so Does he design to fright his poor creatures What, with scarecrows with vain shadows of things that have no being O let not anyone think so! Impute not such folly to the Most High! 5. But others aver, "It is not possible that fire should burn always. For by the immutable law of nature, it consumes whatever is thrown into it. And by the same law, as soon as it has consumed its fuel, it is itself consumed; it goes out." It is most true, that in the present constitution of things, during the present laws of nature, the element of fire does dissolve and consume whatever is thrown into it. But here is the mistake: The present laws of nature are not immutable. When the heavens and the earth shall flee away, the present scene will be totally changed; and, with the present constitution of things, the present laws of nature will cease. After this great change, nothing will be dissolved, nothing will be consumed any more. Therefore, if it were true that fire consumes all things now, it would not follow that it would do the same after the whole frame of nature has undergone that vast, universal change.

6. I say, If it were true that "fire consumes all things now." But, indeed, it is not true. Has it not pleased God to give us already some proof of what will be hereafter Is not the Linum Asbestum, the incombustible flax, known in most parts of Europe If you take a towel or handkerchief made of this, (one of which may now be seen in the British Museum,) you may throw it into the hottest fire, and when it is taken out again, it will be observed, upon the nicest experiment, not to have lost one grain of its weight. Here, therefore, is a substance before our eyes, which, even in the present constitution of things, (as if it were an emblem of things to come,) may remain in fire without being consumed. 7. Many writers have spoken of other bodily torments, added to the being cast into the lake of fire. One of these, even pious Kempis, supposes that misers, for instance, have melted gold poured down their throats; and he supposes many other particular torments to be suited to men's particular sins. Nay, our great poet himself supposes the inhabitants of hell to undergo a variety of tortures; not to continue always in the lake of fire, but to be frequently, By harpy-footed furies, haled into regions of ice; and then back again through extremes, by change more fierce: But I find no word, no tittle of this, not the least hint of it in all the Bible. And surely this is too awful a subject to admit of such play of imagination. Let us keep to the written word. It is torment enough to dwell with everlasting burnings.

5. He frequently uses the word in the plural number. So, Gal. 1:2, "Paul an apostle, -- unto the Churches of Galatia;" that is, the Christian congregations dispersed throughout that country. In all these places, (and abundantly more might be cited,) the word Church or Churches means, not the buildings where the Christians assembled, (as it frequently does in the English tongue,) but the people that used to assemble there, one or more Christian congregations. But sometimes the word Church is taken in Scripture in a still more extensive meaning, as including all the Christian congregations that are upon the face of the earth. And in this sense we understand it in our Liturgy, when we say, "Let us pray for the whole state of Christ's Church militant here on earth." In this sense it is unquestionably taken by St. Paul, in his exhortation to the elders of Ephesus: (Acts 20:28:) "Take heed to the Church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood." The Church here, undoubtedly, means the catholic or universal Church; that is, all the Christians under heaven. 6. Who those are that are properly "the Church of God," the Apostle shows at large, and that in the clearest and most decisive manner, in the passage above cited; wherein he likewise instructs all the members of the Church, how to "walk worthy of the vocation wherewith they are called." 7. Let us consider, First, who are properly the Church of God What is the true meaning of that term "The Church at Ephesus," as the Apostle himself explains it, means, "the saints," the holy persons, "that are in Ephesus," and there assemble themselves together to worship God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ; whether they did this in one or (as we may probably suppose) in several places. But it is the Church in general, the catholic or universal Church, which the Apostle here considers as one body: Comprehending not only the Christians in the house of Philemon, or any one family; not only the Christians of one congregation, of one city, of one province, or nation; but all the persons upon the face of the earth, who answer the character here given. The several particulars contained therein, we may now more distinctly consider.

12. "There is one baptism;" which is the outward sign our one Lord has been pleased to appoint, of all that inward and spiritual grace which he is continually bestowing upon his Church. It is likewise a precious means, whereby this faith and hope are given to those that diligently seek him. Some, indeed, have been inclined to interpret this in a figurative sense; as if it referred to that baptism of the Holy Ghost which the Apostles received at the day of Pentecost, and which, in a lower degree, is given to all believers: But it is a stated rule in interpreting Scripture, never to depart from the plain, literal sense, unless it implies an absurdity. And beside, if we thus understood it, it would be a needless repetition, as being included in, "There is one Spirit." 13. "There is one God and Father of all" that have the Spirit of adoption, which "crieth in their hearts, Abba, Father;" which "witnesseth" continually "with their spirits," that they are the children of God: "Who is above all," -- the Most High, the Creator, the Sustainer, the Governor of the whole universe: "And through all," -- pervading all space; filling heaven and earth: Totam Mens agitans molem, et magno se corpore miscens: -- [The following is Wharton's translation of this quotation from Virgil: -- "The general soul Lives in the parts, and agitates the whole." -- Edit.] "And in you all," -- in a peculiar manner living in you, that are one body, by one spirit: Making your souls his loved abode, The temples of indwelling God. 14. Here, then, is a clear unexceptionable answer to that question, "What is the Church" The catholic or universal Church is, all the persons in the universe whom God hath so called out of the world as to entitle them to the preceding character; as to be "one body," united by "one spirit;" having "one faith, one hope, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in them all."

15. That part of this great body, of the universal Church, which inhabits any one kingdom or nation, we may properly term a National Church; as, the Church of France, the Church of England, the Church of Scotland. A smaller part of the universal Church are the Christians that inhabit one city or town; as the Church of Ephesus, and the rest of the seven Churches mentioned in the Revelation. Two or three Christian believers united together are a Church in the narrowest sense of the word. Such was the Church in the house of Philemon, and that in the house of Nymphas, mentioned Col. 4:15. A particular Church may, therefore, consist of any number of members, whether two or three, or two or three millions. But still, whether they be larger or smaller, the same idea is to be preserved. They are one body, and have one Spirit, one Lord, one hope, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. 16. This account is exactly agreeable to the nineteenth Article of our Church, the Church of England: (Only the Article includes a little more than the Apostle has expressed:) "OF THE CHURCH. "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly administered." It may be observed, that at the same time our thirty-nine Articles were compiled and published, a Latin translation of them was published by the same authority. In this the words were coetus credentium; "a congregation of believers;" plainly showing that by faithful men, the compilers meant, men endued with living faith. This brings the Article to a still nearer agreement to the account given by the Apostle. But it may be doubted whether the Article speaks of a particular Church, or of the Church universal. The title, "Of the Church," seems to have reference to the catholic Church; but the second clause of the Article mentions the particular Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. Perhaps it was intended to take in both; so to define the universal Church as to keep in view the several particular Churches of which it is composed.

17. These things being considered, it is easy to answer that question, "What is the Church of England" It is that part, those members, of the Universal Church who are inhabitants of England. The Church of England is, that body of men in England, in whom "there is one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith;" which have "one baptism," and "one God and Father of all." This and this alone is the Church of England, according to the doctrine of the Apostle. 18. But the definition of a Church, laid down in the Article, includes not only this, but much more, by that remarkable addition: "In which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly administered." According to this definition, those congregations in which the pure Word of God (a strong expression) is not preached are no parts either of the Church of England, or the Church catholic; as neither are those in which the sacraments are not duly administered. 19. I will not undertake to defend the accuracy of this definition. I dare not exclude from the Church catholic all those congregations in which any unscriptural doctrines, which cannot be affirmed to be "the pure word of God," are sometimes, yea, frequently preached; neither all those congregations, in which the sacraments are not "duly administered." Certainly if these things are so, the Church of Rome is not so much as a part of the catholic Church; seeing therein neither is "the pure word of God" preached, nor the sacraments "duly administered." Whoever they are that have "one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one God and Father of all," I can easily bear with their holding wrong opinions, yea, and superstitious modes of worship: Nor would I, on these accounts, scruple still to include them within the pale of the catholic Church; neither would I have any objection to receive them, if they desired it, as members of the Church of England. II. 20. We proceed now to the second point. What is it to "walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called"

6. But to return. It deserves to be seriously remarked, that in this chapter the Apostle uses the word "heresies" as exactly equivalent with the word "schisms." "I hear," says he, (verse 18.) "that there are schisms among you, and I partly believe it:" He then adds, (verse 19,) "for there must be heresies" (another word for the same thing) "among you, that they which are approved among you may be made manifest." As if he had said, "The wisdom of God permits it so to be, for this end, -- for the clear manifestation of those whose heart is right with him." This word, therefore, (heresy,) which has been so strangely distorted for many centuries, as if it meant erroneous opinions, opinions contrary to the faith delivered to the saints, -- which has been made a pretense for destroying cities, depopulation countries, and shedding seas of innocent blood, -- has not the least reference to opinions, whether right or wrong. It simply means, wherever it occurs in Scripture, divisions, or parties, in a religious community. 7. The third and the only remaining place in this Epistle, wherein the Apostle uses this word, is the twenty fifth verse of the twelfth chapter; where, speaking of the Church, he seems to mean the Church universal, the whole body of Christ,) he observes, "God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked, that there might be no schism in the body:" (Verse 24, 25:) He immediately fixes the meaning of his own words: "But that the members might have the same care one for another: And Whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with is or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.: We may easily observe that the word Schism here, means the want of this tender care for each other. It undoubtedly means an alienation of affection in any of them toward their brethren; a division of heart, and parties springing therefrom, though they were still outwardly united together; though they still continued members of the same external society.

17. But perhaps such persons will say, "We did not do this willingly; we were constrained to separate form that society, because we could not continue therein with a clear conscience; we could not continue without sin. I was not allowed to continue therein with breaking a commandment of God." If this was the case, you could not be blamed for separating from that society, Suppose, for instance, you were a member of the Church of Rome, and you could not remain therein without committing idolatry; without worshipping of idols, whether images, or saints and angels; then it would be your bounded duty to leave that community, totally to separate from it. Suppose you could not remain in the Church of England without doing something which the word of God forbids, or omitting something which the word of God positively commands; if this were the case, (but blessed be God it is not,) you ought to separate from the Church of England. I will make the case my own: I am now, and have been from my youth, a member and a Minister of the Church of England: And I have do desire no design to separate from it, till my soul separates from my body. Yet if I was not permitted to remain therein without omitting what God requires me to do, it would then become meet and right, and my bounden duty, to separate form it without delay. To be more particular: I know God has committed to me a dispensation of the gospel; yea, and my own salvation depends upon preaching it: "Woe is me if I preach not the gospel." If then I could not remain in the Church without omitting this, without desisting from preaching the gospel I should be under a necessity of separating from it, or losing my own soul. In like manner, if I could not continue united to any smaller society, Church, or body of Christians, without committing sin, without lying and hypocrisy, without preaching to others doctrines which I did not myself believe, I should be under an absolute necessity of separating from that society.

In like manner, if I could not continue united to any smaller society, Church, or body of Christians, without committing sin, without lying and hypocrisy, without preaching to others doctrines which I did not myself believe, I should be under an absolute necessity of separating from that society. And in all these cases the sin of separation, with all the evils consequent upon it, would not lie upon it, would not lie upon me, but upon those who constrained me to make that separation, by requiring of me such terms of communion as I could not in conscience comply with. But, setting aside this case, suppose the Church or society to which I am now united does not require me to do anything which the Scripture forbids, or to omit anything which the Scripture enjoins, it is then my indispensable duty to continue therein. And if I separate from it without any such necessity, I am just chargeable (whether I foresaw them or not) with all the evils consequent upon that separation. 18. I have spoke the more explicitly upon this head, because it is so little understood; because so may of those who profess much religion, nay, and really enjoy a measure of it, have not the least conception of this matter, neither imagine such a separation to be any sin at all. They leave a Christian society with as much unconcern as they go out of one room into another. They give occasion to all this complicated mischief. and wipe their mouth, and say they have done no evil! Whereas they are justly chargeable, before God and man, both with an action that is evil in itself, and with all the evil consequences which may be expected to follow, to themselves, to their brethren, and to the world.

On Perfection "Let us go on to perfection." Heb. 6:1. The whole sentence runs thus: "Therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection: Not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God;" which he had just before termed, "the first principles of the oracles of God," and "meat fit for babes," for such as have just tasted that the Lord is gracious. That the doing of this is a point of the utmost importance the Apostle intimates in the next words: "This will we do, if God permit. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, and have fallen away, to renew them again unto repentance." As if he had said, If we do not "go on to perfection," we are in the utmost danger of "falling away;" And if we do fall away, it is "impossible" that is, exceeding hard, "to renew them again unto repentance." In order to make this very important scripture as easy to be understood as possible I shall endeavour, I. To show what perfection is; II. To answer some objections to it; and, III. To expostulate a little with the opposers of it. I. I will endeavour to show what perfection is.

12. Thus you experience that He whose name is called Jesus does not bear that name in vain: That he does, in fact, "save his people from their sins;" the root as well as the branches. And this salvation from sin, from all sin, is another description of perfection; though indeed it expresses only the least, the lowest branch of it, only the negative part of the great salvation. II. I proposed, in the Second Place, to answer some objections to this scriptural account of perfection. 1. One common objection to it is, that there is no promise of it in the Word of God. If this were so, we must give it up; we should have no foundation to build upon: For the promises of God are the only sure foundation of our hope. But surely there is a very clear and full promise that we shall all love the Lord our God with all our hearts. So we read, (Deut. 30:6,) "Then will I circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul." Equally express is the word of our Lord, which is no less a promise, though in the form of a command: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." (Matt. 22:37.) No words can be more strong than these; no promise can be more express. In like manner, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," is as express a promise as a command. 2. And indeed that general and unlimited promise which runs through the whole gospel dispensation, "I will put my laws in their minds, and write them in their hearts," turns all the commands into promises; and, consequently, that among the rest, "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus." The command here is equivalent to a promise, and gives us full reason to expect that he will work in us what he requires of us.

3. With regard to the fruit of the Spirit, the Apostle, in affirming, "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, temperance," does, in effect, affirm that the Holy Spirit actually works love, and these other tempers, in those that are led by him. So that here also, we have firm ground to tread upon, this scripture likewise being equivalent to a promise, and assuring us that all these shall be wrought in us, provided we are led by the Spirit. 4. And when the Apostle says to the Ephesians, (Eph. 4:21-24,) "Ye have been taught, as the truth is in Jesus," -- to "be renewed in the spirit of your mind," and "to put on the new man, which is created after God" -- that is, after the image of God, -- "in righteousness and true holiness," he leaves us no room to doubt, but God will thus "renew us in the spirit of our mind," and "create us anew" in the image of God, wherein we were at first created: Otherwise it could not be said, that this is "the truth as it is in Jesus." 5. The command of God, given by St. Peter, "Be ye holy, as he that hath called you is holy, in all manner of conversation," [1 Pet. 1:15] implies a promise that we shall be thus holy, if we are not wanting to ourselves. Nothing can be wanting on God's part: As he has called us to holiness, he is undoubtedly willing, as well as able, to work this holiness in us. For he cannot mock his helpless creatures, calling us to receive what he never intends to give. That he does call us thereto is undeniable; therefore he will give it, if we are not disobedient to the heavenly calling.

6. The prayer of St. Paul for the Thessalonians, that God would "sanctify" them throughout, and "that the whole of them, the spirit, the soul, and the body, might be preserved blameless," will undoubtedly be heard in behalf of all the children of God, as well as of those at Thessalonica. Hereby, therefore, all Christians are encouraged to expect the same blessing from "the God of peace;" namely, that they also shall be "sanctified throughout, in spirit, soul, and body;" and that "the whole of them shall be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." [1 Thess. 5:23] 7. But the great question is, whether there is any promise in Scripture, that we shall be saved from sin. Undoubtedly there is. Such is that promise, (Psalm 130:8,) "He shall redeem Israel from all his sins;" exactly answerable to those words of the angel, "He shall save his people from their sins." And surely "he is able to save unto the uttermost them that come unto God through him." Such is that glorious promise given through the Prophet Ezekiel: (Ezek. 36:25-27:) "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: From all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: And I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." Such (to mention no more) is that pronounced by Zechariah, (Luke 1:73-75,) "The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, that he would grant unto us, being delivered out of the hand of our enemies," (and such, doubtless are all our sins,) "to serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life." The last part of this promise is peculiarly worthy of our observation. Lest any should say, "True, we shall be saved from our sins when we die," that clause is remarkably added, as if on purpose to obviate this pretence, all the days of our life. With what modesty then can anyone affirm, that none shall enjoy this liberty till death

8. "But," say some, "this cannot be the meaning of the words; for the thing is impossible." It is impossible to men: but the things impossible with, men are possible with God. "Nay, but this is impossible in its own nature: For it implies a contradiction, that a man should be saved from all sin while he is in a sinful body." There is a great deal of force in this objection. And perhaps we allow most of what you contend for. We have already allowed, that while we are in the body we cannot be wholly free from mistake. Notwithstanding all our care, we shall still be liable to judge wrong in many instances. And a mistake in judgment will very frequently occasion a mistake in practice. Nay, a wrong judgment may occasion something in the temper or passions which is not strictly right. It may occasion needless fear, or ill-grounded hope, unreasonable love, or unreasonable aversion. But all this is no way inconsistent with the perfection above described. 9. You say, "Yes, it is inconsistent with the last article: It cannot consist with salvation from sin." I answer, It will perfectly well consist with salvation from sin, according to that definition of sin, (which I apprehend to be the scriptural definition of it,) a voluntary transgression of a known law. "Nay, but all transgressions of the law of God, whether voluntary or involuntary, are sin: For St. John says, `All sin is a transgression of the law.'" True, but he does not say, All transgression of the law is sin. This I deny: Let him prove it that can. To say the truth, this a mere strife of words. You say none is saved from sin in your sense of the word; but I do not admit of that sense, because the word is never so taken in Scripture. And you cannot deny the possibility of being saved from sin, in my sense of the word. And this is the sense wherein the word sin is over and over taken in Scripture.

"But surely we cannot be saved from sin, while we dwell in a sinful body." A sinful body I pray observe, how deeply ambiguous, how equivocal, this expression is! But there is no authority for it in Scripture: The word sinful body is never found there. And as it is totally unscriptural, so it is palpably absurd. For no body, or matter of any kind, can be sinful: Spirits alone ares capable of sin. Pray in what part of the body should sin lodge It cannot lodge in the skin, nor in the muscles, or nerves, or veins, or arteries; it cannot be in the bones, any more than in the hair or nails. Only the soul can be the seat of sin. 10. "But does not St. Paul himself say, `They that are in the flesh cannot please God'" I am afraid the sound of these words has deceived many unwary souls; who have been told, Those words, they that are in the flesh, mean the same as they that are in the body. No; nothing less. The flesh, in this text, no more means the body than it does the soul. Abel, Enoch, Abraham, yea, all that cloud of witnesses recited by St. Paul in the eleventh of the Hebrews, did actually please God while they were in the body, as he himself testifies. The expression, therefore, here means neither more nor less than they that are unbelievers, they that are in their natural state, they that are without God in the world. 11. But let us attend to the reason of the thing. Why cannot the Almighty sanctify the soul while it is in the body Cannot he sanctify you while you are in this house, as well as in the open air Can the walls of brick or stone hinder him No more can these walls of flesh and blood hinder him a moment from sanctifying you throughout. He can just as easily save you from all sin in the body as out of the body.

"But has he promised thus to save us from sin while we are in the body" Undoubtedly he has: For a promise is implied in every commandment of God: Consequently in that, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." For this and every other commandment is given, not to the dead, but to the living. It is expressed in the words above recited, that we should walk "in holiness before him all the days of our life." I have dwelt the longer on this, because it is the grand argument of those that oppose salvation from sin; and also, because it has not been so frequently and so fully answered: Whereas the arguments taken from Scripture have been answered a hundred times over. 12. But a still more plausible objection remains, taken from experience; which is, that there are no living witnesses of this salvation from sin. In answer to this, I allow, (1.) That there are not many. Even in this sense, there are not many fathers. Such is our hardness of heart, such our slowness to believe what both the Prophets and Apostles have spoke, that there are few, exceeding few, true witnesses of the great salvation. (2.) I allow that there are false witnesses, who either deceive their own souls, and speak of the things they know not, or "speak lies in hypocrisy." And I have frequently wondered, that we have not more of both sorts. It is nothing strange, that men of warm imaginations should deceive themselves in this matter. Many do the same with regard to justification: They imagine they are justified, and are not. But though many imagine it falsely, yet there are some that are truly justified. And thus, though many imagine they are sanctified, and are not, yet there are some that are really sanctified.

17. To which of the preceding heads is the love of money to be referred Perhaps sometimes to one, and sometimes to another; as it is a means of procuring gratifications, either for "the desire of the flesh," for "the desire of the eyes," or for "the pride of life." In any of these cases, money is only pursued in order to a farther end. But it is sometimes pursued for its own sake, without any farther view. One who is properly a miser loves and seeks money for its own sake. He looks no farther, but places his happiness in the acquiring or the possessing of it. And this is a species of idolatry distinct from all the preceding; and indeed, the lowest, basest idolatry of which the human soul is capable. To seek happiness either in gratifying this or any other of the desires above mentioned, is effectually to renounce the true God, and to set up an idol in his place. In a word, so many objects as there are in the world, wherein men seek happiness instead of seeking it in God, so many idols they set up in their hearts, so many species of idolatry they practise.

16. But by what means may we avoid the being carried away by the overflowing stream of dissipation It is not difficult for those who believe the Scripture to give an answer to this question. Now, I really believe the Bible to be the Word of God; and on that supposition I answer, The radical cure of all dissipation is, the "faith that worketh by love." If, therefore, you would be free from this evil disease, first, "continue steadfast in the faith;" in that faith which brings "the Spirit of adoption, crying in your heart, Abba, Father;" whereby you are enabled to testify, "The life which I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God; who loved me, and gave himself for me." By this faith you "see him that is invisible, and set the Lord always before you." Next, "building yourselves up in your most holy faith, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto everlasting life." And as long as you walk by this rule, you will be superior to all dissipation. 17. How exactly does this agree (though there is a difference in the expression) with that observation of pious Kempis! "Simplicity and purity are the two wings which lift the soul up to heaven. Simplicity is in the intention, purity in the affection." For what is this but (in the Apostle's language) simple "faith working by love" By that simplicity you always see God, and by purity you love him. What is it, but having (as one of the ancients speaks) "the loving eye of the soul fixed upon God" And as long as your soul is in this posture, dissipation can have no place.

5. Let us, First, consider, what it is which the Apostle here means by the world. He does not here refer to this outward frame of things, termed in Scripture, heaven and earth; but to the inhabitants of the earth, the children of men, or at least, the greater part of them. But what part This is fully determined both by our Lord himself, and by his beloved disciple. First, by our Lord himself. His words are, "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: But because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you. And all these things will they do unto you, because they know not him that sent me." (John 15:18, &c.) You see here "the world" is placed on one side, and those who "are not of the world" on the other. They whom God has "chosen out of the world," namely, by "sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth," are set in direct opposition to those whom he hath not so chosen. Yet again: Those "who know not him that sent me," saith our Lord, who know not God, they are "the world." 6. Equally express are the words of the beloved disciple: "Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you: We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren." (1 John 3:13, 14.) As if he had said, "You must not expect any should love you, but those that have 'passed from death unto life.'" It follows, those that are not passed from death unto life, that are not alive to God, are "the world." The same we may learn from those words in the fifth chapter, verse 19, "We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one." [1 John 5:19] Here "the world" plainly means, those that are not of God, and who, consequently "Lie in the wicked one."

But can this reasonably be supposed Is it not a notorious truth, that men of the world (exceeding few excepted) eagerly desire to make their companions like themselves yea and use every means, with their utmost skill and industry, to accomplish their desire. Therefore, fly for your life! Do not play with the fire, but escape before the flames kindle upon you. 18. But how many are the pleas for friendship with the world! And how strong are the temptations to it! Such of these as are the most dangerous, and, at the same time, most common, we will consider. To begin with one that is the most dangerous of all others, and, at the same time, by no means uncommon. "I grant," says one, "the person I am about to marry is not a religious person. She does not make any pretensions to it. She has little thought about it. But she is a beautiful creature. She is extremely agreeable, and, I think, will make me a lovely companion." This is a snare indeed! Perhaps one of the greatest that human nature is liable to. This is such a temptation as no power of man is able to overcome. Nothing less than the mighty power of God can make a way for you to escape from it. And this can work a complete deliverance: His grace is sufficient for you. But not unless you are a worker together with him: Not unless you deny yourself, and take up your cross. And what you do, you must do at once! Nothing can be done by degrees. Whatever you do in this important case must be done at one stroke. If it is to be done at all, you must at once cut off the right hand, and cast it from you! Here is no time for conferring with flesh and blood! At once, conquer or perish! 19. Let us turn the tables. Suppose a woman that loves God is addressed by an agreeable man; genteel, lively, entertaining; suitable to her in all other respects, though not religious: What should she do in such a case What she should do, if she believes the Bible, is sufficiently clear. But what can she do Is not this A test for human frailty too severe

In What Sense We Are To Leave The World "Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And I will be to you a Father, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Cor. 6:17, 18. 1. How exceeding few in the religious world have duly considered these solemn words! We have read them over and over, but never laid them to heart, or observed that they contain as plain and express a command as any in the whole Bible. And it is to be feared, there are still fewer that understand the genuine meaning of this direction. Numberless persons in England have interpreted it as a command to come out of the Established Church. And in the same sense it has been understood by thousands in the neighboring kingdoms. Abundance of sermons have been preached, and of books wrote, upon this supposition. And indeed many pious men have grounded their separation from the Church chiefly on this text. "God himself," say they, "commands us, `Come out from among them, and be ye separate.' And it is only upon this condition that he will receive us, and we "shall be the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty."

6. What is it then which the Apostle forbids First, the conversing with ungodly men when there is no necessity, no providential call, no business, that requires it: Secondly, the conversing with them more frequently than business necessarily requires: Thirdly, the spending more time in their company than is necessary to finish our business: Above all, Fourthly, the choosing ungodly persons, however ingenious or agreeable, to be our ordinary companions, or to be our familiar friends. If any instance of this kind will admit of less excuse than others, it is that which the Apostle expressly forbids elsewhere; the being "unequally yoked with an unbeliever" in marriage; with any person that has not the love of God in their heart, or at least the fear of God before their eyes. I do not know anything that can justify this; neither the sense, wit, or beauty of the person, nor temporal advantage, nor fear of want; no, nor even the command of a parent. For if any parent command what is contrary to the Word of God, the child ought to obey God rather than man. 7. The ground of this prohibition is laid down at large in the preceding verses: "What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness What communion hath light with darkness And what concord hath Christ with Belial Or what part hath he that believeth with an unbeliever" (Taking that word in the extensive sense, for him that hath neither the love nor fear of God.) "Ye are the temple of the living God: As God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them: And I will be their God, and they shall be my people." It follows, "Wherefore, come out from among them;" the unrighteous, the children of darkness, the sons of Belial, the unbelievers; "and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing," or person, "and I will receive you."

2. But if we observe these words attentively, will there not appear a considerable difficulty in them "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." If a man only thinks he stands, he is in no danger of falling. It is not possible that any one should fall, if he only thinks he stands. The same difficulty occurs, according to our translation, in those well-known words of our Lord, (the importance of which we may easily learn from their being repeated in the Gospel no less than eight times,) "To him that hath shall be given; but from that hath not, shall be taken away even what he seemeth to have." "That which he seemeth to have!" Nay, if he only seems to have it, it is impossible it should taken away. None can take away from another what he only seems to have. What a man only seems to have, he cannot possibly lose. This difficulty may, at first, appear impossible to be surmounted. It is really so: It cannot be surmounted, if the common translation be allowed. But if we observe the proper meaning of the original word, the difficulty vanishes away. It may be allowed that the word dokei does (sometimes at least, in some authors) mean no more than to seem. But I much doubt whether it ever bears that meaning in any part of the inspired writings. By a careful consideration of every text in the New Testament wherein this word occurs, I am fully convinced, that it nowhere lessens, but every where strengthens, the sense of the word to which it is annexed. Accordingly o dokei ecein, does not mean, what he seems to have, but, on the contrary, what he assuredly hath. And so o dokvn estanai, not he that seemeth to stand, or he that thinketh he standeth, but he that assuredly standeth; he who standeth so fast, that he does not appear to be in any danger of falling; he that saith, like David, "I shall never be moved: Thou, Lord, hast made my hill so strong." [Ps. 30:6, 7] Yet at that very time, thus saith the Lord, "Be not high-minded, but fear. Else shalt thou be cut off:" [Rom. 11:20, 21] Else shalt thou also be moved from thy steadfastness. The strength which thou assuredly hast, shall be taken away.

4. Very nearly related to patience is meekness, if it be not rather a species of it. For may it not be defined, patience of injuries; particularly affronts, reproach, or unjust censure This teaches not to return evil for evil, or railing for railing; but contrariwise blessing. Our blessed Lord himself seems to place a peculiar value upon this temper. This he peculiarly calls us to learn of him, if we would find rest for our souls. 5. But what may we understand by the work of patience "Let patience have its perfect work." It seems to mean, let it have its full fruit or effect. And what is the fruit which the Spirit of God is accustomed to produce hereby, in the heart of a believer One immediate fruit of patience is peace: A sweet tranquillity of mind; a serenity of spirit, which can never be found, unless where patience reigns. And this peace often rises into joy. Even in the midst of various temptations, those that are enabled "in patience to possess their souls," can witness, not only quietness of spirit, but triumph and exultation. This both Lays the rough paths of peevish nature even, And opens in each breast a little heaven. 6. How lively is the account which the Apostle Peter gives not only of the peace and joy, but of the hope and love, which God works in those patient sufferers "who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation!" Indeed he appears herein to have an eye to this very passage of St. James: "Though ye are grieved for a season, with manifold temptations," (the very word poikilois peirasmois,) "that the trial of your faith" (the same expression which was used by St. James) "may be found to praise, and honour, and glory, at the revelation of Jesus Christ; whom, having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." See here the peace, the joy, and the love, which, through the mighty power of God, are the fruit or "work of patience!"

11. But it may be inquired, In what manner does God work this entire, this universal change in the soul of a believer this strange work, which so many will not believe, though we declare it unto them Does he work it gradually, by slow degrees; or instantaneously, in a moment How many are the disputes upon this head, even among the children of God! And so there will be, after all that ever was, or ever can be said upon it. For many will still say, with the famous Jew, Non persuadebis, etiamsi persuaseris: That is, "Thou shalt not persuade me, though thou dost persuade me." And they will be the more resolute herein, because the Scriptures are silent upon the subject; because the point is not determined, at least not in express terms, in any part of the oracles of God. Every man therefore may abound in his own sense, provided he will allow the same liberty to his neighbour; provided he will not be angry at those who differ from his opinion, nor entertain hard thoughts concerning them. Permit me likewise to add one thing more: Be the change instantaneous or gradual, see that you never rest till it is wrought in your own soul, if you desire to dwell with God in glory.

13. But however that question be decided, whether sanctification, in the full sense of the word, be wrought instantaneously or gradually, how my we attain to it "What shall we do," said the Jews to our Lord, "that we may work the works of God" His answer will suit those that ask, What shall we do, that this work of God may be wrought in us "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." On this one work all the others depend. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and all has wisdom, and power, and faithfulness are engaged on thy side. In this, as in all other instances, "by grace we are saved through faith." Sanctification too is "not of works, lest any man should boast." "It is the gift of God," and is to be received by plain, simple faith. Suppose you are now labouring to "abstain from all appearance of evil," "zealous of good works," and walking diligently and carefully in all the ordinances of God; there is then only one point remaining: The voice of God to your soul is, "Believe, and be saved." [See the Sermon on "The Scripture Way of Salvation." (editor's note)] First, believe that God has promised to save you from all sin, and to fill you with all holiness. Secondly, believe that he is able thus "to save to the uttermost all that come unto God through him." Thirdly, believe that he is willing, as well as able, to save you to the uttermost; to purify you from all sin, and fill up all your heart with love. Believe, Fourthly, that he is not only able, but willing to do it now. Not when you come to die; not at any distant time; not to-morrow, but to-day. He will then enable you to believe, it is done, according to his word: And then "patience shall have its perfect work; that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing."

On Working Out Our Own Salvation "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." Phil. 2:12-13. 1. Some great truths, as the being and attributes of God, and the difference between moral good and evil, were known, in some measure, to the heathen world. The traces of them are to be found in all nations; So that, in some sense, it may be said to every child of man, "He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; even to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." With this truth he has, in some measure, "enlightened every one that cometh into the world." And hereby they that "have not the law," that have no written law, "are a law unto themselves." They show "the work of the law," -- the substance of it, though not the letter, -- "written in their hearts," by the same hand which wrote the commandments on the tables of stone; "Their conscience also bearing them witness," whether they act suitably thereto or not.

II. 1. Proceed we now to the Second point: If God worketh in you, then work out your own salvation. The original word rendered, work out, implies the doing a thing thoroughly. Your own; for you yourselves must do this, or it will be left undone forever. Your own salvation: Salvation begins with what is usually termed (and very properly) preventing grace; including the first wish to please God, the first dawn of light concerning his will, and the first slight transient conviction of having sinned against him. All these imply some tendency toward life; some degree of salvation; the beginning of a deliverance from a blind, unfeeling heart, quite insensible of God and the things of God. Salvation is carried on by convincing grace, usually in Scripture termed repentance; which brings a larger measure of self-knowledge, and a farther deliverance from the heart of stone. Afterwards we experience the proper Christian salvation; whereby, "through grace," we "are saved by faith;" consisting of those two grand branches, justification and sanctification. By justification we are saved from the guilt of sin, and restored to the favour of God; by sanctification we are saved from the power and root of sin, and restored to the image of God. All experience, as well as Scripture, shows this salvation to be both instantaneous and gradual. It begins the moment we are justified, in the holy, humble, gentle, patient love of God and man. It gradually increases from that moment, as "a grain of mustard-seed, which, at first, is the least of all seeds," but afterwards puts forth large branches, and becomes a great tree; till, in another instant, the heart is cleansed, from all sin, and filled with pure love to God and man. But even that love increases more and more, till we "grow up in all things into him that is our Head;" till we attain "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ."

4. But what are the steps which the Scripture directs us to take, in the working out of our own salvation The Prophet Isaiah gives us a general answer, touching the first steps which we are to take: "Cease to do evil; learn to do well." If ever you desire that God should work in you that faith whereof cometh both present and eternal salvation, by the grace already given, fly from all sin as from the face of a serpent; carefully avoid every evil word and work; yea, abstain from all appearance of evil. And "learn to do well:" Be zealous of good works, of works of piety, as well as works of mercy; family prayer, and crying to God in secret. Fast in secret, and "your Father which seeth in secret, he will reward you openly." "Search the Scriptures:" Hear them in public, read them in private, and meditate therein. At every opportunity, be a partaker of the Lord's Supper. "Do this in remembrance of him: and he will meet you at his own table. Let your conversation be with the children of God; and see that it "be in grace, seasoned with salt." As ye have time, do good unto all men; to their souls and to their bodies. And herein "be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord." It then only remains that ye deny yourselves and take up your cross daily. Deny yourselves every pleasure which does not prepare you for taking pleasure in God, and willingly embrace every means of drawing near to God, though it be a cross, though it be grievous to flesh and blood. Thus when you have redemption in the blood of Christ, you will "go on to perfection;" till "walking in the light as he is in the light," you are enabled to testify, that "he is faithful and just," not only to "forgive" your "sins," but to "cleanse" you from all unrighteousness." [1 John 1:9]

1. The first argument which induces many backsliders to believe that "the Lord will be no more entreated," is drawn from the very reason of the thing: "If," say they, "a man rebel against an earthly prince, many times he dies for the first offence; he pays his life for the first transgression. Yet, possibly, if the crime be extenuated by some favourable circumstance, or if strong intercession be made for him, his life may be given him. But if, after a full and free pardon he were guilty of rebelling a second time, who would dare to intercede for him He must expect no farther mercy. Now, if one rebelling against an earthly king, after he has been freely pardoned once, cannot with any colour of reason hope to be forgiven a second time; what must be the case of him that, after having been freely pardoned for rebelling against the great King of heaven and earth, rebels against him again What can be expected, but that `vengeance will come upon him to the uttermost'" 2. (1.) This argument, drawn from reason, they enforce by several passages of Scripture. One of the strongest of these is that which occurs in the First Epistle of St. John: (1 John 5:16.) "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and God shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death. I do not say that he shall pray for it." Hence they argue, "Certainly, I do not say that he shall pray for it, is equivalent with, I say he shall not pray for it. So the Apostle supposes him that has committed this sin, to be in a desperate state indeed! So desperate, that we may not even pray for his forgiveness; we may not ask life for him And what may we more reasonably suppose to be a sin unto death, than a wilful rebellion after a full and free pardon

(4.) "It is true, some are of opinion, that those words, it is impossible, are not to be taken literally as denoting absolute impossibility; but only a very great difficulty. But it does not appear that we have any sufficient reason to depart from the literal meaning; as it neither implies any absurdity, nor contradicts any other Scriptures. Does not this then," say they, "cut off all hope; seeing we have undoubtedly, `tasted of the heavenly gift, and been made partakers of the Holy Ghost' How is it possible to `renew us again to repentance;' to an entire change both of heart and life Seeing we have crucified to ourselves `the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame"' (5.) "A yet more dreadful passage, if possible, than this, is that in the twelfth chapter of St. Matthew: `All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: But the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men: And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him. But whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.' (Matt. 12:31, 32.) Exactly parallel to these are those words of our Lord, which are recited by St. Mark: `Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost shall never be forgiven, but is in danger of eternal damnation.' (Mark 3:28, 29.) (6.) It has been the judgment of some, that all these passages point at one and the same sin; that not only the words of our Lord, but those of St. John, concerning the `sin unto death,' and those of St. Paul concerning `crucifying to themselves the Son of God afresh, treading underfoot the Son of God, and doing despite to the Spirit of grace, `all refer to the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; the only sin that shall never be forgiven. Whether they do or no, it must be allowed that this blasphemy is absolutely unpardonable; and that, consequently, for those who have been guilty of this, God `will be no more entreated.'

3. To confirm those arguments, drawn from reason and Scripture, they appeal to matter of fact. They ask, "Is it not a fact, that those who fall away from justifying grace, who make `shipwreck of the faith,' that faith whereof cometh present salvation, perish without mercy How much less can any of those escape, who fall away from sanctifying grace! who make shipwreck of that faith whereby they are cleansed from all pollution of flesh and spirit! Has there ever been an instance of one or the other of these being renewed again to repentance If there be any instances of that, one would be inclined to believe that thought of our poet not to be extravagant: -- "E'en Judas struggles his despair to quell, Hope almost blossoms in the shades of hell." II. These are the principal arguments drawn from reason, from Scripture, and from fact, whereby backsliders are wont to justify themselves in casting away hope; in supposing that God hath utterly "shut up his lovingkindness in displeasure." I have proposed them in their full strength, that we may form the better judgment concerning them, and try whether each of them may not receive a clear, full, satisfactory answer. 1. I begin with that argument which is taken from the nature of the thing: "If a man rebel against an earthly prince, he may possibly be forgiven the first time. But if, after a full and free pardon, he should rebel again, there is no hope of obtaining a second pardon: He must expect to die without mercy. Now, if he that rebels again against an earthly king, can look for no second pardon, how can he look for mercy who rebels a second time against the great King of heaven and earth"

6. "But what say you to that other scripture, namely, the tenth of the Hebrews Does that leave any hope to notorious backsliders, that they shall not die eternally; that they can ever recover the favour of God, or escape the damnation of hell "If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no other sacrifice for sins; but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy. Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and done despite unto the Spirit of grace" 7. "And is not the same thing, namely, the desperate, irrecoverable state of wilful backsliders, fully confirmed by that parallel passage in the sixth chapter "It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and partakers of the Holy Ghost, -- and have fallen away," -- so it is in the original, -- "to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.'" 8. These passages do seem to me parallel to each other, and deserve our deepest consideration. And in order to understand them it will be necessary to know, (1.) Who are the persons here spoken of; and (2.) What is the sin they had committed, which made their case nearly, if not quite, desperate. (1.) As to the First, it will be clear to all who impartially consider and compare both these passages, that the persons spoken of herein are those, and those only, that have been justified; that the eyes of their understanding were opened and "enlightened," to see the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. These only "have tasted of the heavenly gift," remission of sins, eminently so called. These "were made partakers of the Holy Ghost," both of the witness and the fruit of the Spirit. This character cannot, with any propriety, be applied to any but those that have been justified.

And they had been sanctified too; at least, in the first degree, as far as all are who receive remission of sins. So the second passage expressly, "Who hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctifed, an unholy thing." Hence it follows, that this Scripture concerns those alone who have been justified, and at least in part, sanctified. Therefore all of you, who never were thus "enlightened" with the light of the glory of God; all who never did "taste of the heavenly gift," who never received remission of sins; all who never "were made partakers of the Holy Ghost," of the witness and fruit of the Spirit; -- in a word, all you who never were sanctified by the blood of the everlasting covenant, you are not concerned here. Whatever other passages of Scripture may condemn you, it is certain, you are not condemned either by the sixth or the tenth of the Hebrews. For both those passages speak wholly and solely of apostates from the faith which you never had. Therefore, it was not possible that you should lose it, for you could not lose what you had not. Therefore whatever judgments are denounced in these scriptures, they are not denounced against you. You are not the persons here described, against whom only they are denounced.

9. "But do not the well-known words of our Lord himself cut us off from all hope of mercy Does he not say, `All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: But the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: But whosoever speaketh a word against the Holy Ghost, it shall never be forgiven him; neither in this world, nor in the world to come' Therefore, it is plain, if we have been guilty of this sin, there is no room for mercy. And is not the same thing repeated by St. Mark, almost in the same words `Verily I say unto you,' (a solemn preface! always denoting the great importance of that which follows,) `All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is under the sentence of eternal damnation.'" (1.) How immense is the number in every nation throughout the Christian world of those who have been more or less distressed on account of this Scripture! What multitudes in this kingdom have been perplexed above measure upon this very account! Nay, there are few that are truly convinced of sin, and seriously endeavour to save their souls, who have not felt some uneasiness for fear they had committed, or should commit, this unpardonable sin. What has frequently increased their uneasiness was, that they could hardly find any to comfort them. For their acquaintances, even the most religious of them, understood no more of the matter than themselves; and they could not find any writer who had published anything satisfactory upon the subject. Indeed, in the "Seven Sermons" of Mr. Russell, which are common among us, there is one expressly written upon it; but it will give little satisfaction to a troubled spirit. He talks about it, and about it, but makes nothing out: He takes much pains, but misses the mark at last.

(2.) But was there ever in the world a more deplorable proof of the littleness of human understanding, even in those that have honest hearts, and are desirous of knowing the truth! How is it possible that any one who reads his Bible, can one hour remain in doubt concerning it, when our Lord himself, in the very passage cited above, has so clearly told us what that blasphemy is "He that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness: Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit." (Mark 3:29-30.) This then, and this alone, (if we allow our Lord to understand his own meaning,) is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost: The saying, He had an unclean spirit; the affirming that Christ wrought his miracles by the power of an evil spirit; or, more particularly, that "he cast out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils." Now, have you been guilty of this have you affirmed, that he cast out devils by the prince of devils No more than you have cut your neighbour's throat, and set his house on fire. How marvellously then have you been afraid, where no fear is! Dismiss that vain terror; let your fear be more rational for the time to come. Be afraid of giving way to pride; be afraid of yielding to anger; be afraid of loving the world or the things of the world; be afraid of foolish and hurtful desires; but never more be afraid of committing the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost! You are in no more danger of doing this, than of pulling the sun out of the firmament. 10. Ye have then no reason from Scripture for imagining that "the Lord hath forgotten to be gracious." The arguments drawn from thence, you see, are of no weight, are utterly inconclusive. Is there any more weight in that which has been drawn from experience or matter of fact

The Danger Of Riches "They that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful desires, which drown men in destruction and perdition." 1 Tim. 6:9. 1. How innumerable are the ill consequences which have followed from men's not knowing, or not considering, this great truth! And how few are there even in the Christian world, that either know or duly consider it! Yea, how small is the number of those, even among real Christians, who understand and lay it to heart! Most of these too pass it very lightly over, scarce remembering there is such a text in the Bible. And many put such a construction upon it, as makes it of no manner of effect. "They that will be rich," say they, "that is, will be rich at all events, who Will be rich right or wrong; that are resolved to carry their point, to compass this end, whatever means they use to attain it; they 'fall into temptation," and into all the evils enumerated by the Apostle." But truly if this were all the meaning of the text, it might as well have been out of the Bible. 2. This is so far from being the whole meaning of the text, that it is no part of its meaning. The Apostle does not here speak of gaining riches unjustly, but of quite another thing: His words are to be taken in their plain obvious sense, without any restriction or qualification whatsoever. St. Paul does not say, "They that will be rich by evil means, by theft, robbery, oppression, or extortion; they that will be rich by fraud or dishonest art; but simply, "they that will be rich:" These, allowing, supposing the means they use to be ever so innocent, "fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful desires, which drown men in destruction and perdition."

3. By the same authority I ask, Who of you are endeavouring to be rich to procure for yourselves more than the plain necessaries and conveniences of life Lay, each of you, your hand to your heart, and seriously inquire, "Am I of that number Am I labouring, not only for what I want, but for more than I want" May the Spirit of God say to everyone whom it concerns, "Thou art the man!" 4. I ask, "Thirdly, Who of you are in fact "laying up for yourselves treasures upon earth" increasing in goods adding, as fast as you can, house to house, and field to field! As long as thou thus "dost well unto thyself, men will speak good of thee." They will call thee a wise, a prudent man! a man that minds the main chance. Such is, and always has been, the wisdom of the world. But God saith unto thee, "'Thou fool!' art thou not 'treasuring up to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God'" 5. Perhaps you will ask, "But do not you yourself advise, to gain all we can, and to save all we can And is it possible to do this without both desiring and endeavouring to be rich nay, suppose our endeavours are successful, without actually laying up treasures upon earth" I answer, It is possible. You may gain all you can without hurting either your soul or body; you may save all you can, by carefully avoiding every needless expense; and yet never lay up treasures on earth, nor either desire or endeavour so to do. 6. Permit me to speak as freely of myself as I would of another man I gain all I can (namely, by writing) without hurting either my soul or body. I save all I can, not willingly wasting anything, not a sheet of paper, not a cup of water. I do not lay out anything, not a shilling, unless as a sacrifice to God. Yet by giving all I can, I am effectually secured from "laying up treasures upon earth." Yea, and I am secured from either desiring or endeavouring, it as long as I give all I can. And that I do this, I call all that know me, both friends and foes, to testify.

4. It is certain, that many who sincerely fear God have cordially embraced this opinion. And their practice is suitable thereto: They make no scruple of conformity to the world, by putting on, as often occasion offers, either gold, or pearls, or costly apparel. And indeed they are not well pleased with those that think it their duty to reject them; the using of which they apprehend to be one branch of Christian liberty. Yea, some have gone considerably farther; even so far as to make it a point to bring those who had refrained from them for some time to make use of them again, assuring them that it was mere superstition to think there was any harm in them. Nay, farther still: A very respectable person has said, in express terms, "I do not desire that any who dress plain should be in our society." It is, therefore, certainly worth our while to consider this matter thoroughly; seriously to inquire whether there is any harm in the putting on of gold, or jewels, or costly apparel. 5. But, before we enter on the subject, let it be observed, that slovenliness is no part of religion; that neither this, nor any text of Scripture, condemns neatness of apparel. Certainly this is a duty, not a sin. "Cleanliness is, indeed, next to godliness." Agreeably to this, good Mr. Herbert advises every one that fears God: -- Let thy mind's sweetness have its operation Upon thy person, clothes, and habitation. And surely every one should attend to this, if he would not have the good that is in him evil spoken of. 6. Another mistake, with regard to apparel, has been common in the religious world. It has been supposed by some, that there ought to be no difference at all in the apparel of Christians. But neither these texts, nor any other in the book of God, teach any such thing, or direct that the dress of the master or the mistress should be nothing different from that of their servants. There may, undoubtedly, be a moderate difference of apparel between persons of different stations. And where the eye is single, this will easily be adjusted by the rules of Christian prudence.

7. Yea, it may be doubted, whether any part of Scripture forbids (at least I know not any) those in any nation that are invested with supreme authority, to be arrayed in gold and costly apparel; or to adorn their immediate attendants, or magistrates, or officers, with the same. It is not improbable, that our blessed Lord intended to give countenance to this custom when he said, without the least mark of censure or disapprobation, "Behold, those that wear gorgeous," splendid, "apparel are in kings' courts." (Luke 7:25.) 8. What is then the meaning of these scriptures What is it which they forbid They manifestly forbid ordinary Christians, those in the lower or middle ranks of life, to be adorned with gold, or pearls, or costly apparel. But why What harm is there therein This deserves our serious consideration. But it is highly expedient, or rather absolutely necessary, for all who would consider it to any purpose, as far as is possible to divest themselves of all prejudice, and to stand open to conviction: Is it not necessary, likewise, in the highest degree, that they should earnestly beseech the Father of Lights, that, "by his holy inspiration, they may think the things that are right, and, by his merciful guidance, perform the same" Then they will not say, no, not in their hearts, (as I fear too many have done.) what the famous Jew said to the Christian, "Thou shalt not persuade me, though thou hast persuaded me." 9. The question is, What harm does it do, to adorn ourselves with gold, or pearls, or costly array, suppose you can afford it; that is, suppose it does not hurt or impoverish your family The first harm it does, is, it engenders pride, and, where it is already, increases it. Whoever narrowly observes what passes in his own heart will easily discern this. Nothing is more natural than to think ourselves better because we are dressed in better clothes; and it is scarce possible for a man to wear costly apparel, without, in some measure, valuing himself upon it. One of the old Heathens was so well apprized of this, that, when he had a spite to a poor man, and had a mind to turn his head, he made him a present of a suit of fine clothes. Eutrapelus, cuicunque nocere voiebat, Vestimenta dabat pretiosa.

17. It is true, great allowance is to be made for those who have never been warned of these things, and perhaps do not know that there is a word in the Bible which forbids costly apparel. But what is that to you You have been warned over and over, yea, in the plainest manner possible. And what have you profited thereby Do not you still dress like other people of the same fortune Is not your dress as gay, as expensive as theirs who never had any such warning as expensive as it would have been, if you had never heard a word said about it O how will you answer this, when you and I stand together at the judgment-seat of Christ Nay, have not many of you grown finer as fast as you have grown richer As you increased in substance, have you not increased in dress Witness the profusion of ribands, gauze, or linen about your heads! What have you profited then by bearing the reproach of Christ by being called Methodists Are you not as fashionably dressed as others of your rank that are no Methodists Do you ask, "But may we not as well buy fashionable things as unfashionable" I answer, Not if they give you a bold, immodest look, as those huge hats, bonnets, head-dresses do. And not if they cost more. "But I can afford it." O lay aside for ever that idle, nonsensical word! No Christian can afford to waste any part of the substance which God has entrusted him with. How long are you to stay here May not you to-morrow, perhaps to-night, be summoned to arise and go hence, in order to give an account of this and all your talents to the Judge of quick and dead

This was the practice of all the young men at Oxford who were called Methodists. For example: One of them had thirty pounds a year. He lived on twenty-eight and gave away forty shillings. The next year receiving sixty pounds, he still lived on twenty-eight, and gave away two-and-thirty. The third year he received ninety pounds, and gave away sixty-two. The fourth year he received a hundred and twenty pounds. Still he lived as before on twenty-eight; and gave to the poor ninety-two. Was not this a more excellent way Secondly, if you have a family, seriously consider before God, how much each member of it wants, in order to have what is needful for life and godliness. And in general, do not allow them less, nor much more, than you allow yourself. Thirdly, this being done, fix your purpose, to "gain no more." I charge you in the name of God, do not increase your substance! As it comes daily or yearly, so let it go: Otherwise you "lay up treasures upon earth." And this our Lord as flatly forbids as murder and adultery. By doing it, therefore, you would "treasure up to yourselves wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgement of God." 5. But suppose it were not forbidden, how can you on principles of reason spend your money in a way which God may possibly forgive, instead of spending it in a manner which he will certainly reward You will have no reward in heaven for what you lay up; you will, for what you lay out. Every pound you put into the earthly bank is sunk: it brings no interest above. But every pound you give to the poor is put into the bank of heaven. And it will bring glorious interest; yea, and such as will be accumulating to all eternity.

An Israelite Indeed "Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile." John 1:47. 1. Some years ago a very ingenious man, Professor Hutcheson of Glasgow, published two treatises, The Original of our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue. In the latter of these he maintains that the very essence of virtue is, the love of our fellow-creatures. He endeavours to prove, that virtue and benevolence are one and the same thing; that every temper is only so far virtuous, as it partakes of the nature of benevolence; and that all our words and actions are then only virtuous, when they spring from the same principle. "But does he not suppose gratitude, or the love of God to be the foundation of this benevolence" By no means: Such a supposition as this never entered into his mind. Nay, he supposes just the contrary: He does not make the least scruple to aver, that if any temper or action be produced by any regard to God, or any view to a reward from him, it is not virtuous at all; and that if an action spring partly from benevolence and partly from a view to God, the more there is in it of a view to God, the less there is of virtue. 2. I cannot see this beautiful essay of Mr. Hutcheson's in any other light than as a decent, and therefore more dangerous, attack upon the whole of the Christian Revelation: Seeing this asserts the love of God to be the true foundation, both of the love of neighbour, and all other virtues; and, accordingly, places this as "the first and great commandment," on which all the rest depend, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God will all thy heart, and with all thy mind, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength." So that, according to the Bible, benevolence, or the love of our neighbour, is only the second commandment. And suppose the Scripture be of God, it is so far from being true, that benevolence alone is both the foundation and the essence of all virtue, that benevolence itself is no virtue at all, unless it spring from the love of God

3. Yet it cannot be denied, that this writer himself has a marginal note in favour of Christianity. "Who would not wish," says he, "that the Christian Revelation could be proved to be of God Seeing it is, unquestionably, the most benevolent institution that ever appeared in the world!" But is not this, if it be considered thoroughly, another blow at the very root of that Revelation Is it more or less than to say: "I wish it could; but in truth it cannot be proved." 4. Another ingenious writer advances an hypothesis totally different from this. Mr. Wollaston, in the book which he entitles, "The Religion of Nature Delineated," endeavours to prove, that truth is the essence of virtue, or conformableness to truth. But it seems, Mr. Wollaston goes farther from the Bible than Mr. Hutcheson himself. For Mr. Hutcheson's scheme sets aside only one of the two great commandments, namely, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God;" whereas Mr. Wollaston sets aside both: For his hypothesis does not place the essence of virtue in either the love of God or of our neighbour. 5. However, both of these authors agree, though in different ways, to put asunder what God has joined. But St. Paul unites them together in teaching us to "speak the truth in love." And undoubtedly, both truth and love were united in him to whom He who knows the hearts of all men gives this amiable character, "Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!"

II. 1. Meantime, as the heart of him that is "an Israelite indeed" is true to God, so his words are suitable thereto: And as there is no guile lodged in his heart, so there is none found in his lips. The first thing implied herein, is veracity, -- the speaking the truth from his heart, -- the putting away all wilful lying, in every kind and degree. A lie, according to a well-known definition of it, is, falsum testmonium, cum intentione fallendi: "A falsehood, known to be such by the speaker, and uttered with an intention to deceive." But even the speaking a falsehood is not a lie, if it be not spoken with an intent to deceive. 2. Most casuists, particularly those of the Church of Rome, distinguish lies into three sorts: The First sort is malicious lies; the Second, harmless lies; the Third, officious lies: Concerning which they pass a very different judgment. I know not any that are so hardy as even to excuse, much less defend, malicious lies; that is, such as are told with a design to hurt any one: These are condemned by all parties. Men are more divided in their judgment with regard to harmless lies, such as are supposed to do neither good nor harm. The generality of men, even in the Christian world, utter them without any scruple, and openly maintain, that, if they do no harm to anyone else, they do none to the speaker. Whether they do or no, they have certainly no place in the mouth of him that is "an Israelite indeed." He cannot tell lies in jest, am more than in earnest. Nothing but truth is heard from his mouth. He remembers the express command of God to the Ephesian Christians: "Putting away lying, speak every man truth to his neighbour." (Eph. 4:25.)

3. Concerning officious lies, those that are spoken with a design to do good, there have been numerous controversies in the Christian Church. Abundance of writers, and those men of renown, for piety as well as learning, have published whole volumes upon the subject, and, in despite of all opposers, not only maintained them to be innocent, but commended them as meritorious. But what saith the Scripture One passage is so express that there does not need any other. It occurs in the third chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, where the very words of the Apostle are: (Rom. 3: 7, 8,) "If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why am I yet judged as a sinner" (Will not that lie be excused from blame, for the good effect of it) "And not rather, as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say, Let us do evil, that good may come Whose damnation is just." Here the Apostle plainly declares, (1.) That the good effect of a lie is no excuse for it. (2.) That it is a mere slander upon Christians to say, "They teach men to do evil that good may come." (3.) That if any, in fact, do this; either teach men to do evil that good may come, or do so themselves; their damnation is just. This is peculiarly applicable to those who tell lies in order to do good thereby. It follows, that officious lies, as well as all others, are an abomination to the God of truth. Therefore, there is no absurdity, however strange it may sound, in that saying of the ancient Father, "I would not tell a wilful lie, to save the souls of the whole world."

4. The second thing which is implied in the character of "an Israelite indeed," is, sincerity. As veracity is opposite to lying, so sincerity is to cunning. But it is not opposite to wisdom, or discretion, which are well consistent with it. "But what is the difference between wisdom and cunning Are they not almost, if not quite, the same thing" By no means. The difference between them is exceeding great. Wisdom is the faculty of discerning the best ends, and the fittest means of attaining them. The end of every rational creature is God: the enjoying him in time and in eternity. The best, indeed the only, means of attaining this end, is "the faith that worketh by love." True prudence, in the general sense of the word, is the same thing with wisdom. Discretion is but another name for prudence, -- if it be not rather a part of it, as it sometimes is referred to our outward behaviour, -- and means, the ordering our words and actions right. On the contrary, cunning (so it is usually termed amongst common men, but policy among the great) is, in plain terms, neither better nor worse than the art of deceiving. If therefore, it be any wisdom at all, it is "the wisdom from beneath;" springing from the bottomless pit, and leading down to the place from whence it came. 5. The two great means which cunning uses in order to deceive, are, simulation and dissimulation. Simulation is the seeming to be what we are not; dissimulation, the seeming not to be what we are; according to the old verse, Quod non est simulo: Dissimuloque quod est. Both the one and the other we commonly term, the "hanging out of false colours." Innumerable are the shapes that simulation puts on in order to deceive. And almost as many are used by dissimulation for the same purpose. But the man of sincerity shuns them both, and always appears exactly what he is.

6. "But suppose we are engaged with artful men, may we not use silence or reserve, especially if they ask insidious questions, without falling under the imputation of cunning" Undoubtedly we may: Nay, we ought on many occasions either wholly to keep silence, or to speak with more or less reserve, as circumstances may require. To say nothing at all, is, in many cases, consistent with the highest sincerity. And so it is, to speak with reserve, to say only a part, perhaps a small part, of what we know. But were we to pretend it to be the whole, this would be contrary to sincerity. 7. A more difficult question than this is, "May we not speak the truth in order to deceive like him of old, who broke out into that exclamation applauding his own ingenuity, Hoc ego mihi puto palmarium, ut vera dicendo eos ambos fallam. `This I take to be my master-piece, to deceive them both by speaking the truth!" I answer, A Heathen might pique himself upon this; but a Christian could not. For although this is not contrary to veracity, yet it certainly is to sincerity. It is therefore the most excellent way, if we judge it proper to speak at all, to put away both simulation and dissimulation, and to speak the naked truth from our heart. 8. Perhaps this is properly termed, simplicity. It goes a little farther than sincerity itself. It implies not only, First, the speaking no known falsehood; and, Secondly, the not designedly deceiving any one; but, Thirdly, the speaking plainly and artlessly to everyone when we speak at all; the speaking as little children, in a childlike, though not a childish, manner. Does not this utterly exclude the using any compliments A vile word, the very sound of which I abhor; quite agreeing with our poet: -- It never was a good day Since lowly fawning was call'd compliment. I advise men of sincerity and simplicity never to take that silly word in their mouth; but labour to keep at the utmost distance both from the name and the thing. 9. Not long before that remarkable time, When Statesmen sent a Prelate 'cross the seas, By long-famed Act of pains and penalties,

On Charity "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." 1 Cor. 13:1-3. We know, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God," and is therefore true and right concerning all things. But we know, likewise, that there are some Scriptures which more immediately commend themselves to every man's conscience. In this rank we may place the passage before us; there are scarce any that object to it. On the contrary, the generality of men very readily appeal to it. Nothing is more common than to find even those who deny the authority of the Holy Scriptures, yet affirming, "This is my religion; that which is described in the thirteenth chapter of the Corinthians." Nay, even a Jew, Dr. Nunes, a Spanish physician, then settled at Savannah, in Georgia, used to say with great earnestness, "That Paul of Tarsus was one of the finest writers I have ever read. I wish the thirteenth chapter of his first letter to the Corinthians were wrote in letters of gold. And I wish every Jew were to carry it with him wherever he went." He judged, (and herein he certainly judged right,) that this single chapter contained the whole of true religion. It contains "whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely: If there be any virtue, if there be any praise," it is all contained in this. In order to see this in the clearest light, we may consider, I. What the charity here spoken of is: II. What those things are which are usually put in the place of it. We may then, III. Observe, that neither any of them, nor all of them put together, can supply the want of it. I. 1. We are, First, to consider what this charity is. What is the nature and what are the properties of it

St. Paul's word is agape, exactly answering to the plain English word love. And accordingly it is so rendered in all the old translations of the Bible. So it stood in William Tyndal's Bible, which, I suppose, was the first English translation of the whole Bible. So it was also in the Bible published by the authority of King Henry VIII. So it was likewise, in all the editions of the Bible that were successively published in England during the reign of King Edward VI., Queen Elizabeth, and King James I. Nay, so it is found in the Bibles of King Charles First's reign; I believe, to the period of it. The first Bibles I have seen wherein the word was changed, were those printed by Roger Daniel and John Field, printers to the Parliament, in the year 1649. Hence it seems probable that the alteration was made during the sitting of the Long Parliament; probably it was then the Latin word charity was put in the place of the English word love. It was in an unhappy hour this alteration was made; the ill effects of it remain to this day; and these may be observed, not only among the poor and illiterate; -- not only thousands of common men and women no more understand the word charity than they do the original Greek; -- but the same miserable mistake has diffused itself among men of education and learning. Thousands of these are misled thereby, and imagine that the charity treated of in this chapter refers chiefly, if not wholly, to outward actions, and to mean little more than almsgiving! I have heard many sermons preached upon this chapter, particularly before the University of Oxford. And I never heard more than one, wherein the meaning of it was not totally misrepresented. But had the old and proper word love been retained, there would have been no room for misrepresentation.

5. Secondly, "Love is not provoked." Our present English translation renders it, "is not easily provoked." But how did the word easily come in There is not a tittle of it in the text: The words of the Apostle are simply these, ou paraxunetai. Is it not probable, it was inserted by the translators with a design to excuse St. Paul, for fear his practice should appear to contradict his doctrine For we read, (Acts 15:36, et seq.,) "And some days after, Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take with them who departed from the work. And the contention was so sharp between them that they departed asunder one from the other: And so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; and Paul chose Silas, and departed; being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches."

8. Thirdly. "Love is longsuffering." It endures not a few affronts, reproaches, injuries; but all things, which God is pleased to permit either men or devils to inflict. It arms the soul with inviolable patience; not harsh stoical patience, but yielding as the air, which, making no resistance to the stroke, receives no harm thereby. The lover of mankind remembers Him who suffered for us, "leaving us an example that we might tread in his steps." Accordingly, "if his enemy hunger, he feeds him; if he thirst, he gives him drink:" And by so doing, he "heaps coals of fire," of melting love, upon his head. "And many waters cannot quench this love; neither can the floods" of ingratitude "drown it." II. 1. We are, Secondly, to inquire, what those things are, which, it is commonly supposed, will supply the place of love. And the first of these is eloquence; a faculty of talking well, particularly on religious subjects. Men are generally inclined to think well of one that talks well. If he speaks properly and fluently of God, and the things of God, who can doubt of his being in God's favour And it is very natural for him to think well of himself; to have as favourable an opinion of himself as others have. 2. But men of reflection are not satisfied with this: They are not content with a flood of words; they prefer thinking before talking, and judge, one that knows much is far preferable to one that talks much. And it is certain, knowledge is an excellent gift of God; particularly knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, in which are contained all the depths of divine knowledge and wisdom. Hence it is generally thought that a man of much knowledge, knowledge of Scripture in particular, must not only be in the favour of God, but likewise enjoy a high degree of it.

In order to do this in the clearest manner, we may consider them one by one. And, First, "though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels;" -- with an eloquence such as never was found in men, concerning the nature, attributes, and works of God, whether of creation or providence; though I were not herein a whit behind the chief of the apostles; preaching like St. Peter, and praying like St. John; -- yet unless humble, gentle, patient love, be the ruling temper of my soul, I am no better, in the judgment of God, "than sounding brass, or a rumbling cymbal." The highest eloquence, therefore, either in private conversation, or in public ministrations, -- the brightest talents either for preaching or prayer, -- if they were not joined with humble, meek, and patient resignation, might sink me the deeper into hell, but will not bring me one step nearer heaven. 2. A plain instance may illustrate this. I knew a young man between fifty and sixty years ago, who, during the course of several years, never endeavoured to convince any one of a religious truth, but he was convinced; and he never endeavoured to persuade any one to engage in a religious practice, but he was persuaded: What then All that power of convincing speech, all that force of persuasion, if it was not joined with meekness and lowliness, with resignation and patient love, would no more qualify him for the fruition of God, than a clear voice, or a fine complexion. Nay, it would rather procure him a hotter place in everlasting burnings! 3. Secondly. "Though I have the gift of prophecy," -- of foretelling those future events which no creature can foresee; and "though I understand all" the "mysteries" of nature, of providence, and the word of God; and "have all knowledge" of things, divine or human, that any mortal ever attained to; though I can explain the most mysterious passages of Daniel, of Ezekiel, and the Revelation; -- yet if I have not humility, gentleness, and resignation, "I am nothing" in the sight of God.

4. And yet all this profited him nothing, either for temporal or eternal happiness. When the war was over, he returned to England; but the story was got before him: In consequence of which he was sent for by the Countess of St--s, and several other persons of quality, who were desirous to receive so surprising an account from his own mouth. He could not bear so much honour. It quite turned his brain. In a little time he ran stark mad. And so he continues to this day, living still, as I apprehend, on Wibsey Moorside, within a few miles of Leeds. [At the time of writing this sermon. He is since dead.] 5. And what would it profit a man to "have all knowledge," even that which is infinitely preferable to all other, -- the knowledge of the Holy Scripture I knew a young man about twenty years ago, who was so thoroughly acquainted with the Bible, that if he was questioned concerning any Hebrew word in the Old, or any Greek word in the New Testament, he would tell, after a little pause, not only how often the one or the other occurred in the Bible, but also what it meant in every place. His name was Thomas Walsh. [His Journal, written by himself, is extant.] Such a master of Biblic knowledge I never saw before, and never expect to see again. Yet if, with all his knowledge, he had been void of love; if he had been proud, passionate, or impatient; he and all his knowledge would have perished together, as sure as ever he was born.

6. "And though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains." -- The faith which is able to do this cannot be the fruit of vain imagination, a mere madman's dream, a system of opinions; but must be a real work of God: Otherwise it could not have such an effect. Yet if this faith does not work by love, if it does not produce universal holiness, if it does not bring forth lowliness, meekness, and resignation, it will profit me nothing. This is as certain a truth as any that is delivered in the whole oracles of God. All faith that is, that ever was, or ever can be, separate from tender benevolence to every child of man, friend or foe, Christian, Jew, Heretic, or Pagan, -- separate from gentleness to all men; separate from resignation in all events, and contentedness in all conditions, -- is not the faith of a Christian, and will stand us in no stead before the face of God. 7. Hear ye this, all you that are called Methodists! You, of all men living, are most concerned herein. You constantly speak of salvation by faith: And you are in the right for so doing. You maintain, (one and all,) that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law. And you cannot do otherwise, without giving up the Bible, and betraying your own souls. You insist upon it, that we are saved by faith: And, undoubtedly, so we are. But consider, meantime, that let us have ever so much faith, and be our faith ever so strong, it will never save us from hell, unless it now save us from all unholy tempers, from pride, passion, impatience; from all arrogance of spirit, all haughtiness and overbearing; from wrath, anger, bitterness; from discontent, murmuring, fretfulness, peevishness. We are of all men most inexcusable, if, having been so frequently guarded against that strong delusion, we still, while we indulge any of these tempers, bless ourselves, and dream we are in the way to heaven!

2. But is it not possible to distinguish right zeal from wrong Undoubtedly it is possible. But it is difficult; such is the deceitfulness of the human heart; so skilfully do the passions justify themselves. And there are exceeding few treatises on the subject; at least, in the English language. To this day I have seen or heard of only one sermon; and that was wrote above a hundred years ago, by Dr. Sprat, then Bishop of Rochester; so that it is now exceeding scarce. 3. I would gladly cast in my mite, by God's assistance toward the clearing up this important question, in order to enable well-meaning men, who are desirous of pleasing God, to distinguish true Christian zeal from its various counterfeits. And this is more necessary at this time than it has been for many years. Sixty years ago there seemed to be scarce any such thing as religious zeal left in the nation. People in general were wonderfully cool and undisturbed about that trifle, religion. But since then, it is easy to observe, there has been a very considerable alteration. Many thousands, almost in every part of the nation, have felt a real desire to save their souls. And I am persuaded there is at this day more religious zeal in England, than there has been for a century past. 4. But has this zeal been of the right or the wrong kind Probably both the one and the other. Let us see if we cannot separate these, that we may avoid the latter, and cleave to the former. In order to this. I would first inquire, I. What is the nature of true Christian zeal II. What are the properties of it And, III. Draw some practical inferences. I. And, First, What is the nature of zeal in general, and of true Christian zeal in particular

By zeal for their distinct persuasions fired! Zeal indeed! What manner of zeal was this, which led them to cut one another's throats Those who were fired with this spirit, and died therein, will undoubtedly have their portion, not in heaven, (only love is there,) but in the "fire that never shall be quenched." 7. Lastly. If true zeal be always proportioned to the degree of goodness which is in its object, then should it rise higher and higher according to the scale mentioned above; according to the comparative value of the several parts of religion. For instance, all that truly fear God should be zealous for the Church; both for the catholic or universal church, and for that part of it whereof they are members. This is not the appointment of men, but of God. He saw it was "not good for men to be alone," even in this sense. but that the whole body of his children should be "knit together, and strengthened, by that which every joint supplieth." At the same time they should be more zealous for the ordinances of God; for public and private prayer, for hearing and reading the word of God, and for fasting and the Lord's supper. But they should be more zealous for works of mercy, than even for works of piety. Yet ought they to be more zealous still for all holy tempers, lowliness, meekness, resignation: but most zealous of all, for that which is the sum and the perfection of religion, the love of God and man. 8. It remains only to make a close and honest application of these things to our own souls. We all know the general truth, that "it is good to be always zealously affected in a good thing." Let us now, every one of us, apply it to his own soul in particular.

5. If anyone desires to know exactly what quantity of sleep his own constitution requires, he may very easily make the experiment which I made about sixty years ago: I then waked every night about twelve or one, and lay awake for some time. I readily concluded that this arose from my lying longer in bed than nature required. To be satisfied, I procured an alarum, which waked me the next morning at seven; (near an hour earlier than I rose the day before,) yet I lay awake again at night. The second morning I rose at six; but, notwithstanding this, I lay awake the second night. The third morning I rose at five; but, nevertheless, I lay awake the third night. The fourth morning I rose at four; (as, by the grace of God, I have done ever since;) and I lay awake no more. And I do not now lie awake (taking the year round) a quarter of an hour together in a month. By the same experiment, rising earlier and earlier every morning, may anyone find how much sleep he really wants. II. 1. "But why should anyone be at so much pains What need is there of being so scrupulous Why should we make ourselves so particular What harm is there in doing as our neighbours do -- suppose in lying from ten till six or seven in summer, and till eight or nine in winter" 2. If you would consider this question fairly, you will need a good deal of candour and impartiality; as what I am about to say will probably be quite new; different from anything you ever heard in your life; different from the judgment, at least from the example, of your parents and your nearest relations; nay, and perhaps of the most religious persons you ever were acquainted with. Lift up, therefore, your heart to the Spirit of truth, and beg of him to shine upon it, that without respecting any man's person, you may see and follow the truth as it in Jesus.

On Visiting the Sick "I was sick, and ye visited me." Matt. 25:36. 1. It is generally supposed, that the means of grace and the ordinances of God are equivalent terms. We commonly mean by that expression, those that are usually termed, works of piety; viz., hearing and reading the Scripture, receiving the Lord's Supper, public and private prayer, and fasting. And it is certain these are the ordinary channels which convey the grace of God to the souls of men. But are they the only means of grace Are there no other means than these, whereby God is pleased, frequently, yea, ordinarily, to convey his grace to them that either love or fear him Surely there are works of mercy, as well as works of piety, which are real means of grace. They are more especially such to those that perform them with a single eye. And those that neglect them, do not receive the grace which otherwise they might. Yea, and they lose, by a continued neglect, the grace which they had received. Is it not hence that many who were once strong in faith are now weak and feeble-minded And yet they are not sensible whence that weakness comes, as they neglect none of the ordinances of God. But they might see whence it comes, were they seriously to consider St. Paul's account of all true believers: "We are his workmanship, created anew in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before prepared, that we might walk therein." (Eph. 2:10.)

The Rich Man And Lazarus "If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31. 1. How strange a paradox is this! How contrary to the common apprehension of men! Who is so confirmed in unbelief as not to think, "If one came to me from the dead, I should be effectually persuaded to repent" But this passage affords us a more strange saying: (Luke 16:13:) "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." "No! Why not Why cannot we serve both" will a true servant of mammon say. Accordingly, the Pharisees, who supposed they served God, and did cordially serve mammon, derided him: exemukthrizon. A word expressive of the deepest contempt. But he said, (Luke 16:15,) "Ye are they who justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: And that which is highly esteemed among men, is (very commonly) an abomination before God:" A terrible proof of which our Lord subjoins in the remaining part of the chapter. 2. But is the subsequent account merely a parable, or a real history It has been believed by many, and roundly asserted, to be a mere parable, because of one or two circumstances therein, which are not easy to be accounted for. In particular, it is hard to conceive, how a person in hell could hold conversation with one in paradise. But, admitting we cannot account for this, will it overbalance an express assertion of our Lord: "There was," says our Lord, "a certain rich man." -- Was there not Did such a man never exist "And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus."- -Was there, or was there not Is it not bold enough, positively to deny what our blessed Lord positively affirms Therefore, we cannot reasonably doubt, but the whole narration, with all its circumstances, is exactly true. And Theophylact (one of the ancient commentators on the Scriptures) observes upon the text, that, "according to the tradition of the Jews, Lazarus lived at Jerusalem." I purpose, with God's assistance, First, to explain this history; Secondly, to apply it; and, Thirdly, to prove the truth of that weighty sentence with which it is concluded, namely, "If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

6. "And he cried, and said, Father Abraham, have mercy upon me!" -- I do not remember, in all the Bible, any prayer made to a saint, but this. And if we observe who made it, -- a man in hell, -- and with what success, we shall hardly wish to follow the precedent. O let us cry for mercy to God, not to man! And it is our wisdom to cry now, while we are in the land of mercy; otherwise it will be too late! -- "I am tormented in this flame!" Tormented, observe, not purified. Vain hope, that fire can purify a spirit! As well might you expect water to cleanse the soul, as fire. God forbid that you or I should make the trial! 7. And "Abraham said, Son, remember:" -- Mark, how Abraham accosts a damned spirit: And shall we behave with less tenderness to any of the children of God, "because they are not of our opinion" -- "Thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things." O, beware it be not your case! Are not the things of the world "thy good things" -- the chief objects of thy desire and pursuit Are they not thy chief joy If so, thou art in a very dangerous state; in the very condition which Dives was in upon earth! Do not then dream that all is well, because thou art "highly esteemed among men;" because thou doest no harm, or doest much good, or attendest all the ordinances of God. What is all this, if thy soul cleaves to the dust; if thy heart is in the world; if thou lovest the creature more than the Creator 8. How striking are the next words! "Beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed; so that they who would pass from us to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence." This was the text which occasioned the epitaph on a right honourable infidel and gamester: -- Here lies a dicer; long in doubt If death could kill the soul, or not: Here ends his doubtfulness; at last Convinced; -- but,ah! the die is cast!

2. In order to prove more at large, that if men "hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be" effectually "persuaded" to repent, "though one rose from the dead," I will propose a case of this kind, with all the advantages that can be conceived. Suppose, then, one that does not "hear Moses and the Prophets," that does not believe the Scripture to be of God, to be fast asleep in his bed, and suddenly to awake while the clock was just striking one. He is surprised to observe the chamber as light as if it were noon-day. He looks up, and sees one whom he perfectly knew standing at his bed-side. Though a little surprised at first, he quickly recollects himself, and has the courage to ask, "Are not you my friend, who died at such a time" He answers, "I am. I am come from God, with a message to you. You have often wished you could see one risen from the dead; and said, then you would repent. You have your wish; and I am ordered to inform you, you are seeking death in the error of your life. If you die in the state you are in now, you will die eternally. I warn you, in His name, that the Scriptures are the real word of God; that from the moment you die, you will be remarkably happy, or unspeakably miserable; that you cannot be happy hereafter, unless you are holy here; which cannot be, unless you are born again. Receive this call from God! Eternity is at hand. Repent, and believe the gospel!" Having spoken these words, he vanishes away; and the room is dark as it was before. 3. One may easily believe, it would be impossible for him not to be convinced for the present. He would sleep no more that night; and would, as soon as possible, tell his family what he had seen and heard. Not content with this, he would be impatient to tell it to his former companions. And, probably, observing the earnestness with which he spoke, they would not then contradict him. They would say to each other, "Give him time to cool; then he will be a reasonable man again."

4. Now, it is constantly found, that impressions made on the memory gradually decay; that they grow weaker and weaker in process of time, and the traces of them fainter and fainter. So it must be in this case; which his companions observing, would not fail to seize the opportunity. They would speak to this effect: "It was a strange account you gave us some time since; the more so,because we know you to be a sensible man, and not inclined to enthusiasm. But, perhaps, you have not fully considered, how difficult it is, in some cases, to distinguish our dreams from our waking thoughts. Has anyone yet been able to find out an infallible criterion between them Is it not then possible, that you may have been asleep when this lively impression was made on your mind" When he had been brought to think, possibly it might be a dream; they would soon persuade him, probably it was so; and not long after, to believe, it certainly was a dream. So little would it avail, that one came from the dead! 5. It could not be expected to be otherwise. For what was the effect which was wrought upon him (1.) He was exceedingly frightened: (2.) This fright made way for a deeper conviction of the truth then declared: But (3.) his heart was not changed. None but the Almighty could effect this. Therefore (4.) the bias of his soul was still set the wrong way; he still loved the world, and, consequently, wished that the Scripture was not true. How easily then, as the fright wore off, would he again believe what he wished! The conclusion then is plain and undeniable. If men "hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded" to repent and believe the gospel, "though one rose from the dead." 6. We may add one consideration more, which brings the matter to a full issue. Before, or about the same time, that Lazarus was carried into Abraham's bosom, another Lazarus, the brother of Martha and Mary, was actually raised from the dead. But were even those who believed the fact persuaded to repent So far from it, that "they took counsel to kill Lazarus," as well as his Master! Away then with the fond imagination, that those who "hear not Moses and the Prophets, would be persuaded, though on from the dead!"

7. From the whole we may draw this general conclusion. That standing revelation is the best means of rational conviction; far preferable to any of those extraordinary means which some imagine would be more effectual. It is therefore our wisdom to avail ourselves of this; to make full use of it; so that it may be a lantern to our feet, and a light in all our paths. Let us take care that our whole heart and life be conformable thereto; that it be the constant rule of all our tempers, all our words, and all our actions. So shall we preserve in all things the testimony of a good conscience toward God; and when our course is finished, we too shall be "carried by angels into Abraham's bosom." Birmingham, March 25, 1788.

On The Wedding Garment "How camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment Matt. 22:12. 1. In the verses preceding the text we read, "After these things, Jesus spake to them again in parables, and said, A certain king made a supper for his son. And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw one who had not on a wedding garment. And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 2. Upon this parable one of our most celebrated expositors comments in the following manner: -- "The design of this parable is to set forth that gracious supply made by God to men in and by the preaching of the gospel. To invite them to this, God sent forth his servants, the Prophets and Apostles." -- And on these words, -- "Why camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment" he proceeds thus: "The punishment of whom ought not to discourage us, or make us turn our backs upon the holy ordinances." Certainly it ought not; but nothing of this kind can be inferred from this parable, which has no reference to the ordinances, any more than to baptism and marriage. And probably we should never have imagined it, but that the word supper occurred therein. 3. However, most of the English annotators have fallen into the same mistake with Mr. Burkitt. And so have thousands of their readers. Yet a mistake it certainly is; and such a mistake as has not any shadow of foundation in the text. It is true, indeed, that none ought to approach the Lord's table without habitual, at least, if not actual, preparation; that is, a firm purpose to keep all the commandments of God, and a sincere desire to receive all his promises. But that obligation cannot be inferred from this text, though it may from many other passages of Scripture. But there is no need of multiplying texts; one is as good as a thousand: There needs no more to induce any man of a tender conscience to communicate at all opportunities, than that single commandment of our Lord, "Do this in remembrance of me."

6. Another elegant writer, now I trust with God, speaks strongly to the same effect in the preface to his comment on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans: "We certainly," says he, "shall need a better righteousness than our own, wherein to Stand at the bar of God in the day of judgment." I do not understand the expression. Is it scriptural Do we read it in the Bible, either in the Old Testament or the New I doubt it is an unscriptural, awkward phrase, Which has no determinate meaning. If you mean by that odd, uncouth question, 'In whose righteousness are you to stand at the last day" -- for whose sake, or by whose merit, do you expect to enter into the glory of God I answer, without the least hesitation, For the sake of Jesus Christ the Righteous. It is through his merits alone that all believers are saved; that is, justified -- saved from the guilt, -- sanctified -- saved from the nature, of sin; and glorified -- taken into heaven. 7. It may be worth our while to spend a few more words on this important point. Is it possible to devise a more unintelligible expression than this, -- "In what righteousness are we to stand before God at the last day" Why do you not speak plainly, and say, "For whose sake do you look to be saved" Any plain peasant would then readily answer, "For the sake of Jesus Christ." But all those dark, ambiguous phrases tend only to puzzle the cause, and open a way for unwary hearers to slide into Antinomianism. 8. Is there any expression similar to this of the "wedding garment" to be found in Holy Scripture In the Revelation we find mention made of "linen, white and clean, which is the righteousness of the saints." And this, too, many vehemently contend, means the righteousness of Christ. But how then are we to reconcile this with that passage in the seventh chapter, "They have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" Will they say, "The righteousness of Christ was washed and made white in the blood of Christ" Away with such Antinomian jargon! Is not the plain meaning this: -- It was from the atoning blood that the very righteousness of the saints derived its value and acceptableness with God

9. In the nineteenth chapter of the Revelation, at the ninth verse, there is an expression which comes much nearer to this: -- "The wedding supper of the Lamb." [Rev. 19] There is a near resemblance between this and the marriage supper mentioned in the parable. Yet they are not altogether the same: there is a clear difference between them. The supper mentioned in the parable belongs to the Church Militant; that mentioned in the Revelation, to the Church Triumphant: The one, to the kingdom of God on earth; the other, to the kingdom of God in heaven. Accordingly, in the former, there may be found those who have not a "wedding garment." But there will be none such to be found in the latter: No, not "in that great multitude which no man can number, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." They will all be "kings and priests unto God, and shall reign with him for ever and ever." 10. Does not that expression, "the righteousness of the saints," point out what is the "wedding garment" in the parable It is the "holiness without which no man shall see the Lord." The righteousness of Christ is doubtless necessary for any soul that enters into glory: But so is personal holiness too, for every child of man. But it is highly needful to be observed, that they are necessary in different respects. The former is necessary to entitle us to heaven; the latter to qualify us for it. Without the righteousness of Christ we could have no claim to glory; without holiness we could have no fitness for it. By the former we become members of Christ, children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven. By the latter "we are made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light."

15. When things of an indifferent nature are represented as necessary to salvation, it is a folly of the same kind, though not of the same magnitude. Indeed, it is not a little sin to represent trifles as necessary to salvation; such as going of pilgrimages, or anything that is not expressly enjoined in the Holy Scripture. Among these we may undoubtedly rank orthodoxy, or right opinions. We know, indeed, that wrong opinions in religion naturally lead to wrong tempers, or wrong practices; and that, consequently, it is our bounden duty to pray that we may have a right judgment in all things. But still a man may judge as accurately as the devil, and yet be as wicked as he. 16. Something more excusable are they who imagine holiness to consist in things that are only a part of it; (that is, when they are connected with the rest; otherwise they are no part of it at all;) suppose in doing no harm. And how exceeding common is this! How many take holiness and harmlessness to mean one and the same thing! whereas were a man as harmless as a post, he might be as far from holiness as heaven from earth. Suppose a man, therefore, to be exactly honest, to pay every one his own, to cheat no man, to wrong no man, to hurt no man, to be just in all his dealings; suppose a woman to be uniformly modest and virtuous in all her words and actions; suppose the one and the other to be steady practisers of morality, that is, of justice, mercy, and truth; yet all this, though it is good as far as it goes, is but a part of Christian holiness. Yea, suppose a person of this amiable character to do much good wherever he is; to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, relieve the stranger, the sick, the prisoner; yea, and to save many souls from death: it is possible he may still fall far short of that holiness without which he cannot see the Lord.

17. What, then, is that holiness which is the true "wedding garment," the only qualification for glory "In Christ Jesus," (that is, according to the Christian institution, whatever be the case of the heathen world,) "neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but a new creation, -- the renewal of the soul "in the image of God wherein it was created." In "Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love." [Gal. 5:6] It first, through the energy of God, worketh love to God and all mankind; and, by this love, every holy and heavenly temper, -- in particular, lowliness, meekness, gentleness, temperance, and longsuffering. "It is neither circumcision," -- the attending on all the Christian ordinances, -- "nor uncircumcision," -- the fulfilling of all heathen morality, -- but "the keeping the commandments of God; particularly those, -- "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbour as thyself." In a word, holiness is the having "the mind that was in Christ," and the "walking as Christ walked." 18. Such has been my judgment for these threescore years, without any material alteration. Only, about fifty years ago I had a clearer view than before of justification by faith: and in this, from that very hour, I never varied, no, not an hair's breadth. Nevertheless, an ingenious man has publicly accused me of a thousand variations. I pray God, not to lay this to his charge! I am now on the borders of the grave; but, by the grace of God, I still witness the same confession. Indeed, some have supposed, that when I began to declare, "By grace ye are saved through faith," I retracted what I had before maintained: "Without holiness no man shall see the Lord." But it is an entire mistake: These scriptures well consist with each other; the meaning of the former being plainly this, -- By faith we are saved from sin, and made holy. The imagination that faith supersedes holiness, is the marrow of Antinomianism.

11. This then, is a plain proof that the doctrine of predestination is not a doctrine of God, because it makes void the ordinance of God; and God is not divided against himself. A Second is, that it directly tends to destroy that holiness which is the end of all the ordinances of God. I do not say, none who hold it are holy; (for God is of tender mercy to those who are unavoidably entangled in errors of any kind;) but that the doctrine itself, -- that every man is either elected or not elected from eternity, and that the one must inevitably be saved, and the other inevitably damned, -- has a manifest tendency to destroy holiness in general; for it wholly takes away those first motives to follow after it, so frequently proposed in Scripture, the hope of future reward and fear of punishment, the hope of heaven and fear of hell. That these shall go away into everlasting punishment, and those into life eternal, is not motive to him to struggle for life who believes his lot is cast already; it is not reasonable for him so to do, if he thinks he is unalterably adjudged either to life or death. 12. As directly does this doctrine tend to destroy several particular branches of holiness. Such are meekness and love, -- love, I mean, of our enemies, -- of the evil and unthankful. I say not, that none who hold it have meekness and love; (for as is the power of God, so is his mercy;) but that it naturally tends to inspire, or increase, a sharpness or eagerness of temper, which is quite contrary to the meekness of Christ; as then especially appears, when they are opposed on this head. And it as naturally inspires contempt or coldness towards those whom we suppose outcast form God.

18. Fourthly. This uncomfortable doctrine directly tends to destroy our zeal for good works. And this it does, First, as it naturally tends (according to what was observed before) to destroy our love to the greater part of mankind, namely, the evil and unthankful. For whatever lessens our love, must go far lessen our desire to do them good. This it does, Secondly, as it cuts off one of the strongest motives to all acts of bodily mercy, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and the like, -- viz., the hope of saving their souls from death. For what avails it to relieve their temporal wants, who are just dropping into eternal fire 19. But, Fifthly, this doctrine not only tends to destroy Christian holiness, happiness, and good works, but hath also a direct and manifest tendency to overthrow the whole Christian Revelation. The point which the wisest of the modern unbelievers most industriously labour to prove, is, that the Christian Revelation is not necessary. They well know, could they once show this, the conclusion would be too plain to be denied, "If it be not necessary, it is not true," Now, this fundamental point you give up. For supposing that eternal, unchangeable decree, one part of mankind must be saved, though the Christian Revelation were not in being, and the other part of mankind must be damned, notwithstanding that Revelation. And what would an infidel desire more You allow him all he asks. In making the gospel thus unnecessary to all sorts of men, you give up the whole Christian cause. 20. And as this doctrine manifestly and directly tends to overthrow the whole Christian Revelation, so it does the same thing, by plain consequence, in making that Revelation contradict itself. For it is grounded on such an interpretation of some texts (more or fewer it matters not) as flatly contradicts all the other texts, and indeed the whole scope and tenor of Scripture.

21. And "the same Lord over all is rich" in mercy "to all that call upon him:" (Romans 10:12:) But you say, "No; he is such only to those for whom Christ died. And those are not all, but only a few, whom God hath chosen out of the world; for he died not for all, but only for those who were 'chosen in him before the foundation of the world.'" (Eph. 1:4.) Flatly contrary to your interpretation of these scriptures, also, is the whole tenor of the New Testament; as are in particular those texts: -- "Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died," (Rom. 14:15,) -- a clear proof that Christ died, not only for those that are saved, but also for them that perish: He is "the Saviour of the world;" (John 4:42;) He is "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world;" (John 1:29;) "He is the propitiation, not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world;" (1 John 2:2;) "He," the living God, "is the Savior of all men;" (1 Timothy 4:10;) "He gave himself a ransom for all;" (1 Tim. 2:6;) "He tasted death for every man." (Heb. 2:9.)

22. If you ask, "Why then are not all men saved" the whole law and the testimony answer, First, Not because of any decree of God; not because it is his pleasure they should die; for, As I live, saith the Lord God," I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth." (Ezek. 18:3, 32.) Whatever be the cause of their perishing, it cannot be his will, if the oracles of God are true; for they declare, "He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance;" (2 Pet. 3:9;) "He willeth that all men should be saved." And they, Secondly, declare what is the cause why all men are not saved, namely, that they will not be saved: So our Lord expressly, "Ye will not come unto me that ye may have life." (John 5:40.) "The power of the Lord is present to heal" them, but they will not be healed. "They reject the counsel," the merciful counsel, "of God against themselves," as did their stiff-necked forefathers. And therefore are they without excuse; because God would save them, but they will not be saved: This is the condemnation, "How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would not!" (Matt. 23:37.) 23. Thus manifestly does this doctrine tend to overthrow the whole Christian Revelation, by making it contradict itself; by giving such an interpretation of some texts, as flatly contradicts all the other texts, and indeed the whole scope and tenor of Scripture; -- an abundant proof that it is not of God. But neither is this all: For, Seventhly, it is a doctrine full of blasphemy; of such blasphemy as I should dread to mention, but that the honour of our gracious God, and the cause of his truth, will not suffer me to be silent.

26. This is the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible decree of predestination! And here I fix my foot. On this I join issue with every assertor of it. You represent God as worse than the devil; more false, more cruel, more unjust. But you say you will prove it by scripture. Hold! What will you prove by Scripture that God is worse than the devil I cannot be. Whatever that Scripture proves, it never an prove this; whatever its true meaning be. This cannot be its true meaning. Do you ask, "What is its true meaning then" If I say, " I know not," you have gained nothing; for there are many scriptures the true sense whereof neither you nor I shall know till death is swallowed up in victory. But this I know, better it were to say it had no sense, than to say it had such a sense as this. It cannot mean, whatever it mean besides, that the God of truth is a liar. Let it mean what it will it cannot mean that the Judge of all the world is unjust. No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works; that is, whatever it prove beside, no scripture can prove predestination.

29. Yea, the decree is past; and so it was before the foundation of the world. But what decree Even this: "I will set before the sons of men 'life and death, blessing cursing.' And the soul that chooseth life shall live, as the soul that chooseth death shall die." This decree whereby "whom God did foreknow, he did predestinate," was indeed from everlasting; this, whereby all who suffer Christ to make them alive are "elect according to the foreknowledge of God," now standeth fast, even as the moon, and as the faithful witnesses in heaven; and when heaven and earth shall pass away, yet this shall not pass away; for it is as unchangeable and eternal as is the being of God that gave it. This decree yields the strongest encouragement to abound in all good works and in all holiness; and it is a well-spring of joy, of happiness also, to our great and endless comfort. This is worthy of God; it is every way consistent with all the perfections of his nature. It gives us the noblest view both of his justice, mercy, and truth. To this agrees the whole scope of the Christian Revelation, as well as all the parts thereof. To this Moses and all the Prophets bear witness, and our blessed Lord and all his Apostles Thus Moses, in the name of his Lord: "I call heaven and earth to record against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that thou and thy seed may live." Thus Ezekiel: (To cite one Prophet for all:) "The soul that sinneth, it shall die: The son shall not bear" eternally, "the iniquity of the father. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." (18:20.) Thus our blessed Lord: "If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink." (John 7:37.) Thus his great Apostle, St. Paul: (Acts 17:30:) "God commandeth all men everywhere to repent; -- "all men everywhere;" every man in every place, without any exception either of place or person. Thus St. James: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him." (James 1:5.) Thus St. Peter: (2 Pet.

11. But the law of _Barbadoes_ exceeds even this, “If any negro under punishment, by his master, or his order, for running away, or any other crime or misdemeanor, shall suffer _in life or member, no person whatsoever shall be liable to any fine therefore_. But if any man, of wantonness, or only of bloody-mindedness or cruel intention, _wilfully kill_ a negro of his own” (Now observe the severe punishment!) “He shall pay into the public treasury fifteen pounds sterling! And not be liable to any other punishment or forfeiture for the same!” Nearly allied to this is that law of _Virginia_: “After proclamation is issued against slaves that run away, it is lawful for any person whatsoever to kill and destroy such slaves, by such ways and means as he shall think fit.” We have seen already some of the ways and means which have been _thought fit_ on such occasions. And many more might be mentioned. One Gentleman, when I was abroad, _thought fit_ to roast his slave alive! But if the most natural act of “running away” from intolerable tyranny, deserves such relentless severity, what punishment have these _Law-makers_ to expect hereafter, on account of their own enormous offences? IV. 1. This is the plain, unaggravated matter of fact. Such is the manner wherein our _African_ slaves are procured: such the manner wherein they are removed from their native land, and wherein they are treated in our plantations. I would now enquire, whether these things can be defended, on the principles of even heathen honesty? Whether they can be reconciled (setting the Bible out of the question) with any degree of either justice or mercy? 2. The grand plea is, “They are authorized by law.” But can law, Human Law, change the nature of things? Can it turn darkness into light, or evil into good? By no means. Notwithstanding ten thousand laws, right is right, and wrong is wrong still. There must still remain an essential difference between justice and injustice, cruelty and mercy. So that I still ask, who can reconcile this treatment of the negroes, first and last, with either mercy or justice?

6. Perhaps you will say, “I do not _buy_ any Negroes: I only _use_ those left by my father.” So far is well: but is it enough to satisfy your own conscience? Had your father, have _you_, has any man living, a right to use another as a slave? It cannot be, even setting revelation aside. It cannot be that either war, or contract, can give any man such a property in another as he has in his sheep and oxen. Much less is it possible, that any child of man, should ever be _born a slave_. Liberty is the right of every human creature, as soon as he breathes the vital air. And no human law can deprive him of that right, which he derives from the law of nature. If therefore you have any regard to justice, (to say nothing of mercy, nor the revealed law of God) render unto all their due. Give liberty to whom liberty is due, that is to every child of man, to every partaker of human nature. Let none serve you but by his own act and deed, by his own voluntary choice. Away with all whips, all chains, all compulsion! Be gentle toward all men, and see that you invariably do unto every one, as you would he should do unto _you_. 7. O thou God of love, thou who art loving to every man, and whose mercy is over all thy works; thou who art the Father of the spirits of all flesh, and who art rich in mercy unto all; thou who has mingled of one blood, all the nations upon the earth; have compassion upon these outcasts of men, who are trodden down as dung upon the earth! Arise and help these that have no helper, whose blood is spilt upon the ground like water! Are not these also the work of thine own hands, the purchase of thy Son’s blood? Stir them up to cry unto thee in the land of their captivity; and let their complaint come up before thee; let it enter into thy ears! Make even those that lead them away captive to pity them, and turn their captivity as the rivers in the South. O burst thou all their chains in sunder; more especially the chains of their sins: Thou, Saviour of all, make them free, that they may be free indeed!

1 A charge to keep I have, a God to glorify, a never-dying soul to save, and fit it for the sky.

2 To serve the present age, my calling to fulfill, O may it all my pow'rs engage to do my Master's will!

3 Arm me with watchful care as in Thy sight to live, and now Thy servant, Lord, prepare a strict account to give!

2. He ever lives above For me to intercede; His all-redeeming love His precious blood to plead; His blood atoned for all our race And sprinkles now the throne of grace.

3 Visit then this soul of mine, pierce the gloom of sin and grief; fill me, radiancy divine, scatter all my unbelief; more and more Thyself display, shining to the perfect day.

WITH A SUPPLEMENT. vi Octavo. 1. For many years I have been importuned to publish such a hymn-book as might be generally used in all our congregations throughout Great Britain and Ireland. I have hitherto withstood the importunity, as I believed such a publication was needless, considering the various hymn-books which my brother and I have published within these forty years last past; so that it may be doubted whether any religious community in the world has a greater variety of them. 2. But it has been answered, " Such a publication is highly needful upon this very account ; for the greater part of the people, being poor, are not able to purchase so many books : and those that have purchased them are, as it were, bewildered in the immense variety. A proper collection of hymns for general use, carefully made out of all these books, is therefore still wanting; and one comprised in so moderate a compass, as to be neither cumbersome nor expensive." 3. It has been replied, " You have such a collection already, (entitled • Hymns and Spiritual Songs,') which I extracted several years ago from a variety of hymn-books." But it is objected, "This is in the other extreme; it is far too small. It does not, it cannot, in so narrow a compass, contain variety enough ; not so much as we want, among whom singing makes so considerable a part of the public service. What we want is, a collection not too large, that it may be cheap and portable ; nor too small, that it may contain a sufficient variety for all ordinary occasions." , -- 4. Such a Hymn-Book you have now before you. It is not so large as to be either cumbersome, or expensive: and it is large enough to contain such a variety of hymns, as will not soon be worn threadbare. It is large enough to contain all the important truths of our most holy religion, whether spe- dilative or practical; yea, to illustrate them all, and to piove them both by Scripture and reason: and this is done in a ular onltr. The hymns are not carelessly jumbled together, hut carefully ranged under proper heads, according to the experience of real Christians. So that this book is, in effect, a little body of experimental and practical divinity.

4 Dead already, dead within, Spiritually dead in sin: Dead to God, while here you breathe, Pant ye after second death ? Will you still in sin remain, Greedy of eternal pain ? O, ye dying sinners, why, Why will you for ever die ? HYMN 7. 7's. 1 ET the beasts their breath resign, -*--* Strangers to the life divine ; Who their God can never know, Let their spirit downward go. You for higher ends were born : You may all to God return ; Dwell with him above the sky : Why will you for ever die ? 2 You, on whom he favours showers ; You, possest of nobler powers ; You, of Reason's powers possest ; You, with Will and Memory blest ; You, with finer sense endued, Creatures capable of God : Noblest of his creatures, why, Why will you for ever die ? 3 You, whom he ordain'd to be Transcripts of the Deity ; You, whom he in life doth hold ; You, for whom himself was sold ; You, on whom he still doth wait, Whom he would again create : Made by him and purchased, why, Why will you for ever die ? 4 You, who own his record true ; You, his chosen people, you ; 14 Exhorting Sinners to return to God. "6 You, who call the Saviour, Lord ; You, who read his written Word ; You, who see the gospel light ; Claim a crown in Jesu's right : Why will you, ye Christians, why Will the house of Israel die? HYMN 8. 7's. 1 ^^THAT could your Redeemer do, * * More than he hath done for you ? To procure your peace with God, Could he more than shed his blood ? After all his waste of love, All his drawings from above, Why will you your Lord deny ? Why will you resolve to die ? 2 Turn, he cries, ye sinners, turn ; By his life your God hath sworn, He would have you turn and live, He would all the world receive. If your death were his delight, Would he you to life invite ? Would he ask, obtest, and cry, Why will you resolve to die ?

When youth its pride of beauty shows : Fairer than spring the colours shine, And sweeter than the virgin rose. Describing Death. 4J "6 4 Or worn by slowly -rolling years, Or broke by sickness in a day, The fading glory disappears, The short-lived beauties die away. 5 Yet these, new rising from the tomb, With lustre brighter far shall shine; Revive with ever -during bloom, Safe from diseases and decline. 6 Let sickness blast, and death devour, If heaven must recompense our pains Perish the grass, and fade the flower, If firm the word of God remains. 1 /^OME, let us anew Our journey pursue, ^-^ Roll round with the year, And never stand still till the Master appear. 2 His adorable will Let us gladly fulfil, And our talents improve, By the patience of hope, and the labour of love 3 Our life is a dream ; Our time, as a stream, Glides swiftly away ; And the fugitive moment refuses to stay. 4 The arrow is flown ; The moment is gone ; The millennial year Rushes on to our view, and eternity's here. 5 O that each in the day Of his coming may say, " I have fought my way through ; I have finish'd the work thou didst give me to do." 6 O that each from his Lord May receive the glad word, " Well and faithfully done ; Enter into my joy and sit down on my throne." 0\) Describing JUeat/i. HYMN 47. l. m. 1 T)ASS a few swiftly-fleeting years, •1 And all that now in bodies live Shall quit, like me, the vale of tears, Their righteous sentence to receive. 2 But all, before they hence remove, May mansions for themselves prepare In that eternal house above ; And, O my God, shall 1 be there ? HYMN 48. 8's. 1 AH, lovely appearance of death ! ■£*- What sight upon earth is so fair ? Not all the gay pageants that breathe Can with a dead body compare : With solemn delight I survey The corpse, when the spirit is fled, hi love with the beautiful clay, And longing to lie in its stead. 2 How blest is our brother, bereft Of all that could burden his mind ! How easy the soul that has left This wearisome body behind ! Of evil incapable, thou,

God to all that ask shall give. 2 Ye all may freely take The grace for Jesu's sake : He for every man hath died : He for all hath ris'n again : Jesus now is glorified : Gifts he hath received for men. 3 He sends them from the skies On all his enemies : By his cross he now hath led Captive our captivity : We shall all be free indeed, Christ, the Son, shall make us free. 4 Blessings on all he pours, In never-ceasing showers ; All he waters from above ; Offers all his joy and peace, Settled comfort, perfect love, Everlasting righteousness. 5 All may from him receive A power to turn and live ; Grace for every soul is free; All may hear the' effectual call ; All the Light and Life may see ; All may feel he died for all. 6 Drop down in showers of love, Ye heavens, from above ! Righteousness, ye skies, pour down ! Open earth, and take it in ! Claim the Spirit for your own, Sinners, and be saved from sin ! 08 Praying for a Blessing. 7 Father, behold, we claim The gift in Jesu's Name ! Him. the promised Comforter, Into all our spirits pour ; Let him fix his mansion here, Come, and never leave us more ! Before Reading the Scriptures. HYMN 87. c. m. 1 /^<OME, Holy Ghost, our hearts inspire, ^^ Let us thine influence prove ; Source of the old prophetic fire, Fountain of Light and Love. 2 Come, Holy Ghost, (for moved by thee The prophets wrote and spoke,) Unlock the Truth, thyself the Key, Unseal the sacred Book. 3 Expand thy wings, celestial Dove, Brood o'er our nature's night : On our disorder'd spirits move, And let there now be light. 4 God, through himself, we then shall know, If thou within us shine ; And sound, with all thy saints below, The depths of love divine. HYMN 88. c. m. 1 T^ATHER of all, in whom alone -*- We live, and move, and breathe, One bright, celestial ray dart down, And cheer thy sons beneath. 2 While in thy word we search for thee, (We search with trembling awe !) Open our eyes, and let us see The wonders of thy law. 3 Now let our darkness comprehend

The light that shines so clear ; Now the revealing Spirit send, And srive us ears to hear. Praying for a Blessing. 4 Before us make thy goodness pass, Which here by faith we know ; Let us in Jesus see thy face, And die to all below. 1 TNSPIRER of the ancient Seers, J- Who wrote from thee the sacred page, The same through all succeeding years, To us, in our degenerate age, The Spirit of thy word impart, And breathe the life into our heart 2 While now thine oracles we read. With earnest prayer and strong desire, O let thy Spirit from thee proceed, Our souls to' awaken and inspire ; Our weakness help, our darkness chase, And guide us by the Light of Grace ! 3 Whene'er in error's paths we rove, The living God through sin forsake, Our conscience by thy Word reprove, Convince and bring the wanderers back, Deep wounded by thy Spirit's sword, And then by Gilead's balm restored. 4 The sacred lessons of thy grace, Transmitted through thy Word, repeat ; And train us up in all thy ways, To make us in thy will complete ; Fulfil thy love's redeeming plan, And bring us to a perfect man. 5 Furnish'd out of thy treasury, O may we always ready stand To help the souls redeem'd by thee, In what their various states demand ; To teach, convince, correct, reprove, And build them up in holiest love ! Jt) Describing Formal Religion. *HYMN 90. l. m. 1 rl^HUS saith the Lord of earth and heaven, A The King of Israel and his God, Who hath for all a ransom given, And bought a guilty world with blood : " I am from all eternity ; To all eternity I am : There is none other God but Me ; Jehovah is my glorious Name. 2 " The Rise and End, the First and Last, The Alpha and Omega I ; Who could, like me, ordain the past, Or who the things to come descry ? Foolish is all their strife, and vain, To' invade the property divine ; 'Tis mine the work undone to' explain, To call the future now is mine. 3 " Fear not, my own peculiar race ; I have to thee my counsel show'd, The word of sure prophetic grace,

Praise shall employ my nobler powers $ My days of praise shall ne'er be past, While life, and thought, and being last Or immortality endures. Sslo For Believers Rejoicing. HYMN 225. l.m. 1 T) RAISE ye the Lord ! 'tis good to raise *- Your hearts and voices in his praise : His nature and his works invite To make this duty our delight. 2 He form'd the stars, those heavenly flames ; He counts their numbers, calls their names ; His wisdom 's vast, and knows no hound, A deep where all our thoughts are drown* d. 3 Sing to the Lord ; exalt him high, Who spreads his clouds along the sky : There he prepares the fruitful rain, Nor lets the drops descend in vain. 4 He makes the grass the hills adorn, And clothes the smiling fields with corn : The beasts with food his hands supply, And the young ravens when they cry. 5 What is the creature's skill or force ? The sprightly man, or warlike horse ? The piercing wit, the active limb ? All are too mean delights for him. () But saints are lovely in his sight, He views his children with delight ; He sees their hope, he knows their fear, And looks and loves his image there. ETERNAL Wisdom ! Thee we praise, Thee the creation sings : With thy loved name, rocks, hills, and seas, And heaven's high palace rings. Thy hand, how wide it spreads the sky, How glorious to behold ! Tinged with a blue of heavenly dye, And stair'd with sparkling gold. For Believers Rejoicing. 219 3 There thou hast bid the globes of light Their endless circles run : There, the pale planet rules the night ; The day obeys the sun. 4 If down I turn my wondering eyes On clouds and storms below, Those under-regions of the skies Thy numerous glories show. 5 The noisy winds stand ready there Thy orders to obey ; With sounding wings they sweep the air, To make thy chariot way. 6 There, like a trumpet loud and strong, Thy thunder shakes our coast ; While the red lightnings wave along, The banners of thy host. 7 On the thin air, without a prop, Hang fruitful showers around ; At thy command they sink, and drop Their fatness on the ground.

-*- We humbly hope with joy to see, Wash'd in the sanctifying blood Of an expiring Deity. 2 Who did for us his life resign, There is no other God but One, For all the plenitude divine Resides in the eternal Son. For Believers Rejoicing. ^4A 3 Spotless, sincere, without offence, O may we to his day remain, Who trust the blood of God to cleanse Our souls from every sinful stain. 4 Lord, we believe the promise sure ; The purchased Comforter impart ; Apply thy blood to make us pure, To keep us pure, in life and heart ! 5 Then let us see that day supreme, When none thy Godhead shall deny, Thy Sovereign Majesty blaspheme, Or count thee less than the Most High : 6 When all who on their God believe, Who here thy last appearing love, Shall thy consummate joy receive, And see thy glorious face above. HYMN 255. 6-8'a. 1 OPIRIT of Truth, essential God, ^ Who didst thy ancient saints inspire. Shed in their hearts thy love abroad, And touch their hallow* d lips with fire ; Our God from all eternity, World without end, we worship thee. 2 Still we believe, Almighty Lord, Whose presence fills both earth and heaven, The meaning of the written word Is by thy inspiration given : Thou only dost thyself explain The secret mind of God to man. 246 For Believers Rejoicing. 3 Come, then, Divine Interpreter, The Scriptures to our hearts apply , And, taught by thee, we God revere, Him in Three Persons magnify ; In each the Triune God adore, Who was, and is for evermore. HYMN 256. cm. HAUL! Father, Son, and Spirit great, Before the birth of time Enthroned in everlasting state, Jehovah, Elohim ! 2 A mystical plurality We in the Godhead own, Adoring One in Persons Three, And Three in Nature One. ,\ From thee our being we receive, The creatures of thy grace ; And, raised out of the earth, we live To sing our Maker's praise. 4 Thy powerful, wise, and loving mind Did our creation plan ; And all the glorious Persons join'd To form thy favourite, Man. 5 Again thou didst, in council met, Thy ruin'd work restore, Establish 'd in our first estate, To forfeit it no more. 6 And when we rise in love renew 'd,

5 Yea, let men rage, since thou wilt spread Thy shadowing wings around my head ; Since in all pain thy tender love Will still my sure refreshment prove. 6VO For lie lie vers Fighting. 6 Saviour of men, tliy searching eve Doth all mine inmost thoughts descry ! Doth aught on earth my wishes raise, Or the world's pleasures, or its praise ? 7 The love of Christ doth me constrain To seek the wandering souls of men ; With cries, entreaties, tears, to save, To snatch them from the gaping grave. 8 For this let men revile my name ; No cross I shun, I fear no shame : All hail, reproach ! and welcome, pain ! Only thy terrors, Lord, restrain.. 9 My life, my hlood, I here present, If for thy truth they may he spent ; Fulfil thy sovereign counsel, Lord ! Thy will he done, thy name adored ! 10 Give me thy strength, O God of power; Then let winds blow, or thunders roar, Thy faithful witness will T be : 'Tis fix'd ; I can do all through thee ! HYMN 280. l.m. 1 r I ^HE Lord is King, and earth submits, A Howe'er impatient, to his sway ; Between the Cherubim he sits, And makes his restless foes obev- 2 All power is to our Jesus given ; O'er earth's rebellious sons he reigns ; lie mildly rules the hosts of heaven ; And holds the powers of hell in chains. For Believers Fighting. 2tni 3 In vain doth Satan rage his hour, Beyond his chain he cannot go ; Our Jesus shall stir up his power, And soon avenge us of our foe. 4 Jesus shall his great arm reveal ; Jesus, the woman's conquering Seed, (Though now the Serpent bruise his heel,) Jesus shall bruise the Serpent's head. 5 The enemy his tares hath sown, But Christ shall shortly root them up, Shall cast the dire Accuser down, And disappoint his children's hope : 6 Shall still the proud Philistine's noise, Baffle the sons of unbelief; Nor long permit them to rejoice, But turn their triumph into grief. 7 Come, glorious Lord, the rebels spurn ; Scatter thy foes, victorious King : And Gath and Askelon shall mourn, And all the sons of God shall sing : 8 Shall magnify the sovereign grace

That I shall serve thee without fear, Shall find the pearl which others spurn, Holy, and pure, and perfect here : The servant as his Lord shall be ; All things are possible to me. 6 All things are possible to God, To Christ, the power of God in man, To me, when I am all renew'd, When I in Christ am form'd again, And witness, from all sin set free, All things are possible to me. HYMN 402. 7's8f6's. 1 f\ MIGHT I this moment cease ^S From every work of mine; Find the perfect holiness, The righteousness divine ! Let me thy salvation see ; Let me do thy perfect will ; Live in glorious liberty, And all thy fulness feel. Seeking for full Redemption. O cut short the work, and make Me now a creature new ; For thy truth and mercy's sake, The gracious wonder show : Call me forth thy witness, Lord ; Let my life declare thy power ; To thy perfect love restored, O let me sin no more ! Fain I would the truth proclaim, That makes me free indeed, Glorify my Saviour's Name, And all its virtues spread : Jesus all our wants relieves, Jesus, mighty to redeem, Saves, and to the utmost saves, All those that come to him. Perfect then thy mighty power In a weak, sinful worm ! All my sins destroy, devour, And all my soul transform ! Now apply thy Spirit's seal ; O come quickly from ahove ! Empty me of sin, and fill With all the life of love. HYMN 403. c. m. 1 ORD, 1 helieve a rest remains, ■*-^ To all thy people known, A rest where pure enjoyment reigns, And thou art loved alone : 2 A rest, where all our soul's desire Is fix'd on things ahove ; Where fear, and sin, and grief expire, Cast out by perfect love oo4 Seeking fur full Redemption. 3 O that I now the rest might know, Believe, and enter in ! Now, Saviour, now the power bestow, And let me cease from sin. 4 Remove this hardness from my heart, This unbelief remove : To me the rest of faith impart, The sabbath of thy love. 5 I would be thine, thou know'st I would,

5 Lo ! to faith's enlightened sight, All the mountain flames with light; Hell is nigh, but God is nigher, Circling us with hosts of fire. 6 Our Messias is come down, Claims the nations for his own, Bids them stand before his face, Triumph in his saving grace. HYMN 691. p. m. " King of kings , and Lord of lords.97 1 /^OME, thou Conqueror of the nations, ^-^ Now on thy white horse appear ; Earthquakes, deaths, and desolations Signify thy kingdom near : True and faithful ! 'Stablish thy dominion here. 2 Thine the kingdom, power, and glory ; Thine the ransom'd nations are ; Let the Heathen fall before thee, Let the isles thy power declare ; Judge and conquer All mankind in righteous war. 3 Thee let all mankind admire, Object of our joy and dread ! Flame thine eyes with heavenly fire, Many crowns upon thy head ; But thine essence None, except thyself, can read. 4 Yet we know our Mediator, By the Father's grace bestow'd, Meanly clothed in human nature, Thee we call the Word of God : Flesh thy vesture, Dipp'd in thy own sacred blood. of Christ. 629 5 Captain, God of our salvation, Thou who hast the wine -press trod. Borne the' Almighty's indignation, Quench'd the fiercest wrath of God, Take the kingdom, Claim the purchase of thy Mood. 6 On thy thigh and vesture written, Show the world thy heavenly name, That, with loving wonder smitten, All may glorify the Lamb ; All adore thee, All the Lord of hosts proclaim. 7 Honour, glory, and salvation, To the Lord our God we give ; Power, and endless adoration, Thou art worthy to receive ; Reign triumphant, King of kings, for ever live ! HYMN 692. s. m. " Thy kingdom come." 1 T^ATHER of boundless grace, -*- Thou hast in part fulfill'd Thy promise made to Adam's race, In God incarnate seal'd. A few from every land At first to Salem came, And saw the wonders of thy hand, And saw the tongues of flame. 2 Yet still we wait the end, The coming of our Lord ; The full accomplishment attend Of thy prophetic word. vo\) The Kingdom Thy promise deeper lies In unexhausted grace, And new-discover'd worlds arise To sing their Saviour's praise

O let their hearts with love o'erflow ! Let them believe, and therefore speak, And spread thy mercy's praise below. HYMN 705. l. m. Christ a Light to the Gentiles. 1 HP HE Law and Prophets all foretold J- That Christ should die, and leave the grave ; Gather the world into his fold, The church of Jews and Gentiles save. 2 Yet, by the prince of darkness bound, The nations still are wrapt in night ; They never heard the joyful sound, They never saw the gospel light. 3 Light of the world, again appear In mildest majesty of grace, 640 The Kingdom of Christ. And bring the great salvation near, And claim our whole apostate race. HYMN 706. s. m. " So mightily grew the word of God, and prevailed* 1 TESUS, the word bestow, «J The true immortal seed ; Thy Gospel then shall greatly grow, And all our land o'erspread ; Through earth extended wide Shall mightily prevail, Destroy the works of self and pride, And shake the gates of hell. 2 Its energy exert In the believing soul ; Diffuse thy grace through every part, And sanctify the whole : Its utmost virtue show In pure consummate love, And fill with all thy life below, And give us thrones above. HYMN 707. 4-6's Sf 2-8's. " The Lord added to the church daily those who were saved. " 1 CAVIOUR, we know thou art ^ In every age the same : Now, Lord, in ours exert The virtue of thy name ; And daily, through thy word, increase Thy blood-besprinkled witnesses. 2 Thy people saved below, From every sinful stain, Shall multiply and grow, If thy command ordain ; And one into a thousand rise, And spread thy praise through earth and skies. Time, Death, 8fc. 641 3 In many a soul, and mine, Thou hast display'd thy power, But to thy people join Ten thousand thousand more ; Saved from the guilt and strength of sin, In life and heart entirely clean. HYMN 708. s. m. " And the hand of the Lord was with them." 1 T ORD, if at thy command, J--' The word of life we sow, Water'd by thy almighty hand, The seed shall surely grow : The virtue of thy grace, A large increase shall give, And multiply the faithful race, Who to thy glory live.

Lord of lords, shall soon appear : Mark the tokens Of his heavenly kingdom near! 2 Close behind the tribulation Of the last tremendous days, See the flaming revelation, See the universal blaze ! Earth and heaven Melt before the Judge's face ! 3 Sun and moon are both confounded, Darken'd into endless night, When, with angel-hosts surrounded, In his Father's glory bright, Beams the Saviour, Shines the everlasting Light. 4 See the stars from heaven falling, Hark on earth the doleful cry, Men on rocks and mountains calling, While the frowning Judge draws nigh, " Hide us, hide us, Rocks and mountains, from his eye !" 5 With what different exclamation Shall the saints his banner see ! By the tokens of his passion, By the marks received for me, All discern him, All with shouts crv out, " Tis he!" 65o Time, Death, and 6 Yes, the prize shall then be given, We his open face shall see ; Love, the earnest of our heaven, Love, our full reward shall be ; Love shall crown us Kings through all eternity ! HYMN 730. c. m. The Saints glorified. 1 /~^ IVE me the wings of faith to rise ^J Within the veil, and see The saints above, how great their joys, How bright their glories be. 2 Once they were mourners here below, And pour'd out cries and tears : They wrestled hard, as we do now, With sins, and doubts, and fears. 3 I ask them whence their victory came : They, with united breath, Ascribe their conquest to the Lamb, Their triumph to his death. 4 They mark'd the footsteps that he trod, His zeal inspired their breast ; And following their incarnate God, Possess the promised rest. 5 Our glorious Leader claims our praise For his own pattern given ; While the long cloud of witnesses Show the same path to heaven HYMN 731. T*b&s The same. 1 ADHERE shall true believers go, ' » When from the flesh they fly ? the future State. 659 Glorious joys ordain'd to know. They mount above the sky, To that bright celestial place ; There they shall in raptures live, More than tongue can e'er express, Or heart can e'er conceive. 2 When they once are enter'd there, Their mourning days are o'er ; Pain, and sin, and want, and care,

While guarded by his mighty hand, 'Midst all the rage of hell they stand. 4 So shall the bright succession run Through the last courses of the sun ; While unborn churches by their care Shall rise and flourish large and fair. 5 Jesus, now teach our hearts to know The spring whence all these blessings flow ; Pastors and people shout thy praise Through the long round of endless days HYMN 745. Ts. Gloria Patri. 1 T^ATHER, live, by all things fear'd ; -■- Live the Son, alike revered ; Equally be thou adored, Holy Ghost, eternal Lord. 2 Three in person, one in power, Thee we worship evermore : Praise by all to thee be given, Endless theme of earth and heaven. HYMN 746. c. m. The Scriptures. 1 T^ATHER of mercies, in thy word -■- What endless glory shines ! For ever be thy name adored For these celestial lines. 2 Here may the wretched sons of want Exhaustless riches find ; Riches, above what earth can grant, And lasting as the mind. b/~ Miscellaneous Hymns. 3 Here the fair Tree of Knowledge grows, And yields a free repast ; Sublimer sweets than nature knows, Invite the longing taste. 4 Here the Redeemer's welcome voice Spreads heavenly peace around ; And life and everlasting joys Attend the blissful sound. 5 Divine Instructer, gracious Lord, Be thou for ever near ; Teach me to love thy sacred word, And view my Saviour there. HYMN 747. s. m. " Preaching the kingdom of God, and testifying those things which concern the Lord Jesus" \ 1 ESUS, thy servants bless, *J Who, sent by thee, proclaim The peace, and joy, and righteousness Experienced in thy name : The kingdom of our God, Which thy great Spirit imparts, The power of thy victorious blood, Which reigns in faithful hearts. 2 Their souls with faith supply, With life and liberty ; And then they preach and testify The things concerning thee : And live for this alone, Thy grace to minister, And all thou hast for sinners done, In life and death declare. Miscellaneous Hymns. 673 HYMN 748. 6-8\s Renewing the Covenant. 1 f\ GOD ! how often hath thine ear ^-^ To me in willing mercy bow'd ; While worshipping thine altar near,

taken by storm, 265 Knocking at the door of the heart, 208 Knowledge of Christ, 681 Know/edge of God desired, 113, 118 121 128, 130, 144, 156, 283, 284, 302 Labouring. See Working. Lamb of God, spotless, 167, 175 Languishing for Christ, 146, 147, 378, 379, Lateness of conversion, lamented, 210 Law, a shadow of good things, 619 written on the heart, 340, 438, 511 Lepers cleansed, 32, 135 Leprosy of sin, 395 Liberty from sin, 171. See Freedom. Life, Christ the believer's, 79, 213. 230 291, 347 hidden, 125, 420, 537 human, short, 47 passing away, 41, 46 spiritual, desired, 666 uncertain, 42, 46, 59, 722 Light, God is, 647 of the Gentiles, 129, 203, 444 spiritual, 121, 134, 148, 252,353 Lion, the devil, 310 Living to Christ, 246, 321-325, 362, 426Living water, 36 ILook of Christ, producing repentance, 106. Looking of Christ on the sinner, 106 to Jesus, 1, 387, 6S3 Lord's prayer, 235-237, 594 Love, Almighty, 158, 288 constraining power of, 137 desired, 137, 146, 147, 155, 210, 285, 344, 361, 373, 379, 385, 399, 415, 538 excellency of, 379, 385, 134, 680 infinite, 216, 513 mutual, 522 of Christ to sinners, 22-28, 30, 33, 34, the sweetness of, 1 17 •01 Love, universality of, 216 Lore-feast, 519-522 Lukewarmmss, 454 Mahometan!;, their salvation desired, 443 MajestyofGoA, 38, 90, 240, 21 1, 24 1, 247, 248 Malefactor's prayer, 759, 760 Mariners' hymns, 761-764 Marriage hymn, 510 Mary and Martha, 325 Master, duty of a, to his family, 470--472 Means of grace, 91, 92 improved, 529 Meditation on the Scriptures, 328 on God, 437 Meekness desired, 270, 304, 338, 343 Meeting of believers in heaven, 534-537, 539 on earth, 478, 4S0-482, 484-486 Members of Christ's body, 423, 518 Mercy of God, 584 embraced, 11 implored, 125, 133, 151, 168, 176, 249, 307, 440 infinite, 110, 189, 190, 201 Messiah, person and office of the, 565, 566. See Christ. Millennial reign, 46, 61, 696 Mind of Christ desired, 153, 270, 355, 363, 364, 504, 520 Ministerial fidelity, 279, 433, 439, 440 Ministers, blessing on, 747 Miracles performed by Christ, 32, 135, 136, 138, 139, 611, 612 spiritual, 40, 135, 136, 395, 396-398, 611", 612 Misery of man, as a sinner, 109, 110, 112, 115-117, 127, 135, 136, 150-152, 154, 158, 163, 164, 166 Missionary hymns, 1, 39, 441--452, 457, 563,

acknowledged, 218, 219 Riches, vanity of, 422 Righteousness of Christ, 190, 198, 423 Righteousness of faith, 192 Risen with Christ, 419, 420 Rock, Christ a, 4, 63, 61-, 227. 247, 271, 283, 453, 624 Running, 672, 733 Sabbath, delightful, 544, 578, 580, 581-583 heavenly, 582 Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, 29, 92, 207, 499, 507, 545, 546, 548-552, 575, 594, 751-753, 754 Sacrifice, Christ a, 23, 27, 28, 122, 202, 215, 330, 615, 616 Sacrificing all to God, 285, 286 Saints, glorified, 730, 731 rest of, 732 Salutation on entering a house, 479 Salvation by grace, 211, 212, 219, 269, 558 desired, 299, 341, 343, 367, 388, 389, 391, 409, 410, 412, 414, 417 free for all men, 242, 245, 250 prayer for, 151, 185, 618, 662, 665, 668 Samaritan, 112 Sanctification by the blood of Christ. See Washed. Satan chained, 280 his empty boast, 274 Saviour, Christ the only, 127, 129, 132, 158, 435 Scriptures, opened by inspiration, 87-89, 255, 328 excellency of the, 746 explained and applied by the Spirit, 87-89, 255, 328 Sea, under God's control, 12, 223, 289 Seal of the Spirit, 374, 376, 393, 510, 512, Seamen's hymns, 761, 762, 763, 764 Searcher of hearts, 152, 339, 503 Second death, salvation from, 246 Self-abasement, 163, 164, 175 Self-dedication, 750 Self-denial, 285, 286, 332, 686 Self -despair, 127, 131, 132 Self-righteousness, 94 renounced, 127, 132, 217, 302, 305, Seriousness desired, 42-44, 55, 5(J Serpent's head bruise*', 280, 299 Serving God, 318, 320, 325 the church, 17, 84 Shepherd, God a, 641, 679, 704, 713 Shepherd and sheep, 13, 82, 193, 228, 458 Shield of faith, 267, 269 Shimei's hostility, 334 Shipboard, going on, 763, 764 Sight restored, 133, 135 Simplicity desired, 302 Sin, confession of, 663 freedom from, desired, 288, 347, 387, 389, 408, 409, 412 power of, confessed, 126, 15S, 1-59 subdued bv Christ, 275 Singing, 204, 259, 262, 491 with the Spirit, 204 Single eye, 323 Sinners, chief of, seeking salvation, 115, 116, 159, 161, 168, 170 exhorted to believe in Christ, 1 expostulated with, 6, 7, 8 invited to the Gospel feast, 2, 9 to drink of the water of life, 3, 4, 10 Slavery to sense, confessed, 108 Sobriety, 301, 419 Society, admission into, 756 Soldiers, 266, 277. See Fighting. Son of David, prayer to, 165 Son of God, 565, 601, 607 birth of the, 602, 604, 605, 607, 609 eternal, 561

The soul-trans- . 429 The spirit breathe 427 The spirit of con- 427 The spirit of faith 1 0 The spirit of inter- 286 The spirit of refin- 427 The Spirit takes . 551 The stone to flesh 181 The storm is laid 685 The Sun of Right- 139 The sure provisions 619 The task thy wis- 309 The temple of the 94 The thing surpasses344 The things eternal 70 The things impos- 445 The things that . 206 The things unknown 95 The thunders of 532 The Truth, the . 676 The types and . 565 The uuiversal King 225 The unspeakable 456 The'unwearied sun 530 The \ eil is rent . 565 The veil of unbelief 121 The watchmen join 636 The water cannot 568 The waves of the . 518 The wayfaring men 206 The whole creation 586 The whole trium- 612 The winter's night 216 The word of God 327 The word thy. . 631 The words of his . 669 The world cannot 265 The world he suf- 42 The world, sin . 335 The world's and . 264 The year rolls round 45 Thee all the choir 528 Thee, Father, Son 495 Thee, Holy Father 248 Thee I can love . 274 Thee I serve, my 622 Thee I shall then 156 Thee, in thy glo- 20 Thee, Jesus, alone 223 Thee let all man- 628 Thee let me drink 348 Thee let us praise 201 Thee may I set at 309 Thee, only thee, I *59 Thee, Son of Man 313 Thee, sovereign . 227 Thee, the first-born 214 Thee, the great . 387 Thee, the Paternal 127 Thee to laud in . 506 Thee to perfection 683 Thee we expect, our 454 Thee, while the first 305 Thee will I love 205

2. Ev'ry eye shall now behold him, Robed in dreadful majesty; Those who set at naught and sold him, Pierced and nailed him to a tree, Deeply wailing, Deeply wailing, Deeply wailing, Shall the true Messiah see.

On Obedience To Pastors "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: For they watch over your souls, as they that shall give account, that they may do this with joy, and not with grief: For that is unprofitable for you." Heb. 13:17. 1. Exceeding few, not only among nominal Christians, but among truly religious men, have any clear conception of that important doctrine which is here delivered by the Apostle. Very many scarce think of it, and hardly know that there is any such direction in the Bible. And the greater part of those who know it is there, and imagine they follow it, do not understand it, but lean too much either to the right hand or to the left, to one extreme or the other. It is well known to what an extravagant height the Romanists in general carry this direction. Many of them believe an implicit faith is due to the doctrines delivered by those that rule over them, and that implicit obedience ought to be paid to whatever commands they give: And not much less has been insisted on by several eminent men of the Church of England: Although it is true that the generality of Protestants are apt to run to the other extreme, allowing their Pastors no authority at all, but making them both the creatures and the servants of their congregations. And very many there are of our own Church who agree with them herein; supposing the Pastors to be altogether dependent upon the people, who in their judgment have a right to direct as well as to choose their Ministers. 2. But is it not possible to find a medium between these two extremes Is there any necessity for us to run either into one or into the other If we set human laws out of the question, and simply attend to the oracles of God, we may certainly discover a middle path in this important matter In order thereto, let us carefully examine the words of the Apostle above recited. Let us consider, I. Who are the persons mentioned in the text, they "that rule over" us II. Who are they whom the Apostle, directs to "obey and submit themselves" to them

III. What is the meaning of this direction In what sense are they to "obey and submit" themselves I shall then endeavour to make a suitable application of the whole. I. 1. Consider we, first, who are the persons mentioned in the text, "they that have the rule over you" -- I do not conceive that the words of the Apostle are properly translated; because this translation makes the sentence little better the an tautology. If they "rule over you," you are certainly ruled by them; so that according to this translation you are only enjoined to do what you do already-to obey those whom you do obey. But there is another meaning of the Greek word which seems abundantly more proper: It means to guide, as well as to rule. And thus, it seems, it should be taken here. The direction then, when applied to our spiritual guides, is plain and pertinent. 2. This interpretation seems to be confirmed by the seventh verse, which fixes the meaning of this. "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God." The Apostle here shows, by the latter clause of the sentence, whom he meant in the former, Those that "were over them," were the same persons "who spoke unto them the word of God;" that is, they were their pastors, those who guided and fed this part of the flock of Christ. 3. But by whom are these guides to be appointed And what are they Supposed to do in order to be entitled to the obedience which is here prescribed Volumes upon volumes have been wrote on that knotty question, By whom are guides of souls to be appointed I do not intend here to enter at all into the dispute concerning church government; neither to debate whether it be advantageous or prejudicial to the interest of true religion that the church and the state should be blended together, as they have been ever since the time of Constantine, in every part of the Roman Empire where Christianity has been received. Waiving all these points (which may find employment enough for men that abound in leisure,) by "them that guide you" I mean them that do it, if not by your choice, at least by your consent; them that you willingly accept of to be your guides in the way to heaven.

3. A word of nearly the same import with this is frequently used by St. Paul; namely, epieikhs. In our translation it is more than once rendered gentle. But perhaps it might be more properly rendered (if the word may be allowed) yielding; ready to yield, to give up our own will, in everything that is not a point of duty. This amiable temper every real Christian enjoys, and shows in his intercourse with all men. But he shows it in a peculiar manner toward those that watch over his soul. He is not only willing to receive any instruction from them, to be convinced of anything which he did not know before; lying open to their advice, and being glad to receive admonition, or reproof; but is ready to give up his own will, whenever he can do it with a clear conscience. Whatever they desire him to do, he does; if it be not forbidden in the Word of God. Whatever they desire him to refrain from, he does so; if it be not enjoined in the Word of God. This is implied in those words of the Apostle: "Submit yourselves to them;" yield to them; give up your own will. This is meet, and right, and your bounden duty, if they do indeed watch over your souls as they that shall give account. If you do thus "obey and submit yourselves" to them, they will give an account of you "with joy, not with groaning," as they must otherwise do; for although they should be clear of your blood, yet "that would be unprofitable to you;" yea, a prelude to eternal damnation.

5. But "the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, ye did it unto me." What a declaration this! worthy to be had in everlasting remembrance. May the finger of the living God write it upon all our hearts! I would take occasion from hence, First, to make a few reflections on good works in general: Secondly, to consider in particular that institution for the promotion of which we are now assembled: And, in the Third place, to make a short application. I. 1. And, First, I would make a few reflections upon good works in general. I am not insensible, that many, even serious people, are jealous of all that is spoken upon this subject: Nay, and whenever the necessity of good works is strongly insisted on take for granted that he who speaks in this manner is but one remove from Popery. But should we, for fear of this or of any other reproach, refrain from speaking "the truth as it is in Jesus" Should we, on any consideration, "shun to declare the whole counsel of God" Nay, if a false prophet could utter that solemn word, how much more may the Ministers of Christ, "We cannot go beyond the word of the Lord, to speak either more or less!" 2. Is it not to be lamented, that any who fear God should desire us to do otherwise and that, by speaking otherwise themselves, they should occasion the way of truth to be evil spoken of I mean, in particular, the way of salvation by faith; which, on this very account, is despised, nay, had in abomination, by many sensible men. It is now above forty years since this grand scriptural doctrine, "By grace ye are saved through faith," began to be openly declared by a few Clergymen of the Church of England. And not long after, some who heard, but did not understand, attempted to preach the same doctrine, but miserably mangled it; wresting the Scripture, and "making void the law through faith."

7. Permit me to add one advice more. If you would please all men for their good, at all events speak to all men the very truth from your heart. When you speak, open the window of your breast: let the words be the very picture of your heart. In all company, and on all occasions, be a man of veracity. Nay, be not content with bare veracity; but "in simplicity and godly sincerity have all your conversation in the world," as "an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile." 8. To sum up all in one word-if you would please men, please God! Let truth and love possess your whole soul. Let them be the springs of all your affections, passions, tempers; the rule of all your thoughts. Let them inspire all your discourse; continually seasoned with that salt, and meet to "minister grace to the hearers." Let all your actions be wrought in love. Never "let mercy or truth forsake thee: Bind them about thy neck." Let them be open and conspicuous to all; and "write them on the table of thy heart." "So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man."

Of Former Times "Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these for thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this." Eccles. 7:10. 1. It is not easy to discern any connexion between this text and the context; between these words and either those that go before or those that follow after. It seems to be a detached, independent sentence, like very many in the Proverbs of Solomon: And, like them, it contains a weighty truth, which deserves a serious consideration. Is not the purport of the question this It is not wise to inquire into the cause of a supposition, unless the supposition itself be not only true, but clearly proved so to be. Therefore, it is not wise to inquire into the cause of this supposition, that "the former days were better than these," because, common as it is, it was never yet proved, nor indeed ever can be. 2. Perhaps there are few suppositions which have passed more currently in the world than this, -- that the former days were better than these; and that in several respects. It is generally supposed, that we now live in the dregs of time, when the world is, as it were, grown old; and, consequently, that everything therein is in a declining state. It is supposed, in particular, that men were, some ages ago, of a far taller stature than now; that they likewise had far greater abilities, and enjoyed a deeper and stronger understanding; in consequence of which their writings of every kind are far preferable to those of later times. Above all, it is supposed that the former generations of men excelled the present in virtue; that mankind in every age, and in every nation, have degenerated more and more; so that, at length, they have fallen from the golden into the iron age, and now justice is fled from the earth.

3. Before we consider the truth of these suppositions, let us inquire into the rise of them. And as to the general supposition, that the world was once in a far more excellent state than it is, may we not easily believe that this arose (as did all the fabulous accounts of the golden age) from some confused traditions concerning our first parents and their paradisiacal state To this refer man of the fragments of ancient writings which men of learning have gleaned up. Therefore, we may allow that there is some truth in the supposition; seeing it is certain, the days which dam and Eve spent in Paradise were far better than any which have been spent by their descendants, or ever will be till Christ returns to reign upon earth. 4. But whence could that supposition arise, that men were formerly of a larger stature than they are now This has been a generally prevailing opinion, almost in all nations and in all ages. Hence near two thousand years ago, the well-known line of Virgil, -- Qualia nunc hominum producit corpora tellus. [Thus translated by Pitt: -- "Scarce twelve strong men the ponderous mass could raise, Such as disgrace these dark degenerate days." -- Edit.]

I. 1. And, First, I am to show the nature of conscience. This a very pious man in the last century (in his sermon on Universal Conscientiousness) describes in the following manner: -- "This word, which literally signifies, knowing with another, excellently sets forth the scriptural motion of it. So Job: (16:19:) 'My witness is in heaven.' And so the Apostle: (Rom. 9:1:) 'I say the truth; my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost.' In both place it is as if he had said, 'God witnesseth with my conscience. Conscience is placed in the middle, under God, and above man. It is a kind of silent reasoning of the mind, whereby those things which are judged to be right are approved of with pleasure; but those which are judged evil are disapproved of with uneasiness.'" This is a tribunal in the breast of men, to accuse sinners, and excuse them that do well. 2. To view it in a somewhat different light: Conscience, as well as the Latin word from which it is taken, and the Greek word, suneidhsevs, necessarily imply, the knowledge of two or more things together: Suppose the knowledge of our words and actions, and at the same time of their goodness or badness; if it be not rather the faculty whereby we know at once our actions and the quality of them. 3. Conscience, then, is that faculty whereby we are at once conscience of our own thoughts, words, and actions; and of their merit or demerit, of their being good or bad; and, consequently, deserving either praise or censure. And some pleasure generally attends the former sentence; some uneasiness the latter: But this varies exceedingly, according to education and a thousand other circumstances.

I. 1. First. What could have been done in this his vineyard, which God hath not done in it What could have been done more, with regard to doctrine From the very beginning, from the time that four young men united together, each of them was homo unius libri, -- "a man of one book." God taught them all, to make his "word a lantern unto their feet, and a light in all their paths." They had one, and only one, rule of judgment, with regard to all their tempers, words, and actions; namely, the oracles of God. They were one and all determined to be Bible-Christians. They were continually reproached for this very thing; some terming them, in derision, Bible-bigots; others, Bible-moths; feeding, they said, upon the Bible, as moths do upon cloth. And indeed, unto this day, it is their constant endeavour to think and speak as the oracles of God. 2. It is true, a learned man, Dr. Trapp, soon after their setting out, gave a very different account of them. "When I saw," said the Doctor, "these two books, `The Treatise on Christian Perfection,' and `The Serious Call to a Holy Life,' I thought, These books will certainly do mischief. And so it proved; for presently after up sprung the Methodists. So he (Mr. Law) was their parent." Although this was not entirely true, yet there was some truth in it. All the Methodists carefully read these books, and were greatly profited thereby. Yet they did by no means spring from them, but from the Holy Scriptures; being "born again," as St. Peter speaks, "by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." 3. Another learned man, the late Bishop Warburton, roundly affirms, that "they were the offspring of Mr. Law and Count Zinzendorf together." But this was a greater mistake still. For they had met together several years before they had the least acquaintance with Count Zinzendorf, or even knew there was such a person in the world. And when they did know him, although they esteemed him very highly in love, yet they did not dare to follow him one step farther than they were warranted by the Scripture.

The Ministerial Office "No man taketh this honour unto himself but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." Hebrews 5:4. [Respecting this Sermon the following information is given by Mr. Moore, in his "Life of Mr. Wesley," vol. ii., p. 339: -- "I was with Mr. Wesley in London when he published that Sermon. He had encouraged me to be a man of one book; and he had repeatedly invited me to speak fully whatever objection I had to any thing which he published. I thought that some things in that discourse were not to be found in THE BOOK; and I resolved to tell him so the first opportunity. It soon occurred. I respectfully observed that I agreed with him, that the Lord had always sent by whom He would send, instruction, reproof, and correction in righteousness, to mankind; and that there was a real distinction between the prophetic and priestly office in the Old Testament, and the prophetic and pastoral office in the New; (where no priesthood is mentioned but that of our Lord;) but I could not think that what he had said concerning the Evangelists and the Pastors, or Bishops, was agreeable to what we read there; viz., that the latter had a right to administer the sacraments, which the former did not possess. I observed, `Sir, you know that the Evangelists Timothy and Titus were ordered by the Apostle to ordain Bishops in every place; and surely they could not impart to them an authority which they did not themselves possess.' He looked earnestly at me for some time, but not with displeasure. He made no reply, and soon introduced another subject. I said no more. The man of one book would not dispute against it. I believe, he saw, his love to the Church, from which he never deviated unnecessarily, had, in this instance, led him a little too far." -- EDIT.]

11. In 1744, all the Methodist preachers had their first Conference. But none of them dreamed, that the being called to preach gave them any right to administer sacraments. And when that question was proposed, "In what light are we to consider ourselves" it was answered, "As extraordinary messengers, raised up to provoke the ordinary ones to jealousy." In order hereto, one of our first rules was, given to each Preacher, you are to do that part of the work which we appoint." But what work was this Did we ever appoint you to administer sacraments; to exercise the priestly office Such a design never entered into our mind; it was the farthest from our thoughts: And if any Preacher had taken such a step, we should have looked upon it as a palpable breach of this rule, and consequently as a recantation of our connexion. 12. For, supposing (what I utterly deny) that the receiving you as a Preacher, at the same time gave an authority to administer the sacraments; yet it gave you no other authority than to do it, or anything else, where I appoint. But where did I appoint you to do this Nowhere at all. Therefore, by this very rule you are excluded from doing it. And in doing it you renounce the first principle of Methodism, which was wholly and solely to preach the gospel. 13. It was several years after our society was formed, before any attempt of this kind was made. The first was, I apprehend, at Norwich. One of our Preachers there yielded to the importunity of a few of the people, and baptized their children. But as soon as it was known, he was informed it must not be, unless he designed to leave our Connexion. He promised to do it no more; and I suppose he kept his promise.

12. I am distressed. I know not what to do. I see what I might have done once. I might have said peremptorily and expressly, " Here I am: I and my Bible. I will not, I dare not, vary from this book, either in great things or small. I have no power to dispense with one jot or tittle what is contained therein. I am determined to be a Bible Christian, not almost, but altogether. Who will meet me on this ground Join me on this, or not at all." With regard to dress, in particular, I might have been as firm (and I now see it would have been far better) as either the people called Quakers, or the Moravian Brethren: -- I might have said, "This is our manner of dress, which we know is both scriptural and rational. If you join with us, you are to dress as we do; but you need not join us, unless you please." But, alas! the time is now past; and what I can do now, I cannot tell. 13. But to return to the main question. Why has Christianity done so little good, even among us among the Methodists, -- among them that hear and receive the whole Christian doctrine, and that have Christian discipline added thereto, in the most essential parts of it Plainly, because we have forgot, or at least not duly attended to, those solemn words of our Lord, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." It was the remark of a holy man, several years ago, "Never was there before a people in the Christian Church, who had so much of the power of God among them, with so little self-denial." Indeed the work of God does go on, and in a surprising manner, notwithstanding this capital defect; but it cannot go on in the same degree as it otherwise would; neither can the word of God have its full effect, unless the hearers of it "deny themselves, and take up their cross daily."

9. Some will probably think that I have been over-scrupulous with regard to one particular word, which I never use myself either in verse or prose, in praying or preaching, though it is very frequently used by modern divines both of the Romish and Reformed Churches. It is the word dear. Many of these frequently say, both in preaching, in prayer, and in giving thanks, "Dear Lord," or "Dear Saviour;" and my brother used the same in many of his hymns, even as long as he lived. But may I not ask, Is not this using too much familiarity with the great Lord of heaven and earth Is there any scripture, any passage either in the Old or New Testament, which justifies this manner of speaking Does any of the inspired writers make use of it, even in the poetical Scriptures Perhaps some would answer, "Yes, the Apostle Paul uses it. He says, "God's dear Son.'" I reply, First, This does not reach the case, for the word which we render dear, is not here addressed to Christ at all, but only spoken of him. Therefore it is no precedent of, or justification of, our addressing it to him. I reply, Secondly, it is not the same word. Translated literally the sentence runs, not his dear Son, but the Son of his love, or his beloved Son. Therefore I still doubt whether any of the inspired writers ever addresses the word either to the Father or the Son. Hence I cannot but advise all lovers of the Bible, if they use the expression at all, to use it very sparingly, seeing the Scripture affords neither command nor precedent for it. And surely, "if any man speak," either in preaching or prayer, he "should speak as the oracles of God."

5. And how can we certainly distinguish between our dreams and our waking thoughts What criterion is there by which we may surely know whether we are awake or asleep It is true, as soon as we awake out of sleep, we know we have been in a dream, and are now awake. But how shall we know that a dream is such while we continue therein What is a dream To give a gross and superficial, not a philosophical, account of it: It is a series of persons and things presented to our mind in sleep, which have no being but in our own imagination. A dream, therefore, is a kind of digression from our real life. It seems to be a sort of echo of what was said or done a little when we were awake. Or, may we say, a dream is a fragment of life, broken off at both ends; not connected either with the part that goes before, or with that which follows after And is there any better way of distinguishing our dreams from our waking thoughts, than by this very circumstance It is a kind of parenthesis, inserted in life, as that is in a discourse, which goes on equally well either with it or without it. By this then we may infallibly know a dream, -- by its being broken off at both ends; by its having no proper connection with the real things which either precede or follow it. 6. It is not needful to prove that there is a near resemblance between these transient dreams, and the dream of life. It may be of more use to illustrate this important truth; to place it in as striking a light as possible. Let us then seriously consider, in a few obvious particulars, the case of one that is just awaking out of life, and opening his eyes in eternity.

I. Consider, First, what is here meant by riches. Indeed some may imagine that it is hardly possible to mistake the meaning of this common word. Yet, in truth, there are thousands in this mistake; and many of them quite innocently. A person of note, hearing a sermon preached upon this subject several years since, between surprise and indignation broke out aloud, "Why does he talk about riches here There is no rich man at Whitehaven, but Sir James L____r." And it is true there was none but he that had forty thousand pounds a year, and some millions in ready money. But a man may be rich that has not a hundred a year, nor even one thousand pounds in cash. Whosoever has food to eat, and raiment to put on, with something over, is rich. Whoever has the necessaries and conveniences of life for himself and his family, and a little to spare for them that have not, is properly a rich man; unless he is a miser, a lover of money, one that hoards up what he can and ought to give to the poor. For it so, he is a poor man still, though he has millions in the bank; yea, he is the poorest of men; for The beggars but a common lot deplore; The rich poor man's emphatically poor. 2. But here an exception may be made. A person may have more than necessaries and conveniences for his family, and yet not be rich. For he may be in debt; and his debts may amount to more than he is worth. But if this be the case, he is not a rich man, how much money soever he has in his hands. Yea, a man of business may be afraid that this is the real condition of his affairs, whether it be or no; and then he cannot be so charitable as he would, for fear of being unjust. How many that are engaged in trade, are in this very condition! those especially that trade to a very large amount; for their affairs are frequently so entangled, that it is not possible to determine, with any exactness, how much they are worth, or, indeed, whether they are worth anything or nothing. Should we not make a fair allowance for them

3. They "are at rest" from all these infirmities and follies which they could not escape in this life. They are no longer exposed to the delusions of sense, or the dreams of imagination. They are not hindered from seeing the noblest truths, by inadvertence; nor do they ever lose the sight they have once gained, by inattention. They are not entangled with prejudice, nor ever misled by hasty or partial views of the object: And, consequently, no error is there. O blessed place, where truth alone can enter! truth unmixed, undisguised, enlightening every man who cometh into the world! where there is no difference of opinions; but all think alike; all are of one heart, and of one mind: Where that offspring of hell, controversy, which turneth this world upside down, can never come: Where those who have been sawn asunder thereby, and often cried out in the bitterness of their soul, "Peace, peace!" shall find what they then sought in vain, even a peace which none taketh from them.

I. 1. Let us inquire, First, what they suffer; and, afterwards, What is the cause of these sufferings That the people suffer, none can deny; -- that they are afflicted in a more than ordinary manner. Thousands and tens of thousands are at this day deeply afflicted through want of business. It is true that this want is in some measure removed in some large and opulent towns. But it is also true, that this is far, very far, from being the general case of the kingdom. Nothing is more sure than that thousands of people in the west of England, throughout Cornwall in particular, in the north, and even in the midland counties, are totally unemployed. Hence those who formerly wanted nothing, are now in want of all things. They are so far from the plenty they once enjoyed that they are in the most deplorable distress, deprived not only of the conveniences, but most of the necessaries of life. I have seen not a few of these wretched creatures, within little more than an hundred miles of London, standing in the streets with pale looks, hollow eyes, and meager limbs; or creeping up and down like walking shadows. I have known families, who a few years ago lived in an easy, genteel manner, reduced to just as much raiment as they had on, and as much food as they could gather in the field. To this one or other of them repaired once a day, to pick up the turnips which the cattle had left; which they boiled, if they could get a few sticks, or otherwise ate them raw. Such is the want of food to which many of our countrymen are at this day reduced by want of business!

Where is mercy to be found, if it would stand in opposition to interest How few will scruple, for a valuable consideration, to oppress the widow or fatherless And where shall we find truth Deceit and fraud go not out of our streets. Who is it that speaks the truth from his heart Whose words are the picture of his thoughts Where is he that has "put away all lying," that never speaks what he does not mean Who is ashamed of this Indeed it was once said, and even by a statesman, "All other vices have had their patrons; but lying is so base, so abominable a vice, that never was anyone found yet who dared openly to plead for it." Would one imagine this writer lived in a Court yea, and that in the present century Did not he himself, then, as well as all his brother-statesmen, plead for a trade of deliberate lying Did he not plead for the innocence, yea, and the necessity, of employing spies -- the vilest race of liars under the sun Yet who ever scrupled using them, but Lord Clarendon 3. O truth, whither art thou fled How few have any acquaintance with thee! Do not we continually tell lies for the nonce, without gaining thereby either profit or pleasure Is not even our common language replete with falsehood Above a hundred years ago the poet complained, It never was good day Since lowly fawning was called compliment. What would he have said had he lived a century later, when that art was brought to perfection 4. Perhaps there is one palpable evidence of this which is not usually attended to. If you blame a man in many other respects, he is not much affronted. But if you say he is a liar, he will not bear it; he takes fire at once. Why is this Because a man can bear to be blamed when he is conscious of his own innocence. But if you say he is a liar, you touch a sore spot: he is guilty, and therefore cannot bear it.

2. This is the religion of the Bible, as no one can deny who reads it with any attention. It is the religion which is continually inculcated therein, which runs through both the Old and New Testament. Moses and the Prophets, our blessed Lord and his Apostles, proclaim with one voice, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul, and thy neighbour as thyself." The Bible declares, "Love is the fulfilling of the Law," "the end of the commandment," -- of all the commandments which are contained in the oracles of God. The inward and outward fruits of this love are also largely described by the inspired writers; so that whoever allows the Scripture to be the Word of God, must allow this to be true religion. 3. This is the religion of the primitive Church, of the whole Church in the purest ages. It is clearly expressed, even in the small remains of Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, and Polycarp; it is seen more at large in the writings of Tertullian, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Cyprian; and, even in the fourth century, it was found in the works of Chrysostom, Basil, Ephrem Syrus, and Macarius. It would be easy to produce "a cloud of witnesses," testifying the same thing; were not this a point which no one will contest, who has the least acquaintance with Christian antiquity. 4. And this is the religion of the Church of England; as appears from all her authentic records, from the uniform tenor of her Liturgy, and from numberless passages in her Homilies. The scriptural, primitive religion of love, which is now reviving throughout the three kingdoms, is to be found in her Morning and Evening Service, and in her daily, as well as occasional, Prayers; and the whole of it is beautifully summed up in that one comprehensive petition, "Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy name." 5. Permit me to give a little fuller account, both of the progress and nature of this religion, by an extract from a treatise which was published many years ago: -- [Farther Appeal, Part III.]

True Christianity "How is the faithful city become an harlot!" Isa. 2:21. [The following Sermon was found in a mutilated manuscript among Mr. Wesley's papers. It is dated June 24, 1741. A Latin copy of the same Discourse has also been discovered. Mr. Pawson, with great care, copied the former, and I have supplied the deficiencies out of the latter. On collating both Sermons, I find several variations, and though not of any great importance, yet sufficient, in my judgment, to vindicate the propriety of translating and publishing the Latin one, not merely as a matter of curiosity, but of utility. The Sermon, no doubt, was written with the design of being preached before the University of Oxford; but whether it ever were preached there, cannot be determined. A. Clarke.] 1. "When I bring the sword upon a land, saith the Lord, if the watchman blow the trumpet, and warn the people; then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take away any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand." (Ezek. 33:2-6.) 2. It cannot be doubted, but that word of the Lord is come unto every Minister of Christ also. "So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: Therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me. When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die: If thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand." 3. Nor ought any man, therefore, to be accounted our enemy because he telleth us the truth: The doing of which is indeed an instance of love to our neighbour, as well as of obedience to God. Otherwise, few would undertake so thankless a task: For the return they will find, they know already. The Scripture must be fulfilled: "Me the world hateth," saith our Lord, "because I testify of it that the deeds thereof are evil."

[3.] A Third sort of those who corrupt the Word of God, though in a lower degree than either of the former, are those who do so, not by adding to it, but taking from it; who take either of the spirit or substance of it away, while they study to prophesy only smooth things, and therefore palliate and colour what they preach, to reconcile it to the taste of the hearers. And that they may do this the better, they commonly let those parts go that will admit of no colouring. They wash their hands of those stubborn texts that will not bend to their purpose, or that too plainly touch on the reigning vices of the place where they are. These they exchange for those more soft and tractable ones, that are not so apt to give offence. Not one word must be said of the tribulation and anguish denounced against sinners in general; much less of the unquenchable fire, which, if God be true, awaits several of those particular offences that have fallen within their own notice. These tender parts are not to be touched without danger by them who study to recommend themselves to men; or, if they are, it must be with the utmost caution, and a nice evasion in reserve. But they safely may thunder against those who are out of their reach, and against those sins which they suppose none that hear them are guilty of. No one takes it to heart, to hear those practices laid open which he is not concerned in himself. But when the stroke comes home, when it reaches his own case, then is he, if not convinced, displeased, or angry, and out of patience.

These are the methods of those corrupters of the word, who act in the sight of men, not of God. He trieth the hearts, and will receive no service in which the lips only are concerned. But their words have no intercourse with their thoughts. Nor is it proper for them that they should. For if their real intention once appeared, it must make itself unsuccessful. They purpose, it is true, to do good by the gospel of Christ; but it is to themselves, not to others. Whereas they that use sincerity in preaching the gospel, in the good of others seek their own. And that they are sincere, and speak as commissioned officers, in the sight of Him whose commission they bear, plainly appears from the direct contrariety between their practice, and that of the dissemblers above described. [II. 1.] First. Consider, it is not their own word they preach, but the word of Him that sent them. They preach it genuine and unmixed. As they do not only profess, but really believe, that, "if any man add unto the word of God, He will add unto him all the plagues that are written in it," they are fearful of doing it in the least instance. You have the gospel from them, if in a less elegant manner, yet fair, and as it is; without any mixture of errors [heresy] to pollute it, or misinterpretation to perplex it; [2.] explained in the most natural, obvious manner, by what precedes and what follows the place in question; and commented on by the most sure way, the least liable to mistake or corruption, the producing of those parallel places that express the same thing the more plainly.

[3.] In the next place, they are as cautious of taking from, as of adding to, the word they preach. They dare no more, considering in whose sight they stand, say less, than [or] more, than He has assigned them. They must publish, as proper occasions offer, all that is contained in the oracles of God; whether smooth or otherwise, it matters nothing, since it is unquestionably true, and useful too: "For all Scripture is given by inspiration of God; and is profitable either for doctrine, or reproof, or correction, or instruction in righteousness," -- either to teach us what we are to believe or practise, or for conviction of error, reformation of vice. They know that there is nothing superfluous in it, relating either to faith or practice; and therefore they preach all parts of it, though those more frequently and particularly which are more particularly wanted where they are. They are so far from abstaining to speak against any vice because it is fashionable and in repute in the place Providence has allotted them; but for that very reason they are more zealous in testifying against it. They are so far from abstaining from speaking for any virtue because it is unfashionable and in disrepute where they are placed, that they therefore the more vigorously recommend it.

[4.] Lastly. They who speak in sincerity, and as in the sight of Him who deputes them, show that they do so, by the manner in which they speak. They speak with plainness and boldness, and are not concerned to palliate their doctrine, to reconcile it to the tastes of men. They endeavour to set it always in a true light, whether it be a pleasing one or not. They will not, they dare not, soften a threatening, so as to prejudice its strength, neither represent sin in such mild colours as to impair its native blackness. Not that they do not choose mildness, when it is likely to be effectual. Though they know "the terrors of the Lord," they desire rather to "persuade men." This method they use, and love to use it, with such as are capable of persuasion. With such as are not, they are obliged, if they will be faithful, to take the severer course. Let the revilers look to that; it harms not them: and if they are blamed or reviled for so doing, let the revilers look to that: Let the hearers accommodate themselves to the word; the word is not, in this sense, to be accommodated to the hearers. The Preacher of it would be no less in fault, in a slavish obsequiousness on one side, than in an unrelenting sternness on the other.

[III. 1.] If, then, we have spoken the word of God, the genuine unmixed word of God, and that only; if we have put no unnatural interpretation upon it, but [have] taken the known phrases in their common, obvious sense, -- and when they were less known, explained scripture by scripture; if we have spoken the whole word, as occasion offered, though rather the parts which seemed most proper to give a check to some fashionable vice, or to encourage the practice of some unfashionable virtue; and if we have done this plainly and boldly, though with all the mildness and gentleness that the nature of the subject will bear; -- then, believe ye our works, if not our words; or rather, believe them both together. Here is all a Preacher can do; all the evidence that he either can or need give of his good intentions. There is no way but this to show he speaks as of sincerity, as commissioned by the Lord, and as in his sight. If there be any who, after all this, will not believe that it is his concern, not our own, we labour for; that our first intention in speaking, is to point him the way to happiness, and to disengage him from the great road that leads to misery; we are clear of the blood of that man; -- it rests on his own head. For thus saith the Lord, who hath set us as watchmen over the souls of our countrymen and brethren: "If thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it;" -- much more if we use all methods possible to convince him that the warning is of God; -- "if he do not turn from his way," -- which certainly he will not, if he do not believe that we are in earnest, -- "he shall die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thine own soul." [Section numbers (and other bracketed insertions of more significant textual variants) follow the Bicentennial Edition.]

The general character, therefore, of man's present state is death, -- a death from God, whereby we no longer enjoy any intercourse with him, or happiness in him; we no longer shine with his glory, or act with his powers. It is true, while we have a being, "in him we must live, and move, and have our being;" but this we do now, not in a filial way, but only in a servile one, as all, even the meanest creatures, exist in him. It is one thing to receive from God an ability to walk and speak, eat and digest, -- to be supported by his hand as a part of this earthly creation, and upon the same terms with it, for farther trial or vengeance; and another, to receive from him a life which is his own likeness, -- to have within us something which is not of this creation, and which is nourished by his own immediate word and power.

All this is indisputably true: I know not who can deny one word of it. Therefore, if any of these advantages, if honour, if money, if preferment in Church or State, be the point at which a young man aims, let him by all means go to the University. But there are still a few, even young men, in the world, who do not aim at any of these. They do not desire, they do not seek, either honour, or money, or preferment. They leave Collegians to dispute, and bite, and scratch, and scramble for these things. They believe there is another world; nay, and they imagine it will last for ever. Supposing this, they point all their designs and all their endeavours towards it. Accordingly, they pursue learning itself, only with reference to this. They regard it, merely with a view to eternity; purely with a view to know and teach, more perfectly, the truth which God has • "Not to mention persons of a still viler description."-EDIT. revealed to man, "the truth which is after godliness," and which they conceive men cannot be ignorant of without hazarding their eternal salvation. This is the only advantage which they seek; and this they can enjoy in as high a degree, in the school or academy at Kingswood, as at any College in the universe.

Sun. April 4.--About four in the afternoon I set out for Frederica, in a pettiawga, (a sort of flat-bottomed barge.) The next evening we anchored near Skidoway Island, where the water, at flood, was twelve or fourteen foot deep. I wrapped myself up from head to foot in a large cloak, to keep off the sand flies, and lay down on the quarter-deck. Between one and two I waked under water, being so fast asleep that I did not find where I was till my mouth was full of it. Having left my cloak, 1 know not how, upon deck, I.swam round to the other side of the pettiawga, where a boat was tied, and climbed up by the rope without any hurt, more than wetting my clothes. Thou art the God of whom cometh salvation: thou art the Lord by whom we escape death. The winds were so contrary, that on Saturday 10, we could but just get over against Doboy Island, twenty miles from Frederica, but could not possibly make the creek, having a strong tide also against us. Here we lay beating off till past one, when the lightning and rain, which we had long seen at a distance, drove down full upon us; till, after a quarter of an hour, the clouds parted, some passing on the right, and some on the left, leaving us a clear sky, and so strong a wind right after us, as in two hours brought us to Frederica. A little before we landed, f opened my Testament on these words : ‘“« If God be for us, who can be against us?” Coming on shore, I found my brother exceeding weak, having been for some time ill of a flux ; but he mended from the hour he saw me. ‘This also hath God wrought! Sun. 11.--I preached at the new Storehouse on the first verse of the Gospel for the day: ** Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?” There was a large congregation, whom I| endeavoured to convince of unbelief, by simply proposing the conditions of salvation, as they are laid down in Scripture ; and appealing to thei: own hearts, whether they believed they could be saved on no other terms.

Sai. 28.--I set apart (out of the few we had) a few books toward a library at Frederica. In the afternoon I walked to the fort on the other side of the island.. About five we set out homeward ; but my guide not being perfect in the way, we were soon lost in the woods. We walked on, however, as well as we could, till between nine and ten; when, being heartily tired, and thoroughly wet with dew, we laid down and slept till morning. About day break, on Sunday the 29th, we set out again, endeavouring to walk straight forward, and soon after sunrise found ourselves in the Great Savannah, near Frederica. By this good providence I was delivered from another fear,--that of lying in the woods ; which experience showed, was, to one in tolerable health, a mere * lion in the way.” Thur. Sept. 2.--I set out in a sloop, and about ten on Sunday morning came to Skidoway; which (after reading prayers, and preaching to a small congregation) I left, and came to Savannah in the evening. Mon. 13.--I began reading with Mr. Delamotte, Bishop Beveridge’s Pandéectea Canonun Conciliorum. Nothing could so effectually have 52 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. ‘[Nov. 1736. convinced us, that both particular and general councile may err, ano nave erred; and that things ordained by them as necessary to salyaion, have neither strength nor authority, unless they be taken out wu Holy Scripture. Mon. 20.--We ended (of which also I must confess I once thought more highly than I ought to think) the Apostolical Canons; so called, - as Bishop Beveridge observes, “because partly grounded upon, partly agreeing with, the traditions delivered down from the Apostles.” But he observes further, (in the 159th page of his Codex Canonum Ecclesie Primitive : and why did he not observe it in the first page of the book?) They contain the discipline used in the Church at the time when they were collected: not when the Council of Nice met; for then many parts of it were useless and obsolete.”

“The second we do not apprehend to be a true bill; because we humbly conceive Mr. Wesley did not assume to himself any authority contrary to law: for we understand, ‘Every person intending to communicate, should signify his name to the curate, at least some time the day before ;’ which Mrs. Williamson did not do; although Mr. Wesley had often, in full zongregation, declared, he did insist on a compliance with that rubric, and nad before repelled divers persons for non-compliance therewith. “The third we do not think a true bill; because several of us have been his hearers, when he has declared his adherence to the Church of England, in a stronger manner than by a formal declaration ; by explaining and defending the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian, Creeds, the Thirty-nine Articles, the whole Book of Common Prayer, and the Homilies of the said Church; and because we think a formal declaration .§ not required, but from those who have received institution and induction. ‘“‘ The fact alleged in the fourth bill we cannot apprehend to be contrary to any law in being. “The fifth we do not think a true bill; because we conceive Mr. Wesley is justified by the rubric, viz. ‘If they (the parents) certify that the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it.’ Intimating (as we humbly suppose) it shall not suffice, if they do not certify. 44 REV. Je WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [Oct. 1737 “The sixth cannot be a true bill; because the said William Gough, being one of our members, was surprised to hear himself named, without his knowledge or privity; and did publicly declare, it was no grievance to him, because the said John Wesley had given him reasons with which he was satisfied. “The seventh we do not apprehend to be a true bill; for Nathaniel Polhill was an Anabaptist, and desired in his lifetime, that he might not be interred with the office of the Church of England. And further, we have good reason to believe, that Mr. Wesley was at Frederica, or on his return thence, when Polhill was buried.

Sun. Jan. 1, 1738.--All in the ship (except the captain and steersman) were present both at the Morning and Evening service, and appeared as deeply attentive, as even the poor people of Frederica did, while the word of God was new to their ears. And it may be, one or two among these likewise, may “ bring forth fruit with patience.” * The same desires which they cherished on earth, remain in the: world of spirits. Jan. 1738. ] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 53 Mon, 2.--Being sorrowful and very heavy, (though I could give no particular reason for it,) and utterly unwilling to speak close to any of my little flock, (about twenty persons,) I was in doubt whether my neglect of them was not one cause of my own heaviness. In the evening, therefore, I began instructing the cabin boy; after which I was much easier. I went several times the following days, with a design to speak to the sailors, but could not. I mean, I was quite averse from speaking ;' I could not see how to make an occasion, and it seemed quite absurd to speak without. Is not this what men commonly mean by, “I could not speak ?”” And is this a sufficient cause of silence, or no? Is ita prohibition from the good Spirit? or a temptation from nature, or the evil one? Fri. 6.--I ended the “‘ Abridgment of Mr. de Renty’s Life.” O that such a life should be related by such an historian! who, by inserting all, if not more than all, the weak things that holy men ever said or did, by his commendation of almost every action or word which either deserved or needed it not, and by his injudicious manner of relating many others which were indeed highly commendable, has cast the shade of superstition and folly over one of the brightest patterns of heavenly wisdom. Sat. '7.--I began to read and explain some passages of the Bible to the young negro. The next morning, another negro who was on board desired to be a hearer too. From them I went to the poor Frenchman, who, understanding no English, had none else in the ship with whom he could converse. And from this time, I read and explained to him a chapter in the Testament every morning.

I think, verily, if the Gospel be true, I am safe: for I not omy have given, and do give, all my goods to feed the poor; I not only give my body to be burned, drowned, or whatever God shall appoint for me; but I follow after charity, (though not as I ought, yet as I can,) f haply I may attain it. I now believe the Gospel is true. ‘I show my faith by my works,’ by staking my all upon it. I would do so again and again a thousand times, if the choice were still to make. Whoever sees me, sees I would be a Christian. Therefore ‘are my ways not like other men’s ways.’ Therefore I have been, I am, I am content to be, ‘a by-word, a proverb of reproach.’ But in a storm I think, ‘ What if the Gospel be not true? Then thou art of all men most foolish. For what hast thou given thy goods, thy ease, thy friends, thy reputation, thy country, thy life? For what art thou wandering over the face of the earth?--A dream, ‘a cunningly devised fable !” ’ O! who will deliver me from this fear of death? What shall I do? Where shall I fly from it? Should I fight against it by thinking, or by not thinking of it? A wise man advised me some time since, ‘ Be still and go on.’ Perhaps this is best, to look upon it as my cross; when it comes, to let it humble me, and quicken all my good resolutions, especially that of praying without ceasing; and at other times, to take no thought about it, but quietly to go on ‘in the work of the Lord.’ ” We went on with a small, fair wind, till Thursday in the afternoon ; and then sounding, found a whitish sand at seventy-five fathom: but having had no observation for several days, the captain began to be uneasy, fearing we might either get unawares into the Bristol Channel, or strike in the night on the rocks of Scilly.

In the evening we came to Stafford. The mistress of the house joined with us in family prayer. The next morning, one of the servants appeared deeply affected, as did the ostler before we went. Soon after breakfast, stepping into the stable, I spake a few words to those who were there. A stranger who heard me said, “ Sir, I wish I was to travel with you.” And when I went into the house, followed me, and began abruptly, “Sir, I believe you are a good man, and I come to tell youa little of my life.” The tears stood in his eyes all the time he spoke ; and we hoped not a word which was said to him was lost. At Newcastle, whither we came about ten, some to whom we spoke at our inn were very attentive ; but a gay young woman waited on us, quite unconcerned : however, we spoke on. When we went away, she fixed her eyes, and neither moved nor said one word, but appeared as much astonished as if she had seen one risen from the dead. Coming to Holms chapel about three, we were surprised at being shown into a room, where a cloth and plates were laid. Soon after two men came in to dinner. Mr. Kinchin told them, if they pleased, that gentleman would ask a blessing forthem. They stared, and, as it were, consented ; but sat still while I did it, one of them with his hat on. We began to speak on turning to God, and went on, though they appeared itterly regardless. After a while their countenances changed, and one of them stole off his hat, and laying it down behind him, said, all we said was true; but he had been a grievous sinner, and not considered it as he ought; but he was resolved, with God’s help, now to turn to him in earnest. We exhorted him and his companion, who now likewise drank in every word, to cry mightily to God, that he would “ send them help from his holy place.”

About five, Mr. Kinchin riding by a man and woman double-horsed, the man said, “ Sir, you ought to thank God it is a fair day ; for if it rained, you would be sadly dirty with your little horse.” Mr. Kinchin answered, “True: and we ought to thank God for our life, and health, and food, and raiment, and all things.” He then rode on, Mr. Fox following; the man said, “Sir, my mistress would be glad to have some more talk with that gentleman.” We stayed, and when they came up, began to search one another’s hearts. They came to us again in the evening, at our inn at Stone, where I explained both to them and many of their acquaintance who were come together, that great truth,--Godliness hath the promise both of this life, and of that which is to come. Tues. 21.--Between nine and ten we came to Hedgeford. Just then, one was giving an account of a young woman, who had dropped down dead there the day before. This gave us a fair occasion to exhort all that were present, ‘so to number” their own “ days,” that they aight apply their “hearts unto wisdom.” In the afternoon one overtook us, whom we soon found more inclined to speak than to hear. However, we spoke, and spared not. In the evening we overtook a young man, a Quaker, who afterward came to us, to our inn at Henley, whither he sent for the rest of his family, to join with us in prayer: to which I added, as usual, the exposition of the Second lesson. Our other companion went with us a mile or two in the morning; and then not only spoke less than the day before, but took in good part a serious caution against talkativeness and vanity.

Sun. 4.--Was indeed a feast day. For from the time of my rising till past one in the afternoon, I was praying, reading the Scriptures, singing praise, or calling sinners to repentance. All these days I scarce remember to have opened the Testament, but upon some great and precious promise. And I saw more than ever, that the Gospel is in truth but one great promise, from the beginning of it to the end. Tues. 6.--I had still more comfort, and peace, and joy ; on which I fear I began to presume: for in the evening I received a letter from Oxford which threw me into much perplexity. It was asserted therein, “ That no doubting could consist with the least degree of true faith: that whoever at any time felt any doubt or fear, was not weak in faith, but had no faith at all: and that none hath any faith, till the law of the Spirit of life has made him wholly free from the law of sin and death.” Begging of God to direct me, I opened my Testament on: 1 Cor. iii, 1, &c, where St. Paul speaks of those whom he terms “ babes in Christ,” who were “not able to bear strong meat,” nay (in a sense) “camal ;” to whom nevertheless he says, “« Ye are God’s building, ye are the temple of God.” Surely then these men had some degree of faith ; though, it is plain, their faith was but weak. After some hours spent in the Scripture and prayer, I was much comforted. Yet I felt a kind of soreness in my heart, so that I found my wound was not fully healed. O God, save thou me, and all that are “‘ weak in the faith,” from ‘ doubtful disputations !”

We had a convenient lodging assigned us in the house appointed for strangers: and I had now abundant opportunity of observing whether what I had heard was enlarged by the relators, or was neither more nor less than the naked truth. I rejoiced to find Mr. Hermsdorf here, whom I had so often conversed with in Georgia. And there was nothing in his power which he did not do, to make our stay here useful anc agreeable. About eight we went to the public service, at which they frequentlv use other instru > = ee ae see 4 Aug. 1738. | REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. ; 83 ments with their organ. They began (as usual) with singing. Then followed the expounding, closed by a second hymn: prayer followed this ; and then a few verses of a third hymn; which concluded the service. Wed. 2.--At four in the afternoon was a love-feast of the married men, taking their food with gladness and singleness of heart, and with the voice of praise and thanksgiving. Thur. 3, (and so every day at eleven,) I was at the Bible Conference, wherein Mr. Muller, (late master of a great school in Zittau, til he left all to follow Christ,) and several others, read together, as usual, a portion of Scripture in the original. At five was the conference for strangers, when several questions concerning justification were resolyed. ‘This evening Christian David came hither. O may God make him a messenger of glad tidings ! On Friday and Saturday (and so every day in the following week) I had much conversation with the most experienced of the brethren, concerning the great work which God had wrought in their souls, purifying them by faith: and with Martin Dober, and the other teachers and elders of the church, concerning the discipline used therein. Sun. 6.--We went to church at Bertholdsdorf, a Lutheran village about an English mile from Hernhuth. Two large candles stood lighted upon the altar: the Last Supper was painted behind it; the pulpit was placed over it ; and over that a brass image of Christ on the cross.

“ But soon after this a new doubt arose, Are the New Testament prophecies fulfilled? This I next set myself to examine. I read them carefully over, and could not but see every event answered the prediction; so that the more I compared the one with the other, the more fully I was convinced that ‘all Scripture was given by inspiration of God.’ a a Aug. 1738. | REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 87 “ Yet still my soul was not in peace; nor indeed did I expect it, till I should have openly renounced the errors of Popery ; which accordingly I did at Berlin. I now also led a very strict life. Iread much, and prayed much. I did all I could to conquer sin; yet it profited not: I was still conquered by it. Neither found I any more rest among the Lutherans, than I did before among the Papists. * At length, not knowing what to do, I listed myseif a soldier. Now ! thought I should have more time to pray and reed, having with me a New Testament and a hymnbook. But in one day both my books were stole. This almost broke my heart. Finding also in this way of life all the inconveniences which I thought to avoid by it, after six months I returned to my trade, and followed it two years. Removing then to Gorlitz, in Saxony, I fell into a dangerous illness. I could not stir hand or foot for twenty weeks. Pastor Sleder came to me every day. And from him it was that the Gospel of Christ came first with power to my soul. “ Here I found the peace I had long sought in vain; for I was assured ‘my sins were forgiven. Notindeed all at once, but by degrees; not in one

“<¢4, Discipline we judge to be necessary in the highest degree, for all those who have any knowledge of divine truth: and we can, therefore, in no wise forsake that, which we have received from our forefathers. Yet if it should ever be (which God forbid) that any of us should speak or act perverse things, we could only say, with St. John, They went forth from us, but were not of us: for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. «5, The public worship of God at Bertholdsdorf, which we have hitherto frequented, we are the less able now to forsake, because we have there an assembly of true believers, a doctrine free from error, and a pastor who, having laboured much in the word, is worthy of double honour. 'Therefore, we have no cause to form any congregation, separate from this; Aug. 1738. ] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 89 especially seeing we both use that liberty which Christ hath purchased for us; and so often experience the power of the doctrine which is taught there, and agree with the Evangelical Protestants. (that is, Lutherans,) in all truths of importance. As for the controverted points, which require a subtle wit, we either are ignorant of them or despise them. “<6. The name of brethren and sisters we do not reject, as being agreeable both to Scripture and to Christian simplicity. But we do not approve of being called by the name of any man; as knowing we have one Father, even him which is in heaven. “In 1732, we were again required to give an account of ourselves. This was then done in the manner following :-- “ ¢ An extract of a letter wrote by the Church of Hernhuth, to the President of Upper Lusatia, Jan. 24, 1732.

Arvin Grapin, a Swede, born in Dalecarlia, spoke to this purpose :-- “ Before I was ten years old, I had a serious sense of religion, and great fervour in prayer. This was increased by my reading much in the New Testament; but the more I read, the more earnestly I cried out, ‘ Either these things are not true, or we are not Christians.’ About sixteen my sense of religion began to decline, by my too great fondness for learning especially the oriental tongues, wherein I was instructed by a private preceptor, who likewise did all that in him lay to instruct me in true tivinity. 3 i sarenicen ‘I went to the University of Upsal, and a year or two * A small coin of about a half-penny [nearly one cent] value. 98 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. | Aug. 1738.

The ship lingering still, I had time to exhort several English, whom we met with at our inn, to pursue inward religion ; the renewal of their souls in righteousness and true holiness. In the morning a daughter of affliction came to see me, who teaches a school at Rotterdam. She had been for some time under deep convictions; but could find none to instruct or comfort her. After much conversation, we joined in prayer, and her spirit a little revived. Between nine and ten we went on board. In the afternoon I read prayers, and preached in the great cabin. The wind being contrary, we did not get out of the river till _ Wednesday ; nor to London till Saturday night. Sun. 17.--I began again to declare in my own country the glad tidings of salvation, preaching three times, and afterward expounding the Holy Scripture to a large company in the Minories. On Monday I rejoiced to meet with our little society, which now consisted of thirtytwo persons. The next day I went to the condemned felons, in Newgate, and offered them free salvation. In the evening I went to a society in Bear-yard, and preached repentance and remission of sins. Journal l.--8 110 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [ Oct. 1738. The next evening I spoke the truth in love at a society in Aldersgatestreet: some contradicted at first, but not long; so that nothing but love appeared at our parting. Thur. 21.--I went to a society in Gutterlane; but I could not declare the mighty works of God there; as I did afterward at the Savoy in all simplicity. And the word did not return empty. Finding abundance of people greatly exasperated by gross misrepresentations of the words I had spoken, I went to as many of them in private as my time would permit. God gave me much love toward them all. Some were convinced they had been mistaken. And who knoweth but God will soon return to the rest, and leave a blessing behind him ?

Wed. 28.--My journey was proposed to our society in Fetter-lane. ' But my brother Charles would scarce bear the mention of it; till appealing to the Oracles of God, he received those words as spoken to himself, and answered not again :--“ Son of man, behold I take from thee the desire of thine eyes with a stroke: yet shalt thou not mourn or weep, neither shall thy tears run down.” Our other brethren, however, continuing the dispute, without any probability of their coming to one conclusion, we at length all agreed to decide it by lot. And by this it was determined I should go. Several afterward desiring we might open the Bible, concerning the issue of this, we did so on the several portions of Scripture, which I shall set down without any reflection upon them: --<+ Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David: but David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker,” 2 Sam. iii, 1. ‘When wicked men have slain a righteous person in his own house upon his bed: shall I not aow require his blood at your hands, and take you away from the earth!” 2 Sam. iv, 11. ‘And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city, even in Jerusalem,” 2 Chron. xxviii, 27. Perhaps it may be a satisfaction to some, if before I enter upon this new period of my life, I give the reasons why I preferred for so many years a university life before any other. Then especially, when I was earnestly pressed by my father to accept of a cure of souls. I have here, therefore, subjoined the letter I wrote several years ago on hat occasion :-- 122 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [ Maren, 1739

Tues. 5.--There was great expectation at Bath of what a noted man was to do to me there; and I was much entreated not to preach; because no one knew what might happen. By this report I also gained a much larger audience, among whom were many of the rich and great. I told them plainly, the Scripture had concluded them all under sin ;-- high and low, rich and poor, one with another. Many of them seemed to be a little surprised, and were sinking apace into seriousness, when. their champion appeared, and coming close to me, asked by what authority I did these things. I replied, ‘By the authority of Jesus Christ, conveyed to me by the (now) Archbishop of Canterbury, when he laid hands upon me, and said, ‘ Take thou authority to preach the Gospel.’ ” He said, “ This is contrary to act of parliament: this is a conventicle.” I answered, ‘Sir, the conventicles mentioned in that act (as the preamble shows) are seditious meetings ; but this is not such; here is no shadow of sedition; therefore it is not contrary to that act.” He ,

“On this principle it was that I made one of your audience, October 23, at Bradford. And because I thought I could form the best judgment of you and your doctrines from your sermon, I resolved to hear that first ; which was the reason, that although, by accident, I was at the same house, and walked two miles with you, to the place you preached at, I spoke little or nothing to you. I must confess, sir, that the discourse you made that day, wherein you pressed your hearers in the closest manner, and with the authority of a true minister of the Gospel, not to stop at faith ony, but to add to it all virtues, and to show forth their faith by every kind of good works, convinced me of the great wrong done you by a public report, common in people’s mouths, that you preach faith without works , for that is the only ground of prejudice which any true Christian can have; and is the sense in which your adversaries would take your words when they censure them. For that we are justified by faith only is the doctrine of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of his apostles, and the doctrine of the Church of England. I am ashamed, that after having lived twentynine years, since my baptism into this faith, I should speak of it in the lame, unfaithful, I may say false manner I have done in the paper above mentioned !--What mere darkness is man when truth hideth her face from him!

“As to the manner of propagating the faith, you believe (as I have also heard others affirm,) That we may, on some accounts, use guile: By saying what we know will deceive the hearers, or lead them to think the thing which is not: By describing things a little beyond the truth, in order to their coming up to it: By speaking as if we meant what we do not. But I believe, That we may not ‘use guile’ on any account whatsoever: That we may not, on any account, say what we know will, and design should, deceive the hearers: That we may not describe things one jot beyond the truth, whether they come up to it or no: and, That we may not speak, on any pretence, as if we meant what indeed we do not. Lastly, As to the fruits of your thus propagating the faith in England, you believe, Much good has been done by it: Many unsettled from a false foundation: Many brought into true stillness, in order to their coming to the true foundation: Some grounded thereon, who were wrong before, but are right now. On the contrary, I believe that very little good, but much hurt, has been done by it. Many who were beginning to build holiness and good works, on the true foundation of faith in Jesus, being now wholly unsettled and lost in vain reasonings and doubtful disputa tions: Many others being brought into a false unscriptural stillness; so that they are not likely to come to any true foundation: And many being Jan. 1740.] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 175 grounded on a faith which is without works ; so that they who were right before, are wrong now.” Tues. Jan. 1, 1740.--I endeavoured to explain to our brethren the true, Christian, scriptural stillness, by largely unfolding those solemn words, “ Be still, and know that I am God.” Wednesday, 2, I earnestly besought them all to “ stand in the old paths,” and no longer to subvert one another’s souls by idle controversies and strife of words. They all seemed convinced. We then cried to God, to heal all our backslidings: and he sent forth such a spirit of peace and love, as we had not known for many months before.

land, among whom the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered. Who then are the worst Dissenters from this Church? 1. Unholy men of all kinds; swearers, Sabbath breakers, drunkards, fighters, whoremongers, liars, revilers, evil speakers ; the passionate, the gay, the lovers of money, the lovers of dress, or of praise, the lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God: all these are Dissenters of the highest sort, continually striking at the root of the Church; and themselves belonging in truth to no Church, but to the synagogue of Satan. 2. Men unsound in the faith; those who deny the Scriptures of truth; those who deny the Lord that bought them ; those who deny justification by faith alone, or the present salvation which is by faith; these also are Dissenters of a very high kind: for they likewise strike at the foundation; and were their principles universally to obtain, there could be no true Church upon earth: Lastly, those who unduly administer the sacraments ; who (to instance but in one point) administer the Lord’s Supper to such as have neither the power nor the form of godliness. These, too, are gross Dissenters from the Church of England, and should not cast the first stone at others. Tues. 12.--The young man who was to die the next day, gave me a Taper, part of which was as follows :-- “ As Tam to answer to the God of justice and truth, hefore whom I am to appear naked to-morrow, I came to Bristol with a design to go aproad, either as a surgeon or in any other capacity that was suiting. It was vhere that I unfortunately saw Mr. Ramsey. He told me, after one or two interviews, that he was in the service of Mr. John Wesley; and that he would introduce me to him, which he did. I cannot but say, I was always fond of the doctrine that I heard from him; however, 178 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [ March, 1740.

“By weak faith I understand, 1. That which is mixed with fear, particularly of not enduring to the end. 2. That which is mixed with doubt, whether we have not deceived ourselves, and whether our sins be indeed. forgiven. 3. That which has not yet purified the heart fully, not from all its idols. And thus weak I find the faith of almost all believers to be, within a short time after they have first peace with God. “Yet that weak faith is faith appears, 1. From St. Paul, ‘ Him that is weak in faith, receive.’ 2. From St John, speaking of believers who were little children, as well as of young men and fathers. 3. From our Lord’s. own words, ‘ Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt ?--I have prayed for thee, (Peter,) that thy faith fail thee not.’ Therefore he then had faith. Yet so weak was that faith, that not only doubt and fear, but gross sin in the same night prevailed over him. Nevertheless he was ‘clean, by the word’ Christ had ‘spoken to him; that is, justified; though it is plain he had notaclean heart. Therefore, there are degrees in faith; and weak faith may yet be true faith.” Mon. 23.--I considered the second assertion, that there is but one commandment in the New Testament, viz. ‘to believe: That no a - June, 1740. ] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 18? other duty ies upon us, and that a believer is not obliged to do any thing as commanded.

After reading this twice or thrice over, as distinctly as I could, I asked, “My brethren, is this right, or is it wrong?” Mr. Bell answered immediately, “It is right; itis all right. It is the truth. Too this we must all come, or we never can come to Christ.” Mr. Bray said, “I believe our brother Bell did not hear what you read, or did not rightly understand.” But Mr. Bell replied short, “ Yes, I heard every word; and I understand it well. I say, it is the truth ; it is the very truth; it is the inward truth.” Many then laboured to prove, that my brother and I laid too much stress upon the ordinances. To put this matter beyond dispute, “1,” said Mr. Bowes, “used the ordinances twenty years ; yet I found not Christ. But I left them off only for a few weeks, and I found him then. And I am now as close united to him as my arm is to my body.” One asked, whether they would suffer Mr. Wesley to preach at Fetter-lane. After a short debate, it was answered, “ No: this place is taken for the Germans.” | Some asked, whether the Germans had converted any soul in England: whether they had not done us muck. hurt, instead of good ; raising a division of which we could see no end: and whether God did not many times use Mr. Wesley for the healing our divisions, when we were all in confusion. Several roundly replied, “Confusion! What do you mean? We were never in any confusion at all.” I said, “* Brother Edmonds, you ought not to say so ; because I have your letters now in my hands.” Mr. Edmonds replied, ‘ ‘That is not the first time I have put darkness for light, and light for darkness.” We continued in useless debate till about. eleven. I then gave them up to God. Fri. 18.--A few of us joined with my mother in the great sacrifice of thanksgiving ; and then consulted how to proceed with regard to our poor brethren of Fetter-lane: we all saw the thing was now come to a crisis, and were therefore unanimously agreed what to do.

Thur. 18.--The prince of the air made another attempt in defence of his tottering kingdom. A great number of men having got into the middle of the foundery began to speak big, swelling words; so that my voice could hardly be heard, while I was reading the eleventh chapter of the Acts. But immediately after, the hammer of the word brake the rocks in pieces: all quietly heard the glad tidings of salvation; and some, I trust, not in vain. Mon. 22.--Wanting a little time for retirement, which it was almost impossible for me to have in London, I went to Mr. Piers’s, at Bexley ; where, in the mornings and evenings, I expounded the sermon on the mount ; and had leisure during the rest of the day for business of other kinds. On Saturday, 27, I returned. Sun. 28.--I began expounding the same scripture at London. In the afternoon I described to a numerous congregation at Kennington, the life of God in the soul. One person who stood on the mount made a little noise at first ; but a gentleman, whom I knew not, walked up to him, and, without saying one word, mildly took him by the hand and led him down. From that time he was quiet till he went away. When I came home, I found an innumerable mob round the door, who opened all their throats the moment they saw me. I desired my friends co go into the house; and then walking into the midst of the people, proclaimed “ the name of the Lord, gracious and merciful, and repenting him of the evil.”” They stood staring one at another. I told them, they could not flee from the face of this great God: and therefore besought them, that we might all join together in crying to him for mercy. To this they readily agreed: I then commended them to his Zrace, and went undisturbed to the little company within.

_ Sun. 8.--After preaching at Bristol, on the abuse and the right use cf the Lord’s Supper, I earnestly besought them at Kingswood to beware of offending “ in tongue,” either against justice, mercy, or truth. After sermon, the remains of our society met, and found we had great reason to bless God, for that, after fifty-two were withdrawn, we had still upward of ninety left. O may these, at least, hold “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace!” I will shut up this melancholy subject with part of a letter wrote by my brother about this time :-- “Tf you think proper, you may show Brother C---- what follows.” (N. B. I did not think it proper then.) “My dearest brother John C , in much love and tenderness I speak. You came to Kingswood upon my brother’s sending for you. You served under him in the Gospei as a son. I need not say how well he loved you. You used the authority he gave you, to overthrow his doctrine: you every where contradicted it; (whether true or false is not the question;) but you ought first to have fairly told him, ‘I preach contrary to you. Are you willing, notwithstanding, that I should continue in your house gainsaying you? If you are not, I have no place in these regions. You have a right to this open dealing. JI now give you fair warning: shall I stay here opposing you, or shall J depart ”’ “My brother, have you dealt thus honestly and openly with him? No; but you have stolen away the people’s heart from him. And when some of them basely treated their best friend, God only excepted, how patiently did you take it? When did you ever vindicate us, as we have you? Why did you not plainly tell them, ‘ You are eternally indebted to these men. Think not that I will stay among you, to head a party against my dearest friend--and brother, as he suffers me to call him, having humbled himself for my sake, and given me (no bishop, priest, or deacon,) the right hand of fellowship. If I hear that one word more is spoken against him, { will leave you that moment, and never see your face more.’

Thur. 20.--A clergyman having sent me word, that if I would preach in the evening on the text he named, he would come to hear me, I preached on that text, Matt. vii, 15. And strongly enforced the caution of our Lord, to “ beware of false prophets ;” that is, all preachers who do not speak as the oracles of God. Tues. 25.--I explained, at Chelsea, the nature and necessity of the new birth. One (who, I afterward heard, was a dissenting teacher) asked me when I had done, “ Quid est tibti nomen?” And on my not answering, turned in triumph to his companions, and said, “« Ay, I told you he did not understand Latin !” Wed. 26.--I was informed of a remarkable conversation, at which one of our sisters was present a day or two before ; wherein a gentleman was assuring his friends, that he himself was in Charles’ Square, when a person told Mr. Wesley to his face, that he, Mr. Wesley, had paid twenty pounds already, on being convicted for selling Geneva; and that he now kept two Popish priests in his house. This gave occasior. to another to mention what he had himself heard, at an eminent dis Sept. 1741. ] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 219 senting teacher’s, viz. that it was beyond dispute, Mr. Wesley had large remittances from Spain, in order to make a party among the peor; and that as soon as the Spaniards landed, he was to join them with twenty thousand men. Mon. 31.--I began my course of preaching on the Common Prayer. Tuesday, September 1.--I read over Mr. Whitefield’s account of God’s dealings with his soul. Great part of this I know to be true. O “let not mercy and truth forsake thee! Bind them about thy neck! Write them upon the table of thy heart!” Thur. 3.--James Hutton having sent me word, that Count Zinzendorf would meet me at three in the afternoon, I went at that time to Gray’s Inn Walks. The most matenial part of our conversation (which I dare not conceal) was as follows: --To spare the dead I do not translate :-- Z. Cur Religionem tuam mutasti? W. Nescio me Religionem meam mutasse. Cur id sentis? Quis hoc tibi retulit? Z. Plané tu. Id ex epistolA tua ad nos video. Ibi, Religione, quam apud nos professus es, relicta, novam profiteris.

* “A religion,” you say, “anda Church, are not all one: a religion is an assembly whereir. the Holy Scriptures are aught after a prescribed rule.” This is too narrow adefinition. For there are many Pagan (as well as Mohammedan) religions. Rather, a religion is, a method of worshipping God, whether in a right or a wrong manner. «¢The Lord has such a peculiar hand in the several constitutions of religion, that one ought to respect every one of them.” I cannot possibly: I cannot respect, either the Jewish (as it is now) or the Romish religion. You add, “ A Church (I will no: examine whether there are any in this present age, or whether there is no other beside ours) is a congregat'wn of sinners who have obtained forgiveness ofsins. That such a congregation should be in an error, cannot easily happen.” _I find no reason, therefore, to retract any thing which is advanced on this or any of the following heads. sept. 1741.] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 225 upvn them at once, by their agreement or disagreement with your Church. Some of you have said, that there is no true Church on earth but yours; yea, that there are no true Christians out of it. And your own members you require to have implicit faith in her decisions, and to pay implicit obedience to her directions. 12. Fifthly, You receive not the ancient, but. the modern Mystics, as the best interpreters of Scripture: and in conformity to these, you mix much of man’s wisdom with the wisdom of God: you greatly refine the plain religion taught by the letter of Holy Writ, and philosophize on almost every part of it, to accommodate it to the Mystic theory. Hence you talk much, in a manner wholly unsupported by Scripture, against mixing nature with grace, against imagination, and concerning the animal spirits, mimicking the power of the Holy Ghest. Hence your , brethren zealously caution us against animal joy, against natural love of one another, and against selfish love of God; against which (or any of them) there is no one caution in all the Bible. And they have, in truth, greatly lessened, and had well nigh destroyed, brotherly love from among us.

Mon. 31.----One writing to desire that I would preach on Isaiah lviii, I willingly complied with his request in the evening. A day or two after, I received a letter from a girl of sixteen or seventeen, whom I had often observed, as being, in an eminent degree, of a meek and lowly spirit. Some of her words were: “I do not think, there were above six or seven words of the true Gospel in your whole sermon. I think nothing ought to concern you, but the errand which the Lord gave you. But how far are you from this? You preach more the Law than the Gospel!’ Ah, my poor sézll sister! thou art an apt scholar indeed! I did not expect this quite so soon. Wed. February 2.--My brother and I began visiting the society together, which employed us from six in the morning every day, till near six in the evening. Sunday, 6.--I preached in the morning, on, “‘ While we have opportunity, let us do good unto all men ;” and in the afternoon, on, “ By manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” So rough a charity sermon was scarce ever heard. But God gave it his blessing ; insomuch that fifty pounds were contributed, toward finishing the house at Newcastle. ri. 11.--I called on poor Joseph Hodges, who, after so long withstanding all the wiles of the enemy, has been at last induced, by his fatal regard for Mr. Hall, to renounce my brother and me, in form. But he had perfectly learned the exercise of his arms. He was so happy, so poor a sinner, that to produce either Scripture or reason against him, was mere beating of the air. Mon. 14.--I left London, and (riding early and late) the next evening came to Newark. Here I met with a few who had tasted the good word: one of whom received me gladly, and desired me, whenever I 280 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [ March, 1743. caine to Newark, to make his house my home. Wed. 16.--I reached Epworth. I was to preach at six. But the house not being able to contain half the congregation, I went out and declared, ‘ We love him because he first loved us.” In the morning, Thursday, 17, I largely

“But I may deny myself outwardly, and yet be self indulgent; namely, by allowing myself in vain and trifling thoughts. Here is a continual fight, and a hard struggle I must have before I conquer. But when I do overcome, I lose nothing by it; for my soul is delighted with secret refreshments. * At noon, I may find many pleasant things; and of this it was that I said to Mr. Richards, ‘If there are two dishes set before you, by the rule of self denial, you ought to eat of that which you like the least.’ And this rule I desire to observe myself; always to choose what is least pleasing and cheapest; therefore, I feed much upon milk: it is pleasant enough, and nothing I can find is so cheap. Whereas if one sort of food be dearer than another, and yet I use it, because more agreeable to my appetite, this I apprehend is directly contrary to the discipleship of a selfdenying master: and this kind of self indulgence (not in food only) is practised by too many that know the truth. ““T suppose, sir, you now perceive, I do not condemn all pleasure in eating; but I condemn all self indulgence, both in that and other things, particularly in talking. Many who think themselves believers, please themselves with talking more than is profitable. They talk even of the Sep.. 1744.] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 319 things of God, till they bring a deadness, nay, an unaccountable careless ness over their spirits. I don’t say, they laugh or talk idly; but still they are not deeply serious, nor is their conversation truly solid; whereas I should think the conscience of a true believer is tender as the apple of an eye; and that to such a one it would be less pain to pulls the rack, than to trifle, either in word or deed.”

eight days, and then removed to a place called Ask. Hear I began to speak openly, at a small distance from the camp, just in the middle of the English army: and here it pleased God to give me some evidences that my labour was not in vain. We sung a hymn, which drew about two hundred soldiers together, and they all behaved decently. After I had prayed, I begun to exhort them; and though it rained very hard, yet very few went away. Many acknowledged the truth, in particular a young man, John Greenwood, by name, wko has kept with me ever since, and whom God has lately been pleased to give me for a fellow labourer. Our society is now increased to upward of two hundred ; and the hearers are frequently more than a thousand, although many say Iam mad; and others have endeavoured to incense the field marshal against us. I have been sent for, and examined several times; but, blessed be God, he has always delivered me. “Many of the officers have come to hear for themselves, often nine or ten at a time. I endeavoured to lose no opportunity. During our abode in the camp at Ask, I have preached thirty-five times in seven days. One of those times a soldier, who was present, called aloud to his comrades to come away, and not hear that fool any longer. But it pleased God to send the word spoken to his heart; so that he roared out, in the bitterness of his soul, for a considerable time: and then He, who never fails those that seek him, turned his heaviness into joy.--He is now never so _ happy as when he is proclaiming the loving kindness of God his Saviour. “T was a little shocked at my first entrance on this great work, because I was alone, having none to help me: but the Lord helped me, and soon raised up William Clements, and, in June, John Evans, belonging to the train, to my assistance. Since we have been in this camp we have built two small tabernacles, in which we meet at eight in the morning, at three in the afternoon, and seven at night; and commonly two whole nights in each week.

Sun. June 9.--In the evening I rode to Colebrook, on Monday to Marlborough, and on Tuesday to Bristol. The Antinomians had taken true pains here also, to seduce those who were showing their faith by their works. But they had reaped little fruit of their bad labour. For, upon the most diligent inquiry, I could not find that seven persons out of seven hundred had been turned out of the old Bible way. We left Bristol early on Friday, 14, and on Sunday morning reached St. Gennis. The church was moderately filled with serious hearers, but few of them appeared to feel what they heard. I preached both morning and afternoon, and on Monday evening ; and many assented to and approved of the truth. Tues. 18.--Being invited by the rector of St. Mary Week, (about seven miles from St. Gennis,) to preach in his church, we went thither in the afternoon. I had not seen in these parts of Cornwall, either so large a church or so large a congregation. Thence we rode to Laneast, where Mr. Bennet read prayers, and I preached on “ the redemption that isin Jesus Christ.” Wed. 19.--Tresmere church was filled within and without, while I preached on Rom. iv, 7. Here I took leuve of a poor, mad, original enthusiast, who had been scattering abroad lies in every quarter. In the evening Mr. Thompson and Shepherd rode with me to St. Eath, and the next day to Redruth. Being informed here of what had befallen Mr. Maxfield, we turned aside toward Crowan church town. But in the way, we received information, that he had been removed from thence the night before. It seems, the valiant constables who guarded hin, having received timely notice that a body of five hundred Methodists were coming to take him o_ | oe 338 REY. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [June, 1745 away by force, had, with great precipitation, carried him two miles further, to the house of one Henry Tomkins.

Fri. 5.--As we were going to Trezilla, (in Gulval parish,) several met us in a great consternation, and told us, the constables and church wardens were come, and waited for us. I went straight on, and found a serious congregation; but neither churchwarden nor constable, nor any creature to molest us, either at the preaching, or at the meeting of the society. After so many storms we now enjoyed the calm, and praised God from the ground of the heart. Sat. 6.--I rode with Mr. Shepherd to Gwennap. Here also we found the people in the utmost consternation. Word was brought, that a great company of tinners, made drunk on purpose, were coming to do terrible things. I laboured much to compose their minds : but fear had no ears ; so that abundance of people went away. I preached to the rest, on, ‘ Love your enemies.” The event showed this also was a false alarm, an artifice of the devil, to hinder men from hearing the word of God. Sun. 7.--I preached, at five, to a quiet congregation; and about eight, at Stithians. Between six and seven in the evening we came to Tolcarn. Hearing the mob was rising again, I began preaching immediately. I had not spoke a quarter of an hour before they came in view. One Mr. Trounce rode up first, and began speaking to me, wherein he was roughly interrupted by his companions. Yet, as I stood on a high wall, and kept my eyes upon them, many were softened and grew calmer and calmer; which some of their champions observing, went round and suddenly pushed me down. I light on my feet, without any hurt, and finding myself close to the warmest of the horsemen, I took hold of his hand and held it fast, while I expostulated the case. As for being convinced, he was quite above it: however, both he and his fellows grew much milder, and we parted very civilly. Mon. 8.--{ preached at five, on, ‘“‘ Watch and pray,” to a quiet and i} 344 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [July, 1745

“Rev. Sir,--The first sight of you, at Wakefield, sunk my proud spirits; and I believe had I not gone up stairs, to harden my heart against the truth, what you said would have made a deeper impression upon me. I often afterward thought, ‘ These things are true; but why does nobody understand them, but my husband and Frank Scot?’ Then the rich clave to me, and advised me to use my husband ill, and see if that. would not drive him from this way. And sometimes I used fair means. But this was dangerous; for then he could speak freely to me, and I found it stole upon me. But I took great care, he should not perceive it, lest he should follow on, and make me like himself. Then I went to the vicar, who said, my husband was mad, and there were no such things as he pretended to. Hereby my heart was hardened more and more, till I resolved to go away and leave him: so J told him; which made him weep much, and strive to show me the wickedness of my resolution. However, by the advice of my old friend, the vicar, I got over that doubt, took about sixty pounds of my husband’s money, and fixed the time of my privately setting out for London. But God prevented me; for I found myself with child: so that design was at an end. “ Soon after, as few in Wakefield would employ my husband, he was obliged to remove to Leeds. What I now feared was, that they of the society would come and talk to me. But I soon forced them away, I was so sharp and abusive to any that came. Yet my heart began to soften; and when [spoke things of them which I thought were false, J was after ward checked in my own mind. I began to like that my husband should overcome, when talking to gainsayers. I went more to church and sacrament; and the time you was here before, when my husband said you should come and sce me, it pleased me much, though I hid it from him; 358 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [Nov. 1745

Tues. 9.--I preached at Crowan. The night came upon us while I was speaking; but none offered to go away. Wednesday, 10.--I preached at Porkellis, in Wendron, to many more than the house could contain. W. T , of Sithney, rode with me to Gwennap, a constant companion of Mr. N. ’s, so long as he would join with him in riot and drunkenness. But with his drunkenness ended Mr. N----’s friendship. When he heard that one John O n, a tinner, was preaching, he went on purpose to make sport. But the word of God struck -him to the earth. Yet he struggled in the toils ; sometimes wanting to go again; sometimes resolving never to go any more. But one day, calling at his sister’s, he took up a little girl, (about four years old,) and said, “‘ They tell me you can sing hymns. Come, sing me a hymn.” She began immediately, My soul, don’t delay, Christ calls thee away: Rise! Follow thy Saviour, and bless the glad day! No mortal doth know What he can bestow ; What peace, love, and comfort :--Go after him, go! He started up at once, and went to the preaching. And the same night he found peace to his soul. Thur. 11.--E T (W. T ’s sister) rode with me o Camborne. When she heard her brother was perverted, she went over to Sithney, on purpose to reclaim him. But finding neither fair words, nor hard names, nor oaths, nor curses, nor blows could prevail, she went away, renouncing him and ai] that belonged to him, and fully resolved to see him no more. Six weeks after she met him at Redruth, and desired him to step into a house. When they were sat down, she burst into tears, and said, “‘ Brother, follow those men, in God’s name. * I speak of the simple and artless part of they congregations. As for the teachers n their Church, it is my solemn belief, (I speak it with grief and reluctance,) that they are no better than a kind of Protestant Jesuits. 380. _ REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [Sept. 1746. And send me word when any of them preaches 4 in your house, and I will come and hear him.”

Mr. Hall, having heard I was coming, had given strict orders that no one should be let in. The inner door he had locked himself, and (I suppose) taken away the key. Yet when I knocked at the outer gate, which was locked also, William Sims opened the wicket. I walked straight in. A girl stood in the gateway, but turned as soon as she saw me. I followed close at her heels, and went in after her, at a back door. I asked the maid, “ Where is Mr. Hall?” She said, “ In the parlour,” and went in to him. I followed her, and found him sitting with my sister: but he presently rose and went up stairs. He then sent William Sims down, and bid him, “ Tell my brother, he has no business in my house.” After a few minutes, I went to a house in the town, and my sister came to me. In about an hour she returned home; but he sent word to the gate, she might go to the place whence she came. I meta little company, gathered up out of the wreck, both in the evening, and at five in the morning, and exhorted them to go on in the Bible way, and not to be wise above that is written. Thur. 28.--I commended them to the grace of God, and set out for Deverel Long Bridge. About ten o’clock we were met by a loaded wagon, ina deep hollow way. ‘There was a narrow path between the road and the bank: I stepped into this, and John Trembath followed me. When the wagon came near, my horse began to rear, and to Feb. 1748. | “REV. J. WESLEY'S JOURNAL. 40

2. EvizazetH Hoxueran, of Cork, deposes :--That on May 3, as she was going down Castle-street, she saw Nicholas Butler on a table, with ballads in one hand and a Bible in the other: that she expressed some concern thereat; on which sheriff Reilly ordered his bailiff to carry her to Bridewell: that afterward the bailiff came and said, his master ordered she should be carried to gaol; and that she continued in gaol from May 3, about eight in the evening, till between ten and twelve on May 5. 3. Joun Stocxpate, of Cork, tallow chandler, deposes :--That on May 5, while he and others were assembled to hear the word of God, Nicholas Butler came down to the house where they were, with a very numerous mob: that when this deponent came out, they threw all manner of dirt, and abundance of stones at him: that they then beat, bruised, and cut him in several places: that seeing his wife on the ground, and the mob <busing her still, he called out, and besought them not to kill his wife: that on this one of them struck him with a large stick, as did also many others, so that he was hurt in several parts, and his face in a gore ot dlood. 4, Dantex Suuuivan, of Cork, baker, deposes :--That every day but one from the 6th to the 16th of May, Nicholas Butler assembled a riotous mob before this deponent’s house: that they abused all who came into the shop, to the great damage of this deponent’s business: that on or about the 15th, Butler swore he would bring a mob the next day and pull down his house: that accordingly, on the 16th, he did bring a large mob, and beat or abused all that came to the house: that the mayor walked by while the mob was so employed, but did not hinder them: that afterward they broke his windows, threw dirt and stones into his shop, and spoiled a great quantity of his goods.

6. Joun Srocxpate deposes furtner :--That on May 31, he with others was quietly hearing the word of God, when Butler and his mob came down to the house: that as they came out, the mob threw showers of dirt and stones: that many were hurt, many beat, bruised, and cut; s.nong whom was this deponent, who was so bruised and cut, that the effusion of blood from his head could not be stopped for a considerable time. 7. Joun M‘Nerny, of Cork, deposes:--That on the 31st of May last, as this deponent with others was hearing a sermon, Butler came down with a large mob: that the stones and dirt coming in fast, obliged the congregation to shut the doors, and lock themselves in: that the mob broke open the door; on which this deponent endeavoured to escape through a window: that not being able to do it, he returned into the house, where he saw the mob tear up the pews, benches, and floor; part of which they afterward burnt in the open street, and carried away part for their own use. 8. Dante Suuuivan is ready to depose further :--That Butler, with a large mob, went about from street to street, and fium house to house, abusing, threatening, and beatins whomsoever he pleased, from June Ist to the 16th, when they assaulted, bruised, and eut, Ann Jenkins; and from the 16th to the 30th, when a woman whom they had beaten, miscarried, and narrowly escaped with life. Some of the particulars were as follows: 9. Tuomas Burnet, of Cork, nailor, deposes:--That on or about the 12th of June, as this deponent was at work in his master’s shop, Nicholas Butler came with a great mob to the door, and seeing this deponent, told him he was a heretic dog, and his soul was burning in hell: that this deponent asking, ‘“‘ Why do you use me thus?” Butler took up a stone, and struck him so violently on the side, that he was thereby rendered incapable of working for upward of a week: that he hit this deponent’s wife with another stone, without any kind of provocation, which so hurt her, that she was obliged to take to her bed, and has not been right well since.

By him we sent back our horses to Mr. Morgan’s. I had a large congregation in the evening. It almost grieved me, I could give them but one sermon, now they were at length willing to hear. About eleven we were called to go on board, the wind being quite fair: and so it continued till we were just out of the harbour. It then turned west, and blew a storm. ‘There was neither moon nor stars, but rain and wind enough; so that I was soon tired of staying on deck. But we met another storm below: for who should be there but the famous Mr. Gr , of Carnarvonshire,--a clumsy, overgrown, hard-faced man ; whose countenance I could only compare to that (which I saw in Drury Lane thirty years ago) of one of the ruffians in “ Macbeth.” I was going to lie down, when he tumbled in, and poured out such a volley of ribaldry, obscenity, and blasphemy, every second or third word being an oath, as was scarce ever heard at Billingsgate. Finding there was no room for me to speak, I retired into my cabin, and left him to Mr. Hopper. Soon after, one or two of his own company interposed, and carried him back to his cabin. Thur. 29.--We wrought our way four or five leagues toward Ireland; but were driven back in the afternoon to the very mouth of the harbour: April, 1750. ] | REV. Je WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 479 nevertheless the wind shifting one or two points, we ventured out again; and by midnight we were got about half seas over; but the wind then turning full against us, and blowing hard, we were driven back again and were glad, about nine, to get into the bay once more.

Mon. 3.--About noon I preached at Hillfarrance, three miles from Taunton. Three or four boors would have been rude if they durst ; but the odds against them was too great. At five I preached in Bridgewater to a well-behaved company, and then rode on to Middlesey. We rode from hence to Shaftesbury, where I preached, between six and seven, to a serious and quiet congregation. We had another happy opportunity at five in the morning, when abundance of people were present. I preached, at noon, in the most riotous part of the town, just where four ways met; but none made any noise, or spoke one word, while I called “the wicked to forsake his way.” As we walked back, one or two foul-mouthed women spoke unseemly ; but none regarded, or answered them a word. Soon after I was sat down, a constable came, and said, “Sir, the mayor discharges you from preaching in this borough any more.” I replied, “ While King George gives me leave to preach, I shall not ask leave of the mayor of Shaftesbury.” Thur. 6.--I rode to Salisbury, and preached, about noon, (a strange turn of providence !) in the chapel which formerly was Mr. Hall’s. One poor woman laboured much to interrupt; but, (how it was [ know not,) with all her endeavours, she could not get out one word. At length she set a dismal, inarticulate yell, and went away in all haste. I preached at Winterburn in the evening ; the next at Reading; and, on Saturday, 8, came to London. Here I had the following account from one of our preachers :-- “John Jane was never well after walking from Epworth to Hainton.on Sept. 1750.] REV. J. WESLEY'S JOURNAL. 499

“ As soon as the Foundery was taken, I went thither constantly, morning as well as evening. But I had no desire of being acquainted with any of the society, much less of joining therein; being strongly resolved never to turn my back on the profession I was educated in. The next year I furnished myself with the books which John and Charles Wesley had printed. I compared them with Robert Barclay’s ‘ Apology,’ and with | the Bible; and of many things I was convinced: but what they said of justification I could not comprehend ; and I did not much concern myself about it, being but slightly convinced of sin. “Tt was my custom to rise some hours before the family, and spend that time in reading. One Sunday morning I was just going to open my Bible, when a voice (whether inward or outward I cannot tell) seemed to. say very loud, ‘ God, for Christ’s sake, hath forgiven thee.’ I started up, ‘took the candle, and searched all about to see if any one was near; but there was none. I then sat down, with such peace and joy in my soul as cannot be described. While I was musing what it could mean, I heard it again, saying, ‘Go in peace, thy sins are forgiven thee.’ I trembled exceedingly, not with fear, but such an emotion as I cannot express. Yet IL got up the second time, and opened the door, to see if it was any human voice. Soon after it was repeated the third time, still louder; which drove me on my knees to prayer, being overwhelmed with the love of God, and, for the time, utterly imcapable of doubt or fear. “JT now saw the New Testament in a different light than I had ever done before. All the day I was comforted with promises from it, either read or brought to my mind. Yet the thought, ‘ May not all this be a delusion?’ frequently darted into me; but it as often drove me to prayer ; upon which all doubt presently vanished away

6. Yet still we spared him, hoping God would give him repentance. But finding, after some weeks, that he continued going from house to house, justifying himself, and condemning my brother and me for misrepresenting him, on Monday, July 22, I rode to Bearfield again, and put myself to the pain of writing down from the mouths of these seven women, as near as I could, in their own words, the accounts which I judged to be most material. I read over to each what I had written, and asked if I had mistaken any thing. Every one answered, No; it was the very truth, as she was to answer it before God. I would now refer it to any impartial judge, whether we have shown too much severity; whether we have not rather leaned to the other extreme, and shown too much lenity to so stubborn an offender. Even when I returned to London soon after, I declined, as much as possible, mentioning any of these things; having still a distant hope, that Almighty Love might at length bring him to true repentance. Some who came up from Lincolnshire in the beginning of August occasioned my writing the following letter :-- * London, August 15, 1751. * Rev. Srr,--l. I take the liberty to inform you, that a poor man, late of your parish, was with me some time since, as were two others a few days ago, who live in or near Wrangle. If what they affirmed was true, you was very nearly concerned in some late transactions there. The short, was this: that a riotous mob, at several times, particularly on the 7th of July, and the 4th of this month, violently assaulted a company of quiet people, struck many of them, beat down others, and dragged some away, whom, after abusing them in various ways, they threw into drains, or other deep waters, to the endangering of their lives. That, not content with this, they broke open a house, dragged a poor man out of bed, and drove him out of the house naked; and also greatly damaged the goods; at the same time threatening to give them all the same o1 worse usage, if they did not desist from that worship of God which thev believed to be right and good.

In the evening I met the little society, just escaped with the skin of their teeth. From the account which each of these likewise gave, it appeared clear to a demonstration: 1. That their elders usurped a more absolute authority over the conscience, than the bishop of Rome himself does: 2. That to gain and secure this, they use a continued train of guile, fraud, and falsehood of every kind: 3. That they scrape their votaries to the bone as to their worldly substance, leaving little to any, to some nothing, or less than nothing: 4. That still they are so infatuated as to believe that theirs is the only true Church upon earth. Nov. 1753. | REV. J. WESLEY'S JOURNAL. | 565 Tues 16.--I preached on St. Peter’s Green at seven in the morniug, and at five in the evening. It is amazing that any congregation should be found here, considering what stumbling blocks have been thrown in their way. Above fourteen years ago, Mr. Rogers, then curate of St. Paul’s, preached the pure Gospel with general acceptance. A great awakening began and continually increased, till the poor weathercock turned Baptist; he then preached the absolute decrees with all his might ; but in a while the wind changed again, and he turned and sunk into the German whirlpool. How many souls has this unhappy man to answer for ! Fri. 19.--I returned to London. Saturday, 20.--I found myself out of order, but believed it would go off. On Sunday, 21, I was considerably worse, but could not think of sparing myself on that day. Mon. 22.--I rose extremely sick; yet I determined, if it were possible, to keep my word, and accordingly set out soon after four for Canterbury. At Welling, I was obliged to stop; after resting an hour, I was much better; but soon after I took horse my sickness returned, and accompanied me to Brompton, near Chatham. In the evening I preached to a serious congregation, and at five in the morning. We came to Canterbury about one, when I was presently seized with the cold fit of an ague. About twelve I fell fast asleep, and waked well at seven in the morning.

true, men of fortune must mind their fortune; but they must not love the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 3. It is true, likewise, you cannot go about to look for poor people; but you may be sufficiently informed of them by those that can.- 4. And if some of these are never satisfied, this is no reason for not relieving others. ». Suppose, too, that some make an ill use of what you give, the loss falls on their own head; you will not lose your reward for their fault: what vou laid out, God will pay you again. 6. Yet certainly you do well to have all the assurance you can, that those to whom you give, are likely to make a good use of it; and therefore to expect a stronger recommendation of them than their own, whether by letter or otherwise. 7. I rejoice that you have given to many by so worthy a man as Colonel Hudson, whose word is certainly a sufficient recommendation. 8. I rejoice likewise that you have given some hundreds of pounds to the hospitals, and wish it had been ten thousand. 9. To the support of the family I did not object; but begged leave to ask, whether this could not be done, without giving ten thousand a year to one who had as much already? And whether you could answer this to God, in the day wherein he shall judge the world? 10. I likewise granted, that the family had continued above four hundred years; but observed, meantime, that God regarded it not a jot the more for this ; and that four hundred or one thousand years are but a moment, compared to eternity. 11. I ovserved likewise that great things may be done, and little things not left undone. 12. And that if this, or any other way of thinking be according to Scripture, then it is sound and good; whereas, if it be contrary to Scripture, it is not good, and the longer we are in it, so much the worse.

“Mr. Todd, minister of the next congregation, has near the same number under his care; and several of them also, he informs me, discover the same seriousness. Indeed there are multitudes of them in various parts, who are eagerly desirous of instruction. They have generally very little help to read; and yet, to my agreeable surprise, sundry of them, by dint of application, in their very few leisure hours, have made such a progress that they are able to read their Bible, or a plain author, very intelligibly. But few of their masters will be at the expense of furnishing them with books. I have supplied them to the utmost of my ability. They are exceedingly delighted with Watts’s Songs: and I cannot but observe that the Negroes, above all of the human species I ever knew, have the nicest ear for music. They have a. kind of ecstatic delight in psalmody: nor are there any books they so soon learn, or take so much pleasure in, ag those used in that heavenly part of divine worship.” Sun. August 3.--I dined with one who lived for many years with one of the most celebrated beauties in Europe. She was also proud, vain, and nice, to a very uncommon degree. But see the end! After a painful and nauseous disease, she rotted away above ground; and was so offensive for many days before she died, that scarce any could bear to stay in the room. Mon. 4.--Hearing my old friend, Mr. H----s, was now a beggar, and forsaken of all, I called (after a separation of sixteen years) at his lodgings, to offer him any service in my power. I was pleasingly surprised to find him reading the Bible! But still I am afraid all is no Aug. 1755.] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 585 right; for the hand of God seems to be upon him still, and his mind is so hurried, he can settle to nothing. O what a pattern of holiness and stability of mind was this very man, till he was stolen away by the men whose “ words are smoother than oil.”” But were they not to him very swords?

Sun. 25.--One of the Germans stumbled in while I was expounding, “Is Christ the minister of sin?” For a time she seemed greatly diverted; but the application spoiled her mirth: she soon hung down her head, and felé the difference between the chaff and the wheat. Mon. 26.--I set out for Cork, purposing to see as many societies as I could in my way. In the afternoon I came to Edinderry, where the little society have built a commodious preaching house. I had designed to preach abroad; but the keen north wind drove us into the house. The congregation (though they had no previous notice) filled it from end to end; but some of them found it too hot, and hurried out, while I applied, “Ye must be born again.” About this time I received the following letter : “ REVEREND Sir,--I once, through the influence of those about me, was ready to join the common cry against you, not knowing what I did: but sinve, by hearing your discourses, with some of Mr. Walsh’s, and by reading your Sermons and Appeals, I have learned a better lesson. 1! have learned that true Christianity consists, not in a set of opinions, or of forms and ceremonies, but in holiness of heart and life,--in a thorough imitation of our Divine Master. And this I take to be the doctrine of the Church of England; nor do IL apprehend you differ from her at all in doctrine. And I am grieved to know you have too much cause to differ from April, 1756. | REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. oul

Fri. 12.--I read over Leusden’s “ Dissertation in Defence of the Hebrew Points,” and was fully convinced, there is at least as much to be said on this as on the other side of the question. But how is it that men are so positive on both sides, while demonstration is to be had on neither? Certainly to be peremptory and dogmatical can never be so inexcusable as in a point so doubtful as this. Mon 22.--I read with the preachers this week the Glasgow “‘ Abridgment of Mr. Hutchinson’s Works ;” wherein the abridgers have expressed, with surprising exactness, not only his sense, but his very spirit: but, in truth, I cannot admire either; nay, I admire his hypethesis less and less, as I see the whole is unsupported by Scripture: very ingenious, but quite precarious. Wed. December 1.--One or two remarkable letters were put inte my hands: part of the first ran thus :--

Tues. 13.--I met the preachers and stewards at Cooly-lough. The congregation at noon was the largest I ever saw there. In the afternoon the perplexed case of I. C. and I. A. was referred to Mr. S. and Mr. H.; who, after a long hearing, judged, (as did all present,) * That I. C. had acted wrong, in seizing and selling I. A.’s goods for rent, when no rent was due.” After preaching in the evening, I talked with Katharine Shea, of Athlone, concerning a strange account which I had heard: there are many now living who attest, on their personal knowledge, most of the particulars of it. She said, “ When I was ten years old, the preaching began at Athlone. I liked and often heard it, though my parents were zealous Papists, till they removed into the country. I then grew as zealous as them, and was diligent in reading thé Popish prayers, till I was about thirteen; when, taking the Mass Book one day, to read my prayers, I could not see one word. I continued blind, just able to discern light from darkness, but not to read or do any work ; ‘till after three months, casting my eye ona New Testament, I could read clearly. I said to myself, ‘ I won’t read this Pro- f June, 1758." REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 65¥ ; : testant book; 1 will read my own book.’ Accordingly I opened the Mass Book, but could not see one word; it appeared all dark and black. I made the trial thrice over, holding the Mass Book in one hand, and the Testament in the other: I could not see any thing in the Mass Book, but could read the Testament as well as ever. On this I threw away the Mass Book, fully resolved to meddle with it no more. “ Afterward my parents returned to Athlone. Then I heard the preaching at all opportunities. For this they beat me many times, and at last turned me out of doors. Yet after this, my father brought me to the priest, who disputed with me very warmly. At length my father said, *T think the girl is in the right.’ And he opposed me no more to the day of his death.”

Grace Before Meat (Part I) Source: Hymns and Sacred Poems (1739), Part I Author: Charles Wesley (attributed) --- 1 Fountain of being, source of good! At whose almighty breath The creature proves our bane or food, Dispensing life or death: 2 Thee we address with humble fear, Vouchsafe thy gifts to crown; Father of all, thy children hear, And send a blessing down. 3 O may our souls for ever pine Thy grace to taste and see; Athirst for righteousness divine, And hungry after thee! 4 For this we lift our longing eyes, We wait the gracious word; Speak--and our hearts from earth shall rise, And feed upon the Lord. 3Charles included this hymn in a later manuscript selection for family use: MS Family, 12.

Hymn for Whitsunday Source: Hymns and Sacred Poems (1739), Part II Author: Charles Wesley (attributed) --- 1 Granted is the Saviour’s prayer, Sent the gracious Comforter; Promise of our parting Lord, Jesus to his heav’n restor’d: 2 Christ; who now gone up on high, Captive leads captivity, While his foes from him receive Grace, that God with man may live. 3 God, the everlasting God, Makes with mortals his abode, Whom the heavens cannot contain, He vouchsafes to dwell in75 man. 74Charles records singing this hymn in his MS Journal as early as May 24, 1738. He included a manuscript copy in MS Richmond Tracts, 31-32. 75“In” changed to “with” in 4th edn. (1743) and 5th edn. (1756). 4 Never will he thence depart, Inmate of an humble heart; Carrying on his work within, Striving till he cast out sin. 5 There he helps our feeble moans, Deepens our imperfect groans; Intercedes in silence there, Sighs th’ unutterable prayer. 6 Come, divine and peaceful guest, Enter our devoted breast; Holy Ghost, our hearts inspire, Kindle there the gospel-fire. 7 Crown the agonizing strife, Principle, and Lord of life; Life divine in us renew, Thou the gift and giver too! 8 Now descend and shake the earth, Wake us into second birth; Now thy quick’ning influence give, Blow--and these dry bones shall live! [9]76 Brood thou o’er our nature’s night, Darkness kindles into light; Spread thy over-shadowing wings, Order from confusion springs. 76Ori., “8”; a misprint. 10 Pain and sin, and sorrow cease, Thee we taste, and all is peace; Joy divine in thee we prove, Light of truth, and fire of love.

31 Grace will I sing, thro' Jesu's name, On all mankind bestow'd; The everlasting truth proclaim, And seal that truth with blood.

32 Come then, thou all-embracing love, Our frozen bosom warm; Dilating fire within us move, With truth and meekness arm.

34 Shine in our hearts Father of light, Jesu thy beams impart, Spirit of truth our minds unite, And make us one in heart.

3 We too by faith the world condemn, Of righteousness divine possest, Escape the wrath that covers them, Safe in the ark of Jesu's breast.

2 A place he should possess at last, When twice two hundred years were o'er, Upon the word himself he cast, He follow'd God, and ask'd no more.

3 He glorified Jehovah's name; (God spake the word, it must be done) Father of nations he became, And multitudes sprang forth from one.

5 He rested in Jehovah's power, The word must stand which God hath said, He knew th' Almighty could restore, Could raise his Isaac from the dead.

10 Jesu accept our sacrifice, All things for thee we count but loss, Lo! At thy word our Isaac dies, Dies on the altar of thy cross.

Looking unto Jesus. [From the German] [Maria Böhmer] Source: Hymns and Sacred Poems (1740), Part I Author: Charles Wesley (attributed) --- Art thou idle? Sits there7 now, Giddy mirth upon thy brow? If thou hast no sighs and tears, Well thou hadst no guilt, or fears, Tears for living mourners plead; Nought avails the hopeless dead. If thou still canst idle be, Foolish soul who died for thee? Who forsook his throne on high, Laid his every glory by, Drank the dregs of wrath divine? Lord was ever love like thine! Idle mirth where art thou now? Where the giddy, thoughtless brow? Hast thou sinn’d? Lament and grieve: Hath God died? Believe, and live: Mirth adieu, and laughter vain! Laughter was not made for man. Looking unto Jesus. [From the German.]8 Regardless now of things below, Jesus, to thee my heart aspires, Determin’d thee alone to know, Author, and end of my desires: Fill me with righteousness divine; To end, as to begin, is thine. 7Ori., “their,” a misprint. 8Source: Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf, ed. Das Gesang-Buch der Gemeine in Herrn-Huth (Halle: Wäysenhaus, 1737), 14 (#13, by Maria Böhmer). See Charles’s adaptation in MS Family, 8-9.

Morning Hymn (Another 1) Source: Hymns and Sacred Poems (1740), Part I Author: Charles Wesley (attributed) --- Dark and chearless is the morn Unaccompanied by thee, Joyless is the day’s return, Till thy mercy’s beams I see; Till they inward light impart, Glad my eyes, and warm my heart. Visit then this soul of mine, Pierce the gloom of sin, and grief, Fill me, radiancy divine, Scatter all my unbelief, More and more thyself display Shining to the perfect day. Another [Morning Hymn].11 Jesus the all restoring Word, My fallen spirit’s hope, After thy lovely likeness, Lord, O when shall I wake up! Thou, O my God, thou only art The life, the truth, the way: Quicken my soul, instruct my heart, My sinking footsteps stay. Of all thou hast in earth below In heaven above to give, Give me thine only self to know, In thee to walk, and live. 11Charles included this hymn in a later manuscript selection for family use: MS Family, 2-3.

To the Same [Revd. Mr. Whitefield], Before His Voyage Source: Hymns and Sacred Poems (1740), Part I Author: Charles Wesley (attributed) --- Tear the bright idol from his shrine, Nor suffer him on earth to dwell; T’ usurp the place of blood divine, But chase him to his native hell. Be all into subjection brought, The pride of man let faith abase; And captivate his every thought, And force him to be sav’d by grace. To the Same [Revd. Mr. Whitefield], Before His Voyage.15 Servant of God, the summons hear, Thy Master calls, arise, obey! The tokens of his will appear, His providence points out thy16 way. Lo! We commend thee to his grace! In confidence go forth! Be strong! Thy meat his will, thy boast his praise, His righteousness be all thy song. Strong in the Lord’s almighty power, And arm’d in panoply divine, Firm may’st thou stand in danger’s hour, And prove the strength of Jesus thine. 15First published in George Whitefield’s Continuation of the Reverend Mr. Whitefield’s Journal, During the Time he was Detained in England by the Embargo (London: James Hutton, 1739), iii-iv. 16Ori. “the”, a misprint; restored to “thy” in 4th edn. (1743) and following, as it had appeared in Whitefield’s Journal. Thy breast-plate be his righteousness, His sacred truth thy loins surround; Shod be thy beauteous feet with peace, Spring forth, and spread the gospel sound. Fight the good fight, and stand secure In faith’s impenetrable shield; Hell’s prince shall tremble at its power, With all his fiery darts repel’d. Prevent thy foes, nor wait their charge, But call their ling’ring battle on. But strongly grasp thy seven-fold targe, And bear the world, and Satan down. The helmet of salvation take, The Lord’s, the Spirit’s conqu’ring sword, Speak from the word--in lightning speak, Cry out, and thunder--from the word. Champion of God, thy Lord proclaim, Jesus alone resolv’d to know; Tread down thy foes in Jesu’s name: Go--conqu’ring, and to conquer go. Thro’ racks and fires pursue thy way, Be mindful of a dying God; Finish thy course, and win the day: Look up--and seal the truth with blood.

Waiting for Christ Source: Hymns and Sacred Poems (1740), Part I Author: Charles Wesley (attributed) --- I trust in him who stands between The Father’s wrath and me: JESU! Thou great eternal mean, I look for all from thee. Thy mercy pleads, thy truth requires, Thy promise calls thee down: Not for the sake of my desires-- But Oh! Regard thine own! I seek no motive out of thee: Thine own desires fulfil: If now thy bowels yearn on me, On me perform thy will. Doom, if thou canst, to endless pains, And drive me from thy face:20 But if thy stronger love constrains, Let me be sav’d by grace. Waiting for Christ. Unchangeable, Almighty Lord, The true, and merciful, and just, Be mindful of thy gracious word, Wherein thou causest me to trust. 20John Wesley marks these words to be expunged in his personal copy of the 5th edn. (1756). They had been objected to by Thomas Church in 1744. Wesley replied in An Answer to the Rev. Mr. Church’s “Remarks”, III.4 (Works 9:113-14); and in Principles of a Methodist Farther Explained, II.8 (Works 9:185). My weary eyes look out in vain, And long thy saving health to see: But known to thee is all my pain: When wilt thou come, and comfort me! Prisoner of hope, to thee I turn, Thee my strong hold, and only stay: Harden’d in grief, I ever mourn: Why do thy chariot-wheels delay? But shall thy creature ask thee why? No; I retract the eager prayer: Lord, as thou wilt, and not as I; I cannot chuse; thou canst not err. To thee, the only wise, and true, See then at last I all resign; Make me in Christ a creature new, The manner, and the time be thine. Only preserve my soul from sin, Nor let me faint for want of thee: I’ll wait till thou appear within, And plant thy heaven of love in me.

Before Reading the Scriptures (Another 1) Source: Hymns and Sacred Poems (1740), Part I Author: Charles Wesley (attributed) --- Another [Before Reading the Scriptures].22 Teacher divine, we ask thy grace, These sacred leaves t’ unfold: Here in the gospel’s clearest glass, Let us thy face behold. 21Charles included this hymn in a later manuscript selection for family use: MS Family, 9. 22Charles included this hymn in a later manuscript selection for family use: MS Family, 9-10.

After Preaching Source: Hymns and Sacred Poems (1740), Part I Author: Charles Wesley (attributed) --- Open the hearts of all that hear, To make their Saviour room, Now let them find redemption near, Let faith by hearing come. Give them to hear the word as thine, And (while they thus receive) Prove it the saving power divine, To sinners that believe. After Preaching. Glory, and praise, and love to thee, For this effectual door, Jesu! Who publishest by me The gospel to the poor. Glory to thy great name alone, That life and power imparts: Now, Lord, thy genuine gospel own, And graft it on their hearts. Now let them feel the tidings true, Grant to thy word success; Water it with thy heavenly dew, And give the wish’d increase.

An Evening Hymn Source: Collection of Psalms and Hymns (1741) Author: Charles Wesley (attributed) --- All praise to him who dwells in bliss, Who made both day and night: Whose throne is darkness, in th’ abyss Of uncreated light. Each thought and deed his piercing eyes With strictest search survey: The deepest shades no more disguise Than the full blaze of day. Whom thou dost guard, O King of kings! No evil shall molest; Under the shadow of thy wings Shall they securely rest. Thy angels shall around their beds Their constant stations keep: Thy faith and truth shall shield their heads, For thou dost never sleep. May we with calm and sweet repose, And heav’nly thoughts refresh’d, Our eye-lids with the morn’s unclose, And bless the ever-bless’d.

The substance of it was this. It was told to the Bishop that a lad in his diocese frequently bragged that he was carried up into the air by invisible hands; who immediately sent for him to find out the truth. The lad in private, though not without menacing, confessed that he was often carried into the air, by he knew not whom, to a fine palace; where he was made to sit down at table with a great many people, who feasted and made merry; but that he was afraid they would be angry with him for telling it. The Bishop endeavored by many arguments to dissuade him from spreading such stories, which he told him could not be true, and were at best but the effects of a troubled fancy. But the boy persisted in it, and told his lordship that if he would have a little patience he would presently be convinced of the truth of his relation; for by certain symptoms which he said always preceded his transportation, he was sure it was not far off. This was presently confirmed in the Bishop's presence, the boy being hoisted away out of the window, to his no small amazement. The next day about the same time the boy was let down into the same room, but so bruised and dispirited that it was an hard matter to get a word from him. After some time and repeated threats and promises, he told the Bishop that he was carried to the place he had before spoken of, but that instead of sitting down, as he used to do' with the company, one or two were set apart to beat him, while the rest were making merry. His lordship now believed it was something more than a jest, being convinced that it was the devil, who for some unknown reasons was permitted to exert an extraordinary power over this lad. He nevertheless proceeded to comfort and pray by him; yet even while he was praying the boy was once more taken from him, nor was he restored again till some hours into the same chamber.

I call faith an assent upon rational grounds, because I hold divine testimony to be the most reasonable of all evidence whatever. Faith must necessarily at length be resolved into reason. God is true; therefore what He says is true. He hath said this; therefore this is true. When any one can bring me more reasonable propositions than these, I am ready to assent to them: till then, it will be highly unreasonable to change my opinion. I used to think that the difficulty of Predestination might be solved by supposing that it was indeed decreed from eternity that a remnant should be elected, but that it was in every man's power to be of that remnant. But the words of our Article will not bear that sense. I see no other way but to allow that some may be saved who were not always of the number of the elected. Your sentiments on this point, especially where I am in an error, will much oblige and I hope improve Your dutiful Son.

My sister Lambert behaved herself unexceptionally while we were in the country. That she had lately altered her conduct, which indeed is highly improbable, I did not hear till now. I very heartily desire (though I see not how it can be effected, unless you will take my word till my actions disprove it) that you should entertain a just opinion, as of the morals in general, so in particular of the gratitude of Your loving Brother.

To Mrs. Pendarves Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1731) Author: John Wesley --- February 4 [1731]. I should have been exceedingly pleased could I have read over these papers with Aspasia and Selima: both because I should have hoped to have confirmed or altered my own judgment in several particulars, and because longer experience in things of this nature might perhaps have enabled me to be of some use toward fixing theirs. But 'tis well; I leave you in His hands, 'who shall lead into all truth.'

I have but one thing to add, and that is as to my being formal. If by that be meant that I am not easy and unaffected enough in my carriage, it is very true; but how shall I help it I cannot be genteelly behaved by instinct; and if I am to try after it by experience and observation of others, that is not the work of a month but of years. If by formal be meant that I am serious, this too is very true; but why should I help it Mirth, I grant, is fit for you; but does it follow that it is fit for me Are the same tempers, any more than the same words or actions, fit for all circumstances If you are to 'rejoice evermore' because you have put your enemies to flight, am I to do the same while they continually assault me You are glad, because you are 'passed from death to life'; well, but let him be afraid who knows not whether he is to live or die. Whether this be my condition or no, who can tell better than myself Him who can, whoever he be, I allow to be a proper judge whether I do well to be generally as serious as I can. John Whitelamb wants a gown much, and I am not rich enough to buy him one at present. If you are willing my twenty shillings (that were) should go toward that, I will add ten to them, and let it lie till I have tried my interest with my friends to make up the price of a new one.--I am, dear brother, Yours and my sister's affectionate Brother. The Rector [Euseby Isham, 1731-55.] is much at your service. I fancy I shall some time or other have much to say to you about him. All are pretty well at Epworth, my sister Molly [Mary Wesley, who married John Whitelamb in 1734 and died the same year. See letter of Oct. 4, 1769.] says. From Ann Granville [8] GLOUCASTER, December 1, 1731

Who ne'er forsook her faith for love of peace, Nor sought with fire and sword to show her zeal; Duteous to rulers when they most oppress, Patient in bearing ill, and doing well. [Description of Divine Religion, from The Battle of the Sexes, stanza xxxv., by his brother Samuel. For 'tender' (line 1) read 'cheerful,' for 'rulers' (line 7) 'princes.' Wesley quotes the last line in the obituary of Robert Swindells (Minutes, x783).] Directly contrary to every article of this was his madness. It was harsh, sour, cloudy, and severe. It was sometimes extravagantly light and sometimes sternly serious. It undermined his best resolutions by an absurd deference to example. It damped the fervor of his zeal and gradually impaired the warmth of his charity. It had not, indeed, as yet attacked his duteous regard for his superiors, nor drove him to exterminate sin by fire and sword; for when it had so obscured that clear judgment whereon his holiness stood that his very faith and patience began to be in danger, the God whom he served came to his rescue and snatched him from the evil to Come. 'But though his religion was not the same with his madness, might it not be the cause of it ' I answer, No. 'Tis full as reasonable to believe that light is darkness as that it is the cause of it. We may just as well think that mildness and harshness, sweetness and sternness, gentleness and fury are the same thing, as that the former are the causes of the latter, or have any tendency thereto. 'But he said himself his distemper was religious madness, and who should know better than himself' Who should know the truth better than one out of his senses Why, any one that was in them, especially any one that had observed the several workings of his soul before the corruptible body pressed it down; when his apprehension was unclouded, his' judgment sound, and his reason cool and unimpaired. Then it was that he knew himself and his Master; then he spoke the words of truth and soberness, and justified by those words the wisdom he loved, only not as much as he adorned it by his life.

In the account he gives of me and those friends who are as my own soul, and who watch over it that I may not be myself a castaway, are some things true: as, that we imagine it is our bounden duty to spend our whole lives in the service of Him that gave them, or, in other words, 'whether we eat or drink, or whatever we do, to do all to the glory of God'; that we endeavor, as we are able, to relieve the poor by buying books and other necessaries for them; that some of us read prayers at the prison once a day; that I administer the sacrament once a month, and preach there as often as I am not engaged elsewhere; that we sit together five evenings in a week; and that we observe, in such manner as our health permits, the fasts of the Church. Some things are false, but taken up upon trust, so that I hope Mr. Morgan believed them true: as, that we almost starve ourselves; that one of us had like lately to have lost his life by too great abstinence; that we endeavor to reform notorious whores and to lay spirits in haunted houses; that we all rise every day at five o'clock; and that I am President of the Society. And some things are not only false, but I fear were known so to be when he related them as true (inasmuch as he had then had the repeated demonstration of both his eyes and ears to the contrary): such as that the Society consists of seven members (I know no more than four of them); that from five to eight in the morning they sing psalms and read some piece of divinity; and that they are emaciated to such a degree that they are a frightful sight. As to the circumstance of the brasier's wife (no intimate of mine) I am in doubt; though she positively denies she ever said so.

As strange as it may appear that one present upon the spot should so far vary from the truth in his relation, I can easily account, not only for his mistake, but for his designed misrepresentation too. The company he is almost daily with (from whom, indeed, I should soon have divided him, had not your letter's coming in the article of time tied my hands) abundantly accounts for the former; as his desire to lessen your regard for me, and thereby obviate the force of any future complaint, which he foresaw I might some time have occasion to make to you, does for the latter. And, indeed, I am not without apprehension that some such occasion may shortly come. I need not describe that apprehension to you. Be pleased to reflect what were the sentiments of your own heart when the ship that took your son from you loosed from shore; and such (allowing for the superior tenderness of a parent) are mine. Such were my father's before he parted from us; when, taking him by the hand, he said, 'Mr. Morgan between this and Easter is your trial for life: I even tremble when I consider the danger you are in; and the more because you do not yourself perceive it.' Impute not, sir, this fear either to the error of my youth or to the coldness of his age. Is there not a cause Is he not surrounded, even in this recess, with those who are often more pernicious than open libertines -- men who retain something of outward decency, and nothing else; who seriously idle away the whole day, and reputably revel till midnight, and ff not drunken themselves, yet encouraging and applauding those that are so; who have no more of the form than of the power of godliness, and though they do pretty often drop in at public prayers, coming after the most solemn part of them is over, yet expressly disown any obligation to attend them. 'Tis true they have not yet laughed your son out of all his diligence; but how long it will be before they have, God knows.

24. I should not spend any more words about this great truth, but that it seems at present quite voted out of the world: the masters in Israel, learned men, men of renown, seem absolutely to have forgotten it; nay, censure those who have not forgotten the words of their Lord as setters forth of strange doctrines. And hence it is commonly asked, How can these things be How can contempt be necessary to salvation I answer, As it is a necessary means of purifying souls for heaven; as it is a blessed instrument of cleansing them from pride, which else would turn their very graces into poison; as it is a glorious antidote against vanity, which would otherwise pollute and destroy all their labors; as it is an excellent medicine to heal 'the anger and impatience of spirit apt to insinuate into their best employments; and, in a word, as it is one of the choicest remedies in the whole magazine of God against love of the world, in which whosoever liveth is counted dead before Him.

To Mrs. Chapman Date: SAVANNAH, March 29, 1737. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1737) Author: John Wesley --- True friendship is doubtless stronger than death, else yours could never have subsisted still in spite of all opposition, and even after thousands of miles are interposed between us. In the last proof you gave of it there are a few things which I think it lies on me to mention: as for the rest, my brother is the proper person to clear them up, as I suppose he has done long ago.

I am not mad, my dear friend, for asserting these to be the words of truth and soberness; neither are any of those, either in England or here, who have hitherto attempted to follow me. I am, and must be, an example to my flock; not, indeed, in my prudential rules, but in some measure (if, giving God the glory, I may dare to say so) in my spirit and life and conversation. Yet all of them are, in your sense of the word, unlearned, and most of them of low understanding; and still, not one of them has been as yet entangled in any case of conscience which was not solved. And as to the nice distinctions you speak of, it is you, my friend, it is the wise, the learned, the disputers of this world, who are lost in them, and bewildered more and more, the more they strive to extricate themselves. We have no need of nice distinctions; for I exhort all, Dispute with none. I feed my brethren in Christ, as He giveth me power, with the pure, unmixed milk of His Word. And those who are as little children receive it, not as the word of man, but as the word of God. Some grow thereby, and advance apace in peace and holiness: they grieve, it is true, for those who did run well, but are now turned back; and they fear for themselves, lest they also be tempted; yet, through the mercy of God, they despair not, but have still a good hope that they shall endure to the end. Not that this hope has any resemblance to enthusiasm, which is an hope to attain the end without the means: this they know is impossible, and therefore ground their hope on a constant, careful use of all the means. And if they keep in this way, with lowliness, patience, and meekness of resignation, they cannot carry the principle of pressing toward perfection too far. Oh may you and I carry it far enough! Be fervent in spirit. 'Rejoice evermore; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks.' Do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus. Abound more and more in all holiness, and in zeal for every good word and work.

To the Magistrates of the Town of Savannah Date: SAVANNAH, September 8, 1737. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1737) Author: John Wesley --- GENTLEMEN, -- If you are not apprised that Mr. Dison intends this day publicly to perform several ecclesiastical offices in Savannah, and, as he says, by your authority, ! do now apprise you thereof; and am, gentlemen, Your humble servant.

To John Edmonds Date: BRISTOL, April 9, I739. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1739) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BROTHER EDMONDS, -- I thank you much for yours. O write as often and as much as you can. For I want stirring up; or rather, I want to be made alive. When shall I hear the voice of the Son of Man and live! Surely there never was such a deceiver of the people as I am. They reverence me as a saint, and I am a poor sinner: or in truth a rich sinner; else I should not be thus poor long. Go and exhort our brother Jennings to count relations, friends, and all things but dung, that he may win Christ. Adieu, my dear brother! Adieu!

Beginning at seven (an hour earlier than usual) at the Bowling Green (which is in the heart of the city) yesterday morning, there were not, I believe, above a thousand or twelve hundred persons present. And the day being very cold and stormy (beside that much rain had fallen in the night) many who designed it were hindered from going to Hanham Mount, which is at least four miles distant from the town. Between ten and eleven I began preaching the gospel there in a meadow on the top of the hill. Five or six hundred people from Bristol (of whom several were Quakers) were. there, and (I imagine) about a thousand of the colliers. I called to them in the words of Isaiah, 'Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.' On Rose Green (which is a plain upon the top of an high hill) are several small hills, where the old coal-pits were. On the edge of one of these I stood in the afternoon, and cried in the name of my Master, ' If any man thirst, let him come unto Me. and drink. He that believeth on Me (as the Scripture hath said) out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.' About five thousand were present, many of 'whom received the word gladly, and all with deep attention. From thence we went to the Society in Baldwin Street, whose room containing but a small part of the company, we opened the doors and windows, by which means all that was spoken of the true Christian life described in the end of the and chapter of the Acts was heard clearly by those in the next room, and on the leads, and in the court below, and in the opposite house and the passage under it. Several of the soldiers and of the rich were there; and verily the power of the Lord was present to heal them. My dear brethren, who among you writes first to strengthen our hands in God Where is our brother Bray and Fish, and whosoever else finds his heart moved to send unto us the word of exhortation You should no more be wanting in your instructions to than your prayers for

At the Bowling Green on Sunday we had about seven thousand. To two thousand at Hanham I explained the same scripture (1 Cor. xiii.). Seeing at Clifton Church [Journal, ii. 201. He was assisting the Rev. John Hedges, the incumbent, and preached for him on the Sunday afternoons of April 29, May 6, 13, and 20, and conducted marriages.] many of the great and rich, my heart was enlarged and my mouth opened toward them. My Testament opened on those words, ‘I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’ The power of the Lord was indeed present to heal them! His sending forth lightning with the rain did not hinder about fifteen. hundred poor sinners from staying with me at Rose Green. Our scripture was, ‘It is the glorious God that maketh the thunder. The voice of the Lord is mighty in operation; the voice of the Lord is a glorious voice,’ In the evening God spake to the hearts of three that were sore vexed, and there ensued a sweet calm.

All Bath on Tuesday was big with expectation of what a great man was to do to me there; and I was much entreated not to preach, 'because no one knew what might happen.' By this report also I gained (I believe) a thousand new hearers of the rich and great of this world. I told them plainly 'the scripture had concluded them all under sin,' high and low, rich and poor, one with another. They appeared not a little surprised and sinking apace into seriousness, when their champion appeared, and, having forced his way through the people, asked ‘by what authority I did these things.’ I answered, ‘By the authority of Jesus my Master, conveyed to me by the (now) Archbishop of Canterbury.’ He said ‘it was contrary to the Act of Parliament; there was an Act of Parliament against conventicles.’ I replied, ‘The conventicles there mentioned were seditious meetings. But there was no such here.’ He said, ‘Yes, it was; for I frighted people out of their wits.’ I asked if he had ever heard me preach. If not, how he could judge of what he never heard He said, ‘By common report, for he knew my character.’ I then asked, ‘Pray, sir, are you a justice of peace or the mayor of this city’ Answer: ‘No, I am not.’ ‘Why then, sir, pray by what authority do you ask me these things’ Here he paused a little, and I went on: ‘Give me leave, sir, to ask, Is not your name Nash’ Answer: ‘Sir, my name is Nash.’ ‘Why then, sir, I trust common report is no good evidence of truth.’ Here the laugh turned full against him, so that he looked about and could scarce recover. Then a bystander said, ‘Sir, let an old woman answer him.’ Then, turning to Mr. Nash, she said, ‘Sir, if you ask what we come here for, we come for the food of our souls. You care for your body: we care for our souls.’ He replied not one word, but turned and walked away.

The short of the case is this: I think him to be full of love and Christ and the Holy Ghost. And I think the Brethren wrong in a few things, not because I believe him, but because I believe the Bible. The chief thing wherein I think them wrong is in mixing human wisdom with divine, in adding worldly to Christian prudence. And hence cannot but proceed closeness, darkness,' reserve, diffusing itself through the whole behavior; which to me appears as contrary to Christianity as blasphemy or adultery. I can find no Christianity in the Bible but what is a plain, artless, blunt thing. A Scripture Christian I take to be simple in quite another sense than you do: to be quite transparent, far from all windings, turnings, and foldings of behavior. This simplicity I want in the Brethren; though I know when it comes they will be persecuted in good earnest. And till they witness a good confession, as upon the house-top, whether men will hear or whether they [will forbear], I can in no wise believe them to be perfect, entire, and wanting nothing. -- Dear Jemmy, my love to all.

12. Your Church discipline is novel and unprimitive throughout. Your Bishops as such are mere shadows, and are only so termed to please those who lay stress upon the Threefold Order. The Eldest is (in fact) your Bishop, as far as you have arly; but he is only half an ancient Bishop. The ancient Presbyter you have split into Sympresbyters, Lehrers, Aufsehers, and Ermahners; the ancient Deacon into Hilfers, Krankenwarters, Dieners, and so on. 13. The ordination (or whatever it is termed) of your Eldest plainly shows you look upon Episcopal ordination as nothing; although it is true you make use of it at other times, ‘that you may become all things to all men.’ But the Constitution of your Church is indeed congregational, only herein differing from others, -- (1) that you hold neither this nor any other form of Church government to be of divine right: (2) that the Count has, in fact, the whole power which was ever lodged, either in the Bishops and priests of the ancient Church, in the King and Convocation in England, the General Assembly in Scotland, or the Pope in Italy; nay, there is scarce an instance in history of such a stretch of episcopal or royal or papal power, as his causing the Lot to be cast over again in the election of the Eldest at Herrnhut. 14. Fifthly, you receive not the Ancients but the modern Mystics as the best interpreters of Scripture, and, in conformity to these, you mix much of man's wisdom with the wisdom of God; you greatly refine the plain religion taught by the letter of Holy Writ, and philosophize on almost every part of it, to accommodate it to the Mystic theory. Hence you talk much, in a manner wholly unsupported by Scripture, against mixing nature with grace, against imagination, and concerning the animal spirits, mimicking the power of the Holy Ghost. Hence your brethren zealously caution us against animal joy, against natural love of one another, and against selfish love of God; against which (or any of them) there is no one caution in all the Bible. And they have in truth greatly lessened, and had wellnigh destroyed, brotherly love from among us.

I shall write Lady Huntingdon [He was at this time on very intimate terms with Lady Huntingdon, and frequently visited her at Donnington Park (Life and Times, i. 58). His recent journey to the North had been suggested by a letter from her. See letter of July 12, 1743.] word of my mother's death to-night. She is to be buried to-morrow evening. Adieu.

‘Mr. Br--d [In the Journal this name is printed B--n, and may be Richard Brampton, journeyman periwig-maker in Bucklersbury, born 1710, at Canon Frome, Hereforshire. In the Works, viii. 377, it is Br--d, which probably stands for Abraham Louis Brandt, painter, brother of Mrs. James Hutton, and a Moravian leader in London.] speaks so slightingly of the means of grace, that many are much grieved to hear him; but others are greatly delighted with him. Ten or fourteen of them meet at our brother Clarke's, with Mr. Molther, and make a mere jest of going to the church or to the sacrament.’ (ii. 327.) ‘You, Mr. Molther, believe it is impossible for a man to use these means, without trusting in them.’ (ii. 329.) ‘“Believers,” said Mr. Simpson, “are not subject to ordinances, and unbelievers have nothing to do with them.”’ (ii. 343.) ‘“Believers need not, and unbelievers may not, use them. These do not sin when they abstain from them; but those do sin when they do not abstain.”’ (ii. 356.) ‘“For one who is not born of God to read the Scriptures, or to pray, or to communicate, or to do any outward work, is deadly poison. If he does any of these things, he destroys himself.” Mr. Bell earnestly defended this.’ (ii. 365.) ‘At eight, the society at Nottingham met: I could not but observe that not one who came in used any prayer at all. I looked for one of our Hymn-books; but both that and the Bible were vanished away, and in the room thereof lay the Moravian Hymns and the Count's Sermons.’ (ii. 464-5.) ‘One of our English brethren, joined with you, said in his public expounding, “As many go to hell by praying as by thieving.” Another, “I knew one who, leaning over the back of a chair, received a great gift. But he must kneel down to give God thanks: So he lost it immediately; and I know not whether he will ever have it again.” And yet another: “You have lost your first joy. Therefore, you pray: That is the devil. You read the Bible: That is the devil. You communicate: That is the devil.”’ (ii. 493.)

But you say, ‘There is nothing distinguishing enough in this to point out the true justifying faith.’ (ibid.) I grant it; supposing a man were to write a book, and say this of it, and no more. But did you ever see any treatise of mine, wherein I said this of faith, and no more nothing whereby to distinguish true faith from false Touching this Journal, your own quotations prove the contrary. Yea, and I everywhere insist, that we are to distinguish them by their fruits, by inward and outward righteousness, by the peace of God filling and ruling the heart, and by patient, active joy in the Holy Ghost. You conclude this point: ‘I have now, Sir, examined at large your account of justification; and, I hope, fully refuted the several articles in which you have comprised it’ (page 49). We differ in our judgment. I do not apprehend you have refuted any one proposition of the four. You have, indeed, amended the second, by adding the word meritorious; for which I give you thanks. 11. You next give what you style, ‘the Christian scheme of justification;’ (page 50;) and afterwards point out the consequences which you apprehend to have attended the preaching justification by faith; the Third point into which I was to inquire. You open the cause thus: ‘The denying the necessity of good works, as the condition of justification, directly draws after it, or rather includes in it, all manner of impiety and vice. It has often perplexed and disturbed the minds of men, and in the last century occasioned great confusions in this nation. These are points which are ever liable to misconstructions, and have ever yet been more or less attended with them. And it appears from what you have lately published, that since you have preached the doctrine, it has had its old consequences, or rather worse ones; it has been more misunderstood, more perverted and abused, than ever.’ (Remarks, pp. 1-2.) ‘The denying the necessity of good works, as the condition of justification, draws after it, or rather includes in it, all manner of impiety and vice.’ Here stands the proposition; but where is the proof Till that appears, I simply say, It does not. ‘It has often perplexed and disturbed the minds of men.’ And so have many other points in St. Paul’s Epistles.

16. You proceed: ‘Kingswood you call your own house: And whenone Mr. C. opposed you there, you reply to him, “You should nothave supplanted me in my own house, stealing the hearts of thepeople.” The parochial Clergy may call their several districts theirown houses, with much more propriety than you could call Kingswood yours. And yet how have you supplanted them therein,and labored to steal the hearts of the people! You have sufferedby the same ways you took to discharge your spleen and maliceagainst your brethren. ‘Your brother's words to Mr. Cennick are, -- ‘Whether his doctrine is true or false, is not the question. But you ought first to have fairly toldhim, I preach contrary to you. Are you, willing, notwithstanding,that I should continue in your house, gainsaying you Shall I stayhere opposing you, or shall I depart ‘Think you hear this spokento you by us. What can you justly reply -- Again, if Mr. Cennick hadsaid thus to you, and you had refused him leave to stay; I ask you,whether in such a case he would have had reason to resent such arefusal I think you cannot say he would. And yet how loudlyhave you objected our refusing our pulpits to you!’ (Remarks, pp. 15-16.) So you judge these to be exactly parallel cases. It lies therefore uponme to show that they are not parallel at all; that there is, in manyrespects, an essential difference between them. (1.) ‘Kingswood you call your own house.’ So I do, that is, theschool-house there. For I bought the ground where it stands, andpaid for the building it, partly from the contribution of my friends, (one of whom contributed fifty pounds,) partly from the income of my own Fellowship. No Clergyman therefore can call his parish his own house with more propriety than I can call this house mine. (2.) ‘Mr. Cennick opposed you there.’ True; but who was Mr. Cennick One I had sent for to assist me there; a friend that was as my own soul; that, even while he opposed me, lay in my bosom. What resemblance then does Mr. Cennick, thus opposing me, bear to me opposing (if I really did) a parochial minister

5. Your last charge is, that I am guilty of enthusiasm to the highest degree. ‘Enthusiasm,’ you say, ‘is a false persuasion of an extraordinary divine assistance, which leads men on to such conduct as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance. An enthusiast is, then, sincere, but mistaken. His intentions are good, but his actions most abominable. Instead of making the word of God the rule of his actions, he follows only that secret impulse which is owing to a warm imagination. Instead of judging of his spiritual estate by the improvement of his heart, he rests only on ecstasies, &c. He is very liable to err, as not considering things coolly and carefully. He is very difficult to be convinced by reason and argument, as he acts upon a supposed principle superior to it, the directions of God’s Spirit. Whoever opposes him is charged with resisting the Spirit. His own dreams must be regarded as oracles. Whatever he does is to be accounted the work of God. Hence he talks in the style of inspired persons; and applies Scripture phrases to himself, without attending to their original meaning, or once considering the difference of times and circumstances.’ (Remarks, pp. 60-1.) You have drawn, Sir, (in the main,) a true picture of an enthusiast. But it is no more like me, than I am like a centaur. Yet you say, ‘They are these very things which have been charged upon you, and which you could never yet disprove.’ I will try for once; and, to that end, will go over these articles one by one.

‘Enthusiasm is a false persuasion of an extraordinary divine assistance, which leads men on to such conduct as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance.’ Before this touches me, you are to prove, (which, I conceive, you have not done yet,) that my conduct is such as is only to be justified by the supposition of an extraordinary divine assistance. ‘An enthusiast is, then, sincere, but mistaken.’ That I am mistaken, remains also to be proved. ‘His intentions are good; but his actions most abominable.’ Sometimes they are; yet not always. For there may be innocent madmen. But, what actions of mine are most abominable I wait to learn. ‘Instead of making the word of God the rule of his actions, he follows only his secret impulse.’ In the whole compass of language, there is not a proposition which less belongs to me than this I have declared again and again, that I make the word of God the rule of all my actions; and that I no more follow any secret impulse instead thereof, than I follow Mahomet or Confucius. Not even a word or look Do I approve or own, But by the model of thy book, Thy sacred book alone. [Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, i. 70. Adapted from George Herbert's The Temple, "Discipline": Not a word or look I affect to own, But by book, And Thy Book alone.]

5. I conceive, therefore, this whole demand, common as it is, of proving our doctrine by miracles, proceeds from a double mistake: (1) A supposition that what we preach is not provable from Scripture; for if it be, what need we farther witnesses ‘To the law and to the testimony!' (2) An imagination that a doctrine not provable by Scripture might nevertheless be proved by miracles. I believe not. I receive the written Word as the whole and sole rule of my faith. II. 6. Perhaps what you object to my phraseology may be likewise answered in few words. I thoroughly agree that it is best to ‘use the most common words, and that in the most obvious sense’; and have been diligently laboring after this very thing for little less than twenty years. I am not conscious of using any uncommon word or any word in an uncommon sense; but I cannot call those uncommon words which are the constant language of Holy Writ. These I purposely use, desiring always to express Scripture sense in Scripture phrase. And this I apprehend myself to do when I speak of salvation as a present thing. How often does our Lord Himself do thus! how often His Apostles, St. Paul particularly! Insomuch that I doubt whether we can find six texts in the New Testament, perhaps not three, where it is otherwise taken. 7. The term ‘faith’ I likewise use in the scriptural sense, meaning thereby ‘the evidence of things not seen.’ And that it is scriptural appears to me a sufficient defense of any way of speaking whatever. For, however the propriety of those expressions may vary which occur in the writings of men, I cannot but think those which are found in the Book of God will be equally proper in all ages. But let us look back, as you desire, to the age of the Apostles. And if it appear that the state of religion now is, according to your own representation of it, the same in substance as it was then, it will follow that the same expressions are just as proper now as they were in the apostolic age.

15. ‘But the Word of God appears to' you 'to be manifestly against such an instantaneous giving of faith, because it speaks of growth in grace and faith as owing to the slow methods of instruction.’ So do I. But this is not the question. We are speaking, not of the progress, but of the first rise of faith. ‘It directs the gentle instilling of faith by long labor and pious industry.’ Not the first instilling; and we speak not now of the continuance or increase of it. ‘It compares even God's part of the work to the slow produce of vegetables, that, while one plants and another waters, it is God all the while who goes on giving the increase.’ Very true. But the seed must first be sown before it can increase at all. Therefore all the texts which relate to the subsequent increase are quite wide of the present question. Perhaps your thinking the nature of the thing to be so clearly against me may arise from your not clearly apprehending it. That you do not, I gather from your own words: ‘It is the nature of faith to be a full and practical assent to truth.’ Surely no. This definition does in no wise express the nature of Christian faith. Christian, saving faith is a divine conviction of invisible things; a supernatural conviction of the things of God, with a filial confidence in His love. Now, a man may have a full assent to the truth of the Bible (probably attained by the slow steps you mention), yea, an assent which has some influence on his practice, and yet not have one grain of this faith. 16. I should be glad to know to which writings in particular of the last age you would refer me for a thorough discussion of the Calvinistical points. I want to have those points fully settled, having seen so little yet wrote on the most important of them with such clearness and strength as one would desire.

19. ‘Another objection,’ you say, ‘I have to make to your manner of treating your antagonists. You seem to think you sufficiently answer your adversary if you put together a number of naked scriptures that sound in your favor. But remember, the question between you and them is, not whether such words are Scripture, but whether they are to be so interpreted.’ You surprise me! I take your word, else I should never have imagined you had read over the latter Appeal; so great a part of which is employed in this very thing, in fighting my ground inch by inch, in proving, not that such words are Scripture, but that they must be interpreted in the manner there set down. 20. One point more remains, which you express in these words: ‘When your adversaries tax you with differing from the Church, they cannot be supposed to charge you with differing from the Church as it was a little after the Reformation, but as it is at this day. And when you profess great deference and veneration for the Church of England, you cannot be supposed to profess it for the Church and its pastors in the year 1545, and not rather in the year 1745. If, then, by “the Church of England” be meant (as ought to be meant) the present Church, it will be no hard matter to show that your doctrines differ widely from the doctrines of the Church.’ Well, how blind was I! I always supposed, till the very hour I read these words, that when I was charged with differing from the Church I was charged with differing from the Articles or Homilies. And for the compilers of these I can sincerely profess great deference and veneration. But I cannot honestly profess any veneration at all for those pastors of the present age who solemnly subscribe to those Articles and Homilies which they do not believe in their hearts. Nay, I think, unless I differ from these men (be they bishops, priests, or deacons) just as widely as they do from those Articles and Homilies, I am no true Church of England man.

4. When I say, ‘The Apostles themselves were to prove their assertions by the written Word,’ I mean the word written before their time, the Law and the Prophets; and so they did. I do not believe the case of Averel Spenser [See for this paragraph the letter of Sept. 28, sect. 4, where Wesley says the Apostles ‘were to prove their assertions by the written Word. You and I are to do the same.’ ‘John Smith’ refers to a teacher who ‘gives out that the Spirit of God gives visible attestations to his ministry by miraculous works (for surely the casting out of devils may be called so, if anything can)’ (see Journal, ii. 291). Charles Wesley says on Oct. 6, 1739 (Journal, i. 186), Averel Spenser of Bristol, ‘one that received faith last night, came to day and declared it.’] was natural; yet, when I kneeled down by her bedside, I had no thought at all of God's then giving any ‘attestation to my ministry.’ But I asked of God to deliver an afflicted soul; and He did deliver her. Nevertheless, I desire none to receive my words, unless they are confirmed by Scripture and reason. And if they are, they ought to be received, though Averel Spenser had never been born. 5. That we ought not to relate a purely natural case in the Scripture terms that express our Lord's miracles, that low and common things are generally improper to be told in Scripture phrase, that scriptural words which are obsolete or which have changed their signification are not to be used familiarly, as neither those technical terms which were peculiar to the controversies of those days, I can easily apprehend. But I cannot apprehend that 'salvation’ or ‘justification’ is a term of this sort; and much less that ‘faith’ and ‘works,’ or ‘spirit’ and ‘flesh,’ are synonymous terms with ‘Christianity’ and ‘Judaism.’ I know this has frequently been affirmed; but I do not know that it has been proved.

To Thomas Church Date: June 17, 1746. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1746) Author: John Wesley --- REVEREND SIR, -- I. At the time that I was reading your former letter I expected to hear from you again. And I was not displeased with the expectation; believing it would give me a fresh opportunity of weighing the sentiments I might have too lightly espoused and the actions which perhaps I had not enough considered. Viewing things in this light, I cannot but esteem you, not an enemy, but a friend; and one in some respects better qualified to do me real service than those whom the world accounts so, who may be hindered by their prejudice in my favor, either from observing what is reprovable, or from using that freedom and plainness of speech which are requisite to convince me of it. 2. It is, at least, as much with a view to learn myself, as to show others (what I think) the truth, that I intend to set down a few reflections on some parts of the tract you have lately published. I say some parts; for it is not my design to answer every sentence in this any more than in the former. Many things I pass over, because I think them true; many more, because I think them not material; and some, because I am determined not to engage in an useless if not hurtful controversy.

If you had not omitted these words, you could have had no color to remark, on my saying, ‘I did not dare to determine anything’: ‘No! Not when by conversing among them you saw these things’ No, I did not ‘dare to determine’ in September 1738 from what I saw in November 1739. ‘But the facts are of such a nature that you could not but be assured of them, if they were true.’ I cannot think so. ‘Is not the Count all in all among you Do not you magnify your own Church too much Do you not use guile and dissimulation in many cases’ These facts are by no means of such a nature, as that whoever converses (even intimately) among the Moravians cannot but be assured of them. ‘Nor do the questions in your letter really imply any doubt of their truth.’ No! Are not my very words prefixed to those questions -- ‘Of some other things I stand in doubt. And I wish that, in order to remove those doubts, you would plainly answer whether the fact be as I suppose.’ ‘But’ these questions ‘are so many appeals to their consciences.’ True. ‘And equivalent to strong assertions.’ Utterly false. ‘If you had not been assured, if you did not dare to determine anything concerning what you saw’ (fifteen months after), ‘your writing bare suspicions to a body of men in such a manner was inexcusable.’ They were strong presumptions then; which yet I did not write to a body of men whom I so highly esteemed -- no, not even in the tenderest manner -- till I was assured they were not groundless.

8. ‘In a note at the bottom of page 8 you observe, “The band society in London began May 1, some time before I set out for Germany.” Would you insinuate here that you did not set it up in imitation of the Moravians’ Sir, I will tell you the naked truth. You had remarked thus: ‘You took the trouble of a journey to Germany to them; and were so much in love with their methods that, at your return hither, you set up their bands among your disciples’ (page 17). This was an entire mistake; for that society was set up, not only before I returned, but before I set out. And I designed that note to insinuate this to you without telling your mistake to all the world. ‘I imagined that, supposing your account of the Moravians true, it would be impossible for any serious Christian to doubt of their being very wicked people.’ I know many serious Christians who suppose it true, and yet believe they are in the main good men. ‘A much worse character, take the whole body together, cannot be given of a body of men.’ Let us try: ‘Here is a body of men who have not one spark of either justice, mercy, or truth among them; who are lost to all sense of right and wrong; who have neither sobriety, temperance, nor chastity; who are, in general, liars, drunkards, gluttons, thieves, adulterers, murderers.’ I cannot but think that this is a much worse character than that of the Moravians, take it how you will. 'Let the reader judge how far you are now able to defend them.' Just as far as I did at first. Still I dare not condemn what is good among them; and I will not excuse what is evil.

‘(3) The life and death of our Lord is the sole meritorious cause of this mercy, which must be firmly believed and trusted in by us. Our faith therefore in Him, though not more meritorious than any other of our actions, yet has a nearer relation to the promises of pardon through Him, and is the mean and instrument whereby we embrace and receive them. ‘(4) True faith must be lively and productive of good works, which are its proper fruits, the marks whereby it is known. ‘(5) Works really good are such as are commanded by God (springing from faith), done by the aid of His Holy Spirit, with good designs and to good ends. These may be considered as internal or external. ‘(6) The inward ones, such as hope, trust, fear, and love of God and our neighbor -- which may be more properly termed “good dispositions” and (are branches of) sanctification -- must always be joined with faith, and consequently be conditions present in justification, though they are not the means or instruments of receiving it. ‘(7) The outward’ (which are more properly termed good works), 'though there be no immediate opportunity of practicing them, and therefore a sincere desire and resolution to perform them be sufficient for the present, yet must follow after as soon as occasion offers, and will then be necessary conditions of preserving our justification. ‘(8) There is a justification conveyed to us in our baptism; or, properly, this state is then begun. But, should we fall into sins, we cannot regain it without true faith and repentance, which implies (as its fruits) a forsaking of our sins and amendment of our whole life.’ I have only one circumstance farther to add -- namely, that I am not newly convinced of these things. For this is the doctrine which I have continually taught for eight or nine years last past; only I abstained from the word ‘condition’ perhaps more scrupulously than was needful.

‘How, then, will you vindicate all these powers’ All these are ‘declaring those are no longer of our Society.’ ‘Here is a manifest congregation. Either it belonged to the Church of England or not. If it did not, you set up a separate communion against her. And how then are you injured, in being thought to have withdrawn from her’ I have nothing to do with this. The antecedent is false: therefore the consequent falls of course. ‘If it did belong to the Church, show where the Church gave you such authority of controlling and regulating it’ Authority of putting disorderly members out of that Society The Society itself gave me that authority. ‘What private clergyman can plead her commission to be thus a judge and ordinary even in his own parish’ Any clergyman or layman, without pleading her commission, may be thus a judge and ordinary. ‘Are not these powers inherent in her governors and committed to the higher order of her clergy’ No; not the power of excluding members from a private society, unless on supposition of some such rule as ours is -- namely, ‘That if any man separate from the Church, he is no longer a member of our Society.’ 7. But you have more proof yet: ‘The Grand Jury in Georgia found that you had called yourself Ordinary of Savannah. Nor was this fact contradicted even by those of the jury who, you say, wrote in your favor: so that it appears you have long had an inclination to be independent and uncontrolled.’ This argument ought to be good; for it is far-fetched. The plain case was this: that Grand Jury did assert that, in Mr. Causton’s hearing, I had called myself Ordinary of Savannah. The minority of the jury in their letter to the Trustees refuted the other allegations particularly; but thought this so idle an one that they did not deign to give it any farther reply than-- ‘As to the eighth bill we are in doubt, as not well knowing the meaning of the word “Ordinary.” [See Journal, i. 395; and letters of Aug. 3 and 17, 1742.]

You remark: (3) ‘His intentions must be good; but his actions will be most abominable.’ I answered, ‘What actions of mine are most abominable’ You reply, ‘The world must be judge whether your public actions have not been in many respects abominable.’ I am glad the charge softens. I hope by-and-by you will think they are only abominable in some respects. You remark: (4) ‘Instead of making the Word of God the rule of his actions he follows only secret persuasion or impulse.’ I answered: ‘I have declared again and again that I make the Word of God the rule of all my actions, and that I no more follow any secret impulse instead thereof than I follow Mahomet or Confucius.’ You reply: ‘You fall again into your strain of boasting, as if declarations could have any weight against facts; assert that “you make the Word of God the rule of all your actions,” and that I “perhaps do not know many persons - ”’ (page 121). Stop, sir: you are stepping over one or two points which I have not done with. You remark: (5) ‘Instead of judging of his spiritual estate by the improvement of his heart, he rests only on ecstasies, &c.’ I answered: ‘Neither is this my case. I rest not on them at all. I judge of my spiritual estate by the improvement of my heart and the tenor of my life conjointly.’ To this I do not perceive you reply one word. Herein, then, I am not an enthusiast.

I observe: (3) That at the times to which your other citations refer, I was utterly uncertain how to act in points of great importance, and such as required a speedy determination; and that by this means my uncertainty was removed, and I went on my way rejoicing (ii. 97, 106, 336). My own experience, therefore, which you think should discourage me for the future from anything of this kind, does, on the contrary, greatly encourage me herein; since I have found much benefit, and no inconvenience -- unless, perhaps, this be one, that you ‘cannot acquit me of enthusiasm’; add, if you please, ‘and presumption.’ But you ask, ‘Has God ever commanded us to do thus’ I believe He has neither commanded nor forbidden it in Scripture. But, then, remember ‘that Scripture’ (to use the words which you cite from ‘our learned and judicious Hooker’) ‘is not the only rule of all things which in this life may be done by men.’ All I affirm concerning this is that it may be done, and that I have, in fact, received assistance and direction thereby. 4. I give the same answer to your assertion that we are not ordered in Scripture to decide any points in question by lots (Second Letter, p. 123). You allow, indeed, there are instances of this in Scripture; but affirm, ‘These were miraculous; nor can we without presumption’ (a species of enthusiasm) ‘apply this method.’ I want proof of this: bring one plain text of Scripture, and I am satisfied. ‘This, I apprehend, you learned from the Moravians.’ I did; though, it is true, Mr. Whitefield thought I went too far therein. ‘Instances of the same occur in your Journals. I will mention only one. It being debated when you should go to Bristol, you say, “We at length all agreed to decide it by lot. And by this it was determined I should go.” (Journal, ii. 158.) Is this your way of carefully considering every step you take Can there be greater rashness and extravagance Reason is thus in a manner rendered useless, prudence is set aside, and affairs of moment left to be determined by chance!’ (Second Letter, p. 124.)

8. To sum up this. No truly wise or sober man can possibly desire or expect miracles to prove either (1) that these doctrines are true; this must be decided by Scripture and reason: or (2) that these facts are true; this can only be proved by testimony: or (3) that to change sinners from darkness to light is the work of God alone, only using what instruments He pleases; this is glaringly self-evident: or (4) that such a change wrought in so many notorious sinners within so short a time is a great and extraordinary work of God; this also carries its own evidence. What, then, is it which remains to be proved by miracles Perhaps you will say, It is this: 'That God hath called or sent you to do this.' Nay, this is implied in the third of the foregoing propositions. If God has actually used us therein, if His work hath in fact prospered in our hands, then He hath called or sent us to do this. I entreat reasonable men to weigh this thoroughly, -- whether the fact does not plainly prove the call; whether He who enables us thus to save souls alive does not commission us so to do; whether, by giving us the power to pluck these brands out of the burning, He does not authorize us to exert it. Oh that it were possible for you to consider calmly, whether the success of the gospel of Jesus Christ, even as it is preached by us, the least of His servants, be not itself a miracle, never to be forgotten; -- one which cannot be denied, as being visible at this day, not in one but an hundred places; one which cannot be accounted for by the ordinary course of any natural cause whatsoever; one which cannot be ascribed with any color of reason to diabolical agency; and, lastly, one which will bear the infallible test--the trial of the written Word!

Let any serious person read over those pages. I therein slander no man: I speak what I know, what I have both heard and read. The men are alive, and the books are extant. And the same conclusion I now defend, touching that part of the clergy who preach or write thus--namely, if they preach the truth as it is in Jesus, I am found a false witness before God. But if I preach the way of God in truth, then they are blind leaders of the blind. (6) You quote those words, ‘Nor can I be said to intrude into the labors of those who do not labor at all, but suffer thousands of those for whom Christ died to perish for lack of knowledge’ (ii. 249). I wrote that letter near Kingswood. I would to God the observation were not terribly true! (7) The first passage you cite from the Earnest Appeal evidently relates to a few only among the clergy; and if the charge be true but of one in five hundred, it abundantly supports my reasoning. (8) In the next I address all those, and those only, who affirm that I preach for gain. [Works, viii. 25-8.] You conclude: ‘The reader has now before him the manner in which you have been pleased to treat the clergy; and your late sermon is too fresh an instance on the like usage of the universities’ [On Scriptural Christianity. See Works, v. 37-52.] (Second Letter, p. 107). It is an instance of speaking the truth in love. So I desire all mankind may use me. Nor could I have said less, either to the university or the clergy, without sinning against God and my own soul.

9. In what respects the Brethren are Antinomians, in what sense they lean to Quietism, I have spoken at large. If they can refute the charge, I shall rejoice more than if I had gained great spoils. My brother, I heartily wish both you and them the genuine, open gospel simplicity; that you may always use that artless plainness of speech in which you once excelled; and that by manifestation of the truth you may commend yourself to every man's conscience in the sight of God. -- I am Your affectionate brother.

To John Bennet Date: LONDON, December 20, 1746. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1746) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Is what you mention concerning poor David Taylor a certain truth Do you speak on sure grounds Or is it only a flying report It is exceeding strange, if it is true. If it was true, did not his late teachers know it And if they did know it, could they be honest men Surely it would be worth while to talk with him once. It may help him, and not hurt you. Methinks you should see poor Mr. Hutchings also once. I scarce know how to believe that he is so weak. Although, when a believer has once let go his hold, he may sink into anything. You should also talk with as many of the scattered sheep as you can. Some of them, perhaps, may yet return into the way of truth. I shall write to my brother by this post, and mention his coming through Cheshire, if possible. It will be best for you to write to him immediately to Newcastle, and fix a day for meeting him at Birstall or Sheffield.[Charles Wesley was in Newcastle, and reached Sheffield on Feb. 1, 1747.] You should write to me as often as you can. T. Westall [Thomas Westall was one of Wesley’s first lay preachers. ‘He was a pattern of simplicity and humble love.’ He resided at Bristol, where he died in 1794. see Atmore's Memorial, pp. 486-7.]will take advice in all things. Be strong, and God shall comfort your heart. But you must not be always at one place. Grace be with you. Farewell. TO Mr. John Bennet, Chinley End, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire.

To Ebenezer Blackwell Date: BRISTOL, January 26, 1747. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1747) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, -- Our number of patients increases here daily. We have now upwards of two hundred. Many have already desired to return thanks, having found a considerable change for the better already. But we are at a great loss for medicines, several of those we should choose being not to be had at any price in Bristol. I have been sometimes afraid you have suffered loss for want of a frank acknowledgement of the truth: I mean with regard to the gay world. If we openly avow what we approve, the fear or shame generally lights on them; but if we are ashamed or afraid, then they pursue, and will be apt to rally us both out of our reason and religion. -- I am, dear sir, Your very affectionate servant. My best respects attend Mrs. Blackwell and Mrs. Dewal.[Mrs. Hannah Dewal lived with the Blackwells at Lewisham, and was one of the most intimate friends of John and Charles Wesley. See C. Wesley's Journal, ii. 170, 379-83.] I hope you strengthen each other's hands.

6. The sum of what I offered before concerning perceptible inspiration was this: ‘Every Christian believer has a perceptible testimony of God's Spirit that he is a child of God.’ You objected that there was not one word said of this, either in the Bible or in the Appeal, to which I referred. I replied: ‘I think there is in the Bible, in the 16th verse of the 8th chapter to the Romans. And in the Farther Appeal this place is proved to describe the ordinary privilege of every Christian believer.’

To Ebenezer Blackwell Date: DUBLIN, August 13, 1747. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1747) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, -- I have found a home in this strange land. I am at Mr. Lunell's just as at the Foundry; only that I have not such attendance here, for I meet the people at another part of the town. For natural sweetness of temper, for courtesy and hospitality, I have never seen any people like the Irish. Indeed, all I converse with are only English transplanted into another soil; and they are much mended by the removal, having left all their roughness and surliness behind them. They receive the word of God with all gladness and readiness of mind. The danger is that it should not take deep root, that it should be as seed falling on stony ground. But is there not the same danger in England also Do not you find it in London You have received the word with joy, and it begins to spring up; but how soon may it wither away! It does not properly take root till we are convinced of inward sin, till we begin to feel the entire corruption of our nature. I believe sometimes you have found a little of this. But you are in the hands of a good Physician; who, if you give yourself up to His guidance, will not only wound, but also make whole. Mr. Lunell and his family desire their best respects to Mrs. Blackwell and you. His daughter can rejoice in God her Saviour. They propose to spend the winter in England.--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. I cannot forget Mrs. Dewal, whether I see her or not. To a Preacher [LONDON], November 1747. MY DEAR BROTHER,--In public speaking speak not one word against opinions of any kind. We are not to fight against notions but sins. Least of all should I advise you once to open your lips against Predestination. It would do more mischief than you are aware of. [See heading to letter of March 3.] Keep to our one point --present inward salvation by faith, by the divine evidence of sins forgiven. Your affectionate brother.

To Thomas Whitehead () Date: BRISTOL, February 10, 1748. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1748) Author: John Wesley --- You ask me, 'Is there any difference between Quakerism and Christianity 'I think there is. What that difference is I will tell you as plainly as I can. I will first set down the account of Quakerism (so called) which is given by Robert Barclay; and then add wherein it agrees with, and wherein it differs from, Christianity. 1. 'Seeing the height of all happiness is placed in the true knowledge of God, the right understanding of this is what is most necessary to be known in the first place.' 2. 'It is by the Spirit alone that the true knowledge of God hath been, is, and can be revealed. And these revelations, which are absolutely necessary for the building up of true faith, neither do, nor can, ever contradict right reason or the testimony of the Scriptures.' Thus far there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. ' Yet these revelations are not to be subjected to the examination of the Scriptures as to a touchstone.' Here there is a difference. The Scriptures are the touchstone whereby Christians examine all, real or supposed, revelations. In all cases they appeal 'to the law and to the testimony,' and try every spirit thereby. 3. 'From these revelations of the Spirit of God to the saints have proceeded the Scriptures of truth.' In this there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. ' Yet the Scriptures are not the principal ground of all truth and knowledge, nor the adequate, primary rule of faith and manners. Nevertheless they are a secondary rule, subordinate to the Spirit. By Him the saints are led into all truth. Therefore the Spirit is the first and principal leader.' If by these words--' The Scriptures are not the principal ground of truth and knowledge, nor the adequate, primary rule of faith and manners '--be only meant that 'the Spirit is our first and principal leader,' here is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity.

It follows that this preaching and prayer were far from 'abominable idolatry.' That expression can never be defended. Say it was a rash word, and give it up. In truth, from the beginning to the end you set this matter upon a wrong foundation. It is not on this circumstance--the being at set times or not--that the acceptableness of our prayers depends, but on the intention and tempers with which we pray. He that prays in faith, at whatsoever time, is heard. In every time and place God accepts him who 'lifts up holy hands without wrath or doubting.' The charge of superstition, therefore, returns upon yourself; for what gross superstition is this, to lay so much stress on an indifferent circumstance and so little on faith and the love of God! But to proceed: 'We confess singing of psalms to be a part of God's worship, and very sweet and refreshful when it proceeds from a true sense of God's love; but as for formal singing, it has no foundation in Scripture.' In this there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. But let it be observed here that the Quakers in general cannot be excused, if this is true; for if they 'confess singing of psalms to be a part of God's worship,' how dare they either condemn or neglect it ' Silence is a principal part of God's worship--that is, men's sitting silent together, ceasing from all outwards, from their own words and actings, in the natural will and comprehension, and feeling after the inward seed of life.' In this there is a manifest difference between Quakerism and Christianity. This is will-worship, if there be any such thing under heaven; for there is neither command nor example for it in Scripture. Robert Barclay, indeed, refers to abundance of scriptures to prove it is a command. But as he did not see good to set them down at length, I will take the trouble to transcribe a few of them:

The Scripture says quite otherwise--that he did give way to the fury of the Jews against him. I read: 'Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure (who had desired a favour against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem, lying in wait in the way to kill him), said to Paul, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgement-seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. If I have done anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die; but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them.' Hence it plainly appears that Festus was a very wicked person-one who, 'to do the Jews a pleasure,' would have betrayed the innocent blood. But although St. Paul was not ignorant of his character, still he called him 'Most Noble Festus,' giving him the title of his office; which, indeed, was neither more nor less than saying, 'Governor Festus' or 'King Agrippa..' It is therefore mere superstition to scruple this. And it is, if possible, greater superstition still to scruple saying you, vous, or ihr, whether to one or more persons, as is the common way of speaking in any country. It is this which fixes the language of every nation. It is this which makes me say you in England, vous in France, and ihr in Germany, rather than thou, tu, or du, rather than su, se, or +HEB+; which, if we speak strictly, is the only scriptural language; not thou or thee any more than you. But the placing religion in such things as these is such egregious trifling, as naturally tends to make all religion stink in the nostrils of infidels and heathens. And yet this, by a far greater abuse of words than that you would reform, you call the plain language. O my friend! he uses the plain language who speaks the truth from his heart; not he who says thee or thou, and in the meantime will dissemble or flatter, like the rest of the world. 'It is not lawful for Christians to kneel, or bow the body, or uncover the head to any man.'

To John Cennick Date: SHIP STREET, March 14, 1748. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1748) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--You say true, Mr. Edwards has not now any authority to let that house. What I desire is to do as I would be done to with as little noise as possible. I am ready just now, and throughly willing to put you into possession of the house. I am only in doubt which is the most inoffensive method of doing it, and whether it would not be best to delay a few days; but in this also I shall be glad to be advised. I salute you and yours in the Lord and our dear brother Toltschig; and am Your affectionate friend and brother.

3. Yet 'such deviation,' you think, 'may open a door to much disorder and error.' I grant it may; but I still insist (1) that accidental ill consequences may flow from a good thing; (2) that the good consequences in the present case overbalance the evil beyond all possible degrees of comparison. The same I believe of Mr. Whitefield's public preaching (which was not the consequence but the cause of mine), whose doctrine in general (though he is mistaken in some points) I believe to be the truth of the gospel. 4. I never did censure the whole body of clergy; and God forbid that I ever should. I do not willingly censure any, even the grossly immoral. But you advise to 'complain of these to the Bishop of the diocese.' In what way 'Be so public-spirited as to present them.' Much may be said on that question. I should ask: (1) Have I a right to present them I apprehend not. The churchwardens of each parish are to do this; which they will hardly do at my instance. (2) If I could do it myself, the presenting them to the Court is not presenting them to the Bishop: the Bishop, you cannot but know, has no more authority in what is called the Bishop's Court than the Pope of Rome. (3) I cannot present, suppose, thirty persons in as many counties, to the lay chancellors or officials (men whom I apprehend to have just as much authority from Scripture to administer the sacraments as to try ecclesiastical causes), without such an expense both of labour and money and time as I am by no means able to sustain. And what would be the fruit, if I could sustain it if I was the informer-general against the immoral clergy of England O sir, can you imagine, or dare you say, that I should 'have the thanks of the bishops, and of all good men, both clergy and laity' If you allow only those to be good men who would thank me for this, I fear you would not find seven thousand good men in all our Israel.

5. But you have been 'assured there are proofs about to be produced of very shocking things among us also.' It is very possible you may. And, to say the truth, I expected such things long ago. In such a body of people, must there not be some hypocrites, and some who did for a time serve God in sincerity, and yet afterwards turn back from the holy commandment once delivered to them I am amazed there have been so few instances of this, and look for more every day. The melancholy case of that unhappy man Mr. Hall I do not rank among these; for he had renounced us long ago, and that over and over, both by word and writing, [See letter of Nov. 17, 1742.] And though he called upon me once or twice a year, and lately made some little overtures of friendship, yet I have it under his own hand he could have no fellowship with us because we would not leave the Church. But quia intellexi minus, protrusit foras. ['Because I seemed reluctant to entertain his views, he expelled me from his dwelling.'] To make it quite plain and clear how close a connexion there was between him and me, when I lately called on his poor wife at Salisbury, he fairly turned me out of doors and my sister after me.[See letter of Feb. 2.]

To John Toltschig Date: CORK STREET, April 16, 1748. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1748) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--In my last letter I said, 'Whenever Mr. Cennick will indemnify me as to the bonds and covenants I am under, I will relinquish it' (the house in Skinner's Alley) 'to him at a month's warning.' I say so still. There has not yet been any stop on my part, neither shall be. By your letter of the 14th instant I learn (as well as by Mr. Cennick's enclosed therein) that Mr. Horne has authority from Mr. Cennick to treat with me concerning it; who, you say, 'only waits for the time and place I shall appoint to meet with me.' I will be ready at Mr. Watts' in Park Street at six on Monday morning to show Mr. Horne what bonds and covenants I am under. And as soon as I am legally indemnified therefrom, I will put the house into his hands. The people at your Society hurt themselves only by the many untrue and unkind words which they continually utter concerning Your still loving though much injured brother.

7. Will you condemn a man who, having some little skill in physic and a tender compassion for those who are sick or dying all around him, cures many of those without fee or reward whom the doctor could not cure-- 8. At least, did not; which is the same thing as to the case in hand, were it only for this reason--because he did not go to them, and they would not come to him. 9. Will you condemn him, because he has not learning or has not had an university education What then He cures those whom the man of learning and education cannot cure. 10. Will you object, that he is no physician nor has any authority to practice I cannot come into your opinion. I think medicus est qui medetur, 'he is a physician who heals,' and that every man has authority to save the life of a dying man. But, if you only mean he has no authority to take fees, I contend not; for he takes none at all. 11. Nay, and I am afraid it will hold, on the other hand, medicus non est qui non medetur;--I am afraid, if we use propriety of speech, 'he is no physician who works no cure.' 12. 'Oh, but he has taken his degree of Doctor of Physic, and therefore has authority.' Authority to do what 'Why, to heal all the sick that will employ him.' But (to waive the case of those who will not employ him; and would you have even their lives thrown away) he does not heal those that do employ him. He that was sick before is sick still; or else he is gone hence, and is no more seen. Therefore his authority is not worth a rush; for it serves not the end for which it was given. 13. And surely he has not authority to kill them by hindering another from saving their lives! 14. If he either attempts or desires to hinder him, if he condemns or dislikes him for it, it is plain to all thinking men he regards his own fees more than the lives of his patients.

10. Will you object, 'But he is no minister, nor has any authority to save souls' I must beg leave to dissent from you in this. I think he is a true, evangelical minister, diakonos, servant of Christ and His Church, who outw diakonei, so ministers, as to save souls from death, to reclaim sinners from their sins; and that every Christian, if he is able to do it, has authority to save a dying soul. But, if you only mean he has no authority to take tithes, I grant it. He takes none; as he has freely received, so he freely gives. 11. But to carry the matter a little farther. I am afraid it will hold, on the other hand, with regard to the soul as well as the body, medicus non est qui non medetur;--I am afraid reasonable men will be much inclined to think he that saves no souls is no minister of Christ. 12. 'Oh, but he is ordained, and therefore has authority.' Authority to do what 'To save all the souls that will put themselves under his care.' True; but (to waive the case of them that will not; and would you desire that even those should perish) he does not, in fact, save them that are under his care. Therefore what end does his authority serve He that was a drunkard is a drunkard still. The same is true of the Sabbath-breaker, the thief, the common swearer. This is the best of the case; for many have died in their iniquity, and their blood will God require at the watchman's hand. 13. For surely he has no authority to murder souls, either by his neglect, by his smooth if not false doctrine, or by hindering another from plucking them out of the fire and bringing them to life everlasting! 14. If he either attempts or desires to hinder him, if he condemns or is displeased with him for it, how great reason is there to fear that he regards his own profit more than the salvation of souls.--I am, reverend sir, Your affectionate brother.

I answer: (1) Learn from hence to follow neither his nor my practice implicitly; but weigh the reason of each, and then follow reason, wheresoever it stands. But (2) Examine your heart, and beware inclination does not put on the shape of reason. (3) You see with your own eyes I do not drink it at all, and yet I seldom give offence thereby. It is not, then, the bare abstaining, but the manner of doing it, which usually gives the offence. (4) There is therefore a manner wherein you may do it too, and yet give no more offence than I. For instance: If any ask you, simply reply, 'I do not drink tea; I never use it.' If they say, 'Why, you did drink it'; answer, 'I did so; but I have left it off a considerable time.' Those who have either good nature or good manners will say no more. But if any should impertinently add, 'Oh, but why did you leave it off' answer mildly, 'Because I thought watergruel (suppose) was wholesomer as well as cheaper.' If they, with still greater ill-manners and impertinence, go on, 'What, you do it because Mr. Wesley bids you'; reply calmly, 'True; I do it because Mr. Wesley, on good reasons, advises me so to do.' If they add the trite cant phrase, 'What, you follow man!' reply, without any emotion, 'Yes, I follow any man, you or him or any other, who gives me good reason for so doing.' If they persist in cavilling, close the whole matter with, 'I neither drink it nor dispute about it.'

To Mrs. Jones, of Fonmon Castle Date: LONDON, December 22, 1748. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1748) Author: John Wesley --- For the time to come, I purpose going from Bristol to Cork, if I can procure a convenient passage; and returning from Dublin to Holyhead, and so through North and South Wales. So that once a year (as long as my life is prolonged) I hope to have the pleasure of seeing you at Fonmon. When I leave London next (probably about a month hence), I am to spend some time at Kingswood, and then embark for Ireland. I am glad Mr. Meriton [Wesley's estimate of his ability is not flattering. See letter of March 28, 1749.] is of use. He should have told me whither he was going. We must always use openness toward each other. If I find any one using cunning or subtlety with me, I set a mark upon that man. There was no guile found in our Lord's mouth; nor can it be in the mouth of any true Christian. Shall not all our afflictions work together for good They must, if God is true. To His care I commit you; and am Your affectionate brother and servant.

To Vincent Perronet Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1748) Author: John Wesley --- [25] [25a] {December} 1748. REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--1. Some time since, you desired an account of the whole economy of the people commonly called Methodists. And you received a true (as far as it went) but not a full account. To supply what I think was wanting in that I send you this account, that you may know, not only their practice on every head, but likewise the reasons whereon it is grounded, the occasion of every step they have taken, and the advantages reaped thereby. 2. But I must premise that, as they had not the least expectation at first of anything like what has since followed, so they had no previous design or plan at all; but everything arose just as the occasion offered. They saw or felt some impending or pressing evil or some good end necessary to be pursued. And many times they fell unawares on the very thing which secured the good or removed the evil. At other times they consulted on the most probable means, following only common sense and Scripture; though they generally found, in looking back, something in Christian antiquity likewise, very nearly parallel thereto. I. 1. About ten years ago my brother and I were desired to preach in many parts of London. We had no view therein but, so far as we were able (and we knew God could work by whomsoever it pleased Him), to convince those who would hear what true Christianity was and to persuade them to embrace it.

It was easily answered: If you mean only gathering people out of buildings called churches, it is. But if you mean dividing Christians from Christians, and so destroying Christian fellowship, it is not. For (1) These were not Christians before they were thus joined. Most of them were barefaced heathens. (2) Neither are they Christians from whom you suppose them to be divided. You will not look me in the face and say they are. What! drunken Christians! cursing and swearing Christians! lying Christians! cheating Christians! If these are Christians at all, they are devil Christians, as the poor Malabarians term them. (3) Neither are they divided any more than they were before, even from these wretched devil Christians. They are as ready as ever to assist them and to perform every office of real kindness towards them. (4) If it be said, 'But there are some true Christians in the parish, and you destroy the Christian fellowship between these and them,' I answer: That which never existed cannot be destroyed. But the fellowship you speak of never existed. Therefore it cannot be destroyed. Which of those true Christians had any such fellowship with these Who watched over them in love Who marked their growth in grace Who advised and exhorted them from time to time Who prayed with them and for them as they had need This, and this alone, is Christian fellowship; but, alas! where is it to be found Look east or west, north or south; name what parish you please: is this Christian fellowship there Rather, are not the bulk of the parishioners a mere rope of sand What Christian connexion is there between them What intercourse in spiritual things What watching over each other's souls What bearing of one another's burthens What a mere jest is it, then, to talk so gravely of destroying what never was! The real truth is just the reverse of this: we introduce Christian fellowship where it was utterly destroyed. And the fruits of it have been peace, joy, love, and zeal for every good word and work.

10. Another objection was: 'There is no scripture for this, for classes and I know not what.' I answer: (1) There is no scripture against it. You cannot show one text that forbids them. (2) There is much scripture for it, even all those texts which enjoin the substance of those various duties whereof this is only an indifferent circumstance, to be determined by reason and experience. (3) You seem not to have observed that the Scripture in most points gives only general rules, and leaves the particular circumstances to be adjusted by the common sense of mankind. The Scripture, for instance, gives that general rule, 'Let all things be done decently and in order.' But common sense is to determine on particular occasions what order and decency require. So in another instance the Scripture lays it down as a general, standing direction: 'Whether ye eat or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God.' But it is common prudence which is to make the application of this in a thousand particular cases. 11. 'But these,' said another, 'are all man's inventions.' This is but the same objection in another form. And the same answer will suffice for any reasonable person. These are man's inventions. And what then That is, they are methods which men have found, by reason and common sense, for the more effectually applying several Scripture rules, couched in general terms, to particular occasions. 12. They spoke far more plausibly than these, who said: 'The thing is well enough in itself. But the Leaders are insufficient for the work; they have neither gifts nor graces for such an employment.' I answer: (1) Yet, such Leaders as they are, it is plain God has blessed their labour. (2) If any of these is remarkably wanting in gifts or grace, he is soon taken notice of and removed. (3) If you know any such, tell it to me, not to others, and I will endeavour to exchange him for a better. (4) It may be hoped they will all be better than they are, both by experience and observation, and by the advices given them by the Minister every Tuesday night, and the prayers (then in particular) offered up for them.

2. These, therefore, wanted some means of closer union; they wanted to pour out their hearts without reserve, particularly with regard to the sin which did still easily beset them and the temptations which were most apt to prevail over them. And they were the more desirous of this when they observed it was the express advice of an inspired writer: 'Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.' 3. In compliance with their desire, I divided them into smaller companies; putting the married or single men and married or single women together. The chief rules of these bands (that is, little companies; so that old English word signifies) runs thus: 'In order to " confess our faults one to another," and pray one for another that we may be healed, we intend (1) To meet once a week at the least. (2) To come punctually at the hour appointed. (3) To begin with singing or prayer. (4) To speak each of us in order, freely and plainly, the true state of our soul, with the faults we have committed in thought, word, or deed, and the temptations we have felt since our last meeting. (5) To desire some person among us (thence called a Leader) to speak his own state first, and then to ask the rest, in order, as many and as searching questions as may be, concerning their state, sins, and temptations.' 4. That their design in meeting might be the more effectually answered, I desired all the men bands to meet me together every Wednesday evening, and the women on Sunday, that they might receive such particular instructions and exhortations as from time to time might appear to be most needful for them, that such prayers might be offered up to God as their necessities should require, and praise returned to the Giver of every good gift for whatever mercies they had received.

But I grant they are overseen, if they argue against you by citing 'the testimonies of the ancient Fathers' (page 6), seeing they might easily perceive you pay no more regard to these than to the Evangelists or Apostles. Neither do I commend them if they 'insinuate jealousies of consequences dangerous to Christianity' (ibid.). Why they should insinuate these I cannot conceive: I need not insinuate that the sun shines at noonday. You have 'opened too great a glare to the public' (page 7) to leave them any room for such insinuation. Though, to save appearances, you gravely declare still, 'Were my argument allowed to be true, the credit of the Gospel miracles could not in any. degree be shaken by it' (page 6). 4. So far is flourish. Now we come to the point. 'The present question,' you say, 'depends on the joint credibility of the facts and of the witnesses who attest them, especially' on the former. For 'if the facts be incredible, no testimony can alter the nature of things' (page 9). All this is most true. You go on: 'The credibility of facts lies open to the trial of our reason and senses, But the credibility of witnesses depends on a variety of principles wholly concealed from us. And though in many cases it may reasonably be presumed, yet in none can it be certainly known.' (Page 10.) Sir, will you retract this, or defend it If you defend, and can prove as well as assert it, then farewell the credit of all history, not only sacred but profane. If 'the credibility of witnesses' (of all witnesses, for you make no distinction) depends, as you peremptorily affirm, 'on a variety of principles wholly concealed from us'; and consequently, 'though it may be presumed in many cases, yet can be certainly known in none,'--then it is plain all the history of the Bible is utterly precarious and uncertain; then I may indeed presume, but cannot certainly know, that Jesus of Nazareth ever was born, much less that He healed the sick and raised either Lazarus or Himself from the dead. Now, sir, go and declare again how careful you are for 'the credit of the Gospel miracles'!

5. But, for fear any--considering how 'frank and open' your nature is, and how 'warmly disposed to speak what you take to be true' (page 7)--should fancy you meant what you said in this declaration, you take care to inform them soon after: 'The whole which the wit of man can possibly discover, either of the ways or will of the Creator, must be acquired by attending seriously'--to what to the Jewish or Christian revelation No; but 'to that revelation which He made of Himself from the beginning in the beautiful fabric of this visible world.' (Page 22.) 6. I believe your opponents will not hereafter urge you either with that passage from St. Mark or any other from Scripture--at least I will not, unless I forget myself; as I observe you have done just now. For you said but now, 'Before we proceed to examine testimonies for the decision of this dispute, our first care should be to inform ourselves of the nature of those miraculous powers which are the subject of it as they are represented to us in the history of the Gospel' (page 10). Very true; 'this should be our first care.' I was therefore all attention to hear your account of 'the nature of those powers as they are represented to us in the Gospel,' But, alas! you say not a word more about it; but slip away to those 'zealous champions who have attempted' (bold men as they are) 'to refute the Introductory Discourse' (page 11). Perhaps you will say, 'Yes, I repeat that text from St. Mark.' You do; yet not describing the nature of those powers, but only to open the way to 'one of your antagonists' (page 12); of whom you yourself affirm that 'not one of them seems to have spent a thought in considering those powers as they are set forth in the New Testament' (page 11). Consequently the bare repeating that text does not prove you (any more than them) to have 'spent one thought upon the subject.'

7. From this antagonist you ramble away to another; after a long citation from whom, you subjoin: 'It being agreed, then, that in the original promise there is no intimation of any particular period to which their continuance was limited' (pages 13-14). Sir, you have lost your way. We have as yet nothing to do with their continuance. 'For, till we have learned from those sacred records' (I use your own words) 'what they were and in what manner exerted by the Apostles, we cannot form a proper judgement of those evidences which are brought either to confirm or confute their continuance in the Church; and must consequently dispute at random, as chance or prejudice may prompt us, about things unknown to us' (page 11). Now, sir, if this be true (as without doubt it is), then it necessarily follows that--seeing, from the beginning of your book to the end, you spend not one page to inform either yourself or your readers concerning the nature of these miraculous powers 'as they are represented to us in the history of the Gospel'--you dispute throughout the whole 'at random, as chance or prejudice prompts you, about things unknown to you.' 8. Your reply to 'the adversaries of your scheme' (pages 15-27) I may let alone for the present; and the rather, because the arguments used therein will occur again and again. Only I would here take notice of one assertion--'that the miraculous powers conferred on the Apostles themselves were imparted just at the moment of their exertion, and withdrawn again as soon as those particular occasions were served' (page 23). You should not have asserted this, be it true or false, without some stronger proof. 'This, I say, is evident' (ibid.) is not a sufficient proof; nor 'A treatise is prepared on that subject' (page 24). Neither is it proved by that comment of Grotius on our Lord's promise, ['Non omnibus omnia-ita tamen cuilibet credenti tunc data sit admirabilis facultas, quae se, non semper quidem, sed data occasione explicaret' (Grotius in Marcum xvi. 17). ] which, literally translated, runs thus: 'To every believer there was then given some wonderful power, which was to exert itself, not indeed always, but when there was occasion.'

8. But you endeavour to show it is, 'For that surprising confidence,' you say, 'with which the Fathers of the fourth age have affirmed as true what they themselves had forged, or at least knew to be forged' (a little more proof of that), 'makes us suspect that so bold a defiance of truth could not become general at once, but must have been carried gradually to that height by custom and the example of former times' (page 84). It does not appear that it did become general till long after the fourth century. And as this supposition is not sufficiently proved, the inference from it is nothing worth. 9. You say, secondly: 'This age, in which Christianity was established, had no occasion for any miracles. They would not therefore begin to forge miracles at a time when there was no particular temptation to it.' (Ibid.) Yes, the greatest temptation in the world, if they were such men as you suppose. If they were men that would scruple no art or means to enlarge their own credit and authority, they would naturally 'begin to forge miracles' at that time when real miracles were no more. 10. You say, thirdly: 'The later Fathers had equal piety with the earlier, but more learning and less credulity. If these, then, be found either to have forged miracles themselves, or propagated what they knew to be forged, or to have been deluded by the forgeries of others, it must excite the same suspicion of their predecessors.' (Page 85.) I answer: (1) It is not plain that the later Fathers had equal piety with the earlier. Nor (2) That they had less credulity. It seems some of them had much more: witness Hilarion's camel, and smelling a devil or a sinner; though even he was not so quick-scented as St. Pachomius, who (as many believe to this day) could 'smell an heretic at a mile's distance.' (Free Inquiry, pp. 89-90.) But if (3) The earlier Fathers were holier than the later, they were not only less likely to delude others, but (even on Plato's supposition) to be deluded themselves; for they would have more assistance from God.

11. But you say, fourthly: 'The earlier ages of the Church were not purer than the later. Nay, in some respects they were worse: for there never was any age in which so many rank heresies were professed, or so many spurious books forged and published, under the names of Christ and His Apostles; several of which are cited by the most eminent Fathers of those ages as of equal authority with the Scriptures. And none can doubt but those who would forge or make use of forged books would make use of forged miracles.' (Introductory Discourse, pp. 8-7.)

9. But, to complete all, 'Here again,' you say, 'we see a dispensation of things ascribed to God quite different from that which we meet with in the New Testament' (page 24). 'We see a dispensation'! Where Not in the primitive Church: not in the writings of one single Christian; not of one heathen: and only of one Jew; for poor Celsus had not a second, though he multiplies under your forming hand into a cloud of witnesses. He alone ascribes this to the ancient Christians, which you in their name ascribe to God. With the same regard to truth, you go on: 'In those days the power of working miracles' (you should say the extraordinary gifts) 'was committed to none but those who presided in the Church of Christ.' Ipse dixit for that. But I cannot take your word, especially when the Apostles and Evangelists say otherwise. 'But, upon the pretended revival of those powers,'--Sir, we do not pretend the revival of them, seeing we shall believe they never were intermitted till you can prove the contrary,--'we find the administration of them committed, not to those who had the government of the Church, not to the bishops, the martyrs, or the principal champions of the Christian cause, but to boys, to women, and, above all, to private and obscure laymen, not only of an inferior but sometimes also of a bad character.'

With far greater probability than John Croius asserts that Justin forged these passages, a man of candour would hope that he read them in his copy (though incorrect) of the Greek Bible. And, till you disprove this or prove the assertion of Croius, you are got not a jot farther still. But, notwithstanding you have taken true pains to blacken him both with regard to his morals and understanding, he may still be an honest man and an unexceptionable witness as to plain facts done before his face. 11. You fall upon Irenaeus next, and carefully enumerate all the mistakes in his writings. As (1) That he held the doctrine of the Millennium, and related a weak fancy of Papias concerning it. (2) That he believed our Saviour to have lived fifty years. (3) That he believed Enoch and Elias were translated, and St. Paul caught up to that very paradise from which Adam was expelled. So he might, and all the later Fathers with him, without being either the better or the worse. (4) That he believed the story concerning the Septuagint version; nay, and that the Scriptures were destroyed in the Babylonish captivity, but restored again after seventy years by Esdras, inspired for that purpose. 'In this also' you say, but do not prove, 'he was followed by all the principal Fathers that succeeded him; although there is no better foundation for it than that fabulous relation in the Second Book of Esdras.' You add (5) That 'he believed the sons of God who came in to the daughters of men were evil angels.' And all the early Fathers, you are very ready to believe, 'were drawn into the same error by the authority of the apocryphal Book of Enoch cited by St. Jude.' (Page 44.)

And yet this opinion, as you know full well, has its foundation, not only in the histories of all ages and all nations throughout the habitable world, even where Christianity never obtained, but particularly in Scripture--in abundance of passages both of the Old and New Testament, as where the Israelites were expressly commanded not to 'suffer a witch to live' (ibid.); where St. Paul numbers 'witchcraft' with 'the works of the flesh' (Gal. v. 19-20), and ranks it with adultery and idolatry; and where St. John declares, 'Without are sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers' (Rev. xxii. 15). That the gods of the heathens are devils (1 Cor. x. 30) is declared in terms by one of those who are styled inspired writers. And many conceive that another of them gives us a plain instance of their 'assuming the form of those who were called from the dead' (1 Sam. xxviii. 13-14). Of the power of evil spirits to afflict the minds of men none can doubt who believe there are any such beings. And of their power to afflict the body we have abundant proof both in the history of Job and that of the Gospel demoniacs. I do not mean, sir, to accuse you of believing these things: you have shown that you are guiltless in this matter; and that you pay no more regard to that antiquated book the Bible than you do to the Second Book of Esdras. But, alas! the Fathers were not so far enlightened. And because they were bigoted to that old book, they of consequence held for truth what you assure us was mere delusion and imposture.

5. I observe you take much the same liberty in your next quotation from Cyprian. 'He threatens,' you say, 'to execute what he was ordered to do " against them in a vision "' (page 102). Here also the last words, 'in a vision,' are an improvement upon the text. Cyprian's words are, 'I will use that admonition which the Lord commands me to use.' ['Utar ea admonitione, qua me Dominus uti jubet' (Epis. ix.).] But neither was this in order to introduce any questionable point either of doctrine or discipline, no more than his using the same threat to Pupianus, who had spoken ill of him and left his communion. 6. You go on: 'He says likewise he was admonished of God to ordain one Numidicus, a confessor, who had been left for dead, half burnt and buried in stones' (pages 103-4). True; but what 'questionable point of doctrine or discipline' did he introduce hereby or by ordaining Celerinus, 'who was overruled and compelled by a divine vision to accept that office' So you affirm Cyprian says. But Cyprian says it not--at least, not in those words which you cite in the margin, which, literally translated, run thus: 'I recommend to you Celerinus, joined to our clergy, not by human suffrage, but by the divine favour.' ['Non humane suffragatione, sed divina dignatione,conjunctum' (Epis xxxiv.).] 'In another letter, speaking of Aurelius, whom he had ordained a reader, he says to his clergy and people, " In ordaining clergy, my dearest brethren, I use to consult you first; but there is no need to wait for human testimonies when the divine suffrage has been already signified."' An impartial man would wonder what you could infer from these five passages put together. Why, by the help of a short postulatum, 'He was fond of power' (you have as much ground to say, 'He was fond of bloodshed'), you will make it plain, 'this was all a trick to enlarge his episcopal authority.' But as that postulatum is not allowed, you have all your work to begin again.

Indeed, you do not now mention Montanus because it is anything to the question, but only to make way for observing that those who wrote against him 'employed such arguments against his prophecy as shake the credit of all prophecy. For Epiphanius makes this the very criterion between a true and a false prophet, " that the true had no ecstasies, constantly retained his senses, and with firmness of mind apprehended and uttered the divine oracles."' Sir, have you not mistook Have you not transcribed one sentence in the margin and translated another That sentence which stands in your margin is this: 'When there was need, the saints of God among the Prophets prophesied all things with the true Spirit and with a sound understanding and reasonable mind.' Now, it is difficult to find out how this comes to 'shake the credit of all prophecy.' 12. Why thus: 'Before the Montanists had brought those ecstasies into disgrace, the prophecy of the orthodox too was exerted in ecstasy. And so were the prophecies of the Old Testament, according to the current opinion of those earlier days.' (Page 111.) That this was then 'the current opinion' you bring three citations to prove. But if you could cite three Fathers more during the first three centuries expressly affirming that the Prophets were all out of their senses, I would not take their word. For though I take most of the Fathers to have been wise and good men, yet I know none of them were infallible. But do even these three expressly affirm it No, not one of them--at least, in the words you have cited. From Athenagoras you cite only part of a sentence, which, translated as literally as it will well bear, runs thus: 'Who in an ecstasy of their own thoughts, being moved by the Divine Spirit, spoke the things with which they were inspired even as a piper breathes into a pipe.' Does Athenagoras expressly affirm in these words that the Prophets were 'transported out of their senses' I hope, sir, you do not understand Greek. If so, you show here only a little harmless ignorance.

10. From page 127 to page 158 you relate miracles said to be wrought in the fourth century. I have no concern with these; but I must weigh an argument which you intermix therewith again and again. It is in substance this: 'If we cannot believe the miracles attested by the later Fathers, then we ought not to believe those which are attested by the earliest writers of the Church.' I answer: The consequence is not good, because the case is not the same with the one and with the other. Several objections which do not hold with regard to the earlier may lie against the later miracles,--drawn either from the improbability of the facts themselves, such as we have no precedent of in holy writ; from the incompetency of the instruments said to perform them, such as bones, relics, or departed saints; or from the gross 'credulity of a prejudiced or the dishonesty of an interested relater' (page 145). 11. One or other of these objections holds against most of the later though not the earlier miracles. And if only one holds, it is enough; it is ground sufficient for making the difference. If, therefore, it was true that there was not a single Father of the fourth age who was not equally pious with the best of the more ancient, still we might consistently reject most of the miracles of the fourth while we allowed those of the preceding ages, both because of the far greater improbability of the facts themselves and because of the incompetency of the instruments. (Page 159.) But it is not true that 'the Fathers of the fourth age' whom you mention were equally pious with the best of the preceding ages. Nay, according to your account (which I shall not now contest), they were not pious at all; for you say, 'They were wilful, habitual liars.' And if so, they had not a grain of piety. Now, that the earlier Fathers were not such has been shown at large; though, indeed, you complimented them with the same character. Consequently, whether these later Fathers are to be believed or no, we may safely believe the former, who dared not to do evil that good might come or to lie either for God or man.

12. I had not intended to say anything more concerning any of the miracles of the later ages; but your way of accounting for one, said to have been wrought in the fifth, is so extremely curious that I cannot pass it by. The story, it seems, is this: 'Hunneric, an Arian prince, in his persecution of the orthodox in Afric, ordered the tongues of a certain society of them to be cut out by the roots. But, by a surprising instance of God's good providence, they were enabled to speak articulately and distinctly without their tongues. And so, continuing to make open profession of the same doctrine, they became not only preachers but living witnesses of its truth.' (Page 182.) Do not mistake me, sir: I have no design at all to vouch for the truth of this miracle. I leave it just as I find it. But what I am concerned with is your manner of accounting for it. 13. And, first, you say: 'It may not improbably be supposed that though their tongues were ordered to be cut to the roots, yet the sentence might not be so strictly executed as not to leave in some of them such a share of that organ as was sufficient in a tolerable degree for the use of speech' (page 183). So you think, sir, if only an inch of a man's tongue were to be neatly taken off, he would be able to talk tolerably well as soon as the operation was over. But the most marvellous part is still behind. For you add: 'To come more close to the point,--if we should allow that the tongues of these confessors were cut away to the very roots, what will the learned doctor say if this boasted miracle should be found at last to be no miracle at all' (page 184). 'Say' Why, that you have more skill than all the 'strolling wonder-workers' of the first three centuries put together.

Might it not be well, sir, not to be quite so sure yet You may not always have the laugh on your side. You are not yet infallibly assured but that even Protestantism may produce something worth an answer. There may be some Protestants, for aught you know, who have a few grains of common sense left, and may find a way to defend, at least the Ante-Nicene Fathers, without 'disgracing their own character.' Even such an one as I have faintly attempted this; although I neither have, nor expect to have, any preferment, not even to be a Lambeth chaplain, which if Dr. Middleton is not, it is not his own fault. V. 1. The last thing you proposed was 'to refute some of the most plausible objections which have been hitherto made.' To what you have offered on this head I must likewise attempt a short reply. You say: 'It is objected, first, that, by the character I have given of the Fathers, the authority of the books of the New Testament, which were transmitted to us through their hands, will be rendered precarious and uncertain' (page 190). After a feint of confuting it, you frankly acknowledge the whole of this objection. 'I may venture,' you say, 'to declare that, if this objection be true, it cannot hurt my argument. For if it be natural and necessary that the craft and credulity of witnesses should always detract from the credit of their testimony, then who can help it And if this charge be proved on the Fathers, it must be admitted, how far soever the consequences may reach.' (Page 192.) 'If it be proved'! Very true. If that charge against the Fathers were really and substantially proved, the authority of the New Testament would be at an end so far as it depends on one kind of evidence. But that charge is not proved. Therefore even the traditional authority of the New Testament is as firm as ever. 2. 'It is objected,' you say, 'secondly, that all suspicion of fraud in the case of the primitive miracles is excluded by that public appeal and challenge which the Christian apologists make to their enemies the heathens to come and see with their own eyes the reality of the facts which they attest' (page 193).

‘Here we have,’ say you, ‘the true spirit and very essence of enthusiasm, which sets men above carnal reasoning and all conviction of plain Scripture’ (page 49). It may or may not: that is nothing to me. I am not above either reason or Scripture. To either of these I am ready to submit. But I cannot receive scurrilous invective instead of Scripture, nor pay the same regard to low buffoonery as to clear and cogent reasons. 23. With your two following pages I have nothing to do. But in the fifty-second I read as follows: ‘ “A Methodist,” says Mr. Wesley, “went to receive the sacrament, when God was pleased to let him see a crucified Savior.”’ Very well; and what is this brought to prove Why (1) that I am an enthusiast; (2) that I ‘encourage the notion of the real, corporal presence in the sacrifice of the Mass.’ How so why, ‘this is as good an argument for transubstantiation as several produced by Bellarmine’ (page 57). Very likely it may; and as good as several produced by you for the enthusiasm of the Methodists. 24. In that ‘seraphic rhapsody of divine love,’ as you term it, which you condemn in the lump as rant and madness, there are several scriptural expressions both from the Old and New Testament. At first I imagined you did not know them, those being books which you did not seem to be much acquainted with. But, upon laying circumstances together, I rather suppose you was glad of so handsome an opportunity to make as if you aimed at me, that you might have a home-stroke at some of those old enthusiasts. 25. The next words which you cite from me as a proof of my enthusiasm are, ‘The power of God was in an unusual manner present’ (page 61). I mean many found an unusual degree of that peace, joy, and love which St. Paul terms ‘the fruit of the Spirit.’ And all these, in conformity to his doctrine, I ascribe to the power of God. I know you, in conformity to your principles, ascribe them to the power of nature. But I still believe, according to the old, scriptural hypothesis, that whenever, in hearing the word of God, men are filled with peace and love, God ‘confirms that word by the Holy Ghost given unto those that hear it.’

To John Baily Date: LIMERICK, June 8, 1750. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1750) Author: John Wesley --- REVEREND SIR, -- 1. Why do you not subscribe your name to a performance so perfectly agreeing both as to the matter and form with the sermons you have been occasionally preaching for more than a year last past As to your seeming to disclaim it by saying once and again, ‘I am but a plain, simple man,’ and ‘The doctrine you teach is only a revival of the old Antinomian heresy, I think they call it,’ I presume it is only a pious fraud. But how came so plain and simple a man to know the meaning of the Greek word Philalethes Sir, this is not of a piece. If you did not care to own your child, had not you better have subscribed the second (as well as the first) letter George Fisher [The letter thus subscribed was published in Cork on May 30, 1750.] 2. I confess you have timed your performance well. When the other pointless thing was published, I came unluckily to Cork on the selfsame day. But you might now suppose I was at a convenient distance. However, I will not plead this as an excuse for taking no notice of your last favor; although, to say the truth, I scarce know how to answer it, as you write in a language I am not accustomed to. Both Dr. Tucker, Dr. Church, and all the other gentlemen who have wrote to me in public for some years have wrote as gentlemen, having some regard to their own, whatever my character was. But as you fight in the dark, you regard not what weapons you use. We are not, therefore, on even terms: I cannot answer you in kind; I am constrained to leave this to your good allies of Blackpool and Fair Lane. [Celebrated parts of Cork.] I shall first state the facts on which the present controversy turns, and then consider the most material parts of your performance.

I. I am to state the facts. But here I am under a great disadvantage, having few of my papers by me. Excuse me, therefore, if I do not give so full an account now, as I may possibly do hereafter; if I only give you for the present the extracts of some papers which were lately put into my hands, 1. ' THOMAS JONES, of Cork, merchant, deposes, ‘That on May 3, 1749, Nicholas Butler, ballad-singer, came before the house of this deponent, and assembled a large mob: that this deponent went to Daniel Crone, Esq., then Mayor of Cork, and desired that he would put a stop to those riots; asking at the same time whether he gave the said Butler leave to go about in this manner: that Mr. Mayor said he neither gave him leave, neither did he hinder him: that in the evening Butler gathered a larger mob than before, and went to the house where the people called Methodists were assembled to hear the word of God, and as they came out threw dirt and hurt several of them. That on May 4 this deponent with some others went to the Mayor and told what had been done; adding, “If your Worship pleases only to speak three words to Butler, it will all be over”: that the Mayor gave his word and honor there should be no more of it, he would put an entire stop to it: that, notwithstanding, a larger mob than ever came to the house the same evening: that they threw much dirt and many stones at the people, both while they were in the house and when they came out: that the mob then fell upon them, both on men and women, with clubs, hangers, and swords; so that many of them were much wounded and lost a considerable quantity of blood.

‘That on May 5 this deponent informed the Mayor of all, and also that Butler had openly declared there should be a greater mob than ever there was that night: that the Mayor promised he would prevent it: that in the evening Butler did bring a greater mob than ever: that this deponent, hearing the Mayor designed to go out of the way, set two men to watch him, and when the riot was begun went to the ale-house and inquired for him: that the woman of the house denying he was there, this deponent insisted he was, declared he would not go till he had seen him, and began searching the house: that Mr. Mayor then appearing, he demanded his assistance to suppress a riotous mob: that when the Mayor came in sight of them, he beckoned to Butler, who immediately came down from the place where he stood: that the Mayor then went with this deponent, and looked on many of the people covered with dirt and blood: that some of them still remained in the house, fearing their lives, till James Chatterton and John Reilly, Esqrs., Sheriffs of Cork, and Hugh Millard, jun., Esq., Alderman, turned them out to the mob and nailed up the doors.’ 2. ‘ELIZABETH HOLLERAN, of Cork, deposes, ‘That on May 3, as she was going down to Castle Street, she saw Nicholas Butler on a table, with ballads in one hand and a Bible in the other: that she expressed some concern thereat; on which Sheriff Reilly ordered his bailiff to carry her to Bridewell: that afterward the bailiff came and said his master ordered she should be carried to jail: and that she continued in jail from May 3, about eight in the evening, till between ten and twelve on May 5.’ 3. ‘JOHN STOCKDALE, of Cork, tallow-chandler, deposes,

The first you preface thus: 'Upon the people's ill usage (or supposed ill usage) of Mr. Wesley in Georgia, and their speaking of all manner of evil falsely (as he says) against him, and trampling under-foot the word after having been very attentive to it, what an emotion in him is hereby raised I “I do hereby bear witness against myself that I could scarce refrain from giving the lie to experience and reason and Scripture all together.”’ The passage as I wrote it stands thus: 'Sunday, March 7. I entered upon my ministry at Savannah. In the Second Lesson (Luke xviii.) was our Lord's prediction of the treatment which He Himself, and consequently His followers, were to meet with from the world.... ‘Yet, notwithstanding these plain declarations of our Lord, notwithstanding my own repeated experience, notwithstanding the experience of all the sincere followers of Christ whom I ever talked with, read, or heard of -- nay, and the reason of the thing evincing to a demonstration that all who love not the light must hate him who is continually laboring to pour it in upon them -- I do here bear witness against myself that when I saw the number of people crowding into the church, the deep attention with which they received the word, and the seriousness that afterwards sat on all their faces, I could scarce refrain from giving the lie to experience and reason and Scripture all together. I could hardly believe that the greater, the far greater part of this attentive, serious people would hereafter trample under-foot that word, and say all manner of evil falsely of him that spoke it.’ (i. 176-9.) Sir, does this prove me guilty of skepticism or infidelity, of doubting or denying the truth of Revelation Did I speak this ‘upon the people using me ill and saying all manner of evil against me’ Or am I here describing ‘any emotion raised in me hereby’ Blush, blush, sir, if you can blush. You had here no possible room for mistake. You grossly and willfully falsify the whole passage to support a groundless, shameless accusation.

You quote, fifthly, these words: ‘I spent an hour with Stonehouse. Oh what paa, “persuasiveness of speech,” is here! Surely all the deceivableness of unrighteousness.’ (Journal. ii. 394.) But there was no fierceness or rancor on either side. The passage, a fragment of which you produce as a sixth argument, stands thus: ‘A few of us had a long conference together. Mr. Cennick now told me plainly he could not agree with me, because I did not preach the truth, particularly with regard to Election.’ He did so; but without any rancor. We had a long conference; but not a fierce one. (ii. 408-9.) You, seventhly, observe, ‘What scurrility of language the Moravians throw out against Mr. Wesley!’ Perhaps so. But this will not prove that ‘the Methodists quarrel with each other.’ ‘And how does he turn their own artillery upon them!’ This is your eighth argument. But if I do, this no more proves the ‘mutual quarrels of the Methodists’ than my turning your own artillery upon you. 33. Having, by these eight irrefragable arguments, dearly carried the day, you raise your crest, and cry out, ‘Is this Methodism And reign such mortal feuds in heavenly minds’ Truly, sir, you have not yet brought one single proof (and yet I dare say you have brought the very best you have) of any such feuds among the Methodists as may not be found among the most heavenly-minded men on earth. But you are resolved to pursue your victory, and so go on: ‘What are we to think of these charges of Whitefield and Wesley and the Moravians one against another’ The Moravians, sir, are out of the question; for they are no Methodists: and as to the rest, Mr. Whitefield charges Mr. Wesley withholding Universal Redemption, and I charge him with holding Particular Redemption. This is the standing charge on either side. And now, sir, ‘what are we to think’ Why, that you have not proved one point of this charge against the Methodists. However, you stumble on: ‘Are these things so Are they true, or are they not true If not true, they are grievous calumniators; if true, they are detestable sectarists. Whether true or false, the allegation stands good of their fierce and rancorous quarrels and mutual heinous accusations.’

I had occasion once before to say to an opponent, ‘You know not to show mercy.’ Yet that gentleman did regard truth and justice. But you regard neither mercy, justice, nor truth. To vilify, to blacken is your one point. I pray God it may not be laid to your charge! May He show you mercy, though you show none I --I am, sir, Your friend and well-wisher.

Your Lordship adds: 'The following attestations will sufficiently clear me from any imputation or even suspicion of having published a falsehood.’ I apprehend otherwise; to waive what is past, if the facts now published by your Lordship, or any part of them, be not true, then certainly your Lordship will be under more than a ‘suspicion of having published a falsehood.’ The attestations your Lordship produces are (1) those of your Lordship’s Chancellor and Archdeacon; 2) those of Mr. Bennet. The former attests that on June or July 1748 Mrs. Morgan did say those things to your Lordship (page 8). I believe she did, and therefore acquit your Lordship of being the inventor of those falsehoods. Mr. Bennet avers that in January last Mrs. Morgan repeated to him what she had before said to your Lordship (page 11). Probably she might: having said these things one, I do not wonder if she said them again. Nevertheless Beam Mr. Trembath and Mr. Haime she denied every word of it To get over this difficulty your Lordship publishes a second letter from Mr. Bennet, wherein he says, ‘On March 4 last Mrs. Morgan said, "I was told by my servant that I was wanted above-stairs; where, when I came, the chamber door being open I found them" (Mr. Wesley and others) “round the table on their knees.”’ He adds: ‘That Mrs. Morgan owned one circumstance in it was true; but as to the other parts of Mr. Wesley’s letter to the Bishop, she declares it is all false.’ I believe Min. Morgan did say this to Mr. Bennet, and that therefore nether is he ‘the maker of a lie.’ But he is the relater of a whole train of falsehoods, and those told merely for telling sake. I was never yet in any chamber at Mrs. Morgan’s. I was never above-stairs there in my life. On August 25, 1750, I was bellow-stars all the time I was in the house. When Mrs. Morgan came in, I was standing in the huge parlor; nor did any of us kneel while we were under the roof. This both Mr. Trembath and Mr. Haime can attest upon oath, whatsoever Mrs. Morgan may declare to ire contrary.

To Ebenezer Blackwell Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1753) Author: John Wesley --- LONDON June. 27 1753. DEAR SIR, -- Your speaking so freely lays me under a new obligation of speaking without any reserve. And the rather because you receive what is spoken in the manner which I desire -- that is, not so much regarding the person who speaks as the thing which is spoken. If there is truth and weight in this, let it stand; if not, let it fall to the ground. Some time since, I was considering what you said concerning our wanting a plan in our Societies. There is a good deal of truth in this remark; for although we have a plan as to our spiritual economy (the several branches of which are particularly recited in the Plain Account of the People called Methodists [See letter in Dec. 1748 to Vincent Perronet.]), yet it is certain we have barely the first outlines of a plan with regard to temporals. The reason is, I had no design for several years to concern myself with temporals at all. And when I began to do this, it was wholly and solely with a view to relieve not employ the poor, unless now and then with respect to a small number; and even this I found was too great a burthen for me, as requiring both more money, more time, and more thought than I could possibly spare: I say, than I could spare; for the whole weight laid on me. If I left it to others, it surely came to nothing. They wanted either understanding, or industry, or love, or patience to bring anything to perfection. Thus far I thought it needful to explain myself with regard to the economy of our Society. I am still to speak of your case, of my own, and of some who are dependent on me. I do not recollect (for I kept no copy of my last) that I charged you with want of humility or meekness. Doubtless these may be found in the most splendid palaces. But did they ever move a man to build a splendid palace Upon what motive you did this I know not; but you are to answer it to God, not to me.

‘True faith h a divine light in the soul that discovers the laws of eternal order, the all of God, and the nothingness of the creatures.’ It does; but is discovers first of all that Christ loved me, and gave Himself for me, and washes me from my sins in His own blood. -- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother.

To Ebenezer Blackwell Date: MANCHESTER April 9, 1755. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1755) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, -- Being fully persuaded that my brother would gladly embrace any overture of peace, I told him almost as soon as we met what my wife had agreed to. He answered not a word. After a day or two I spoke to him again. It had the same success. The Sunday before he left Bristol I desired to speak to him, but he did not come. Just as I was going out of town the next morning he sent to me to can at his house. But I could not then; and before I came back he was set out for London, only leaving a note that he had left his answer with Lady Huntingdon. It may be so; but I saw her twice afterwards, and she said nothing of it to me. Nether am I (any more than my wife) willing to refer the matter to her arbitration. [See next letter.] From the whole I learn that there is no prospect of peace. When one is willing, then the other flies off. I shall profit by both; but I am sorry to do it at the expense of others. I have another favor to beg of you -- to procure Mr. Belcher's [See letters of March 15, 1748, and May 28, 1757.] leave for me to enclose my proof-sheets [Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament. The work was begun on Jan. 6, 1754. See Journal, iv. 91; Green’s Bibliography, No. 172; and letter of June 20.] to him. Mr. C. Perronet [Charles Perronet had charge of the Notes, which Wesley was passing through the press. See Jackson’s Ch~s Wesley, ii. 87; and letter of Sept. 12 to Blackwell.] sends them down to me in thanks; then I correct and send them back to him. The next week I am to spend at Liverpool. Toward the end of the week following I hope to be at Haworth, near Keighley, in Yorkshire. God has blessed me with a prosperous journey hither, though the roads and the weather were rough. I hope both Mrs. Blackwell and you are making the best use of a~ things, rough and smooth. That is the part of a good solder of Jesus Christ, -- To trace His example, the world to disdain,

To Richard Tompson Date: LONDON, June 28 1755. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1755) Author: John Wesley --- Some days since, I received your favor of the 22nd instant, which came exceeding seasonably; for I was just revising my Notes on the 5th chapter to the Romans; one of which I found, upon a closer inspection, seemed to assert such an imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity as might make way for the ‘horrible decree.’ I therefore struck it out immediately; as I would willingly do whatsoever should appear to be any way inconsistent with that grand principle, ‘The Lord is loving to every man; and His mercy is over all His works.’ If you have observed anything in any of the tracts I have published which you think is not agreeable to Scripture and reason, you will oblige me by pointing it out, and by communicating to me any remarks you have occasionally made. I seek two things in this world -- truth and love. Whoever assists me in this search is a friend indeed, whether personally known or unknown to, Your humble servant.

To Richard Tompson Date: LONDON July 25, 1755. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1755) Author: John Wesley --- SIR, -- It would be a pleasure to me to write more largely than my time will now permit. Of all the disputants I have known, you are the most likely to convince me of any mistakes I may be in, because you have found out the great secret of speaking the truth in love. When it is thus proposed, it must surely win its way into every heart which is not purposely shut against it. That you may deafly see wherein we agree or wherein we differ, I have sent you the Minutes of some of our late Conferences. Several concessions are made therein, both with regard to Assurance and Christian Perfection; some difficulties cleared, and a few arguments proposed, though very nakedly and briefly. When you have read these, you may come directly to any point of controversy which may still remain; and ff you can show me that any farther concessions are needful, I shall make them with great pleasure. On the subject of your last I can but just observe, first, with regard to the assurance of faith, I apprehend that the whole Christian Church in the first centuries enjoyed it. For though we have few points of doctrine explicitly taught in the small remains of the ante-Nicene Fathers, yet I think none that carefully reads Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Origen, or any other of them, can doubt whether either the writer himself possessed it or all whom he mentions as real Christians. And I ready conceive, both from the Harrnonia Confessionurn and whatever else I have occasionally read, that all the Reformed Churches in Europe did once believe ‘Every true Christian has the divine evidence of his being in favor with God.’ So much for authority. The point of experience is touched upon in the Conferences. As to the nature of the thing, I think a divine conviction of pardon is directly implied in the evidence or conviction of things unseen. But if not, it is no absurdity to suppose that, when God pardons a mourning, broken-hearted sinner, His mercy obliges Him to another act -- to witness to his spirit that He has pardoned him.

To Samuel Walker Date: BRISTOL September 24, 1755 Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1755) Author: John Wesley --- REVEREND DEAR SIR, -- 1. You greatly oblige me by speaking your thoughts so freely, and the more by giving me hopes of seeing your farther sentiments on so nice and important an affair. I did not delay one day to follow your advice with regard to Mr. Adam, but sent him by the very next post a copy of those papers; although I am satisfied already as to the publishing them, and have laid aside that design, the reasons you urge against the expediency of it being abundantly sufficient. But you seem a little to misapprehend what we speak of hearing predestinarian preachers. We find by long experience that this is ‘deadly poison,’ not in itself but to the members of our Societies. This we know to be unquestionable truth; and it is a truth necessary to be observed, nay, and strongly insisted on (though without any deign of bearing hard on any particular person), when many were enlarging on ‘the poisonous doctrines’ which they heard at many of their parish churches. 2. All that you say concerning the inexpediency of a separation from the Church I readily allow; as likewise that the first and main question must be, ‘Is it lawful to separate’ Accordingly this was debated first, and that at large, in seven or eight long conversations. And it was then only, when we could not agree concerning the, that we proceeded to weigh the expediency of it. 3. As to the grounds on which those who plead for separation from the Church proceed, some of them have weighed the point long and deeply. They have very particularly, and with earnest and continued prayer, considered the lawfulness of it. And they allow, ‘If it be lawful to abide therein, then it is not lawful to separate.’ But they aver, ‘It is not lawful to abide therein’; and that for the following reasons: --

‘(11) Wrath and evil are but two words for the same thing’' (ibid.). This is home; but it cannot be granted without proof. ‘(12) God is as incapable of wrath as of thickness, hardness, and darkness, because wrath can exist nowhere else but in thickness, and hardness, and darkness’ (page 71). So far from it, that wrath cannot exist in thickness or hardness at all. For these are qualities of bodies, and nothing can be wrathful but spirit. ‘(13) Wrath cannot be in any creature till it has lost its first perfection’ (page 72). That remains to be proved. Thus far you have advanced arguments for your doctrine. Your next attempt to answer objections. And to the objection that Scripture speaks so frequently of the wrath of God you answer, -- ‘(1) All the wrath and vengeance that ever was in any creature is to be called and looked on as the wrath and vengeance of God.’ I totally deny that proposition, and call for the proof of it. ‘(2), God works everything in nature. Therefore all death or rage or curse, wherever it is, must be said in the language of Scripture to be the wrath or vengeance of God’ (Page 55.) I deny the consequence. The latter proposition does not follow from the former. And, indeed, it is not true. All death and rage and curse is not in the language of Scripture termed the wrath and vengeance of God. ‘3) Because the devils have their life from God, therefore their cursed, miserable, wrathful life is said to be the curse and misery and wrath of God upon them’(page 53). Neither can this be proved, that the devils having their life from God is the reason why they are said to be under His wrath. Nor does the Scripture ever term their wrathful, miserable life the wrath or misery of God. ‘4) Devils are His as wall as holy angels. Therefore all the wrath and rage of the one must be as truly His wrath and rage burning in them as the joy the others is His joy.’ (Page 54.)

You add: ‘His Spirit is more distinguishable from all other spirits than any of your natural affections are from one another’ (page 199). Suppose joy and grief: is it more distinguishable from all other spirits than these are from one another Did any man ever mistake grief for joy No, not from the beginning of the world. But did none ever mistake nature for grace Who will be so hardy as to affirm this But you set your pupil as much above the being taught by books as being taught by men. ‘Seek,’ say you, ‘for help no other way, neither from men nor books; but wholly leave yourself to God’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. p. 225). But how can a man ‘leave himself wholly to God’ in the total neglect of His ordinances The old Bible way is to ‘leave ourselves wholly to God’ in the constant use of all the means He hath ordained. And I cannot yet think the new is better, though you are fully persuaded it is. ‘There are two ways,’ you say, ‘of attaining goodness and virtue: the one by books or the ministry of men; the other by an inward birth. The former is only in order to the latter.’ This is most true, that all the externals of religion are in order to the renewal of our soul in righteousness and true holiness, But it is not true that the external way is one and the internal way another. There is but one scriptural way wherein we receive inward grace -- through the outward means which God hath appointed.

Some might think that when you advised ‘not to seek help from books’ you did not include the Bible. But you clear up this where you answer the objection of your not esteeming the Bible enough. You say: ‘How could you more magnify John the Baptist than by going from his teaching to be taught by that Christ to whom he directed you Now, the Bible can have no other office or power than to direct you to Christ. How, then, can you more magnify the Bible than by going from its teaching to be taught by Christ’ So you set Christ and the Bible in flat opposition to each other! And is this the way we are to learn of Him Nay, but we are taught of Him, not by going from the Bible, but by keeping close to it. Both by the Bible and by experience we know that His Word and His Spirit act in connection with each other. And thus it is that, by Christ continually teaching and strengthening him through the Scripture, ‘the man of God is made perfect, and thoroughly furnished for every good word and work.’ According to your veneration for the Bible is your regard for public worship and for the Lord's Supper. ‘Christ,’ you say, ‘is the church or temple of God within thee. There the supper of the Lamb is kept. When thou art well grounded in this inward worship, thou wilt have learned to live unto God above time and place. For every day will be Sunday to thee, and wherever thou goest thou wilt have a priest, a church, and an altar along with thee.’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part I. p. 73.) The plain inference is: Thou wilt not need to make any difference between Sunday and other days. Thou wilt need no other church than that which thou hast always along with thee; no other supper, worship, priest, or altar. Be well grounded in this inward worship, and it supersedes all the rest.

Doubtless this eminent man (whose books on the Human Understanding and on Divine Analogy I would earnestly recommend to all who either in whole or in part deny the Christian Revelation) grounded his judgment both of the nature and duration of future punishments on these and the like passages of Scripture: -- ‘If we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge Of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins; but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy: of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God! For we know Him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto Me, I will recompense. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.’ (Heb. x. 26-31.)

To William Dodd Date: LONDON, February 5, 1756. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1756) Author: John Wesley --- REVRAND SIR -- I am favored with yours of January 26, for which I return you my sincere thanks. Your frank and open manner of writing is far from needing any apology and I hope will never occasion your receiving such treatment from me as I did from Mr. Law, who, after some very keen expressions, in answer to the second private letter I sent him, plainly told me he desired to ‘hear no more on that head.’ I do desire to hear, and am very willing to consider whatever you have to advance on the head of Christian Perfection. When I began to make the Scriptures my study (about seven-and-twenty years ago), I began to see that Christians are called to love God with all their heart and to serve Him with all their strength; which is precisely what I apprehend to be meant by the scriptural term Perfection. After weighing this for some years, I openly declared my sentiments before the University [On Jan. 1, 1733. See Works, v. 202-12.] in the sermon on the Circumcision of the Heart, now printed in the second volume. About six years after, in consequence of an advice I received from Bishop Gibson, ‘Tell all the world what you mean by perfection,’ I published my coolest and latest thoughts in the sermon on that subject. I therein build on no authority, ancient or modern, but the Scripture. If this supports any doctrine it will stand; if not, the sooner it falls the better. Neither the doctrine in question nor any other is anything to me, unless it be the doctrine of Christ and His Apostles. If, therefore, you will please to point out to me any passages in that sermon which are either contrary to Scripture or not supported by it, and to show that they are not, I shall be full as willing to oppose as ever I was to defend them. I search for truth, plain Bible truth, without any regard to the praise or dispraise of men. If you will assist me in this search, more especially by showing me where I have mistaken my way, it will be gratefully acknowledged by, reverend sir, Your affectionate brother and servant.

If you are master of Hutcheson’s [Francis Hutcheson (1694-1764), Professor of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow x729-46. His System of Moral Philosophy was published by his son in 1755. See Journal, v. 492; and letter of March 14.] Metaphysicks and Clerc’s [Jean Le Clerc (1657-1736), professor in Amsterdam.] Ontologia, I advise you to look no farther that way; unless you would add Malebranche’s Search after Truth [Nicolas Malebranche (1658-1715). His De la Recherche de la Vrit, 1674, regards the intervention of God as necessary to bridge the gun between the human soul and body. It is mentioned in the Address among books to be read.] or the Bishop of Cork’s two books [In December of this year Wesley began reading with his preachers the Bishop of Cork's Procedure (or Progress), Extent and Limits of Human Understanding, which he thought superior to Locke’s treatise (see Journal, iv. 192; and for his earlier references, the letters of Oct. 3, 1730, and Feb. 13, 1731). Possibly the other book recommended was Dr. Browne’s Things Divine and Supernatural Conceived by Analogy with Things Natural and Human, 1733.] again. The main point is, with all and above all, study the Greek and Hebrew Bible, and the love of Christ. -- I am Yours affectionately.

13. In your last paragraph you say, ‘You set aside all authority, ancient and modern.’ Sir, who told you so I never did; it never entered my thoughts. Who it was gave you that rule I know not; but my father gave it me thirty years ago (I mean concerning reverence to the ancient Church and our own), and I have endeavored to walk by it to this day. But I try every Church and every doctrine by the Bible. This is the word by which we are to be judged in that day. Oh that we may then give up our account with joy! Whatever farther thoughts you are pleased to communicate will be seriously considered by, reverend dear sir, Your affectionate brother and fellow laborer.

To Nicholas Norton Date: KINGSWOOD, September 3, 1756. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1756) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- In your letters of July, and August 27, you charge me (1) with self-inconsistency in tolerating lay-preaching, and not lay-administering; and (2) with showing a spirit of persecution in denying my brethren the liberty of acting (as well as thinking) according to their own conscience. As to the former charge, the fact alleged is true: I do tolerate unordained persons in preaching the gospel, whereas I do not tolerate them in administrating the sacraments. But it is not true I am inconsistent in so doing. I act on one and the same principle still. My principle (frequently declared) is thus: ‘I submit to every ordinance of man wherever I do not conceive there is an absolute necessity for acting contrary to it.’ Consistently with this I do tolerate lay-preaching, because I conceive there is an absolute necessity for it; inasmuch as, were it not, thousands of souls would perish everlastingly. Yet I do not tolerate lay-administering, because I do not conceive there is any such necessity for it; seeing it does not appear that, if this is not all, one soul will perish for want of it. I am therefore so far from self-inconsistency in tolerating the former and not the latter, that I readily should be self-inconsistent were I to act otherwise: were I to break, or allow others to break, an ordinance of man, where there is no necessity, I should contradict my own principle as much as if I did not allow it to be broken where there is.

It will not answer it so well even with regard to those Societies with whom Peter Jaco and Thomas Johnson have settled. Be their talents ever so great, they will ere long grow dead themselves, and so will most of those that hear them. I know, were I myself to preach one whole year in one place, I should preach both myself and most of my congregation asleep. Nor can I believe it was ever the will of our Lord that any congregation should have one teacher only. We have found by long and constant experience that a frequent change of teachers is best. This preacher has one talent, that another. No one whom I ever yet knew has all the talents which are needful for beginning continuing and perfecting the work of grace in an whole congregation. But suppose this would better answer the end with regard to those two Societies, would it answer in those where W. Alwood and W. Crabb were settled as inspectors or readers First, who shall feed them with the milk of the Word The ministers of their parishes Alas, they cannot! they themselves neither know, nor live, nor teach the gospel. These readers Can, then, either they or I or you always find something to read to our congregation which will be as exactly adapted to their wants and as much blessed to them as our preaching And here is another difficulty still: what authority have I to forbid their doing what I believe God has called them to do I apprehend, indeed, that there ought, if possible, to be both an outward and inward call to this work; yet, if one of the two be supposed wanting I had rather want the outward than the inward call. I rejoice that I am called to preach the gospel both by God and man. Yet I acknowledge I had rather have the divine without the human than the human without the divine call.

4. Concerning diocesan Episcopacy, there are several questions which I should be glad to have answered: as (1) Where is it prescribed in Scripture (2) How does it appear that the Apostles settled it in all the Churches which they planted (3) How does it appear they settled it in any so as to make it of perpetual obligation It is allowed that Christ and His Apostles settled the Church under some form of government. But (i) Did they put all Churches under the same precise form If they did, (ii) Can you prove this to be the precise form and the very same which now obtains in England 5. How Phavorinus [Favorinus, so called from Favera, his birthplace, was a Benedictine, who in 1512 became librarian to the future Leo X. He was made Bishop of Nuceria in 1514, and died in 1537. He compiled a Greek Lexicon.] or many more may define heresy or schism I am not concerned to know. I well know heresy is vulgarly defined ‘a false opinion touching some necessary article of faith, and schism a causeless separation from a true Church.’ But I keep to my Bible, as our Church in her Sixth Article teaches me; therefore I cannot take schism for a separation from a Church, because I cannot find it so taken in Scripture. The first time I meet the term there is 1 Corinthians i. 10: I meet with it again, chap. xi. 18. But it is plain in both places by schism is meant not any separation from the Church but uncharitable divisions in it. For the Corinthians continued to be one Church, notwithstanding then strife and contention; there was no separation of one part from the other with regard to external communion. It is in the same sense the word is used chap. xii. 25. And these are the only places in the New Testament where the term occurs. Therefore the indulging any unkind temper towards our fellow Christians is the true scriptural schism.

Indeed, both heresy and schism (which are works of the flesh, and consequently damnable if not repented) are here mentioned by the Apostle in very near the same sense; unless by schisms be meant rather those inward animosity which occasioned heresies -- that is, outward divisions and parties. So that while one said, ‘I am Paul; another, I am of Apollos,’ this implied both heresy and schism: so wonderfully have latter ages distorted the words ‘heresies’ and ‘schisms’ from their scriptural meaning! Heresy is not in all the Bible taken for an error in fundamentals, nor in anything ere; nor schism for any separation from the communion of others. Therefore heresy and schism in the modern sense of the words are sins that the Scriptures know nothing of. 6. But though I aver this, am I quite indifferent to any man’s principles in religion Far from it; as I have declared again and again, in the very sermon under present consideration, in the Character of a Methodist, in the Plain Account, and twenty tracts besides, I have written severally against Deists, Papists, Mystics, &c. An odd way to ingratiate myself with them, to strike at the apple of their eye! [The version followed here and in the other letter to Clark is that which appears in Montanus Redivivus. Compare sect. 6 with that in Works, xiii. 214-15.] Nevertheless in all things indifferent (but not at the expense of truth) I rejoice to please all men for their good to edification, if happily I may gain the more proselytes to genuine scriptural Christianity, if I may prevail on the more to love God and their neighbor and to walk as Christ walked. So far as I find them obstructive of these, I oppose opinions with my might; though even then rather by guarding those that are free than by disputing with those that are deeply infected: I need not dispute with many of them to know there is no probability of success or of convincing them. A thousand times I have found my father’s word true: ‘You may have peace with the Dissenters, if you do not so humor them as to dispute with them; if you do, they will outface and outlung you, and at the end you will be just where you were in the beginning.’

‘The second covenant was not made with Adam or any of his posterity, but with Christ, in those words, “The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head”’ (page 303). For any authority you have from these words, you might as well have said it was made with the Holy Ghost. These words were not spoken to Christ but of Him, and give not the least intimation of any such covenant as you plead for. They manifestly contain, if not a covenant made with, a promise made to Adam and all his posterity. ‘Christ, we see, undertook to execute the conditions’ (ibid.). We see no such thing in this text. We see here only a promise of a Savior made by God to man. ‘It is true I cannot fulfill the conditions’ (ibid.). It is not true. The conditions of the new covenant are, ‘Repent and believe’; and these you can fulfill through Christ strengthening you. ‘It is equally true this is not required at my hands.’ It is equally true -- that is, absolutely false; and most dangerously false. If we allow this, Antinomianism comes in with a full tide. ‘Christ has performed all that was conditionary for me.’ Has He repented and believed for you You endeavor to evade this by saying, ‘He performed all that was conditionary in the covenant of works.’ This is nothing to the purpose; for we are not talking of that, but of the covenant of grace. Now, He did not perform all that was conditionary in this covenant unless He repented and believed. ‘But He did unspeakably more.’ It may be so; but He did not do this. ‘But if Christ's perfect obedience be ours, we have no more need of pardon than Christ Himself’ (page 308). The consequence is good. You have started an objection which you cannot answer. You say indeed, ‘Yes, we do need pardon; for in many things we offend all.’ What then If His obedience be ours, we still perfectly obey in Him.

‘Both the branches of the law, the preceptive and the penal, in the case of guilt contracted must be satisfied’ (page 309). Not so. ‘Christ by His death alone’ (so our Church teaches) ‘fully satisfied for the sins of the whole world.’ The same great truth is manifestly taught in the Thirty-first Article. Is it therefore fair, is it honest, for any one to plead the Articles of our Church in defense of Absolute Predestination, seeing the Seventeenth Article barely defines the term without either affirming or denying the thing, whereas the Thirty-first totally overthrows and razes it from the foundation ‘Believers who are notorious transgressors in themselves have a sinless obedience in Christ’ (ibid.). Oh syren song! Pleasing sound to James Wheatley, Thomas Williams, James Relly! I know not one sentence in the Eleventh Dialogue which is liable to exception; but that grand doctrine of Christianity, Original Sin, is therein proved by irrefragable arguments. The Twelfth likewise is unexceptionable, and contains such an illustration of the wisdom of God in the structure of the human body as I believe cannot be paralleled in either ancient or modem writers. The former part of the Thirteenth Dialogue is admirable: to the latter I have some objection. ‘Elijah failed in his resignation, and even Moses spake un-advisedly with his lips’ (vol. ii. p. 44). It is true; but if you could likewise fix some blot upon venerable Samuel and beloved Daniel, it would prove nothing. For no scripture teaches that the holiness of Christians is to be measured by that of any Jew. ‘Do not the best of men frequently feel disorder in their affections Do not they often complain, “When I would do good, evil is present with me”’ (Page 46.) I believe not. You and I are only able to answer for ourselves. ‘Do not they say, “We groan, being burthened with the workings of inbred corruption”’ You know this is not the meaning of the text. The whole context shows the cause of that groaning was their longing’ to be with Christ.’

To Samuel Walker Date: PENRYN, September 19, 1757. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1757) Author: John Wesley --- REVEEREND AND DEAR SIR, -- Nothing can be more kind than the mentioning to me whatever you think is amiss in my conduct; and the more freedom you use in doing this, the more I am indebted to you. I am thoroughly convinced that you ‘wish me well,’ and that it is this, together with a ‘concern for the common interests of religion,’ which obliges you to speak with more plainness than otherwise you would. The same motives induce me to lay aside aH reserve and tell you the naked sentiments of my heart. Two years since, eleven or twelve persons of Falmouth were members of our Society. Last year I was informed that a young man them had begun to teach them new opinions, and that soon after offence and prejudice crept in and increased till they were all torn asunder. What they have done since I know not; for they have no connection with us. I do ‘exert myself’ so far as to separate from us those that separate from the Church. But in a thousand other instances I feel the want of more resolution and firmness of spirit. Yet sometimes that may appear irresolution which is not so. I exercise as little authority as possible, because I am afraid of people’s depending upon me too much and paying me more reverence than they ought. But I proceed to the substance of your letter. You say, -- 1. ‘If you still hold the essence of justifying faith to lie in assurance, why did you encourage John Hingeston to believe his state good’ Assurance is a word I do not use because it is not scriptural. But I hold a divine evidence or conviction that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me is essential to if not the very essence of justifying faith. John Hingeston told me he had more than this, even a clear conviction that his sins were forgiven; although he said that conviction was not so clear now as it had been in time past.

To Samuel Furly Date: KINGSWOOD, October 14, 1757. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1757) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SAMMY, -- In the sermon on Justification by Faith (in the first volume of Sermons) my sentiments are expressed at large. There is certainly no such assertion in Scripture as ‘The righteousness of Christ is imputed to us.’ Yet we will not deny it if men only mean thereby that ‘we are accepted through His merits’ or ‘for the sake of what He has done and suffered for us.’ If they mean anything more, we cannot but deny it. Mr. Hervey is a deeply-rooted Antinomian -- that is, a Calvinist consistent with himself (which Mr. Whitefield is not, nor Robert Bolton [Robert Bolton (1572-1631), Fellow of Braenose College, and Rector of Broughton, Northants. Wesley included his Life in the Christian Library (iv. 231-330), and also Directions for Comfortable Walking with God, which he read and explained to the morning congregation at the Foundery. See Journal iv. 94; and letter of Dec. 20, 1760.] nor any Calvinist who is not a Latitudinarian). But in truth ornatus est pro suis instratibus, [‘He is adorned by Ms own caparisons.’] by the Scotch writer [John Glass or Robert Sandeman. See next letter.] of the Letters of the Author of ‘Theron and Aspasio,’ a man of admirable sense and learning, but a Calvinist and Antinomian to the bone; as you may judge from his vehement anger at Mr. Emkin, [Dr. John Erskine. See letter of April 24, 1755.] Cudworth, [See letter of Nov, 29 1758.] and Hervey for their legality! -- I am Your affectionate brother.

Very little better than this is your third definition: ‘The truth which a man believes is his faith’ (page 301). No it is not; no more than the light which a man sees is his sight. You must therefore guess again. ‘To believe this fact, Christ rose from the dead, is faith’ (page 169). ‘Ask a man, Is the gospel true or not If he holds it to be true, this is faith.’ (Page 296.) But is this saving faith ‘Yes, every one that believes the Gospel history shah be saved’ (page 333). This is flat and plain. And if it is but true, every devil in hell will be saved. For it is absolutely certain every one of these believes this fact -- Christ rose from the dead. It is certain every one of these believes the Gospel history. Therefore this is not saving faith; neither will every one be saved who believes this fact -- Christ rose from the dead. It follows that, whatever others do, you know not what faith is. I object thirdly, (1) That you yourself ‘shut up our access to the divine righteousness’; (2) that you vehemently contradict yourself, and do the very thing which you charge upon others. (1) You yourself shut up our access to the divine righteousness by destroying that repentance which Christ has made the way to it. ‘Ask men,’ you say, ‘have they sinned or not If they know they have, this is conviction. And this is preparation enough for mercy.’ Soft casuistry indeed! He that receives this saying is never likely either to ‘repent’ or ‘believe the gospel.’ And if he do not, he can have no access to the righteousness of Christ. Yet you strangely affirm: ‘A careless sinner is in full as hopeful a way as one that is the most deeply convicted’ (page 292). How can this be, if that conviction be from God Where He has begun the work, will He not finish it Have we not reason to hope this But in a careless sinner that work is not begun; perhaps never will be.

Again: whereas our Lord gives a general command, ‘Seek, and ye shah find,’ you say, ‘Saving faith was never yet sought or in the remotest manner wished for by an unbeliever’ (page 372); a proposition as contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture as to the experience of every true believer. Every one who now believes knows how he sought and wished for that faith before he experienced it. It is not true even with regard to your faith, a belief of the Bible. For I know Deists at this day who have often wished they could believe the Bible, and owned ‘it was happy for them that could.’ (2) You vehemently contradict yourself, and do the very thing which you charge upon others. ‘If we imagine we possess or desire to attain any requisite to our acceptance with God beside or in connection with the bare work of Christ, Christ shah profit us nothing’ (page 96). Again: ‘What is required of us in order to our acceptance with God Nothing. The least attempt to do anything is damnably criminal.’ Very good. Now for self-consistency: ‘What Christ has done is that which quiets the conscience of man as soon as he knows it. So that he need ask no more than, “Is it true or not” If he finds it true, he it happy. If he does not, he can reap no comfort from it. Our comfort arises from the persuasion of this.’ (Page 12.) Again: ‘Men are justified by a knowledge of the righteousness of Christ' (page 406). And yet again: ‘The sole requisite to acceptance is divine righteousness brought to view’ (page 291).

To the point then. The power I speak of is a power of decreeing rites and ceremonies, of appointing such circumstantials (suppose) of public worship as are in themselves purely indifferent, being no way determined in Scripture. And the question is, ‘Hath Christ expressly commanded that this power shall never be claimed nor ever yielded by any of His followers’ This I deny. How do you prove it Why, thus: ‘If the Church of England has this power, so has the Church of Rome’ (page 4). Allowed. But this is not to the purpose. I want ‘the express command of Christ.’ You say, ‘Secondly, the persons who have this power in England are not the clergy but the Parliament’ (pages 8-9). Perhaps so. But this also strikes wide. Where is ‘the express command of Christ’ You ask, ‘Thirdly, how came the civil magistrate by this power’ (Page 11.) ‘Christ commands us to “call no man upon earth father and master” -- that is, to acknowledge no authority of any in matters of religion’ (page 12). At length we are come to the express command, which, according to your interpretation, is express enough - ‘that is, Acknowledge no authority of any in matters of religion,’ own no power in any to appoint any circumstance of public worship, anything pertaining to decency and order. But this interpretation is not allowed. It is the very point in question. We allow Christ does here expressly command to acknowledge no such authority of any, as the Jews paid their Rabbis, whom they usually styled either fathers or masters, implicitly believing all they affirmed and obeying all they enjoined. But we deny that He expressly commands to acknowledge no authority of governors in things purely indifferent, whether they relate to the worship of God or other matters.

Such are (to go but a few days back)--'that I beat you,' which you told James Burges [One of the masters at Kingswood. Wesley visited the schoolhouse in 1739, and was there during the fire of 1757. See Diary in Journal, ii. 206, 240, 302; iv. 242.]; that I rode to Kingswood with Sarah Ryan, which you told Sarah Crosby; and that I required you, when we were first married, never to sit in my presence without my leave, which you told Mrs. Lee, [Eleanor Lee, 'a mother in Israel,' whom Wesley buried in 1778. See Journal, vi. 213.] Mrs. Fry, and several others, and stood it before my face. I dislike (9) Your common custom of saying things not true. To instance only in two or three particulars. You told Mr. Ireland [James Ireland, of Brislington, near Bristol. See next letter.] 'Mr. Vazeille learnt Spanish in a fortnight.' You told Mr. Fry 'Mrs. Ellison [Wesley's sister Susanna, who spent her last years in London. Evidently some reference to Sophia Hopkey.] was the author as to my intrigue in Georgia.' You told Mrs. Ellison 'you never said any such thing; you never charged her with it.' You also told her 'that I had laid a plot to serve you as Susannah was served by the two elders.' I dislike (10) Your extreme, immeasurable bitterness to all who endeavour to defend my character (as my brother, Joseph Jones, Clayton Carthy [See letter of June 12. ]), breaking out even into foul, unmannerly language, such as ought not to defile a gentlewoman's lips if she did not believe one word of the Bible.

To Ebenezer Blackwell ()Editor's Introductory Notes: 1760 Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1760) Author: John Wesley --- [4] MANCHESTER, March I 7, I 760. SIR,--The humanity which you showed during the short time I had the pleasure of conversing with you at Lewisham emboldens me to trouble you with a line in behalf of a worthy man. I apprehend the collector at Northwich in Cheshire has informed the Honourable Board that 'Mr. James Vine is a preacher at Northwich and makes disturbances in the town.' That he attends the preaching of the Methodists is true; but it is not true that he is a preacher. It is likewise true that the rabble of Northwich have sometimes disturbed our congregations; but herein Mr. Vine was only concerned as a sufferer, not an actor. I know him to be a careful, diligent officer, and a zealous lover of King George. Wishing you all temporal and spiritual blessings, I remain, sir, Your obedient servant.

But possibly you go farther yet; do not you explicitly condemn all your fellow labourers, blaming one in one instance, one in another, so as to be throughly pleased with the conduct of none Does not this argue a vehement proneness to condemn a very high degree of censoriousness Do you not censure even peritos in sua arte ['Those who are clever in their particular profession.' ] Permit me to relate a little circumstance to illustrate this. After we had been once singing an hymn at Everton, I was just going to say, 'I wish Mr. Whitefield would not try to mend my brother's hymns. He cannot do it. How vilely he has murdered that hymn, weakening the sense as well as marring the poetry!' But how was I afterwards surprised to hear it was not Mr. Whitefield, but Mr. B.! In very deed it is not easy to mend his hymns any more than to imitate them. Has not this aptness to find fault frequently shown itself in abundance of other instances sometimes with regard to Mr. Parker or Mr. Hicks, [William Parker, Mayor of Bedford, was excluded by the Moravians from their Society, and preached at the Foundery in 1758 (Journal, iv.86, 201, 248). For William Hicks, see ibid. 335, 344; and letter of June 14, 1780.] sometimes with regard to me And this may be one reason why you take one step which was scarce ever before taken in Christendom: I mean, the discouraging the new converts from reading--at least, from reading anything but the Bible. Nay, but get off the consequence who can: if they ought to read nothing but the Bible, they ought to hear nothing but the Bible; so away with sermons, whether spoken or written! I can hardly imagine that you discourage reading even our little tracts, out of jealousy lest we should undermine you or steal away the affections of the people. I think you cannot easily suspect this. I myself did not desire to come among them; but you desired me to come. I should not have obtruded myself either upon them or you: for I have really work enough, full as much as either my body or mind is able to go through; and I have, blessed be God, friends enough--I mean, as many as I have time to converse with.

I have had much conversation with Mons. Cavenac, who speaks Latin pretty readily. He is a Lieutenant-Colonel in the King's Guards and a Knight of the Order of St. Louis. (Indeed, all the soldiers were picked men drafted out of the Guards, and more like officers than common men.) I found him not only a very sensible man but throughly instructed even in heart religion. I asked him 'if it was true that they had a design to burn Carrick and Belfast.' (After one General was wounded and the other killed, the command had devolved upon him.) He cried out, 'Jesu, Maria! We never had such a thought! To burn, to destroy, cannot enter into the head or the heart of a good man.' One would think the French King sent these men on purpose to show what officers he has in his Army. I hope there are some such in the English Army. But I never found them yet.--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant.

To John Trembath CORK, August 17, 1760. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1760) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--The conversation I had with you yesterday in the afternoon gave me a good deal of satisfaction. As to some things which I had heard (with regard to your wasting your substance, drinking intemperately, and wronging the poor people of Siberton), I am persuaded they were mistakes; as I suppose it was that you converse much with careless, unawakened people. And I trust you will be more and more cautious in all these respects, abstaining from the very appearance of evil. [See letter of Sept. 21, 1755.] That you had not always attended the preaching when you might have done it you allowed, but seemed determined to remove that objection, as well as the other of using such exercises or diversions as give offence to your brethren. I believe you will likewise endeavour to avoid light and trifling conversation, and to talk and behave in all company with that seriousness and usefulness which become a preacher of the gospel. Certainly some years ago you was alive to God. You experienced the life and power of religion. And does not God intend that the trials you meet with should bring you back to this You cannot stand still; you know this is impossible. You must go forward or backward. Either you must recover that power and be a Christian altogether, or in a while you will have neither power nor form, inside nor outside. Extremely opposite both to one and the other is that aptness to ridicule others, to make them contemptible, by exposing their real or supposed foibles. This I would earnestly advise you to avoid. It hurts yourself; it hurts the hearers; and it greatly hurts those who are so exposed, and tends to make them your irreconcilable enemies. It has also sometimes betrayed you into speaking what was not strictly true. O beware of this above all things! Never amplify, never exaggerate anything. Be rigorous in adhering to truth. Be exemplary therein. Whatever has been in time past, let all men now know that John Trembath abhors lying, that he never promises anything which he does not perform, that his word is equal to his bond. I pray be exact in this; be a pattern of truth, sincerity, and godly simplicity.

To the Editor of 'Lloyd's Evening Post' TO MR. SOMEBODY, alias PHILODEMUS, alias T. H. Date: LONDON, December 1, 1760. SIR,--I am very happy in having given you 'infinite pleasure by my animadversions upon your letter,' and therefore cannot but add a few more, hoping they may give you still farther satisfaction. It is, indeed, great condescension in you to bestow a thought upon me, since 'it is only losing time' (as you observe in your last), as you 'judge arguing with Methodists is like pounding fools in a mortar.' However, do not despair; perhaps, when you have pounded me a little more, my foolishness may depart from me. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1760) Author: John Wesley --- I really was so foolish as to think that by saying' We Churchmen' you assumed the character of a clergyman. Whether you retain to the theatre or no is easily shown: tell your name, and the doubt is cleared up. [See letter of Nov. 17.] But who or what you are affects not me: I am only concerned with what you say. But you complain, I have 'passed over the most interesting and material circumstances' in your letter. I apprehend just the contrary: I think nothing in it is passed over which is at all material. Nor will I knowingly pass over anything material in this; though I am not a dealer in many words. You say: (1) 'You have impiously apostatized from those principles of religion which you undertook to defend.' I hope not. I still (as I am able) defend the Bible, with the Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies of our Church; and I do not defend or espouse any other principles, to the best of my knowledge, than those which are plainly contained in the Bible as well as in the Homilies and Book of Common Prayer.

You blame me (2) for teaching heterodox doctrine concerning faith and good works (I am obliged to put the meaning of many of your straggling sentences together as well as I can). As to the former, which you still awkwardly and unscripturally style the grace of assurance (a phrase I never use), you say: 'You have given it a true Methodistical gloss. But where are the proofs from Scripture Not one single text.' Sir, that is your ignorance. I perceive the Bible is a book you are not acquainted with. Every sentence in my account is a text of Scripture. I purposely refrained from quoting chapter and verse, because I expected you would bewray your ignorance, and show that you was got quite out of your depth. As your old friend Mr. Vellum says, 'You will pardon me for being jocular.' To one who seriously desired information on this point I would explain it a little farther. Faith is an evidence or conviction of things not seen, of God, and the things of God. This is faith in general. More particularly it is a divine evidence or conviction that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me. This directly leads us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling; not with slavish, painful fear, but with the utmost diligence, which is the proper import of that expression. When this evidence is heightened to exclude all doubt, it is the plerophory or full assurance of faith. But any degree of true faith prompts the believer to be zealous of good works.

You blame me (4) for acting from 'a lucrative principle,' though you 'deny you used the word robbing.' (True; for you only said, 'To rob and plunder.') In proof of this you refer to the houses I have built (in Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne). But don't you know, sir, those houses are none of mine I made them over to trustees long ago. I have food to eat and raiment to put on; and I will have no more till I turn Turk or Pagan.--I am, sir, in very good humour, Your well-wisher. PS.--It is not very material whether T. H., Somebody, and Philodemus are the same individual or not. I have subjoined his Questions with my Answers; though they have all been answered fifty times before. Q. 1. Whether a very considerable body of the Methodists do not declare that there can be no good hopes of salvation without Assurance A. Yes: if you mean by that term a divine evidence or conviction that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me. Q. 2. Whether they do not put a greater confidence in what they call Regeneration than in the moral or social duties of life A. No. They hold the due discharge of all these duties to be absolutely necessary to salvation. The latter part of this query, 'of the mercy of the Divine Being,' seems to have lost its way. Q. 3. Whether the Stage in later years has ever ridiculed anything really serious A. Yes; a thousand times. Who that reads Dryden's, Wycherley's, or Congreve's plays can doubt it Q. 4. Whether anything can be religious that has not right reason to countenance it A. No. True religion is the highest reason. It is indeed wisdom, virtue, and happiness in one.

To the Editor of 'Lloyd's Evening Post' TO MR. T. H., alias E. L., &c. &c. Date: December 20, 1760. What, my good friend again! Only a little disguised with a new name and a few scraps of Latin! I hoped, indeed, you had been pretty well satisfied before; but since you desire to hear a little farther from me, I will add a few words, and endeavour to set our little controversy in a still clearer light. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1760) Author: John Wesley --- Last month you publicly attacked the people called Methodists without either fear or wit. You charged them with 'madness, enthusiasm, self-contradiction, imposture,' and what not! I considered each charge, and, I conceive, refuted it to the satisfaction of all indifferent persons. You renewed the attack, not by proving anything, but affirming the same things over and over. I replied; and, without taking notice of the dull, low scurrility, either of the first or second letter, confined myself to the merits of the cause, and cleared away the dirt you had thrown. You now heap together ten paragraphs more, most of which require very little answer. In the first you say: 'Your foolishness is become the wonder and admiration of the public.' In the second: 'The public blushes for you, till you give a better solution to the articles demanded of you.' In the third you cite my words, I still maintain 'the Bible, with the Liturgy, and Homilies of our Church; and do not espouse any other principles but what are consonant to the Book of Common Prayer.' You keenly answer: 'Granted, Mr. Methodist; but whether or no you would not espouse other principles if you durst is evident enough from some innovations you have already introduced, which I shall attempt to prove in the subsequent part of my answer.' Indeed, you will not. You neither prove, nor attempt to prove, that I would espouse other principles if I durst. However, you give me a deadly thrust: 'You falsify the first Article of the Athanasian Creed.' But how so Why, I said: 'The fundamental doctrine of the people called Methodists is, Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the true faith.' Sir, shall I tell you a secret--It was for the readers of your class that I changed the hard word 'catholic' into an easier.

But 'no power in England ought to be independent of the supreme power.' Most true; yet 'the Romanists own the authority of a Pope, independent of civil government.' They do, and thereby show their ignorance of the English Constitution. 'In Great Britain we have many popes, for so I must call all who have the souls and bodies of their followers devoted to them.' Call them so, and welcome. But this does not touch me; nor Mr. Whitefield, Jones, [Thomas Jones, M.A., of St. Saviour's, Southwark, died of fever on June 6, 1762, in his thirty-third year. He set up a weekly lecture in his church: but before long this was stopped by his enemies. See letter to Wesley in Arminian Mag. 1780, p. 165; Tyerman's Wesley, ii. 324-5.] or Romaine; nor any whom I am acquainted with. None of us have our followers --thus devoted to us. Those who follow the advice we constantly give are devoted to God, not man. But 'the Methodist proclaims he can bring into the field twenty-five thousand men.' What Methodist? Where and when? Prove this fact, and I will allow you I am a Turk.

To Mr. G. R., alias R. A., alias M. K., alias R. W. Date: LONDON, February 17, 1761. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1761) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, --As you are stout, be merciful; or I shall never be able to stand it. Four attacks in one month! and pushed so home! Well, I must defend myself as I can. Indeed, your first attack under the character of G. R. is not very desperate. You first give a short history of Montanism, and innocently say: 'It would fill a volume to draw a parallel between Montanism and Methodism.' According as it was drawn; but if it contained nothing but truth, it would not fill a nutshell. You add: 'Such a crude composition is this Methodism, that there is scarce any one pestilent heresy that has infested the Church but what is an actual part of their doctrine.' This is easily said: but, till you can prove it, it will pass for nothing. In your second letter you say: 'The present troublers of our Israel are that heterogeneous mass, the Methodists.' 'Heterogeneous'! an hard word, a very hard word! Pray, sir, what is the meaning of it? 'They are avowed enemies to the doctrine and discipline of the Church.' Surely not avowed enemies (if they are secret ones, which no man can prove): they flatly disavow any such thing. 'Have faithfully copied the worst of men in the worst of times.' This means nothing; it is mere garniture of the dish. 'If such men's enthusiastical notions be the true doctrine of Jesus Christ, better would it be to be a Jew, a Turk, an infidel, than a Christian.' This proves nothing but what was pretty plain before --namely, that you are very angry. 'Notions repugnant to common sense and to the first principles of truth and equity.' My fundamental notions are that true religion is love, the love of God and our neighbour; the doing all things to the glory of God, and doing to all men as we would be done to. Are these notions repugnant to common sense or to the first principles of truth and equity? 'What punishment do they deserve?' they who walk by this rule? By nature they deserve hell; but by the grace of God, if they endure to the end, they will receive eternal life.

Neither is it holy. The generality of its members are no holier than Turks or heathens. You need not go far for proof of this. Look at the Romanists in London or Dublin. Are these the holy, the only holy Church? Just such holiness is in the bottomless pit. Nor is it 'secured against error' either 'by Christ' or 'His Spirit': witness Pope against Pope, Council against Council, contradicting, anathematizing each other. The instances are too numerous to be recited. Neither are the generality of her 'pastors and teachers' either 'divinely appointed' or 'divinely assisted.' If God had sent them, He would confirm the word of His messengers. But He does not; they convert no sinners to God; they convert many to their own opinion, but not to the knowledge or love of God. He that was a drunkard is a drunkard still; he that was filthy is filthy still: therefore neither are they 'assisted' by Him; so they and their flocks wallow in sin together. Consequently (whatever may be the case of some particular souls) it must be said, if your own marks be true, the Roman Catholics in general are not 'the people of God.' It may be proper to add here the second section, which is all I had leisure to write, though it was not published till the following week 'The Methodist' (Protestant) 'teachers are not the true ministers of Christ; nor are they called or sent by Him' (page 6). 'This appears from what has been already demonstrated; for if the Protestants are not the true people of Christ, their ministers cannot be the true ministers of Christ' (ibid.). Farther, 'The true ministers came down by succession from the Apostles; but the Protestant teachers do not: therefore they are not the true ministers of Christ' (ibid.). 'All power in the Church of Christ comes from Him; so that whoever without a commission from Him intrudes into the pastoral office is a thief and a robber. Now, the commission can be conveyed but two ways: either immediately from God Himself, as it was to the Apostles, or from men who have the authority handed down to them from the Apostles.

'But this commission has not been conveyed to Protestant preachers either of these ways. Not immediately from God Himself; for how do they prove it? By what miracles? Neither by men deriving authority from the Apostles through the channel of the Church. And they stand divided in communion from all Churches that have any pretensions to antiquity. Their doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone was anathematized at its first appearance by the undoubted heirs of the Apostles, the pastors of the apostolic Churches; consequently they are sent by no other but him who sent all the false prophets from the beginning.' (Pages 8-9.) I answer, 'from what has been already demonstrated,' that nothing will follow; for you have demonstrated just nothing. Now for your 'farther' proof. 'The true ministers came down by succession from the Apostles.' So do the Protestant ministers if the Romish do; the English in particular; as even one of yourselves, F. Courayer, [Peter F. Courayer (1681-1776), the Roman Catholic professor, wrote A Defence of the Validity of the English Ordinations in 1723; and had to take refuge in England in 1728, where he joined the English Church.] has irrefragably proved. 'All power in the Church of Christ comes from Him; either immediately from Himself, or from men who have the authority handed down to them from the Apostles. But this commission has not been conveyed to the Protestant preachers either of these ways: not immediately; for by what miracles do they prove it?' So said Cardinal Bellarmine long ago. Neither 'by men deriving authority from the Apostles.' Read F. Courayer, and know better. Neither are the Protestants 'divided from' any 'Churches' who have true 'pretensions to antiquity.' But 'their doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone was anathematized at its first appearance by the undoubted heirs of the Apostles, the pastors of the apostolic Church.' By the prelates at the Council of Trent it was; who thereby anathematized the Apostle Paul, to all intents and purposes. Here you throw off the mask; otherwise you might have passed for a Protestant a little longer. 'Consequently they are sent by no other but him who sent all the false prophets from the beginning.' Sir, we thank you. This is really a very modest assertion for the subject of a Protestant king.

But you say: 'Such as do not profess this doctrine will not be affected by my sermon.' Indeed they will; for the world (as you yourself did) lump all that are called Methodists together. Consequently whatever you then said of Methodists in general falls on us as well as them; and so we are condemned for those very principles which we totally detest and abhor: a small part of the Preservative (had you taken the pains to read it) would have convinced you of this. 'Did you send them to convince me of some important truth? I have the New Testament.' So have I; and I have read it for above these fifty years, and for near forty with some attention. Yet I will not say that Mr. Green may not convince me of some truth which I never yet learned from it. I want every help, especially from those who strive both to preach and to live the gospel. Yet certainly I must dissent from you or you from me wherever either conceives the other to vary from it. Some of my writings you 'have read.' But allow me to ask, Did not you read them with much prejudice or little attention? Otherwise surely you would not have termed them 'perplexing.' Very few lay obscurity or intricacy to my charge. Those who do not allow them to be true do not deny them to be plain. And if they believe me to have done any good at all by writing, they suppose it is by this very thing --by speaking on practical and experimental religion more plainly than others have done. I quite agree we 'neither can be better men nor better Christians than by continuing members of the Church of England.' And not only her doctrines but many parts of her discipline I have adhered to at the hazard of my life. If in any point I have since varied therefrom, it was not by choice but necessity. Judge, therefore, if they do well who throw me into the ditch, and then beat me because my clothes are dirty! Wishing you much of the love of God in your heart and much of His presence in your labours, I remain, reverend sir, Your affectionate brother.

'(iv) These principles they industriously propagate among their followers.' Indeed they do not: the bulk of their followers know just nothing of the matter. They industriously propagate among them nothing but inward and outward holiness. (7) 'Now these are oppositions to the most fundamental principles and essentially constituent parts of our Establishment; and not of ours only, but of every ecclesiastical Establishment that is or ever has been in the Christian world.' 'The most fundamental principles'! No more than the tiles are the most fundamental principles of an house. Useful, doubtless, they are; yet you must take them off if you would repair the rotten timber beneath. 'Essentially constituent parts of our Establishment'! Well, we will not quarrel for a word. Perhaps the doors may be essentially constituent parts of the building we call a church. Yet, if it were on fire, we might innocently break them open or even throw them for a time off the hinges. Now this is really the case. The timber is rotten--yea, the main beams of the house; and they want to place that firm beam, salvation by faith, in the room of salvation by works. A fire is kindled in the Church, the house of the living God: the fire of love of the world, ambition, covetousness, envy, anger, malice, bitter zeal--in one word, of ungodliness and unrighteousness. Oh who will come and help to quench it? Under disadvantages and discouragements of every kind, a little handful of men have made a beginning; and I trust they will not leave off till the building is saved or they sink in the ruins of it. 4. To sum up the whole. A few irregular men openly witness those truths of God which the regular clergy (a few excepted) either suppress or wholly deny. Their word is accompanied with the power of God, convincing and converting sinners. The word of those is not accompanied with power: it neither wounds nor heals. The former witness the truth and the power of God by their own life and conversation: therefore the world, men who know not God, hate them and speak all manner of evil against them falsely. The latter are of the world: therefore the world loves its own and speaks honourably of them.

Which of these ought you to hear,--those who declare or those who deny the truth of God? that word which is the power of God unto salvation, or that which lulls men on to destruction? the men who live as well as preach the gospel, or those whose lives are no better than their doctrine? 'But they are irregular.' I answer: (1) That is not their choice. They must either preach irregularly or not at all. (2) Is such a circumstance of weight to turn the scale against the substance of the gospel? If it is, if none ought to speak or hear the truth of God unless in a regular manner, then (to mention but one consequence) there never could have been any reformation from Popery. For here the entire argument for Church order would have stood in its full force. Suppose one had asked a German nobleman to hear Martin Luther preach; might not his priest have said (without debating whether he preached the truth or not): 'My lord, in every nation there must be some settled order of government, ecclesiastical and civil. There is an ecclesiastical order established in Germany. You are born under this Establishment. Your ancestors supported it, and your very rank and station constitute you a formal and eminent guardian of it. How, then, can it consist with the duty arising from all these to give encouragement, countenance, and support to principles and practices that are a direct renunciation of the established constitution?' Had the force of this reasoning been allowed, what had become of the Reformation? Yet it was right; though it really was a subversion of the whole ecclesiastical constitution with regard to doctrine as well as discipline. Whereas this is no such thing. The doctrine of the Established Church, which is far the most essential part of her constitution, these preachers manifestly confirm, in opposition to those who subvert it. And it is the opposition made to them by those subverters which constrains them in some respects to deviate from her discipline; to which in all others they conform for conscience. Oh what pity that any who preach the same doctrine, and whom those subverters have not yet been able to thrust out, should join with them against their brethren in the common faith and fellow witnesses of the common salvation!--I am, dear sir, Your willing servant for Christ's sake.

To his Brother Charles Date: LONDON, December 26, 1761. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1761) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BROTHER,--Spend as many hours in the congregation as you will or can. But exercise alone will strengthen your lungs. Or electrifying, which I wonder you did not try long ago. Never start at its being a quack medicine. I desire no other, particularly since I was so nearly murdered by being cured of my ague secundum artem. You should always (and I hope you do) write standing and sloping. We are always in danger of enthusiasm, but I think no more now than any time these twenty years. The word of God runs indeed, and loving faith spreads on every side. Don't take my word or any one's else, but come and see. 'Tis good to be in London now. It is impossible for me to correct my own books. I sometimes think it strange that I have not one preacher that will and can. I think every one of them owes me so much service. Is it right that my sister Patty should suffer Mr. Hall to live with her? I almost scruple giving her the sacrament, seeing he does not even pretend to renounce Betty Rogers. [Mrs. Hall. Westley Hall died in 1776. Betty Rogers seems to be the young seamstress by whom he had an illegitimate child. See Stevenson's Wesley Family, pp. 370-3; and letter of June 14.] Was it right for W. Baynes [William Baynes had been a preacher (1749-56), and was a master at Kingswood School at the time of the fire in 1757. See Journal, iv. 242, vi. 177-8; C. Wesley's Journal, I;. 256.] to carry on his affair with Sammy Whittaker without consulting either you or me?

To his Brother Charles Date: LONDON, March 6, 1763. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1763) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BROTHER, -- To-morrow I set out for Norwich, which I have delayed as long as possible. I am likely to have rough work there; but the turbulent spirits must bend or break. [He spent ‘a few quiet, comfortable days . . . without any jar or contention.’ See Journal, v. 10.] That story of Thomas Maxfield is not true. But I doubt more is true than is good. He is a most incomprehensible creature. I cannot convince him that separation is any evil, or that speaking in the name of God when God has not spoken is any more than an innocent mistake. I know not what to say to him or do with him. He is really mali caput et fons.[See letter of Dec. 23, 1762.] Mr. Neal has grievously peached his associates. But I shall not hastily saddle myself with him and his seven children. The week after Easter week I hope to visit the classes in Bristol, or the week following. James Morgan is love-sick, John Jones physic-sick: so that I have scarce one hearty helper but La. Coughlan. [Lawrence Coughlan. See letters of March 6, 1759 (to Matthew Lowes), and Aug. 27, 1768.] We join in love to you both. Adieu!

To Thomas Hartley Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1764) Author: John Wesley --- [4] DERBY March 27, 1764. DEAR SIR,--Your book on the Millennium and the Mystic writers was lately put into my hands. I cannot but thank you for your strong and seasonable confirmation of that comfortable doctrine, of which I cannot entertain the least doubt as long as I believe the Bible. I thank you likewise for your remarks on that bad performance of the Bishop of Gloucester, which undoubtedly tears up by the roots all real, internal religion. Yet at the same time I cannot but bewail your vehement attachment to the Mystic writers; with whom I conversed much for several years, and whom I then admired perhaps more than you do now. But I found at length an absolute necessity of giving up either them or the Bible. So after some time I fixed my choice, to which I hope to adhere to my life's end. It is only the extreme attachment to these which can account for the following words in your Defence: 'Mr. Wesley does in several parts of his Journals lay down some marks of the new birth, not only doubtful but exceptionable, as particularly where persons appeared agitated or convulsed under the ministry, which might be owing to other causes rather than any regenerating work of God's Spirit' (page 385). Is this true In what one part of my Journals do I lay down any doubtful, much less exceptionable, marks of the new birth In no part do I lay down those agitations or convulsions as any marks of it at all; nay, I expressly declare the contrary in those very words which the Bishop himself cites from my Journal. I declare, 'These are of a disputable nature: they may be from God; they may be from nature; they may be from the devil.' How is it, then, that you tell all the world Mr. Wesley lays them down in his Journals as marks of the new birth Is it kind Would it not have been far more kind, suppose I had spoken wrong, to tell me of it in a private manner How much more unkind was it to accuse me to all the world of a fault which I never committed!

To Mr.-- SHEFFIELD, March 29, 1764. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1764) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--Is it true that you have baptized several children since the Conference If it is, I cannot but interpret it as a clear renunciation of connexion with us. And if this be the case, it will not be proper for you to preach any longer in our Societies. But the land is wide. You have room enough to turn to the right hand or to the left.--I am Your affectionate brother.

That 'poor people understand long sentences better than short' is an entire mistake. I have carefully tried the experiment for thirty years, and I find the very reverse to be true. Long sentences utterly confound their intellects; they know not where they are. If you would be understood by them, you should seldom use a word of many syllables or a sentence of many words. Short sentences are likewise infinitely best for the careless and indolent. They strike them through and through. I have seen instances of it an hundred times. Neither are the dull and stupid enlightened nor the careless affected by long and laboured periods half so much as by such short ones as these, 'The work is great; the day is short; and long is the night wherein no man can work.' But the main thing is, let us be all alive to God. Let Christ reign alone in our hearts; let all that mind be in us which was in Christ Jesus; and let us walk as Christ also walked. Peace be with you and yours!--I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To John Newton Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1765) Author: John Wesley --- [7] LONDONDERRY, May 14, 1765. DEAR SIR,--Your manner of writing needs no excuse. I hope you will always write in the same manner. Love is the plainest thing in the world: I know this dictates what you write; and then what need of ceremony You have admirably well expressed what I mean by an opinion contradistinguished from an essential doctrine. Whatever is 'compatible with a love to Christ and a work of grace' I term an opinion. And certainly the holding Particular Election and Final Perseverance is compatible with these. 'Yet what fundamental error,' you ask, 'have you opposed with half that frequency and vehemence as you have these opinions' So doubtless you have heard. But it is not true. I have printed near fifty sermons, and only one of these opposes them at all. I preach about eight hundred sermons in a year; and, taking one year with another, for twenty years past I have not preached eight sermons in a year upon the subject. But, 'How many of your best preachers have been thrust out because they dissented from you in these particulars' Not one, best or worst, good or bad, was ever thrust out on this account. There has been not a single instance of the kind. Two or three (but far from the best of our preachers) voluntarily left us after they had embraced those opinions. But it was of their own mere motion: and two I should have expelled for immoral behaviour; but they withdrew, and pretended 'they did not hold our doctrine.' Set a mark, therefore, on him who told you that tale, and let his word for the future go for nothing. 'Is a man a believer in Jesus Christ and is his life suitable to his profession' are not only the main but the sole inquiries I make in order to his admission into our Society. If he is a Dissenter, he may be a Dissenter still: but if he is a Church-man, I advise him to continue so; and that for many reasons, some of which are mentioned in the tract upon that subject.

To Mrs. Wyndowe LONDON, January 7, 1766. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1766) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SALLY,--From the time that I first took acquaintance with you at Earl's Bridge, [Wesley spent an hour at Byford on March 16, 1789. The Diary note is, '11 Byford, tea, within; 12 chaise' (Journal, vii. 478d).] I have still retained the same regard for you. Therefore I am always well pleased with hearing from you, especially when you inform me that you are pursuing the best things. And you will not pursue them in vain if you still resolutely continue to spend some time in private every day. It is true you cannot fix any determinate measure of time because of numberless avocations. And it is likewise true that you will often find yourself so dead and cold that it will seem to be mere labour lost. No; it is not. It is the way wherein He that raises the dead has appointed to meet you. And we know not how soon He may meet you, and say, 'Woman! I say unto thee, Arise!' Then the fear of [death] which has so long triumphed over you shall be put under your feet. Look up! my friend! Expect that He who loves you will soon come and will not tarry! To His care I commit you; and am, my dear Sally, Yours most affectionately. Mrs. Wyndowe, Byford, Near Stroud, Gloucestershire.

Secondly. That interpretation contradicts itself; and that in every article. For, 1. If by 'goodness' be meant 'the conduct of particulars to the whole,' then it does not consist in habits of social virtue: for social virtue regulates the conduct of particulars not so properly to the whole as to each other. 2. If by 'righteousness' be meant 'the conduct of the whole to particulars,' then it cannot consist in the gentleness of Church authority; unless Church governors are the whole Church, or the Parliament the whole Nation. 3. If by 'truth' be meant 'the conduct of the whole and of particulars to one another,' then it cannot possibly consist in orthodoxy or right opinion: for opinion, right or wrong, is not conduct; they differ toto genere. If, then, it be orthodoxy, it is not 'the conduct of the governors and governed toward each other.' If it be their conduct toward each other, it is not orthodoxy. Although, therefore, it be allowed that right opinions are a great help and wrong opinions a great hindrance to religion, yet, till stronger proof be brought against it, that proposition remains unshaken, 'Right opinions are a slender part of religion, if any part if it at all' (page 160). As to the affair of Abbe Paris, whoever will read over with calmness and impartiality but one volume of Monsieur Montgeron will then be a competent judge. Meantime I would just observe that if these miracles were real they strike at the root of the whole Papal authority, as having been wrought in direct opposition to the famous Bull Unigenitus. (Page 161.) Yet I do not say, 'Errors in faith have little to do with religion,' or that they 'are no let or impediment to the Holy Spirit' (page 162). But still it is true that 'God generally speaking begins His work at the heart' (ibid.). Men usually feel desires to please God before they know how to please Him. Their heart says 'What must I do to be saved' before they understand the way of salvation.

'Good fruits come next to be considered, which Mr. Wesley's idea of true religion does not promise. He saith' (I will repeat the words a little at large, that their true sense may more clearly appear), '"In explaining those words, The kingdom of God, or true religion, is not meats and drinks, I was led to show that religion does not properly consist in harmlessness, using the means of grace, and doing good, that is, helping our neighbours, chiefly by giving alms; but that a man might both be harmless, use the means of grace, and do much good, and yet have no true religion at all."' (Tract, p. 203.) He may so. Yet whoever has true religion must be 'zealous of good works.' And zeal for all good works is, according to my idea, an essential ingredient of true religion.

Meantime how many untruths are here in one page! (1) 'He made the path doubly perplexed for his followers. (2) He left them to answer for his crimes. (3) He longed for persecution. (4) He went as far as Georgia for it. (5) The truth of his mission was questioned by the Magistrate, and (6) decried by the people, (7) for his false morals. (8) The gospel was wounded through the sides of its pretended missionary. (9) The first Christian preachers offered up themselves.' So did I. 'Instead of this, our paltry mimic' (page 244). Bona verba! Surely a writer should reverence himself, how much soever he despises his opponent. So, upon the whole, this proof of my hypocrisy is as lame as the three former. 5. 'We have seen above how he sets all prudence at defiance.' None but false prudence. 'But he uses a different language when his rivals are to be restrained.' No; always the same, both with regard to false prudence and true. 'But take the affair from the beginning. He began to suspect rivals in the year thirty-nine; for he says, "Remembering how many that came after me were preferred before me."' The very next words show in what sense. They 'had attained unto the law of righteousness': I had not. But what has this to do with rivals However, go on: 'At this time, December 8, 1739, his opening the Bible afforded him but small relief. He sunk so far in his despondency as to doubt if God would not lay him aside and send other labourers into His harvest.' But this was another time. It was June 22; and the occasion of the doubt is expressly mentioned: 'I preached, but had no life or spirit in me, and was much in doubt' on that account. Not on account of Mr. Whitefield. He did not 'now begin to set up for himself.' We were in full union; nor was there the least shadow of rivalry or contention between us. I still sincerely 'praise God for His wisdom in giving different talents to different preachers' (page 250), and particularly for His giving Mr. Whitefield the talents which I have not.

I do not comprehend. Is all the world sanctified Is not to be sanctified the same as to be made holy Is all the world holy And can no man frustrate his own sanctification 'The Holy Ghost establishes our faith and perfects our obedience by enlightening the understanding and rectifying the will' (page 3). 'In the former respect, 1. He gave the gift of tongues at the day of Pentecost. 'Indeed, enthusiasts in their ecstasies have talked very fluently in languages they had a very imperfect knowledge of in their sober intervals.' I can no more believe this on the credit of Lord Shaftesbury and a Popish exorcist than I can believe the tale of an hundred people talking without tongues on the credit of Dr. Middleton. [See letter of Jan. 4, 1749, sect.vi. 12-14, p. 367] 'The other gifts of the Spirit St. Paul reckons up thus: "To one is given the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge, to another the gifts of healing, to another working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the discerning of spirits"' (page 23). But why are the other three left out--faith, divers kinds of tongues, and the interpretation of tongues I believe the 'word of wisdom' means light to explain the manifold wisdom of God in the grand scheme of gospel salvation; the 'word of knowledge,' a power of explaining the Old Testament types and prophecies. 'Faith' may mean an extraordinary trust in God under the most difficult and dangerous circumstances; 'the gifts of healing,' a miraculous power of curing diseases; 'the discerning of spirits,' a supernatural discernment whether men were upright or not, whether they were qualified for offices in the Church, and whether they who professed to speak by inspiration really did so or not. But 'the richest of the fruits of the Spirit is the inspiration of Scripture' (page 30). 'Herein the promise that "the Comforter" should "abide with us for ever" is eminently fulfilled. For though His ordinary influence occasionally assists the faithful of all ages, yet His constant abode and supreme illumination is in the Scriptures of the New Testament. I mean, He is there only as the Illuminator of the understanding.' (Page 39.)

But does this agree with the following words--'Nature is not able to keep a mean: but grace is able; for "the Spirit helpeth our infirmities." We must apply to the Guide of truth to prevent our being "carried about with divers and strange doctrines."' (Page 340.) Is He not, then, everywhere to illuminate the understanding as well as to rectify the will And, indeed, do we not need the one as continually as the other 'But how did He inspire the Scripture He so directed the writers that no considerable error should fall from them.' (Page 45.) Nay, will not the allowing there is any error in Scripture shake the authority of the whole Again: what is the difference between the immediate and the virtual influence of the Holy Spirit I know Milton speaks of 'virtual or immediate touch [Paradise Lost, viii. 617.]'; but most incline to think virtual touch is no touch at all. 'Were the style of the New Testament utterly rude and barbarous and abounding with every fault that can possibly deform a language, this is so far from proving such language not divinely inspired that it is one certain mark of this original' (page 55). A vehement paradox this! But it is not proved yet, and probably never will. 'The labours of those who have attempted to defend the purity of Scripture Greek have been very idly employed' (page 66). Others think they have been very wisely employed, and that they have abundantly proved their point. Having now 'considered the operations of the Holy Spirit as the Guide of truth, who clears and enlightens the understanding, I proceed to consider Him as the Comforter who purifies and supports the will' (page 89). 'Sacred antiquity is full in its accounts of the sudden and entire change made by the Holy Spirit in the dispositions and manners of those whom it had enlightened; instantaneously effacing their evil habits and familiarizing them to the performance of every good action' (page 90). 'No natural cause could effect this. Neither fanaticism nor superstition, nor both of them, will account for so sudden and lasting a conversion.' (Ibid.) 'Superstition never effects any considerable change in the manners. Its utmost force is just enough to make us exact in the ceremonious offices of religion or to cause some acts of penitence as death approaches.' (Page 91.)

To the Editor of 'Lloyd's Evening Post' Date: LONDON, March 5, I 767. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1767) Author: John Wesley --- SIR,--Many times the publisher of the Christian Magazine has attacked me without fear or wit; and hereby he has convinced his impartial readers of one thing at least--that (as the vulgar say) his fingers itch to be at me, that he has a passionate desire to measure swords with me. But I have other work upon my hands: I can employ the short remainder of my life to better purpose. The occasion of his late attack is this: Five- or six-and thirty years ago I much admired the character of a perfect Christian drawn by Clemens Alexandrinus. Five- or six-and twenty years ago a thought came into my mind of drawing such a character myself, only in a more scriptural manner, and mostly in the very words of Scripture; this I entitled The Character of a Methodist, believing that curiosity would incite more persons to read it, and also that some prejudice might thereby be removed from candid men. But, that none might imagine I intended a panegyric either on myself or my friends, I guarded against this in the very title-page, saying, both in the name of myself and them, 'Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect.' To the same effect I speak in the conclusion: 'These are the principles and practices of our sect; these are the marks of a true Methodist'--i.e. a true Christian, as I immediately after explain myself: 'by these alone do those who are in derision so called desire to be distinguished from other men' (page 11). 'By these marks do we labour to distinguish ourselves from those whose minds or lives are not according to the gospel of Christ' (page 12). Upon this Rusticulus, or Dr. Dodd, says: 'A Methodist, according to Mr. Wesley, is one who is perfect, and sinneth not in thought, word, or deed.' Sir, have me excused. This is not 'according to Mr. Wesley.' I have told all the world I am not perfect; and yet you allow me to be a Methodist. I tell you flat I have not attained the character I draw. Will you pin it upon me in spite of my teeth

To Peggy Dale Date: LONDON, January 30, 1768. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1768) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR PEGGY,--It is a certain truth that the witness of sanctification is a privilege which every one that is sanctified may claim. Yet it is not true that every one that is sanctified does enjoy this. Many who are really sanctified (that is, wholly devoted to God) do not enjoy it as soon as that work is wrought; and many who received it do not retain it, or at the least not constantly. Indeed, they cannot retain it in two cases: either if they do not continue steadily watching unto prayer; or, secondly, if they give way to reasoning, if they let go any parts of 'love's divine simplicity.' I am afraid this was your case: you did not remain simple; you gave way to evil reasoning. But you was as surely sanctified as you was justified. And how soon may you be so again The way, the new and living way, is open! Believe, and enter in!-- I am, my dear Peggy, Your affectionate brother.

Ought I not to add that there were some of our brethren who did not answer my expectations I knew they were able to assist me largely; and I flattered myself they were not less willing than able, as they owed me their own souls also, and this was the first favour of the kind which I had requested of them. Let me be excused from saying any more of what is past. Let them now drop all excuses and objections, and show they love me and their brethren and the work of God not in word only but in deed and in truth. Let me have joy over you, my brother, in particular. You have a measure of this world's goods. You see your brother hath need. I have need of your help, inasmuch as the burthens of my brethren are my own. Do not pass by on the other side, but come and help as God has enabled you. Do all you can to lighten the labour and--strengthen the hands of Your affectionate brother.[An identical letter, addressed to Mr. Mark Middleton, was in the hands of Mr. George Stampe, dated Dec. 7, 1768.]

To John Mason Date: CORK, May 30, 1769. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1769) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--By last Friday's post we sent you word that I hoped to see you at Limerick [Mason was stationed there.] once more. We purpose with God's leave to set out early on Monday morning, and hope to reach Brough soon after one. O let us work while the day is! Our Father worketh hitherto.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

And are not the love of God and our neighbour good tempers? And, so far as these reign in the soul, are not the opposite tempers, worldly-mindedness, malice, cruelty, revengefulness, destroyed? Indeed, the unclean spirit, though driven out, may return and enter again; nevertheless he was driven out. I use the word 'destroyed' because St. Paul does; 'suspended' I cannot find in my Bible. 'But they say you do not consider this as the consequence of the power of Christ dwelling in us.' Then what will they not say? My very words are: 'None feel their need of Christ like these; none so entirely depend upon Him. For Christ does not give light to the soul separate from, but in and with, Himself. Hence His words are equally true of all men in whatever state of grace they are: "As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in Me: without" (or separate from) "Me ye can do nothing." For our perfection is not like that of a tree, which flourishes by the sap derived from its own root; but like that of a branch, which, united to the vine, bears fruit, but severed from it is "dried up and withered."' At length veris vincor ['I am conquered by the truth.']: I am constrained to believe (what I would not for a long time) these are not the objections of judgement, but of passion; they do not spring from the head, but the heart. Whatever I say, it will be all one. They will find fault because I say it. There is implicit envy at my power (so called), and a jealousy rising therefrom. Hence prejudice in a thousand forms; hence objections springing up like mushrooms. And, while those causes remain, they will spring up, whatever I can do or say. However, keep thyself pure; and then there need be no strangeness between you and, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother.

To George L. Fleury Date: LIMERICK, May 18, 1771. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1771) Author: John Wesley --- REVEREND SIR,--1. In June 1769 I spent two or three days at Waterford. As soon as my back was turned, you valiantly attacked me, I suppose both morning and afternoon. Hearing, when I was there two or three weeks ago, that you designed me the same favour, I waited upon you at the cathedral on Sunday, April 28. You was as good as your word: you drew the sword, and in effect threw away the scabbard. You made a furious attack on a large body of people, of whom you knew just nothing. Blind and bold, you laid about you without fear or wit, without any regard either to truth, justice, or mercy. And thus you entertained both morning and evening a large congregation who came to hear the words of eternal life.' 2. Not having leisure myself, I desired Mr. Bourke to wait upon you the next morning. He proposed our writing to each other. You said, No; if anything can be said against my sermons, I expect it shall be printed: let it be done in a public, not a private way.' I did not desire this; I had much rather it had been done privately. But, since you will have it so, I submit. 3. Your text was, I know this, that after my departure shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.' (Acts xx. 29-30.) Having shown that St. Paul foresaw these false teachers, you undertake to show, (1) the mischiefs which they occasioned; (2) the character of them, and how nearly this concerns a set of men called Methodists. (First Sermon, pp. 1-4 ) 4. Against these false teachers, you observe, St. Paul warned the Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, and Hebrews (pages 5-8). Very true; but what is this to the point Oh, much more than some are aware of! The insinuation was all along just as if you had said: I beseech you, my dear hearers, mark the titles he gives to these grievous wolves, false apostles, deceitful workers, and apply them to the Methodist teachers. There I give them a deadly thrust.'

To Philothea Briggs Date: GALWAY, May 28, 1771. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1771) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR PHILLY,--Your concern is with the present moment; your business is to live to-day. In every sense let the morrow take thought for the things of itself. It is true the full assurance of hope excludes all doubt of our final salvation; but it does not and cannot continue any longer than we walk closely with God. And it does not include any assurance of our future behaviour; neither do I know any word in all the Bible which gives us any authority to look for a testimony of this kind. But just so far you may certainly go with regard to the present moment,-- I want the witness, Lord, That all I do is right, According to Thy will and word, Well-pleasing in Thy sight. Seriously and steadily, my dear maid, aim at this, and you will not be disappointed of your hope. With regard to the impression you speak of, I am in doubt whether it be not a temptation from the enemy. It may occasion many wrong tempers; it may feed both pride and uncharitableness. And the Bible gives us no authority to think ill of any one, but from plain, undeniable, overt acts. In the Thoughts upon a Single Life [Published in 1765. See Works, xi. 456-63.] you have what has been my deliberate judgement for many years. I have not yet seen any reason to alter it, though I have heard abundance of objections. I do not know whether your particular case [See letter of May 2 to her.] be an exception to the general rule. It is true your temper is both lively and unstable, and your passions are naturally strong. But that is not much: the grace of God can totally subdue the most stubborn nature. So far, then, you may certainly go. You may now devote yourself to God soul and body in your present state, and resolve never to alter it--without strong and urgent reasons. Of the weight of those reasons likewise, not yourself but your most spiritual friends should judge.

To Several Preachers and Friends Date: DUBLIN, July 10, 1771. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1771) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR,--You desired my farther thoughts on those propositions which close the Minutes of our last Conference. 'We have leaned too much toward Calvinism.' '1. With regard to man's faithfulness. Our Lord Himself taught us to use the expression; and we ought never to be ashamed of it. We ought steadily to assert it, on His authority, that if a man is not faithful in the unrighteous mammon God will not give him the true riches.' I think nothing farther need be said on this, as it is grounded on the express Word of God. '2. With regard to working for life. This also our Lord has expressly commanded us. " Labour " (literally work) " for the meat that endureth to everlasting life." And, in fact, every believer works for as well as from life.' 'Every believer': of such only the proposition speaks, And who can doubt it '3. We have received it as a maxim that " a man is to do nothing in order to justification." Nothing can be more false. 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' And who can deny one line of this if he allows the Bible to be true Thus far, then, here is no ground for this marvellous outcry. Here is no heresy, but the words of truth and soberness. 'Review the whole affair. '1. Who of us is now accepted of God' (I mean, who is now in His favour The question does not refer to the gaining the favour of God, but the being therein, at any given point of time.) 'He that now believes in Christ with a loving and obedient heart.' Well, and who can deny this Who can find any fault either with the sentiment or the expression

To his Brother Charles Date: KINGSWOOD, August 3, 1771. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1771) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BROTHER,--I will not throw away T. Rankin on the people of London. He shall go where they know the value of him. [Rankin had been in London; he now went to Cornwall West.] We cannot put out what we never put in. I do not use the word merit. [See sect. 6 in letter of July 10.] I never did. I never did, neither do now, contend for the use of it. But I ask you or any other a plain question; and do not cry 'Murder,' but give me an answer: What is the difference between merere and 'to deserve' or between 'deserving' and meritum I say still, I cannot tell. Can you Can Mr. Shirley or any man living In asking this question, I neither plead for merit nor against it. I have nothing to do with it. I have declared a thousand times there is no goodness in man till he is justified; no merit either before or after: that is, taking the word in its proper sense; for in a loose sense meritorious means no more than rewardable. As to Reprobation, seeing they have drawn the sword, I throw away the scabbard. I send you a specimen. Let fifteen hundred of them be printed as soon as you please. [A Defence of the Minute of Conference (1770) relating to Calvinism. See Green's Bibliography, No. 273; and letters of July 10 and 20. ] Nothing was ever yet expended out of the Yearly Subscription without being immediately set down by the secretary. I never took a shilling from that fund yet. What you advise with regard to our behaviour toward opposers exactly agrees with my sentiments. My wife, I find, is on the high ropes still. I am full of business, as you may suppose. So adieu!

To the Countess of Huntingdon Date: NEAR THE HAY, August 14, 1771. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1771) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR LADY,--When I received the former letter from your Ladyship, I did not know how to answer; and I judged, not only that silence would be the best answer, but also that with which your Ladyship would be best pleased. When I received your Ladyship's of the 2nd instant, I immediately saw that it required an answer; only I waited till the hurry of the Conference was over that I might do nothing rashly. I know your Ladyship would not 'servilely deny the truth.' I think neither would I; especially that great truth Justification by Faith, which Mr. Law indeed flatly denies (and yet Mr. Law was a child of God), but for which I have given up all my worldly hopes, my friends, my reputation--yea, for which I have so often hazarded my life, and by the grace of God will do again. 'The principles established in the Minutes' I apprehend to be no way contrary to this, or to that faith, that consistent plan of doctrine, which was once delivered to the saints. I believe, whoever calmly considers Mr. Fletcher's Letters [Five Letters to the Hon. and Rev. Walter Shirley, which formed the First Check to Antinomianism. See Tyerman's Wesley's Designated Successor, p. 192. ] will be convinced of this. I fear, therefore, 'zeal against those principles' is no less than zeal against the truth and against the honour of our Lord. 'The preservation of His honour appears so sacred' to me, and has done for above these forty years, that I have counted, and do count, all things loss in comparison of it. But till Mr. Fletcher's printed letters are answered, I must think everything spoke against those Minutes is totally destructive of His honour, and a palpable affront to Him both as our Prophet and Priest, but more especially as the King of His people. Those letters (which therefore could not be suppressed without betraying the honour of our Lord) largely prove that the Minutes lay no other foundation than that which is laid in Scripture, and which I have been laying, and teaching others to lay, for between thirty and forty years.

To Walter Sellon Date: LONDON, February 1, 1772. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1772) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR WALTER,--You do not understand your information right. Observe, 'I am going to America to turn bishop.' [See letter of Aug. 14, 1771, to Philothea Briggs.] You are to understand it in sensu composito. ['In the sense agreed.'] I am not to be a bishop till I am in America. While I am in Europe, therefore, you have nothing to fear. But as soon as ever you hear of my being landed at Philadelphia, it will be time for your apprehensions to revive. It is true some of our preachers would not have me stay so long; but I keep my old rule, Festina lente. ['Make haste slowly.']--I am, dear Walter, Your affectionate brother.

To Hannah Ball Date: BRADFORD, July 7. 1772. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1772) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--From what has lately occurred you may learn a good lesson--not to build your faith on a single text of Scripture, and much less on a particular sense of it. Whether this text be interpreted in one or the other way, the work of God in your soul is the same. Beware, therefore, of supposing that you are mistaken in the substance of your experience because you may be mistaken with regard to the meaning of a particular scripture. Pray; and observe that God Himself may, and frequently does, apply a scripture to the heart (either in justifying or sanctifying a soul) in what is not its direct meaning. Allowing, then, that the passage mentioned directly refers to heaven, yet this would be no manner of proof that you were deceived as to that work of God which was wrought in your soul when it was applied to you in another meaning.--My dear sister, adieu!

To Ann Bolton Date: BRISTOL, September 20, 1772. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1772) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--You have no time to lose, unless you would throw away your life, which you have no authority to do. You should have had no blister [See letter of July 1 to her.] had I been near you. I judge your case to be chiefly rheumatical. Change of air is likely to do you more good than an hundred medicines. Come away, come away. Set out the very day after you receive this. You may come first to me in the Horsefair; and if need be, I can show you to Sally James. [ See letters of May 1, 1772, and Nov. 29, 1774 (to Sarah James).] I need not tell you how welcome you will be to, my dear Nancy, Yours affectionately.

To John Valton Date: BRISTOL, September 20, 1773. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1773) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--My first advice to you was, Preach the gospel everywhere. But you shrank back. I have now another proposal to make to you, which requires one that has an honest heart and much industry. Come and take charge of the books at London. I think it would take you up six or seven hours a day. And you would have opportunity of preaching every Sunday and (if you chose it) frequently on weekdays. I would give you either five-and-twenty pounds a year with your board and a room in the Foundery, or fifty pounds without it. If you incline to accept of it, send me word immediately, and we can talk father. I will speak to no one else till I hear from you.--I am Your affectionate brother.

To his Brother Charles Date: LONDON, January 13, 1774. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1774) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BROTHER,--Probably, if I live another year, I may need Mr. Wathen again; but as yet it is not easy to determine. However, I am at present perfectly well. Your advice with regard to Mr. D[avis] is good. He is very quiet, but not very useful To tell you my naked thoughts (which I do not tell to every one), I have talked with Ralph Mather again and again. I think verily I never met with such another man. I am much inclined to think (though he is not infallible, neither of an uncommon natural understanding) that he is now as deep in grace as G. Lopez was. I mean Dr. Boyce. I am glad Charles is at home. [But why should you not have him to your hour is the question. You are a man!] No truth in it at all. A mere Georgian story. I think God raised up out of the dust T. Olivers in the room of poor decrepit Walter Sellon. The conclusion of his book is noble: true, strong oratory. Goldsmith’s History and Hooke’s are far the best. I think I shall make them better. My view in writing history (as in writing philosophy) is to bring God into it. When I talk with Ralph Mather, I am amazed and almost discouraged. What have I been doing for seventy years! Peace be with you and yours! Adieu.

To the Editor of 'Lloyd's Evening Post' Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1774) Author: John Wesley --- [LONDON November 28, 1774.] SIR,--Some years since, a gentleman published 'An exact translation of the Koran of Mahomet,' with a deign to contrast it with the Bible, and show how far preferable it was; consequently how greatly Mahometanism was preferable to Christianity. As this had not all the desired effect, another gentleman has lately published an exact translation of the Koran of Indostan, of the Shastah of Bramah, undoubtedly with the charitable deign to contrast this with the Bible, and to show how great is the pre-eminence of Indian Paganism over Christianity. Letting alone a thousand wonderful assertions scattered up and down his work, I would only at present (1) give an extract from this curious book in the words of this writer; (2) examine what he says concerning the antiquity of it and of the nations that hold it sacred; (3) observe some instances of this author’s esteem for the Bible; adding some cursory remarks. And, first, I am to give an extract from this curious book. 'The rebellious angels groaned in hell for four hundred and twenty-six millions of years. After this, God relented. He then retired into Himself and became invisible to all the angels for five thousand years. Then He appeared again, and said, "Let the fifteen regions of punishment and purification appear for the residence of the rebellious angels, and let them be brought from hell to the lowest of these regions." And it was so. And He prepared bodies for their closer confinement, and said, "Herein they shall undergo eighty-seven transmigration’s for their punishment and purgation. Then they shall animate the form of a cow, and afterward the form of man. This is their eighty-ninth transmigration. If they now have any good works, they shall pass from earth into the second region of punishment and purgation, and so successively through the eight, and then through the ninth, which is the first region of purification."' Accordingly, 'The souls that animate every mortal form, whether of man, beast, bird, fish, or insect, are fallen angels in a state of punishment.'

If 'Zoroaster and Pythagoras did visit them about the time of Romulus’ (which I do not allow), what then Romulus did not live three thousand years ago; and Zoroaster a late author has sufficiently proved to be no other than Moses himself. The antiquity, therefore, of the Shastah is utterly uncertain, being unsupported by any clear authority. Equally doubtful is the antiquity of that empire. Nay, ' Indostan, by their own account, was peopled as early as most other parts of the known word.' But who can rely on their own accounts This authority is just none at all. But 'the first invaders of it found the inhabitants a potent, civilized, wise, and learned people: Alexander the Great found it so.' No. Arrian and Q. Curtius (the only writers who give us the particulars of that expedition) say quite the contrary. But 'the Gentoo records affirm it, which mention the invasion of a great and mighty robber.' I answer (1) How is it proved this was Alexander the Great There have been more great and mighty robbers than him. But if it was, (2) Of what antiquity was he who died little above two thousand years since (3) Of what authority are the Gentoo records As much as the visions of Mirza. But 'these doctrines were universally professed by the Gentoos, some thousand years before Christ; and the Metempsychosis was held in the most early ages by at least four-fifths of the earth; and the Gentoos were eminently distinguished in the most early times.' Roundly asserted: but that is not enough; a little proof would do well. Here it is at last. 'The Gentoos admit no proselytes to their faith or worship. This proves their great antiquity.' I know not how: the consequence halts sadly. But see another argument. 'This is also proved by the perpetuity of their doctrine through a succession of so many ages.' Right, when that succession is proved. A third proof! ' Pythagoras took his doctrines from them, which the Egyptians took from him.' I am an infidel as to both these facts till I see some proof of them. His true doctrines I believe Pythagoras learned from the Egyptians, and they from the Israelites.

I come, in the third place, to observe some instances of this writer's esteem for the Bible. 'We profess ourselves' says he, 'an unworthy though zealous subscriber to the pure, original Scriptures.' But for fear you should believe him, he immediately adds, 'and propagate no system but what coincides with every religious creed that has been or is now professed throughout the known world.' Why, are there not an hundred religious creeds now in the word that are taffy contradictory to each other How, then, can your system coincide with them all Certainly you do not understand the word. But if it coincides both with Paganism and Mahometanism, it does not with Christianity. For you everywhere strike at the root of those Scriptures on which alone it is built. This I shall briefly show both with regard to Moses, the Law, the Prophets, and the New Testament. As to the first, 'Moses' detail of the Creation and Fall of Man is clogged with too many incomprehensible difficulties to gain our belief.' (Add, for decency’s sake, 'that it can be understood literally.’) Hence his anger at Milton's diabolical conceits'; because he has shown that detail in all its parts to be not only simple, plain, and comprehensible, but consistent with the highest reason, and altogether worthy of God. Again: 'To suppose the Indians less the care of God than the Israelites,'--that is, to suppose He ever had a peculiar people, or that He regarded the seed of Jacob more than that of Esau,--‘this would arraign His justice.' Then what is Moses, who perpetually supposes this throughout the whole Pentateuch As to the Law: ‘Nothing but the devil himself’ (insert, for decency, 'the Bramins say') 'could have invented bloody sacrifices, so manifestly repugnant to the true spirit of devotion and abhorrent to' (it should be abhorred by) 'God.' This is an home thrust at the Mosaic Law, wherein without shedding of blood there was no remission. Therefore with him it is 'manifestly repugnant to the true spirit of devotion and abhorred by God.' As to the Prophets: 'Gods prescience' (so he affirms) 'of the actions of free agents is utterly repugnant and contradictory to the very nature and essence of free agency.' If so, the inference is plain: the Prophets were all a pack of impostors; for it is certain they all pretended to foretell the actions of free agents.

To the Printer of the 'Gazetteer' Date: LONDON, December 28, 1775. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1775) Author: John Wesley --- Between twenty and thirty editions of the Primitive Pysick, or, A Rational and easy Method of Curing most Diseases, have been published either in England or Ireland. In one or more of these editions stand these words: ' Give one or more drachms of verdigris.' I thank the gentleman who takes notice of this, though he might have done it in a more obliging manner. Could he possibly have been ignorant (had he not been willingly so) that this is a mere blunder of the printer that I wrote grains, not drachms However, it is highly proper to advertise the public of this; and I beg every one that has the book would take the trouble of altering that word with his pen. Yours, &c.

Here I met with another curious book, " Sketches of the [June, 1774. History of Man. " Undoubtedly, the author is aman of strong understanding, lively imagination, and considerable learning ; and his book contains some useful truths. Yet some things in it gave me pain : 1. His affirming things that are not true ; as that all Negro children turn black the ninth or tenth day from their birth. No : most ofthem turn partly black on the second day, entirely so on the third. That all the Americans are of a copper colour. Not so : Some of them are as fair as we are. Many more such assertions I observed, which I impute not to design but credulity. 2. His flatly contradicting himself; many times within a page or two. 3. His asserting, and labouring to prove, that man is a mere piece ofclock-work : And, lastly, his losing no opportunity of vilifying the Bible, to which he appears to bear amost cordial hatred. I marvel if any but his brother Infidels will give two guineas for such a work as this ! Sun. 29.-At seven the congregation was large. In the evening the people were ready to tread upon each other. I scarce ever saw people so squeezed together. And they seemed to be all ear, while I exhorted them, with strong and pointed words, not to receive " the grace ofGod in vain." Mon. 30.-I set out early from Aberdeen, and preached at Arbroath in the evening. I know no people in England, who aremore loving, andmore simple of heart, than these. Tuesday, 31. I preached at Easthaven, asmall town, inhabited by fish- ermen. I suppose all the inhabitants were present ; and all were ready to devour the word. In the evening I preached at Dun- dee, and had great hope that brotherly love would continue. In my way hither, I read Dr. Reid's ingenious Essay. With the former part ofit I was greatly delighted : But afterwards I was much disappointed. I doubt whether the sentiments are just: But I am sure his language is so obscure, that to most readers it must be mere Arabic. But I have a greater objection than this ; namely, his exquisite want ofjudgment, in so admir- ing that prodigy of self-conceit, Rousseau,-a shallow, yet supercilious Infidel, two degrees below Voltaire ! Is it possible,

the men at top overset the coach ; otherwise, ten times the shock would not have moved it; but neither the coachman, nor the men at top, norany within,were hurt at all. On Tuesday, in the afternoon, wewere met at Hatfield bymany of our friends, who conducted us safe to London. Having spent a few days in town, on Monday, 14, I set out for Wales; and Wednesday, 16, reached the Hay. Being desired to give them one sermon at Trevecka, I turned aside thither, and on Thursday, 17, preached at eleven to a numerous congregation. What alovelyplace ! And what a lovely family ! still consisting of about sixscore persons. So the good "man 52 REV. J. WESLEY'S [Aug. 1775. is turned again to his dust ! " But his thoughts do not perish. I preached at Brecon the next day, and on Saturday, 19, went on to Carmarthen. How is this wilderness become a fruit- ful field ! A year ago I knew no one in this town who had any desire of fleeing from the wrath to come ; and now we have eighty persons in society. It is true not many of them are awakened ; but they have broke off their outward sins. Now let us try, whether it be not possible to prevent the greater part of these from drawing back. About this time I received a remarkable letter, from one of our Preachers at West-Bromwich, near Wednesbury. The substance of it is as follows :- "August 16, 1775. "ABOUT three weeks since, a person came and told me, Martha Wood, of Darlaston, was dying, and had a great desire to see me. When I came into the house, which, with all that was in it, was scarce worth five pounds, I found, in that mean cottage, such a jewel as my eyes never beheld before. Her eyes even sparkled with joy, and her heart danced like David before the ark : In truth, she seemed to be in the suburbs of heaven, upon the confines ofglory . " She took hold of my hand, and said, ' I am glad to see you; you are my father in Christ. It is twenty years since I heard you first. It was on that text, Now ye have sorrow : But I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and

sleep in my life : 5. Two violent fevers, and two deep consump- tions. These, it is true, were rough medicines ; but they were of admirable service; causing my flesh to come again, as the flesh of a little child. May I add, lastly, evenness of temper ? I feel and grieve ; but, by the grace of God, I fret at nothing. But still " the help that is done upon earth, He doeth it him- self. " And this he doeth in answer to many prayers. Mon. JULY 1.-I preached, about eleven, to a numerous and serious congregation at Pocklington. In myway from hence to Malton, Mr. C (a man of sense and veracity) gave me the following account :-His grandfather, Mr. H , he said, about twenty years ago, ploughing up a field, two or three miles from Pocklington, turned up a large stone, under which he per- ceived there was a hollow. Digging on, he found, at a small distance, a large, magnificent house. He cleared away the earth ; and, going into it, found many spacious rooms. The floors of the lower story were of Mosaic work, exquisitely wrought. Mr. C- himself counted sixteen stones within an inch square. Many flocked to see it, from various parts, as long as it stood open: But after some days, Mr. P (he " [July, 1776. knew not why) ordered it to be covered again ; and he would never after suffer any to open it, but ploughed the field all over. This is far more difficult to account for, than the subterraneous buildings at Herculaneum. History gives us an account of the time when, and the manner how, these were swallowed up. The burning mountain is still assured, and the successive lavas that flowed from it still distinguishable. But history gives no account of this, nor of any burning mountains in our island. Neither do we read of any such earthquake in England, as was capable ofworking that effect. Tues. 2.-I went to York. The House was full enough in the evening, while I pointed the true and the false way of expounding those important words, "Ye are saved through faith. " Wednesday, 3. I preached about noon at Tadcaster, with an uncommon degree of freedom ; which was attended with a remarkable blessing. A glorious work is dawning here,

next evening, Friday, 19, met the Committee at the Foundery. Wed. 24.-I read Mr. Jenyns's admired tract, on the " Inter- nal Evidence of the Christian Religion." He is undoubtedly a fine writer ; but whether he is a Christian, Deist, or Atheist, I cannot tell. If he is a Christian, he betrays his own cause by averring, that " all Scripture is not given by inspiration of God; but the writers of it were sometimes left to them- selves, and consequently made some mistakes." Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth. Sun. 28.-Perceiving the immense hurt which it had done, I spoke more strongly than ever I had done before, on the sin and danger of indulging " itching ears." I trust, here at least, that plague will be stayed. Fri. AUGUST 2.-We made our first subscription toward building a new chapel ; and at this, and the two following meetings, above a thousand pounds were cheerfully subscribed. Sun. 4. Many of the Preachers being come to town, I "Let enforced that solemn caution, in the Epistle for the day, him that standeth take heed lest he fall. " And God applied it to many hearts. In the afternoon I preached in Moorfields to thousands, on Acts ii. 32, " This Jesus hathGod raised up, whereof we all are witnesses." Tues. 6. Our Conference began, and ended on Friday, 9, which we observed with fasting and prayer, as well for our own nation as for our brethren in America. In several Conferences, we have had great love and unity ; but in this there was, over and above, such a general seriousness and solemnity of spirit as we scarcely have had before. Sunday, 11. About half anhour after four I set out ; and at half an hour after eleven on Mon- day, came to Bristol. I found Mr. Fletcher a little better, and proposed his taking a journey with me to Cornwall ; nothing being so likely to Aug. 1776. ] 83 restore his health, as a journey of four or five hundred miles ; but his Physician would in nowise consent ; so I gave up the point. Tues. 13.-I preached at Taunton, and afterwards went

and fifty odd places, just eight are possessed by Scotchmen ; and of the hundred and fifty-one places in the Royal House- hold, four are possessed by Scots, and no more. Ought not this to be echoed through the three kingdoms, to show the regard to truth these wretches have, who are constantly endeavouring to inflame the nation against their Sovereign, as well as their fellow-subjects ? Tues. 8. In the evening I stood on one side of the market- place at Frome, and declared to a very numerous congregation, "His commandments are not grievous." They stood as quiet as those at Bristol, a very few excepted ; most of whom were, by the courtesy of England, called Gentlemen. How much inferior to the keelmen and colliers ! On Wednesday and Thursday I made a little excursion into Dorsetshire, and on Saturday returned to Bristol. Sunday, 13. We had a comfortable opportunity at the Room in the morning, as well as at the Square in the afternoon ; where the congregation was considerably larger than the Sunday before : But on Sunday, 20, it was larger still. Now let the winter come : We have made our full use of the Michaelmas summer. Oct. 1778.] JOURNAL. 137 On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, on meeting the classes, I carefully examined whether there was any truth in the assertion, that above a hundred in our society were con- cerned in unlawful distilling. The result was, that I found two persons, and no more, that were concerned therein. I now procured a copy of part of Mr. Fletcher's late Letter to Mr. Ireland; which I think it my duty to publish, as a full answer to the lying accounts which have been published con- cerning that bad man :--" Mr. Voltaire, finding himself ill, sent for Dr. Fronchin, first Physician to the Duke of Orleans, one of his converts to infidelity, and said to him, ' Sir, I desire you will save my life. I will give you half my fortune, if you will lengthenout mydays only six months. If not, I shall go to the devil, and carry you with me. " Thur. 24. I read Prayers and preached in Midsummer- Norton church. Thence I went to Bradford, on a sultry hot day, such as were several days this month ; and preached on

in the evening ; but the Minister of Gratton (near Stanley) sending me word, I was welcome to the use of his church, I ordered notice to be given, that the service would begin there at six o'clock. Stanley chapel was thoroughly filled at two. It is eighteen years since I was there before ; so that many of those whom I saw here then, were now grey-headed ; andmany were gone to Abraham's bosom. May we follow them as they did Christ ! I was preparing to go to Gratton, when one brought me word from Mr. Roberts, that he had changed his mind ; so I preached March, 1779.1 in Mr. Stephen's orchard, to far more than his church would have contained. And it was no inconvenience either to me or them, as it was amild, still evening. Wed. 17.-1 preached at Tewkesbury about noon, and at Worcester in the evening. Thursday, 18. Upon inquiry I found there had been no morning preaching since the Confer- ence! So the people were of course weak and faint. At noon I preached in Bewdley, in an open space, at the head of the town, to avery numerous and quiet congregation. Here Mrs. C- informed me, " This day twelvemonth I found peace with God ; and the same day my son, till then utterly thoughtless, was con- vinced of sin. Some time after, he died, rejoicing in God, and praising him with his latest breath." Fri. 19. I preached in Bengeworth church about noon, and about six in Pebworth church. Saturday, 20. I went on to Birmingham. Sunday, 21. Just at the time of preaching, at Bromwich-Heath, began such a storm as that which ushered in the year. Yet as no house could contain the people, I was con- strained to stand in the court-yard. For amoment I was afraid of the tiles falling on the people ; but they regarded nothing but the word. As I concluded, we had a furious shower of hail : Hitherto could the prince of the power of the air go ; but no farther. After preaching at Wednesbury, Darlaston, Dudley, and Wolverhampton, on Wednesday, 24, I went on to Madeley. Inthe way I finished a celebrated "Essay on Taste." And is this the treatise that gained the premium? It is lively and

" Imposture and fanaticism still hang upon the skirts of religion. Weak minds were seduced by the delusions of a superstition, styled Methodism, raised upon the affectation of superior sanctity, and pretensions to divine illumination. Many thousands were infected with this enthusiasm bythe endeavours of a few obscure Preachers, such as Whitefield, and the two Wesleys, who found means to lay the whole kingdom under contribution." Poor Dr. Smollet ! Thus to transmit to all succeeding gene- rations a whole heap of notorious falsehoods ! " Imposture and fanaticism ! " Neither one nor the other had any share in the late revival of scriptural religion, which is no other than the love of God and man, gratitude to our Creator, and good-will to our fellow-creatures. Is this delusion and superstition ? No, it is real wisdom ; it is solid virtue. Does this fanaticism " hang upon the skirts of religion ? " Nay, it is the very essence of it. Does the Doctor call this enthusiasm ? Why ? Because he knows nothing about it. Who told him that these " obscure Preachers " made "pretensions to divine illumination ? " How often has that silly calumnybeen refuted to the satisfaction of all candidmen ? However, they " found means to lay the whole kingdom under contribution." So does this frontless man, blind and bold, stumble on without the least shadow of truth ! April, 1779.] JOURNAL. 149 Meantime, what faith can be given to his History ? What credit can anyman of reason give to any fact uponhis authority ? In travelling this week I looked over Baron Swedenborg's "Account of Heaven and Hell." Hewas aman of piety, of a strong understanding, and most lively imagination ; but he had a violent fever when he was five-and-fifty years old, which quite overturned his understanding. Nor did he ever recover it ; but it continued " majestic, though in ruins." From that time he was exactly in the state of that gentleman atArgos,- Qui se credebat miros audire tragædos, In vacuo lætus sessor plausorque theatro. Whowondrous tragedies was wont to hear, Sitting alone in the empty theatre. His words, therefore, from that time were ægri somnia, the dreams of a disordered imagination ; just as authentic as Quevedo's " Visions of Hell. " Of this work in particular I

town, who has laid out walks hanging over the sea, and winding among the rocks. One of them leads to the Castle, wherein that poor injured woman, Mary Queen of Scots, was confined. But time has well nigh devoured it : Only a few ruinous walls are now standing. Thur. 25. We went on to Berwick. Friday, 26. In return- ing to Alnwick we spent an hour at H., an ancient monastery. Part of it the Duke of Northumberland has repaired, furnished it in a plainmanner, and surrounded it with a little garden. An old inscription bears date 1404,when partof it was built by the fourth Earl of Northumberland. How many generations have had their day since that time, andthen passed away like a dream ! Wehad ahappy season at Alnwick with a large and deeply attentive congregation. Sat. 27. At noon I preached in the Town-Hall at Morpeth ; and God applied his word to many hearts. In the afternoon I preached to the loving colliers at Placey, and then went on to Newcastle. Sun. 28.-Between eight and nine in the morning I preached at Gateshead-Fell, on Fellowship withGod; a subject which not a few of them understand by heart-felt experience. The con- gregation at Sheephill about noon was far too large for any House to contain. Such was the power of God that I almost June, 1780.1 183 wondered any couldhelp believing. At five I preached at the Garth-Heads, to a still more numerous congregation ; but there were few among them who remembered my first preaching near that place in the Keelman's Hospital. For what reason the wise managers of that place forbade my preaching there any more, I am yet still to learn. Wed. 31.-Taking my leave of this affectionate people, I went to Mr. Parker's, at Shincliff, near Durham. The congre- gation being far too large to get into the House, I stood near his door. It seemed as if the whole village were ready to receive the truth in the love thereof. Perhaps their earnestness may provoke the people ofDurham to jealousy. In the afternoon we took a view of the Castle at Durham, the residence of the Bishop. The situation is wonderfully fine, surrounded by the river, and commanding all the country ; and many of the apartments are large and stately ; but the furniture

village, wherein there is not one or more earnestly athirst for salvation. Wed. 4-. I called upon an honest man, and, I hope, took him outofthe hands of an egregious quack ; who was pouring in medicines upon him, for what he called "wind in the nerves !" In the evening I preached at Louth, now as quiet as Grimsby. When shall we learn " to despair of none ?" Thur. 5. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Brackenbury again, though still exceeding weak. His chapel was thoroughly filled in the evening ; I trust, with sincere hearers. Fri. 6.-1 crossed over to Langham-Row; where the high wind would not suffer me to preach abroad. But the House tolerably contained the congregation; most of whom attended again at five in the morning. To-day I finished the second volume of Dr. Robertson's " History of America." His language is always clear and strong, and frequently elegant ; and I suppose his history is preferable to any history of America which has appeared in the English tongue. But I cannot admire, First, His intolerable prolixity in this history, as well as his " History of Charles the Fifth." He promises eight books ofthe History of America, and fills four of them with critical dissertations. True, the dissertations are sensible, but they have lost their way; they are not history : And they are swelled beyond all proportion; doubtless, for the benefit of the author and the bookseller, rather than the reader. I cannot admire, Secondly,A Christian Divine writing a history, with so very little of Christianity in it. Nay, he seems studiously to avoid saying any thing which might imply that he believes the Bible. I can still less admire, Thirdly, His speaking so honourably of a professed Infidel ; yea, and referring to his masterpiece of Infidelity, " Sketches of the History of Man;" as artful, as unfair, as disingenuous a book, as even Toland's " Nazarenus." Least of all can I admire, Fourthly, His copying after Dr. Hawkesworth, (who once professed better things,) in totally excluding the Creator from governing the world. Was it not enough, never to mention the Providence of God, where therewas the fairest occasion, without saying expressly, " The fortune of Certiz," or " chance," did thus or thus ? So far as fortune or chance governs the world, God has no place in it.

miners, who dig up lapis calaminaris. I was surprised to see such a congregation at so short awarning ; and their deep and serious attention seemed to be a presage, that some ofthem will profit by what they hear. In the afternoon we went on to Bristol. Sun. 8-Mybrother read Prayers, and I preached to a very uncommon congregation. But a far more numerous one met near King's Square in the evening, onwhom I strongly enforced, " Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Permit me to observe here, how you may distinguish agenuine small Field's Bible from a spurious one : The genuine reads here, " Ye can serve God andmammon." In the spurious, the " not " is supplied. Mon. 9. About nine I preached at Paulton, where the flame is abated, but not quenched. The same is the case at Shepton- Mallet, where I preached in the evening. Tuesday, 10. I went on to the simple-hearted colliers, at Coleford, abundance of whom met at six in the evening, in agreen meadow, which Wed- was delightfully gilded by the rays of the setting sun. nesday, 11. I preached to a large and serious congregation at the end of the preaching-house at Frome. After preaching at Roade, Pensford, Trowbridge, and Fresh- ford, on Friday, 13, I preached at Bath. Sunday, 15. I had a far greater number of communicants than usual. Both at this time, and in the afternoon and the evening service, we had no common blessing. On Monday and Tuesday I preached at Chew-Magna, at Sutton, Stoke, and Clutton : In mywaythither, I saw a famous monument of antiquity, at Stanton-Drew ; supposed to have 238 REV. J. WESLEY'S [Oct. 1782. remained there between two and three thousand years. It was undoubtedly a Druid's temple, consisting of a smaller and a larger circle ofhuge stones set on end, one would think by some power morethan human. Indeed, such stones have been used for divine worship, nearly, if not quite, from the time of the flood. On the following days I preached at many other little places. Sun. 22. After the service at Bristol, I hastened to Kings- wood, and preached a funeral sermon on Jenny Hall; a lovely young woman, who died in full triumph, and desired a sermon might be preached on Rev. vii. 13, and following verses. On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, I visited theclasses ;

worth transcribing, as containing some uncommon remarks. He says more for the veracity of Herodotus than ever I saw before ; and convinces me that his authority is more to be relied on than that of Polybius ; who, " contrary to the truth ofhistory, makes Scipio an example ofcontinence, in giving up the fair captive to the Spanish Prince ; whereas, in fact, he never would, nor did, restore her to her husband." "There is not amore incredible relation in all the Roman History, than that Clelia, and all the Roman virgins who were hostages to the Hetrurians, swam over the river Tiber to Rome. Surely they would scarce have dared to look upon so rapid a river, much less to plunge into it ; especially when there was no necessity, for the peacewas then almost concluded. " Some writers affirm, and it is earnestly believed, that Beli- sarius was reduced to beggary. But it is a mere fable : On the contrary, the Emperor Justinian heaped titles and honours upon him to the last ; although he recalled him out of Italy, after he had been defeated there by the French. Procopius, who wrote largely concerning him, says not one word of his being reduced topoverty." Thur. 9.-Between nine and ten I preached in the Court- House at Antrim, to a large staring congregation. Thence we went on to Belfast, through miserable roads. O where is com- mon sense ! At six I preached in the Linen-Hall, to a large congregation, admirably well-behaved. I often wonder that, among so civil a people, we candobutlittle good. Friday, 10. We came to Downpatrick ; where, the preaching-house being too small, we repaired, as usual, to the Grove ; a most lovely plain, very near the venerable ruins ofthe cathedral. The con- gregationwas as large as that at Belfast, but abundantly more awakened. The people ingeneral were remarkably affectionate. They filled the large preaching-house at five in the morning ; 314 REV. J. WESLEY'S [June,1785. and we seemed to be as closely united with them as with one of our old societies in England. Abouteleven, on Saturday, I preached in the Linen-Hall, at Ballinahinch, to a numerous congregation. The country, from hence to Lisburn, is wonderfully pleasant and fruitful. At six I preached in the Presbyterian meeting, alarge and commo-

tongue. I preached near the market-place to a very large con- gregation ; and I believe the word sunk into many hearts : They seemed to drink in every word. Surely God will have a people in this place. Sat. JULY 1.-I went on to Bramley, about four miles from Sheffield, where agentleman has built a neat preaching-house for the poor people, at his own expense. As the notice was short, I hadno need to preach abroad. The congregation was deeply serious, while I explained what it was to build upon a rock, and what to build upon the sand. In the evening I spoke very plain to a crowded audience at Sheffield, on, " Now it is high time to awake out of sleep." One of the hearers wrote me *This part of Mr. Wesley's Journal was not transcribed and published by him- self, but by those persons who had access to his papers after his decease. They apologize for the imperfect form in which it appears, by saying, at the conclusion, "We are not sure that Mr. Wesley carried onhis Journal any farther ; but ifany more ofit should be found, it will be published in due time. There are unavoid- able chasms in this Journal, owing to some parts being mislaid ; and it is proba- blethatmany ofthe proper names of persons and places are not properly spelled ; as the whole of the manuscript was so ill written as to be scarcely legible." It should also be stated, that this part of the Journal contains some passages which it is probable Mr. Wesley would never have committed to the press, and for the publication ofwhich he should not be made responsible.-EDIT. [July, 1786, a nameless letter upon it. But he could remembernothing ofthe sermonbut only, that " the rising earlywas good for the nerves !" Sun. 2-. I read Prayers, preached, and administered the sacrament to six or seven hundred hearers : It was a solemn season . Ipreached soon after five in the evening, on, " There is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth." Afterwards I gave an account of the rise of Methodism, (that is, old scriptural Christianity,) to the whole congregation ; as truth will bear the light, and loves to appear in the face of the sun. Mon. 3. We had our Quarterly Meeting, followed by a

tion in the evening. Surely we shall see more fruit in this city ; but first we shall have need of patience. Mon. 4-Mr. Broadbent preached at five, and I at eleven, and he in the evening. He did the same on Tuesday, 5. At June, 1787.1 JOURNAL . 381 noon we took awalk in the Bishop's garden, and saw his delight- ful summer-house; aroom fifty feet long, finished with the utmost elegance; and situated on the point ofa hill that commands the river and all the country : But his Lordship has utterly forsaken it; for it is no longer new. Wed. 6.-I took leave of my dear friends at Londonderry, and drove to Newtown Limavaddy. I had no design to preach there ; but while we were at breakfast, the people were gathered so fast, that I could not deny them : The House was soon filled from end to end. I explained to them the fellow- ship believers have with God. Thence I went on to Coleraine, and preached at six (as I did two years ago) in the barrack-yard. The wind was high and sharp enough ; but the people here are good old soldiers. Many attended at five in the morning, and a huge congregation about six in the evening ; most of whom, I believe, tasted the good word ; for God was with us of a truth. Friday, 8. I could willingly have stayed a little longer with this steady, affectionate people ; but I broke from them between six and seven ; and went forward, as well as the heavy rain and a tired horse would permit. About two we reached Ballymena, where we have a small and poor, but well-established, society. The Presbyterian Minister offering his meeting-house, I willingly accepted his offer ; and explained to a large congre- gation, " God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself. " And I believe his word fell on many " as the rain, and as the dew upon the tender herb." Sat. 9. We went through a lovely country to Antrim. Here likewise the Presbyterian Minister offered me the use of a large and commodious House. The Bible in the pulpit lying open, I chose, for the subject of my discourse, the words which first met my eye ; namely, " Whenthey had nothing to pay, he

they were at Newcastle in the evening, while I explained and strongly applied, " I am the all-sufficient God: Walk before me, and be thou perfect." Sun. 8.-I preached at the Ballast-Hills, about half an hour after eight. I think thecongregationwasnearlydouble to that Ihad here two years ago ; and they increased in earnestness as much as in number. About two I preached at Gateshead-Fell, to I suppose twice as many as were at the Ballast-Hills, on the joy that is in heaven "over one sinner that repenteth." Though the sunwas very hot, and the windverycold, the people regarded neither one nor the other. They seemed only to attend to the voice of God, and the breathing of his Spirit. In the evening I preached near the Keelmen's Hospital, within sight of the place where I preached the first Sunday I was at Newcastle ; and I think to the largest congregation which Ihave seen at Newcastle since that time. The Second Lesson June, 1788.1 JOURNAL. 423 for the Evening Service supplied me with a text, 2 Cor. vi. 1 : "We then, as workers," &c. The people appeared to devour the word, and I did not spare them. I was then ready to say, "Now I am clear from the blood of these men." No, I dare not ! Ijudge not my own self! He thatjudgeth me is the Lord. Mon. 9. I preached at Durham about eleven, to more than theHouse could contain. Even in this polite and elegant city, we now want a larger chapel. In the evening I preached near our preaching-house, to a large multitude ; I think, as numerous as that at Gateshead-Fell. Many of the Durham Militia, with several of their officers, were there: And all of them seemed to receive the word, "not as the word of man; but, as it is indeed, the word of God." Tues. 10. We went through one of the pleasantest countries I ever saw, to Darlington. Before I left Newcastle, I was desired to read a strange account of a young woman, late of Darlington. But I told the personwho brought it, " I can form no judgment till I talk with Margaret Barlow herself." This morning she came to me, and again in the afternoon ; and I asked her abundance of questions. I was soon convinced, that

thing, but everything, had been neglected. No Stewards, no bands, half of the preaching-places dropped ; all the people cold, heartless, dead! I spoke earnestlyin the evening ; and thewordwas as fire. Surely, some fruit will follow ! Sun. 24. We had alovely congregationat St. Daniel's, and aremarkable blessing. In the afternoon I returned to Haver- fordwest, and preached in a large open space near the great church, to such acongregation as I have not seen in Wales for manyyears. I explained and applied the parable of the Sower, andGod clothed his word with power. I know not whether I havehad such an opportunity before, since I left London. Mon. 25.-I spent another night at Carmarthen very agree- ably. Tuesday, 26. I preached in Kidwelly at nine ; between twelve and one at Llanelly, to all the Gentry in the town; and in the evening to a multitude of people at Swansea. Wednes- day 27. Far more than the Room would contain attended at five in the morning. About eight I preached in our new preaching-house at Neath ; and in the afternoon reached Fonte- gary, and found Mrs. Jones, with several of her children about her, onthe margin of the grave; worn out with that dreadful disease, a cancer. She uttered no complaint, butwas all pati- ence and resignation, showing the dignity of a Christian, in weakness, and pain, and death. I preached on, " It is appointed untomenonce to die;" and I believe all present felt the awful truth. I had intended to go on to Cowbridge the next day; but, being much importuned to give one day more to a dying friend, I yielded, and desired another Preacher to go and supply my place. In the evening I preached on Psalm cxlvi. 3, 4. The scene before us greatly confirmed the word. Friday, 29. That they might not be offended, I went to Cowbridge. In half an hour's notice, we had alarge congregation inthe Town-Hall, to whom I showed the nature and pleasantness of religion, from Prov. iii. 17. I returned to Fontegary, took my last leave of thedying saint, and thenwent on to Cardiff. In the evening I preached (probably for the lasttime) to a very genteel congre- gation in the Town-Hall. Saturday, 30. I returned to Bristol. Sun. 31. Mr. Collins came very opportunely, to assist me at

to observe that I did not see things quite so clear with my left eye as with my right ; all objects appeared a little browner to that eye. I began next to find some difficulty in reading asmall printby candle-light. Ayear after, I found it in reading such a print by day-light. In winter, 1786, I could notwell read our four-shilling hymn-book, unless with a large candle ; the next year I could not read letters, if wrote with a small or bad hand. Last winter a pearl appeared on my left eye, the sight of which grew exceeding dim. The right eye seems unaltered ; only I am agreat deal nearer-sighted than ever I was. Thus are " those that look out at the windows darkened ; " one of the marks of old age. But I bless God," the grashopper is " not " aburden." I am still capable of travelling ; and mymemory is much the same as ever it was ; and so, I think, is my understanding. This week I dedicated to the reading over my brother's works. They are short poems on the Psalms, the four Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles. Some are bad ; some mean ; some most excellently good: They give the true sense of Scripture, always in good English, generally in good verse ; many of them are equal to most, if not to any, he ever wrote ; but some still savour ofthat poisonous mysticism,with which we were both not a little tainted before we went to America. This gave a gloomy cast, first to his mind, and thentomany of his verses : This made him frequently describe religion as a melancholy thing : This so Jan. 1789. | often sounded in his ears, " To the desert ! " and strongly per- suaded in favour of solitude. Thur. 25.-(Being Christmas-Day.) We began the service, as usual, at four in the new chapel. Notwithstanding the severe frost which had now lasted a month, the congregation wasuncom- monly large. I preached here again in the evening ; about eleven, in the chapel at West-Street. This was a comfortable day, aswere also the two following. Sun. 28. I preached at Allhallows church, on those words in the Service, " His commandments are not grievous." The congregation was exceeding large, and seemed to taste the good word.

the windows, which they seemed right willing to do. A flame appears to be kindled here already. God grant it may continue and increase ! Tuesday, 31. William Kingston, the man born without arms, came to see me of his own accord. Some time since he received a clear sense of the favour of God; but after some months he was persuaded by some of his old companions to join in a favourite diversion, whereby he lost sight of God, and gaveup all he had gained : But God now touched his heart again, and he is once more in earnest to save his soul. He isof a middling height and size, has a pleasing look and voice, and an easy, agreeable behaviour. At breakfast he shook off his shoes, which are made on purpose, took the tea-cup between his toes, and the toast with his other foot. He likewise writes a fair hand, and does most things with his feet which we do with our hands. About noon I preached to a lovely congregation at Shepton-Mallet ; and in the evening at Pensford. The House was crowded with earnest hearers, and I trust the word did not fall to the ground. Wed. SEPTEMBER 1.-I returned to Bristol ; and, it being the first day of the fair, I spoke strongly from the words of Solomon, " Buy the truth, and sell it not." In the two following days, I corrected and abridged the account of that excellent woman, Mrs. Scudamore ; a burning and shining light, till the Mystics persuaded her to put herlight under abushel: So that for above two years she renounced all conversation with even her pious friends ! How does this agree with Scripture? " All my delight is in the saints that are on the earth, and with them that excel invirtue ! " How far was the experience of Jane Cooper, or Elizabeth Harper, preferable to that of such a solitary ! Sat. 4.-I went on to Bath, and preached in the evening to a serious, but small congregation, for want of notice. Sunday, 5. At ten we had a numerous congregation, and more commu- Sept. JOURNAL 1790. . ] 493 nicants than ever I saw here before. This day I cut off that vile custom, I know not when or how it began, of preaching

At the same time I saw apelican. Is it not strange that we [Sept. 1790. have no true account or picture of this bird ? It is one of the most beautiful in nature ; being indeeda large swan, almost twice as big as a tame one ; snow-white, and elegantly shaped. Only its neck is three quarters of a yard long, and capable ofbeing so distended as to contain two gallons of liquid or solid. She builds her nest in some wood, not far from a river ; from which she daily brings a quantity of fish to her young : This she carries in her neck, (the only pouch which she has,) andthen divides it among her young ; and hence is fabricated the idle tale of her feeding them with her blood. Fri. 17-. I went over to Thornbury, and preached at noon to avery large and deeply serious congregation. In the evening we had a solemnwatch-night at Kingswood. Saturday, 18. I calledupon Mr. Easterbrook, ill ofa disorder which no Physician understands, and which it seems God alone can cure. Heis a pattern to all Bristol, and indeed to all England; having beside hisother incessantlabours, which never were intermitted,preached in every house in his parish ! It waswhile he was preachingin his own church, that hewas suddenly struck with a violent pain in his breast. This confounds all the Physicians, and none of their medicines alter it. Sun. 19.-Mr. Collins assisted me in the morning, so I had aneasy day's work. Monday, 20, and the next day, I read over the King of Sweden's tract upon the Balance of Power in Europe. If it be really his,he is certainly one of the most sen- sible, as well as one of the bravest, Princes in Europe ; and if his account be true, what awoman is the Czarina ! But stillGod is over all! Wed. 22. I preached once more in Temple church, on, " All things are possible to him that believeth." Sat. 25. Mr. Hay, the Presbyterian Minister of Lewens- mead meeting, came to desire me to let him have the use ofour preaching-house on Sundays, at those hours when we did not use it ourselves, (near ten in the morning and two in the after- noon,) while his House was re-building. To this I willingly consented, and he preached an excellent sermon there the next

And whereas I am empowered, by a late Deed, to name the persons who are to preach in the new chapel, at London, (the Clergymen for a continuance,) and by another Deed, to name a Committee for appointing Preachers, in the new chapel, at Bath, I do hereby appoint John Richardson, Thomas Coke, James Creighton, Peard Dickenson, Clerks ; Alexander Mather, William Thompson, Henry Moore, Andrew Blair,John Valton, Joseph Bradford, James Rogers, and William Myles, to preach in the new chapel at London, and to be the Committee for appointing Preachers in the new chapel at Bath. I likewise appoint Henry Brooke, Painter ; Arthur Keene, Gent.; and William Whitestone, Stationer, all of Dublin, to receive the annuity of five pounds, (English,) left to Kingswood School, by the late Roger Shiel, Esq. I give six pounds to be divided among the six poor men, named by the Assistant, who shall carrymy body to the grave ; for I particularly desire there may be no hearse, no coach, no escutcheon, no pomp, except the tears of them that loved me, and are following me to Abraham's bosom. I solemnly adjure my Executors, in the name of God, punctually to observe this. Lastly, I give to each of those Travelling Preachers who shall remain in the Connexion six months after my decease, as a little token of my love, the eight volumes of sermons. I appoint John Horton, George Wolff, and William Marriott, aforesaid, to be Executors of this my last Will and Testament ; for which trouble they will receive no recompence till the resurrection of the just. Witness myhand and seal, the 20th day of February, 1789.* JOHN WESLEY. (Seal.) Signed, sealed, and delivered, by the said Testator, as and for his last Will and Testament, in the presence of us, Should there be any part of my personal estate undisposed of by this my last Will, I give the same untomy two nieces, E. Ellison and S. Collet, equally. Feb. 25, 1789. I give my types, printing-presses, and every thing pertaining thereto, to Mr. Thomas Rankin, and Mr. George Whitfield, in trust, for the use of the Conference. *"Above a yearand ahalf after making this Will, Mr. Wesleyexecuted aDeed, inwhich he appointed seven gentlemen, viz., Dr. Thomas Coke, Messrs. Alexander Mather, Peard Dickenson, John Valton,James Rogers, Joseph Taylor, andAdam

ford, in the said county; Joseph Benson, of Halifax, in the said county ; William Dufton, of the same place; Benjamin Rhodes, of Keighley, in the said county ; John Easton, of Colne, in the county of Lancaster ; Robert Costerdine, of the same place ; Jasper Robinson, ofthe Isle of Man ; George Button, of the same place ; John Pawson, of the city of York ; Edward Jackson, of Hull; Charles Atmore, of the said city of York ; Lancelot Harrison, of Scarborough ; George Shadford, of Hull, aforesaid ; Barnabas Thomas, of the same place ; Thomas Briscoe, of Yarm, in the said county of York ; Christopher Peacock, of the same place ; William Thom, of Whitby, in the said county of York; Robert Hopkins, of the same place ; John Peacock, of Bar- nard-Castle ; William Collins, of Sunderland ; ThomasDixon, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne ; Christopher Hopper, of the same place ; William Boothby, of the same place ; William Hun- ter, of Berwick-upon-Tweed ; Joseph Saunderson, of Dun- dee, Scotland ; William Warrener, of the same place; Dun- can M'Allum, of Aberdeen, Scotland ; Thomas Rutherford, of the city ofDublin, in the kingdom of Ireland; Daniel Jack- son, of the same place ; Henry Moore, of the city of Cork, Ireland; Andrew Blair, of the same place ; Richard Watkin son, of Limerick, Ireland ; Nehemiah Price, of Athlone, Ireland ; Robert Lindsay, of Sligo, Ireland; George Brown, of Clones, Ireland ; Thomas Barber, of Charlemont, Ireland ; Henry Foster, of Belfast, Ireland ; and John Crook, of Lisburne, Ireland, Gentlemen ; being Preachers and Ex- pounders of God's Holy Word, under the care and in con- nexion with the said John Wesley, have been, and now are, and do, on the day of the date hereof, constitute the members of the said Conference, according to the true intent andmean- ing of the said several gifts and conveyances wherein the words, Conference of the people called Methodists, are men- tioned and contained ; and that the said several persons before-named, and their successors for ever, to be chosen as hereafter mentioned, are and shall for ever be construed, taken, and be, the Conference of the people called Methodists. Nevertheless, upon the terms, and subject to the regulations herein-after prescribed; that is to say, First, That the members of the said Conference, and their suc-

There is some truth in this. For several years, while my brother and I traveled on foot, our manner was for him that walked behind to read aloud some book of history, poetry, or philosophy. Afterwards for many years (as my time at home was spent mostly in writing) it was my custom to read things of a lighter nature, chiefly when I was on horseback. Of late years, since a friend gave me a chaise, I have read them in my carriage. But it is not in this manner I treat the Scriptures: these I read and meditate upon day and night. It was not in running that I wrote twice over the Notes on the New Testament (to say nothing of those on the Old), containing above 800 quarto pages. 'But was this supposed misprint of dram for grain ever corrected before the error was detected in the Gazetteer ' Your next question answers this. ' Or was it only referred to in the Errata, with pro Dram lege Grain ' I add a word concerning the former objection. I do still in a sense run as I read. I make haste, though I do not hurry. It behoves me to do, as my work is great and my time is short. For how much can a man expect to remain who has seen between seventy and eighty years And may I not plead for some indulgence even on this account, if I am mistaken in more points than one

To Thomas Carlill Date: CHATHAM, November 25, 1776. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1776) Author: John Wesley --- TOMMY,--Be of good courage! Play the man! You have God on your side. If you do not immediately see the fruit of your labors, yet in due time you shall reap if you faint not. Preach Christian perfection, whether they will hear or whether they will forbear, and sooner or later God will bless His own word. Regard not those pert lads of my Lady's Charity School. In our own Societies be exact in discipline. Truth is great and will prevail. The books send to Bristol.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To William Minethorp Date: LONDON, November 29, 1776. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1776) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BILLY,--You have nothing to do with past sins. They are blotted out. Whoever tells you the contrary, answer him, ' Thou art a liar. Get thee behind me, Satan. I will not east away my confidence: Jesus hath lived, hath died for me.' T. Rutherford told you the very truth. There are three causes of your inward trials: (1) bodily disorder, by means of which the body presses down the soul; (2) Satan, who does not fail to avail himself of this; (3) your own frailty in reasoning with him instead of looking to the Strong for strength. None can advise you as to your body better than Dr. Hamilton. I am afraid you cannot spare this money. Whenever you want it send word to, dear Billy, Your affectionate brother.

To Thomas Carlill Date: HULL, May 13, 1777. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1777) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY,--I commend you for letting none but the members of the Society stay when the Society meets, and more particularly at the lovefeasts. You cannot give a ticket to any who robs the King by selling or buying uncustomed goods. You say true. You have been useful wherever you have been; and so you will be still. But those little circuits I reserve for invalids. You and I (blessed be God) are not invalids yet.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Walter Churchey Date: LONDON, June 25, 1777. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1777) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BRTHER,--At present I am very safe; for I am a good many pounds, if not scores of pounds, worse than nothing. In my Will I bequeath no money but what may happen to be in my pocket when I die. It is my religion which obliges me 'to 'put men in mind to be subject to principalities and powers.' Loyalty is with me an essential branch of religion, and which I am sorry any Methodist should forget. There is the closest connection, therefore, between my religious and my political conduct; the selfsame authority enjoining me to 'fear God' and to 'honor the King.' Dr. Coke promises fair, and gives us reason to hope that he will bring forth not only blossoms but fruit. He has hitherto behaved exceeding well, and seems to be aware of his grand enemy, applause. He will likewise be in danger from offence. If you are acquainted with him, a friendly letter might be of use, and would be taken kindly. He now stands on slippery ground, and is in need of every help. I expect to be at Monmouth (coming from Worcester) on Wednesday, July the 9th, and at Brecon on the 10th.--I am Your affectionate brother.

To the Reader of the ' Arminian Magazine' Date: LEWISHAM, November 24, 1777. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1777) Author: John Wesley --- It is usual, I am informed, for the compilers of magazines to employ the outside covers in acquainting the courteous reader with the beauties and excellencies of what he will find within. I beg him to excuse me from this trouble: from writing panegyric upon myself. Neither can I desire my friends to do it for me in their recommendatory letters. I am content this Magazine should stand or fall by its own intrinsic value. If it is a compound of falsehood, ribaldry, and nonsense, let it sink into oblivion. If it contains only the words of truth and soberness, then let it meet with a favorable reception. It is usual likewise with magazine writers to speak of themselves in the plural number: ' We will do this.' And, indeed, it is the general custom of great men so to do. But I am a little one. Let me, then, be excused in this also, and permitted to speak as I am accustomed to do.

To Mrs. Crosby Date: LONDON, December 2, 1777. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1777) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--I hope you will always have your time much filled up. You will, unless you grow weary of well doing. For is not the harvest plenteous still? Had we ever a larger field of action? And shall we stand all or any part of the day idle? Then we should wrong both our neighbor and our own souls. For the sake of retrenching her expenses, I thought it quite needful for Miss Bosanquet to go from home. And I was likewise persuaded (as she was herself) that God had something for her to do in Bath and Kingswood; perhaps in Bristol too, although I do not think she will be called to speak there in public. The difference between us and the Quakers in this respect is manifest. They flatly deny the rule itself, although it stands clear in the Bible. We allow the rule; only we believe it admits of some exceptions. At present I know of those, and no more, in the whole Methodist Connection. You should send word of what our Lord is doing where you go to, dear Sally, Yours affectionately.

I. As to the first, I read a remarkable passage in the Third Journal, the truth of which may, be still attested by Mr. Durbin, Mr. Westall, and several others then present, who are yet alive: 'A young man who stood behind sunk down as one dead; but soon began to roar out and beat himself against the ground, so that six men could scarce hold him. This was Thomas Maxfield.' [See letter of May 28, 1739; and for Henry Durbin, May 3, 1786, n.] Was this you If it was, how are you 'the first-fruits of Mr. Whitefield's ministry' And how is it that neither I nor your fellow laborers ever heard one word of this during all those years wherein you labored in connection with us II. 'When he went abroad again, he delivered me and many thousands into the hands of Mr. Wesley.' When where in what manner This is quite new to me! I never heard one word of it before! But stay! here is something more curious still! 'I heard Mr. Whitefield say at the Tabernacle, in the presence of five or six ministers, a little before he left England the last time, "I delivered thirty thousand people into the hands of you and your brother when I went abroad."' Mr. Whitefield's going abroad, which is here referred to, was in the year 1741. Did he then deliver you into my hands Was you not in my hands before Had you not then for above a year been a member of the Society under my care Nay, was you not at the very time one of my preachers Did you not then serve me as a son in the gospel Did you not eat my bread and lodge in my house Is not this, then, a total misrepresentation Would to God it be not a willful one!

To Samuel Bradburn Date: LONDONDERRY, June 4, 1778. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SAMMY, - I have wrote this morning to Mrs. Karr, and suppose she will answer me either to Belfast or Lisburn. It is now your part to be instant in prayer that God may order all things well. I hope to be at the Man of War [A small decayed hamlet in co. Dublin. Bradburn went there to meet Wesley on June 26, and slept there. Wesley married him on the 28th to Betsy Nangle.] on the 26th instant at five or six in the evening; at Dublin on the 27th. On Monday and Tuesday I may meet the classes; so the Conference will begin on Tuesday, July the 7th. - I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To a Friend LONDONDERRY, June 5, 1778. DEAR SIR, - I have a long letter from an anonymous correspondent respecting the Arminian Magazine. It appears to be wrote with a friendly design and in an excellent spirit. The objections mentioned therein seem to be partly his own, partly repeated from others. The first is: 'It is too short; some other magazines are almost as long again. It is true there are as many pages as in others; but there are not so many lines in a page, not so many by ten or twelve, as in the Spiritual Magazine.' I answer by confessing the charge. It is undeniably true that it does not contain so many lines either in prose or verse as the Spiritual Magazine. And Tonson, who is himself a wit, Weighs writers' merits by the sheet. [Prior's Epistle to F. Shephard.] So do thousands besides; but I do not write for these. I write for those who judge of books not by the quantity but by the quality of them, who ask not how long but how good they are. I spare both my reader's time and my own by couching my sense in as few words as I can. Those who prefer the dealers in many words may find them on every side. And from these they may have not only as much more but ten times as much for their money.

To Mrs. Johnston, Annandale, Lisleen Date: DUBLIN, July 12, 1778. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, - Our friends in London are by this time pretty well recovered from their panic. They will no more be afraid of my going into the South of Ireland than into the South of England. The truth is, God allots us health or sickness, ease or pain, just as He sees one or the other is best for us. Mr. Abraham is exceedingly happy, and I believe will be exceedingly useful. I do not despair of Mr. Creighton. [See letters of Dec. 23, 1777, and Sept. 29, 1779.] His heart seems entirely with us. If they thrust him out, I will take him in. Peace be with you and yours. - I am, my dearest sister, Affectionately yours as ever.

To Samuel Bradburn Date: LONDON, February 13, 1779. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1779) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SAMMY, - You have done exactly right. Still be of neither side, but steadily follow after peace. I am glad Sister Jones remains in the House. I desire you and my Betsy (love constrains me to call her so) will leave Cork by the middle of March at the farthest. I have sent to-day to T. Rutherford to change with you for six weeks. You must send him word of the day when he should be at Cork. If you want money or anything else, you will not want it long if you send word to, dear Sammy, Yours affectionately.

To Mrs. Hall Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1779) Author: John Wesley --- NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, May 15, 1779. DEAR PATTY, - So far I am come. I have little above three hundred miles to go before I turn my face southward again. I advise you to apply to two, three, or four intelligence officers with regard to Nancy. [A seamstress at Salisbury whom Mrs. Hall's husband seduced. See letter of June 20, 1755.] It is certain there are places to be had in London. And if the worst come, we must not insist upon her coming to the chapel. I do not know that she is any better for coming. She is not likely to profit less anywhere else. She was out of her wits to come to London. Mrs. Glynne [See W.H.S. iv. 217-20.] told me when I was last at Shrewsbury that she had as much work there as ever she could do, but she never would take advice, and acted contrary to the judgment of all her friends in coming to London without why or wherefore. I wonder John Pawson [Pawson was now Assistant at City Road.] and his wife do not live in my apartments. They complained of the closeness of their own. Are they neither well full nor fasting You sent me no word about Betsy Ellison. [Elizabeth, daughter of John Ellison and granddaughter of Wesley's sister Susanna. Dr. Clarke says she turned out unfortunate, and that Wesley showed her 'great kindness, often relieving her in distresses to which her imprudence had reduced her, treating her with great tenderness, and giving her advices which, had she followed, would have led her to true happiness.' For her sister Patience, see letters of Sept. 7, 1777, and Feb. 4, 1789.] I hope no news is good news. You must not forsake her. She has hardly any real friend in the world but you and me. What a blessing it is to have one Friend! How many have never found one in their lives! - I am.

To the Printer of the 'Public Advertiser' Date: CITY ROAD, January 12, 1780. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- SIR, - Some time ago a pamphlet was sent me entitled An Appeal from the Protestant Association to the People of Great Britain. A day or two since, a kind of answer to this was put into my hand, which pronounces 'its style contemptible, its reasoning futile, and its object malicious.' On the contrary, I think the style of it is clear, easy, and natural; the reasoning, in general, strong and conclusive; the object, or design, kind and benevolent. And in pursuance of the same kind and benevolent design, namely, to preserve our happy constitution, I shall endeavor to confirm the substance of that tract by a few plain arguments. With persecution I have nothing to do. I persecute no man for his religious principles. Let there be 'as boundless a freedom in religion' as any man can conceive. But this does not touch the point; I will set religion, true or false, utterly out of the question. Suppose the Bible, if you please, to be a fable, and the Koran to be the word of God. I consider not whether the Romish religion be true or false; I build nothing on one or the other supposition. Therefore away with all your commonplace declamation about intolerance and persecution in religion! Suppose every word of Pope Pius's Creed to be true; suppose the Council of Trent to have been infallible; yet I insist upon it that no Government not Roman Catholic ought to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic persuasion.

(3) 'Mr. Wesley is become an apologist of those who burned the chapel in Edinburgh.' Is not this said purely ad movendam invidiam ' to inflame the minds of the people' For it has no shadow of truth. I never yet wrote nor spoke one word in their defence. 'He urged the rabble to light that fire.' No more than he urged them to dethrone the King. (4) 'Does Mr. Wesley intend to sound Alecto's [Alecto was one of the Furies, whose head was covered with snakes.] horn or the war-shell of the Mexicans' All this is cruel aspersion indeed, designed merely to inflame! What I intend is neither more nor less than this--to contribute my mite to preserve our constitution both in Church and State. (5) 'They were the Scotch and English regicides who gave rise to the Irish massacre.' 'The Irish massacre'! Was there ever any such thing Was not the whole account a mere Protestant lie Oh no! it was a melancholy truth, wrote in the blood of many thousands. But the regicides no more gave rise to that massacre than the Hottentots. The whole matter was planned several years, and executed before the King's death was thought of. 'But Mr. Wesley is sowing the seeds of another massacre'! Such another as the massacre of Paris 6. 'Was he the trumpeter of persecution when he was persecuted himself' Just as much as now. Cruel aspersions still! designed and calculated only to inflamed he then abet persecution on the score of conscience No, nor now Conscience is out of the question. 'His letter contains all the horrors invented by blind 'misguided zeal, set forth in the most bitter language.' Is this gentleman in his senses I hope not. Else I know not what excuse to make for him. Not one bitter word is in my letter. I have learned to put away all bitterness, with all malice, But still this is wide of the mark; which of these three points does it prove

7. 'In his second letter he promises to put out the fire which he has already kindled in England.' ' Second letter' What is that I know nothing of it. 'The fire which he has kindled in England'! When Where I have kindled no fire in England any more than in Jamaica. I have done and will do all that is in my power to put out that which others have kindled. 8. 'He strikes out a creed of his own for Roman Catholics. This fictitious creed he forces upon them.' My words are these: ' Suppose every word of Pope Pius's Creed to be true.' I say not a word more of the matter. Now, I appeal to every reasonable man, Is this striking out a creed of my own for Roman Catholics Is this forcing a fictitious creed on them, ' like the Frenchman and the blunderer in the Comedy' What have I to do with one or the other Is not this dull jest quite out of season And is the creed composed by the Council of Trent and the Bull of Pope Pius IV a fictitious one Before Mr. O'Leary asserts this again, let him look into the Concilia Maxima once more, and read there, Bulla Pii Quarti super forma juramenti professionis fidei [The Bull of Pius IV concerning the form of the oath on the profession of Faith]. This forma professionis fidei I call Pope Pius's Creed, If his 'stomach revolts from it,' who can help it 9. Whether the account given by Philip Melanchthon of the words spoken (not in Hebrew, but in Latin) be true or false, it does not at all affect the account of Miss Duchesne, which I gave in her own words [See letter of Jan. 12.]. And I cannot but observe that, after all the witticisms which he has bestowed upon it, Mr. O'Leary does not deny that the priest might have burnt her, 'had it been for the good of the Church.'

To Alexander Knox Date: LONDON, December 23, 1780. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1780) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR ALLECK,--You are very ingenious in finding out arguments against yourself; and if you set your wit to it, they will never be wanting. Besides, there is an old sophister, who has been puzzling causes for these six thousand years, that will always be ready to supply you with reasons for every kind of unbelief. But 'God will not give faith to the double-minded, to him who asks what he does not desire to receive. 'No, not while he is double-minded; but He will first take away your double-mindedness (perhaps while you are reading this!) and then give you the faith to which all things are possible. 'Yes, to-morrow, or at some other time.' No time like the time present! ' To-day, if you will hear His voice,' He says, 'I am thy salvation.' Why not today Is not one day with Him as a thousand years And whatever He could do in a thousand years can He not do in one day That this cannot be done without a miracle is absolutely certain. But why should not you expect that miracle This is no presumption: it is an expectation that the God of truth will not be worse than His word. He will not, Alleck! He will not! Do not imagine He will. He knows your simpleness. All your faults are before Him; and it may be the word is just now gone forth, ' I will heal him, for My own name's sake.' Do not reason, but look up! Let your heart (dull and cold as it is) cry out, ' Be it unto me according to Thy word! '--I am Ever yours.

To Robert Lindsay Date: BRISTOL, October 7, 1781. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1781) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR ROBERT, -- The question is, ‘Is the chapel actually made over to Mr. Jacques and Egerton for that debt’ If not, they cannot sell it. Mr. Hunt will inform you how this is. I have no money; and Mr. Atlay writes me word that I am above two hundred pounds behindhand, that is, on my own account, over and above what I owe on account of the new chapel in London. Now and then, indeed, I have a legacy left me. Should such a thing occur, I would reserve it for Kilkenny. If I find a proper preacher that can be spared, I will send him to you. Be discouraged at nothing: God is on our side.--I am, dear Robert, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Hannah Ball Date: LONDON, November 17, 1781. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1781) Author: John Wesley --- ‘Suffered from those you loved most’ [See letter of June 28.] Nay, my dear Hannah, I thought you had loved me as well as any one. And I hope you never suffered from me -- at least, I never designed you should. I would not willingly give you any pain; but I would give you all the comfort that is in my power. I am in great hopes you will yet see an increase of the work of God this year, both in High Wycombe and the other parts of the circuit. You have two sound preachers, [See letters of July 12, 1781 and March 10, 1782.] and two plain, downright men, who speak the truth from their heart. Encourage them, whenever you have a fair occasion, to preach full salvation as now attain able by faith. -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

To Joseph Benson () Date: LONDON, January 5, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JOSEPH, -- It gives me pleasure to hear that you are not weary in well doing, but are diligent in advancing the cause of religion. There is one means of doing this in which it will be worth your while to take some pains; I mean in recommending the Magazines. If you say of them in every Society what you may say with truth, and say it with an air of earnestness, you will produce several new subscribers. -- I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Ellen Gretton Date: LONDON, January 5, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, -- It is a true word, ‘Gold is tried in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of affliction.’ But we know the exhortation, ‘Despise not thou the chastening of the Lord’; count it not an insignificant or accidental thing: ‘neither hint when thou art rebuked of Him,’ but receive it as a token of His love. I do not despair of seeing you again in Lincolnshire [See letter of Nov. 19, 1781, to her.] and taking another little journey with you. This will be if it is best, and it is not impossible that I shoed see you in London. Perhaps it may be (if we shoed live so long) at the time of the Conference. That might be of particular service to you if Providence should make a way for you. In the meantime let Brother Derry [A conspicuous Methodist in Grantham for many years. In his house the meetings were first held. For an account of the persecution of Methodists in Grantham, and especially of Mr. Derry, see Cocking’s Methodism in Grantham, pp. 153-62.] and Sister Fisher [See Conference Handbook for 1925.] and you do all the good you can. -- I am, dear Nelly, Your affectionate brother.

To Thomas Hanson Date: LONDON, January 30, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY, There were certainly false [numbers]. This ought to be observed if we live to see another Conference. I never was fond of multiplying circuits without an absolute necessity. Your remark is unquestionably true, that this is oftener proposed for the ease of the preachers than the profit of the people. But it is clear to me that many of the preachers have already rather too little exercise than too much. [Hanson was Assistant at Colne.] If you are not yet recovered from the disorder in your mouth, I wish you would consult the Primitive Physick or John Floyd. [The second preacher at Bradford. See letter of March 15, 1777.] --I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Joseph Benson Date: LONDON, February 22, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JOSEH, -- Who Mr. Tyndall is I know not; but he is just as sound a divine as Mr. Madan. I regard no authorities but those of the Ante-Nicene Fathers; nor any of them in opposition to Scripture. And I totally deny that (supposed) matter of fact that polygamy was allowed among the primitive Christians or that the converts ‘ who had many wives were not required to put any of them away.’ I have not yet time to read over the MS. When I do, I must read it all in a breath. Having talked with my friends, I judge it will be expedient to visit the North this year. I expect to be at Manchester on Wednesday, the 10th of April, and in Yorkshire in the beginning of May. I have no objection to your printing a few copies of those two sermons [Benson’s Two Sermons on Sanctification (text, I Thess. v. 23-4) were printed by J. Bowling, Leeds, in 1782. ‘An Extract from Leighton’s Rules for an Holy Life’ is appended.] to oblige your friends in the neighborhood. I doubt we are not explicit enough in speaking on full sanctification either in public or private. -- I am, with kind love to Sister Benson, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother.

To Robert Costerdine Date: LONDON, March 2, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR ROBERT, -- I have now before me a particular account of the behavior of W. Gill toward Stephen Proctor and others. I am greatly surprised at the partiality of Brother Harper. [Harper was Assistant at Leicester, and Costerdine the second preacher. For Gill, see letters of Jan. 6, 1780 (to Thomas Carlill), and March 22, 1782; and for Proctor, Oct. 12, 1780, and June 7, 1782.] Besides, he had no authority to administer an oath to any one. I forbid William Gill to preach any more in any of our Societies. And I beg of Joseph Harper not to say anything in his defense either in public or private. Brother Whitehouse informs me you have heard the case at large and do not lay any blame on Stephen Proctor. -- I am, dear Robert, Your affectionate brother.

To Robert Hopkins Date: LONDON, August 13, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR ROBERT, -- I am very well satisfied with your letter. I could take your word in a greater matter than this. The whole seems to have arisen from a misapprehension of your words; so the matter is at an end. [He was now at Norwich, where there were special difficulties, and evidently some unhappy reports.] -- I am Your affectionate brother.

To Hester Ann Roe Date: BRISTOL, October 1, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR HETTY, -- I received yours two days after date, and read it yesterday to Miss Stockdale, [Miss Stockdale had stayed with her nephew Robert Roe at Macelesfield in July (Account, p. 61).] and poor Peggy Roe, who is still strangely detained in life. But she is permitted to stay in the body a little longer that she may be more ready for the Bridegroom. You did exceedingly well to send me so circumstantial an account of Robert Roe’s last illness and happy death. It may incite many to run the race that is set before them with more courage and patience. That our dear Miss Ritchie should come to Macclesfield just at this time was an excellent instance of Divine Providence. She could never have come in a fitter season. Only let her not do more than consists with her health. The removal of so useful an instrument as your late cousin, in the midst, or rather in the dawn, of his usefulness (especially while the harvest is so great and the faithful laborers so few), is an instance of the divine economy which leaves our reason behind; our little narrow minds cannot comprehend it. We can only wonder and adore. How is your health I sometimes fear lest you also (as those I tenderly love generally have been) should be snatched away. But let us live to-day. -- I always am Affectionately yours.

To Samuel Bradburn Date: LONDON, November 9, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SAMMY, -- I abhor the thought of giving to twenty men the power to place or displace the preachers in their congregations. How would he then dare to speak an unpleasing truth And if he did, what would become of him This must never be the case while I live among the Methodists. And Birstall is a leading case; the first of an avowed violation of our plan. Therefore the point must be carried for the Methodist preachers now or never: and I alone can carry it; which I will, God being my helper. You are not a match for the silver tongue, nor Brother Hopper. But do not, to please any of your new friends, forsake Your true old friend.

To Matthiss Joyce Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BROTHER, -- Not only Mr. Smith but several others gave a satisfactory account of you at the Conference. Mr. Watkinson [Richard Watkinson was the Assistant at Limerick, and Robert Blake his colleague. See letter of Dec. 31.] writes me word that, as Robert Blake has left him, he is in great want of help. I have no objections, if your wife is willing, for you to go upon trial to Limerick.

To Walter Churchey Date: NEAR LONDON, November 21, 1783. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1783) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You have indeed had a sea of troubles. But I have not yet heard any one say it was your own fault; which I wonder at, because it is the way of the world still (as it was in the days of Job) always to construe misfortune into sin. But you and I know that there is a God in the world, and that He has more to do in it than most men are aware of. So little do they advert to that great truth, ‘Even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.’ One thing only I have heard of you, which, if it be true, I should not commend: I mean, that you have wholly forsaken the poor Methodists, [Churchey adds this note: ‘This was a misrepresentation.--W.C.’] and do not so much as attend the public preaching. One was mentioning this a few days ago, when I was saying something in favor of you; and it stopped my mouth; nay, supposing it true, I do not know what to say yet. For surely, when affliction presses upon us, we need every possible help. Commending you to Him that careth for you, -- I am Your affectionate brother. PS.--My kind love to Sister Churchey.

To Mrs. Bailey Date: BATH, March 3, 1784. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1784) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, - I am glad to hear that Mr. Bailey recovers his health and that he is not quite unemployed. The more both he and you are employed for a good Master the better; seeing it is a sure truth that every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. On Monday, April 5 (if nothing unforeseen prevent), I expect to be at Stockport, and Tuesday, 6th, at Manchester. [His route was varied a little, so that he did not reach Manchester till April 10.] - I am, my dear Rachel, Yours affectionately.

To Mrs. Johnson Date: BRISTOL., September 9, 1784. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1784) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, - I sincerely congratulate my good old friend John Johnson and you on your happy union; I am clearly persuaded that it is of God, and cannot doubt but it was His will, and gracious providence, which pointed out to you both the time and the persons. May you be a lasting blessing to each other! But one thing has been much upon my mind. Both Brother Johnson and you love the work of God, and would not easily be induced to take any step that would hinder it; but if so, I advise you by no means to think of leaving Dublin. In the city, indeed, he cannot have health; but you may have an healthy abode in the skirts of it. Pray give my kind love to my dear Sister Freeman. Peace be with your spirits! - I am, my dear sister, Your invariable friend. To 'Our Brethren in America' [12] BRISTOL, September 10, 1784. 1. By a very uncommon train of providences many of the' Provinces of North America are totally disjoined from their Mother Country and erected into independent States. The English Government has no authority over them, either civil or ecclesiastical, any more than over the States of Holland. A civil authority is exercised over them, partly by the Congress, partly by the Provincial Assemblies. But no one either exercises or claims any ecclesiastical authority at all. In this peculiar situation some thousands of the inhabitants of these States desire my advice; and in compliance with their desire I have drawn up a little sketch. 2. Lord King's Account of the Primitive Church [See heading to letter of Dec. 30, 1745, to Westley Hall.] convinced me many years ago that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain. For many years I have been importuned from time to time to exercise this right by ordaining part of our traveling preachers. But I have still refused, not only for peace' sake, but because I was determined as little as possible to violate the established order of the National Church to which I belonged.

To Dean D-- Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- [1785.] REVEREND SIR, - When Dr. Bentley published his Greek Testament, one remarked, 'Pity but he would publish the Old; then we should have two New Testaments! [Dr. Richard Bentley, the great classical scholar, issued in 1720 proposals for a new edition of the New Testament in Greek with the Latin Version of Jerome.] It is done. Those who receive Mr. Hutchinson's emendations certainly have two New Testaments! But I stumble at the threshold. Can we believe that God left His whole Church so ignorant of the Scripture till yesterday And if He was pleased to reveal the sense of it' now, to whom may we suppose He would reveal it 'All Scripture,' says Kempis, 'must be understood by the same Spirit whereby it was written.' [Robert Spearman, a pupil of John Hutchinson, published An Enquiry after, Philosophy and Theology in 1755. For William Jones's Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity, see letter of April 17, 1776.] And a greater than he says, 'Them that are meek will He guide in judgment, and them that are gentle will He learn His way.' But was Mr. Hutchinson eminently meek and gentle However, in order to learn all I could from his Works, after first consulting them, I carefully read over Mr. Spearman, [Book I, chap. v.] Mr. Jones's ingenious book, and the Glasgow [Edinburgh] Abridgement. I read the last with Mr. Thomas Walsh, the best Hebraean I ever knew. I never asked him the meaning of an Hebrew word but he would immediately tell me how often it occurred in the Bible and what it meant in each place! We then both observed that Mr. Hutchinson's whole scheme is built upon etymologies; the most uncertain foundation in the world, and the least to be depended upon. We observed, secondly, that if the points be allowed, all his building sinks at once; and, thirdly, that, setting them aside, many of his etymologies are forced and unnatural. He frequently, to find the etymology of one word, squeezes two radices together; a liberty never to be taken where a word may fairly be derived from a single radix.

To Roger Crane Date: CONWAY, April 9, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR ROGER,-What you observe is true. The new places ought not to be neglected. Therefore it is not expedient to remove William Bramwell yet. So I have sent to Derbyshire, and hope Nathaniel Ward will speedily remove to Chester to assist Mr. Wright. Meantime take care that you be not weary of well-doing. In due time you shall reap if you faint not. - I am, dear Roger, Your affectionate brother.

To Arthur Keene Date: LONDON, July 16, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR ARTHUR, - I forgot to show you a letter from Mr. Beardmore which I received when I was in Dublin, wherein he says, 'I wrote a letter in January 1783 to Mr. Deaves, [2 James Deaves had been a preacher, and was now settled in Dublin. He removed to Wexford in Sept. 1784. Wesley was his guest at Waterford in 1785. See Crook-shank's Methodism in Ireland, i. 313, 391, and letter of June I6, 1772, to Mrs. Bennis.] to whose son-in-law, Mr. Featherstone, I sent power to recover a debt of upwards of 119lb. from Mr. Neill, now of Ballinasloe, who is well able to pay it.' Has Mr. Featherstone received that power And what has he done in consequence thereof I wish you would ask him and send me word directly, that Mr. B. may know how to proceed. And pray send me word how my poor Amelia does [See letter of July 31.] I have been much troubled concerning her. She appeared so much affected on Sunday evening when I took my leave, that I was afraid lest it should bring back her fever. Sister Blair [Andrew Blair moved from Dublin to Birmingham.] bore her journey admirably well. She is most comfortably situated at Chester; and all our sisters cleave to her as if they had known her seven years, just as they would to my Bella Keene [Isabella (Mrs. Keene).] if they had her among them. Don't think you have all the love in Ireland. We have a little in England too. For God is here! To Him I tenderly commend you and yours, and am, dear Arthur, Ever yours.

But here another question occurs: 'What is the Church of England' It is not 'all the people of England.' Papists and Dissenters are no part thereof. It is not all the people of England except Papists and Dissenters. Then we should have a glorious Church indeed! No; according to our Twentieth Article, a particular Church is 'a congregation of faithful people' (coetus credentium, the words in our Latin edition), 'among whom the word of God is preached and the sacraments duly administered.' Here is a true logical definition, containing both the essence and the properties of a Church. What, then, according to this definition, is the Church of England Does it mean 'all the believers in England (except the Papists and Dissenters) who have the word of God and the sacraments duly administered among them' I fear this does not come up to your idea of 'the Church of England.' Well, what more do you include in that phrase 'Why, all the believers that adhere to the doctrine and discipline established by the Convocation under Queen Elizabeth.' Nay, that discipline is wellnigh vanished away, and the doctrine both you and I adhere to. I do not mean I will never ordain any while I am in England, but not to use the power they receive while in England. [This sentence is quoted in the manuscript Life of Benson, ii. 1388.]

To his Brother Charles Date: BATH, September 13, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BROTHER, - I see no use of you and me disputing together; for neither of us is likely to convince the other. You say I separate from the Church; I say I do not. Then let it stand. Your verse is a sad truth. I see fifty times more of England than you do, and I find few exceptions to it. I believe Dr. Coke is as free from ambition as from covetousness. He has done nothing rashly that I know; but he has spoken rashly, which he retracted the moment I spoke to him of it. To publish as his present thoughts what he had before retracted was not fair play. He is now such a right hand to me as Thomas Walsh was. If you will not or cannot help me yourself, do not hinder those that can and will. I must and will save as many souls as I can while I live without being careful about what may possibly be when I die. I pray do not confound the intellects of the people in London. You may thereby a little weaken my hands, but you will greatly weaken your own. - I am Your affectionate Brother. [The following answer, sent by Charles on the 19th, is given at the foot of his brother's letter:] DEAR BROTHER, - I did not say, You separate from the Church; but I did say, If I could prove it, I would not. That 'sad truth' is not a new truth. You saw it when you expressed in your Reasons such tenderness of love for the unconverted clergy. Of the second T. Walsh we had better talk than write. How 'confound their intellects' How 'weaken your hands' I know nothing which I do to prevent the possible separation but pray. God forbid I should sin against Him by ceasing to pray for the Church of England and for you while any breath remains in me. - I am Your affectionate Brother.

To Joseph Taylor Date: LONDON, December 29, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JOSEPH, - I advise you: (1) Till March do not preach more than twice a day. (2) Never preach above three-quarters of an hour. (3) Never strain your voice. (4) For a month (at least) drink no tea: I commend you if you take to it no more. The wind is not an original disease, but a symptom of nervous weakness. (5) Warm lemonade cures any complaint in the bowels. (6) If you have a bathing-vessel, put a gallon of boiling water into the cold water. Then you might bathe thrice a week. And send me word next month how you are. - I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To William Sagar Date: BRISTOL, February 25, 1786. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1786) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, - I expect to be at Manchester on Wednesday, April 5; at Chester, Monday, 10th; at Liverpool, Wednesday, 12th; at Warrington, Saturday, 15th; at Preston, Monday, 17th; at Blackburn, Tuesday, 18th; Wednesday, 19th, at Padiham; Burnley, 12 [o'clock], Colne 6 [o'clock]: so as to lodge with you on Thursday, 2oth. I am to be in the evening at Keighley. I am obliged to make haste. [See letter of Feb. 22 to Mrs. Moon.] Concerning building and other matters, I hope we shall have time to talk when we meet. [ Sager was the principal means in building the chapel at Burnley. See letter of March 12, 1780.] - I am Your affectionate brother. If you know how to mend my plan, send me word Manchester.

To Joseph Benson Date: LONDON, December 27, 1787. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1787) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JOSEPH, -- I greatly rejoice in the erection of your new preaching-house and in the tokens of the divine presence with which you and the people were favored at the opening; but if it be at all equal to the new chapel in London, I will engage to eat it. -- I am Yours affectionately.

To Peard Dickinson Date: THIRSK, June 24, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I do not know any little piece of news which has given me more satisfaction than this, that my Sister Hall has taken a lodging in Th. Philip's house. I hope to see her and you in about a fortnight, that I may have time to prepare for the Conference. [Held at London on July 29.] You do well not to indulge your thirst after books, but to confine yourself to a very few. I know no commentator on the Bible equal to Bengal. His Gnomon is a jewel; so is his Ordo Temp [His Gnomon 'as a brief and suggestive commentary on the New Testament remains unrivalled.' McClintock and Strong's Cyclopodia. Ordo temporum a principio per periodos conomio, divino, 1753.]: the finest system of chronology that ever appeared in the world. Now consider with yourself and [set] down whatever relates to the Conference. Peace be with both your spirits I -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Walter Churchey Date: YORK, June 26, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I answered your last. By what means my letter miscarried I cannot tell. [See letters of June 14 and July 22 to him.] Above half of that paragraph (which has traveled over most of the kingdom) is very true. The other half is a blunder. What I spoke was a citation from Bengelius, who thought, not that the world would end, but that the Millennium would begin about the year 1836. [See letter of June 3 to Christopher Hopper.] Not that I affirm this myself, nor ever did. I do not determine any of these things: they are too high for me. I only desire to creep on in the vale of humble love. Peace be with you and yours I -- I am Your affectionate brother.

To Charles Bland Date: LONDON, November 8, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR CHARLES, -- The Notes on the New Testament and the Appeals will come with the next Oxford Magazines. If you all exert yourselves, the work of God will prosper throughout the circuit. I pray remember two things; first, Bear with Mr. Jaquis: there is honesty at the bottom. Secondly, let none of you ever omit the morning preaching at Wycombe, Oxford, or Witney. -- I am, dear Charles, Your affectionate brother.

To Mrs. Charles Wesley Date: CITY ROAD, December 21, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, -- It is undoubtedly true that some silly people (whether in the Society or not, I cannot tell) have frequently talked in that manner both of my brother and me. They have said that we were well paid for our labors. And, indeed, so we were; but not by man. Yet this is no more than we were to expect, especially from busybodies in other men's matters. And it is no more possible to restrain their tongues than it is to bind up the wind. But it is sufficient for us that our own consciences condemned us not and that our record is with the Most High. What has concerned me more than this idle slander is a trial of another kind. I supposed, when John Atlay left me, that he had left me one or two hundred pounds beforehand. [See letter of Sept. 4.] On the contrary, I am one or two hundred pounds behindhand, and shall not recover myself till after Christmas. Some of the first moneys I receive I shall set apart for you. And in everything that is in my power you may depend upon the willing assistance of, [His Diary for 1788 shows that he gave 210 to his brother's family and 81 10s. to Mrs. Hall and his nieces. See Journal, vii. 464; and letter of Dec. 20, 1790.] dear Sally, Your affectionate friend and Brother.

To Mrs. Bowman Date: BRISTOL, March 14, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- I have neither time nor inclination to enter into a long dispute on this or any other question. [See letter of March 4, 1786.] All I can do is, first to declare my own judgment, and then set down my reasons for it; and if your son is not satisfied therewith, I do not know any way to help it. The judgment is that there is no more harm in keeping an hot-house than a flower garden; and I judge there is no more sin in keeping a flower garden than in smelling a rose. My reason for judging both of these innocent is because neither of them is forbidden in Scripture, and it is sinful to condemn anything which Scripture does not condemn. I think, therefore, to condemn all who keep hot-houses and flower gardens is a sin both against God and their neighbors; and one of them might say, 'Why am I judged of another man's conscience To my own Master I stand or fall.' I am Your affectionate brother.

To Mr. ----- Date: LEEDS, July 30, 1780. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I will take care to give a true view of the affairs of Worcester both to John Leech (as good-natured a man as lives) and Brother Kane. [Leech and Lawrence Kane were the new preachers. Leech, a zealous and successful preacher, died in 1810.] I will order J. Leech to change the stewards without delay, and to execute the orders which I gave when at Worcester. Brother Kane will show you the letter Mr. [York] wrote to me, at whose request I send him to your circuit. -- I am Your affectionate brother. (To Mrs. Knapp see page 271[Appendix])

To the Methodist People Date: BRISTOL. September 11, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- 1. When, about fifty years ago, one and another young man offered to serve me as sons in the gospel, it was on these terms, that they would labor where I appointed; otherwise we should have stood in each other's way. Here began itinerant preaching with us. But we were not the first itinerant preachers in England. Twelve were appointed by Queen Elizabeth to travel continually, in order to spread true religion through the kingdom; and the office and salary still continue, though their work is little attended to. Mr. Miller, late Vicar of Chipping in Lancashire, was one of them. 2. As the number of preachers increased it grew more and more difficult to fix the places where each should labor from time to time. I have often wished to transfer this work of stationing the preachers once a year to one or more of themselves. But none were willing to accept of it. So I must bear the burden till my warfare shall be accomplished. 3. When preaching-houses were built, they were vested immediately in trustees, who were to see that those preached in them whom I sent, and none else; this, we conceived, being the only way whereby itinerancy could be regularly established. But lately, after a new preaching-house had been built at Dewsbury in Yorkshire by the subscriptions and contributions of the people (the trustees alone not contributing one quarter of what it cost), they seized upon the house, and, though they had promised the contrary, positively refused to settle it on the Methodist plan, requiring that they should have a power of refusing any preacher whom they disliked. If so, I have no power of stationing the Dewsbury preachers; for the trustees may object to whom they please. And themselves, not I, are finally to judge of those objections. [See letters of Aug. 23 and Sept. 15, 1789 (to Henry Moore).]

To Mrs. Armstrong Date: BRISTOL, September 15, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, -- The account you give of James M'Quigg is very remarkable. [J. M'Quigg was one of the preachers at Limerick. Wesley preached at Moate near Athlone, on April 2, 1748, and calls it 'the pleasantest town I have yet seen in Ireland.'] The sending him to Athlone just at this time was a signal instance of Divine Providence; and his going to Moate, where we had so long labored in vain, was in an acceptable time. Many of our friends were in dread to [hear] him! God honored him. I pray He will honor him more as long as his eye is single, seeking his happiness in God alone. You cannot tell, my dear Jenny, what good you may do by now and then speaking a word for God. Be not ashamed nor afraid to put in a word when occasion offers. Indeed, you are not called for any public work; but even in private conversation a word spoken in season how good it is! You need not be a drone; you will not want opportunities of doing good in various kinds. To hear of you or from you will always be a pleasure. -- My dear Jenny, Yours very affectionately.

To the Printer of the 'Bristol Gazette' [See letters of Sept. 25 and Oct. 12 (to Adam Clarke).] Date: BRISTOL, October 3, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- SIR, -- I am much obliged to your last correspondent also for the candor with which he writes. 'Mr. Wesley,' he observes, 'had cautioned us against the use of hops on account of its poisonous quality. But the authority on which he grounds this is only an old obsolete Act of Parliament. He has not informed us of its mode of operation on the animal frame.' 'Tis very true. I leave that to the gentlemen of the Faculty, for many of whom I have an high respect. Meantime I declare my own judgment, grounded not only on the Act of Parliament, but first on my own experience with regard to the gravel or stone, and secondly on the opinion of all the physicians I have heard or read that spoke on the subject. I do not apprehend that we need recur either to 'the Elements of Chemistry' or to the College of Physicians on the head. I urge a plain matter of fact - 'that hops are pernicious.' I did not say to all (though perhaps they may more or less) but to those that are inclined to stone, gout, or scurvy. So I judge, because I feel it to myself if I drink it two or three days together; and because so I hear from many skillful physicians; and I read in their works. I cannot but return thanks to both your correspondents for their manner of writing, worthy of gentlemen. As to the gentleman brewer of Bath that challenges me to engage him for five hundred pounds, I presume he had taken a draught of his well-hopped beverage, or he would not have been so valiant. So I wish him well; and am, sir, Your humble servant.

To Laurence Frost Date: LONDON, October 23, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You are a bold people! Two hundred pounds purchase money besides nine hundred pounds! But I do not use to damp any good design. Go on in the name of God. It is true your deed is clumsy enough. I am surprised that no Methodist will take my advice. I have more experience in these things than any attorney in the land. And have I not the Methodist interest as much at heart Oh, why will you alter the beautiful deed we have already why will you employ any attorney at all Only to seek a knot in a bulrush; only to puzzle the cause. Well, comfort yourselves. You will not long be troubled with Your affectionate brother.

To Whom it may Concern Date: LONDON, February 25, 1790. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1790) Author: John Wesley --- In August 1788 Mr. Atlay wrote me word, 'I must look out for another servant, for he would go to Dewsbury on September 25.' So far was I from 'bidding him go,' that I knew nothing of it till that hour. But I then told him, 'Go and serve them'; seeing I found he would serve me no longer. He sent me word that I had in London 13,751 18s. 5d. stock in books. [See letter of Sept. 4, 1788.] Desiring to know exactly, I employed two booksellers to take an account of my stock. The account they brought in, October 31, 1788, was: Value of stock, errors excepted, 4,827 10s. 5d. John Parsons, Thomas Scollick. Why did John Atlay so wonderfully overrate my stock Certainly to do me honor in the eyes of the world. I never approved of his going to Dewsbury; but I submitted to what I could not help. With respect to Dewsbury House, there never was any dispute about the property of preaching-houses (that was an artful misrepresentation), but merely the appointing of preachers in them. If John Atlay has a mind to throw any more dirt upon me, I do not know I shall take any pains to wipe it off. [See letter of May 12.] I have but a few days to live; and I wish to spend those in peace.

To William Smith Date: BIRMINGHAM, March 21, 1790. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1790) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I was not sorry that you are discharged from the Army, seeing it was not by your own act and deed, but rather by a stroke of Divine Providence; and I doubt not but it will be to the glory of God. The question was, What part of the vineyard would it be best for you to labor in I cannot in reason consent to your being long confined in the Londonderry Circuit. Is there any particular part of Ireland which you would prefer to others Or would you rather spend some time in England You may speak freely to Your affectionate brother.

In spite of prejudice, go and hear that word which is able to save your soul. Give God your heart. Consider these, my dear Sammy, as probably the dying words of Your affectionate Uncle.

To Samuel Wood Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1790) Author: John Wesley --- [October, 1790.] DEAR BROTHER, -- I have delivered my opinion upon this subject in one of the sermons in the Arminian Magazine, and I again say that though a parent has not a positive authority yet he has a negative i.e., though a child is not obliged to marry whom its parent pleases, yet it ought not to marry whom he forbids, especially a daughter; and when a marriage has been contrary to a religious and prudent parent's opinion and counsel, I have rarely known it to be a happy one. -- I am Your affectionate brother.

Tues. MAY 6.--I had much conversation (at Carrickfergus) with Monsieur Cavenac, the French General, not on the circum stances, but the essence, of religion. He seemed to startle at nothing; but said more than once, and with emotion, “Why, this is my religion: There is no true religion besides it!” Wed, 7.--I rode to Larn. The rain, which had continued with little intermission for several days, stopped this afternoon; so that I had a very large, as well as serious, congregation: And I spoke to them with the utmost plainness; but I could not find the way to their hearts. Thur. 8.--We rode over the mountains to Ballymena, and had just passed through the town, when a man came running out of the field, called me by my name, and pressed me much to preach there. But I could not stay, having appointed one to meet me at Portlomane; which he accordingly did, and brought me to Mr. Burrows, near Garvah. Fri. 9.--A little rest was acceptable. Saturday, 10. I preached, morning and evening, in Mr. B 's house, to a well-behaved congregation, though of various denominations; Churchmen, Papists, Presbyterians, Cameronians. One Seceder likewise ventured in; but the moment he heard, “Our Father, which art in heaven,” he ran away with all speed. Sun. 11.--We had such a congregation in the church as perhaps had not been there in this century; and I believe God reached some of their hearts: Several were in tears. I spoke extremely plain; especially to those who were full of their own wisdom and righteousness. Mon. 12.--Returning through Ballymena, I preached in the market-house to a large concourse of people; and God was there of a truth. I have found no such spirit in any congregation since I left Dublin. Thence I rode to Moira, and preached to a very civil congregation: But there is no life in them. 4. Rev. J. west EY’s [May, 1760. Tues. 13.--My Irish horse was thoroughly tired. How cver, with much difficulty, partly riding, and partly walking, about eight in the evening I reached Coot-Hill. I preached in the House now, and at five in the morning; but at eleven in the market-house, where I delivered my own soul, to most of the Protestants in the town. Having procured a fresh horse, I rode on to Belturbet, a town in which there is neither Papist nor Presbyterian.

We afterwards rode through Longford; but did not stop, as the day was cool and pleasant. About two we were unawares encompassed with a multitude of Papists, coming out of their mass-house. One of them knowing me soon alarmed the rest, who set up a hideous roar, and drew up in battle array. But we galloped through them, and went on to Drumersmave, where I preached in the evening, and the next day, Wednesday, 25, rode on to Sligo. Never did I see a fairer prospect of good here. But 8 REv. J. wesLEY’s [June, 1760. blossoms are not fruit. As large, if not a larger congregation than before, was at the market-place in the evening. I was exceeding weary, having rode an extremely dull horse; but I soon forgot my weariness, seeing so many, young and old, rich and poor, receiving the word with all gladness. Thur. 26.--I preached at five, in a large, commodious Room which has been procured since I was here last. I breakfasted at Mr. A ’s, and dined at Mr. K. ’s : But two such families I have seldom seen. They had feared God for many years, and served him in the best manner they knew. Nothing was wanting but that they should hear the “more excellent way,” which they then embraced with all their heart. Fri. 27.--Our morning congregation was doubled. Mr. D did not fail to be there, though it seemed strange to him at first, when mention was made of preaching at five in the morning. In the evening we had a still larger congre gation, and I believe God applied his word. Some trembled, others wept. Surely some of these shall know there is “balm in Gilead.” Sat. 28.--At five the congregation was larger than ever it had been at that hour. After breakfast I rode out with Mr. K. and Mr. D., who, hearing I was ill-mounted, desired me to make use of one of his horses, during my stay in Ireland. In the evening (it being market-day, so that the market house was full of people) I wrote a line to the Colonel, who readily gave me the liberty of preaching in the barrack-yard. He likewise came to hear himself, as did several of the Officers. It was a solemn conclusion of the happiest birth-day which I have known for many years. Sun.

Whitefield and Mr. Wesley are used; but this is mere finesse ! Greater men are designed, and all along are wounded through our sides. “I was long in hopes of seeing an answer to this artful performance, from some one of more leisure, as well as abilities; and some whose name would have recommended his work: For that thought has something of truth in it, O what a tuneful wonder seized the throng, When Marlbro's conquering name alarm'd the foe! Had Whiznowisky led the armies on, The General's scarecrow name had foil'd each blow. However, who knows but reason, for once, may be stronger than prejudice? And many may forget my scarecrow name, and mind not who speaks, but what is spoken. I am pleading now, not for the Methodists only, but for the whole body of Protestants; first, for the Church of England; then for the Protestants of every denomination; in doing which I shall first give the substance of each Section of the Romish Tract: Secondly, answer, and retort it upon the members of the Church of Rome. O that this may incite some more skilful advocate to supply my lack of service | “‘The Methodists’ (Protestants) “are not the people of God; they are not true Gospel Christians; nor is their new-raised society the true church of Christ, nor any part of it.” (P. 3.) “‘This is demonstrated by the word of God, marking out the people of God, the true church of Christ, by such characters as cannot agree to the Methodists, or any other new-raised sect or community.” (Ibid.) “‘The Old Testament is full of prophecies relating to the church: And the New Testament makes glorious promises to it, and gives glorious characters of it.” (P. 4.) “‘Now all those prophecies, promises, and characters, point out a society founded by Christ himself, and by his commission propagated throughout the world, which should flourish till time should end, ever one, ever holy, ever orthodox; secured against error by the perpetual presence of Christ; ever directed by the Spirit of truth; having a perpetual succession of Pastors and Teachers, divinely appointed and divinely 42 REv. J. Wesley’s [Feb. 176}.

He that was a drunkard, is a drunkard still; he that was filthy, is filthy still; therefore neither are they ‘assisted’ by him; so they and their flocks wallow in sin together: Consequently, (whatever may be the case of some particular souls,) it must be said, if your own marks be true, the Roman Catholics in general are not ‘the people of God.’” It may be proper to add here the second section, which is all I had leisure to write, though it was not published till the following week:-- “‘The Methodist’ (Protestant) ‘Teachers are not the true Ministers of Christ; nor are they called or sent by him.’ (P.6.) “‘This appears from what has been already demonstrated. For if the Protestants are not the true people of Christ, their Ministers cannot be the true Ministers of Christ.” (Ibid.) “Farther, ‘The true Ministers came down by succession from the Apostles. But the Protestant Teachers do not. There fore they are not the true Ministers of Christ.” (Ibid.) “‘All power in the church of Christ comes from him; so that whoever, without a commission from him, intrudes into the pastoral office, is a thief and a robber. Now, the commission can be conveyed but two ways; either immediately from God 44 REv. J. WESLEY’s [Feb. 1761. himself, as it was to the Apostles, or from men who have the authority handed down to them from the Apostles. “‘But this commission has not been conveyed to Protestant Preachers either of these ways. Not immediately from God himself; for how do they prove it? By what miracles? Neither by men deriving authority from the Apostles, through the channel of the Church. And they stand divided in communion from all Churches that have any pretensions to antiquity. Their doctrine of justification by faith alone, was anathematized at its first appearance, by the undoubted heirs of the Apostles, the Pastors of the Apostolic churches; consequently they are sent by no other but him who sent all the false prophets from the beginning.” (Pp. 8, 9.) “I answer, ‘from what has been already demonstrated,’ that nothing will follow; for you have demonstrated just nothing. “Now for your ‘farther’ proof. ‘The true Ministers came down by succession from the Apostles.’ So do the Protestant Ministers, if the Romish do; the English in particular; as even one of yourselves, F. Courayer, has irrefragably proved.

Courayer, has irrefragably proved. “‘All power in the church of Christ comes from him; either immediately from himself, or from men who have the authority handed down to them from the Apostles. But this commission has not been conveyed to the Protestant Preachers either of these ways: Not immediately; for by what miracles do they prove it?” So said Cardinal Bellarmine long ago. Neither ‘by men deriving authority from the Apostles. Read F. Courayer, and know better. Neither are the Protestants ‘divided from any ‘Churches’ who have true ‘pretensions to antiquity.’ But ‘their doctrine of justification by faith alone was anathematized, at its first appearance, by the undoubted heirs of the Apostles, the Pastors of the Apostolic church. By the Prelates at the Council of Trent it was; who thereby anathematized the Apostle Paul, to all intents and purposes. Here you throw off the mask; otherwise you might have passed for a Protestant a little longer. ‘Consequently they are sent by no other but him who sent all the false pro phets from the beginning.’ Sir, we thank you. This is really a very modest assertion for the subject of a Protestant King. “But to turn the tables: I said, ‘If the Romish Bishops do.” For this I absolutely deny. I deny that the Romish Bishops came down by uninterrupted succession from the Feb. 1761.] JOURNAL. 45 Apostles. I never could see it proved; and, I am persuaded I never shall. But unless this is proved, your own Pastors, on your principles, are no Pastors at all. “But farther: It is a doctrine of your Church, that the intention of the administrator is essential to the validity of the sacraments which are administered by him. Now, are you assured of the intention of every Priest from whom you have received the Host? If not, you do not know but what you received as the sacrament of the altar, was no sacrament at all. Are you assured of the intention of the Priest who baptized you? If not, perhaps you are not baptized at all. To come close to the point in hand: If you pass for a Priest, are you assured of the intention of the Bishop that ordained you? If not, you may happen to be no Priest, and so all your ministry is nothing worth : Nay, by the same rule, he may happen to be no Bishop.

2.--I set out early for North-Cave, twenty computed miles from York. I preached there at nine to a deeply serious congregation, and was much refreshed. At two I preached to such another congregation at Thorpe, and concluded the day by preaching and meeting the society at Pocklington. Fri. 3.--We returned to York, where I was desired to call upon a poor prisoner in the Castle. I had formerly occasion to take notice of an hideous monster, called, a Chancery Bill; I now saw the fellow to it, called, a Declara tion. The plain fact was this: Some time since a man who lived near Yarm assisted others in running some brandy. His share was worth near four pounds. After he had wholly left off that bad work, and was following his own business, that of a weaver, he was arrested, and sent to York gaol; and, not long after, comes down a Declaration, “that Jac. Wh had landed a vessel laded with brandy and Geneva, at the port of London, and sold them there, whereby he was indebted to His Majesty five hundred and seventy-seven pounds and upwards.” And to tell this worthy story, the Lawyer takes up thirteen or fourteen sheets of treble stamped paper. O England, England! will this reproach never be rolled away from thee? Is there any thing like this to be found, 66 REv. J. wrsLEY’s [July, 1761. either among Papists, Turks, or Heathens? In the name of truth, justice, mercy, and common sense, I ask, 1. Why do men lie for lying sake? Is it only to keep their hands in 7 What need else, of saying it was the port of London, when every one knew the brandy was landed above three hundred miles from thence? What a monstrous contempt of truth does this show, or rather hatred to it ! 2. Where is the justice of swelling four pounds into five hundred and seventy-seven ? 3. Where is the common sense of taking up fourteen sheets to tell a story that may be told in ten limes? 4. Where is the mercy of thus grinding the face of the poor? thus sucking the blood of a poor, beggared prisoner?

1763. number of people attended, to whom God enabled me to speak strong words; and they seemed to sink into the hearts of the hearers. Sat. OCTOBER 1.--I returned to London, and found our house in ruins, great part of it being taken down, in order to a thorough repair. But as much remained as I wanted: Six foot square suffices me by day or by night. I now received a very strange account from a man of sense, as well as integrity:-- “I asked M. S. many questions before she would give me any answer. At length, after much persuasion, she said, “On old Michaelmas-Day was three years, I was sitting by myself at my father's, with a Bible before me; and one, whom I took to be my uncle, came into the room, and sat down by me. He talked to me some time, till, not liking his discourse, I looked more carefully at him: He was dressed like my uncle; but I observed one of his feet was just like that of an ox. Then I was much frighted, and he began torturing me sadly, and told me he would torture me ten times more, if I would not swear to kill my father, which at last I did. He said he would come again, on that day four years, between half-hour past two and three o’clock. “‘I have several times since strove to write this down; but when I did, the use of my hand was taken from me. I strove to speak it; but whenever I did, my speech was taken from me, and I am afraid I shall be tormented a deal more for what I have spoken now.’ “Presently she fell into such a fit as was dreadful to look upon. One would have thought she would be torn in pieces. Several persons could scarce hold her; till, after a time, she sunk down as dead. “From that Michaelmas-Day she was continually tormented with the thought of killing her father, as likewise of killing herself, which she often attempted, but was as often hindered. Once she attempted to cut her own throat; once to throw herself into Rosamond’s Pond; several times to strangle herself, which once or twice was with much difficulty prevented.

5.--I preached near Helstone, to an exceeding large and serious congregation. What a surprising change is wrought here also, within a few years, where a Methodist Preacher could hardly go through the street without a shower of stones | Sat. 6.--At one I began preaching in a meadow adjoining to Penzance. The whole congregation behaved well. The old bitterness is gone, and perhaps, had it not been market day, I might have had a quiet hearing in the market-place. In the evening I preached at Newlyn. Small rain fell all the time; but none went away. Sun. 7.--At eight I preached in Mousehole, a large village south-west from Newlyn. Thence I went to Buryan church, and, as soon as the service was ended, preached near the church yard, to a numerous congregation. Just after I began, I saw a gentleman before me, shaking his whip, and vehemently striving to say something. But he was abundantly too warm to say anything intelligibly. So, after walking a while to and fro, he wisely took horse and rode away. The multitude of people at St. Just constrained me to preach abroad, though it rained the whole time. But this did not discourage the congregation, who not only stayed till I had concluded, but were not in haste to go away then; many still hovering about the place. Tues. 9.-In riding to St. Ives, I called on one with whom I used to lodge, two or three and twenty years ago, Alice Daniel, at Rosemargay. Her sons are all gone from her; and she has but one daughter left, who is always ill. Her husband is dead; and she can no longer read her Bible, for she is stone-blind. Yet she murmurs at nothing, but cheerfully waits till her appointed time shall come. How many of these jewels may lie hid, up and down; forgotten of men, but precious in the sight of God! In the evening I preached at St. Ives, a little above the town, to the largest congregation I ever saw there. Indeed Sept. 1766.] JOURNAL, 265 nearly the whole town seems convinced of the truth; yea, and almost persuaded to be Christians. Wed. 10.--I preached at Lelant about one, but the rain drove us into the House; and at St.

Sunday, October 5. At eight I administered the sacrament at Lady H.’s chapel in Bath. At eleven I preached there on those words in the Gospel for the day, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” The word was quick and powerful; and I trust many, even of the rich and great, felt themselves sinners before God. Several evenings this week I preached at Bristol on the Oct. 1766.] JOURNAL. 267 Education of Children. Some answered all by that poor, lame, miserable shift, “O, he has no children of his own l’” But many, of a nobler spirit, owned the truth, and pleaded guilty before God. Thur. 9.--I waited on the good old Bishop of London derry, and spent two or three hours in useful conversation. In the evening I preached again at my Lady’s chapel to another numerous congregation. Who knows but a few among this gay multitude may “work out their salvation with fear and trembling ?” Fri. 10.--I took a ride to Cheltenham. It being too cold to preach abroad, at six I preached in the chapel, and fully declared the whole counsel of God. Afterwards I examined the little society; and found the greater part of them lively believers, and quite free from the bigotry which is common among Churchmen, and still more among Dissenters. The next day, after preaching at five and at eight in Gloucester, I had a pleasant ride to Bristol. Sun. 12.--I took my leave of Princes-Street for this season. We had such a congregation at Kingswood at ten as I have scarce seen there for these twenty years; and at two I was obliged to preach abroad. Sunday, 19. I preached once more in the Square; and in the morning, Monday, 20, left Bristol, with a firm hope that both here and at Kingswood things will now be conducted to the glory of God and the honour of true religion. In the evening I preached an healing sermon at Bath, on Colossians iii. 9. The next day I went on to Salisbury, and preached in as rousing a manner as I could, on, “One thing is needful.” Thursday, 23. I preached at Romsey: The next day, at Winchester, Whitchurch, and Basingstoke, where many attended at five on Saturday morning. In the afternoon I came to London. Sun.

26.--I set out for London. A good part of the day we had furious wind and rain full in our faces: However, we pushed on to Lakenheath. Notwithstanding the severity of the weather, the church was pretty well filled in the evening. The next evening we reached Hockerhill, and London on Saturday in the afternoon. On Ash-Wednesday, MARCH 4, I dined at a friend’s with Mr. Whitefield, still breathing nothing but love. Thursday, 5. I at length obliged Dr. D. by entering into the lists with him. The letter I wrote (though not published till two or three weeks after) was as follows: “To the Editor of Lloyd's Evening Post. “MANY times the publisher of the ‘Christian Magazine’ has attacked me without fear or wit; and hereby he has convinced his impartial readers of one thing at least,-that (as the vulgar say) his fingers itch to be at me; that he has a passionate desire to measure swords with me. But I have other work upon my hands: I can employ the short remainder of my life to better purpose. March, 1767.] JOURNAL, 273 “The occasion of his late attack is this:--Five or six and thirty years ago, I much admired the character of a perfect Christian drawn by Clemens Alexandrinus. Five or six and twenty years ago, a thought came into my mind, of drawing such a character myself, only in a more scriptural manner, and mostly in the very words of Scripture: This I entitled, ‘The Character of a Methodist, believing that curiosity would incite more persons to read it, and also that some prejudice might thereby be removed from candid men. But that none might imagine I intended a panegyric either on myself or my friends, I guarded against this in the very title page, saying, both in the name of myself and them, ‘Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect.’ To the same effect I speak in the conclusion, ‘These are the principles and practices of our sect; these are the marks of a true Methodist; i. e., a true Christian, as I immediately after explain myself: “By these alone do those who are in derision so called desire to be distinguished from other men.’ (P. 11.) ‘By these marks do we labour to distinguish ourselves from those whose minds or lives are not according to the Gospel of Christ.’ (P.

After preaching at eight I would willingly have gone to church, but was informed there had been no Service for near two years, and would be none for a year or two longer, the inside of the church wanting to be repaired: In the evening I preached in the barracks. I know not that ever I saw such a congregation at Athlone before; rich and poor, Protestants and Papists, gathered together from every side; and deep attention sat on all, while I explained that solemn declaration, (part of the Gospel for the day,) “If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.” It was about this time that a remarkable passage happened at Macclesfield, in Cheshire. One Ellen Stanyers, a young woman of that town, very religious in her own way, but quite a stranger to the Scripture-way of salvation, had her work from one of the shops in the town. A young man belonging to the same shop fell in love with her. Fearing lest her refusing him would disoblige her master, she gave him encouragement, and afterwards, though she never intended it, promised to marry 284 REv. J. weslEY’s [June, 1767. him. One day, as she was sitting at her work, this sin was brought to her remembrance, and lay so exceeding heavy upon her mind that she was utterly distressed. She took her work, and carried it to her master, telling him, she had destroyed her soul with it. At the same time she told the young man, she was resolved never to have him. He came to her and said, “If you do not keep your.word, I will hang myself at your door; and then I will come and take you away with me to the devil.” She was so frighted she fell into black despair. Her father carried her to a Clergyman, and afterwards to another, who seemed to pity her case, but knew not how to comfort her. Willing to try every way, he ordered one to read to her Burkitt upon the New Testament, till she cried, “Take it away; I cannot bear it!” and attempted to run away: But her father held her; and, when she struggled, beat her, and told her she should hear it, whether she would or no.

But the largest of all attended at the Garth-Heads in the evening; and great part of them were not curious hearers, but well acquainted with the things of the kingdom of God. Wednesday, 25, and the two following days, being at Sunderland, I took down, from one who had feared God from her infancy, one of the strangest accounts I ever read; and yet I can find no pretence to disbelieve it. The well known character of the person excludes all suspicion of fraud; and the nature of the circumstances themselves excludes the possibility of a delusion. It is true there are several of them which I do not comprehend; but this is, with me, a very slender objection : For what is it which I do comprehend, even of the things I see daily? Truly not The smallest grain of sand, or spire of grass. I know not how the one grows, or how the particles of the other cohere together. What pretence have I then to deny well-attested facts, because I cannot comprehend them? It is true, likewise, that the English in general, and indeed most of the men of learning in Europe, have given up all accounts of witches and apparitions, as mere old wives’ fables. I am sorry for it; and I willingly take this opportunity of entering my solemn protest against this violent compliment which so many that believe the Bible pay to those who do not believe it. I owe them no such service. I take knowledge, these are at the bottom of the outcry which has been raised, and with such insolence spread throughout the nation, in direct opposition not only to the Bible, but to the suffrage of the wisest and best of men in all ages and nations. They well May, 1768.] JOURNAL, 325 know, (whether Christians know it, or not,) that the giving up witchcraft is, in effect, giving up the Bible; and they know, on the other hand, that if but one account of the intercourse of men with separate spirits be admitted, their whole castle in the air (Deism, Atheism, Materialism) falls to the ground. I know no reason, therefore, why we should suffer even this weapon to be wrested out of our hands. Indeed there are numerous arguments besides, which abun dantly confute their vain imaginations.

In particular, it is an assent of the under standing to the Gospel method of salvation; in which there is an excellency and glory which only believers see. A supernatural conviction of this is faith.” But if this be his judgment, why does he quarrel with me? For how marvel lously small is the difference between us! Only change the word assent for conviction, (which certainly better answers St. Paul’s word, exs/xos,) and do we not come within an hair's breadth of each other? I do not quarrel with the definition of faith in general,--“a supernatural assent to the word of God;” though I think “a supernatural conviction of 378 REv. J. WESLEY’s [Sept. 1769. the truths contained in the word of God” is clearer. I allow, too, that the Holy Spirit enables us to perceive a peculiar light and glory in the word of God, and particularly in the Gospel method of salvation: But I doubt whether saving faith be, properly, an assent to this light and glory. Is it not rather, an assent (if we retain the word) to the truths which God has revealed; or, more particularly, a divine conviction that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself?” The congregation at St. Ives in the evening was the largest I have seen since I came to Cornwall; and it was a solemn assembly. We had another happy opportunity at the meeting of the society. Saturday, 2. Our Quarterly Meeting was at Redruth. In the evening I preached to eleven or twelve hundred people; but there was no trifler, much less mocker, among them. They heard as for eternity. Sun. 3.--We had a very large congregation, and an useful sermon, at church. Between one and two I preached to some thousands in the main street; but to abundantly more at five, in our amphitheatre at Gwennap; and they were so commodiously placed, row above row, that I believe all could hear. Mon. 4.--About noon I preached in the Lower-Street, at St. Austle, to a very numerous and very serious congregation; but at Medros, where was once the liveliest society in Corn wall, I found but a few, and most of those faint and weary. Tuesday, 5.

On Tuesday I preached again at the new House, and many were greatly comforted. On Wednesday evening I read over to the Leaders the following paper: 1. That it may be more easily discerned whether the members of our societies are working out their own salvation, they are divided into little companies, called classes. One person in each of these is styled the Leader: It is his busi ness, 1. To see each person in his class once a week; to inquire how their souls prosper; to advise, reprove, comfort, or exhort them: 2. To receive what they are willing to give toward the expenses of the society: And, 3. To meet the Assistant and the Stewards once a week. April, 1771.] JOURNAL, 427 2. This is the whole and sole business of a Leader, or any number of Leaders. But it is common for the Assistant in any place when several Leaders are met together, to ask their advice, as to anything that concerns either the temporal or spiritual welfare of the society. This he may, or he may not do, as he sees best. I frequently do it in the larger societies; and on many occasions I have found, that in a multitude of counsellors there is safety. 3. From this short view of the original design of Leaders, it is easy to answer the following questions:-- Q. 1. What authority has a single Leader? He has authority to meet his class, to receive their contributions, and to visit the sick in his class. Q. 2. What authority have all the Leaders of a society met together? They have authority to show their class-papers to the Assistant; to deliver the money they have received to the Stewards, and to bring in the names of the sick. Q. 3. But have they not authority to restrain the Assistant, if they think he acts improperly? No more than any member of the society has. After mildly speaking to him, they are to refer the thing to Mr. W. Q. 4. Have they not authority to hinder a person from preaching? None but the Assistant has this authority. Q. 5. Have they not authority to displace a particular Leader? No more than the door-keeper has. To place and to displace Leaders belongs to the Assistant alone. Q. 6. Have they not authority to expel a particular member of the ciety?

Wednesday, 30. I walked over to Winchelsea, said to have been once a large city, with abundance of trade and of inhabitants, the sea washing the foot of the hill on which it stands. The situation is exceeding bold, the hill being high and steep on all sides. But the town is shrunk almost into nothing, and the seven churches into half an one. I preached at eleven in the new Square, to a considerable number of serious people; and at Rye in the evening, where were many that are “not far from the kingdom of God.” Thursday, 31. 446 Rev. J. wesLEY’s [Nov. 1771. I preached at Robertsbridge. As yet the whole town is willing to hear: And we may hope, after the stony and the thorny ground hearers are deducted, some will “bring forth fruit with patience.” Sat. NoveMBER 2.--I returned to London. Monday, 4. I went in the stage-coach to Colchester, in which I met with two agreeable companions, whose hearts were quite open to instruction. Tuesday, 5. In our way to Bury we called at Felsham, near which is the seat of the late Mr. Reynolds. The house is, I think, the best contrived and the most beautiful I ever saw. It has four fronts, and five rooms on a floor, elegantly, though not sumptuously, furnished. At a small distance stands a delightful grove. On every side of this, the poor, rich man, who had no hope beyond the grave, placed seats, to enjoy life as long as he could. But being resolved none of his family should be “put into the ground,” he built a structure in the midst of the grove, vaulted above and beneath, with niches for coffins, strong enough to stand for ages. In one of these he had soon the satisfaction of laying the remains of his only child; and, two years after, those of his wife. After two years more, in the year 1759, having eat, and drank, and forgotten God, for eighty-four years, he went himself to give an account of his stewardship. In the evening I preached at Bury; and on Wednesday, 6, rode on, through heavy rain, to Lynn. The people “received the word with joy;” though few, as yet, had any “root in themselves.” Thursday, 7. I was desired by the prisoners to give them a word of exhortation. They received it with the utmost eagerness.

Here, likewise, I could not but admire the exemplary decency of the congregation. This was the more remarkable, because so miserable a reader I never heard before. Listening with all attention, I understood but one single word, Balak, in the First Lesson; and one more, begat, was all I could possibly distinguish in the Second. Is there no man of spirit belonging to this congregation? Why is such a burlesque upon * “The illustrious order of Magistrates, and honourable Court [senatorum] of Aldermen, of the famous city of Perth, as a proof of their well-merited esteem and affection for John Wesley, have invested him with the immunities of the above mentioned city, and with the privileges of the fellowship and brotherhood of a Burgess: This 28th day of April, in the year of our salvation 1772.”--EDIT. 462 REv. J. wesDEY’s [May, 1772. public worship suffered? Would it not be far better to pay this gentleman for doing nothing, than for doing mischief; for bringing a scandal upon religion? About three I preached at the College kirk in the Old Town, to a large congregation, rich and poor; at six in our own House, on the narrow way. I spoke exceeding plain, both this evening and the next; yet none were offended. What encouragement has every Preacher in this country, “by manifestation of the truth,” to “commend” himself “to every man's conscience in the sight of God!” Tues. 5.--I read over in my journey Dr. Beattie’s ingenious “Inquiry after Truth.” He is a writer quite equal to his subject, and far above the match of all the minute philo sophers, David Hume in particular; the most insolent despiser of truth and virtue that ever appeared in the world. And yet it seems some complain of this Doctor’s using him with too great severity I cannot understand how that can be, unless he treated him with rudeness, (which he does not,) since he is an avowed enemy to God and man, and to all that is sacred and valuable upon earth. In the evening I preached in the new House at Arbroath (properly Aberbrotheck). In this town there is a change indeed! It was wicked to a proverb; remarkable for sabbath-breaking, cursing, swearing, drunkenness, and a general contempt of religion. But it is not so now. Open wickedness disappears; no oaths are heard, no drunkenness seen in the streets.

He believes just as much of the Bible as David Hume did. Hence he perpetually ascribes to enthusiasm whatever good men did from a strong conviction of duty. 2. He cordially believes that idle tale which King James published, concerning Father Huddleston’s giving King Charles extreme unction. My eldest brother asked Lady Oglethorpe concerning this. “Sir,” said she, “I never left the room from the moment the King was taken ill till the breath went out of his body; and I aver, that neither Father Huddleston nor any Priest came into the room till his death.” 3. He much labours to excuse that monster of cruelty, Graham, of Claverhouse, afterwards, as a reward for his execrable villanies, created Lord Dundee. Such wanton barbarities were scarce ever heard of, as he prac tised toward men, women, and children. Sir John himself says enough, in telling us his behaviour to his own troops. “He had but one punishment for all faults,--death : And for a very moderate fault he would ride up to a young gentle man, and, without any trial or ceremony, shoot him through the head.” 4. He is not rightly informed concerning the manner of his death. I learned in Scotland, that the current tradition is this:--At the battle of Gallycrankie, being armed in steel from head to foot, he was brandishing his sword over his head, and swearing a broad oath, that before the sun went down, he would not leave an Englishman alive. Just then a musket-ball struck him under the arm, at the joints of his armour. Is it enthusiasm to say, Thus the hand of God rewarded him according to his works? Mon. 14.--I read Prayers and preached to a crowded congregation at Gravesend. The stream here spreads wide, but it is not deep. Many are drawn, but none converted, or even awakened. Such is the general method of God’s providence: Where all approve, few profit. Thur. 17.--In my way to Luton I read Mr. Hutcheson's “Essay on the Passions.” He is a beautiful writer; but his scheme cannot stand, unless the Bible falls. I know both from Scripture, reason, and experience, that his picture of man is not drawn from the life. It is not true, that no man is capable of malice, or delight in giving pain; much less, that every man is virtuous, and remains so as long as he 486 REv.

Here they anchored, in a fine cove, and found abundance of wild deer and buffaloes, with which they victualled; and sailing southward, in three months got into the Pacific Ocean, and returned by the Straits of Le Maine and the West India Islands. They have brought many curiosities, particularly a prodigious bird, called a contor, or contose, above six feet in height, of the eagle kind, whose wings, expanded, measure twenty-two feet four inches. After bartering some skins with the country people, for meal, rum, and other necessaries, they sailed for Bremen, to wait the thaw, previous to their return to Copenhagen. “February 24, 1773.” If this account is true, one would hope not only the King of Denmark will avail himself of so important a discovery. Wed. MARCH 3.--I was invited to see Mr. Cox's celebrated museum. I cannot say, my expectation was disappointed; for I expected nothing, and I found nothing but a heap of pretty, glittering trifles, prepared at an immense expense: For what end? To please the fancy of fine ladies and pretty gentlemen. Sun, 7.-In the evening I set out for Bristol, and after spending a few days there, on Monday, 15, went to Stroud, and on Tuesday, 16, to Worcester. Here I inquired concerning the “Intelligence sent Mr. Hill from Worcester,” April, 1773.] JOURNAL, 489 (as he says in his warm book,) “ of the shocking behaviour of some that professed to be perfect.” It was supposed, that intelligence came from Mr. Skinner, a dear lover of me and all connected with me. The truth is, one of the society, after having left it, behaved extremely ill; but none who professed to love God with all their heart have done any thing contrary to that profession. I came to Liverpool on Saturday, 20. Monday, 22. The Captain was in haste to get my chaise on board. About eleven we went on board ourselves: And before one, we ran on a sandbank. So, the ship being fast, we went ashore again. Tuesday, 23. We embarked again on board the Freemason, with six other cabin passengers, four gentlemen, and two gentlewomen, one of whom was daily afraid of falling in labour. This gave me several opportunities of talking closely and of praying with her and her companion. We did not come abreast of Holyhead till Thursday morning.

His criticisms on Homer and Horace seem to be well grounded. Very probably the xvves, mentioned by Homer, were not dogs, but attendants; and without doubt ovenas means, not mules, but the outguards of the camp. It seems, that ode in Horace ought to be read, Sume, Maecenas, cyathos amici Sospitis. Cantum et vigiles lucernas Perfer in lucem. In the Art of Poetry he would read, Unumque prematur in annum. Lib. 1. Ode 9. For Campus et area, Read Cantus et aleae. Lib. 3. Ode 29. For Tum me biremis praesidio scaphae aura. feret: Read Cum me-Aura ferat. Lib. 3. Ode 23. Read Thure placaris, et horna. Fruge Lares, avidasque Parcas. And Lib. 1. Ode. 20. Read Vile potabo. A few things in the second volume are taken from Jacob Behmen; to whom I object, not only that he is obscure; July, 1773.] JOURNAL. 503 (although even this is an inexcusable fault in a writer on practical religion;) not only that his whole hypothesis is unproved, wholly unsupported either by Scripture or reason; but that the ingenious madman over and over contradicts Christian experience, reason, Scripture, and himself. But, setting these things aside, we have some of the finest sentiments that ever appeared in the English tongue; some of the noblest truths, expressed with the utmost energy of language, and the strongest colours of poetry: So that, upon the whole, I trust this publication will much advance the cause of God, and of true religion. Tues. 13.--I preached at Wednesbury; Wednesday, 14, at Dudley and Birmingham. Thursday, 15. I went on to Witney, and had the satisfaction to find that the work of God was still increasing. In the evening I preached at the east end of the town, to a numerous and attentive congregation. In the morning I met the select society, full of faith and love; although the greater part of them are young, some little more than children. At six I preached at the west end of the town, near Mr. Bolton’s door. After preaching, I had a pleasant journey to Wheatley, and the next day to London. In this journey I read over that strange book, “The Life of Sextus Quintus;” an hog-driver at first, then a Monk, a Priest, a Bishop, a Cardinal, a Pope. He was certainly as great a genius, in his way, as any that ever lived.

Tues. 9.--I preached at Bury; and on Wednesday, at Col chester, where I spent a day or two with much satisfaction, among a poor, loving, simple-hearted people. I returned to London on Friday, and was fully employed in visiting the classes from that time to Saturday, 20. In my late journey I read over Dr. Lee’s “Sophron.” He is both a learned and a sensible man; yet I judge his book will Dec. 1773.] JOUIRNA 1. 5 hardly come to a second impression, for these very obvious reasons:-1. His language is generally rough and unpleasing; frequently so obscure that one cannot pick out the meaning of a sentence, without reading it twice or thrice over: 2. His periods are intolerably long, beyond all sense and reason; one period often containing ten or twenty, and sometimes thirty, lines: 3. When he makes a pertinent remark he knows not when to have done with it, but spins it out without any pity to the reader: 4. Many of his remarks, like those of his master, Mr. Hutchinson, are utterly strained and unnatural; such as give pain to those who believe the Bible, and diversion to thcse who do not. Mon. 22.-I set out for Sussex, and found abundance of people willing to hear the good word; at Rye in particular. And they do many things gladly: But they will not part with the accursed thing, smuggling. So I fear, with regard to these, our labour will be in vain. Monday, 29. I went to Gravesend; on Tuesday, to Chat ham; and on Wednesday, to Sheerness; over that whimsical ferry, where footmen and horses pay nothing, but every car riage four shillings I was pleasing myself that I had seen one fair day at Sheerness | But that pleasure was soon over. We had rain enough in the evening. However, the House was crowded sufficiently. I spoke exceeding plain to the bigots on both sides. May God write it on their hearts | Mon. DECEMBER 6.--I went to Canterbury in the stage coach, and by the way read Lord Herbert's Life, written by himself; the author of the first system of Deism that ever was published in England. Was there ever so wild a knight errant as this? Compared to him, Don Quixote was a sober man. Who can wonder, that a man of such a complexion should be an Infidel?

Yet some things in it gave me pain : 1. His affirming things that are not true; as that all Negro children turn black the ninth or tenth day from their birth. No : most of them turn partly black on the second day, entirely so on the third. That all the Americans are of a copper colour. Not so : Some of them are as fair as we are. Many more such assertions I observed, which I impute not to design but credulity. 2. His flatly contradicting himself; many times within a page or two. 3. His asserting, and labouring to prove, that man is a mere piece of clock-work: And, lastly, his losing no opportunity of vilifying the Bible, to which he appears to bear a most cordial hatred. I marvel if any but his brother Infidels will give two guineas for such a work as this Sun. 29.--At seven the congregation was large. In the evening the people were ready to tread upon each other. I scarce ever saw people so squeezed together. And they seemed to be all ear, while I exhorted them, with strong and pointed words, not to receive “the grace of God in vain.” Mon. 30.--I set out early from Aberdeen, and preached at Arbroath in the evening. I know no people in England who are more loving, and more simple of heart, than these. Tuesday, 31. I preached at Easthaven, a small town, inhabited by fisher men. I suppose all the inhabitants were present; and all were ready to devour the word. In the evening I preached at Dun dee, and had great hope that brotherly love would continue. In my way hither, I read Dr. Reid's ingenious Essay. With the former part of it I was greatly delighted : But after wards I was much disappointed. I doubt whether the senti ments are just : But I am sure his language is so obscure that to most readers it must be mere Arabic. But I have a greater objection than this; namely, his exquisite want of judgment in so admiring that prodigy of self-conceit, Rousseau, La shallow, but supercilious Infidel, two degrees below Voltaire | Is it possible, that a man who admires him can admire the Bible 2 Wed. JUNE 1.--I went on to Edinburgh, and the next day examined the society one by one. I was agreeably surprised.

Many flocked to see it, from various parts, as long as it stood open: But after some days, Mr. P (he 80 REv. J. wesley’s [July, 1776. knew not why) ordered it to be covered again; and he would never after suffer any to open it, but ploughed the field all over. This is far more difficult to account for, than the sub terraneous buildings at Herculaneum. History gives us an account of the time when, and the manner how, these were swallowed up. The burning mountain is still assured, and the successive lavas that flowed from it still distinguishable. But history gives no account of this, nor of any burning mountains in our island. Neither do we read of any such earthquake in England, as was capable of working that effect. Tues. 2.--I went to York. The House was full enough in the evening, while I pointed the true and the false way of expounding those important words, “Ye are saved through faith.” Wednesday, 3. I preached about noon at Tadcaster, with an uncommon degree of freedom; which was attended with a remarkable blessing. A glorious work is dawning here, against which nothing can prevail; unless the ball of contention be thrown in among the plain people, by one or two that have lately embraced new opinions. In the evening I preached at York, on the fashionable religion, vulgarly called morality; and showed at large, from the accounts given of it by its ablest patrons, that it is neither better nor worse than Atheism. Thur. 4.--I met the select society, and was a little surprised to find, that, instead of growing in grace, scarce two of them retained the grace they had two years ago. All of them seemed to be sincere; and yet a faintness of spirit ran through them all. In the evening I showed, to a still more crowded audience, the nature and necessity of Christian love:-Ayatom, vilely rendered charity, to confound poor English readers. The word was sharper than a two-edged sword, as many of the hearers felt. God grant the wound may not be healed, till he himself binds it up ! Fri. 5.--About eleven I preached at Foggathorp, a lone house, a few miles from Howden. Abundance of people were gathered together, notwithstanding heavy rain; and they received the truth in the love thereof.

And hereby it appears, that of four hundred and fifty odd places, just eight are possessed by Scotchmen; and of the hundred and fifty-one places in the Royal Household, four are possessed by Scots, and no more. Ought not this to be echoed through the three kingdoms, to show the regard to truth these wretches have, who are constantly endeavouring to inflame the nation against their Sovereign, as well as their fellow-subjects? Tues. 8.--In the evening I stood on one side of the market place at Frome, and declared to a very numerous congrega tion, “His commandments are not grievous.” They stood as quiet as those at Bristol, a very few excepted; most of whom were, by the courtesy of England, called Gentlemen. How much inferior to the keelmen and colliers | On Wednesday and Thursday I made a little excursion into Dorsetshire, and on Saturday returned to Bristol. Sunday, 13. We had a comfortable opportunity at the Room in the morning, as well as at the Square in the afternoon; where the congregation was considerably larger than the Sunday before: But on Sunday, 20, it was larger still. Now let the winter come: We have made our full use of the Michaelmas summer. Oct. 1778.] JOURNAL. 137 On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, on meeting the classes, I carefully examined whether there was any truth in the assertion, that above a hundred in our society were con cerned in unlawful distilling. The result was, that I found two persons, and no more, that were concerned therein. I now procured a copy of part of Mr. Fletcher's late Letter to Mr. Ireland; which I think it my duty to publish, as a full answer to the lying accounts which have been published concerning that bad man:--“Mr. Voltaire, finding himself ill, sent for Dr. Fronchin, first Physician to the Duke of Orleans, one of his converts to infidelity, and said to him, ‘Sir, I desire you will save my life. I will give you half my fortune, if you will lengthen out my days only six months. If not, I shall go to the devil, and carry you with me.’” Thur. 24.--I read Prayers and preached in Midsummer Norton church. Thence I went to Bradford, on a sultry hot day, such as were several days this month; and preached on the seed that fell among thorns. God strongly applied his word. Tues.

She has taken true pains with them, and her labour has not been in vain. Several of them are much awakened; and the behaviour of all is so composed, that they are a pattern to the whole congregation. Tues. MAY 1.-I rode to St. David’s, seventeen measured miles from Haverford. I was surprised to find all the land, for the last nine or ten miles, so fruitful and well cultivated. What a difference is there between the westernmost parts of England, and the westernmost parts of Wales | The former (the west of Cornwall) so barren and wild; the latter, so fruitful and well improved. But the town itself is a melancholy spectacle. I saw but one tolerable good house in it. The rest were misera ble huts indeed. I do not remember so mean a town even in Ireland. The cathedral has been a large and stately fabric, far superior to any other in Wales. But a great part of it is fallen down already; and the rest is hastening into ruin: One blessed fruit (among many) of Bishops residing at a distance from their See. Here are the tombs and effigies of many ancient worthies: Owen Tudor in particular. But the zealous Cromwellians broke off their noses, hands, and feet; and defaced them as much as possible. But what had the Tudors dome to them? Why, they were progenitors of Kings. Thur. 3.-About ten I preached at Spittal, a large village about six miles from Haverford. Thence we went to Tracoon, and spent a few hours in that lovely retirement, buried from all May, 1781.] JOURNAL. 203 the world, in the depth of woods and mountains. Friday, 4. About eleven I preached in Newport church, and again at four in the evening. Saturday, 5. I returned to Haverford. Sun. 6.--I preached in St. Thomas's church, on, “We preach Christ crucified.” It was a stumbling-block to some of the hearers. So the Scripture is fulfilled. But I had amends when I met the society in the evening. Mon. 7.--About ten I preached near the market-place in Nerbeth, a large town ten miles east from Haverford. Abun dance of people flocked together. And they were all still as might. In the evening I preached to an equally attentive congregation at Carmarthen. Tues. 8.--I had a large congregation at Llanelly and at Swansea.

But I cannot admire, First, His intolerable prolixity in this history, as well as his “History of Charles the Fifth.” He promises eight books of the History of America, and fills four of them with critical dissertations. True, the dissertations are sensible, but they have lost their way; they are not history: And they are swelled beyond all proportion; doubtless, for the benefit of the author and the bookseller, rather than the reader. I cannot admire, Secondly, A Christian Divine writing a history, with so very little of Christianity in it. Nay, he seems studiously to avoid saying any thing which might imply that he believes the Bible. I can still less admire, Thirdly, His speaking so honourably of a professed Infidel; yea, and referring to his masterpiece of Infidelity, “Sketches of the History of Man;” as artful, as unfair, as disingenuous a book, as even Toland’s “Nazarenus.” Least of all can I admire, Fourthly, His copying after Dr. Hawkesworth, (who once professed better things,) in totally excluding the Creator from governing the world. Was it not enough, never to mention the Providence of God, where there was the fairest occasion, without saying expressly, “The for tune of Certiz,” or “chance,” did thus or thus? So far as fortune or chance governs the world, God has no place in it. The poor American, though not pretending to be a Christian, July, 1781.] JOURNAL. 211 knew better than this. When the Indian was asked, “Why do you think the beloved ones take care of you?” he answered, “When I was in the battle, the bullet went on this side, and on that side; and this man died, and that man died; and I am alive | So I know, the beloved ones take care of me.” It is true, the doctrine of a particular Providence (and any but a particular Providence is no Providence at all) is absolutely out of fashion in England: And a prudent author might write this to gain the favour of his gentle readers. Yet I will not say, this is real prudence; because he may lose hereby more than he gains; as the majority, even of Britons, to this day, retain some sort of respect for the Bible.

NEWINGToN, January 19, 1786. or THE Wednesday, SEPTEMBER 4, 1782.--I preached in the market-house at Tiverton; Thursday, 5, at Halberton, Taunton, and South-Brent. Friday, 6. About ten I preached at Shipham, a little town on the side of Men diff, almost wholly inhabited by miners, who dig up lapis calaminaris. I was surprised to see such a congregation at so short a warning; and their deep and serious atten tion seemed to be a presage, that some of them will profit by what they hear. In the afternoon we went on to Bristol. Sun. 8.--My brother read Prayers, and I preached to a very uncommon congregation. But a far more numerous one met near King's Square in the evening, on whom I strongly enforced, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” Permit me to observe here, how you may distinguish a genuine small Field's Bible from a spurious one: The genuine reads here, “Ye can serve God and mammon.” In the spurious, the “not” is supplied. Mon.9.--About nine I preached at Paulton, where the flame is abated, but not quenched. The same is the case at Shepton Mallet, where I preached in the evening. Tuesday, 10. I went on to the simple-hearted colliers, at Coleford, abundance of whom met at six in the evening, in a green meadow, which was delightfully gilded by the rays of the setting sun. Wed nesday, 11. I preached to a large and serious congregation at the end of the preaching-house at Frome. After preaching at Roade, Pensford, Trowbridge, and Freshford, on Friday, 13, I preached at Bath. Sunday, 15. I had a far greater number of communicants than usual. Both at this time, and in the afternoon and the evening service, we had no common blessing. On Monday and Tuesday I preached at Chew-Magna, at Sutton, Stoke, and Clutton: In my way thither, I saw a famous monument of antiquity, at Stanton-Drew; supposed 238 It Ev. J. WESLEY’s [Oct. 1782. to have remained there between two and three thousand years. It was undoubtedly a Druid's temple, consisting of a smaller and a larger circle of huge stones set on end, one would think by some power more than human. Indeed, such stones have been used for divine worship, nearly, if not quite, from the time of the flood. On the following days I preached at many other little places. Sun.

Coke read Prayers, and I preached, in the new Room. Afterward I hastened to Kingswood, and preached under the shade of that double row of trees which I planted about forty years ago. How little did any one then think that they would answer such an intention | The sun shone as hot as it used to do even in Georgia; but his rays could not pierce our canopy; and our Lord, meantime, shone upon many souls, and refreshed them that were weary. Mon. 13.−I visited one that was confined to her bed, and in much pain, yet unspeakably happy, rejoicing evermore, praying without ceasing, and in everything giving thanks; yea, and testifying that she had enjoyed the same happiness, without any intermission, for two-and-twenty years. Tues. 14.--I preached at Bath and Bradford; Wednesday, 15, at Trowbridge and Frome. Thursday, 16. I went to Ditchet, a village near Castle-Carey, where I found a friendly, hospitable family. I preached in the evening to a numerous and earnest congregation. Friday, 17. The House would not contain half the people. Hence we passed through a delightful country to the Nunnery, a mere elegant trifle, near King Alfred's Tower; a lofty, triangular building, standing in the height of the country, on the very, spot (as is supposed) where he drew up his army against the Danes. About eleven I preached at Castle-Carey, to a quiet and attentive multitude. In the evening I preached at Shepton-Mallet, where the people at length know the day of their visitation. Saturday, 18. I preached in the neat, cheerful church at Midsummer-Norton. Monday, 20, Tuesday, and Wednesday, I met the classes; but found no increase in the society. No wonder, for disci pline had been quite neglected; and without this, little good can be done among the Methodists. Thursday, 23. I preached at Paulton about one; and at Pensford in the evening. The gentlemen at Chew-Magna having sent me word I was welcome to preach in the church, I went thither the next morning; but they now sent me word they had changed their minds; so I preached in our own preaching-house, on, “If we let him alone, all men will believe on him.” Thur. 30.-I had a long conversation with John M*Geary, one of our American Preachers, just come to England.

He says more for the veracity of Herodotus than ever I saw before ; and convinces me that his authority is more to be relied on than that of Polybius; who, “ contrary to the truth of history, makes Scipio an example of continence, in giving up the fair captive to the Spanish Prince; whereas, in fact, he never would, nor did, restore her to her husband.” “There is not a more incredible relation in all the Roman History, than that Clelia, and all the Roman virgins who were hostages to the Hetrurians, swam over the river Tiber to Rome. Surely they would scarce have dared to look upon so rapid a river, much less to plunge into it; especially when there was no necessity, for the peace was then almost concluded. “Some writers affirm, and it is earnestly believed, that Belisarius was reduced to beggary. But it is a mere fable: On the contrary, the Emperor Justinian heaped titles and honours upon him to the last; although he recalled him out of Italy, after he had been defeated there by the French. Procopius, who wrote largely concerning him, says not one word of his being reduced to poverty.” Thur. 9.--Between nine and ten I preached in the Court House at Antrim, to a large staring congregation. Thence we went on to Belfast, through miserable roads. O where is com mon sense ! At six I preached in the Linen-Hall, to a large congregation, admirably well-behaved. I often wonder that, among so civil a people, we can do but little good. Friday, 10. We came to Downpatrick; where, the preaching-house being too small, we repaired, as usual, to the Grove; a most lovely plain, very near the venerable ruins of the cathedral. The congregation was as large as that at Belfast, but abun dantly more awakened. The people in general were remark ably affectionate. They filled the large preaching-house at five 314 REv. J. Wesley’s [June, 1785. in the morning; and we seemed to be as closely united with them as with one of our old societies in England. About eleven on Saturday, I preached in the Linen-Hall, at Ballimahinch, to a numerous congregation. The country, from hence to Lisburn, is wonderfully pleasant and fruitful.

Some years since we had a small society here; but a Local Preacher took them to himself: Only two or three remained, who from time to time pressed our Preachers to come again; and, to remove the objection, that there was no place to preach in, with the help of a few friends they built a convenient preaching-house. Thursday, I opened it in the evening; the congregation was large, and perfectly well behaved; and I cannot but hope, that, after all the stumbling blocks, there will be a people here, who will uniformly adorn the Gospel of Christ. On Friday I returned to London. Monday, DECEMBER 5, and so the whole week, I spent every hour I could spare, in the unpleasing but necessary work of going through the town, and begging for the poor men who had been employed in finishing the new chapel. It is true, I am not obliged to do this ; but if I do it not, nobody else will. Sun. 11.--I strongly enforced St. James's beautiful descrip tion of “the wisdom from above.” How hard is it to fix, even on serious hearers, a lasting sense of the nature of true religion! Let it be right opinions, right modes of worship, or anything, rather than right tempers | Thur. 22.--I preached at Highgate. Considering how Jan. 1786.] JOURNAL. 325 magnificent a place this is, I do not wonder so little good has been done here. For what has religion to do with palaces 2 Sun. 25.--(Being Christmas-Day.) I preached at the new chapel early in the morning, and in the evening; about eleven at West-Street. Monday, 26. I baptized a young woman brought up an Anabaptist; and God bore witness to his ordinance, filling her heart, at the very time, with peace and joy unspeakable. This week I endeavoured to point out all the errata in the eight volumes of the Arminian Magazine. This must be done by me: Otherwise several passages therein will be unintelligible. Sun. JANUARY 1, 1786.-We began that solemn service, the renewing of our covenant with God, not in the evening as heretofore, but at three in the afternoon, as more convenient for the generality of people. And God was with us of a truth. Mon. 9.--At leisure hours this week, I read the Life of Sir William Penn, a wise and good man.

Now not a dog wagged his tongue. I preached near the market-place to a very large congregation; and I believe the word sunk into many hearts: They seemed to drink in every word. Surely God will have a people in this place. Sat. JULY 1.--I went on to Bramley, about four miles from Sheffield, where a gentleman has built a meat preaching-house for the poor people, at his own expense. As the notice was short, I had no need to preach abroad. The congregation was deeply serious, while I explained what it was to build upon a rock, and what to build upon the sand. In the evening l spoke very plain to a crowded audience at Sheffield, on, “Now it is high time to awake out of sleep.” One of the hearers wrote me a nameless letter upon it. But he could * This part of Mr. Wesley's Journal was not transcribed and published by him self, but by those persons who had access to his papers after his decease. They apologize for the imperfect form in which it appears, by saying, at the conclusion, “We are not sure that Mr. Wesley carried on his Journal any farther; but if any more of it should be found, it will be published in due time. There are unavoid able chasms in this Journal, owing to some parts being mislaid; and it is proba ble that many of the proper names of persons and places are not properly spelled; as the whole of the manuscript was so ill written as to be scarcely legible.” It should also be stated, that this part of the Journal contains some passages which it is probable Mr. Wesley would never have committed to the press, and for the publication of which he should not be made responsible.--EDIT. 340 Rev. J. Wesley’s [July, 1786. remember nothing of the sermon but only, that “the rising early was good for the nerves 1” Sun. 2-I read Prayers, preached, and administered the Sacrament to six or seven hundred hearers: It was a solemn season. I preached soon after five in the evening, on, “There is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth.” Afterwards I gave an account of the rise of Methodism, (that is, old scriptural Christianity,) to the whole congregation; as truth will bear the light, and loves to appear in the face of the sun. Mon.

* 351 eight of which are published :--“The Primitive World Analyzed, and compared with the Modern.” He is a man of strong understanding, boundless imagination, and amazing industry. I think his first volume is a beautiful castle in the air. I admire it ; but I do not believe one word of it, because it is wholly built on the authority of Sanchoniathon, whom no one could ever yet prove to have had a being: And I fear he was a Deist: 1. Because he nowhere lays the least stress upon the Bible: 2. Because he supposes the original confusion of tongues to have been a merely natural event. Sunday, 24. God was eminently present with us at the morning service, as well as at Temple church in the afternoon, which I never saw so filled before; which is not at all strange, considering the spirit of the Vicar, and the indefatigable pains which he takes with rich and poor. At five I took the opportunity of a fair evening to preach once more near King's Square; and once more I declared to a huge multitude the whole counsel of God. Mon. 25.-We took coach in the afternoon ; and on Tuesday morning reached London. I now applied myself in earnest to the writing of Mr. Fletcher's Life, having procured the best materials I could. To this I dedicated all the time I could spare, till November, from five in the morning till eight at night. These are my studying hours; I cannot write longer in a day without hurting my eyes. Sat. 30.-I went to bed at my usual time, half an hour past nine, and, to my own feeling, in perfect health. But just at twelve I was waked by an impetuous flux, which did not suffer me to rest many minutes together. Finding it rather increased than decreased, though (what I never knew before) without its old companion, the cramp, I sent for Dr. White head. He came about four; and, by the blessing of God, in three hours I was as well as ever. Nor did I find the least weakness or faintness; but preached, morning and afternoon, and met the society in the evening, without any weariness. Of such a one I would boldly say, with the son of Sirach, “Honour the Physician, for God hath appointed him.” Mon.

I explained to them the fellowship believers have with God. Thence I went on to Coleraine, and preached at six (as I did two years ago) in the barrack-yard. The wind was high and sharp enough; but the people here are good old soldiers. Many attended at five in the morning, and a huge congregation about six in the evening; most of whom, I believe, tasted the good word; for God was with us of a truth. Friday, 8. I could willingly have stayed a little longer with this steady, affectionate people; but I broke from them between six and seven; and went forward, as well as the heavy rain and a tired horse would permit. About two we reached Ballymena, where we have a small and poor, but well established, society. The Presbyterian Minister offering his meeting-house, I willingly accepted his offer; and explained to a large congregation, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.” And I believe his word fell on many “as the rain, and as the dew upon the tender herb.” Sat. 9.--We went through a lovely country to Antrim. Here likewise the Presbyterian Minister offered me the use of a large and commodious House. The Bible in the pulpit lying open, I chose, for the subject of my discourse, the words which first met my eye; namely, “When they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both.” The greatest part of the country from hence to Belfast is likewise exceeding pleasant. At six I preached in the Linen-Hall, to a numerous and seriously atten tive congregation. A gentleman invited me to lodge at his house, and showed me the new Presbyterian meeting-house. It is nearly seventy-two feet by fifty, and is far the most beautiful of any I have seen in Ireland; but I doubt whether it equals Dr. Taylor's, in Norwich. That is the most elegant I ever saw. I preached atten in the Linen-Hall, to double the congrega tion that attended in the evening; and the power of God came REv. J. wesley’s [June, 1787. 382t wonderfully upon them, melting their hearts, and breaking the rocks in pieces.

O how white are these fields to the harvest! About twelve, I preached to a lovely congregation at Burn upfield, on, “Rejoice in the Lord, O ye righteous.” I have found nothing like it since I left London; such was The' o'erwhelming power of grace divine ! I know not that ever I felt such self-abasement before ; and the whole congregation seemed almost equally moved. And so they were at Newcastle in the evening, while I explained and strongly applied, “I am the All-sufficient God: Walk before me, and be thou perfect.” Sun. 8.--I preached at the Ballast-Hills, about half an hour after eight. I think the congregation was nearly double to that I had here two years ago; and they increased in earnestness as much as in number. About two I preached at Gateshead-Fell, to I suppose twice as many as were at the Ballast-Hills, on the joy that is in heaven “over one sinner that repenteth.” Though the sun was very hot, and the wind very cold, the people regarded neither one nor the other. They seemed only to attend to the voice of God, and the breathing of his Spirit. In the evening I preached near the Keelmen’s Hospital, within sight of the place where I preached the first Sunday I was at Newcastle; and I think to the largest congregation which I have seen at Newcastle since that time. The Second Lesson June, 1788.] JOURNAL, 423 for the Evening Service supplied me with a text, 2 Cor. vi. 1 : “We then, as workers,” &c. The people appeared to devour the word, and I did not spare them. I was then ready to say, “Now I am clear from the blood of these men.” No, I dare not I judge not my own self! He that judgeth me is the Lord. Mon. 9.--I preached at Durham about eleven, to more than the House could contain. Even in this polite and elegant city, we now want a larger chapel. In the evening I preached near our preaching-house, to a large multitude; I think, as numerous as that at Gateshead-Fell. Many of the Durham Militia, with several of their officers, were there: And all of them seemed to receive the word, “not as the word of man; but, as it is indeed, the word of God.” Tues.

Heath, sixty pounds. And whereas I am empowered, by a late Deed, to name the persons who are to preach in the new chapel, at London, (the Clergymen for a continuance,) and by another Deed, to name a Committee for appointing Preachers, in the new chapel, at Bath, I do hereby appoint John Richardson, Thomas Coke, James Creighton, Peard Dickenson, Clerks; Alexander Mather, William Thompson, Henry Moore, Andrew Blair, John Walton, Joseph Bradford, James Rogers, and William Myles, to preach in the new chapel at London, and to be the Committee for appointing Preachers in the new chapel at Bath. I likewise appoint Henry Brooke, Painter; Arthur Keene, Gent. ; and William Whitestone, Stationer, all of Dublin, to receive the annuity of five pounds, (English,) left to Kingswood School, by the late Roger Shiel, Esq.- I give six pounds to be divided among the six poor men, named by the Assistant, who shall carry my body to the grave; for I particularly desire there may be no hearse, no coach, no escutcheon, no pomp, except the tears of them that loved me, and are following me to Abraham’s bosom. I solemnly adjure my Executors, in the name of God, punctually to observe this. Lastly, I give to each of those Travelling Preachers who 502 THIRD codicil of MR. wesley's will. shall remain in the Connexion six months after my decease, as a little token of my love, the eight volumes of sermons. I appoint John Horton, George Wolff, and William Marriott, aforesaid, to be Executors of this my last Will and Testament; for which trouble they will receive no recompence till the resurrection of the just. Witness my hand and seal, the 20th day of February, 1789.4 JOHN WESLEY. (Seal.) Signed, sealed, and delivered, by the said Testator, as and for his last Will and Testament, in the presence of us, Should there be any part of my personal estate undisposed of by this my last Will, I give the same unto my two nieces, E. Ellison, and S. Collet, equally. Feb. 25, 1789. I give my types, printing-presses, and everything pertaining thereto, to Mr. Thomas Rankin, and Mr. George Whitfield, in trust, for the use of the Conference. * “Above a year and a half after making this Will, Mr. Wesley executed a Deed, in which he appointed seven gentlemen, viz., Dr. Thomas Coke, Messrs.

Austle, in the county of Cornwall; o William Green, of the city of Bristol; John Moon, of Plymouth-Dock; James Hall, of the same place; James o Thom, of St. Austle, aforesaid; Joseph Taylor, of Redruth, | in the said county of Cornwall; William Hoskins, of Go Cardiff, Glamorganshire; John Leech, of Brecon; William Saunders, of the same place; Richard Rodda, of Birming ham; John Fenwick, of Burslem, Staffordshire; Thomas Hanby, of the same place; James Rogers, of Macclesfield; Samuel Bardsley, of the same place; John Murlin, of Manchester; William Percival, of the same place; Duncan Wright, of the city of Chester; John Goodwin, of the same place; Parson Greenwood, of Liverpool; Zechariah Udall, of the same place; Thomas Vasey, of the same place; Joseph Bradford, of Leicester; Jeremiah Robert shaw, of the same place; William Myles, of Nottingham; Thomas Longley, of Derby; Thomas Taylor, of Sheffield; William Simpson, of the same place; Thomas Carlill, of Grimsby, in the county of Lincoln; Robert Scott, of the same place; Joseph Harper, of the same place; Thomas Corbit, of Gainsborough, in the county of Lincoln; James Ray, of the same place; William Thompson, of Leeds, in the county of York; Robert Roberts, of the same place; Samuel Bradburn, of the same place; John Walton, of Birstal, in the said county; John Allen, of the same place; Isaac Brown, of the same place; Thomas Hanson, of Hud dersfield, in the said county; John Shaw, of the same place; Alexander Mather, of Bradford, in the said county; Joseph Benson, of Halifax, in the said county; William Dufton, of the same place; Benjamin Rhodes, of Keighley, in the said county; John Easton, of Colne, in the county of Lancaster; Robert Costerdine, of the same place; Jasper Robinson, of the Isle of Man; George Button, of the same place; John Pawson, of the city of York; Edward Jackson, of Hull; Charles Atmore, of the said city of York; Lancelot Harrison, of Scarborough; George Shad ford, of Hull, aforesaid; Barnabas Thomas, of the same place; Thomas Briscoe, of Yarm, in the said county of York; Christopher Peacock, of the same place; William Thom, of Whitby, in the said county of York; Robert Hopkins, of the same place; John Peacock, of Barnard Castle; William Collins, of Sunderland; Thomas Dixon, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Christopher Hopper, of the same place; William Boothby, of the same place; William IHunter, of Berwick-upon-Tweed; Joseph Saunderson, of Dundee, Scotland; William Warrener, of the same place; Luncan M*Allum, of Aberdeen, Scotland; Thomas Rutherford, of the city of Dublin, in the kingdom of Ireland; Daniel Jackson, of the same place; Henry Moore, of the city of Cork, Ireland; Andrew Blair, of the same place; Richard Watkinson, of Limerick, Ireland; Nehemiah Price, of Athlone, Ireland; Robert Lindsay, of Sligo, Ireland; George Brown, of Clones, Ireland; Thomas Barber, of Charlemont, Ireland; Henry Foster, of Belfast, Ireland; and John Crook, of Lisburne, Ireland, Gentle men; being Preachers and Expounders of God’s Holy Word, under the care and in connexion with the said John Wesley, have been, and now are, and do, on the day of the date hereof, constitute the members of the said Con ference, according to the true intent and meaning of the said several gifts and conveyances wherein the words, Conference of the people called Methodists, are mentioned and contained; and that the said several persons before named, and their successors for ever, to be chosen as here after mentioned, are and shall for ever be construed, taken, and be, the Conference of the people called Methodists.

Austle, aforesaid; Joseph Taylor, of Redruth, | in the said county of Cornwall; William Hoskins, of Go Cardiff, Glamorganshire; John Leech, of Brecon; William Saunders, of the same place; Richard Rodda, of Birming ham; John Fenwick, of Burslem, Staffordshire; Thomas Hanby, of the same place; James Rogers, of Macclesfield; Samuel Bardsley, of the same place; John Murlin, of Manchester; William Percival, of the same place; Duncan Wright, of the city of Chester; John Goodwin, of the same place; Parson Greenwood, of Liverpool; Zechariah Udall, of the same place; Thomas Vasey, of the same place; Joseph Bradford, of Leicester; Jeremiah Robert shaw, of the same place; William Myles, of Nottingham; Thomas Longley, of Derby; Thomas Taylor, of Sheffield; William Simpson, of the same place; Thomas Carlill, of Grimsby, in the county of Lincoln; Robert Scott, of the same place; Joseph Harper, of the same place; Thomas Corbit, of Gainsborough, in the county of Lincoln; James Ray, of the same place; William Thompson, of Leeds, in the county of York; Robert Roberts, of the same place; Samuel Bradburn, of the same place; John Walton, of Birstal, in the said county; John Allen, of the same place; Isaac Brown, of the same place; Thomas Hanson, of Hud dersfield, in the said county; John Shaw, of the same place; Alexander Mather, of Bradford, in the said county; Joseph Benson, of Halifax, in the said county; William Dufton, of the same place; Benjamin Rhodes, of Keighley, in the said county; John Easton, of Colne, in the county of Lancaster; Robert Costerdine, of the same place; Jasper Robinson, of the Isle of Man; George Button, of the same place; John Pawson, of the city of York; Edward Jackson, of Hull; Charles Atmore, of the said city of York; Lancelot Harrison, of Scarborough; George Shad ford, of Hull, aforesaid; Barnabas Thomas, of the same place; Thomas Briscoe, of Yarm, in the said county of York; Christopher Peacock, of the same place; William Thom, of Whitby, in the said county of York; Robert Hopkins, of the same place; John Peacock, of Barnard Castle; William Collins, of Sunderland; Thomas Dixon, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Christopher Hopper, of the same place; William Boothby, of the same place; William IHunter, of Berwick-upon-Tweed; Joseph Saunderson, of Dundee, Scotland; William Warrener, of the same place; Luncan M*Allum, of Aberdeen, Scotland; Thomas Rutherford, of the city of Dublin, in the kingdom of Ireland; Daniel Jackson, of the same place; Henry Moore, of the city of Cork, Ireland; Andrew Blair, of the same place; Richard Watkinson, of Limerick, Ireland; Nehemiah Price, of Athlone, Ireland; Robert Lindsay, of Sligo, Ireland; George Brown, of Clones, Ireland; Thomas Barber, of Charlemont, Ireland; Henry Foster, of Belfast, Ireland; and John Crook, of Lisburne, Ireland, Gentle men; being Preachers and Expounders of God’s Holy Word, under the care and in connexion with the said John Wesley, have been, and now are, and do, on the day of the date hereof, constitute the members of the said Con ference, according to the true intent and meaning of the said several gifts and conveyances wherein the words, Conference of the people called Methodists, are mentioned and contained; and that the said several persons before named, and their successors for ever, to be chosen as here after mentioned, are and shall for ever be construed, taken, and be, the Conference of the people called Methodists. Nevertheless, upon the terms, and subject to the regulations herein-after prescribed; that is to say, First, That the members of the said Conference, and their successors for the time being for ever, shall assemble once in every year, at London, Bristol, or Leeds, (except as after-mentioned,) for the purposes aforesaid; and the time and place of holding every subsequent Conference shall be appointed at the preceding one, save that the next Confer ence after the date hereof shall be holden at Leeds, in Yorkshire, the last Tuesday in July next.

Lastly, Whenever the said Conference shall be reduced under the number of forty members, and continue so reduced for three yearly assemblies thereof successively, or whenever the members thereof shall decline or neglect to meet together annually for the purposes aforesaid, during the space of three years, that then, and in either of the said events, the Confer ence of the people called Methodists shall be extinguished, and all the aforesaid powers, privileges, and advantages shall cease, and the said chapels and premises, and all other chapels and premises, which now are, or hereafter may be, settled, given, or conveyed, upon the trusts aforesaid, shall vest in the Trustees for the time being of the said chapels and premises respectively, and their successors for ever; Upon TRUST that they, and the survivors of them, and the Trustees for the time being, do, shall, and may appoint such person and persons to preach and expound God’s Holy Word therein, and to have the use and enjoyment thereof, for such time, and in such manner, as to them shall seem proper. 33robiott alsoaps, that nothing herein contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to extinguish, lessen, or abridge the life-estate of the said John Wesley and Charles Wesley, or either of them, of and in any of the said chapels and premises, or any other chapels and premises, wherein they the said John Wesley and Charles Wesley, or either of them, now have, or may have, any estate or interest, power or authority whatsoever. §n suitmegg subtreof, the said John Wesley hath hereunto set his hand and seal, the twenty-eighth day of February, in the twenty-fourth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third, by the grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, and so forth, and in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four. Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) } in the presence of WILLIAM CLULow, Quality Court, Chancery-Lane, London. RICHARD YouNG, Clerk to the said William Clulow. Taken and acknowledged by the Rev. John Wesley, party hereto, this 28th of February, 1784, at the Public Office, before me, The above is a true Copy of the original Deed, (which is enrolled in Chancery,) and was therewith examined by us, Dated Feb. 28th, 1784. The Rev.

Preface to the Old Testament Notes ABOUT ten years ago I was prevailed upon to publish Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament. When that work was begun, and indeed when it was finished, I had no design to attempt any thing farther of the kind. Nay, I had a full determination, Not to do it, being throughly fatigued with the immense labour (had it been only this; tho' this indeed was but a small part of it,) of writing twice over a Quarto book containing seven or eight hundred pages. 2. But this was scarce published before I was importuned to write Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament. This importunity I have withstood for many years. Over and above the deep conviction I had, of my insufficiency for such a work, of my want of learning, of understanding, of spiritual experience, for an undertaking more difficult by many degrees, than even writing on the New Testament, I objected, That there were many passages in the Old, which I did not understand myself, and consequently could not explain to others, either to their satisfaction, or my own. Above all, I objected the want of time: Not only as I have a thousand other employments, but as my Day is near spent, as I am declined into the vale of years. And to this day it appears to me as a dream, a thing almost incredible, that I should be entering upon a work of this kind, when I am entering into the sixty - third year of my age.

3. Indeed these considerations, the last particular, still appear to me of such weight, that I cannot entertain a thought of composing a body of Notes on the whole Old Testament. All the question remaining was, "Is there extant any Exposition which is worth abridging" Abundantly less time will suffice for this and less abilities of every kind. In considering this question, I soon turned my thought on the well - known Mr. Henry. He is allowed by all competent judges, to have been a person of strong understanding, of various learning, of solid piety, and much experience in the ways of God. And his exposition is generally clear and intelligible, the thoughts being expressed in plain words: It is also found, agreeable to the tenor of scripture, and to the analogy of faith. It is frequently full, giving a sufficient explication of the passages which require explaining. It is in many parts deep, penetrating farther into the inspired writings than most other comments do. It does not entertain us with vain speculations, but is practical throughout: and usually spiritual too teaching us how to worship God, not in form only, but in spirit and in truth. 4. But it may be reasonably enquired, "If Mr. Henry's exposition be not only plain, sound, full, and deep, but practical, yea and spiritual too, what need is there of any other Or how is it possible to mend This to alter it for the better" I answer, very many who have This, have no need of any other: particularly those who believe (what runs thro' the whole work and will much recommend it to them) the doctrine of absolution, irrespective, unconditional Predestination. I do not advise these, much to trouble themselves about any other exposition than Mr. Henry's: this is sufficient, thro' the assistance of the Blessed Spirit, to make private Christians wise unto salvation, and (the Lord applying his word) throughly furnished unto every good work.

15. Every thinking man will now easily discern my design in the following sheets. It is not, to write sermons, essays or set discourses, upon any part of scripture. It is not to draw inferences from the text, or to shew what doctrines may be proved thereby. It is this: To give the direct, literal meaning, of every verse, of every sentence, and as far as I am able, of every word in the oracles of God. I design only, like the hand of a dial, to point every man to This: not to take up his mind with something else, how excellent soever: but to keep his eye fixt upon the naked Bible, that he may read and hear it with understanding. I say again, (and desire it may be well observed, that none may expect what they will not find) It is not my design to write a book, which a man may read separate from the Bible: but barely to assist those who fear God, in hearing and reading the bible itself, by shewing the natural sense of every part, in as few and plain words as I can. 16. And I am not without hopes, that the following notes may in some measure answer this end, not barely to unlettered and ignorant men, but also to men of education and, learning: (altho' it is true, neither these nor the Notes on the New Testament were principally designed for Them.) Sure I am, that tracts wrote in the most plain and simple manner, are of infinitely more service to me, than those which are elaborated with the utmost skill, and set off with the greatest pomp of erudition.

The Holy Bible, or Book, is so called by way of eminency, as it is the best book that ever was written. The great things of God's law and gospel are here written, that they might be reduced to a greater certainty, might spread farther, remain longer, and be transmitted to distant places and ages, more pure and entire than possibly they could be by tradition. That part of the Bible which we call the Old Testament, contains the acts and monuments of the church from the creation, almost to the coming of Christ in the flesh, which was about four thousand years: the truths then revealed, the laws enacted, the prophecies given, and the chief events that concerned the church. This is called a testament or covenant, because it was a declaration of the will of God concerning man in a federal way, and had its force from the designed death of the great testator, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, Rev 13:8 - 'Tis called the Old Testament with relation to the New, which doth not cancel, but crown and perfect it, by bringing in that better hope which was typified and foretold in it. This part of the Old Testament we call the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses. These books were, probably, the first that ever were written; for we have no mention of any writing in all the book of Genesis, nor 'till God bid Moses write, Ex 17:14. and set him his copy in the writing of the ten commandments upon the tables of stone. However, we are sure these books are the most ancient writings now extant. The first of these, which we call Genesis, Moses probably wrote in the wilderness, after he had been in the mount with God. And as he framed the tabernacle, so he did the more excellent and durable fabric of this book, according to the pattern shewed him in the mount: into which it is better to resolve the certainty of the things herein contained, than into any tradition which possibly might be handed down to the family of Jacob.

Observe 2. The author and cause of this great work, God. The Hebrew word is Elohim; which (1.) seems to mean The Covenant God, being derived from a word that signifies to swear. (2.) The plurality of persons in the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The plural name of God in Hebrew, which speaks of him as many, tho' he be but one, was to the Gentiles perhaps a favour of death unto death, hardening them in their idolatry; but it is to us a favour of life unto life, confirming our faith in the doctrine of the Trinity, which, tho' but darkly intimated in the Old Testament, is clearly revealed in the New. Observe 3. The manner how this work was effected; God created, that is, made it out of nothing. There was not any pre - existent matter out of which the world was produced. The fish and fowl were indeed produced out of the waters, and the beasts and man out of the earth; but that earth and those waters were made out of nothing.

Here he fairly begs the persons, but as freely bestows the goods on Abram. Gratitude teaches us to recompense to the utmost of our power those that have undergone fatigues, or been at expence for our service. I have lift up mine hand to the Lord that I will not take anything - Here Observe, The titles he gives to God, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth - The same that Melchizedek had just now used. It is good to learn of others how to order our speech concerning God, and to imitate those who speak well in divine things. The ceremony used in this oath; I have lift up my hand - In religious swearing we appeal to God's knowledge of our truth and sincerity, and imprecate his wrath if we swear falsely; and the lifting up of the hands is expressive of both. Lest thou shouldst say, I have made Abram rich - Probably, Abram knew the king of Sodom to be a proud and scornful man, and one that would be apt to turn such a thing as this to his reproach afterwards, and when we have to do with such men, we have need to act with particular caution. From a thread to a shoe - latchet - Not the least thing that had ever belonged to the king of Sodom.

Chapter XXXIV In this chapter we have, Dinah debauched, ver. 1, 2 - 5. A treaty of marriage between her and Shechem who had defiled her, ver. 6 - 19. The circumcision of the Shechemites, pursuant to that treaty, ver. 20 - 24. The perfidious and bloody revenge which Simeon and Levi took upon them, ver. 25 - 31. Dinah was then about fifteen or sixteen years of age when she went out to see the daughters of the land - Probably on some public day. She went to see; yet that was not all, she went to be seen too: she went to see the daughters of the land, but it may be with some thoughts of the sons of the land too. It is called folly in Israel - According to the language of after - times, for Israel was not yet a people, but a family only. Hamor communed - That is, talked. He came to treat with Jacob himself, but he turns them over to his sons. And here we have a particular account of the treaty, in which it is a shame to say the Canaanites were more honest than the Israelites. Hamor and Shechem gave consent themselves to be circumcised. To this perhaps they were moved not only by the strong desire they had to bring about, this match, but by what they might have heard of the sacred and honourable intentions of this sign, in the family of Abraham, which it is probable they had some confused notions of, and of the promises confirmed by it; which made them the more desirous to incorporate with the family of Jacob. Shall not their cattle and their substance be ours - They observed that Jacob's sons were industrious, thriving people, and promised themselves and their neighbours advantage by an alliance with them: it would improve ground and trade, and bring money into their country. They slew all the males - Nothing can excuse this execrable villainy. It was true Shechem had wrought folly in Israel, in defiling Dinah: but it ought to have been considered how far Dinah herself had been accessary to it. Had Shechem abused her in her mother's tent, it had been another matter; but she went upon his ground, and struck the spark which began the fire.

Had Shechem abused her in her mother's tent, it had been another matter; but she went upon his ground, and struck the spark which began the fire. When we are severe upon the sinner, we ought to consider who was the tempter. It was true that Shechem had done ill; but he was endeavouring to atone for it, and was as honest and honourable afterwards as the case would admit. It was true that Shechem had done ill, but what was that to all the Shechemites Doth one man sin, and must the innocent fall with the guilty This was barbarous indeed. But that which above all aggravated the cruelty, was the most perfidious treachery that was in it. The Shechemites had submitted to their conditions, and had done that upon which they had promised to become one people with them. Yet they act as sworn enemies to those to whom they were lately become sworn friends, making as light of their covenant as they did of the laws of humanity. And these are the sons of Israel Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce. Tho' Simeon and Levi only were the murderers, yet others of the sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city - And so became accessary to the murder. Ye have troubled me, to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land - That is, You have rendered my family odious among them. And what could be expected but that the Canaanites, who were numerous and formidable, would confederate against him, and he and his little family would become an easy prey to them I shall be destroyed, I and my house - Jacob knew indeed that God had promised to preserve his house; but he might justly fear that these vile practices of his children would amount to a forfeiture, and cut off the entail. When sin is in the house, there is reason to fear ruin at the door. Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot - No, he should not; but, if he do, Must they be their own avengers And nothing less than so many lives, and the ruin of a whole city, serve to atone for the abuse.

[3.] V. 3. He abruptly tells them; I am Joseph - They knew him only by his Egyptian name, Zaphnath - paaneah, his Hebrew name being lost and forgot in Egypt; but now he teaches them to call him by that, I am Joseph: nay, that they might not suspect it was another of the same name, he explains himself. I am Joseph your brother. This would both humble them yet more for their sin in selling him, and encourage them to hope for kind treatment. This word, at first, startled Joseph's brethren, they started back through fear, or at least stood still astonished: but Joseph called kindly and familiarly to them. Come near, I pray you. Thus, when Christ manifests himself to his people he encourages them to draw near to him with a true heart. Perhaps being about to speak of their selling of him, he would not speak aloud, lest the Egyptians should overhear, and it should make the Hebrews to be yet more an abomination to them; therefore he would have them come near, that he might whisper with them, which, now the tide of his passion was a little over, he was able to do, whereas, at first, he could not but cry out.

The character he gives of them was, That they were few. Though he had now lived 130 years, they seemed to him but as a few days, in comparison of the days of eternity, in which a thousand years are but as one day; That they were evil. This is true concerning man in general, Job 14:1, he is of few days and full of trouble: Jacob's life particularly had been made up of evil days. the pleasantest days of his life were yet before him. That they were short of the days of his fathers; not so many, not so pleasant as their days. Old age came sooner upon him than it had done upon some of his ancestors. And Jacob blessed Pharaoh - Which was not only an act of civility but an act of piety; he prayed for him, as one having the authority of a prophet and a patriarch: and a patriarch's blessing was not a thing to be despised, no not by a potent prince. He removed them to cities - He transplanted them, to shew Pharaoh's sovereign power over them, and that they might, in time, forget their titles to their lands, and be the easier reconciled to their new condition of servitude. How hard soever this seems to have been upon them, they themselves were sensible of it as a great kindness, and were thankful they were not worse used. Jacob lived seventeen years after he came into Egypt, far beyond his own expectation: seventeen years he had nourished Joseph, for so old he was when he was sold from him, and now, seventeen years Joseph nourished him. Observe how kindly Providence ordered Jacob's affairs; that when he was old, and least able to bear care and fatigue, he had least occasion for it, being well provided for by his son without his own forecast. And the time drew nigh that Israel must die - Israel, that had power over the angel, and prevailed, yet must yield to death. He died by degrees; his candle was not blown out, but gradually burnt down, so that he saw, at some distance, the time drawing nigh.

But the midwives feared God - Dreaded his wrath more than Pharaoh's, and therefore saved the men - children alive. I see no reason we have to doubt the truth of this; it is plain they were now under an extraordinary blessing of increase, which may well be supposed to have this effect, that the women had quick and easy labour, and the mothers and children being both lively, they seldon needed the help of midwives; this these midwives took notice of, and concluding it to be the finger of God, were thereby emboldened to disobey the king, and with this justify themselves before Pharaoh, when he called them to an account for it. Therefore God dealt well with them - That is, built them up in families, and blessed their children. Chapter II This chapter begins the story of Moses, the most remarkable type of Christ as prophet, Saviour, law - giver, and mediator, in all the Old Testament. In this chapter we have,

He slew the Egyptian - Probably it was one of the Egyptian task - masters, whom he found abusing his Hebrew slave. By special warrant from heaven (which makes not a precedent in ordinary cases) Moses slew the Egyptian, and rescued his oppressed brother. The Jew's tradition is, that he did not slay him with any weapon, but as Peter slew Ananias and Sapphira, with the word of his mouth. He said, Who made thee a prince? - He challengeth his authority; Who made thee a prince? - A man needs no great authority for giving a friendly reproof; it is an act of kindness; yet this man needs will interpret it an act of dominion, and represents his reprover as imperious and assuming. Thus, when people are sick of good discourse, or a seasonable admonition, they will call it preaching, as if a man could not speak a word for God, and against sin, but he took too much upon him. Yet Moses was indeed a prince, and a judge, and knew it, and thought the Hebrews would have understood it; but they stood in their own light, and thrust him away. <cite>Acts 7:25</cite>,27. Intendest thou to kill me? - See what base constructions malice puts upon the best words and actions. Moses, for reproving him, is presently charged with a design to kill him. Moses fled from Pharaoh - God ordered this for wise ends. Things were not yet ripe for Israel's deliverance. The measure of Egypt's iniquity was not yet full; the Hebrews were not sufficiently humbled, nor were they yet increased to such a multitude as God designed: Moses is to be farther fitted for the service, and therefore is directed to withdraw for the present, till the time to favour Israel, even the set time, come. God guided Moses to Midian, because the Midianites were of the seed of Abraham, and retained the worship of the true God; so that he might have not only a safe, but a comfortable settlement among them; and through this country he was afterwards to lead Israel, which, that he might do the better, he now had opportunity of acquainting himself with it. Hither he came, and sat down by a well; tired and thoughtful, waiting to see which way Providence would direct him.

The ark is called the ark of the testimony, <cite>Exo 30:6</cite>, and the tabernacle, the tabernacle of the testimony, <cite>Num 10:11</cite>. The tables of the law were carefully preserved in the ark, to teach us to make much of the word of God, and to hide it in our inmost thoughts, as the ark was placed in the holy of holies. It intimates likewise the care which divine providence ever did, and ever will take to preserve the records of divine revelation in the church, so that even in the latter days there shall be seen in his temple the ark of his testament. See <cite>Rev 11:19</cite>. The mercy - seat was the covering of the ark, made exactly to fit the dimensions of it. This propitiatory covering, as it might well be translated, was a type of Christ the great propitiation, whose satisfaction covers our transgressions, and comes between us and the curse we deserve. The cherubim (Cherubim is the plural of Cherub, not Cherubims) were fixed to the mercy - seat, and of a piece with it, and spread their wings over it. It is supposed these were designed to represent the holy angels, (who always attend the Shechinah, or divine majesty,) not by any effigies of an angel, but some emblem of the angelical nature, probably one or more of those four faces spoken of <cite>Eze 1:10</cite>. Whatever the faces were, they looked one towards another, and both downwards towards the ark, while their wings were stretched out so as to touch one another. It notes their attendance upon the Redeemer, their readiness to do his will, their presence in the assemblies of saints, <cite>Psa 68:17 1Cor 11:10</cite>, and their desire to look into the mysteries of the gospel, which they diligently contemplate, <cite>1Pet 1:12</cite>. God is said to dwell or sit between the cherubim, on the mercy - seat, <cite>Psa 80:1</cite>, and from thence he here promiseth for the future to meet with Moses, and to commune with him. Thus he manifests himself, willing to keep up communion with us, by the mediation of Christ. This table was to stand not in the holy of holies, (nothing was in that but the ark with its appurtenances) but in the outer part of the tabernacle, called the sanctuary or holy place.

This speaks plentiful goodness; it abounds above our deserts, above our conception. The springs of mercy are always full, the streams of mercy always flowing; there is mercy enough in God, enough for all, enough for each, enough for ever. It speaks promised goodness, goodness and truth put together, goodness engaged by promise. 5thly, He keepeth mercy for thousands. This speaks,

And this is the more probable because the Egyptians might not taste of fish, nor of the leeks and onions, which they worshipped for Gods, and therefore the Israelites, might have them upon cheap terms. Our soul - Either our life, as the soul signifies, Gen 9:5, or our body, which is often signified by the soul. Dried away - Is withered and pines away; which possibly might be true, through envy and discontent, and inordinate appetite. As coriander - seed - Not for colour, for that is black, but for shape and figure. Bdellium - Is either the gum of a tree, of a white and bright colour, or rather a gem or precious stone, as the Hebrew doctors take it; and particularly a pearl wherewith the Manna manifestly agrees both in its colour, which is white, Exo 16:14, and in its figure which is round. Fresh oil - Or, of the most excellent oil; or of cakes made with the best oil, the word cakes being easily supplied out of the foregoing member of the verse; or, which is not much differing, like wafers made with honey, as it is said Exo 16:31. The nature and use of Manna is here thus particularly described, to shew the greatness of their sin in despising such excellent food. In the door of his tent - To note they were not ashamed of their sin. Not found favour - Why didst thou not hear my prayer, when I desired thou wouldest excuse me, and commit the care of this unruly people to some other person. Have I begotten them - Are they my children, that I should be obliged to provide food and all things for their necessity and desire To bear - The burden of providing for and satisfying them. Alone - Others were only assistant to him in smaller matters; but the harder and greater affairs, such as this unquestionably was, were brought to Moses and determined by him alone. My wretchedness - Heb. my evil, my torment, arising from the insuperable difficulty of my office and work of ruling this people, and from the dread of their utter extirpation, and the dishonour which thence will accrue to God and to religion, as if, not I only, but God also were an impostor.

Chapter XII Miriam and Aaron murmur against Moses, ver. 1 - 3. God calls them to an account for it, ver. 4 - 9. Miriam becoming leprous, Aaron humbles himself, and Moses prays for her, ver. 10 - 13. She is healed, but shut out of the camp for seven days, ver. 14 - 16. Miriam - Miriam seems to be first named, because she was the first mover of the sedition; wherefore she is more eminently punished. The Ethiopian - Either, Zipporah, who is here called an Ethiopian, in the Hebrew a Cushite, because she was a Midianite: the word Cush being generally used in scripture, not for Ethiopia properly so called below Egypt, but for Arabia. If she be meant, probably they did not quarrel with him for marrying her, because that was done long since, but for being swayed by her and her relations, by whom they might think he was persuaded to chose seventy rulers, by which co - partnership in government they thought their authority and reputation diminished. And because they durst not accuse God, they charge Moses, his instrument, as the manner of men is. Or, some other woman, whom he married either whilst Zipporah lived, or rather because she was now dead, though that, as many other things, be not recorded. For, as the quarrel seems to be about his marrying a stranger, it is probable it was a fresh occasion about which they contended. And it was lawful for him as well as any other to marry an Ethiopian or Arabian woman, provided she were, a sincere proselyte. By us - Are not we prophets as well as he so Aaron was made, Exo 4:15,16, and so Miriam is called, Exo 15:20. And Moses hath debased and mixed the holy seed, which we have not done. Why then should he take all power to himself, and make rulers as he pleaseth, without consulting us. The Lord heard - Observed their words and carriage to Moses. Meek - This is added as the reason why Moses took no notice of their reproach, and why God did so severely plead his cause. Thus was he fitted for the work he was called to, which required all the meekness he had. And this is often more tried by the unkindness of our friends, than by the malice of our enemies.

In Oboth - Not immediately, but after two other stations mentioned, Nu 33:43,44. The valley of Zared - Or rather, by the brook of Zared, which ran into the dead sea. On the other side - Or rather, on this side of Arnon, for so it now was to the Israelites, who had not yet passed over it. Between Moab and the Amorites - Though formerly it and the land beyond it belonged to Moab, yet afterwards it had been taken from them by Sihon. This is added to reconcile two seemingly contrary commands of God, the one that of not meddling with the land of the Moabites, Deu 2:9, the other that of going over Arnon and taking possession of the land beyond it, Deu 2:24, because, saith he, it is not now the land of the Moabites, but of the Amorites. The book of the wars of the Lord - This seems to have been some poem or narration of the wars and victories of the Lord, either by: or relating to the Israelites: which may be asserted without any prejudice to the integrity of the holy scripture, because this book doth not appear to have been written by a prophet, er to be designed for a part of the canon, which yet Moses might quote, as St. Paul doth some of the heathen poets. And as St. Luke assures us, that many did write an history of the things done, and said by Christ, Luke 1:1, whose writings were never received as canonical, the like may be conceived concerning this and some few other books mentioned in the old testament. The brooks - The brook, the plural number for the singular, as the plural number rivers is used concerning Jordan, Psa 74:15, and concerning Tigris, Nah 2:6, and concerning Euphrates, Psa 137:1, all which may be to called because of the several little streams into which they were divided. Ar - A chief city in Moab. Beer - This place and Mattanah, Nahaliel, and Bamoth named here, Nu 21:19, are not mentioned among those places where they pitched or encamped, Nu 33:1 - 49. Probably they did not pitch or encamp in these places, but only pass by or through them. I will give them water - In a miraculous manner. Before they prayed, God granted, and prevented them with the blessings of goodness.

Chapter XXIII Balaam's first attempt to curse Israel, turned into a blessing, ver. 1 - 10. His second attempt with like success, ver. 11 - 24. The preparation for a third attempt, ver. 25 - 30. Build seven altars - To the true God, otherwise he would not have mentioned it to God, as an argument why he should grant his requests, as he doth, Nu 23:4. And though Balak was averse from God and his worship, yet he would be easily overruled by Balaam, who doubtless told him that it was in vain to make an address to any other than the God of Israel, who alone was able either to bless or curse them as he pleased. Seven - This being the solemn and usual number in sacrifices. Stand by thy burnt - offering - As in God's presence, as one that offers thyself as well as thy sacrifices to obtain his favour. I will go - To some solitary and convenient place, where I may prevail with God to appear to me. Sheweth me - Reveals to me, either by word or sign. An high place - Or, into the plain, as that word properly signifies. His parable - That is, his oracular and prophetical speech; which he calls a parable, because of the weightiness of the matter, and the liveliness of the expressions which is usual in parables. Jacob - The posterity of Jacob. The rocks - Upon which I now stand. I see him - I see the people, according to thy desire, Nu 22:41, but cannot improve that sight to the end for which thou didst design it, to curse them. The people shall dwell alone - This people are of a distinct kind from others, God's peculiar people, separated from all other nations, as in religion and laws, so also in divine protection; and therefore enchantments cannot have that power against them which they have against other persons and people. The dust - The numberless people of Jacob or Israel, who according to God's promise, are now become as the dust of the earth. Of the righteous - Of this righteous and holy people.

Chapter I The preface, fixing the time and place, ver. 1 - 5. Israel commanded to march, ver. 6 - 8. Judges provided, ver. 9 - 1 3. They come to Kadesh - barnea, ver. 19 - 21. Spies sent, their report, the people's murmuring, ver. 22 - 33. The sentence passed upon them, ver. 34 - 40. They are smitten by the Amorites, and remain at Kadesh, ver. 41 - 46. All Israel - Namely, by the heads or elders of the several tribes, who were to communicate these discourses to all the people. In the wilderness - In the plain of Moab, as may appear by comparing this with Deu 1:5, and Num 22:1, and Deu 34:8. The word Suph here used does not signify the Red - Sea, which is commonly called jam - suph, and which was at too great a distance, but some oiher place now unknown to us, (as also most of the following places are) so called from the reeds or flags, or rushes (which that word signifies) that grew in or near it. Paran - Not that Num 10:12, which there and elsewhere is called the Wilderness of Paran, and which was too remote, but some other place called by the same name. Laban, Hazeroth, and Dizahab - These places seem to be the several bounds, not of the whole country of Moab, but of the plain of Moab, where Moses now was. There are eleven days journey - This is added to shew that the reason why the Israelites, in so many years were advanced no farther from Horeb, than to these plains, was not the distance of the places but because of their rebellions. Kadesh - barnea - Which was not far from the borders of Canaan. The eleventh month - Which was but a little before his death. All that the Lord had given him in commandment - Which shews not only that what he now delivered was in substance the same with what had formerly been commanded, but that God now commanded him to repeat it. He gave this rehearsal and exhortation by divine direction: God appointed him to leave this legacy to the church. Og - His palace or mansion - house was at Astaroth, and he was slain at Edrei.

Chapter III The conquest of Og and his country, ver. 1 - 11. The distribution of it to the two tribes and an half, ver. 12 - 17. On condition of assisting their brethren, ver. 18 - 20. Joshua encouraged, ver. 21 - 22. Moses prays that he may go into Canaan, v. 23 - 25. But is refused, yet permitted to see it, ver. 26 - 29. On this side Jordan - So it was when Moses wrote this book; but afterward when Israel passed over Jordan it was called the land beyond Jordan. Sirion - Elsewhere called Mount Gilead, and Lebanon, and here Shenir, and Sirion, which several names are given to this one mountain partly by several people, and partly in regard of several tops and parts of it. All Gilead - Gilead is sometimes taken for all the Israelites possessions beyond Jordan, and so it comprehends Bashan; but here for that part of it which lies in and near mount Gilead, and so it is distinguished from Bashan and Argob. In Rabbath - Where it might now be, either because the Ammonites in some former battle with Og, had taken it as a spoil: or because after Og's death, the Ammonites desired to have this monument of his greatness, and the Israelites permitted them to carry it away to their chief city. Nine cubits - So his bed was four yards and an half long, and two yards broad. Unto this day - This must be put among those passages which were not written by Moses, but added by those holy men, who digested the books of Moses into this order, and inserted some few passages to accommodate things to their own time and people. Gilead - That is, the half part of Gilead. To Machir - That is, unto the children of Machir, son of Manasseh, for Machir was now dead. Half the valley - Or rather to the middle of the river: for the word rendered half signifies commonly middle, and the same Hebrew word means both a valley and a brook or river.

Lifted up - As if thou didst receive and enjoy these things, either, by thy owns wisdom, and valour, and industry, or for thy own merit. That he might humble thee - By keeping thee in a constant dependence upon him for every day's food, and convincing thee what an impotent, helpless creature thou art, having nothing whereon to subsist, and being supported wholly by the alms of divine goodness from day to day. The mercies of God, if duly considered, are as powerful a mean to humble us as the greatest afflictions, because they increase our debts to God, and manifest our dependance upon him, and by making God great, they make us little in our own eyes. To do thee good - That is, that after he hath purged and prepared thee by afflictions, thou mayest receive and enjoy his blessings with less disadvantage, whilst by the remembrance of former afflictions. thou art made thankful for them, and more cautious not to abuse them.

If the thing - Which he gives as a sign of the truth of his prophecy. The falsehood of his prediction shews him to be a false prophet. Presumptuously - Impudently ascribing his own vain and lying fancies to the God of truth. Chapter XIX Of the cites of refuge, ver. 1 - 10. Of wilful murderers, ver. 11 - 13. Of removing land - marks, ver. 14. Of witnesses, true, ver. 15. Of false, ver. 16 - 21. In the midst of the land - Namely, beyond Jordan, as there were three already appointed on this side Jordan: In the midst of the several parts of their land, to which they might speedily flee from all the parts of the land. Prepare thee a way - Distinguish it by evident marks, and make it plain and convenient, to prevent mistakes and delays. Enlarge thy coast - As far as Euphrates. If thou shalt keep all these commandments - But the Jewish writers themselves own, that the condition not being performed, the promise of enlarging their coast was not fulfilled, so that there was no need for three more cities of refuge. Yet the holy, blessed God, say they, did not command it in vain, for in the day's of Messiah the Prince, they shall be added. They expect it in the letter: but we know, it has in Christ its spiritual accomplishment. For the borders of the Gospel - Israel are inlarged according to the promise: and in the Lord our righteousness, refuge is provided for all that by faith fly to him. Rise - Or be established, accepted, owned as sufficient: it is the same word which in the end of the verse is rendered, be established. A safe witness - A single witness, though he speak truth, is not to be accepted for the condemnation of another man, but if he be convicted of false witness, this is sufficient for his own condemnation. Eye for eye - What punishment the law allotted to the accused, if he had been convicted, the same shall the false accuser bear.

Chapter XXXIV Moses having finished his testimony, finishes his life. This chapter was probably added by Samuel, who wrote by divine authority what he found in the records of Joshua, and his successors the Judges. Here is, The view Moses had of the land, ver. 1 - 4. His death, burial, and age, ver. 5 - 7. Israel's mourning for him, ver. 8. His successor, ver. 9. His character, ver. 10 - 12. And Moses went up - When he knew the place of his death he chearfully mounted a steep hill to come to it. Those who are well acquainted with another world, are not afraid to leave this. When God's servants are sent for out of the world, the summons runs go up and die! Unto Dan - To that city which after Moses's death was called so. All Naphtali - The land of Naphtali, which together with Dan, was in the north of Canaan, as Ephraim and Manasseh were in the midland parts, and Judah on the south, and the sea, on the west. So these parts lying in the several quarters are put for all the rest. He stood in the east and saw also Gilead, which was in the eastern part of the land, and thence he saw the north and south and west. The utmost sea - The midland sea, which was the utmost bound of the land of promise on the west. The south - The south quarter of the land of Judah, which is towards the salt sea, the city of palm - trees - Jericho, so called from the multitude of palm - trees, which were in those parts, as Josephus and Strabo write. From whence and the balm there growing it was called Jericho, which signifies, odoriferous or sweet smelling. I have caused thee to see it - For tho' his sight was good, yet he could not have seen all Canaan, an hundred and sixty miles in length, and fifty or sixty in breadth, if his sight had not been miraculously assisted and enlarged. He saw it at a distance. Such a sight the Old Testament believers had of the kingdom of the Messiah. And such a sight believers have now of the glory that shall he revealed. Such a sight have we now, of the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, which shall cover the earth.

Chapter II Joshua sends spies to Jericho, ver. 1. Rahab receives and conceals them, ver. 2 - 7. Her agreement with them for the safety of herself and family, ver. 8 - 21. The return of the spies, and the account given by them, ver. 22 - 24. Sent - Or, had sent: See note ... "Jos 1:11" Two men - Not twelve, as Moses did, because those were to view the whole land, these but a small parcel of it. To spy - That is, to learn the state of the land and people. It is evident Joshua did not this out of distrust; it is probable, he had God's command and direction in it for the encouragement of himself and his army. Secretly - With reference not to his enemies, that being the practice of all spies, but to the Israelites; a good caution to prevent the inconveniency which possibly might have arisen, if their report had been discouraging. Jericho - That is, the land about Jericho, together with the city. Heb. The land and Jericho, that is, especially Jericho. Harlot's - So the Hebrew word is used, Judg 11:1, and so it is rendered by two apostles, Heb 11:31 Jam 2:25, such she either now was, or rather, had been formerly. Lodged - Or, lay down; as the same word is rendered, Jos 2:8, composed themselves to rest; but they were hindered from that intention. To night - This evening. Probably Israel had but one friend in all Jericho: and God directed them to her! Thus what seems to be most accidental, is often over - ruled, to serve the great ends of providence. And those that acknowledge God in their ways, he will guide them with his eye. And the woman - Or, But the woman had taken - and had hid them, before the messengers came from the king; as soon as she understood from her neighbours, that there was a suspicion of the matter, and guessed that search would be made. And this is justly mentioned as a great and generous act of faith, Heb 11:31, for she apparently ventured her life upon a steadfast persuasion of the truth of God's word and promise given to the Israelites. Whence they were - Her answer contained in these and the following words, was false, and therefore unquestionably sinful; tho' her intention was good therein.

The most pleasant and fruitful, and therefore more convenient both for the refreshment of the Israelites after their long and tedious marches, and for their encouragement. Stood firm - That is, in one and the same place and posture; their feet neither moved by any waters moving in upon them, nor sinking into any mire, which one might think was at the bottom of the river. And this may be opposed to their standing on the bank of the water when they came to it, commanded, Jos 3:8, which was but for a while, 'till the waters were divided and gone away; and then they were to go farther, even into the midst of Jordan, where they are to stand constantly and fixedly, as this Hebrew word signifies, until all were passed over. The midst of Jordan - In the middle and deepest part of the river.

Both together proclaim God to be the Alpha and Omega of his peoples salvation. The wilderness - This word here and elsewhere in scripture notes not a land wholly desert and uninhabited, but one thin of inhabitants, as 1Kings 2:34 9:18 Matt 3:1,3. The Gargashites either were now incorporated with some other of these nations, or as the tradition of the Jews is, upon the approach of Israel under Joshua, they all withdrew and went unto Africk, leaving their land to be possessed by the Israelites, with whom they saw, it was fruitless to contend. King of Gilgal - Not of that Gilgal where Joshua first lodged after his passage over Jordan; where it doth not appear, that there was either king or city; but of a city of the same name, probably in Galilee towards the sea, where divers people might possibly resort for trade and merchandise, over whom this was a king, as formerly Tidal seems to have been, Gen 14:1. Thirty one - Each being king only of one city or small province belonging to it, which was by the wise and singular providence of God, that they might be more easily conquered. But what a fruitful land must Canaan then be, which could subsist so many kingdoms! And yet at this day it is one of the most barren and despicable countries in the world. Such is the effect of the curse it lies under, since its inhabitants rejected the Lord of glory!

Chapter XIV The method of dividing the land, ver. 1 - 5. Caleb demands Hebron, ver. 6 - 12. which Joshua grants, ver. 13 - 15. Eleazar the priest - He best understood the laws of God by which this division was to be regulated. Heads of the fathers - Twelve persons, each the head of his tribe, who were appointed and named by God, Numb 34:19, and if any of them were now dead, no doubt Joshua and Eleazar, by God's direction, put others in their stead. By lot - This course God ordained, partly to prevent discontents, enmities and quarrels among the tribes, and partly to demonstrate the truth and wisdom of his providence, by which alone those parts fell to each of them, which Jacob long since, and Moses lately, foretold; so that as a learned man saith, he must be more stupid than stupidity, that doth not acknowledge a Divine hand in this matter. The lot did only determine the several parts to the several tribes, but did not precisely fix all the bounds of it; these might be either enlarged or diminished according to the greater or smaller number of the tribes. Were two tribes - That is, had the portion of two tribes, and therefore though Levi was excluded, there remained nine tribes and a half, to be provided for in Canaan. They - That is, the persons named, ver.5, who acted in the name of the children of Israel, divided it, either now, or presently after. Then - When Joshua and the rest were consulting about the division of the land, though they did not yet actually divide it. The heads of that tribe who were willing thus to shew respect to him; and to testify their consent, that he should be provided for by himself, and that they would not take it as any reflection on the rest of the tribe. In Gilgal - Where the division of the land was designed and begun, though it was executed and finished at Shiloh. The Kenezite - Of the posterity of Kenaz. The Lord said - In general, the promise he made us of possessing this land; and for my part, that which is expressed here, ver.9.

The bay - Heb. the tongue: either a creek or arm of that sea; or a promontory, which by learned authors is sometimes called a tongue. Every sea is salt, but this had an extraordinary saltness, the effect of that fire and brimstone which destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah: the ruins of which lie buried at the bottom of this dead water, which never was moved itself by any tides, nor had any living thing in it. The end of Jordan - That is, the place where Jordan runs into the salt - sea. The stone of Bohan - A place so called, not from Bohan's dwelling there, (for the Reubenites had no portion on this side Jordan) but from some notable exploit which he did there, though it is not recorded in scripture. Went up - Properly; for the line went from Jordan and the salt sea, to the higher grounds nigh Jerusalem; and therefore the line is said to go down, chap.18:16, because there it takes a contrary course, and goes downward to Jordan and the sea. Valley of Hinnom - A very pleasant place, but afterward made infamous. Of the Jebusites - Of the city of the Jebusites, which was anciently called Jebussi. Jerusalem - It may seem hence, that Jerusalem properly, or at least principally, belonged to Benjamin; and yet it is ascribed to Judah also; either because a part of the city was allotted to Judah; or because the Benjamites desired the help and conjunction of this powerful tribe of Judah, for the getting and keeping of this most important place. And when the Benjamites had in vain attempted to drive out the Jebusites, this work was at last done by the tribe of Judah, who therefore had an interest in it by the right of war; as Ziglag which belonged to the tribe of Simeon, being gotten from the Philistines by David, was joined by him to his tribe of Judah, 1Sam 27:6. Mount Seir - Not that of Edom, but another so called from some resemblance it had to it. He - Joshua. City of Arba - Or, Kirjath - arba. Not the city, which was the Levites, but the territory of it, chap.21:13. Drove thence - That is, from the said territory, from their caves and forts in it. These giants having either recovered their cities, or defended themselves in the mountains.

Such as these God chuses to employ, that are not only well affected, but zealously affected to his work. Their trumpets - That is the trumpets belonging to the whole army, which he retained for the use following. The same night - After he had dismissed all but the three hundred. The Lord said - In a dream or vision of the night. Thine hand strengthened - Thou wilt be encourage to proceed, notwithstanding the smallness of thy number. A cake - A weak and contemptible thing; and in itself as unable to overthrow a tent, as to remove a mountain; but being thrown by a divine hand, it bore down all before it. His fellow answered, &c. - As there are many examples of significant dreams, given by God to Heathens, so some of them had the gift of interpreting dreams; which they sometimes did by divine direction as in this case. He worshipped - He praised God for this special encouragement. Three companies - To make a shew of a vast army. Within the pitchers - Partly to preserve the flame from the wind and weather; and partly to conceal it, and surprise their enemy with sudden flashes of light. Look on me - For though two hundred of his men were placed on other sides of the camp; yet they were so disposed, that some persons, set as watchmen, might see what was done, and give notice to the rest to follow the example. Of Gideon - He mentions his own name, together with God's, not out of arrogance, as if he would equal himself with God; but from prudent policy, because his name was grown formidable to them, and so was likely to further his design. See ver.14. Middle watch - That is, of the second watch; for though afterward the night was divided into four watches by the Romans, Matt 14:25, yet in more ancient times, and in the eastern parts, it was divided into three: he chose the dark and dead of the night, to increase their terror by the trumpets, whose sound would then be loudest, and the lamps, whose light would then shine most brightly, to surprise them, and conceal the smallness of their numbers. They stood - As if they had been torch - bearers to the several companies.

Chapter XII Jephthah's encounter with, and slaughter of the Ephraimites, ver. 1 - 6. His death, ver. 7 A short account of three other judges, ver. 8 - 15. Northward - Over Jordan, where Jephthah was, in the northern part of the land beyond Jordan. And said - Through pride and envy, contending with him as they did before with Gideon. Over - Not over Jordan, for there he was already; but over the borders of the Israelites land beyond Jordan. When I called - Hence it appears, that he had craved their assistance, which they had denied; though that be not elsewhere expressed. Put my life - That is, I exposed myself to the utmost danger; as a man that carries a brittle and precious thing in his hand, which may easily either fall to the ground, or be snatched from him. Wherefore - Why do you thus requite my kindness in running such hazards to preserve you and yours Ye Gileadites - These words are a contemptuous expression of the Ephraimites concerning the Gileadites, whom they call fugitives of Ephraim; the word Ephraim being here taken largely, as it comprehends the other neighbouring tribes, of which Ephraim was the chief; and especially their brethren of Manasseh, who lived next to them, and were descended from the same father, Joseph. By Gileadites here they seem principally to mean the Manassites beyond Jordan, who dwelt in Gilead. And although other Gileadites were joined with them, yet they vent their passion against these; principally, because they envied them most; as having had a chief hand in the victory. These they opprobriously call fugitives, that is, such as had deserted their brethren of Ephraim and Manasseh, planted themselves beyond Jordan, at a distance from their brethren, and were alienated in affection from them. Said Nay - To avoid the present danger. Shibboleth - Which signifies a stream or river, which they desired to pass over: so it was a word proper for the occasion, and gave them no cause to suspect the design, because they were required only to express their desire to go over the Shibboleth or river. Sibboleth - It is well known, that not only divers nations, but divers provinces, or parts of the same nation who use the same language, differ in their manner of pronunciation.

Beth - shemesh - A city of the priests, who were by office to take care of it. Loving - Testifying at once both their natural and vehement inclination to their calves, and the supernatural power which over - ruled them to a contrary course. The lords went - To prevent all imposture, and to get assurance of the truth of the event. All which circumstances tended to the greater illustration of God's glory. They - Not the lords of the Philistines, but the Beth - shemites, the priest that dwelt there. Offered the kine - There may seem to he a double error in this act. First, that they offered females for a burnt - offering, contrary to Levit 1:3. Secondly, that they did it in a forbidden place, Deut 12:5,6. But this case being extraordinary, may in some sort excuse it, if they did not proceed by ordinary rules. Villages - This is added for explication of that foregoing phrase, all the cities; either to shew, that under the name of the five cities were comprehended all the villages and territories belonging to them, in whose name, and at whose charge these presents were made; or to express the difference between this and the former present, the emerods being only five, according to the five cities mentioned, ver.17, because it may seem, the cities only, or principally, were pestered with that disease; and the mice being many more according to the number of all the cities, as is here expressed: the word city being taken generally so, as to include not only fenced cities, but also the country villages, and the fields belonging to them. Abel - This is mentioned as the utmost border of the Philistines territory, to which the plague of mice extended. And this place is here called Abel, by anticipation from the great mourning mentioned in the following verse. It is desirable, to see the ark in its habitation, in all the circumstances of solemnity. But it is better to have it on a great stone, and in the fields of the wood, than to be without it. The intrinsic grandeur of divine ordinances ought not to be diminished in our eyes, by the meanness and poverty of the place, where they are administered.

The intrinsic grandeur of divine ordinances ought not to be diminished in our eyes, by the meanness and poverty of the place, where they are administered. Had looked - Having now an opportunity which they never yet had, it is not strange they had a vehement curiosity to see the contents of the ark. Of the people - In and near Beth - shemesh and coming from all parts on this occasion. Who is able, &c. - That is, to minister before the ark where the Lord is present. Since God is so severe to mark what is amiss in his servants, who is sufficient to serve him It seems to be a complaint, or expostulation with God, concerning this great instance of his severity. And to whom, &c. - Who will dare to receive the ark with so much hazard to themselves. Thus when the word of God works with terror on men's consciences, instead of taking the blame to themselves, they frequently quarrel with the word, and endeavour to put it from them. Kirjath - jearim - Whither they sent, either because the place was not far off from them, and so it might soon be removed: or because it was a place of eminency and strength, and somewhat farther distant from the Philistines, where therefore it was likely to be better preserved from any new attempts of the Philistines, and to be better attended by the Israelites, who would more freely and frequently come to it at such a place, than in Beth - shemesh, which was upon the border of their enemies land. Chapter VII

Goliath challenges the armies of Israel, ver. 1 - 11. David coming into the camp, hears his challenge, ver. 12 - 27. Eliab chides David, whose words are related to Saul, ver. 28 - 31. David undertakes to fight Goliath, ver. 32 - 37. He rejects Saul's armour, and goes with his sling, ver. 38 - 40. He attacks and slays Goliath, ver. 41 - 51. The Israelites pursue the Philistines, ver. 52 - 53. David returns: the notice taken of him by Saul, ver. 54 - 58. Gathered, &c. - Probably they had heard, that Samuel had forsaken Saul, and that Saul himself was unfit for business. The enemies of the church are watchful to take all advantages, and they never have greater advantage, than when her protectors have provoked God's Spirit and prophets to leave them. Six cubits - At least, nine feet, nine inches high. And this is not strange; for besides the giants mentioned in Scripture, Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, and Pliny, make mention of persons seven cubits high. Coat of mail - Made of brass plates laid over one another, like the scales of a fish. The weight, &c. - The common shekel contained a fourth part of an ounce; and so five thousand shekels made one thousand two hundred and fifty ounces, or seventy - eight pounds: which weight is not unsuitable to a man of such vast strength as his height speaks him to be. Greaves - Boots. Beam - On which the weavers fasten their web. It was like this for thickness. And though the whole weight of Goliath's armour may seem prodigious; yet it is not so much by far as one Athanatus did manage: of whom Pliny relates, That he saw him come into the theatre with arms weighing twelve thousand ounces. A shield - Probably for state: for he that was clad in brass, little needed a shield. Come down - That the battle may be decided by us two alone. Afraid - This may seem strange, considering the glorious promises, and their late experience of divine assistance. And where was Jonathan, who in the last war had so bravely engaged an whole army of the Philistines Doubtless he did not feel himself so stirred up of God as he did at that time. As the best, so the bravest of men, are no more than what God makes them.

To this day - This, and some such clauses seem to have been added, after the main substance of the several books was written. Amalekites - The remnant of those whom Saul destroyed, chap.15:3 - 9, who retired into remote and desert places. Let neither man, &c. - In that part where he came: but there were more of the Amalekites yet left in another part of that land. David - These and the following words are ambiguous, and contrary to that simplicity which became David, both as a prince, and as an eminent professor of the true religion. The fidelity of Achish to him, and the confidence he put in him, aggravates his sin in thus deceiving him, which David seems penitently to reflect on, when he prays, Remove from me the way of lying. Chapter XXVIII

Other cattle - Before those that belonged to Ziklag. David's spoil - The soldiers, who lately were so incensed against David, that they spake of stoning him: now upon this success magnify him, and triumphantly celebrate his praise; and say concerning this spoil, David purchased it by his valour and conduct, and he may dispose of it as he pleaseth. Saluted them - He spoke kindly to them, and did not blame them because they went no further with them. My brethren - He useth his authority to over - rule them; but manageth it with all sweetness, tho' they were such wicked and unreasonable men, calling them brethren; not only as of the same nation and religion with him, but as his fellow - soldiers. What God hath freely imparted to us, we should not unkindly and injuriously withhold from our brethren. Part alike - A prudent and equitable constitution, and therefore practiced by the Romans, as Polybius and others note. The reason of it is manifest; because they were exposed to hazards, as well as their brethren: and were a reserve to whom they might retreat in case of a defeat; and they were now in actual service, and in the station in which their general had placed them. Elders of Judah - Partly in gratitude for their former favours to him: and partly, in policy, to engage their affections to him. Chapter XXXI

Chapter I David receives an account of the death of Saul and Jonathan, ver. 1 - 10. He mourns over them, ver. 11, 12. Puts the man to death, who boasted he had killed Saul, ver. 13 - 16. His elegy upon Saul and Jonathan, ver. 17 - 27. Ziklag - Which though burnt, yet was not so consumed by the fire, that David and his men could not lodge in it. Third day - From David's return to Ziklag. With his clothes rent, &c. - As a mourner. Judah - These he more particularly teacheth, because they were the chief, and now the royal tribe, and likely to be the great bulwark to all Israel against the Philistines, upon whose land they bordered; and withal, to be the most true to him, and to his interest. The bow - That is, of their arms, expressed, under the name of the bow, which then was one of the chief weapons; and for the dextrous use whereof Jonathan is commended in the following song: which may be one reason, why he now gives forth this order, that so they might strive to imitate Jonathan in military skill, and to excel in it, as he did. Jasher - It is more largely and particularly described in the book of Jasher. Beauty - Their flower and glory. Saul and Jonathan, and their army. High places - Heb. upon thy high places; that is, those which belong to thee, O land of Israel. How - How strangely! How suddenly! How universally! Tell it not - This is not a precept, but a poetical wish; whereby he doth not so much desire, that this might not be done, which he knew to be impossible; as, express his great sorrow, because it would be done, to the dishonour of God, and of his people. The daughters - He mentions these, because it was the custom of women in those times and places to celebrate those victories which their men obtained, with triumphant songs and dances. Let there be, &c.

Chapter IX David sends for Jonathan's son, Mephibosheth, ver. 1 - 6. Restores to him all the land that was Saul's, and appoints him to eat at his own table, ver. 7 - 13. Of Saul - He saith not of the house of Jonathan, for he knew not of any son he had left, and therefore thought his kindness and obligation was to pass to the next of his kindred. As for Mephibosheth, he was very young and obscure, and possibly concealed by his friends, lest David should cut him off, as hath been usual among princes. Machir - This Machir appears to have been a generous man, who entertained Mephibosheth out of mere compassion, not of disaffection to David: for afterwards we find him kind to David himself, when he fled from Absalom. David now little thought, that the time would come, when he himself should need his assistance. Let us be forward to give, because we know not what we ourselves may sometime want. Bowed himself - It is good to have the heart humbled under humbling providences. If when divine providence brings our condition down, divine grace brings our spirits down, we shall be easy. Chapter X David's ambassadors are abused by Hanun, ver. 1 - 4. The Ammonites prepare for war and are routed, ver. 5 - 14. Their allies, the Syrians rally and are defeated again, ver. 15 - 19. David sent - There had hitherto been friendship between David and him: and therefore the spoils of the children of Ammon are mentioned, chap.8:12, by way of anticipation, and with respect to the story here following. Shaved - To fasten this is a reproach upon them, and to make them ridiculous and contemptible. Cut off, &c. - This was worse than the former, because the Israelites wore no breeches, and so their nakedness was hereby uncovered. And served them - And thus at length was fulfilled the promise made to Abraham, and repeated to Joshua, that the borders of Israel should extend as far as the river Euphrates. The son of David sent his ambassadors, his apostles and ministers, to the Jewish church and nation. But they intreated them shamefully, as Hanun did David's, mocked them, abused them, slew them. And this it was that filled the measure of their iniquity, and brought upon them ruin without remedy.

Chapter III Solomon marries Pharaoh's daughter, ver. 1. His religion, ver. 2 - 4. His prayer for wisdom, and the answer, ver. 5 - 15. He decides the dispute between the two harlots, ver. 16 - 28. Pharaoh - As being a powerful neighbour, whose daughter doubtless was first instructed in, and proselyted to the Jewish religion. It seems, this was designed by God to be a type of Christ, calling his church to himself, and to the true religion, not only out of the Jews, but even out of the Gentile world. City of David - Into David's palace there. The wall - Which though in some sort built by David, yet Solomon is here said to build, either because he made it higher, and stronger, in which sense Nebuchadnezzar is said to have built Babylon, Dan 4:30, or because he built another wall besides the former, for after this time Jerusalem was encompassed with more walls than one. Only - This particle is used here, and ver.3, as an exception to Solomon's integrity and as a blemish to his government, That he himself both permitted and practised this which was expressly forbidden, Levit 17:3,4 Deut 12:13,14. High places - Which were groves, or other convenient places upon hills, in which the patriarchs used to offer up their sacrifices to God; and from them this custom was derived both to the Gentiles and the Jews: and in them the Gentiles sacrificed to idols, the Hebrews to the true God. Because, &c. - Which reason was not sufficient, for there was a tabernacle, to which they were as much confined as to the temple, Ex 40:34 - 38, &c. Yet - Although he miscarried in the matter of high places, yet in the general, his heart was right with God. Statutes - According to the statutes or commands of God, which are here called the statutes of David; not only because they were diligently practised by David, but also because the observation of them was so earnestly pressed upon Solomon, and fortified with David's authority and command. Truth - In the true worship of God, in the profession, belief, practice and defence of the true religion. So truth here contains all duties to God, as righteousness doth his duties to men, and uprightness the right manner of performing both sorts of duties.

So truth here contains all duties to God, as righteousness doth his duties to men, and uprightness the right manner of performing both sorts of duties. With thee - That is, in thy judgment, to whom he often appealed as the witness of his integrity. Child - So he was in years: not above twenty years old; and withal (which he principally intends) he was raw and unexperienced, as a child, in state affairs. Go out, &c. - To govern my people, and manage affairs. In the midst - Is set over them to rule and guide them. A metaphor from the overseer of divers workmen, who usually is in the midst of them, that he may the better observe how each of them discharges his office. Chosen - Thy peculiar people, whom thou takest special care of, and therefore wilt expect a more punctual account of my government of them. An understanding heart - Whereby I may both clearly discern, and faithfully perform all the parts of my duty: for both these are spoken of in scripture, as the effects of a good understanding; and he that lives in the neglect of his duties, or the practice of wickedness, is called a fool, and one void of understanding. Discern - Namely in causes and controversies among my people; that I may not through mistake, or prejudice, or passion, give wrong sentences, and call evil good, or good evil. Absalom, that was a fool, wished himself a judge: Solomon, that was a wise man, trembles at the undertaking. The more knowing and considerate men are, the more jealous they are of themselves. All thy days - Whereby he signifies that these gifts of God were not transient, as they were in Saul, but such as should abide with him whilst he lived. And if - This caution God gives him, lest his wisdom should make him proud, careless, or presumptuous. A dream - Not a vain dream, wherewith men are commonly deluded; but a divine dream, assuring him of the thing: which he knew, by a divine impression after he was awakened: and by the vast alteration which he presently found within himself in point of wisdom and knowledge. The ark - Which was there in the city of David, 2Sam 6:17, before which he presented himself in a way of holy adoration.

The other - The whole floor; or, from floor to floor, from the lower floor on the ground, to the upper floor which covered it. Another court - That is, between the porch and the house, called therefore the middle court, chap.2Ki 20:4. Like this - Not for form or quantity, but for the materials and workmanship, the rooms being covered with cedar, and furnished with like ornaments. These - Buildings described here and in the former chapter. The measures - Hewed in such measure and proportion as exact workmen use to hew ordinary stones. Within, &c. - Both on the inside of the buildings which were covered with cedar, and on the outside also. To the coping - From the bottom to the top of the building. And so on - Not only on the outside of the front of the house, which being most visible, men are more careful to adorn; but also of the other side of the house, which looked towards the great court belonging to the king's house. Above - That is, in the upper part; for this is opposed to the foundation. Stones and cedars - Intermixed the one, and the other. The court - Namely, of Solomon's dwelling - house mentioned, ver.8. In brass - And Of gold, and stone, and purple, and blue, 2Chron 2:14. But only his skill in brass is here mentioned, because he speaks only of the brasen things which he made. Five cubits - The word chapiter is taken either more largely for the whole, so it is five cubits; Or, more strictly, either for the pommels, as they are called, 2Chron 4:12, or for the cornice or crown, and so it was but three cubits, to which the pomegranates being added make it four cubits, as it is below, ver.19, and the other work upon it took up one cubit more, which in all made five cubits. The chapiters - Which those nets and wreathes encompass, either covering, and as it were receiving and holding the pomegranates, or being mixed with them. Two rows - Either of pomegranates, by comparing this with ver.20, or of some other curious work. Lilly work - Made like the leaves of lillies.

Chosen - For thy dwelling - place, and the seat of thy temple. Towards the house - For to it they were to turn their faces in prayer; to profess themselves worshippers of the true God, in opposition to idols; and to strengthen their faith in God's promises and covenant, the tables whereof were contained in that house. Soldiers in the field must not think it enough that others pray for them: they must pray for themselves. And they are here encouraged to expect a gracious answer. Praying should always go along with fighting. And return - Sincerely, universally, and steadfastly. Their course - Heb. their right, against their invaders and oppressors. For they had forfeited all their rights to God only, but not to their enemies; whom tho' God used as scourges to chastise his peoples sins, yet they had no pretence of right to their land. He stood - He spoke this standing, that he might be the better heard, and because he blessed as one having authority. Never were words more pertinently spoken: never was a congregation dismissed, with that which was more likely to affect them, and to abide with them. Blessed, &c. - This discharge he gives in the name of all Israel, to the everlasting honour of the Divine faithfulness, and the everlasting encouragement of all those that build upon the Divine promises. Incline - That he may not only bless us with outward prosperity, but especially, with spiritual blessings: and that as he hath given us his word to teach and direct us, so he would by his holy Spirit, effectually incline us to obey it. Perfect - Let your obedience be universal, without dividing; upright, without dissembling; and constant, without declining. Offered - Not all in one day, but in the seven, or it may be in the fourteen days, mentioned ver.65. Middle of the court - Of the priests court, in which the great altar was.

Nor is this strange; for he might plausibly think, that he who by his own authority had made others priests might much more exercise a part of that office; at least, upon an extraordinary occasion; in which case, he knew David himself had done some things, which otherwise he might not do. So he did - He himself did offer there in like manner, as he now had done at Dan. Devised - Which he appointed without any warrant from God.

So she was of an heathenish and idolatrous race. Such as the kings and people of Israel were expressly forbidden to marry. Baal - The idol which the Sidonians worshipped, which is thought to be Hercules. And this idolatry was much worse than that of the calves; because in the calves they worshipped the true God; but in these, false gods or devils. In his days - This is added, as an instance of the certainty of divine predictions, this being fulfilled eight hundred years after it was threatened; and withal, as a warning to the Israelites, not to think themselves innocent or safe, because the judgment threatened against them by Ahijah, chap.14:15, was not yet executed. Or, as an evidence of the horrible corruption of his times, and of that high contempt of God which then reigned. The Bethelite - Who lived in Bethel, the seat and sink of idolatry, wherewith he was throughly leavened. He laid, &c. - That is, in the beginning of his building, God took away his first - born, and others successively in the progress of the work, and the youngest when he finished it. And so he found by his own sad experience, the truth of God's word.

Chapter XVII Elijah foretells the drought, ver. 1. Is fed by ravens, ver. 2 - 7. By a widow, whose meal and oil are multiplied, ver. 8 - 16. He raises her dead son, ver. 17 - 24 Elijah - The most eminent of the prophets, who is here brought in, like Melchisedek, without any mention of his father, or mother, or beginning of his days; like a man dropt out of the clouds, and raised by God's special providence as a witness for himself in this most degenerate time that by his zeal, and courage and miracles, he might give some check, to their various and abominable idolatries, and some reviving to that small number of the Lord's prophets, and people, who yet remained in Israel. He seems to have been naturally of a rough spirit. And rough spirits are called to rough services. His name signifies, my God Jehovah is he: he that sends me, and will own me, and bear me out. Said to Ahab - Having doubtless admonished him of his sin and danger before; now upon his obstinacy in his wicked courses, he proceeds to declare, and execute the judgment of God upon him. As the Lord, &c. - I Swear by the God of Israel, who is the only true and living God; whereas the gods whom thou hast joined with him, or preferred before him, are dead and senseless idols. Before whom - Whose minister I am, not only in general, but especially in this threatening, which I now deliver in his name and authority. There shall not, &c. - This was a prediction, but was seconded with his prayer, that God would verify it, James 5:17, And this prayer was truly charitable; that by this sharp affliction, God's honour, and the truth of his word (which was now so horribly and universally contemned) might be vindicated; and the Israelites (whom impunity had hardened in their idolatry) might be awakened to see their own wickedness, and the necessity of returning to the true religion. Those years - That is, These following years, which were three and an half, Luke 4:25 James 5:17. My word - Until I shall declare, that this judgment shall cease, and shall pray to God for the removal of it.

And they double the words, to note their abundant satisfaction and assurance of the truth of their assertion. Elijah said - He takes the opportunity, whilst the peoples hearts were warm with the fresh sense of this great miracle. The brook Kishon - That their blood might be poured into that river, and thence conveyed into the sea, and might not defile the holy land. Slew them - As these idolatrous priests were manifestly under a sentence of death, passed upon such by the sovereign Lord of life and death, so Elijah had authority to execute it, being a prophet, and an extraordinary minister of God's vengeance. The four hundred prophets of the groves, it seems, did not attend, and so escaped, which perhaps Ahab rejoiced in. But it proved, they were reserved to be the instruments of his destruction, by encouraging him to go up to Ramoth - Gilead. Get up - From the river, where he had been present at the slaughter of Baal's priests, to thy tent: which probably was pitched on the side of Carmel. Eat, &c. - Take comfort, and refresh thyself: for neither the king, nor any of the people could have leisure to eat, being wholly intent upon the decision of the great controversy. For there is, &c. - The rain is as certainly coming, as if you heard the noise which it makes. The top of Carmel - Where he might pour out his prayers unto God; and whence he might look towards the sea. He had a large prospect of the sea from hence. The sailors at this day call it cape Carmel. Between his knees - That is, bowed his head so low, that it touched his knees; thus abasing himself in the sense of his own meanness, now God had thus honoured him. Go - While I continue praying. Elijah desired to have timely notice of the first appearance of rain, that Ahab and the people might know that it was obtained from Jehovah by the prophet's prayers, and thereby be confirmed in the true religion. Like a man's hand - Great blessings often rise from small beginnings, and showers of plenty from a cloud of a span long. Let us therefore never despise the day of small things, but hope and wait for greater things from it. The hand, &c.

Probably this was he that had reproved him, for letting Ben - hadad go: And for that, had lain in prison three years. But this did not make him less confident, or less faithful in delivering his message. Said - What answer God shall put in to my mouth. Bravely resolved! And as became one who had an eye to a greater king than either of these. Go - Using the very words of the false prophets, in way of derision. Micaiah's meaning is plainly this, because thou dost not seek to know the truth, but only to please thyself, go to the battle, as all thy prophets advise thee, and try the truth of their prediction by thy own experience. I saw - In the spirit, or in a vision. The hills - Upon the mountains of Gilead, nigh Ramoth, where they lay encamped by Ahab's order. As sheep - As people who have lost their king. Return - Discharged from the war: which was fulfilled, ver.26. Evil - Nay, but what evil was it, to tell him, what would be the event, if he proceeded in his expedition, while it was in his own power, whether he would proceed, or no The greatest kindness we can do to one that is walking in a dangerous way, is to tell him of his danger. He said - I will give thee a distinct and true account of the whole matter, in God's name and presence. I saw - By the eyes of my mind: for he could not see the Lord with bodily eyes. The Host - The angels, both good and bad, the one possibly on his right, the other on his left hand. Nor is it strange that the devils are called the host of heaven; if you consider, first, that their original seat was in heaven. Secondly, that the name of heaven is often given to all that part of the world which is above the earth, and among the rest, to the air, and where the devil's residence and dominion lies, Eph 2:2, and that both Michael and his angels, and the Dragon and his angels, are said to be, and to wage war in heaven, Rev 12:7, either the air, or the church.

Children - Or, young men: as this Hebrew word often signifies. It is more than probable they were old enough to discern between good and evil. The city - Beth - el was the mother - city of idolatry, where the prophets planted themselves, that they might bear witness against it, and dissuade the people from it; though, it seems, they had but small success there. Mocked him - With great petulancy and vehemency, as the word signifies; deriding both his person and ministry, and that from a prophane contempt of the true religion, and a passionate love to that idolatry which they knew he opposed. Go up - Go up into heaven, whither thou pretendest Elijah is gone. Why didst not thou accompany thy friend and master to heaven Bald - head - So they mock his natural infirmity, which is a great sin. The repetition shews their heartiness and earnestness, that it was no sudden slip of their tongue, but a scoff proceeding from a rooted impiety and hatred of God and his prophets. And very probably it was their usual practice, to jeer the prophets as they went along the streets, that they might expose them to contempt, and if possible drive them out of their town. Had the abuse done to Elisha been the first offence of the kind, they might not have been so severely punished. But mocking the messengers of the Lord, was one of the crying sins of Israel. Cursed them - Nor was this punishment too great for the offence, if it be considered, that their mocking proceeded from a great malignity of mind against God; that they mocked not only a man, and an ancient man, whose very age commanded reverence; and a prophet; but even God himself, and that glorious work of God, the assumption of Elijah into heaven; that they might be guilty of many other heinous crimes, which God and the prophet knew; and were guilty of idolatry, which by God's law deserved death; that the idolatrous parents were punished in their children; and that, if any of these children were more innocent, God might have mercy upon their souls, and then this death was not a misery, but a real blessing to them, that they were taken away from that education which was most likely to expose them not only to temporal, but eternal destruction.

Cursed them - Nor was this punishment too great for the offence, if it be considered, that their mocking proceeded from a great malignity of mind against God; that they mocked not only a man, and an ancient man, whose very age commanded reverence; and a prophet; but even God himself, and that glorious work of God, the assumption of Elijah into heaven; that they might be guilty of many other heinous crimes, which God and the prophet knew; and were guilty of idolatry, which by God's law deserved death; that the idolatrous parents were punished in their children; and that, if any of these children were more innocent, God might have mercy upon their souls, and then this death was not a misery, but a real blessing to them, that they were taken away from that education which was most likely to expose them not only to temporal, but eternal destruction. In the name - Not from any revengeful passion, but by the motion of God's Spirit, and by God's command and commission. God did this, partly, for the terror and caution of all other idolaters and prophane persons who abounded in that place; partly, to vindicate the honour, and maintain the authority of his prophets; and particularly, of Elisha, now especially, in the beginning of his sacred ministry. Children - This Hebrew word signifies not only young children, but also those who are grown up to maturity, as Gen 32:22, 34:4, 37:30, Ruth 1:5.

Chapter VI Elisha causes iron to swim, ver. 1 - 7. Discloses to the king of Israel the secret counsels of the king of Syria, ver. 8 - 12. Saves himself out of the hands of those who were sent to apprehend him, ver. 13 - 23. Samaria is besieged by the Syrians, and reduced to extremity, ver. 24 - 33. Jordan - To the woods near Jordan. A beam - A piece of timber for the building. Hence it may be gathered, that although the sons of the prophets principally devoted themselves to religious exercises, yet they sometimes employed themselves about manual arts. Sent - Soldiers to secure the place and passage designed. They - Angels, unspeakably more numerous, God, infinitely more powerful. He saw, &c. - Fire is both dreadful and devouring: that power which was engaged for Elisha, could both terrify and consume the assailants. Elijah gave a specimen of Divine justice, when he called for flames of fire on the heads of his persecutors to consume them. Elisha gives a specimen of Divine mercy, in heaping coals of fire on the heads of his persecutors to melt them. Wouldest thou smite - It is against the laws of humanity, to kill captives, though thou thyself hast taken them with thy own sword and bow; which might seem to give thee some colour to destroy them; but much more unworthy will it be in cold blood to kill these, whom not thy arms, but God's providence hath put into thy hands. Set bread - Give them meat and drink, which may refresh and strengthen them for their journey. This was an action of singular piety and charity, in doing good to their enemies, which was much to the honour of the true religion; and of no less prudence, that hereby the hearts of the Syrians might be mollified towards the Israelites. No more - For some considerable time. Ben - hadad - He whom Ahab wickedly spared, now comes to requite his kindness, and to fulfil that Divine prediction. Ben - hadad was a name very frequent among the kings of Syria, if not common to them all. Famine in Samaria - Probably the siege was so sudden, that they had no time to lay in provisions.

- The words may be rendered, Behold, they are of a truth (the Hebrew prefix, Caph, being not here a note of similitude, but an affirmation of the truth and certainty of the things, as it is taken Numb 11:1 Deut 9:10,) all the multitude of the horses of Israel that are left in it: behold, I say, they are even all the multitude of the horses of the Israelites, which (which multitude) are consumed, reduced to this small number, all consumed except these five. And this was indeed worthy of a double behold, to shew what mischief the famine had done both upon men and beasts, and to what a low ebb the king of Israel was come, that all his troops of horses, to which he had trusted, were shrunk to so small a number. And so it fell out, &c. - See how heinously God resents our distrust of his power, providence and promise! Whenever God promises the end, he knows where to provide the means.

Chapter XVI The idolatry of Ahaz, ver. 1 - 4. He hires the king of Assyria to invade Syria and Israel, ver. 5 - 9. He erects a new altar in the temple, ver. 10 - 16. Spoils the temple, ver. 17 - 18. Dies, ver. 19, 20. Pass - By way of oblation, so as to be consumed for a burnt - offering, which was the practice of Heathens, and of some Israelites, in imitation of them. Could not overcome - Because God of his own mere grace, undertook his protection, and disappointed the hopes of his enemies. Sent messengers, &c. - But was it because there was no God in Israel, that he sent to the Assyrian for help The sin itself was its own punishment; for tho' it served his present turn, yet he made but an ill bargain, seeing he not only impoverished himself, but enslaved both himself and his people. Offered - A sacrifice, and that not to God, but to the Syrian idols, to whom that altar was appropriated. Peace - offerings - For the Heathens; and Ahaz, in imitation of them, offered the same sorts of offerings to their false gods, which the Israelites did to the true. Brazen attar - Of burnt - offerings, made by Solomon, and placed there by God's appointment. From between, &c. - His new altar was at first set below the brazen altar, and at a farther distance from the temple. This he took for a disparagement to his altar; and therefore impiously takes that away, and puts his in its place. And put, &c. - So he put God's altar out of its place and use! A bolder stroke than the very worst of kings had hitherto given to religion. Great altar - This new altar; which was greater than Solomon's. Sacrifice - Whatsoever is offered to the true God, either in my name (for possibly he did not yet utterly forsake God, but worshipped idols with him) or on the behalf of the people, shall be offered on this new altar. Enquire by - That shall be reserved for my proper use, to enquire by; at which I may seek God, or enquire of his will, by sacrifices joined with prayer, when I shall see fit.

Good is, &c. - I heartily submit to this sentence, as being both just, and merciful. True penitents, when they are under divine rebukes, call them not only just, but good. Not only submit to, but accept of the punishment of their iniquity. So Hezekiah did, and by this it appeared, he was indeed humbled for the pride of his heart.

Ten men - Ten captains or officers, and under each of them many soldiers. Egypt - And here they probably mixt with the Egyptians by degrees, and were heard of no more as Israelites. Seven and twentieth - Or, on the twenty fifth day, as it is, Jer 52:31. For then the decree was made, which was executed upon the twenty seventh day. All the days of his life - Let none say, they shall never see good again, because they have long seen little but evil. The most afflicted know not what blessed turn providence may yet give to their affairs. The chief design of these books is, to compleat the history of the kings of Judah; to gather up fragments of sacred history, which were omitted in the books of Samuel and Kings; to explain some passages there mentioned, and to give an exact account of the genealogies. This was then a work of great necessity, to preserve the distinction of the tribes and families; that it might appear, Christ came of that nation, tribe and family, of which he was to be born. And this account, having been hitherto neglected, is most seasonably mentioned in these books, compiled by Ezra after the captivity, because this was to be, in a manner, the last part of the Sacred history of the Old Testament. If many things herein are now obscure to us, they were not so to the Hebrews. And all the persons here named were known to them, by those exact genealogies, which they kept in their several families, and in public registers. In this first book we have a collection of Sacred genealogies, from Adam to David, with several histories inserted, chap. 1 - 9. An account of the translation of the kingdom from Saul to David, and of David's reign, chap. 10 - 21. An account of the settlement of ecclesiastical affairs by David, and of his preparations for building the temple, chap. 22 - 29. These are words of days as the Hebrew title runs, of the best days of the Old Testament Church. But now He is come, for whose sake the registers were preserved, the Jews have lost all their genealogies, even that of the priests, so that there is not any man in the world, that can prove himself of the house of Aaron.

Chapter X The overthrow and death of Saul, ver. 1 - 7. The triumph of the Philistines, ver. 8 - 10. The men of Jabesh - gilead take down and bury the bodies of Saul and his sons, ver. 11, 12. The reason of Saul's death, ver. 13, 14. The men of Israel fled, &c. - Thus princes sin and the people suffer for it. No doubt there was enough in them to deserve it. But that which divine justice had chiefly an eye to, was the sin of Saul. Great men should in an especial manner, take heed of provoking God's wrath. For if they kindle that fire, they know not how many may be consumed by it for their sakes. His house - All his children, then present with him, namely, his three sons, for Ishbosheth and Mephiboshieth were not slain. Temple of Dagon - If we give not God the glory of our successes, even Philistines will rise up in judgment with us and condemn us. Shall Dagon have so great a place in their triumphs, and the true God be forgotten in ours Seven days - Every day 'till evening, after the manner of the Jewish fasts. The word - Against God's express command: which is a great aggravation of any sin. Familiar spirit - Which also was contrary to a manifest command, Levit 19:31. Enquired not - He did in some sort, but not in a right manner, not humbly and penitently, not diligently and importunately, not patiently and perseveringly. Nor 'till he was brought to the last extremity. And then it was too late.

Aaron - Under the direction of the high - priests, whom he calls Aaron, because he represented his person and executed his office, and their father, because of the authority which by God's appointment he had over them. Over against - Answerable for number and order to those of the priests, so that there should be a course of the Levites for each course of the priests.

Chapter XXI Jehoram succeeds, ver. 1 - 3. His wickedness, ver. 4 - 7. Edom and Libnah revolt and Jehoram is still more wicked, ver. 8 - 11. The prophecy of Elijah against him, ver. 12 - 15. The success of his enemies, ver. 16, 17. His sickness and death, ver. 18 - 20. Azariah - Two sons called by the same name, though doubtless distinguished by some additional title: which is not mentioned here, because it did not concern succeeding ages to know it. Of Israel - So he is called either, Because he was so by right: or Because he was king not only of Judah and Benjamin, but of a great number of Israelites, who had come and settled in his kingdom. Strengthened himself - He hardened his heart, as that word sometimes signifies. Princes - The chief of those Israelites, who out of love to God and the true religion, had forsaken their estates in the kingdom of Israel, and were now incorporated with the kingdom of Judah: because he thought these would be most zealous for that religion which he was resolved to oppose. Libnah - Libnah seems to have set up for a free state. And the reason is here given, both why God permitted it, and why they did it, because Jehoram was become an idolater. While he adhered to God, they adhered to him; but when he cast God off, they cast him off. Whether this would justify them in their revolt or no, it justified God's providence which suffered it. High places - Not to the Lord, but to Baals or false gods. And caused - Not only by his counsel and example, but by force, by threats, and penalties. From Elijah - By this it appears, that Jehoram came to the throne before Elijah's translation. It is true, we find Elisha attending Jehoshaphat; but that might be, while Elijah was yet on earth: for we read of Jehoram's coming to the crown, before we read of Elijah's translation, 1Kings 22:50. We may suppose, the time of his departure was at hand, so that he could not go in person to Jehoram. But he left this writing, probably with Elisha, to be sent the first opportunity.

Chapter XXXVI The wicked reign of Jehoahaz, ver. 1 - 4. Jehoiakim, ver. 5 - 8. Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, ver. 9 - 13. The wickedness of the people, ver. 14 - 16. Jerusalem destroyed, Judah laid waste, the people slain or led away captive, according to God's word, ver. 17 - 21. The proclamation of Cyrus, ver. 22, 23. Found in him - That crime of rebellion against the king of Babylon, which for a time he kept in his own breast, but when he saw fit, discovered it, and was convicted of it. Expired - Heb. at the return of the year: at the beginning of the next year, according to the sacred account of the Hebrews, at the spring of the year, the time when kings go forth to battle, as is elsewhere said, when Nebuchadnezzar, among others, went forth to settle and enlarge his conquests. His brother - Largely so called, for this was his uncle, or his father's brother, being the son of Josiah. By God - Who had required him to swear fealty and constant obedience to him by the true God, whom he called upon to be a witness against him if he broke his oath. So his rebellion was aggravated with perjury, and horrid contempt of God. Rising - Sending them early and diligently, as a careful house - holder, who rises betimes about his business. God sent them many prophets and messages, some at the very beginning of their apostacy, and others afterward, 'till the very day of their captivity. No remedy - Because the people would not repent, and God would not pardon them. Chaldees - Abraham was called out of Ur of the Chaldees, when God took him into covenant with himself. And now his degenerate seed are carried into that country again, to signify that they had forfeited all that kindness wherewith they had been loved for their father's sake, and the benefit of the covenant into which he was called. Sabbaths - Had rested from the labour of the husbandman in plowing and harrowing it; the people that should have managed it being destroyed. Many a time had they ploughed and sowed their land in the seventh year, when it should have rested: and now it lay unploughed and unsown for ten times seven years.

Interpreted - It was written in the Chaldee or Syrian language, and in the Syrian character: for sometimes the Chaldee or Syrian words are written in the Hebrew character. Asnapper - Either Esarhaddon, or some other person of eminency, who was captain of this colony, and conducted them hither. The river - Euphrates. Time - The date of the epistle was particularly expressed therein, but here it was sufficient to note it in general. Be it known, &c. - This is a mere fiction, which being confidently affirmed, they thought would easily find belief with a king whose heart and ears they possessed by their hired counsellors. To cease. &c. - As they abused the king by their misinformations, in the obtaining of this order, so they abused him in the execution of it; for the order was only to prevent the walling of the city. But having power in their hands, they, on this pretence, stopt the building of the temple. See what need we have to pray, not only for kings, but for all in authority under them: because the quietness of our lives depends much on the integrity and wisdom of inferior magistrates as well as the supreme. Darius - Darius the son of Hystaspes, successor of Cambyses.

Chapter VI Darius's answer, ver. 1 - 7. His decree, ver. 8 - 12. The temple is finished, ver. 13 - 15. The dedication of it, ver. 16 - 18. The passover kept, ver. 19 - 22. A decree - To search the rolls in Babylon, where search was first made; but not finding the edict there, they searched in Achmetha, or Ecbatana, and found it. Achmetha - The royal city of the Medes and Persians. Cubits - Those proportions differ from those of Solomon's temple, which was but thirty cubits high, only the porch was a hundred and twenty cubits high, and but twenty cubits in breadth. Either therefore Solomon's cubits were sacred cubits, which were larger than the other, and these but common cubits. Or, the sixty cubits of height are meant only for the porch. And the word rendered breadth, may be rendered the extension or the length of it; it being improbable that the king should give orders about the breadth, and none about the length of it. Destroy - Tho' this temple was at length most justly destroyed by the righteous hand of God, yet perhaps the Romans, who were the instruments of that destruction, felt the effects of this curse. For that empire sensibly declined ever after, 'till it was wholly destroyed. Through the prophesying - This is a seasonable intimation that this great and unexpected success was not to be ascribed to chance, or to the kindness or good humour of Darius, but unto God only, who by his prophets had required and encouraged them to proceed in the work, and by his mighty power disposed Darius's heart to such kind and noble purposes. Children of Israel - Probably some out of each of the twelve tribes. Joyful - He had given them both cause to rejoice, and hearts to rejoice. God is the fountain whence all the streams of true joy flow. Of Assyria - Of the king of Persia, who was now king of Assyria also, here so called emphatically, to note the great power and goodness of God in turning the hearts of these great monarchs, whose predecessors had been the chief persecutors and oppressors of God's people.

This book continues the history of the children of the captivity, the Jews lately returned out of Babylon. We have a full account of Nehemiah's labours for them, in these his commentaries: wherein he records not only the works of his hands, but the very workings of his heart, inserting many devout reflections and ejaculations, which are peculiar to his writing. Twelve years he was the tirshatha, or governor of Judea, under the same Artaxerxes that gave Ezra his commission. This book relates his concern for Jerusalem and commission to go thither, chap. 1, 2. His building the wall of Jerusalem, notwithstanding much opposition, chap. 3, 4. His redressing the grievances of the people, chap. 5. His finishing the wall, chap. 6. The account he took of the people, chap. 7. His calling the people to read the law, fast and pray, and renew their covenant, chap. 8 - 10. He peoples Jerusalem and settles the tribe of Levi, chap. 11, 12. He reforms divers abuses, chap. 13. This was the last historical book that was written, as Malachi, the last prophetical book of the old testament.

Which is not, &c. - Which may belong, either to the thing only, that as they did fast, so she would. Or, rather, to the time of three days and three nights; for so she might do, though she went to the king on the third day. For the fast began at evening, and so she might continue her fast three whole nights, and two whole days, and the greatest part of the third; a part of a day being reputed a day in the account of scripture, and other authors: of which see on Matt 12:40. Yea, she might fast all that day too: for it is probable she went not to the king 'till he had dined; when she supposed she might find him in the most mild and pleasant humour, and then returned to her apartment, where she fasted 'till the evening.

Chapter IX The Jews slay their enemies, ver. 1 - 11. A second day is granted them, ver. 12 - 19. A yearly feast is instituted, in memory of this great deliverance, ver. 20 - 32 No man - Their enemies, though they did take up arms against them, yet were easily conquered and destroyed by them. Shushan - In the city so called. Slew - Whom they knew to be such as would watch all opportunities to destroy them; which also they might possibly now attempt to do. But, &c. - Because they would leave it to their children, that it might appear what they did was not done out of malice, or covetousness, but out of mere necessity, and by that great law of self - preservation. What - In which doubtless many more were slain. So that I have fully granted thy petition. And yet, if thou hast any thing farther to ask, I am ready to grant it. Let it, &c. - To kill their implacable enemies. For it is not improbable that the greatest and worst of them had hidden themselves for that day; after which, the commission granted to the Jews being expired, they confidently returned to their homes. Hanged - They were slain before; now let their bodies be hanged on their father's gallows, for their greater infamy, and the terror of all others who shall presume to abuse the king in like manner, or to persuade him to execute such cruelties upon his subjects. Pur - This Persian word signifies a lot, because Haman had by lot determined this time to be the time of the Jews destruction. As joined - Gentile Proselytes; who were obliged to submit to other of the Jewish laws, and therefore to this also; the rather because they enjoyed the benefit of this day's deliverance; without which the Jewish nation and religion had been in a great measure, if not wholly, extinct. According - According to that writing which was drawn up by Mordecai, and afterwards confirmed by the consent of the Jews. Wrote - The former letter, ver.20, did only recommend but this enjoins the observation of this solemnity: because this was not only Mordecai's act, but the act of all the Jews, binding themselves and posterity. Peace - With peace, friendship and kindness to his brethren, and truth, sincerity.

The preceding books of scripture are, for the most part, plain and easy narratives, which he that runs may read and understand: but in the five poetical books, on which we are now entering, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Solomon's song, are many things hard to be understood. These therefore require a more close application of mind, which yet the treasures they contain will abundantly recompence. The former books were mostly historical: these are doctrinal and devotional. And they are wrote in verse, according to the ancient rules of versifying, tho' not in rhythm, nor according to the rules of latter tongues. Job is a kind of heroic poem; the book of Psalms a collection of sacred odes, Solomon's song, a Divine pastoral. They are all poetical, yet serious and full of majesty. They have a poetic force and flame, without poetic fury, move the affections, without corrupting the imagination; and while they gratify the ear, improve the mind, and profit the more by pleasing. We have here much of God, his infinite pefections, and his government both of the world, and of the church. And we have much of Christ, who is the spring, and soul, and center of revealed religion. Here is what may enlighten our understandings, and acquaint us with the deep things of God. And this divine light may bring into the soul a divine fire, which will kindle and inflame devout affections, on which wings we may soar upwards, until we enter into the holiest. We are certain that the book of Job is a true history. That there was such a man as Job, undeniably appears, from his being mentioned by the prophet, together with Noah and Daniel, Ezek 14:14, and the narrative we have of his prosperity and piety, his strange afflictions and exemplary patience, the substance of his conferences with his friends, and God's discourse with him out of the whirlwind, with his return to a prosperous condition, are no doubt exactly true. We are sure also this book is very ancient, probably of equal date with the book of Genesis itself. It is likely, Job was of the posterity of Nahor, Abraham's brother, whose first - born was Uz, and in whose family religion was kept up, as appears Gen 31:53, where God is called not only the God of Abraham, but the God of Nahor.

Forcible - The words of truth have a marvellous power. Reprove - But there is no truth in your assertions or weight in your arguments. Words - Do you think it is sufficient to quarrel with some of my words, without giving allowance for human infirmity, or extreme misery. Desperate - Of a poor miserable, hopeless and helpless man. As wind - Which pass away and are forgotten. Overwhelm - You load with censures and calumnies. Desolate - Me who am deprived of all my children, my estate, and my friends. I spoke all I thought, as to my friends, and you thence occasion to cast me down. Look - Consider my cause better than you have done, that you may give a more righteous judgment. Evident - You will plainly discover it. Return - Turn from your former judgment. Iniquity - Or, there shall be no iniquity, in my words. Righteousness - In this cause or matter between you and me; and you will find the right to be on my side. Is there - Consider if there be any untruth or iniquity in what I have already said, or shall farther speak. Taste - My judgment, which judgeth of words and actions, as the palate doth of meats.

- A farther description of a black and tempestuous season, wherein the heavens seem to be brought down nearer to the earth. Treadeth - Represseth and ruleth them when they rage and are tempestuous: for treading upon any thing, signifies in scripture using power and dominion over it. Ordereth - Disposeth them, governeth their rising and setting, and all their influences. These he names as constellations of greatest eminency; but under them he seems to comprehend all the stars, which as they were created by God, so are under his government. Arcturus is a northern constellation, near that called the Bear. Orion is a more southerly constellation, that rises to us in December. The Pleiades is a constellation not far from Orion, which we call the seven stars: by the chambers, (or inmost chambers, as the word signifies) of the south, he seems to understand those stars and constellations which are toward the southern pole, which are called inward chambers, because they are for the most part hid and shut up from these parts of the world. Doth great things, &c. - Job here says the same that Eliphaz had said, chap.5:9, and in the original, in the very same words, with design to shew his full agreement with him, touching the Divine perfections. Goeth - He works by his providence in ways of mercy or judgment. Passeth - He goeth from place to place: from one action to another: he speaks of God after the manner of men. Taketh - If he determines to take away from any man his children or servants, or estate, who is able to restrain him from doing it Or who dare presume to reprove him for it And therefore far be it from me to quarrel with God, whereof you untruly accuse me. Helpers - Those who undertake to uphold and defend one another against him. Stoop - Fall and are crushed by him. How shall I - Since no creature can resist his power, and no man can comprehend his counsels and ways; how can I contend with him Answer his allegations and arguments, produced against me. Tho' - Though I were not conscious to myself of any sin. Would not - I durst not undertake to plead my cause against him; or maintain my integrity before him, because he knows me better than I know myself.

Terrors - From the sense of approaching death or judgment. Waters - As violently and irresistibly, as a river breaking its banks, or deluge of waters bears down all before it. A tempest - God's wrath cometh upon him like a tempest, and withal unexpectedly like a thief in the night. East - wind - Some terrible judgment, fitly compared to the east - wind, which in those parts was most vehement, and pernicious. Carrieth him - Out of his palace wherein he expected to dwell forever; whence he shall be carried either by an enemy, or by death. Cast - His darts or plagues one after another. Would flee - He earnestly desires to escape the judgments of God, but in vain. Those that will not be persuaded to fly to the arms of Divine grace, which are now stretched out to receive them, will not be able to flee from the arms of Divine wrath, which will shortly be stretched out to destroy them. Clap - In token of their joy at the removal of such a publick pest, by way of astonishment: and in contempt and scorn, all which this gesture signifies in scripture use. His - In token of detestation and derision.

Chapter XXVIII The wisdom of God in the works of nature, ver. 1 - 11. A wisdom like this cannot be found in man, neither can it be bought at any price, ver. 12 - 21. Death makes a report concerning it, ver. 22. It is hid in God, ver. 23 - 27. To fear God is man's wisdom, ver. 28. Surely - Job having in the last chapter discoursed of God's various providences toward wicked men, and shewed that God doth sometimes, for a season, give them prosperity, but afterwards calls them to a sad account, and having shewed that God doth sometimes prosper the wicked all their days, so they live and die without any visible token of God's displeasure, when on the contrary, good men are exercised with many calamities; and perceiving that his friends were, scandalized at these methods of Divine providence, and denied the thing, because they could not understand the reason of such dispensations: in this chapter he declares that this is one of the depths of Divine wisdom, not discoverable by any mortal man, and that although men had some degree of wisdom whereby they could search out many hidden things, as the veins of silver, and gold, yet this was a wisdom of an higher nature, and out of man's reach. The caverns of the earth he may discover, but not the counsels of heaven. Perfection - Whatever is deeply wrought in the deepest caverns. Stones of darkness - The precious stones which lie hid in the dark bowels of the earth, where no living thing can dwell. Breaketh out - While men are searching, water breaks in upon them. Inhabitants - Out of that part of the earth which the miners inhabit. Forgotten - Untrodden by the foot of man. Dried up - They are dried up, (or, drawn up, by engines made for that purpose) from men, from the miners, that they may not be hindered in their work. Fire - Coals, and brimstone, and other materials of fire. Unless this refer, as some suppose, to a central fire. Sapphires - Of precious stones; the sapphire, is one of the most eminent, being put for all the rest. In some parts of the earth, the sapphires are mixed with stones, and cut out of them and polished. Hath - The earth continueth.

Made - As I made thee. Grass - The river - horse comes out of the river upon the land to feed upon corn, and hay, or grass, as an ox doth, to whom also he is not unlike in the form of his head and feet, and in the bigness of his body, whence the Italians call him, the sea - ox. Strength - He hath strength answerable to his bulk, but this strength by God's wise and merciful providence is not an offensive strength, consisting in, or put forth by horns or claws, as it is in ravenous creatures, but only defensive and seated in his loins, as it is in other creatures. Tail - Which though it be but short, yet when it is erected, is exceeding stiff and strong. Thighs - The sinews of his thighs. His thighs and feet are so sinewy and strong, that one of them is able to break or over - turn a large boat. The chief - He is one of the chief of God's works, in regard of its great bulk and strength. Mountains - Though he lives most in the water, yet he often fetches his food from the land, and from the mountains or hills, which are nigh the river Nile. Play - They not only feed securely, but sport themselves by him, being taught by experience that he is gentle and harmless. Brook - Or, of the Nile, of which this word is often used in scripture. His constant residence is in or near this river, or the willows that grow by it. River - A great quantity of water, hyperbolically called a river. Hasteth not - He drinks not with fear and caution; but such is his courage, that he fears no enemy either by water or by land. He drinks as if he designed, to drink up the whole river. He mentions Jordan, as a river well known, in and nigh unto Job's land. Sight - Can any man take him in his eyes Openly and by force Surely not. His strength is too great for man to overcome: and therefore men are forced to use wiles and engines to catch him.

Shut - Closely compacted together, as things that are fastened together by a seal. This likewise is true of the crocodile, but the skin of the whale is smooth and entire without any scales at all. Sneesings - This the crocodile is said frequently to do. Eyes - To which they seem very fitly compared, because the eyes of the crocodile are dull and dark under the water, but as soon as they appear above water, cast a bright and clear light; like the morning light, suddenly breaking forth after the dark night. Lamps - This also better agrees with the crocodile, which breathes like the river - horse, of which ancient authors affirm, that his nostrils are very large, and he breathes forth a fiery smoke like that of a furnace. Kindleth coals - An hyperbolical expression, denoting extraordinary heat. And sorrow - Sorrow is his companion and harbinger, which attends upon him wheresoever he goes. So anger and fear are said by the poets to accompany the God of war. Nether mill - stone - Which being to bear the weight of the upper, ought to be the harder and stronger of the two. Raiseth - Upon the top of the waters. Mighty - Even the stout - hearted. Breakings - By reason of their great danger and distress; which is expressed by this very word, Psal 60:2 Jonah 2:4. Purify - Those who ordinarily live in the neglect of God, they cry unto God in their trouble, and endeavour to purge their consciences from the guilt of their sins. Hold - Heb. cannot stand, cannot endure the stroke, but will be broken by it. The crocodile's skin, no sword, nor dart, nor musquet bullet can pierce. Turned - Hurt him no more than a blow with a little stubble. Stones - His skin is so impenetrable, that the sharpest stones or shells are as easy unto him as the mire. Boil - To swell, and foam, and froth by his strong and vehement motion, as any liquor does when it is boiled in a pot, especially boiling ointment. The sea - The great river Nile, is called a sea, both in scripture, as Isa 11:15, and in other authors, as Euphrates is called the sea of Babylon, Isa 21:1 Jer 51:36.

The sea - The great river Nile, is called a sea, both in scripture, as Isa 11:15, and in other authors, as Euphrates is called the sea of Babylon, Isa 21:1 Jer 51:36. Lakes also are most frequently called seas both in the Old and New Testament: and in such lakes the crocodiles are as well as in the Nile. Shine - By the white froth or foam upon the waters. The same may be observed in the wake of a ship by night. King, &c. - He can tame both the behemoth and leviathan, as strong and stout - hearted as they are. This discourse concerning them was brought in, to prove that it is God only, who can look upon proud men and abase them, bring them low, and hide them in the dust, he it is that beholdeth all high things, and wherein men dealt proudly, he is above them. He is king over all the children of pride, brutal or rational, and makes them either bend or break before him.

Keren - happuch signifies plenty restored. So fair - In the Old Testament we often find women praised for their beauty, but never in the New, because the beauty of holiness is brought to a much clearer light by the gospel. After this, &c. - Some conjecture, that he was seventy when his trouble came. If so his age was doubled, as his other possessions. Full of days - So coming to his grave, as Eliphaz had spoken, like a ripe shock of corn in its season. We have here a new way of writing, wherein Divine wisdom is taught us in Proverbs or short sentences, which contain their whole design within themselves, and are not connected with one another. And these Proverbs of Solomon are not merely a collection of the wise sayings which had been formerly delivered, but were the dictates of the Spirit of God in Solomon: so that it is God by Solomon that here speaks to us. I say, to us: for when Solomon speaks to his son, St. Paul says, The exhortation speaketh to us, as unto children. The nine first chapters are as a preface exhorting us to the study and practice of wisdom, and warning us against the things that would hinder it. We have then the first volume of Solomon's Proverbs, chap. 10 - 24. After that a second volume, chap. 25 - 29. And then Agur's prophecy, chap. 30. And Lemuel's, chap. 31. The scope of all is, to direct us so to order our conversation, that we may see the salvation of God.

Chapter XII Lie in wait - Are designed to entrap others, and to destroy them. Deliver them - From those that lie in wait for them. Are not - Both they and their families suddenly perish. Despised - That lives in a mean condition. Honoureth - That glories in his high birth or gay attire. Regardeth - He will not destroy it either by labour beyond its strength, or by denying it necessary food or rest. Cruel - There is cruelty mixed even with their most merciful actions. Tilleth - That employs his time in an honest calling. Vain persons - In an idle course of living. Desireth - He approves those arts, which wicked men use like nets to ensnare other men. The root - That piety, which is the root of his actions, yields him sufficient fruit both for his own need, and to do good to others. Mouth - By his pious and profitable discourses. Hands - Of his actions. Hearkeneth - That distrusts his own judgments, and seeks counsel from others. Covereth - The shame, or injury done to him, which he conceals and bears with patience. Deceit - He who uses himself to lying in his common talk, will use falsehood and deceit in judgment. Health - Tends to the comfort and benefit of others. A moment - Liars, though they may make a fair shew for a season, yet are quickly convicted. Deceit - They whose hearts devise mischief shall be deceived in their hopes, and bring trouble upon themselves: but they who by good counsels labour to promote peace, shall reap the comfort of it themselves. Concealeth - He does not unseasonably utter what he knows. Foolishness - Betrays his ignorance and folly. A good word - A compassionate or encouraging word. Neighbour - Than any other men. Seduceth - Heb. maketh them to err, to lose that excellency or happiness which they had promised themselves. Resteth not - Does not enjoy the fruit of his labours. Precious - Yields him comfort and blessing with it.

The ear - The man that hearkens to that reproof which leads to life, seeks and delights in the company of the wise. The instruction - Doth instruct men in true wisdom.

Chapter XVI From the Lord - Men can neither think nor speak wisely and well without Divine assistance. Weigheth - Exactly knows as men do the things which they weigh. Spirits - The hearts of men. Commit - Refer all thy actions and concerns to God, as the end of them, and depend upon God's providence for success. Established - Thy designs shall be brought to an happy issue. Doth work - He orders or disposes. For - For his own glory; for the discovery of his wisdom, power, goodness, truth, justice. The wicked - Wilful and impenitent sinners. Men make themselves wicked, and God therefore makes them miserable. By mercy - By a merciful and just and faithful frame of heart and course of life. Is purged - As they qualify a man to offer up acceptable prayers to God for the pardon of his sins. By fear - By a filial reverence unto God. Depart - They are kept from abusing pardoning mercy, and from returning to folly or wickedness. Deviseth - Proposes what he will do. Directeth - Over - rules and disposes all his designs and actions. A divine sentence - Great sagacity and piercing judgment. Of the king - Of wise kings; who only are worthy of that name and office. The Lord's - Are made by his direction and appointment, so that no man can alter them without violating God's rights and authority. A cloud - As acceptable as those clouds which bring the latter rain, whereby the fruits are filled and ripened a little before the harvest. The high - way - Their common road, in which they walk, tho' through frailty or temptation they slip into the bypath of sin. From evil - From the evil of sin, and consequently from the evil of punishment. Keepeth - That takes heed to walk in that high - way. Good - He who orders his affairs with discretion. The wise - He who is truly wise, shall be so accounted by others. Sweetness - Eloquence added to wisdom. Increaseth - Both in himself, for while a man teaches others, he improves himself; and others, who by this means are induced to hear and receive his instructions. The instruction - Their most grave and serious counsels are foolish. Teacheth - Directs him what to speak, and keeps him from speaking foolishly.

Strengthen - Supports him in, and secures him against troubles and dangers. Sinneth not - Who is universally and perfectly good. Also - Do not strictly search into them, nor listen to hear them. Proved - I have found to be true, by the help of that singular wisdom which God had given me. I said - I determined that I would attain perfection of wisdom. But - I found myself greatly disappointed. It - God's counsels and works, and the reasons of them. And seek - He useth three words signifying the same thing, to intimate his vehement desire, and vigorous, and unwearied endeavours after it. The reason - Both of God's various providences, and of the counsels and courses of men. The wickedness - Clearly and fully to understand the great evil of sin. I find - By my own sad experience. Shall escape - Shall be prevented from falling into her hands. To find - That I might make a true and just estimate. Yet seeketh - I returned to search again with more earnestness. I find not - That it was so, he found, but the reason of the thing he could not find out. One man - A wise and virtuous man. A woman - One worthy of that name; one who is not a dishonour to her sex. Among - In that thousand whom I have taken into intimate society with myself. Lo, this - Though I could not find out all the streams of wickedness, and their infinite windings and turnings, yet I have discovered the fountain of it, Original sin, and the corruption of nature, which is both in men and women. That - God made our first parents, Adam and Eve. Upright - Heb. right: without any imperfection or corruption, conformable to his nature and will, after his own likeness. They - Our first parents, and after them their posterity. Sought out - Were not contented with their present state, but studied new ways of making themselves more wise and happy, than God had made them. And we, their wretched children, are still prone to forsake the certain rule of God's word, and the true way to happiness, and to seek new methods of attaining it.

This interpretation agrees both with the foregoing verse, in which he describes the miseries of old age, and with the following clause, which is added to explain those otherwise ambiguous expressions; and with the scripture use of this phrase; for a state of comfort and happiness is often described by the light of the sun, and a state of trouble is set forth, by the darkening of the light of the sun. Nor the clouds - This phrase denotes a perpetual succession of rain, and clouds bringing rain, and then rain and clouds again. Whereby he expresses either the rheums or destructions which incessantly flow in old men; or the continual vicissitude of infirmities, diseases, and griefs; one deep calling upon another. The house - Of the body: whose keepers are the hands and arms, which are man's best instruments to defend his body; and which in a special manner are subject to his trembling. The strong men - The thighs and legs, in which the main strength of the body consists. Grinders - The teeth, those especially which are commonly so called, because they grind the meat. Cease - To perform their office. And those, &c. - The eyes. By windows he understands either the eye - lids, which like windows, are either opened or shut: or, those humours and coats of the eyes, which are the chief instruments by which we see. In - Or, towards the streets: which lead into the streets. This may be understood either of the outward senses, which, as doors, let in outward objects to the soul: or rather the mouth, the two lips, here expressed by a word of the dual number, which like a door, open or shut the way that leads into the streets or common passages of the body; which also are principal instruments both of speaking and eating. And these are said to be shut, not absolutely, but comparatively, because men in old age grow dull and listless, having little appetite to eat, and are very frequently indisposed for discourse. When the sound - When the teeth are loose and few, whereby both his speech is low, and the noise which he makes in eating is but small. Shall rise - From his bed, being weary with lying, and unable to get sleep.

Causing - The most dull, and stupid, and sleepy persons to speak. I am - This and the following verses contain the words of the bride, in answer to the bridegroom's endearing expressions delivered in the foregoing verses. Go forth - That being retired from the crowd, we may more freely and sweetly converse together. Early - The church having lost her beloved by her former laziness, now doubles her diligence. Vineyards - To particular congregations. Let us see - Let us inquire into the success of our labours, what souls are brought in and built up, and how they prosper and grow in grace. There - There I will discover the fervency of my affections to thee, and maintain communion with thee in thy holy ordinances. Mandrakes - This Hebrew word is used Gen 30:14, 15, and the signification of it is very much doubted and disputed by interpreters. The word here signifies sweet and pleasant flowers, and therefore if it be understood of mandrakes, they were of another sort than ours, as flowers of the same kind in several climates have very different natures and qualities. At our gates - Brought thither by divers persons to congratulate our nuptials. All fruits - Fruits of this year and of the former. Which seems to be meant of the various fruits and operations of the Spirit, and degrees of grace in several believers.

Chapter IV An invitation to true repentance, by promises, ver. 1 - 4. And judgments coming on them by the Babylonians, contrary to the predictions of their false prophets, for their sins, ver. 5 - 18. A grievous lamentation for the miseries of Judah, ver. 19 - 31. If - If thou wilt return, return; make no longer delay. Remove - Thou shalt not go out of thine own land into exile. Swear - This is put here for the whole worship of God, acknowledging an& owning God as the only God; which is strongly exprest by this act. In truth - That the matter and substance of it be true. In judgment - Deliberately, advisedly, and reverently. In righteousness - That none be injured by it, that the things we engage be both lawful and possible, and that we look to the performance. The nations - This shall be a means to work upon the Heathen nations, to come into the same way of worship. They shall think themselves happy to be incorporated with thee, that it may be with them according to that promise, Gen 12:3. Glory - Whereas before they gloried in their idols, they shall glory in God alone. For - The Lord turns now his speech from Israel to Judah. Break up - Prepare your hearts by making them soft, tender, and pliable, fit to embrace my word. A metaphor taken from plow - men. Thorns - Rid your hearts and hands of what may hinder you of embracing my word. Circumcise - Put away your corruptions. Heart - Let it be inward, not outward in the flesh only. The trumpet - The Lord being now about to bring enemies upon them, speaks in martial language, warning them of the nature of their approaching judgment. Retire - Make haste away. The lion - Nebuchadnezzar, so called from his fierceness and strength. The heart - They shall have no heart to do any thing, they shall not be able to help their people, either by their counsel or arms. Prophets - False prophets that had nothing but visions of peace for them. Deceived - Hast suffered them to be deceived by their false prophets. Whereas - To persuade them it should be well with them, when the sword is at the door, not only ready to take away the comforts of life, but even life itself.

Chapter V None godly in Judah, ver. 1. They swear falsely, tho' God be a God us truth; they are incorrigible and senseless, and know not the law, or else wilfully violate it, ver. 1 - 6. Their idolatry, adultery, ver. 7 - 9. Contempt of God's word and prophets, which should be sadly verified, ver, 10 - 18. They forsake, forget, and fear not God, whose power is so great, ver. 19 - 24. They are rich through deceit and violence; their false prophets, ver. 25 - 31. Run - God gives leave to all the earth to look into the state of Jerusalem, by which he vindicates himself in the face of the whole world from all severity towards his people, whatever he brings upon them. In the broad places - Even there, where men meet from all quarters. A man - It seems worse than Sodom and Gomorrah, for God condescends to pardon Jerusalem, if there be but one righteous man found in it; there he came no lower than ten. A man might walk the streets of Jerusalem long enough before he could meet with any one truly religious. Executeth - Among the magistracy. Seeketh - Among the commonalty, that deal faithfully and uprightly. Though - Though when they swear, they use the form of an oath, and say, the Lord liveth, or by the living God: yet it is neither in truth nor righteousness. O Lord - Dost not thou approve truth and faithfulness. Grieved - They have not repented. Consumed - God had not only lightly chastised them, but wasted them by several enemies, yet they have profited nothing by it. Poor - The vulgar, that understand but little, of less conscience than the better sort. Judgment - The methods or ways of his providence. But - These are more refractory than the other; no law of God is able to hold them. A lion - Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldean army are here pointed at under the metaphor of beasts of prey of three kinds; compared to a lion, which denotes his great power, courage, and pride. A wolf - For their greediness and unsatiableness. A leopard - The Chaldean army is compared to a leopard, not for its speed only, but for its vigilancy and subtilty. They then - Such is the natural effect of unsanctified prosperity.

Chapter V The destruction of Jerusalem, represented by a sign, the cutting and burning and scattering of hair, ver. 1 - 4. Sin, the cause of this destruction, ver. 5 - 7. Wrath, misery and ruin threatened, ver. 8 - 15. Take - Thus foretel the mourning, reproach, and deformity that are coming, for all this is signified by shaving the head and beard. A third part - Described on the tile, chap.4:1, a type of what should be done in Jerusalem. The days - When the three hundred and ninety days of thy lying against the portrayed city shall be ended. With a knife - To signify them that fall by the sword. Scatter - To typify them that fell to the Chaldeans, or fled to Egypt, or other countries. Take - Of the last third. Bind - As men tied up in the skirt of their garment what they would not lose: to signify the small remnant. Of them - Out of that little remnant. In the fire - For their sin against God, their discontents at their state, and conspiracies against their governor, another fire shall break out which shall devour the most, and be near consuming all the houses of Israel. This is Jerusalem - This portrayed city, is typically Jerusalem. The midst - Jerusalem was set in the midst of the nations, to be as the heart in the body, to invigorate the dead world with a divine life, as well as to enlighten the dark world with a divine light. More - More than the heathen. Multiplied - In idols, superstitions, and wickedness. Neither - You have exceeded them in superstition and idolatry, and fallen short of them in moral virtues. Not done - Though the old world perished by water, and Sodom by fire, yet neither one or other was so lingering a death. Scatter - This was verified when they were fetched away, who were left at the departure of the besiegers, and when the very small remnant with Johanan fled into Egypt. Sanctuary - My temple. Detestable things - Thy idols. Comforted - In executing my vengeance. In my zeal - For my own glory. Taunt - A very proverb among them. Instruction - Sinners shall learn by thy miseries, what they may expect from me. Bereave thee - Of your children, friends, and your own life.

Zidon - A city, north - west from Canaan, a king's seat of old, and from which Tyre descended. I will be glorified - When my judgments make my justice, power and truth appear, both you, and others shall confess my glory. Sanctified - Owned as holy, reverenced as just, obeyed as sovereign. And blood - Bloody war by an enemy, that shall bring the war to the gates, nay into the streets of Zidon. Judged - Be punished in the midst of the city. The sword - By the sword of her enemies. A pricking briar - By these two metaphors the prophet points out the troublesome neighbours of the Jews, such as Moab, Ammon, Edom, Tyre, and Zidon. This never had a full accomplishment yet. But it will, for the scripture cannot be broken. Sanctified - I was dishonoured by the Jews in the sight of the heathen, and I will be honoured by the Jews in their sight.

This doxology proceeds from his heart. Are truth - God is truth essentially: he is the rule and standard of truth, his words are truth, his ways are truth, and they are judgment: he is wise, and hath dealt justly with me for my pride, and in very faithfulness hath afflicted me, and in very tenderness hath restored me; I do, and ever shall adore him for it. Able to abase - As he hath declared upon me, in stupendous changes, which I proclaim to all the world. He had a just controversy with me, and I have no ground to quarrel with him, but to give him glory by this confession. What authority had any one to say, That this man "was no convert" We can no more doubt of his salvation than of Solomon's.

A fourth beast - The Roman empire. Another little horn - Probably either the Turk or the Romish antichrist. The thrones - The kingdoms of this world were destroyed by God the king, and judge of all, called the Ancient of days, because of his eternal deity. Destroyed - This cannot but be meant of the ruin and judgment of antichrist. A son of man - That is, the Messiah, he came with the clouds of heaven, gloriously, swiftly and terribly. And came - This relates to his ascension, at which time, he received his royal investiture, for the protection of his church, and curbing of their enemies. Unto one - That is, to an angel, that ministered. The truth - The true meaning of this vision. But the saints - Jesus Christ being their king, they shall reign with him, and possess the kingdom for ever. And another - This seems to mean the Romish antichrist. Until a time and times - The numbers of Daniel and John seem to agree. Daniel was certainly prophetical in these things, and his prophecy reacheth to the end of times, even of antichrist's reign. Of the matter - Of the vision, and the angel's interpretation.

Then went - Made application. The Assyrian - Particularly to Israel or Pul. Will tear - Divine vengeance by the Assyrians, shall be as a lion tearing his prey.

Amos was cotemporary with Hosea, Joel and Isaiah, and prophesied a little sooner than Isaiah. His name signifies a burden; in allusion to which we may say, that his word was the burden of the LORD. His style is frequently concise and sententious, which makes it somewhat obscure. He brings many reproofs, allusions and arguments from his country - employment. But they are fitted with admirable skill, and beautified with an inimitable eloquence. He begins with threatenings against the neighbouring nations, chap. 1, 2. Then calls Israel to account, for their idolatry, ingratitude and incorrigibleness, chap. 3, 4. He calls them to repentance, chap. 5. Foretells the tribulations that were coming upon them, chap. 6. Some particular judgments, chap. 7. And after other reproofs and threatenings, chap. 8, 9. concludes with a promise of the Messiah, chap. 10.

Chapter II God answers, that the Chaldeans themselves shall at length be a prey, ver. 1 - 8. A woe denounced against the covetous, the oppressive, the drunkards, and idolaters, ver. 9 - 12. Upon my watch - I will stand as a watchman on my watch - tower. He - The Lord. Reproved - Called to give an account of the mysteriousness of providence; either to satisfy doubters, or to silence quarrellers. Upon tables - What was of publick concern, and therefore to be published, was anciently written or engraven upon tables, smooth stones, or wood, and then hung up in a publick place to be read. May run - That none may need to stop, but every one may plainly and clearly discern what is written. At the end - When the period appointed of God shall come. Shall speak - Be accomplished, and not disappoint your expectation. Which is lifted up - That proudly contests with the justice and wisdom of the Divine Providence, and provides for his own safety by his own wit. The just - The humble and upright one, who adores the depth of divine providence, and is persuaded of the truth of divine promises. Shall live - Supports himself, by a firm expectation of the deliverance of Zion. He - The king of Babylon. Wine - Hereby Belshazzar, his city and kingdom of Babylon fell a prey to Darius and Cyrus. At home - Is ever abroad warring upon some or other. Unto him - To his kingdom. All nations - That are round about him. Of the land - Of the whole land of Chaldea. The city - Babylon. To his house - His family which he would enrich, and raise high. Delivered - Kept secure and out of danger from all below him. Thou - Nebuchadnezzar. Shall cry out - As if it had a voice, it cries to God for vengeance. Answer it - Confirm the charge against thee. Is it not of the Lord - Is it not a judgment from God Shall labour - That men go thro' the most painful labour. For very vanity - For nothing; without any reward of their labour. Thou - O king of Babylon. Shall be turned - They turned the cup of pleasure about, God will carry the cup of indignation about also, and make them drink deep of it.

Chapter VIII A promise that Jerusalem shall be restored, ver. 1 - 8. That the whole church shall be established and increased, ver. 9 - 23. Jealousy - With great care that she should not, as formerly, sin against my love, and her own welfare, and with a great desire to do her good, and to rescue her from her enemies. Fury - With heat of anger against her enemies. Shall be called a city of truth - Her citizens shall love the truth and speak it, shall worship me in truth of heart, as well as in the true manner prescribed to them. Old men - Formerly war, or famine or pestilence, and wasting diseases, cut off men and women before they came to old age. Marvellous - These things may seem strange to this people. The east - country - Persia and Media, which lay east from Jerusalem, and were now masters of Babylon. In truth and in righteousness - This signifies both God's part, and their part; on God's part truth, on their's righteousness, obedience to God's righteous law. The prophets - Haggai and Zechariah. Before these days - For eighteen years together. No hire - No profit by the labour of man or beast, no sowing or planting. Affliction - Distress, and want, through the barrenness, which attended all their labour. I will not be - That is, I will not deal with them as in former days. I repented not - I did not fail to do it. So - So with like steadiness of mind I have purposed to do well to you. Judgment of truth - True judgment. Peace - That may restore, and settle peace among you. Gates - The places of judicature, where the judges sat. Thus saith the Lord - This verse is a final decision of the case: provided they do these things required, ver.16, 17, then shall the fasting cease, and turn into joyful feasts. The fourth month - Wherein the city was taken by the Babylonians. The fifth - In which the temple was burnt. The seventh - Wherein Gedaliah was killed. The tenth - On the tenth day whereof the king of Babylon's army sat down before the city. People - Multitudes. I will go also - The invited, shall with as much zeal embrace the motion, as others made it.

Elijah - Namely John the Baptist, who came in the spirit and power of Elijah, Luke 1:17, and therefore bears his name. Before - That is, immediately before; so he was born six months before Christ, and began his preaching a few years before Christ began to exercise his publick office. The great and dreadful day of the Lord - This literally refers to the times of vengeance upon the Jews, from the death of Christ to the final desolation of the city and temple, and by accommodation, to the end of the world. And he - John the Baptist. Shall turn the heart - There were at this time many great and unnatural divisions among the Jews, in which fathers studied mischief to their own children. Of the children - Undutiful children estranged from their fathers. With a curse - Which ends in utter destruction; leaving Jerusalem a desolate heap, and a perpetual monument of God's displeasure. Some observe, that the last word of the Old Testament is a curse: whereas the New Testament ends with a blessing, yea, the choicest of blessings, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with us all! Amen. Dec. 24, 1766.

You are heaping up to yourself wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God. Doubtless, if the Scripture is true, and you remain thus, it had been good for you if you had never been born. 40. Howisit that you call yourselves men of reason? Is reason inconsistent with itself? You are the farthest of all men under the sun from any pretence to that character. A common swearer, a Sabbath-breaker, a whoremonger, a drunkard, who says he believes the Scripture is of God, is a monster upon earth, the greatest contradiction to his own, as well as to the reason of all mankind. In the name of God, (that worthy name whereby you are called, and which you daily cause to be blasphemed,) turn either to the right hand or to the left. Either profess you are an infidel, or be a Christian. Halt no longer thus between two opinions. Either cast off the Bible, or your sins. And, in the mean time, if you have any spark of your boasted reason left, do not “count us your enemies,” (as I fear you have done hitherto, and as thousands do wherever we have declared, “They who do such things shall not inherit eternal life,”) “because we tell you the truth; ” seeing these are not our words, but the words of Him that sent us; yea, though, in doing this, we use “great plainness of speech,” as becomes the ministry we have received. “For we are not as many who corrupt” (cauponize, soften, and thereby adulterate, “the word of God. But as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.” 41. But, it may be, you are none of these. You abstain from all such things. You have an unspotted reputation. You are a man of honour, or a woman of virtue. You scorn to do an unhandsome thing, and are of an unblamable life and conver sation. You are harmless (if I understand you right) and use less from morning to night. You do no hurt,-and no good to any one, no more than a straw floating upon the water. Your life glides smoothly on from year to year; and from one season to another, having no occasion to work, You waste away In gentle inactivity the day. 42.

Or who among them is more ready to be offered up for their flock “upon the sacrifice and service of their faith ?” 74. Will ye say, (as the historian of Catiline,) Si sic pro patrid “If this were done in defence of the Church, and not in order to undermine and destroy it !” That is the very pro position I undertake to prove,--that we are now defending the Church, even the Church of England, in opposition to all those who either secretly undermine or more openly attempt to destroy it. 75. That we are Papists, (we who are daily and hourly preach ing that very doctrine which is so solemnly anathematized by the whole Church of Rome,) is such a charge that I dare not waste my time in industriously confuting it. Let any man of common sense only look on the title-pages of the sermons we have lately preached at Oxford, and he will need nothing moreto show him the weight of this senseless, shameless accusation;- unless he can suppose the Governors both of Christ Church and Lincoln College, nay, and all the University, to be Papists too. 76. You yourself can easily acquit us of this; but not of the other part of the charge. You still think we are secretly undermining, if not openly destroying, the Church. What do you mean by the Church? A visible Church (as our article defines it) is a company of faithful or believing people;--coetus credentium. This is the essence of a Church; and the propertiesthereofare, (as they are described in the words that follow,) “among whom the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered.” Now then, (according to this authentic account,) what is the Church of England? What is it indeed, but the faithful people, the true believers in England? It is true, if these are scattered abroad, they come under another consideration: But when they are visibly joined, by assembling together to hear the pure word of God preached, and to eat of one bread, and drink of one coup, they are then properly the visible Church of England. 77. It were well if this were a little more considered by those who so vehemently cry out, “The Church ! the Church !” (as those of old, “The temple of the Lord!

Do we leave the ordinances of the Church 7 You daily see and know the contrary. Do we leave the fundamental doctrine of the Church, namely, salvation by faith? It is our constant theme, in public, in private, in writing, in conversation. Do we leave the practice of the Church, the standard whereof are the ten commandments? which are so essentially in-wrought in her constitution, (as little as you may apprehend it,) that whosoever breaks one of the least of these is no member of the Church of England. I believe you do not care to put the cause on this issue. Neither do you mean this by leaving the Church. In truth, I cannot conceive what you mean. I doubt you cannot conceive yourself. You have retailed a sentence from somebody else, which you no more understand than he. And no marvel; for it is a true observation, Nonsense is never to be understood. 85. Nearly related to this is that other objection, that we divide the Church. Remember, the Church is the faithful peo ple, or true believers. Now, how do we divide these ? “Why, by our societies.” Very good. Now the case is plain. “We further notice of, this performance; the writer being so utterly unacquainted with the merits of the cause; and showing himself so perfectly a stranger, both to my life, preaching, and writing, and to the word of God, and to the Articles and Homilies of the Church of England. divide them,” you say, “by uniting them together.” Truly, a very uncommon way of dividing. “O, but we divide those who are thus united with each other, from the rest of the Church !” By no means. Many of them were before joined to all their brethren of the Church of England (and many were not, until they knew us) by “assembling themselves together,” to hear the word of God, and to eat of one bread, and drink of one cup. And do they now forsake that assembling themselves together? You cannot, you dare not, say it. You know they are more diligent therein than ever; it being one of the fixed rules of our societies, that every member attend the ordinances of God; that is, do not divide from the Church. And if any member of the Church does thus divide from or leave it, he hath no more place among us.

And yet I allow you this, that although both repent ance and the fruits thereof are in some sense necessary be fore justification, yet neither the one nor the other is neces sary in the same sense, or in the same degree, with faith. Not in the same degree; for in whatever moment a man believes (in the Christian sense of the word) he is justified, his sins are blotted out, “his faith is counted to him for right eousness.” But it is not so at whatever moment he repents, or brings forth any or all the fruits of repentance. Faith alone, therefore, justifies; which repentance alone does not, much less any outward work. And, consequently, none of these are necessary to justification, in the same degree with faith. Nor in the same sense. For none of these has so direct, immediate a relation to justification as faith. This is proxi mately necessary thereto; repentance, remotely, as it is neces sary to the increase or continuance of faith. And even in this sense these are only necessary on supposition,--if there be time and opportunity for them; for in many instances there is not; but God cuts short his work, and faith prevents the fruits of repentance. So that the general proposition is not overthrown, but clearly established by these concessions; and we conclude still, both on the authority of Scripture and the Church, that faith alone is the proximate condition of justification. III. l. Iwasonceinclined to believe that none would openly object against what I had anywhere said of the nature of salva tion. How greatly, then was I surprised some months ago, when I was shown a kind of circular letter, which one of those whom “the Holy Ghost hath made overseers” of his Church,” I was informed, had sent to all the Clergy of his diocese ! Past of it ran (nearly, if not exactly) thus:-- “There is great indiscretion in preaching up a sort of religion, as the true and only Christianity, which, in their own account of it, consists in an enthusiastic ardour, to be understood or attained by very few, and not to be practised without breaking in upon the common duties of life.” O, my Lord, what manner of words are these ! Supposing candour and love out of the question, are they the words of truth?

While we have time, let us do good unto all men; espe cially unto them that are of the household of faith. Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do unto them.” These are my favourite tenets, and have been for many years. O that I could instil them into every soul throughout the land! Ought they not to be instilled with such diligence and zeal, as if the whole of Christianity depended upon them? For who can deny, that all efforts toward a Christian life, without more than a bare belief, without a thorough experience and practice of these, are utterly vain and ineffectual? 8. Part of your Ninth query is to the same effect:-- “A few young heads set up their own schemes as the great standard of Christianity; and indulge their own notions to such a degree, as to perplex, unhinge, terrify, and distract the minds of multitudes of people, who have lived from their infancy under a gospel ministry, and in the regular exercise of a gospel wor ship. And all this, by persuading them that they neither are anor can be true Christians, but by adhering to their doctrines.” What do you mean by their own schemes, their own notions, their doctrines? Are they not yours too? Are they not the schemes, the notisms, the doctrines of Jesus Christ; the great fundamental truths of his gospel? Can you deny one of them without denying the Bible? It is hard for you to kick against the pricks! “They persuade,” you say, “multitudes of people, that. they cannot be true Christians but by adhering to their doc trines.” Why, who says they can? Whosoever he be, I will prove him to be an infidel. Do you say that any man can be a true Christian without loving God and his neighbour? Surely you have not so learned Christ ! It is your doctrine as well as mine, and St.

And “this interpretation also,” it is said, “is confirmed by the authority of Chrysostom, Origen, and other ancient writers.” (P. 33.) With those other “ancient writers” I have no con cern yet. St. Chrysostom so far confirms this interpretation, as to explain that whole phrase “the demonstration of the Spirit and of power,” of “the power of the Spirit shown by miracles.” But he says not one word of any “proof of the Christian religion arising from the types and prophecies of the Old Testament.” Origen has these words:-- “Our word has a certain peculiar demonstration, more divine than the Grecian logical demonstration. This the Apostle terms, ‘the demonstration of the Spirit and of power;” of the Spirit, because of the prophecies, sufficient to convince any one, especially of the things that relate to Christ; of power, because of the miraculous powers, some footsteps of which still remain.” (Vol. i., p. 321.) Hence we may doubtless infer, that Origen judged this text to relate, in its primary sense, to the Apostles; but can we thence infer, that he did not judge it to belong, in a lower sense, to all true Ministers of Christ? Let us hear him speaking for himself in the same treatise: “‘And my speech and my preaching were not with entic ing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” Those who hear the word preached with power are themselves filled with power,” (N.B. not the power of working miracles,) “which they demon strate both in their disposition, and in their life, and in their striving for the truth unto death. But some, although they profess to believe, have not this power of God in them, but are empty thereof.” (P. 377.) (Did Origen, then, believe that the power mentioned in this text belonged only to the apostolical age?) “See the force of the word, conquering believers by a per suasiveness attended with the power of God!

You want nothing; you have a good pro vision for life; and are in a fair way of preferment. And must you leave all, to fight windmills; to convert savages in America?” I could only reply, “Sir, if the Bible is a lie, I am as very a madman as you can conceive. But if it be true, I am in my senses; I am neither a madman nor enthusiast. ‘For there is no man who hath left father, or mother, or wife, or house, or land, for the gospel’s sake; but he shall receive an hundred fold, in this world, with persecutions, and in the world to come, eternal life.’” Nominal, outside Christians too, men of form, may pass the same judgment. For we give up all our pretensions to what they account happiness, for what they (with the Deists) believe to be a mere dream. We expect, therefore, to pass for enthu siasts with these also: “But wisdom is justified of ’’ all “her children.” 32. I cannot conclude this head without one obvious remark: Suppose we really were enthusiasts; suppose our doc trines were false, and unsupported either by reason, Scripture, or authority; then why hath not some one, “who is a wise man, and endued with knowledge among you,” attempted at least to show us our fault “in love and meekness of wisdom ?” Brethren, “if ye have bitter zeal in your hearts, your wisdom descendeth not from above. The wisdom that is from above, is pure, peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy” or pity. Does this spirit appear in one single tract of all those which have been published against us? Is there one writer that has reproved us in love? Bring it to a single point. “Love hopeth all things.” If you had loved usin any degree, you would have hoped that God would some time give us the knowledge of his truth. But where shall we find even this slender instance of love? Has not every one who has wrote at all (I do not remember so much as one exception) treated us as incorrigible? Brethren, how is this? Why do ye labour to teach us an evil lesson against yourselves? O may God never suffer others to deal with you as ye have dealt with us! VI. 1.

Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?” 23. There is one instance more of (I know not what to term it) injustice, oppression, sacrilege, which hath long cried aloud in the ears of God. For among men, who doth hear? I mean the management of many of those who are entrusted with our public charitics. By the pious munificence of our forefathers we have abundance of these of various kinds: But is it not glaringly true, (to touch only on a few generals,) that the managers of many of them either (1.) do not apply the bene faction to that use for which it was designed by the benefactor; or (2.) do not apply it with such care and frugality as in such a case are indispensably required; or (3.) do not apply the whole of the benefaction to any charitable use at all; but secrete part thereof, from time to time, for the use of themselves and their families; or, lastly by plain barefaced oppression, exclude those from having any part in such benefaction, who dare (though with all possible tenderness and respect) set before them the things that they have done? Yet Brutus is an honourable man: So are they all: All honourable men 1 And some of them had in esteem for religion; accounted pat terns both of honesty and piety But God “seeth not as man seeth.” He “shall repay them to their face;” perhaps even in the present world. For that scripture is often still fulfilled: “This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth. I will bring it forth, saith the Lord of Hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief,” (such he is, and no better, in the eyes of God, no whit honester than a highway man,) “and it shall remain in the midst of the house, and shall consume it, with the timber thereof, and the stones thereof.” 24. And is not truth, as well as “justice, fallen in our streets?” For who “speaketh the truth from his heart?” Who is there that makes a conscience of speaking the thing as it is, whenever he speaks at all? Who scruples the telling of offi cious lies? the varying from truth, in order to do good?

the varying from truth, in order to do good? How strange does that saying of the ancient fathers sound in modern ears “I would not tell a lie, no, not to save the souls of the whole world.” Yet is this strictly agreeable to the word of Sod; to that of St. Paul in particular, If any say, “Let us do evil that good may come, their damnation is just.” But how many of us do this evil without ever considering whether good will come or no; speaking what we do not mean, merely out of custom, because it is fashionable so to do ! What an immense quantity of falsehood does this ungodly fashion occasion day by day! for hath it not overrun every part of the nation? How is all our language swoln with compliment; so that a well-bred person is not expected to speak as he thinks; we do not look for it at his hands ! Nay, who would thank him for it? how few would suffer it ! It was said of old, even by a warrior and a King, “He that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight:” But are we not of another mind? Do not we rather say, “He that telleth not lies shall not tarry in my sight?” Indeed the trial seldom comes; for both speakers and hearers are agreed that form and ceremony, flattery and compliment, should take place, and truth be banished from all that know the world. And if the rich and great have so small regard to truth, as to lie even for lying sake, what wonder can it be that men of lower rank will do the same thing for gain? what wonder that it should obtain, as by common consent, in all kinds of buying and selling? Is it not an adjudged case, that it is no harm to tell lies in the way of trade; to say that is the lowest price which is not the lowest; or that you will not take what you do take immediately?

It is scarce possible to describe the outrages they committed; only they left them they plundered alive. While they were plundering John Turner's house, he waded through the brook, to try if he could save some of his goods, which one David Garington was carrying away: Upon which Garington told him, it would be the same here as it was in Ireland; for there would be a massacre very quickly; and he wished it was now. 13. About eleven o’clock, Sarah, the wife of John Sheldon, being told the mob was coming to her house, went and met them at the gate. She asked John Baker, their captain, what they were come for. He answered, if she would have nothing more to do with these people, not a pennyworth of her goods should be hurt. She made no reply. Then they broke the door open, and began breaking and plundering the goods. One coming out with a fire-shovel, she begged him not to take it away. He swore, if she spoke another word, he would beat her brains out. John Sheldon was this while helping Thomas Parkes to hide his goods, though he knew by the noise they were breaking his own to pieces. Between two and three he came to his house with William Sitch. William asked Sarah how she did, saying, for his part, he took joyfully the spoiling of his goods. She an swered, that, seeing so much wickedness, she could not rejoice; but she blessed God she could bear it patiently, and found not the least anger in her. John Sheldon seeing the spoil they had made, smiled and said, “Here is strange work.” His wife told him, if she had complied with their terms, not one pennyworth would have been hurt. He replied, that if she had complied to deny the truth, and he had found his goods whole on that account, he should never have been easy as long as he lived; but he blessed God that she had rather chosen to suffer wrong. I believe every reasonable man will allow, that nothing can possibly excuse these proceedings; seeing they are open, bare faced violations both of justice and mercy, and of all laws divine and human. III. l. I suppose no Protestant will undertake to defend such proceedings, even toward the vilest miscreants.

I suppose no Protestant will undertake to defend such proceedings, even toward the vilest miscreants. But abundance of excuses have been made, if not for opposing it thus, yet for denying this work to be of God, and for not acknowledging the time of our visitation. Some allege that the doctrines of these men are false, errone ous, and enthusiastic; that they are new, and unheard of till of late; that they are Quakerism, fanaticism, Popery. This whole pretence has been already cut up by the roots; t having been shown at large, that every branch of this doc trine is the plain doctrine of Scripture, interpreted by our own Church. Therefore it cannot be either false or erroneous, provided the Scripture be true. Neither can it be enthu siastic, unless the same epithet belongs to our Articles, Homilies, and Liturgy. Nor yet can these doctrines be termed new; no newer, at least, than the reign of Queen Elizabeth; not even with regard to the way of expression, or the manner wherein they are proposed. And as to the sub stance, they are more ancient still; as ancient, not only as the gospel, as the times of Isaiah, or David, or Moses, but as the first revelation of God to man. If, therefore, they were unheard of till of late, in any that is termed a Christian country, the greater guilt is on those who, as ambassadors of Christ, ought to publish them day by day. Fanaticism, if it means anything at all, means the same with enthusiasm, or religious madness, from which (as was observed before) these doctrines are distant as far as the east from the west. However, it is a convenient word to be thrown out upon anything we do not like; because scarce one reader in a thou sand has any idea of what it means. If any part of this doc trine is held by the Quakers, there is the more reason to rejoice. I would to God they held it all, though the doctrine itself would be neither better nor worse for this. Popery in the mouth of many men means just nothing; or, at most, something very horrid and bad. But Popery, pro perly speaking, is the distinguishing doctrines of the Church of Rome. They are summed up in the Twelve Articles which the Council of Trent added to the Nicene Creed.

Not so. The proper way to prove these facts is by the testi mony of competent witnesses; and these witnesses are ready, whenever required, to give full evidence of them. Or, would you have us prove by miracles, (4.) That this was not done by our own power or holiness? that God only is able to raise the dead, those who are dead in trespasses and sins? Nay, if you “hear not Moses and the Prophets” and Apostles, on this head, neither would you believe, “though one rose from the dead.” It is therefore utterly unreasonable and absurd to require or expect the proof of miracles, in questions of such a kind as are always decided by proofs of quite another nature. 29. “But you relate them yourself.” I relate just what I saw, from time to time: And this is true, that some of those circumstances seem to go beyond the ordinary course of nature. But I do not peremptorily determine, whether they were supernatural or no; much less do I rest upon them either the proof of other facts, or of the doctrines which I preach. I prove these in the ordinary way; the one by testimony, the other by Scripture and reason. “But if you can work miracles when you please, is not this the surest way of proving them? This would put the matter out of dispute at once, and supersede all other proof.” You seem to lie under an entire mistake, both as to the nature and use of miracles. It may reasonably be questioned, whether there ever was that man living upon earth, except the man Christ Jesus, that could work miracles when he pleased. God only, when he pleased, exerted that power, and by whomsoever it pleased him. But if a man could work miracles when he pleased, yet there is no Scripture authority, nor even example, for doing it in order to satisfy such a demand as this. I do not read that either our Lord, or any of his Apostles, wrought any miracle on such an occasion.

A Plain Account of the People Called Methodists Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 8 (Zondervan) Year: 1748 Author: John Wesley --- 1. SoME time since, you desired an account of the whole economy of the people commonly called Methodists. And you received a true, (as far as it went,) but not a full, account. To supply what I think was wanting in that, I send you this ac count, that you may know, not only their practice on every head, but likewise the reasons whereon it is grounded, the occasion of every step they have taken, and the advantages reaped thereby. 2. But I must premise, that as they had not the least ex pectation, at first, of anything like what has since followed, so they had no previous design or plan at all; but every thing arose just as the occasion offered. They saw or felt some im pending or pressing evil, or some good end necessary to be pursued. And many times they fell unawares on the very thing which secured the good, or removed the evil. At other times, they consulted on the most probable means, following only common sense and Scripture: Though they generally found, in looking back, something in Christian antiquity like wise, very nearly parallel thereto. I. 1. About ten years ago, my brother and I were desired to preach in many parts of London. We had no view therein, but, so far as we were able, (and we knew God could work by whom soever it pleased him,) to convince those who would hear what true Christianity was, and to persuade them to embrace it. 2.

They are as ready as ever to assist them, and to perform every office of real kindness towards them. (4.) If it be said, “But there are some true Christians in the parish, and you destroy the Christian fellowship between these and them;” I answer, That which never existed, cannot be destroyed. But the fellowship you speak of never existed. Therefore it can- O not be destroyed. Which of those true Christians had any - 2. such fellowship with these? Who watched over them in love? | e * Who marked their growth in grace? Who advised and ex- %- horted them from time to time? Who prayed with them and t for them, as they had need? This, and this alone, is Christian - . fellowship: But, alas! where is it to be found? Look east or west, north or south; name what parish you please: Is this Christian fellowship there? Rather, are not the bulk of the parishioners a mere rope of sand? What Christian connexion is there between them? What intercourse in spiritual things? What watching over each other's souls? What bearing of one another's burdens? What a mere jest is it then, to talk so gravely of destroying what never was ! The real truth is just the reverse of this: We introduce Christian fellowship where it was utterly destroyed. And the fruits of it have been peace, joy, love, and zeal for every good word and work. II. 1. But as much as we endeavoured to watch over each X4. %, other, we soon found some who did not live the gospel. I do not know that any hypocrites were crept in; for indeed there • *, was no temptation: But several grew cold, and gave way to the 2, 4. ** sins which had long easily beset them. We quickly perceived *_* there were many ill consequences of suffering these to remain ‘... among us. It was dangerous to others; inasmuch as all sin is 2 of an infectious nature. It brought such a scandal on their brethren as exposed them to what was not properly the reproach of Christ. It laid a stumbling-block in the way of others, and caused the truth to be evil spoken of. 2. We groaned under these inconveniences long, before a remedy could be found.

These, therefore, wanted some means of closer union; they wanted to pour out their hearts without reserve, particu larly with regard to the sin which did still easily beset them, and the temptations which were most apt to prevail over them. And they were the more desirous of this, when they observed it was the express advice of an inspired writer: “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.” 3. In compliance with their desire, I divided them into smaller companies; putting the married or single men, and married or single women, together. The chief rules of these bands (that is, little companies; so that old English word signifies) run thus: “In order to ‘confess our faults one to another,’ and pray one for another that we may be healed, we intend, (1.) To meet once a week, at the least. (2.) To come punctually at the hour appointed. (3.) To begin with singing or prayer. (4.) To speak each of us in order, freely and plainly, the true state of our soul, with the faults we have committed in thought, word, or deed, and the temptations we have felt since our last meeting. (5.) To desire some person among us (thence called a Leader) to speak his own state first, and then to ask the rest, in order, as many and as searching questions as may be, concerning their state, sins, and temptations.” 4. That their design in meeting might be the more effec tually answered, I desired all the men-bands to meet me to gether every Wednesday evening, and the women on Sunday, that they might receive such particular instructions and ex hortations as, from time to time, might appear to be most need ful for them; that such prayers might be offered up to God, as their necessities should require; and praise returned to the Giver of every good gift, for whatever mercies they had received. 5.

We advise you, (1.) As often as possible to rise at four. (2.) From four to five in the morning, and from five to six in the evening, to meditate, pray, and read, partly the Scripture with the Notes, partly the closely practical parts of what we have published. (3.) From six in the morning till twelve, (allowing an hour for breakfast,) to read in order with much prayer, first, “The Christian Library,” and the other books which we have published in prose and verse, and then those which we recom mended in our Rules of Kingswood School. Q. 30. Should our Helpers follow trades? A. The question is not, whether they may occasionally work with their hands, as St. Paul did, but whether it be proper for them to keep shop or follow merchandise. After long consi deration, it was agreed by all our brethren, that no Preacher who will not relinquish his trade of buying and selling, (though it were only pills, drops, or balsams) shall be considered as a Travelling Preacher any longer. Q. 31. Why is it that the people under our care are no better? A. Other reasons may concur; but the chief is, because we are not more knowing and more holy. Q. 32. But why are we not more knowing? A. Because we are idle. We forget our very first rule, “Be diligent. Never be unemployed a moment. Never be tri flingly employed. Never while away time; neither spend any more time at any place than is strictly necessary.” I fear there is altogether a fault in this matter, and that few of us are clear. Which of you spends as many hours a day in God’s work as you did formerly in man’s work? We talk, --or read history, or what comes next to hand. We must, absolutely must, cure this evil, or betray the cause of God. But how? (1.) Read the most useful books, and that regularly and constantly. Steadily spend all the morning in this employ, or, at least, five hours in four-and-twenty. “But I read only the Bible.” Then you ought to teach others to read only the Bible, and, by parity of reason, to hear only the Bible: But if so, you need preach no more. Just so said George Bell. And what is the fruit? Why, now he neither reads the Bible, nor anything else.

Come, and let us look one another in the face. And perhaps some of you who hate what I am called, may love what I am by the grace of God; or rather, what “I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.” ThE 1. THE distinguishing marks of a Methodist are not his opinions of any sort. His assenting to this or that scheme of religion, his embracing any particular set of notions, his espousing the judgment of one man or of another, are all quite wide of the point. Whosoever, therefore, imagines that a Methodist is a man of such or such an opinion, is grossly ignorant of the whole affair; he mistakes the truth totally. We believe, indeed, that “all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God; ” and herein we are distinguished from Jews, Turks, and Infidels. We believe the written word of God to be the only and sufficient rule both of Christian faith. and practice; and herein we are fundamentally distinguished from those of the Romish Church. We believe Christ to be the eternal, supreme God; and herein we are distinguished from the Socinians and Arians. But as to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think. So that whatsoever they are, whether right or wrong, they are no distinguishing marks of a Methodist. 2. Neither are words or phrases of any sort. We do not place our religion, or any part of it, in being attached to any peculiar mode of speaking, any quaint or uncommon set of expressions. The most obvious, easy, common words, wherein our meaning can be conveyed, we prefer before others, both on ordinary occasions, and when we speak of the things of God. We never, therefore, willingly or designedly, deviate from the most usual way of speaking; unless when we express scripture truths in scripture words, which, we presume, no Christian will condemn. Neither do we affect to use any particular expressions of Scripture more frequently than others, unless they are such as are more frequently used by the inspired writers themselves. So that it is as gross an error, to place the marks of a Methodist in his words, as in opinions of any sort. 3.

“I was not then,” in September, 1738, “assured that the facts were as I supposed.” Therefore, “I did not” then “dare to determine anything.” Be pleased to add the immediately following words: “But from November 1,” 1739, “I saw more and more things which I could not reconcile with the Gospel.”- If you had not omitted these words, you could have had no colour to remark, on my saying, “I did not dare to determine anything:” “No! Not when by conversing among them you saw these things?” No, I did not “dare to determine,” in Sep tember, 1738, from what I saw in November, 1739. “But the facts are of such a nature, that you could not but be assured of them, if they were true.” I cannot think so. “Is not the Count all in all among you? Do not you magnify your own Church too much? Do you not use guile and dissimulation in many cases?” These facts are by no means of such a nature, as that whoever converses (even intimately) among the Mo ravians cannot but be assured of them. “Nor do the questions in your Letter really imply any doubt of their truth.” No! Are not my very words prefixed to those questions?--“Of some other things I stand in doubt. And I wish that, in order to remove those doubts, you would plainly answer, whether the fact be as I suppose.” “But ’’ these questions “are so many appeals to their consciences.” True. “And equivalent to strong assertions.” Utterly false. “If you had not been assured, if you did not dare to determine anything concerning what you saw,” (fifteen months after,) “your writing bare suspicions to a body of men, in such a manner, was inexcu sable.” They were strong presumptions then; which yet I did not write to a body of men, whom I so highly esteemed; no, not even in the tenderest manner, till I was assured they were not groundless. 8. “In a note at the bottom of page 8, you observe, ‘The Band-Society in London began May 1, some time before I set out for Germany.’ Would you insinuate here, that you did not set it up in imitation of the Moravians?” Sir, I will tell you the naked truth.

“In a note at the bottom of page 8, you observe, ‘The Band-Society in London began May 1, some time before I set out for Germany.’ Would you insinuate here, that you did not set it up in imitation of the Moravians?” Sir, I will tell you the naked truth. You had remarked thus: “You took the trouble of a journey to Germany to them; and were so much in love with their methods, that at your return hither, you set up their Bands among your disciples.” (Page 17.) This was an entire mistake; for that society was set up, not only before I returned, but before I set out. And I designed that note to in sinuate this toyou, without telling your mistake to all the world. “I imagined, that, supposing your account of the Moravians true, it would be impossible for any serious Christian to doubt of their being very wicked people.” I know many serious Chris tians who suppose it true, and yet believe they are, in the main, good men. “A much worse character, take the whole body together, cannot be given of a body of men.” Let us try : “Here is a body of men who have not one spark either of justice, mercy, or truth among them; who are lost to all sense of right and wrong; who have neither sobriety, temperance, nor chastity; who are, in general, liars, drunkards, gluttons, thieves, adulterers, murderers.” I cannot but think, that this is a much worse character than that of the Moravians, take it how you will. “Let the reader judge how far you are now able to defend them.” Just as far as I did at first. Still I dare not condemn what is good among them; and I will not excuse what is evil. 9. “The Moravians excel in sweetness of behaviour.” What, though they use guile and dissimulation ?” Yes. “Where is their multitude of errors?’ In your own Journal. I have taken the pains to place them in one view in my Remarks ; the just ness of which, with all your art, you cannot disprove.” You have taken the pains to transcribe many words; all which together amount to this, that they, generally, hold universal salvation, and are partly Antinomians, (in opinion,) partly Quietists. The justness of some of your remarks, if I mistake not, has been pretty fully disproved.

I desire leave to cite part of that passage again, that we may come as near each other as possible. I would just subjoin a few words on each head, which I hope may remove more difficulties out of the way:-- “That justification, whereof our Articles and Homilie speak, means present pardon, and acceptance with God; who therein ‘declares his righteousness, or mercy, “by” or ‘for the remission of sins that are past.’” I say, past : For I cannot find anything in the Bible of the remission of sins, past, present, and to come. “I believe the condition of this is faith; I mean, not only that without faith we cannot be justified, but also, that, as soon as any one has true faith, in that moment he is justified.” You take the word condition in the former sense only, as that without which we cannot be justified. In this sense of the word, I think we may allow, that there are several conditions of justification. “Good works follow this faith, but cannot go before it. Much less can sanctification; which implies a continued course of good works, springing from holiness of heart.” Yet such a course is, without doubt, absolutely necessary to our continuance in a state of justification. “It is allowed, that repentance and “fruits meet for repent ance’ go before faith. Repentance absolutely must go before faith; fruits meet for it, if there be opportunity. By repentance I mean conviction of sin, producing real desires and sincere resolutions of amendment; and by “fruits meet for repentance,’ forgiving our brother, ceasing from evil, doing good, using the ordinances of God, and, in general, obeying him according to the measureof grace which we have received. But these I cannot as yet term good works, because they do not spring from faith and the love of God.” Although the same works are then good, when they are performed by “those who have believed.” “Faith, in general, is a divine supernatural exeyxos (evidence or conviction) of things not seen, not discoverable by our bodily senses, as being either past, future, or spiritual. Justifying faith implies not only a divine exeyxos, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, but a sure trust and confidence that Christ died for my sins, that he loved me, and gave himself for me.

This was free in him, because undeserved by us; undeserved, because we had trans gressed his law, and could not, nor even can now, perfectly fulfil it. “(2.) We cannot, therefore, be justified by our works; be cause this would be, to be justified by some merit of our own. Much less can we be justified by an external show of religion, or by any superstitious observances. “(3.) The life and death of our Lord is the sole merito rious cause of this mercy, which must be firmly believed and trusted in by us. Our faith therefore in him, though not more meritorious than any other of our actions, yet has a nearer relation to the promises of pardon through him, and is the mean and instrument whereby we embrace and receive them. “(4.) True faith must be lively and productive of good works, which are its proper fruits, the marks whereby it is known. “(5.) Works really good are such as are commanded by God, (springing from faith,) done by the aid of his Holy. Spirit, with good designs, and to good ends. These may be considered as internal or external. “(6.) The inward ones, such as hope, trust, fear, and love of God and our neighbour, (which may be more properly termed good dispositions, and [are branches of] sanctification,) must always be joined with faith, and consequently be condi tions present in justification, though they are not the means or instruments of receiving it. “(7.) The outward,” (which are more properly termed good works,) “though there be no immediate opportunity of prac tising them, and therefore a sincere desire and resolution to perform them be sufficient for the present; yet must follow after as soon as occasion offers, and will then be necessary conditions of preserving our justification. “(8.) There is a justification conveyed to us in our baptism, or, properly, this state is then begun. But, should we fall into sins, we cannot regain it without true faith and repent ance, which implies (as its fruits) a forsaking of our sins, and amendment of our whole life.” I have only one circumstance farther to add, namely, that I am not newly convinced of these things. For this is the doc trine which I have continually taught for eight or nine years last past; only, I abstained from the word condition, perhaps more scrupulously than was needful. 4.

Simpson were induced to leave it by reasons of quite another kind. You add, “We cannot wonder that some Methodists have withdrawn from her, while they have been used to hear doc trines which they must have been sensible have no place in her Articles and Service.” So far from it, that all I know of them are deeply sensible, the “doctrines they have been used to hear” daily, are no other than the genuine doctrines of the Church, as expressed both in her Articles and Service. 2. But our present question turns not on doctrine but dis cipline. “My first business,” you say, “is to consider some very lax notions of Church communion which I find in your last Journal. Vol.I. p.262, you say, “Our Twentieth Article defines a true Church, a congregation of faithful people, wherein the true word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly admi nistered.” (Page 3.) The use I would willingly make of this definition, (which, observe, is not mine, be it good or bad,) is to stop the boasting of ungodly men, by cutting off their pre tence to call themselves of the Church. But you think they may call themselves so still. Then let them. I will not con tend about it. But you cannot infer from hence, that my notions of Church communion are either lax or otherwise. The definition which I occasionally cite shows nothing of my sentiments on that head. And for anything which occurs in this page, they may be strict or loose, right or wrong. You add, “It will be requisite, in order to approve yourself a Minister of our Church, that you follow her rules and orders; that you constantly conform to the method of worship she has prescribed, and study to promote her peace.” (Page 5.) All this is good and fit to be done. But it properly belongs to the following question: “What led you into such very loose notions of Church com munion, I imagine, might be, your being conscious to yourself, that, according to the strict, just, account of the Church of England, you could not, with any grace, maintain your pre tensions to belong still to her.” Sir, I have never told you yet what my notions of Church communion are. They may be wrong, or they may be right, for all you know.

Whoever is a Minister at all is a Minister of some particular Church. Neither can he cease to be a Minister of that Church, till he is cast out of it by a judicial sentence. Till, therefore, I am so cast out, (which I trust will never be,) I must style myself a Minister of the Church of England. 6. Your next objection is, “You not only erect Bands, which, after the Moravians, you call the United Society, but also give out tickets to those that continue therein.” These Bands, you think, “have had very bad consequences, as was to be expected, when weak people are made leaders of their brethren, and are set upon expounding Scripture.” (Ibid.) You are in some mistakes here. For, (1.) The Bands are not called the United Society.(2.) The United Society was originally so called, not after the Moravians, but because it consisted of several smaller societies united together. (3.) Neither the Bands nor the leaders of them, as such, are “set upon expounding Scripture.” (4.) The good consequences of their meeting together in Bands, I know; but the very bad consequences, I know not. When any members of these, or of the United Society, are proved to live in known sin, we then mark and avoid them; we separate ourselves from every one that walks disorderly. Some times, if the case be judged infectious, (though rarely,) this is openly declared. And this you style “excommunication;” and say, “Does not every one see a separate ecclesiastical society or communion?” (Page 13.) No. This society does not sepa rate from the communion of the rest of the Church of England. They continue steadfastly with them, both “in the apostolical doctrine, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.” (Which neither Mr. St-- nor Mr. Simpson does, nor the gentleman who writes to you in favour of the Moravians, who also writes pressingly to me to separate myself from the Church.) A society “over which you had appointed yourself a governor.” No: so far as I governed them, it was at their own entreaty. “And took upon you all the spiritual authority which the very highest Church Governor could claim.” What! at Kings wood, in February, 1740-1? Not so. I took upon me no other authority (then and there at least) than any Steward of a society exerts by the consent of the other members.

I took upon me no other authority (then and there at least) than any Steward of a society exerts by the consent of the other members. I did neither more nor less than declare, that they who had broken our rules were no longer of our society. “Can you pretend that you received this authority from our Church?” Not by ordination; for I did not exert it as a Priest; but as one whom that society had voluntarily chosen to be at the head of them. “Or that you exercised it in sub jection or subordination to her lawful Governors?” I think so; I am sure I did not exercise it in any designed opposition to them. “Did you ever think proper to consult or advise with them, about fixing the terms of your communion?” If you mean, about fixing the rules of admitting or excluding from our society, I never did think it either needful or proper. Nor do I at this day. “How then will you vindicate all these powers?” All these are, “declaring those are no longer of our society.” “Here is a manifest congregation. Either it belonged to the Church of England, or not. If it did not, you set up a separate commu nion against her. And how then are you injured, in being thought to have withdrawn from her?” I have nothing to do with this. The antecedent is false: Therefore the consequent falls of course. “If it did belong to the Church, show where the Church gave you such authority of controlling and regulating it?” Authority of putting disorderly members out of that society? The society itself gave me that autho rity. “What private Clergyman can plead her commission to be thus a Judge and Ordinary, even in his own parish?” Any Clergyman or layman, without pleading her commis sion, may be thus a Judge and Ordinary. “Are not these powers inherent in her Governors, and committed to the higher order of her Clergy?” No; not the power of ex cluding members from a private society, -unless on supposi tion of some such rule as ours is, viz., “That if any man sepa rate from the Church, he is no longer a member of our society.” 7. But you have more proof yet: “The Grand Jury in Georgia found, that you had called yourself Ordinary of Savan nah.

pp. 163, 165,) it is particularly mentioned, that “I was troubled;” and that, by the seasonable application of those scriptures, that trouble was entirely removed. The same bless ing I received (so I must term it still) from the words set down in page 231; and in a yet higher degree, from that exceeding apposite scripture mentioned in Vol. I. page 307. I observe, (3.) That at the times to which your other cita tions refer, I was utterly uncertain how to act in points of great importance, and such as required a speedy determination; and that, by this means, my uncertainty was removed, and I went on my way rejoicing. (Vol. I. pp. 163, 165, 264.) My own experience, therefore, which you think should dis courage me for the future from anything of this kind, does, on the contrary, greatly encourage me herein; since I have found much benefit, and no inconvenience; unless, perhaps, this be one, that you “cannot acquit me of enthusiasm;” add, if you please, and presumption. But you ask, “Has God ever commanded us to do thus?” I believe he has neither commanded nor forbidden it in Scripture. But then remember, “that Scripture” (to use the words which you cite from “our learned and judicious Hooker”) “is not the only rule of all things, which, in this life, may be done by men.” All I affirm concerning this is, that it may be done; and that I have, in fact, received assistance and direction thereby. 4. I give the same answer to your assertion, that we are not ordered in Scripture to decide any points in question by lots. (Remarks, p. 123.) You allow, indeed, there are instances of this in Scripture; but affirm, “These were miraculous; nor can we, without presumption,” (a species of enthusiasm,) “apply this method.” I want proof of this: Bring one plain text of Scrip ture, and I am satisfied. “This, I apprehend, you learned from the Moravians.” I did; though, it is true, Mr. White field thought I went too far therein. “Instances of the same occur in your Journals. I will mention only one. It being debated, when you should go to Bristol, you say, ‘We at length all agreed to decide it by lot. And by this it was determined I should go.” (Vol. I. p.

Did he not work “real and undoubted miracles?” And what was the effect? Still, when “he came to his own, his own received him not.” Still “he was despised and rejected of men.” Still it was a challenge not to be answered: “Have any of the rulers or of the Phari sees believed on him?” After this, how can you imagine, that whoever works miracles must convince “all men of the truth of his pretences?” I would just remind you of only one instance more: “There sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked. The same heard Paul speak; who steadfastly beholding him, and perceiv ing that he had faith to be healed, said, with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.” Here was so undoubted a miracle, that the people “lifted up their voices, saying, The Gods are come down in the likeness of men.” But how long were even these convinced of the truth of his pretences? Only till “there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium;’ and then they stoned him (as they supposed) to death ! (Acts xiv. 8, &c.) So certain it is, that no miracles whatever, which were ever yet wrought in the world, were effectual to prove the most glaring truth, to those that hardened their hearts against it. 4. And it will equally hold in every age and nation. “If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be’” con vinced of what they desire not to believe, “though one rose from the dead.” Without a miracle, without one rising from the dead, eav tis 6exy to 6exmua avtov Troueuv, “if any man be willing to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God.” But if he is not willing to do his will, he will never want an excuse, a plausible reason, for rejecting it. Yea, though ever so many miracles were wrought to confirm it.

8. To sum up this: No truly wise or sober man can possibly desire or expect miracles to prove either, (1.) That these doc trines are true;--this must be decided by Scripture and reason; or, (2.) That these facts are true;--this can only be proved by testimony; or, (3.) That to change sinners from darkness to light, is the work of God alone; only using what instruments he pleases;-- this is glaringly self-evident; or, (4.) That such a change wrought in so many notorious sinners, within so short a time, is a great and extraordinary work of God: this also carries its own evidence. What then is it which remains to be proved by miracles? Perhaps you will say, It is this: “That God hath called or sent you to do this.” Nay, this is implied in the third of the foregoing propositions. If God has actually used us therein, if his work hath in fact prospered in our hands, then he hath called or sent us to do this. I entreat reasonable men to weigh this thoroughly, whether the fact does not plainly prove the call; whether He who enables us thus to save souls alive, does not commission us so to do; whether, by giving us power to pluck these brands out of the burning, He does not authorize us to exert it? O that it were possible for you to consider calmly, whether the success of the gospel of Jesus Christ, even as it is preached by us, the least of his servants, be not itself a miracle, never to be forgotten one which cannot be denied, as being visible at this day, not in one, but a hundred places; one which cannot be accounted for by the ordinary course of any natural cause whatsoever; one which cannot be ascribed, with any colour of reason, to diabolical agency; and, lastly, one which will bear the infallible test,-the trial of the written word. VI. 1. But here I am aware of abundance of objections. You object, That to speak anything of myself, of what I have done, or am doing now, is mere boasting and vanity. This charge you frequently repeat. So, p. 102: “The following page is full of boasting.” “You boast very much of the numbers you have converted;” (p.

I expressly specify whom I design: “Ye who tell the mourners in Zion, Much religion hath made you mad.” You say, (5) (with a N. B.,) “All the Clergy who differ from you, you style so, page 225; in which, and the foregoing page, you causelessly slander them as speaking of their own holiness as that for the sake of which, on account of which, we are justi fied before God.”- Let any serious person read over those pages. I therein slander no man: I speak what I know; what I have both heard and read. The men are alive, and the books are extant. And the same conclusion I now defend, touching that part of the Clergy who preach or write thus; viz., if they preach the truth as it is in Jesus, I am found a false witness before God. But if I preach the way of God in truth, then they are blind leaders of the blind. (6.) You quote those words, “Nor can I be said to intrude into the labours of those who do not labour at all, but suffer thousands of those for whom Christ died to perish for lack of knowledge.” (Vol. I. p. 214.) I wrote that letter near Kingswood. I would to God the observation were not terribly true! (7.) The first passage you cite from the “Earn est Appeal,” (pages 25, 26) evidently relates to a few only among the Clergy; and if the charge be true but of one in five hundred, it abundantly supports my reasoning. (8.) In the next, (Ibid. page 30,) I address all those, and those only, who affirm that I preach for gain. You conclude: “The reader has now before him the manner in which you have been pleased to treat the Clergy; and your late sermon is too fresh an instance of the like usage of the Universities.” (Second Letter, p. 107.) It is an instance of speaking the truth in love. So I desire all mankind may use me. Nor could I have said less either to the University or the Clergy without sinning against God and my own soul. 11. But I must explain myself a little on that practice which you so often term “abusing the Clergy.” I have many times great sorrow and heaviness in my heart on account of these my brethren.

Your humilia tion has no influence on that.” Not as a cause; so the very last words explain it. “Again, I believe that in order to obtain justification, I must go straight to Christ, with all my ungodliness, and plead nothing else.” “Yet I believe we should not insist on anything we door feel, as if it were necessary previous to justification.” No, nor on anything else. So the whole tenor of Christian David’s words implies. 27. “I believe a man may have a strong assurance he is jus tified, and not be able to affirm he is a child of God.” Feder’s words are these: “I found my heart at rest, in good hope that mysins were forgiven; of which I had a stronger assur ance six weeks after.” (True, comparatively stronger, though still mixed with doubt and fear.) “But I dare not affirm, I am a child of God.” I see no inconsistency in all this. Many such instances I know at this day. I myself was one for some time. “A man may be fully assured that his sins are forgiven, yet may not be able to tell the day when he received this full assur ance; because it grew up in him by degrees.” (Of this also I know a few other instances.) “But from the time this full assurance was confirmed in him, he never lost it.” Very true, and, I think, consistent. Neuser's own words are, “In him I found true rest to my soul, being fully assured that all my sins were forgiven. Yet I cannot tell the hour or day when I first received that full assurance. For it was not given me at first, neither at once;” (not in its fulness;) “but grew up in me by degrees. And from the time it was confirmed in me, I have never lost it, having never since doubted, no, not for a moment.” “A man may have a weak faith, at the same time that he has peace with God, and no unholy desires.” A man may be justified, who has not a clean heart. 28. (11.) Not in the full sense of the word. This I doverily believe is sound divinity, agreeable both to Scripture and ex perience. And I believe it is consistent with itself.

Against that part of the fourth proposition, “Faith is a sure trust which a man hath, that Christ loved him and died for him,” you object, “This definition is absurd; as it sup poses that such a sure trust can be in one who does not repent of his sins.” (Page 48.) I suppose quite the contrary, as I have declared over and over; nor, therefore, is there any such danger as you apprehend. But you say, “There is nothing distinguishing enough in this to point out the true justifying faith.” (Ibid.) I grant it; supposing a man were to write a book, and say this of it, and no more. But did you ever see any treatise of mine, wherein I said this of faith, and no more? nothing whereby to distin guish true faith from false? Touching this Journal, your own quotations prove the contrary. Yea, and I everywhere insist, that we are to distinguish them by their fruits, by inward and outward righteousness, by the peace of God filling and ruling the heart, and by patient, active joy in the Holy Ghost. You conclude this point: “I have now, Sir, examined at. large your account of justification; and, I hope, fully refuted the several articles in which you have comprised it.” (Page 49.) We differ in our judgment. I do not apprehend you have refuted any one proposition of the four. You have, indeed, amended the second, by adding the word meritorious ; for which I give you thanks. 11. You next give what you style, “the Christian scheme of justification;” (page 50;) and afterwards point out the consequences which you apprehend to have attended the preaching justification by faith; the Third point into which I was to inquire. You open the cause thus: “The denying the necessity of good works, as the condition of justification, directly draws after it, or rather includes in it, all manner of impiety and vice. It has often perplexed and disturbed the minds of men, and in the last century occasioned great confusions in this nation. These are points which are ever liable to misconstructions, and have ever yet been more or less attended with them.

But “complaints,” you say, “of their errors, come very ill from you, because you have occasioned them.” Nay, if it were so, for that very cause they ought to come from me. If I had occasioned an evil, surely I am the very person who ought to remove it as far as I can; to recover, if possible, those who are hurt already, and to caution others against it. 14. On some of those complaints, as you term them, you remark as follows:- “Many of those who once knew in whom they had believed” (these are my words) “were thrown into idle reasonings, and thereby filled with doubts and fears.” (Page 13.) “This,” you add, “it is to be feared, has been too much the case of the Methodists in general.--Accordingly we find, in this Journal, several instances, not barely of doubts and fears, but of the most desperate despair. This is the conse quence of resting so much on sensible impressions.--Bad men may be led into presumption thereby; an instance of which you give, Vol. I. p. 295.” That instance will come in our way again: “Many of those who once knew in whom they had believed were thrown,” by the Antinomians, “into idle reasonings, and thereby filled with doubts and fears. This,” you fear, “has been the case with the Methodists in general.” You must mean, (to make it a parallel case,) that the generality of the people now termed Methodists were true believers till they heard us preach, but were thereby thrown into idle reasonings, and filled with needless doubts and fears. Exactly contrary to truth in every particular. For, (1) They lived in open sins till they heard us preach, and, consequently, were no better believers than their father the devil. (2.) They were not then thrown into idle reasonings, but into serious thought how to flee from the wrath to come. Nor, (3) Were they filled with needless doubts and fears, but with such as were needful in the highest degree, such as actually issued in repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. “Accordingly, we find in this Journal several instances of the most desperate despair. (Ibid. pp. 261, 272,294.)” Then I am greatly mistaken.

16. You proceed: “Kingswood you call your own house: And when one Mr. C. opposed you there, you reply to him, ‘You should not have supplanted me in my own house, stealing the hearts of the people. The parochial Clergy may call their several districts their own houses, with much more propriety than you could call Kingswood yours. And yet how have you supplanted them therein, and laboured to steal the hearts of the people ! You have suffered by the same ways you took to dis charge your spleen and malice against your brethren. “Your brother’s words to Mr. C. are,--“Whether his doctrine is true or false, is not the question. But you ought first to have fairly told him, I preach contrary to you. Are you willing, notwithstanding, that I should continue in your house, gain saying you ? Shall I stay here opposing you, or shall I depart 2' Think you hear this spoken to you by us. What can you justly reply?--Again, if Mr. C. had said thus to you, and you had refused him leave to stay; I ask you, whether in such a case he would have had reason to resent such a refusal? I think you cannot say he would. And yet how loudly have you objected our refusing our pulpits to you!” (Remarks, page 15.) So you judge these to be exactly parallel cases. It lies therefore upon me to show that they are not parallel at all; that there is, in many respects, an essential difference between them. (1) “Kingswood you call your own house.” So I do, that is, the school-house there. For I bought the ground where it stands, and paid for the building it, partly from the contribution of my friends, (one of whom contributed fifty pounds,) partly * Wol. I. pp. 300, 301, and 305, of the present Edition.--EDIT. + For the purpose of exciting ill-will.-EDIT. from the income of my own Fellowship. No Clergyman therefore can call his parish his own house with more pro priety than I can call this house mine. (2) “Mr. C. opposed you there.” True; but who was Mr. C.? One I had sent for to assist me there; a friend that was as my own soul; that, even while he opposed me, lay in my bosom. What resemblance then does Mr.

p. 283.) Do I say here, that “we ought not in the strongest pain once to desire to have a moment's ease?” What a frightful distortion of my words is this ! What I say is, “A serious person affirmed to me, that God kept her for two days in such a state.” And why not? Where is the absurdity? “At the end of one of your hymns, you seem to carry this notion to the very height of extravagancy and presumption. You say, “Doom, if thou canst, to endless pains, And drive me from thy face.” If thou canst; that is, if thou canst deny thyself, if thou canst forget to be gracious, if thou canst cease to be truth and love. So the lines both preceding and following fix the sense. I see nothing of stoical insensibility, neither of extravagancy or presumption, in this. 5. Your last charge is, that I am guilty of enthusiasm to the highest degree. “Enthusiasm,” you say, “is a false persuasion of an extraordinary divine assistance, which leads men on to such conduct as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance. An enthusiast is, then, sincere, but mistaken. His intentions are good, but his actions most abominable. Instead of making the word of God the rule of his actions, he follows only that secret impulse which is owing to a warm imagination. Instead of judging of his spiritual estate by the improvement of his heart, he rests only on ecstasies, &c. He is very liable to err, as not considering things coolly and carefully. He is very difficult to be convinced by reason and argument, as he acts upon a supposed principle superior to it, the directions of God’s Spirit. Whoever opposes him is charged with resist ing the Spirit. His own dreams must be regarded as oracles. Whatever he does is to be accounted the work of God. Hence he talks in the style of inspired persons; and applies Scripture phrases to himself, without attending to their original mean ing, or once considering the difference of times and circum stances.” (Remarks, pp. 60, 61.) You have drawn, Sir, (in the main,) a true picture of an enthusiast. But it is no more like me, than I am like a centaur.

But it is no more like me, than I am like a centaur. Yet you say, “They are these very things which have been charged upon you, and which you could never yet disprove.” I will try for once; and, to that end, will go over these articles one by one. “Enthusiasm is a false persuasion of an extraordinary divine assistance, which leads men on to such conduct as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance.” Before this touches me, you are to prove, (which, I conceive, you have not done yet,) that my conduct is such as is only to be justified by the supposition of an extraordinary divine assistance. “An enthusiast is, then, sincere, but mistaken.” That I am mis taken, remains also to be proved. “His intentions are good; but his actions most abominable.” Sometimes they are; yet not always. For there may be innocent madmen. But, what actions of mine are most abominable? I wait to learn. “Instead of making the word of God the rule of his actions, he follows only his secret impulse.” In the whole compass of language, there is not a proposition which less belongs to me than this. I have declared again and again, that I make the word of God the rule of all my actions; and that I no more follow any secret impulse instead thereof, than I follow Mahomet or Confucius. Not even a word or look Do I approve or own, But by the model of thy book, Thy sacred book alone. “Instead of judging of his spiritual estate by the improve ment of his heart, he rests only on ecstasies.” Neither is this my case. I rest not on them at all. Nor did I ever experience any. I do judge of my spiritual estate by the improvement of my heart and the tenor of my life conjointly. “He is very liable to err.” So indeed I am. I find it every day more and more. But I do not yet find, that this is owing to my want of “considering things coolly and carefully.” Perhaps you do not know many persons (excuse my simplicity in speaking it) who more carefully consider every step they take. Yet I know I am not cool or careful enough. May God supply this and all my wants!

“Again, you mention, “as an awful providence, the case of a poor wretch, who was last week cursing and blaspheming, and had boasted to many that he would come again on Sunday, and no man should stop his mouth then.” His mouth was stopped before, in the midst of the most horrid blasphemies, by asking him, if he was stronger than God. “‘But on Friday, God laid his hand upon him, and on Sunday he was buried.” I do look on this asamanifest judgment of God on a hardened sinner, for his complicated wickedness. “Again, “one being just going to beat his wife, (which he frequently did,) God smote him in a moment; so that his hand dropped, and he fell down upon the ground, having no more strength than a new-born child.” (Page 67.) And can you, Sir, consider this as one of the common dispensations of Providence? Have you known a parallel one in your life? But it was never cited by me, as it is by you, as an immediate punishment on a man for opposing me. You have no authority, from any sentence or word of mine, for putting such a construction upon it; no more than you have for that strange intimation, (how remote both from jus tice and charity 1) that “I parallel these cases with those of Amanias and Sapphira, or of Elymas the sorcerer !” 10. You proceed to what you account a fifth instance of enthusiasm: “With regard to people’s falling in fits, it is plain, you look upon both the disorders and removals of them to be supernatural.” (Remarks, pp. 68, 69.) It is not quite plain. I look upon some of these cases as wholly natural; on the rest as mixed, both the disorder and the removal being partly natural and partly not. Six of these you pick out from, it may be, two hundred; and add, “From all which, you leave no room to doubt, that you would have these cases considered as those of the demoniacs in the New Testament; in order, I suppose, to parallel your supposed cures of them with the highest miracles of Christ and his disciples.” I should once have wondered at your making such a supposition; but I now wonder at nothing of this kind.

For you had before you, while you wrote, the very tract wherein I corrected Mr. Bedford’s mistake, and explicitly declared, “The assurance whereof I speak is not an assurance of salva tion.” And the very passages you cite from me prove the same; every one of which (as you yourself know in your own conscience) relates wholly and solely to present pardon, not to future salvation. Of Christian perfection (page 45) I shall not say anything to you, till you have learned a little heathen honesty. 22. That this is a lesson you have not yet learned, appears, also, from your following section; wherein you roundly affirm, “Whatever they think, say, or do,” (that is, the Methodists, according to their own account,) “is from God. And whatever opposeth is from the devil.” I doubt not but Mr. Church believed this to be true when he asserted it. But this is no plea for you; who, having read the answer to Mr. Church, still assert what you know to be false. “Here we have,” say you, “the true spirit and very essence of enthusiasm, which sets men above carnal reason ing, and all conviction of plain Scripture.” (Page 49.) It may, or may not; that is nothing to me. I am not above either reason or Scripture. To either of these I am ready to submit. But I cannot receive scurrilous invective, instead of Scripture; nor pay the same regard to low buffoonery, as to clear and cogent reasons. 23. With your two following pages I have nothing to do. But in the fifty-second I read as follows: “‘A Methodist,’ says Mr. Wesley, ‘went to receive the sacrament; when God was pleased to let him see a crucified Saviour.” Very well; and what is this brought to prove? Why, (1.) That I am an enthusiast: (2.) That I “encourage the notion of the real, corporal presence, in the sacrifice of the mass.” How so? Why, “this is as good an argument for transubstantiation as several produced by Bellarmine.” (Page 57.) Very likely it may; and as good as several produced by you for the enthusiasm of the Methodists. 24. In that “seraphic rhapsody of divine love,” as you term it, which you condemn in the lump, as rant and mad Aness, there are several scriptural expressions, both from the Old and New Testament.

But if you only mean, he has no authority to take fees, I contend not; for he takes none at all. 11. Nay, and I am afraid it will hold, on the other hand, Medicus non est qui non medetur; I am afraid, if we use propriety of speech, “he is no Physician who works no cure.” 12. “O, but he has taken his degree of Doctor of Physic, and therefore has authority.” Authority to do what? “Why, to heal all the sick that will employ him.” But (to wave the case of those who will not employ him; and would you have even their lives thrown away?) he does not heal those that do employ him. He that was sick before, is sick still; or else he is gone hence, and is Ino more Seen. Therefore, his authority is not worth a rush; for it serves not the end for which it was given. 13. And surely he has no authority to kill them, by hinder ing another from saving their lives! 14. If he either attempts or desires to hinder him, if he con demns or dislikes him for it, it is plain to all thinking men, he regards his own fees more than the lives of his patients. II. Now to apply: 1. Seeing life everlasting, and holiness, or health of soul, are things of so great importance, it is highly expedient that Ministers, being Physicians of the soul, should have all advantages of education and learning. 2. That full trial should be made of them in all respects, and that by the most competent judges, before they enter on the public exercise of their office, the saving souls from death. 3. That after such trial, they be authorized to exercise that office by those who are empowered to convey that authority. (I believe Bishops are empowered to do this, and have been so from the apostolic age.) 4. And that those whose souls they save ought, meantime, to provide them what is needful for the body. 5. But suppose a gentleman bred at the University in Dublin, with all the advantages of education, after he has undergone the usual trials, and been regularly authorized to save souls from death: 6.

But suppose a gentleman bred at the University in Dublin, with all the advantages of education, after he has undergone the usual trials, and been regularly authorized to save souls from death: 6. Suppose, I say, this Minister settles at , for some years, and yet saves no soul at all, saves no sinners from their sins; but after he has preached all this time to five or six hundred persons, cannot show that he has converted one from the error of his ways; many of his parishioners dying as they lived, and the rest remaining just as they were before he Came : 7. Will you condemn a man, who, having compassion on dying souls, and some knowledge of the gospel of Christ, with out any temporal reward, saves them from their sins whom the Minister could not save? 8. At least did not; nor ever was likely to do it; for he did not go to them, and they would not come to him. 9. Will you condemn such a Preacher because he has not earning, or has not had an University education? What then? He saves those sinners from their sins whom the man of learning and education cannot save. A peasant being brought before the College of Physicians, at Paris, a learned Doctor accosted him, “What, friend, do you pretend to prescribe to people that have agues? Dost thou know what an ague is?” He replied, “Yes, Sir; an ague is what I can cure, and you cannot.” 10. Will you object, “But he is no Minister, nor has any authority to save souls?” I must beg leave to dissent from you in this. I think he is a true, evangelical Minister, 8vakovos, “servant” of Christ and his Church, who ovro Buakovet, “ so ministers,” as to save souls from death, to reclaim sinners from their sins; and that every Christian, if he is able to do it, has authority to save a dying soul. But if you only mean, “He has no authority to take tithes,” I grant it. He takes none: As he has freely received, so he freely gives. 11.

11. But, to carry the matter a little farther: I am afraidi wi: hold, on the other hand, with regard to the soul as well as the body, Medicus non est qui non medetur.” I am afraid, reasonable men will be much inclined to think, he that saves no souls is no Minister of Christ. 12. “O, but he is ordained, and therefore has authority.” Authority to do what? “To save all the souls that will put themselves under his care.” True; but (to wave the case of them that will not; and would you desire that even those should perish?) he does not, in fact, save them that are under his care: Therefore, what end does his authority serve? IIe that was a drunkard is a drunkard still. The same is true of the Sabbath-breaker, the thief, the common swearer. This is the best of the case; for many have died in their iniquity, and their blood will God require at the watchman’s hand. 13. For surely he has no authority to murder souls, either by his neglect, by his smooth, if not false, doctrine, or by 'hindering another from plucking them out of the fire, and bringing them to life everlasting. 14. If he either attempts or desires to hinder him, if he condemns or is displeased with him for it, how great reason is there to fear that he regards his own profit more than the salvation of souls ! I am, Reverend Sir, Your affectionate brother,

2. If by “righteousness” be meant “the con duct of the whole to particulars,” then it cannot consist in the gentleness of Church authority; unless Church Govern ors are the whole Church, or the Parliament the whole nation. 3. If by “truth” be meant “the conduct of the whole, and of particulars to one another,” then it cannot possibly con sist in orthodoxy or right opinion. For opinion, right or wrong, is not conduct: They differ toto genere. If, then, it be orthodoxy, it is not “the conduct of the governors and governed toward each other.” If it be their conduct toward each other, it is not orthodoxy. Although, therefore, it be allowed that right opinions are a great help, and wrong opinions a great hinderance, to reli gion, yet, till stronger proof be brought against it, that pro position remains unshaken, “Right opinions are a slender part of religion, if any part of it at all.” (Page 160.) “(As to the affair of Abbé Paris, whoever will read over with calmness and impartiality but one volume of Monsieur Mont geron, will then be a competent judge. Meantime I would just observe, that if these miracles were real, they strike at the root of the whole Papal authority; as having been wrought in direct opposition to the famous Bull Unigenitus.)” (Page 161.) Yet I do not say, “Errors in faith have little to do with religion; ” or that they are “no let or impediment to the Holy Spirit.” (Page 162.) But still it is true, that “God, generally speaking, begins his work at the heart.” (Ibid.) Men usually feel desires to please God, before they know how to please him. Their heart says, “What must I do to be saved?” before they understand the way of salvation. But see “the character he gives his own saints ‘The more I converse with this people, the more I am amazed. That God hath wrought a great work is manifest, by saving many sinners from their sins. And yet the main of them are not able to give a rational account of the plainest principles of religion.’” They were not able then, as there had not been time to instruct them. But the case is far different now. Again: Did I “give this character,” even then, of the people called Methodists, in general?

We wrestled with God in his behalf; and our labour was not in vain. His soul was comforted; and a few hours after he quietly fell asleep.” A strange proof this likewise, either of inexorableness, or of “dooming men to per dition 1’’ Therefore this charge too stands totally unsupported. Here is no proof of my unmercifulness yet. “Good fruits come next to be considered, which Mr. Wesley's idea of true religion does not promise. He saith,” (I will repeat the words a little at large, that their true sense may more clearly appear,) “‘In explaining those words, The kingdom of God, or true religion, is not meats and drinks, I was led to show, that religion does not properly consist in harmlessness, using the means of grace, and doing good, that is, helping our neighbours, chiefly by giving alms; but that a man might both be harmless, use the means of grace, and do muchgood, and yet have no truereligion at all.’” (Tract, p. 203.) He may so. Yet whoever has true religion, must be “zealous of good works.” And zeal for all good works is, according to my idea, an essential ingredient of true religion. “Spiritual cures are all the good fruits he pretends to.” (Pages 204, 205.) Not quite all, says William Kirkman, with some others. “A few of his spiritual cures we will set in a fair light: ‘The first time I preached at Swalwell,” (chiefly to col liers, and workers in the iron work,) “‘none seemed to be con vinced, only stunned.’” I mean amazed at what they heard, though they were the first principles of religion. “But he brings them to their senses with a vengeance.” No, not them. These were different persons. Are they lumped together, in order to set things in a fair light? The whole paragraph runs thus: “I carefully examined those who had lately cried out in the congregation. Some of these, I found, could give no account at all, how or wherefore they had done so; only that of a sud den they dropped down, they knew not how; and what they afterward said or did they knew not. Others could just remem ber, they were in fear, but could not tell what they were in fear of Several said they were afraid of the devil; and this was all they knew.

Nor did I insinuate anything more than I expressed in as plain a manner as I could. A little digression follows: “A friend of his advises, not to establish the power of working miracles, as the great cri terion of a divine mission; seeing the agreement of doctrines with Scripture is the only infallible rule.” (Page 230.) “But Christ himself establishes the power of working mira cles, as the great criterion of a divine mission.” (Page 231.) True, of a mission to be the Saviour of the world; to put a period to the Jewish, and introduce the Christian, dispensa tion. And whoever pretends to such a mission will stand in need of such credentials. (2) “He shifts and doubles no less” (neither less nor more) “as to the ecstasies of his saints. Sometimes they are of God, sometimes of the devil; but he is constant in this,-- that natural causes have no hand in them.” This is not true: In what are here termed ecstasies, strong joy or grief, attended with various bodily symptoms, I have openly affirmed, again and again, that natural causes have a part: Nor did I ever shift or double on the head. I have steadily and uniformly maintained, that, if the mind be affected to such a degree, the body must be affected by the laws of the vital union. The mind I believe was, in many of those cases, affected by the Spirit of God, in others by the devil, and in some by both; and, in consequence of this, the body was affected also. (3) “Mr. W. says, “I fear we have grieved the Spirit of the jealous God by questioning his work, and by blaspheming it, by imputing it to nature, or even to the devil.’” (Pages 232,233.) True; by imputing the conviction and conversion of sinners, which is the work of God alone, (because of these unusual circumstances attending it,) either to nature or to the devil. This is flat and plain. No prevari cation yet. Let us attend to the next proof of it: “Innume rable cautions were given me, not to regard visions or dreams, or to fancy people had remission of sins because of their cries, or tears, or outward professions. The sum of my answer was, You deny that God does now work these effects; at least that he works them in this manner.

“The other gifts of the Spirit St. Paul reckons up thus: “To one is given the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge; to another the gifts of healing; to another working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another the discerning of spirits.’” (Page 23.) But why are the other three left out?-- Faith, diverskinds of tongues, and the interpretation of tongues. I believe the “word of wisdom” means, light to explain the manifold wisdom of God in the grand scheme of gospel salvation; the “word of knowledge,” a power of explaining the Old Testa ment types and prophecies. “Faith” may mean an extraordi mary trust in God, under the most difficult and dangerous cir cumstances; “the gifts of healing,” a miraculous power of curing diseases; “the discerning of spirits,” a supernatural dis cernment, whether men were upright or not; whether they were qualified for offices in the Church; and whether they who professed to speak by inspiration, really did so or not. But “the richest of the fruits of the Spirit is the inspiration of Scripture.” (Page 30.) Herein the promise, that “the Com forter” should “abide with us for ever,” is eminently fulfilled. For though his ordinary influence occasionally assists the faith ful of all ages, yet his constant abode and supreme illumination is in the Scriptures of the New Testament. I mean, “he is there only as the Illuminator of the understanding.” (Page 39.) But does this agree with the following words?--“Nature is not able to keep a mean: But grace is able; for ‘the Spirit helpeth our infirmities. We must apply to the Guide of truth, to prevent our being ‘carried about with divers and strange doctrines.’” (Page 340.) Is he not, then, everywhere, to illu minate the understanding, as well as to rectify the will? And indeed, do we not need the one as continually as the other? “But how did he inspire the Scripture? He so directed the writers, that no considerable error should fall from them.” (Page 45.) Nay, will not the allowing there is any error in Scripture, shake the authority of the whole? Again: What is the difference between the immediate and the virtual influence of the Holy Spirit? I know, Milton speaks of “virtual or immediate touch.” But most incline to think, virtual touch is no touch at all.

A Letter to the Rev. Mr. Baily of Cork Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 9 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- 1. Why do you not subscribe your name to a performance so perfectly agreeing, both as to the matter and form, with the sermons you have been occasionally preaching for more than a year last past? As to your seeming to disclaim it by saying once and again, “I am but a plain, simple man; ” and, “The doctrine you teach is only a revival of the old Antino mian heresy, I think they call it; ” I presume it is only a pious fraud. But how came so plain and simple a man to know the meaning of the Greek word Philalethes? Sir, this is not of a piece. If you did not care to own your child, had not you better have subscribed the Second (as well as the First) Letter, George Fisher ?” 2. I confess you have timed your performance well. When the other pointless thing was published, I came unluckily to Cork on the self-same day. But you might now suppose I was at a convenient distance. However, I will not plead this as an excuse for taking no notice of your last favour; although, to say the truth, I scarce know how to answer it, as you write in a language I am not accustomed to. Both Dr. Tucker, Dr. Church, and all the other gentlemen who have wrote to me in public for some years, have wrote as gentlemen, having some regard to their own, whatever my character was. But as you fight in the dark, you regard not what weapons you * The Letter thus subscribed was published at Cork, on May 30th last. use. We are not, therefore, on even terms; I cannot answer you in kind; I am constrained to leave this to your good allies of Blackpool and Fair-Lane.* I shall first state the facts on which the present controversy turns; and then consider the most material parts of your performance. First. I am to state the facts. But here I am under a great disadvantage, having few of my papers by me.

But here I am under a great disadvantage, having few of my papers by me. Excuse me therefore if I do not give so full an account now, as I may possibly do hereafter; if I only give you for the present the extracts of some papers which were lately put into my hands. 1. “THoMAs Jones, of Cork, merchant, deposes, “That on May 3, 1749, Nicholas Butler, ballad-singer, came before the house of this deponent, and assembled a large mob : That this deponent went to Daniel Crone, Esq., then Mayor of Cork, and desired that he would put a stop to those riots; asking, at the same time, whether he gave the said Butler leave to go about in this manner: That Mr. Mayor said, he neither gave him leave, neither did he hinder him : That in the evening Butler gathered a larger mob than before, and went to the house where the people called Methodists were assembled to hear the word of God, and, as they came out, threw dirt and hurt several of them. “That on May 4, this deponent, with some others, went to the Mayor and told what had been done, adding, “If your Wor ship pleases only to speak three words to Butler, it will all be over:” That the Mayor gave his word and honour there should be no more of it, he would put an entire stop to it: That, not withstanding, a larger mob than ever came to the house the same evening: That they threw much dirt and many stones at the people, both while they were in the house, and when they came out: That the mob then fell upon them, both on men and women, with clubs, hangers, and swords; so that many of them were much wounded, and lost a considerable quantity of blood. “That on May 5, this deponent informed the Mayor of all, and also that Butler had openly declared there should be a greater mob than ever there was that night: That the Mayor promised he would prevent it: That in the evening Butler did bring a greater mob than ever: That this deponent, hearing the * Celebrated parts of Cork.

“That on May 5, this deponent informed the Mayor of all, and also that Butler had openly declared there should be a greater mob than ever there was that night: That the Mayor promised he would prevent it: That in the evening Butler did bring a greater mob than ever: That this deponent, hearing the * Celebrated parts of Cork. Mayor designed to go out of the way, set two men to watch him, and, when the riot was begun, went to the ale-house, and inquired for him : That the woman of the house denying he was there, this deponent insisted he was, declared he would not go till he had seen him, and began searching the house: That Mr. Mayor then appearing, he demanded his assistance to suppress a riotous mob: That when the Mayor came in sight of them, he beckoned to Butler, who immediately came down from the place where he stood: That the Mayor then went with this deponent, and looked on many of the people covered with dirt and blood: That some of them still remained in the house, fearing their lives, till James Chatterton and John Reilly, Esqrs., Sheriffs of Cork, and Hugh Millard, junior, Esq., Alderman, turned them out to the mob, and nailed up the doors. 2. “ELIZABETH HollBRAN, of Cork, deposes, “That on May 3, as she was going down to Castle-Street, she saw Nicholas Butler on a table, with ballads in one hand, and a Bible in the other: That she expressed some concern thereat; on which Sheriff Reilly ordered his bailiff to carry her to Bridewell: That afterward the bailiff came and said, his master ordered she should be carried to gaol: And that she continued in gaol from May 3, about eight in the evening, till between ten and twelve on May 5. 3.

5. “John StockDALE deposes farther, “That on May 31, he withothers was quietly hearing the word of God, when Butler and his mob came down to the house: That as they came out, the mob threwshowers of dirt and stones: That many were hurt, many beat, bruised, and cut; among whom was this deponent, who was so bruised and cut, that the effusion of blood from his head could not be stopped foraconsiderable time. 6. “John M“NERNY, of Cork, deposes, “That on the 31st of May last, as this deponent with others was hearing a sermon, Butler came down with a large mob: That the stones and dirt coming in fast, obliged the congrega tion to shut the doors, and lock themselves in : That the mob broke open the door; on which this deponent endeavoured to escape through a window : That not being able to do it, he returned into the house, where he saw the mob tear up the pews, benches, and floor; part of which they afterwards burned in the open street, and carried away part for their own use. 7. “DANIEL SULLIVAN is ready to depose farther, “That Butler, with a large mob, went about from street to street, and from house to house, abusing, threatening, and beating whomsoever he pleased, from June 1st to the 16th, when they assaulted, bruised, and cut Ann Jenkins; and from the 16th to the 30th, when a woman whom they had beaten, miscarried, and narrowly escaped with life.” Some of the particulars were as follows: “THoMA's BURNET, of Cork, nailer, deposes, “That on or about the 12th of June, as this deponent was at work in his master's shop, Nicholas Butler came with a great mob to the door, and seeing this deponent, told him he was an heretic dog, and his soul was burning in hell: That this depo ment asking, ‘Why do you use me thus?” Butler took up a stone, and struck him so violently on the side, that he was thereby rendered incapable of working for upwards of a week: That he hit this deponent's wife with another stone, without any kind of provocation; which so hurt her, that she was obliged to take to her bed, and has not been right well since.

I rejoice to hear the city of Cork is so “remarkably loyal;” so entirely “well-affected to the present Government.” I presume you mean this chiefly of the Friendly Society, (in whom the power of the city is now lodged,) erected some time since, in opposition to that body of Jacobites commonly called, “The Hanover Club.” I suppose that zealous anti-Methodist 80 1.ETTER. To who, some days ago, stabbed the Methodist Preacher in the street, and then cried out, “Damn King George and all his armies!” did this as a specimen of his “eminent loyalty.” It cannot be denied that this loyal subject of King George, Simon Rawlins by name, was, upon oath made of those words, committed to gaol on May 31; and it was not till six days after, that he walked in procession through the town, with drums beating, and colours flying, and declared, at the head of his mob, he would never rest till he had driven all these false prophets out of Cork. How sincere they were in their good wishes to King George and his armies, they gave a clear proof, the 10th of this instant June, when, as ten or twelve soldiers were walking along in a very quiet and inoffensive manner, the mob fell upon them, swore they would have their lives, knocked them down, and beat them to such a degree, that, on June 12, one of them died of his wounds, and another was not then expected to live many hours. 12. But you have more proofs of my uncharitableness, that is, supposing I am the author of that pamphlet; for you read there, “Riches, ease, and honour are what the Clergy set their hearts upon; but the souls for whom Christ died, they leave to the tender mercies of hell.” Sir, can you deny it? Is it not true, literally true, concerning some of the Clergy? You ask, “But ought we to condemn all, for the faults of a few 7” (Page 20.) I answer, No; no more than I will condemn all in the affair of Cork for the faults of a few.

A Letter to the Rev. Mr. Fleury Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 9 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- 1. In June, 1769, I spent two or three days at Waterford. As soon as my back was turned, you valiantly attacked me, I suppose both morning and afternoon. Hearing, when I was there, two or three weeks ago, that you designed me the same favour, I waited upon you at the Cathedral, on Sunday, April 28. You was as good as your word: You drew the sword, and, in effect, threw away the scabbard. You made a furious attack on a large body of people, of whom you knew just nothing. Blind and bold, you laid about you without fear or wit, without any regard either to truth, justice, or mercy. And thus you entertained, both morning and evening, a large con gregation who came to hear “the words of eternal life.” 2. Not having leisure myself, I desired Mr. Bourke to wait upon you the next morning. He proposed our writing to each other. You said, “No; if anything can be said against my Sermons, I expect it shall be printed: Let it be done in a public, not a private way.” I did not desire this; I had much rather it had been done privately. But since you will have it so, I submit. 3. Your text was, “I know this, that after my departure shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts xx. 29, 30.) Having shown that St. Paul foresaw these false teachers, you undertake to show, (1.) The mischiefs which they occasioned. (2.) The character of them, and how nearly this concerns a set of men called Methodists. (First Sermon, pp. 1-4.) 4. Against these false teachers, you observe, St. Paul warned the Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, and Hebrews. (Pages 5-8.) Very true; but what is this to the point? O, much more than some are aware of. This insinuation was, all along, just as if you had said, “I beseech you, my dear hearers, mark the titles he gives to these grievous wolves, false apostles, deceitful workers, and apply them to the Methodist Teachers. There I give them a deadly thrust.” 5. “These are well styled by Christ, ‘ravening wolves;” by St.

.“8. At least, did not : Nor ever was likely to do it; for he did not go to them, and they would not come to him. “9. Will you condemn such a Preacher, because he has not learning, or has not had an University education? “What then? He saves those sinners from their sins whom the man of learning and education cannot save. “A peasant being brought before the College of Physicians at Paris, a learned Doctor accosted him, ‘What, friend, do you pretend to prescribe to people that have agues? Dost thou know what an ague is?’ “He replied, ‘Yes, Sir. An ague is, what I can cure and you cannot.’ “10. Will you object, “But he is no Minister, nor has any authority to save souls?’ “I must beg leave to dissent from you in this. I think he is a true evangelical Minister, Atakovos, servant of Christ and his Church, who ovro Buakovet, “so ministers’ as to save souls from death, to reclaim sinners from their sins; and that every Chris tian, if he is able to do it, has authority to save a dying soul. “But if you only mean, he has no authority to take tithes, I grant it. He takes none. As he has freely received, so he freely gives. “11. But, to carry the matter a little farther, I am afraid it will hold, on the other hand, with regard to the soul as well as the body, Medicus non est qui non medetur. I am afraid reasonable men will be inclined to think, “he that saves no souls is no Minister of Christ.’ “12. ‘O but he is ordained, and therefore has authority.’ “Authority to do what? “To save all the souls that will put themselves under his care.’ True; but (to wave the case of them that will not; and would you desire that even those should perish 7) he does not, in fact, save them that are under his care: Therefore, what end does his authority serve? He that was a drunkard, is a drunkard still. The same is true of the Sabbath-breaker, the thief, the common swearer. This is the best of the case; for many have died in their iniquity, and their blood will God require at the watchman’s hand. “13.

“13. For surely he has no authority to murder souls; either by his neglect, by his smooth, if not false, doctrine, or by hindering another from plucking them out of the fire and bringing them to life everlasting. “14. If he either attempts or desires to hinder him, if he condemns or is displeased with him for it, how great reason is there to fear, that he regards his own profit more than the salvation of souls l’’ 11. “But why do you not prove your mission by miracles?” This likewise you repeat over and over. But I have not leisure to answer the same stale objection an hundred times. I there fore give this also the same answer which I gave many years ago : 12. “What is it you would have us prove by miracles? that the doctrines we preach are true? This is not the way to prove that: We prove the doctrines we preach by Scripture and reason. Is it, (1.) That A. B. was for many years without God in the world, a common swearer, a Sabbath-breaker, a drunkard? Or, (2.) That he is not so now? Or, (3.) That he continued so till he heard us preach, and from that time was another man? Not so; the proper way to prove these facts, is by the testimony of competent witnesses. And these witnesses are ready, whenever required, to give full evidence of them. Or would you have it proved by miracles, (4.) That this was not done by our own power or holiness? that God only is able to raise the dead, those who are dead in trespasses and sins? Nay, “if you hear not Moses, and the Prophets, and the Apostles, on this head, neither will you believe ‘though one rose from the dead. It is therefore utterly unreasonable and absurd, to require or expect the proof of miracles, in questions of such a kind as are always decided by proofs of quite another nature.” (Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, Vol. VIII. p. 233.) If you will take the trouble of reading that little Tract, you will find more upon the same head. 13. If you say, “But those who lay claim to extraordinary inspiration and revelation ought to prove that claim by mira cles,” we allow it: But this is not our case.

“Now, the knowledge of the Spirit of God in yourself is as perceptible as covetousness.” Perhaps so; for this is as difficultly perceptible as any temper of the human soul. “And liable to no more delusion.” Indeed it need not ; for this is liable to ten thousand delusions. You add: “His spirit is more distinguishable from all other spirits, than any of your natural affections are from one another.” (Page 199.) Suppose joy and grief: Is it more distinguishable from all other spirits, than these are from one another? Did any man ever mistake grief for joy? No, not from the beginning of the world. But did none ever mistake nature for grace? Who will be so hardy as to affirm this? But you set your pupil as much above the being taught by books, as being taught by men. “Seek,” say you, “for help no other way, neither from men, nor books; but wholly leave yourself to God.” (Spirit of Love, Part II., p. 225.) But how can a man “leave himself wholly to God,” in the total neglect of his ordinances? The old Bible way is, to “leave ourselves wholly to God,” in the constant use of all the means he hath ordained. And I cannot yet think the new is better, though you are fully persuaded it is. “There are two ways,” you say, “ of attaining goodness and virtue; the one by books or the ministry of men, the other by an inward birth. The former is only in order to the latter.” This is most true, that all the externals of religion are in order to the renewal of our soul in righteousness and true holiness. But it is not true, that the external way is one, and the internal way another. There is but one scriptural way, wherein we receive inward grace, through the outward means which God hath appointed. Some might think that when you advised, “not to seek help from books,” you did not include the Bible. But you clear up this, where you answer the objection, of your not esteeming the Bible enough. You say, “How could you more magnify John the Baptist, than by going from his teaching, to be taught by that Christ to whom he directed you? Now, the Bible can have no other office or power, than to direct you to Christ.

Now, the Bible can have no other office or power, than to direct you to Christ. How then can you more magnify the Bible than by going from its teaching, to be taught by Christ?” So you set Christ and the Bible in flat opposition to each other l And is this the way we are to learn of him? Nay, but we are taught of him, not by going from the Bible, but by keeping close to it. Both by the Bible and by experience we know, that his word and his Spirit act in connexion with each other. And thus it is, that by Christ continually teaching and strengthening him through the Scripture, “the man of God is made perfect, and throughly furnished for every good word and work.” According to your veneration for the Bible, is your regard for public worship and for the Lord’s supper. “Christ,” you say, “is the Church or temple of God within thee. There the supper of the Lamb is kept. When thou art well grounded in this inward worship, thou wilt have learned to live unto God above time and place. For every day will be Sunday to thee; and wherever thou goest, thou wilt have a Priest, a church, and an altar along with thee.” (Spirit of Prayer, Part I., p. 73.) The plain inference is, Thou wilt not need to make any difference between Sunday and other days. Thou wilt need no other church than that which thou hast always along with thee; no other supper, worship, Priest, or altar. Be well grounded in this inward worship, and it supersedes all the rest. This is right pleasing to flesh and blood; and I could most easily believe it, if I did not believe the Bible. But that teaches me inwardly to worship God, as at all times and in all places, so particularly on his own day, in the congregation of his people, at his altar, and by the ministry of those his servants whom he hath given for this very thing, “for the perfecting of the saints,” and with whom he will be to the end of the world. Extremely dangerous therefore is this other gospel, which leads quite wide of the gospel of Christ.

“And is it strange,” you say, “that such a one should be destitute of means to resolve his scruples? should be ever at variance with himself, and find no place to fix his foot?” Good Sir, not too fast. You quite outrun the truth again. Blessed be God, this is not my case. I am not destitute of means to resolve my scruples. I have some friends, and a little reason left. I am not ever at variance with myself; and have found a place to fix my foot -- Now I have found the ground wherein Firm my soul's anchor may remain; The wounds of Jesus, for my sin Before the world's foundation slain. And yet one of your assertions I cannot deny; namely, that you “could run the parallel between me and numbers of fanatical Papists: ” And that not only with regard to my temper, but my stature, complexion, yea, (if need were,) the very colour of my hair. 15. In your next section, you are to give an account of the “spiritual succours and advantages received either during these trials or very soon after.” (Section x. p. 92, &c.) It is no wonder you make as lame work with these, as with the conflicts which preceded them. “As the heart knoweth its own bitterness, so a stranger doth not intermeddle with his joy.” But it is no business of mine, as you have not done me the honour to cite any of my words in this section. 16. “The unsteadiness of the Methodists, both in senti ments and practice,” (section xi. p. 95, &c.,) is what you next undertake to prove. Your loose declamation with which you open the cause, I pass over, as it rests on your own bare word; and haste to your main reason, drawn from my sentiments and practice with regard to the Moravians. “He represents them,” you say, “in the blackest colours; yet declares, in the main, they are some of the best people in the world. His love and esteem for them increases more and more. His own disciples among the Methodists go over to them in crowds.

The First you preface thus: “Upon the people's ill usage (or supposed ill usage) of Mr. Wesley in Georgia, and their speaking of all manner of evil falsely (as he says) against him; and trampling under foot the word, after having been very attentive to it; what an emotion in him is hereby raised ! “I do hereby bear witness against myself, that I could scarce refrain from giving the lie to experience, and reason, and Scripture, all together.’” The passage, as I wrote it, stands thus: “Sunday, March 7. I entered upon my ministry at Savannah. In the Second Lesson, (Luke xviii.,) was our Lord’s prediction of the treat ment which he himself, and consequently his followers, were to meet with from the world. “Yet notwithstanding these plain declarations of our Lord, notwithstanding my own repeated experience, notwithstanding the experience of all the sincere followers of Christ, whom I ever talked with, read or heard of, may, and the reason of the thing, evincing to a demonstration, that all who love not the light must hate him who is continually labouring to pour it in upon them; I do here bear witness against myself, that, when I saw the number of people crowding into the church, the deep attention with which they received the word, and the seriousness that afterwards sat on all their faces; I could * This quotation from Horace is thus translated by Francis: “It breathes the spirit of the tragic scene.”-EDIT. scarce refrain from giving the lie to experience, and reason, and Scripture, all together. I could hardly believe that the greater, the far greater, part of this attentive, serious people, would hereafter trample under foot that word, and say all manner of evil falsely of him that spoke it.” (Vol. I. p. 27.) Sir, does this prove me guilty of scepticism or infidelity; of doubting or denying the truth of Revelation? Did I speak this, “upon the people using me ill, and saying all manner of evil against me?” Or am I here describing “any emotion raised in me hereby?” Blush, blush, Sir, if you can blush. You had here no possible room for mistake. You grossly and wilfully falsify the whole passage, to support a groundless, shameless accusation. 24. The second passage (written January 24, 1737-8) is this: “In a storm, I think, What if the gospel be not true?

Whitefield charges Mr. Wesley with hold ing universal redemption, and I charge him with holding parti cular redemption. This is the standing charge on either side. And now, Sir, “what are we to think?” Why, that you have not proved one point of this charge against the Methodists. However, you stumble on: “Are these things so? Are they true, or are they not true? If not true, they are grievous calumniators; if true, they are detestable sectarists. Whether true or false, the allegation stands good of their fierce and rancorous quarrels, and mutual heinous accusations.” Sir, has your passion quite extinguished your reason? Have fierceness and rancour left you no understanding? Otherwise, how is it possible you should run on at this senseless, shameless rate? These things are true which Mr. Whitefield and Wes ley object to each other. He holds the decrees; I do not: Yet this does not prove us “detestable sectarists.” And whether these things are true or false, your allegation of our “fierce and rancorous quarrels, and mutual heinous accusations,” cannot stand good, without better proof than you have yet produced. 34. Yet, with the utmost confidence, quasi re bene gesta,” you proceed, “And how stands the matter among their dis ciples? They are all together by the ears, embroiled and broken with unchristian quarrels and confusions.” * As though you had accomplished some mighty affair.-EDIT. How do you prove this? Why thus: “Mr. Wesley's Fourth Journal is mostly taken up in enumerating their wrath, dissensions, and apostasies.” No, Sir, not a tenth part of it; although it gives a full and explicit account of the greatest dissensions which ever were among them. But to come to particulars: You First cite these words, “At Oxford, but a few who had not forsaken them.” My words are, “Monday, October 1, 1738. I rode to Oxford, and found a few who had not yet forsaken the assembling themselves together.” This is your First proof that “the Methodists are all together by the ears.” Your Second is its very twin-brother. “Tuesday, 2. I went to many who once heard the word with joy; but ‘when the sun arose they withered away.’” (Vol. I. p. 227.) Your Third is this: “Many were induced (by the Moravians) to deny the gift of God, and affirm they never had any faith at all.” (Ibid. p.

I have at length gone through your whole performance, weighed whatever you cite from my writings, and shown at large how far those passages are from proving all, or any part, of your charge. So that all you attempt to build on them, of the pride and vanity of the Methodists; of their shuffling and prevaricating; of their affectation of prophesying; laying claim to the miraculous favours of Heaven; unsteadiness of temper; unsteadiness in sentiment and practice; art and cunning; giving up inspiration and extraordinary calls; scepticism, in fidelity, Atheism; uncharitableness to their opponents; con tempt of order and authority; and fierce, rancorous quarrels with each other; of the tendency of Methodism to undermine morality and good works; and to carry on the good work of Popery:--All this fabricfalls to the ground at once, unless you can find some better foundation to support it. (Sections iii. vi.; ix., xi.--xv.; xviii.-xxi.) 50. These things being so, what must all unprejudiced men think of you and your whole performance? You have ad Vanced a charge, not against one or two persons only, but indis criminately against a whole body of people, of His Majesty’s subjects, Englishmen, Protestants, members, I suppose, of your own Church: a charge containing abundance of articles, and most of them of the highest and blackest nature. You have prosecuted this with unparalleled bitterness of spirit and acri mony of language; using sometimes the most coarse, rude, scurrilous terms, sometimes the keenest sarcasms you could devise. The point you have steadily pursued in thus prose cuting this charge, is, First, to expose the whole people to the hatred and scorn of all mankind; and, next, to stir up the civil powers against them. And when this charge comes to be fairly weighed, there is not a single article of it true ! The passages you cite to make it good are one and all such as prove nothing less than the points in question; most of them such as you have palpably maimed, corrupted, and strained to a sense never thought of by the writer; many of them such as are flat against you, and overthrow the very point they are brought to support.

He sent for me thither, and said, Good woman, do you know these people that go up and down * Do you know Mr. Wesley * Did not he tell you, you would be damned if you took any money of him 2 And did not he offer rudeness to your maid 2 I told him, No, my Lord; he never said any such thing to me, nor to my husband that I know of. He never offered any rudeness to any maid of mine. I never saw or knew any harm of him: But a man told me once, (who I was told was a Methodist Preacher,) that I should be damned if I did not know my sins were forgiven.’” Your Lordship replies, “I neither sent word that I would dine at their house, nor did I send for Mrs. Morgan; every word that passed between us was at her own house at Mitchel.” (Page 7.) I believe it; and consequently, that the want of exactness in this point rests on Mrs. Morgan, not on your Lordship. Your Lordship adds, “The following attestations will suffi ciently clear me from any imputation, or even suspicion, of having published a falsehood.” I apprehend otherwise; to wave what is past, if the facts now published by your Lordship, or any part of them, be not true, then certainly your Lordship will lie under more than a “suspicion of having published a falsehood.” The attestations your Lordship produces are, First, those of your Lordship's Chancellor and Archdeacon: Secondly, those of Mr. Bennet. The former attests, that in June or July, 1748, Mrs. Mor gan did say those things to your Lordship. (Page 8.) I believe she did, and therefore acquit your Lordship of being the in ventor of those falsehoods. Mr. Bennet avers, that, in January last, Mrs. Morgan re peated to him what she had before said to your Lordship. (Page 11.) Probably she might; having said those things once, I do not wonder if she said them again. Nevertheless, before Mr. Trembath and Mr. Haime she denied every word of it. To get over this difficulty, your Lordship publishes a Second Letter from Mr. Bennet, wherein he says, “On March 4th, last, Mrs.

Is it not time, then, for “the very stones to cry out P” 3. For this is not a point of small importance; a question that may safely be determined either way. On the contrary, it may be doubted whether the scheme before us be not far more dangerous than open Deism itself. It does not shock us like bare faced infidelity: We feel no pain, and suspect no evil, while it steals like “water into our bowels,” like “oil into our bones.” One who would be upon his guard in reading the works of Dr. Middleton, or Lord Bolingbroke, is quite open and unguarded in reading the smooth, decent writings of Dr. Taylor; one who does not oppose, (far be it from him !) but only explain, the Scripture; who does not raise any difficulties or objections against the Christian Reve lation, but only removes those with which it had been unhappily encumbered for so many centuries ! 4. I said, than open Deism : For I cannot look on this scheme as any other than old Deism in a new * Since the writing of this, I have seen several Tracts, which I shall have occasion to take notice of hereafter. There are likewise many excellent remarks on this subject in Mr. Hervey's Dialogues. dress; seeing it saps the very foundation of all revealed religion, whether Jewish or Christian. “Indeed, my L--,” said an eminent man to a person of quality, “I cannot see that we have much need of Jesus Christ.” And who might not say, upon this supposition, “I cannot see that we have much need of Christianity?” Nay, not any at all; for “they that are whole have no need of a Physician; ” and the Christian Revelation speaks of nothing else but the great “Physician” of our souls; nor can Christian Philosophy, whatever be thought of the Pagan, be more properly defined than in Plato's word: It is Separeta \rvX's, “the only true method of healing a distempered soul.” But what need of this, if we are in perfect health P If we are not diseased, we do not want a cure. If we are not sick, why should we seek for a medicine to heal our sickness?

The first you mention is Genesis ii. 17: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” On this you observe: “Death was to be the consequence of his disobedience. And the death here threatened can be opposed only to that life God gave Adam when he created him.” (Page 7.) True; but how are you assured that God, when he created him, did not give him spiritual as well as animal life? Now, spiritual death is opposed to spiritual life. And this is more than the death of the body. “But this is pure conjecture, without a solid foundation; for no other life is spoken of before.” Yes, there is; “the image of God” is spoken of before. This is not, therefore, pure conjecture; but is grounded upon a solid foundation, upon the plain word of God. Allowing then that “Adam could understand it of no other life than that which he had newly received;” yet would he naturally understand it of the life of God in his soul, as well as of the life of his body. “In this light, therefore, the sense of the threatening will stand thus: ‘Thou shalt surely die; as if he had said, I have “formed thee of the dust of the ground, and breathed into thy nostrils the breath of lives;’” (Third Edition, p. 8;) both of * Dr. Taylor’s “Doctrine of Original Sin,” Part I., to whom I address myself in what follows. What is quoted 'rom him, generally in his own words, is inclosed in cummas. animal life, and of spiritual life; and in both respects thou “art become a living soul.” “But if thou eatest of the for bidden tree, thou shalt cease to be a living soul. For I will take from thee” the lives I have given, and thou shalt die spiritually, temporally, eternally. But “here is not one word relating to Adam's posterity. Though it be true, if he had died immediately upon his trans. gression, all hisposterity must have been extinct with him.” It is true; yet “not one word” of it is expressed. There fore, other consequences of his sin may be equally implied, though they are no more expressed than this. 4. The second scripture you cite is Gen.

In like manner he calls the Ephesians, $voet Tekva, ‘genuine children of wrath; not to signify they were related to wrath by their natural birth, but by their sin and disobedience.” (Page 113.) This is simply begging the question, without so much as a shadow of proof; for the Greek word in one text is not the same, nor anyway related to that in the other. Nor is there the least resemblance between the Apostle's calling Timothy his “own son in the faith,” and his affirming that even those who are now “saved by grace,” were “by nature children of wrath.” To add, therefore, “Not as they came under condemnation by the offence of Adam,” is only begging the question once more; though, it is true, they had afterwards inflamed their account by “their own trespasses and sins.” You conclude: “‘By nature, therefore, may be a meta phorical expression, and consequently is not intended” (may be in the premises, is not in the conclusion 1 A way of arguing you frequently use) “to signify nature in the proper sense of the word; but to mean, they were really and truly children of wrath.” (Page 114.) But where is the proof? Till this is produced, I must still believe, with the Christian Church in all ages, that all men are “children of wrath by nature,” in the plain, proper sense of the word. 7. The next proof is Rom. v. 6: “While we were yet with out strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.” You answer, (1.) “The Apostle is here speaking, not of mankind in general, but of the Gentiles only; as appears by the whole thread of his discourse, from the beginning of the Epistle.” (Page 115.) From the beginning of the Epistle to the 6th verse of the 5th chapter is the Apostle speaking of the Gentiles only ? Otherwise it cannot appear, “by the whole thread of his discourse from the beginning of the Epistle.” “But it appears especially from chap. iii.9: ‘What then? Are we, Jews, ‘better than they, Gentiles?” (Page 116, &c.) Nay, from that very verse he speaks chiefly of the Jews.

-a word of the very same import. It is therefore here very properly rendered “shapen; ” nor can it be more exactly translated. But “the word "nor" properly signifies, warmed me.” You should say, literally signifies. But it signifies conceived me, nevertheless. And so it is taken, Gen. xxx. 38,39,41, &c.; xxxi. 10. “Nay, it signifies there the act of copulation. So several translators render it.” (Page 132, 133.) And several render it otherwise: So this does not determine the point either way. It must therefore be determined by the sense. Now, for what end did Jacob put the “pilled rods before the cattle P” That the lambs might be marked as the rods were. And when is it that females of any kind mark their young? Not in that act; but some time after, when the foetus is either forming or actually formed. Throw a plum or a pear at a woman before conception, and it will not mark the foetus at all; but it will, if thrown while she is conceiving, or after she has conceived; as we see in a thousand instances. This observation justifies our translators in rendering the word by conceiving in all those places. And indeed you own, “David could not apply that word to his mother, in the sense wherein you would apply it to the cattle.” Youtherefore affirm, “It means here, to nurse.” (Page 134.) You may as well say it means to roast. You have as much authority from the Bible for one interpretation as for the other. Produce, if you can, one single text, in which tri signifies to nurse, or anything like it. You stride on : (1) “The verse means, “In sin did my mother nurse me: ’ (2.) That is, ‘ I am a sinner from the womb: (3.) That is, ‘I am a great sinner:* (4.) That is, ‘I have contracted strong habits of sin.’” By this art you make the most expressive texts mean just anything or nothing. So Psalm lviii. 3: “‘The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, telling lies.’ That is, My unjust persecutors in Saul’s court are exceedingly wicked.” If this was all David meant, what need of "1, “are alienated?” and that from the “bowels” of their mother? Nay, but he means as he speaks.

Nay, but he means as he speaks. They “are alienated from the life of God,” from the time of their coming into the world. From the time of their birth, they “knew not the way of truth; ” neither can, unless they are “born of God.” You cite as a parallel text, “‘Thou wast called a transgressor from the womb; that is, set to iniquity by prevailing habits and customs.” Nay, the plain meaning is, The Israelites in general had never kept God’s law since they came into the world. Perhaps the phrase, “from the womb,” is once used figura tively, namely, Job xxxi. 18. But it is manifest, that it is to be literally taken, Isaiah xlix. 1 : “The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.” For, (1.) This whole passage relates to Christ; these expressions in particular. (2.) This was lite rally fulfilled, when the angel was sent while he was yet in the womb, to order that his “name * should be “called Jesus.” This is not therefore barely “an hyperbolical form of aggravating sin; ” but a humble confession of a deep and weighty truth, whereof we cannot be too sensible. “But you have no manner of ground to conclude, that it relates to Adam’s sin.” (Page 136.) Whether it relates to Adam’s personal sin or no, it relates to a corrupt nature. This is the present question; and your pulling in Adam’s sin only tends to puzzle the reader. But how do you prove (since you will drag this in) that it does not relate to Adam’s sin? Thus: “(1.) In the whole Psalm there is not one word about Adam, or the effects of his sin upon us.” Here, as usual, you blend the two questions together; the ready way to confound an unwary reader. But first, to the first: “In the whole Psalm there is not one word about Adam; therefore it relateth not to him.” Just as well you may argue, “In the whole Psalm there is not oneword about Uriah; there fore it relatethnot to him.” The second assertion, “There is not one word of the effects of his sin,” is a fair begging the question. “(2.) The Psalmist is here charging himself with his own sin.” He is; and tracing it up to the fountain.

Can we ever imagine the great and good God would have appointed men to be propagated in such a way as would necessarily give such exquisite pain and anguish to the mothers that produce them, if they had been all accounted in his eyes a race of holy and sinless beings?” (Page 31.) I answer, It is not true, “that too great stress,” or any stress at all, is “here laid on mere supposition and imagina tion.” Your catching at those two words, suppose and imagine, will by no means prove it; for the meaning of them is plain. “Can we suppose the blessed God would do this?” is manifestly the same with, “How can we reconcile it with his essential attributes?” In like manner, “Can we ever imagine?” is plainly equivalent with, “Can we possibly conceive?” So that the occasional use of these words does not infer his laying any stress on supposition and imagination. When, therefore, you add, “Our suppositions and imagi nations are not a just standard by which to measure the divine dispensations,” (page 32,) what you say is absolutely true, but absolutely foreign to the point. Some of the questions which you yourself ask, to expose his it is not so easy to answer: “Would innocent creatures have been thrust into the world in so contemptible circumstances, and have been doomed to grow up so slowly to maturity and the use of reason? Would they, when grown up, have been constrained to spend so much time in low and servile labour? Would millions have been obliged to spend all their days, from early morn until evening, in hewing stone, sawing wood, heaving, rubbing, or beating the limb of an oak, or a bar of iron?” (Page 33.) I really think they would not. I believe all this toil, as well as the pain and anguish of women in child-birth, is an evidence of the fall of man, of the sin of our first parents, and part of the punishment denounced and executed, first on them, and then on all their posterity. You add: “He doth not consider this world as a state of trial, but as if it ought to have been a seat of happiness.” (Pages 34, 35.) There is no contrariety between these: It might be a state of trial and of happiness too.

What stupendous cliffs and promontories rise,--high and hideous to behold ! What dreadful precipices,--which make us giddy to look down, are ready to betray us into destruction | What immense extents are there in many countries of waste and barren ground ! What vast and almost impassable deserts | What broad and faithless morasses, which are made at once deaths and graves to unwary travellers ! What huge ruinous caverns, deep and wide, big enough to bury whole cities !” (Page 14.) “What resistless deluges of water, in a season of great rains, come rolling down the hills, bear all things before them, and spread spacious desolation | What roaring and tremendous waterfalls in several parts of the globe I What burning mountains, in whose caverns are lakes of liquid fire ready to burst upon the lower lands ! or they are a mere shell of earth, covering prodigious cavities of smoke, and furnaces of flame; and seem to wait a divine command, to break inward, and bury towns and provinces in fiery ruin.” (Page 15.) “What active treasures of wind are pent up in the bowels of the earth, ready to break out into wide and surprising mischief! What huge torrents of water rush and roar through the hollows of the globe we tread | What dreadful sounds and threatening appearances from the reign of meteors in the air! What clouds charged with flame, ready to burst on the earth, and discompose and terrify all nature ! “When I survey such scenes as these, I cannot but say within myself, ‘Surely this earth, in these rude and broken appearances, this unsettled and dangerous state, was designed as a dwelling for some unhappy inhabitants, who did or would transgress the laws of their Maker, and merit desolation from his hand. And he hath here stored up his magazines of divine artillery against the day of punishment.’” (Page 16.) “How often have the terrible occurrences of nature in the air, earth, and sea, and the calamitous incidents in several countries, given a strong confirmation of this sentiment 1 “What destructive storms have we and our father seen even in this temperate island of Great Britain | What floods of water and violent explosions of fire do we read of in the his tories of the world !

So St. Paul desires Philemon to impute any wrong he had received from Onesimus to himself; that is, not the evil action, but the damage he had sustained. “Indeed, when sin or righteousness are said to be imputed to any man, on account of what himself hath done, the words usually denote both the good or evil actions themselves, and the legal result of them. But when the sin or righteousness of one person is said to be imputed to another, then, generally, those words mean only the result thereof; that is, a liableness to punishment on the one hand, and to reward on the other. “But let us say what we will to confine the sense of the imputation of sin and righteousness to the legal result, --the reward or punishment of good or evil actions; let us ever so explicitly deny the imputation of the actions themselves to others; still Dr. Taylor will level almost all his arguments against the imputation of the actions themselves, and then triumph in having demolished what we never built, and refuting what we never asserted.” (Page 444.) “3. The Scripture does not, that I remember, anywhere say, in express words, that the sin of Adam is imputed to his children; or, that the sins of believers are imputed to Christ; or, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers: But the true meaning of all these expressions is sufficiently found in several places of Scripture.” (Page 446.) “Yet since these express words and phrases, of the imputa tion of Adam’s sin to us, of our sins to Christ, and of Christ's righteousness to us, are not plainly written in Scripture, we should not impose it on every Christian, to use these very expressions. Let every one take his liberty, either of con fining himself to strictly scriptural language, or of manifest ing his sense of these plain scriptural doctrines, in words and phrases of his own.” (Page 447.) “But if the words were expressly written in the Bible, they could not reasonably be interpreted in any other sense, than this which I have explained by so many examples, both in Scripture, history, and in common life.

“IN the preceding verse Solomon had declared, how few wise and good persons he had found in the whole course of his life; but, lest any should blame the providence of God for this, he here observes, that these were not what God made man at first; and that their being what they were not was the effect of a wretched apostasy from God. The original words stand thus: Only see thou, I have found.” (Page 3.) “Only: This word sets a mark on what it is prefixed to, as a truth of great certainty and importance. See, observe, thou. He invites every hearer and reader, in particular, to consider what he was about to offer. I have found: I have discovered this certain truth, and assert it on the fullest evidence, ‘that God made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.’” (Page 4.) “The Hebrew word "ws which we render upright, is pro perly opposed to crooked, irregular, perverse. It is applied to things, to signify their being straight, or agreeable to rule; but it is likewise applied both to God and man, with the words and works of both. As applied to God, the ways of God, the word of God, it is joined with good; (Psalm xxv. 8;) with righteous; (Psalm crix. 137;) with true and good; (Neh. ix. 13;) where mention is made of ‘right judgments, true laws, good statutes. The uprightness with which God is said to minister judgment to the people, answers to righteousness: In a word,--God’s uprightness is the moral rectitude of his nature, infinitely wise, good, just, and perfect. The upright ness of man, is his conformity, of heart and life, to the rule he is under; which is the law or will of God. Accordingly, we read of uprightness of heart; (Psalm xxxvi. 10; Job xxxiii. 33) and uprightness of way, or conversation; (Psalm xxxvii. 14;) and often elsewhere. ‘The upright man,’ throughout the Scripture, is a truly good man; a man of integrity, a holy person. In Job i. 1, 8; ii. 3, upright is the same with perfect, (as in Psalm xxxvii. 37, and many other places,) and is explained by, one “who feareth God and escheweth evil. In Job viii. 6, it is joined and is the same with pure.

“The Septuagint translate the text, “Who shall be clean from filth? Not one; even though his life on earth be a single day.’ And this rendering, though not according to the Hebrew, is followed by all the Fathers; and shows what was the general belief of the Jews before Christ came into the world.” “‘But since the heavens and stars are represented as not clean, compared to God, may not man also be here termed unclean, only as compared with him?” I answer, (1.) The heavens are manifestly compared with God; but man is not in either of these texts. He is here described, not as he is in comparison of God, but as he is absolutely in himself. (2.) When ‘the heavens’ and man’ are mentioned in the same text, and man is set forth as ‘unclean,’ his ‘uncleanness’ is expressed by his being ‘unrighteous;’ and that always means guilty or sinful. Nor, indeed, is the innocent frailty of man kind ever in Scripture termed ‘uncleanness.’” (Pages 45,46.) “‘Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Psalm li. 5.) The Psalmist here con fesses, bewails, and condemns himself for his natural corrup tion, as that which principally gave birth to the horrid sins with which he had been overtaken. ‘Behold !” He prefixes this to render his confession the more remarkable, and to show the importance of the truth here declared : ‘I was shapen; this passive verb denotes somewhat in which neither David nor his parents had any active concern: “In or with ‘iniquity, and in or with ‘sin did my mother conceive me.’ The word which we render ‘conceive, signifies properly, to warm, or to cherish by warmth. It does not, therefore, so directly refer to the act of conceiving as to the cherishing what is conceived till the time of its birth. But either way the proof is equally strong for the corruption of mankind from their first existence.” (Pages 47, 48.) “‘The wicked are estranged from the womb : They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.’ ‘They are estranged from the womb;’ (Psalm lviii. 3, 4;) strangers and averse to true, practical religion, from the birth. ‘They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.

“Fourthly. There is in the carnal mind an opposition to spiritual truths, and an aversion to the receiving them. God has revealed to sinners the way of salvation; he has given his word. But do natural men believe it? Indeed they do not. They believe not the promises of the word; for they who receive them are thereby made ‘partakers of the divine nature.” They believe not the threatenings of the word; otherwise they could not live as they do. I doubt not but most, if not all, of you, who are in a state of nature, will here plead, Not Guilty. But the very difficulty you find in assent ing to this truth, proves the unbelief with which I charge you. Has it not proceeded so far with some, that it has steeled their foreheads openly to reject all revealed religion? And though ye set not your mouths as they do against the heavens, yet the same bitter root of unbelief is in you, and reigns and will reign in you, till overcoming grace captivate your minds to the belief of the truth. To convince you of this,-- “Consider, 1. How have you learned those truths which you think you believe? Is it not merely by the benefit of your education, and of external revelation? You are strangers to the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness with the word in your hearts; and therefore ye are still unbe lievers. ‘It is written in the Prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every one therefore that hath heard and learned of the Father,’ saith our Lord, ‘cometh unto me.’ But ye have not come to Christ; therefore ye have not been “taught of God.” Ye have not been so taught, and therefore ye have not come; ye believe not. “Consider, 2. The utter inconsistency of most men’s lives with the principles which they profess. They profess to believe the Scripture; but how little are they concerned about what is revealed therein . How unconcerned are ye even about that weighty point, whether ye be born again, or not! Many live as they were born, and are like to die as they live, and yet live in peace. Do such believe the sinfulness of a natural state? Do they believe they are ‘children of wrath? Do they believe there . is no salvation without regeneration?

S. frankly acknowledged, “While I admired him, I thought St. Paul and St. John very mean writers.” Indeed it quite spoils the taste for plain, simple religion, such as that of the Bible is; and gives a false taste, which can relish nothing so well, as high, obscure, unintelligible jargon.

Must there not be a very high degree of lunacy before any such design could be formed ? I ask, Secondly, If any scripture could be thus explained, if any meaning could be extracted from the several syllables, must it not be from the syllables of the original, not of a translation, whether German or English? I ask, Thirdly, whether this explanation be any explanation at all; whether it gives the meaning of any one petition; nay, whether it does not reduce the divine Prayer, all the parts of which are accurately connected together, into an unconnected, incoherent jumble of no one can tell what! I ask, Fourthly, whether we may not pronounce, with the utmost certainty, of one who thus distorts, mangles, and murders the word of God, that the light which is in him is darkness; that he is illuminated from beneath, rather than from above; and that he ought to be styled a demonosopher, rather than a theosopher !

You have “opened too great a glare to the public,” (page 7) to leave them any room for such insinu ation. Though, to save appearances, you gravely declare still, “Were my argument allowed to be true, the credit of the gospel miracles could not, in any degree, be shaken by it.” (Page 6.) 4. So far is flourish. Now we come to the point: “The present question,” you say, “depends on the joint credibility of the facts, and of the witnesses who attest them, especially.” on the former. For, “if the facts be incredible, no testimony can alter the nature of things.” (Page 9.) All this is most true. You go on: “The credibility of facts lies open to the trial of our reason and senses. But the credibility of witnesses depends on a variety of principles wholly concealed from us. And though in many cases it may reasonably be presumed, yet in none can it be certainly known.” (Page 10.) Sir, will you retract this, or defend it? If you defend, and can prove, as well as assert it, then farewell the credit of all history, not only sacred but profane. If “the credibility of witnesses,” of all witnesses, (for you make no distinction,) depends, as you peremptorily affirm, “on a variety of principles wholly concealed from us;” and, consequently, “though it may be presumed in many cases, yet can be certainly known in none;” then it is plain, all the history of the Bible is utterly precarious and uncertain; then I may indeed presume, but cannot certainly know, that Jesus of Nazareth ever was born; much less that he healed the sick, and raised either Lazarus or himself from the dead. Now, Sir, go and declare again how careful you are for “the credit of the gospel miracles !” 5. But for fear any (considering how “frank and open” your nature is, and how “warmly disposed to speak what you take to be true”) (page 7) should fancy you meant what you said in this declaration, you take care to inform them soon after: “The whole which the wit of man can possibly discover, either of the ways or will of the Creator, must be acquired by attending seriously” (to what? to the Jewish or Christian Revelation?

to the Jewish or Christian Revelation? No; but) “to that revelation which he made of himself from the beginning, in the beautiful fabric of this visible world.” (Page 22.) 6. I believe your opponents will not hereafter urge you, either with that passage from St. Mark, or any other from Scripture. At least, I will not, unless I forget myself; as I observe you have done just now. For you said but now, “Before we proceed to examine testimonies for the decision of this dispute, our first care should be, to inform ourselves of the nature of those miraculous powers which are the subject of it, as they are represented to us in the history of the gospel.” (Page 10.) Very true; “this should be our first care.” I was therefore all attention to hear your account of “the nature of those powers, as they are represented to us in the gospel.” But, alas! you say not a word more about it; but slip away to those “zealous champions who have attempted” (bold men as they are) “to refute the ‘Introductory Discourse.’” (Page 11.) Perhaps you will say, “Yes, I repeat that text from St. Mark.” You do; yet not describing the nature of those powers; but only to open the way to “one of your antago mists;” (page 12;) of whom you yourself affirm, that “not one of them seems to have spent a thought in considering those powers as they are set forth in the New Testament.” (Page 11.) Consequently, the bare repeating that text does not prove you (any more than them) to have “spent one thought upon the subject.” 7. From this antagonist you ramble away to another; after a long citation from whom, you subjoin: “It being agreed then that, in the original promise, there is no intimation of any par ticular period, to which their continuance was limited.” (Pages 13, 14.) Sir, you have lost your way. We have as yet nothing to do with their continuance.

In this very Discourse you yourself said just the contrary. You told us awhile ago, that, not only Dr. Marshall, Dr. Dodwell, and Archbishop Tillot son, but the generality of the Protestant Doctors, were agreed to what period they should confine themselves; believing that miracles subsisted through the three first centuries, and ceased in the beginning of the fourth. (Page 46, et seq.) 7. However, that none of them may ever be puzzled any more, you will “lay down some general principles, which may lead us to a more rational solution of the matter than any that has hitherto been offered.” (Ibid.) Here again I was all attention. And what did the mountain bring forth? What are these general principles, preceded by so solemn a declara tion, and laid down for thirteen pages together? (Pages 71 --84.) Why, they are dwindled down into one, “that the forged miracles of the fourth century taint the credit of all the later miracles !” I should desire you to prove, that the miracles of the fourth century were all forged, but that it is not material to our question. 8. But you endeavour to show it is: “For that surprising confidence,” you say, “with which the Fathers of the fourth age have affirmed as true what they themselves had forged, or, at least, knew to be forged,” (a little more proof of that,) “makes us suspect, that so bold a defiance of truth could not become general at once, but must have been carried gradually to that height by custom and the example of former times.” (Page 84.) It does not appear that it did become general till long after the fourth century. And as this supposition is not sufficiently proved, the inference from it is nothing worth. 9. You say, Secondly, “This age, in which Christianity was established, had no occasion for any miracles. They would not, therefore, begin to forge miracles at a time when there was no particular temptation to it.” (Ibid.) Yes, the greatest temptation in the world, if they were such men as you suppose. If they were men that would scruple no art or means to enlarge their own credit and authority, they would naturally “begin to forge miracles” at that time when real miracles were no more. 10. You say, Thirdly, “The later Fathers had equal piety with the earlier, but more learning and less credulity.

We are come at last to your general conclusion: “There is no sufficient reason to believe, that any miraculous powers subsisted in any age of the Church after the times of the Apostles.” (Page 91.) But pretended miracles, you say, arose thus: “As the high authority of the apostolic writings excited some of the most learned Christians” (prove that !) “to forge books under their names; so the great fame of the apostolic miracles would naturally excite some of the most crafty, when the Apostles were dead, to attempt some juggling tricks in imitation of them. And when these artful pretenders had maintained their ground through the first three centuries, the leading Clergy of the fourth understood their interest too well to part with the old plea of miraculous gifts.” (Page 92.) Round assertions indeed! But surely, Sir, you do not think that reasonable men will take these for proofs You are here advancing a charge of the blackest nature. But where are your vouchers? Where are the witnesses to support it? Hitherto you have not been able to produce one, through a course of three hundred years; unless you bring in those Heathen, of whose senseless, shameless prejudices you have yourself given so clear an account. But you designed to produce your witnesses in the “Free Inquiry,” a year or two after the “Introductory Discourse” was published. So you condemn them first, and try them afterwards: You will pass sentence now, and hear the evidence by and by A genuine specimen of that “impartial regard to truth,” which you profess upon all occasions. 13. Another instance of this is in your marginal note: “The primitive Christians were perpetually reproached for their gross credulity.” They were; but by whom? Why, by Jews and Heathens. Accordingly, the two witnesses you produce here are Celsus the Jew, and Julian the apostate. But lest this should not suffice, you make them confess the charge: “The Fathers,” your words are, “defend them selves by saying, that they did no more than the philosophers had always done: That Pythagoras's precepts were incul cated with an ipse divit, and they found the same method useful with the vulgar.” (Page 93.) And is this their whole defence? Do the very men to whom you refer, Origen and Arnobius, in the very tracts to which you refer, give no other answer than this argument ad hominem?

Thus, Justin himself was imposed upon by those of Alexandria, who showed him some old ruins under the name of cells. And so he was by those who told him, there was a statue at Rome, inscribed, Simoni Deo Sancto; whereas it was really inscribed, Semoni Sanco Deo; to an old deity of the Sabines. Now,” say you, “if he was deceived in such obvious facts, how much more easily would he be deceived by subtle and crafty impostors!” (Pages 40, 41.) Far less easily. A man of good judgment may be deceived in the inscriptions of statues, and points of ancient history. But, if he has only eyes and ears, and a small degree of common sense, he cannot be deceived in facts where he is both an eye and ear witness. 10. For a parting blow, you endeavour to prove, Sixthly, that Justin was a knave, as well as a fool. To this end you remark, that “he charges the Jews with erasing three passages out of the Greek Bible; one whereof stands there still, and the other two were not expunged by some Jew, but added by some Christian. Nay, that able critic and Divine, John Croius,” (you know when to bestow honourable appel lations,) “says Justin forged and published this passage for the confirmation of the Christian doctrine, as well as the greatest part of the Sibylline oracles, and the sentences of Mercurius.” (Page 42.) With far greater probability than John Croius asserts that Justin forged these passages, a man of candour would hope that he read them in his copy (though incorrect) of the Greek Bible. And till you disprove this, or prove the assertion of Croius, you are got not a jot farther still. But, notwith standing you have taken true pains to blacken him, both with regard to his morals and understanding, he may still be an honest man, and an unexceptionable witness, as to plain facts done before his face. 11. You fall upon Irenaeus next, and carefully enumerate all the mistakes in his writings. As, First, that he held the doctrine of the millennium, and related a weak fancy of Tapias concerning it. Secondly: That he believed our Saviour to have lived fifty years. Thirdly: That he believed Enoch and Elias were translated, and St. Paul caught up to that very paradise from which Adam was expelled.

And of their power to afflict the body, we have abundant proof, both in the history of Job, and that of the gospel demoniacs. I do not mean, Sir, to accuse you of believing these things. You have shown that you are guiltless in this matter; and that you pay no more regard to that antiquated book, the Bible, than you do to the Second Book of Esdras. But, alas ! the Fathers were not so far enlightened. And because they were bigoted to that old book, they of consequence held for truth what, you assure us, was mere delusion and imposture. 20. Now to apply: “A mind,” you say, “so totally possessed by superstitious fancies, could not even suspect the pretensions of those vagrant jugglers, who in those primitive ages were so numerous, and so industriously employed in deluding their fellow-creatures. Both Heathens, Jews, and Christians are all allowed to have had such impostors among them.” (Page 71.) By whom, Sir, is this allowed of the Christians? By whom, but Celsus, was it affirmed of them? Who informed you of their growing so numerous, and using such industry in their employment? To speak the plain truth, your mind appears to be “so totally possessed by ” these “vagrant jugglers,” that you cannot say one word about the primitive Church, but they immediately start up before you; though there is no more proof of their ever existing, than of a witch’s sailing in an egg-shell. 21. You conclude this head: “When pious Christians are arrived to this pitch of credulity, as to believe that evil spirits or evil men can work miracles, in opposition to the gospel; their very piety will oblige them to admit as miraculous what- . ever is pretended to be wrought in defence of it.” (Ibid.) Once more you have spoken out; you have shown, without disguise, what you think of St. Paul, and the “lying miracles” (2 Thess. ii. 9) which he (poor man!) believed evil spirits or evil men could work in opposition to the gospel; and of St. John, talking so idly of him who “doeth great wonders, and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth” (even though they were not Christians) “by means of those miracles which he hath power to do.” (Rev. xiii. 13, 14.) 22.

You go on: “He says likewise, he was admonished of God to ordain one Numidicus, a Confessor, who had been left for dead, half burnt and buried in stones.” (Pages 103, 104.) True, but what “questionable point of doctrine” or discipline did he introduce hereby ? or by ordaining Celerinus; “who was over-ruled and compelled by a divine vision to accept that office?” So you affirm Cyprian says. But Cyprian says it not; at least, not in those words which you cite in the margin: which, literally translated, run thus: “I recommend to you Celerinus, joined to our Clergy, not by human suffrage, but by the divine favour.”f “In another letter, speaking of Aurelius, whom he had ordained a Reader, he says to his Clergy and people, “In ordain ing Clergy, my dearest brethren, I use to consult you first; but * Utar ea admonitione, quá me Dominus uti jubet. Epis. 9. t Non humaná suffragatione, sed diviná dignatione, conjunctum. Epis. 34. there is no need to wait for human testimonies, when the divine suffrage has been already signified.’” An impartial man would wonder what you could infer from these five passages put together. Why, by the help of a short postulatum, “He was fond of power,” (you have as much ground to say, “He was fond of bloodshed,”) you will make it plain, “this was all a trick to enlarge his episcopal authority.” But as that postulatum is not allowed, you have all your work to begin again. 7. Hitherto then the character of Cyprian is unhurt; but now you are resolved to blow it up at once. So you proceed : “The most memorable effect of any of his visions was his flight from his Church in the time of persecution. He affirms, that he was commanded to retire by a special revelation from heaven.

10. You now bring forth your grand discovery, that “all the visions of those days were contrived, or authorized at least, by the leading men of the Church. For they were all applied, either, (1.) To excuse the conduct of particular persons, in some instances of it liable to censure; or, (2.) To enforce some doctrine or discipline pressed by some, but not relished by others; or, (3.) To confirm things not only frivolous, but sometimes even superstitious and hurtful.” (Page 109.) Well, Sir, here is the proposition. But where is the proof? I hope we shall have it in your next “Free Inquiry;” and that you will then give us a few instances of such applications, from the writers of the three first centuries. 11. Being not disposed to do this at present, you fall again upon the poor “heretic Montanus; who first gave a vogue” (as you phrase it) “to visions and ecstasies in the Christian Church.” (Page 110.) So you told us before. But we cannot believe it yet; because Peter and Paul tell us the contrary. Indeed, you do not now mention Montanus because it is any thing to the question, but only to make way for observing, that those who wrote against him “employed such arguments against his prophecy as shake the credit of all prophecy. For Epipha nius makes this the very criterion between a true and a false prophet, ‘that the true had no ecstasies, constantly retained his senses, and with firmness of mind apprehended and uttered the divine oracles.’” Sir, have you not mistook? Have you not transcribed one sentence in the margin, and translated another? That sentence which stands in your margin is this: “When there was need, the saints of God among the Prophets prophesied all things with the true Spirit, and with a sound understanding and reasonable mind.” Now, it is difficult to find out how this comes to “shake the credit of all prophecy.” 12. Why thus: “Before the Montanists had brought those ecstasies into disgrace, the prophecy of the orthodox too was exerted in ecstasy. And so were the prophecies of the Old Testament, according to the current opinion of those earlier days.” (Page 111.) That this was then “the current opinion,” you bring three citations to prove.

Those reasons have been coolly examined. And now let every impartial man, every person of true and unbiassed reason, calmly consider and judge, whether you have made out one point of all that you took in hand; and whether some miracles of each kind may not have been wrought in the ancient Church, for anything you have advanced to the contrary. 10. From page 127 to page 158, you relate miracles said to be wrought in the fourth century. I have no concern with these; but I must weigh an argument which you intermix therewith again and again. It is in substance this: “If we cannot believe the miracles attested by the later Fathers, then we ought not to believe those which are attested by the earliest writers of the Church.” I answer, The consequence is not good; because the case is not the same with the one and with the other. Several objections, which do not hold with regard to the earlier, may lie against the later, miracles; drawn either from the improbability of the facts themselves, such as we have no precedent of in holy writ; from the incompetency of the instruments said to perform them, such as bones, relics, or departed saints; or from the gross “credulity of a prejudiced, or the dishonesty of an interested, relater.” (Page 145.) 11. One or other of these objections holds against most of the later, though not the earlier, miracles. And if only one holds, it is enough; it is ground sufficient for making the difference. If, therefore, it was true that there was not a single Father of the fourth age, who was not equally pious with the best of the more ancient, still we might consistently reject most of the miracles of the fourth, while we allowed those of the preceding ages; both because of the far greater improbability of the facts themselves, and because of the incompetency of the instruments. (Page 159.) But it is not true, that “the Fathers of the fourth age,” whom you mention, were equally pious with the best of the preceding ages. Nay, according to your account, (which I shall not now contest,) they were not pious at all. For you say, “They were wilful, habitual liars.” And, if so, they had not a grain of piety.

For you say, “They were wilful, habitual liars.” And, if so, they had not a grain of piety. Now, that the earlier Fathers were not such has been shown at large; though, indeed, you complimented them with the same character. Consequently, whether these later Fathers are to be believed or no, we may safely believe the former; who dared not to do evil that good might come, or to lie either for God or man. 12. I had not intended to say anything more concerning any of the miracles of the later ages; but your way of accounting for one, said to have been wrought in the fifth, is so extremely curious that I cannot pass it by. The story, it seems, is this: “Hunneric, an Arian Prince, in his persecution of the orthodox in Afric, ordered the tongues of a certain society of them to be cut out by the roots. But, by a surprising instance of God’s good providence, they were enabled to speak articulately and distinctly without their tongues. And so continuing to make open profession of the same doctrine, they became not only Preachers, but living witnesses, of its truth.” (Page 182.) Do not mistake me, Sir: I have no design at all to vouch for the truth of this miracle. I leave it just as I find it. But what I am concerned with is, your manner of accounting for it. 13. And, First, you say, “It may not improbably be supposed, that though their tongues were ordered to be cut to the roots, yet the sentence might not be so strictly executed as not to leave in some of them such a share of that organ as was sufficient, in a tolerable degree, for the use of speech.” (Page 183.) So you think, Sir, if only an inch of a man’s tongue were to be neatly taken off, he would be able to talk tolerably well, as soon as the operation was over. But the most marvellous part is still behind.

15. “I have now,” you say, “thrown together all which I had collected for the support of my argument;” (page 187;) after a lame recapitulation of which you add with an air of triumph and satisfaction: “I wish the Fathers the ablest advocates which Popery itself can afford; for Protestantism, I am sure, can supply none whom they would choose to retain in their cause; none who can defend them without contradicting their own profession and disgracing their own character; or produce anything, but what deserves to be laughed at, rather than answered.” (Pages 188, 189.) Might it not be well, Sir, not to be quite so sure yet? You may not always have the laugh on your side. You are not yet infallibly assured, but that even Protestantism may produce something worth an answer. There may be some Protestants, for aught you know, who have a few grains of common sense left, and may find a way to defend, at least the Ante-Nicene Fathers, without “disgracing their own character.” Even such an one as I have faintly attempted this, although I neither have, nor expect to have, any preferment, not even to be a Lambeth Chaplain; which if Dr. Middleton is not, it is not his own fault.- V. l. The last thing you proposed was, “to refute some of the most plausible objections which have been hitherto made.” To what you have offered on this head, I must likewise attempt a short reply. You say, “It is objected, First, that by the character I have given of the Fathers, the authority of the books of the New Testament, which were transmitted to us through their hands, will be rendered precarious and uncertain.” (Page 190.) After a feint of confuting it, you frankly acknowledge the whole of this objection. “I may venture,” you say, “to declare, that if this objection be true, it cannot hurt my argument. For if it be natural and necessary, that the craft and credulity of witnesses should always detract from the credit of their testimony, then who can help it? And if this charge be proved on the Fathers, it must be admitted, how far soever the consequences may reach.” (Page 192.) “If it be proved !” Very true.

And if this charge be proved on the Fathers, it must be admitted, how far soever the consequences may reach.” (Page 192.) “If it be proved !” Very true. If that charge against the Fathers were really and substantially proved, the authority of the New Testament would be at an end, so far as it depends on one kind of evidence. But that charge is not proved. Therefore even the traditional authority of the New Testament is as firm as ever. 2. “It is objected,” you say, “Secondly, that all suspicion of fraud in the case of the primitive miracles is excluded by that public appeal and challenge which the Christian apolo gists make to their enemies the Heathens, to come and see with their own eyes the reality of the facts which they attest.” (Page 193.) You answer: “This objection has no real weight with any who are acquainted with the condition of the Christians in those days.” You then enlarge (as it seems, with a peculiar pleasure) on the general contempt and odium they lay under, from the first appearance of Christianity in the world, till it was established by the civil power. (Pages 194-196.) “In these circumstances, it cannot be imagined,” you say, “that men of figure and fortune would pay any attention to the apologies or writings of a sect so utterly despised.” (Page 197.) But, Sir, they were hated, as well as despised; and that by the great vulgar, as well as the small. And this very hatred would naturally prompt them to examine the ground of the challenges daily repeated by them they hated; were it only, that, by discovering the fraud, (which they wanted neither opportunity nor skill to do, had there been any,) they might have had a better pretence for throwing the Christians to the lions, than because the Nile did not, or the Tiber did, overflow. 3. You add: “Much less can we believe that the Emperor or Senate of Rome should take any notice of those apologies, or even know indeed that any such were addressed to them.” (Ibid.) Why, Sir, by your account, you would make us believe, that all the Emperors and Senate together were as “senseless, stupid a race of blockheads and brutes,” as even the Christians themselves. But hold.

A true Protestant believes in God, has a full confidence in his mercy, fears him with a filial fear, and loves him with all his soul. He worships God in spirit and in truth, in everything gives him thanks; calls upon him with his heart as well as his lips, at all times and in all places; honours his holy name and his word, and serves him truly all the days of his life. Now, do not you yourself approve of this? Is there any one point you can condemn? Do not you practise as well as approve of it? Can you ever be happy if you do not? Can you ever expect true peace in this, or glory in the world to come, if you do not believe in God through Christ? if you do not thus fear and love God? My dear friend, consider, I am not persuading you to leave or change your religion, but to follow after that fear and love of God without which all reli gion is vain. I say not a word to you about your opinions or outward manner of worship. But I say, all worship is an abomi nation to the Lord, unless you worship him in spirit and in truth; with your heart, as well as your lips; with your spirit, and with your understanding also. Be your form of worship what it will, but in everything give him thanks; else it is all but lost labour. Use whatever outward observances you please, but put your whole trust in him; but honour his holy name and his word, and serve him truly all the days of your life. 14. Again: A true Protestant loves his neighbour, that is, every man, friend or enemy, good or bad, as himself, as he loves his own soul, as Christ loved us. And as Christ laid down his life for us, so is he ready to lay down his life for his brethren. He shows this love, by doing to all men, in all points, as he would they should do unto him. He loves, honours, and obeys his father and mother, and helps them to the uttermost of his power. He honours and obeys the King, and all that are put in authority under him. He cheerfully submits to all his Governors, Teachers, spiritual Pastors, and Masters.

de Euchar. So again, Sess. 25, Decret. de Purgatorio. And there are above a hun dred anathemas in that Council in point of doctrine against such as do not so believe. + Hanc veram catholicam fidem, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest: That is, “This is the true Catholic faith, without which no man can be saved.”--Bulla Pii IV., super Form. Juram. / when she requires to bow down before an image, which the Scripture forbids; and forbids to read the Scripture, which it requires. And without doubt the text of the Apostle holds as much against any other, as against himself or an angel from heaven. Q. 5. Doth not the Church of Rome acknowledge the holy Scripture to be a sufficient rule for faith and manners? A. No: For there are some doctrines proposed by that Church as matters of faith, and some things required as necessary duty, which are by many learned men among themselves confessed not to be contained in Scripture. REPLY. We read in Scripture of “the faith once delivered to the saints;” (Jude 3;) and “all” or the whole “Scrip ture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.) The Scripture, therefore, is a rule sufficient in itself, and was by men divinely inspired at once delivered to the world; and so neither needs, nor is capable of, any further addition. So Tertullian: “Let Hermogenes show that this thing is written. If it be not written, let him fear the woe pronounced against them that add to, or take from, Scripture.” (Contra Hermog., c. 22.) Q. 6. What doctrines of faith and matters of practice are thus acknowledged not to be in Scripture? A. The doctrines of transubstantiation, (Scotus in 4 Sent. Dist. 11, q.3, et Yribarn in Scot.,) of the seven sacraments, (Bellarm. l. 2, de Effectu Sacram., c. 25, sec. Secunda pro batio, ) of purgatory, (Roffens. contra Luther., art. 18,) and the practice of half-communion, (Concil. Constan., Sess. 13, Cassander, art. 22,) worshipping of saints and images, (Bel larm. de Cult. Sanct, l. 3, c. 9, sec. Praeterea. Cassand. Con sult, art. 21, sec. 4) indulgences, (Polyd. Virg. de Invent., l. 8, c. 1) and service in an unknown tongue. (Bellarm. de Verb. Dei, l. 2, c.

2, c. 26.) REPLY. On the contrary, St. Augustine writes, “If any one concerning Christ and his Church, or concerning any other things which belong to faith or life, I will not say if we, but (which St. Paul hath added) if an angel from heaven, preach unto you besides what ye have received in the Law and Evangelical Writings, let him be accursed.” (Contr. Petil, l. 3, c. 6.) For as all faith is founded upon divine authority, so there is now no divine authority but the Scriptures; and, therefore, no one can make that to be of divine authority which is not contained in them. And if transubstantiation and purgatory, &c., are not delivered in Scripture, they cannot be doctrines of faith. Q. 7. What doth the Church of Rome propound to herself as an entire rule of faith? A. Scripture with tradition; and she requires that the traditions be received and reverenced with the like pious regard and veneration as the Scriptures; and whosoever knowingly contemns them, is declared by her to be accursed. (Concil. Trid. Sess. 4; Decret. de Can. Script.) REPLY. “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men;” (Matt. xv. 9;) forbidding that as unlawful which God hath not forbidden, and requiring that as necessary duty which God hath not required. So St. Hierom: “The sword of God,” his word, “doth smite those other things, which they find and hold of their own accord, as by apostolical tradition, without the authority and testimony of Scripture.” (In Cap. 1, Aggaei.) Q. 8. What do they understand by traditions? A. Such things belonging to faith and manners as were dictated by Christ, or the Holy Ghost in the Apostles, and have been preserved by a continual succession in the Catholic Church, from hand to hand, without writing. (Concil. Trid. ibid.) REPLY. But St. Cyril affirms, “It behoveth us not to deliver, no, not so much as the least thing of the holy mysteries of faith, without the holy Scripture. That is the security of our faith, not which is from our own inventions, but from the demonstration of the holy Scriptures.” (Catechis. 5.) Q. 9. What are those traditions which they profess to have received from Christ and his Apostles? A. The offering the sacrifice of the mass for the souls in purgatory, (Conc. Trid. Sess. 22, c.

22, c. 2) the mystical bene dictions, incensings, garments, and many other things of the like kind, (c. 5) salt, spittle, exorcisms, and wax candles used in baptism, &c., (Catech. Rom., par. 2, c. 2, n. 59, 65, &c.,) the Priests shaving the head after the manner of a crown. (Ibid. c. 7, n. 14.) REPLY. “Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men.” (Mark vii. 8.) “It is necessary even for novices to learn the Scriptures, that the mind may be well confirmed in piety, and that they may not be accustomed to human traditions.” (St. Basil in Reg. Brev. Reg. 95.) The Church of Rome hath no more to show for their holy water, and incensings, and salt, and spittle, &c., than the Pharisees for their traditions; and since they no less impose them as divine than the other, they are alike guilty with them. Q. 10. Doth the Church of Rome agree with other Churches in the number of canonical books of Scripture? A. No: For she hath added to the canonical books of the Old Testament, Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the two Books of Maccabees,” and a new part of Esther and Daniel; which whole Books, with all their parts,f whosoever rejects as not canonical, is accursed. (Concil. Trident. Sess. 4, Decret. de Scriptur.) REPLY. These apocryphal books were wrote after prophecy and divine inspiration ceased, and so were not received by the Jewish Church, (to whom “were committed the oracles of God,” Rom. iii. 2) nor by the Christian Church, as the Sixtieth Canon of the Council of Laodicea shows, where there is a catalogue of the canonical Books, without any mention of these. “As therefore the Church doth read Tobias, Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees, but doth not receive them into the canonical Scriptures; so it doth read the two volumes of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not to establish the authority of ecclesiastical principles.” St. Jerome. (In Prologo Proverb.)--See Bellarm. de Verbo, l. 1, c. 10 init. * These books are so sacred, as that they are of infallible truth.-Bellarm. De Verbo, l. 1, c. 10, sec. Ecclesia vera.

Ecclesia vera. + Wherefore doth the Council add, “with all their parts; ” unless that all should understand those parts also, about which there was some time a dispute, to belong to the sacred canon of the Bible?--Ibid. c. 7, sec. Denique. Q. 11, Are the people of the Church of Rome permitted to read the Scripture in a tongue vulgarly known? A. No; they were for a time permitted to read it, under the caution of a license, where it could be obtained; (Reg. Ind. Libr. Prohib. Reg. 4;) but since they are forbid it, or to have so much as any summary or historical compendium of it in their own tongue. (Index Libr. Prohib. Auctor. Sixti V., et Clem. VIII. Observat. circa 4 Regulam.) REPLY. Under the Law, the people had the Scriptures in a tongue vulgarly known; and they were required to read the law, and to be conversant in it: “These words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart,” &c.; (Deut. vi. 6;) and accordingly our Saviour sends them thither: “Search the Scriptures.” (John v. 39.) So St. Paul requires that his “Epistle be read to all the brethren;” (1 Thess. v. 27;) and, if so, it was wrote in a language they understood. And so it was in the primitive Church; therefore St. Chrysostom exhorts his hearers, though secular men, to provide themselves Bibles, the medicines of their souls, to be their perpetual instructers. (Comment. in Coloss. iii. 16.) Q. 12. For what reason is the Scripture thus prohibited among them? A. “Because,” say they, “if it be permitted to be read every where, without difference, there would more prejudice than profit proceed from it.” (Reg. Ind. Libr. Prohib. Reg. 4.) REPLY. In the Apostles’ times there were some that “wrested the Scriptures to their own destruction;” and yet the Apostle thought of no other expedient than to give the Christians a caution, that they were “not also led away with the error of the wicked.” (2 Pet. iii. 16, 17.) The way to prevent this, therefore, is, not to keep the Scriptures from the people, which “were written for our learning,” (Rom. xv. 4,) but to exhort them to a diligent perusal of them: “Ye err, not knowing the Scriptures.” (Matt. xxii. 29.) “The sheep should not cast away their skin, because wolves sometimes hide themselves under it.” (St.

29.) “The sheep should not cast away their skin, because wolves sometimes hide themselves under it.” (St. Austin de Serm. Dom. in Monte.) Q. 13. Since the Scripture may be misunderstood, have they no judge to determine the sense of it? A. They say, “It belongs to the Church” (of Rome) “to judge of the sense of Scripture, and no one may presume to interpret the Scripture contrary to the sense which Mother Church hath held and doth hold.” (Concil. Trid. Sess. 4. Decret. de Edit. et Usu Script.) It cannot be called the Church of God where the legitimate successor of St. Peter in the Roman Chair, and the undoubted vicar of Christ, doth not preside: What the Church doth teach is the express word of God; and what is taught against the sense and consent of the Church, is the express word of the devil. (Cardinal Hosius de expresso Dei verbo, p. 642, 643.) REPLY. While the Apostles were alive, the Churches of Christ, in matters of dispute, applied themselves to them, as in the point of circumcision; (Acts xv.2;) but since they of the Church of Rome can never prove the like infallibility in their Church, nor direct us where it is, we think ourselves as well in our Church as they can be in theirs; and that as long as we have the Scripture, the Church is to be referred to the Scripture, and not the Scripture to the Church; and that, as the Scripture is the best expounder of itself, so the best way to know whether anything be of divine authority, is to apply ourselves to the Scripture. “If I would have the Church demonstrated, it is not by human teachings, but by the divine oracles.” (St. Aug. de Unit. Eccles. cap. 3.) “The way for understanding the Scriptures, is to demon strate out of themselves, concerning themselves.” (Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 7, p. 757.) QUESTION 14. WHAT doth the Church of Rome teach concerning repentance? ANswer (1.) It teacheth that contrition, which is a sorrow for sin past, and a purpose of not committing it for the future, though perfected with charity, is not sufficient to reconcile a person to God without penance, or confession to a Priest either in act or desire. (Concil. Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4. Catech. Rom. Pars 2, de Sacrament. Paenit. n. 38.) A.

They are not agreed in the nature and condition of the place: For the Catechism saith, “They were sustained by hope, and were without any sense of grief.” (N. 3.) And presently, that, “although they were without other sense of grief, yet, being kept in suspense, they were tormented with the hope of that blessed glory which they did expect.” (N. 4.) REPLY. But the Scripture tells us, that the state where Abraham was, was not only a state of rest, but also of comfort. (Luke xvi. 25.) Q. 27. How and when were they delivered thence? A. They were delivered by Christ at his descent into hell; (Catech. Rom, ibid., n.5, 6;) so that ever since that place remains empty. (Bellarm. de Purg., l. 2, c. 6, sec. Octava est.) REPLY. The Scripture says not one word of this. Q. 28. What use do they make of this doctrine? A. Hereby they give a reason why there is neither precept nor example in the Old Testament for the invocation of saints departed, (Bellarm. de Sanct. Beat., l. 1, c. 19, sec. Item Exod,) because they were, for their punishment, enclosed in this place, and were there held bound by the devils, till delivered by Christ. (Catech. Rom, ibid., n. 5.) And so the people of those times only prayed to God; and did not use to say, “Holy Abraham, pray for me.” (Bellarm, ibid.) REPLY. There is neither precept nor example for the invo cation of saints in the New Testament; and if that be a reason for a limbus before Christ, it may be a reason for a limbus still; and they may as well exclude the saints from heaven now as then, if there be no more for their invocation in the New Testament than was in the Old. Thus Salmero, a learned disputant in the Council of Trent: “Invocations of saints have no express ground in all the Scriptures.” (Ad 1 Tim. 2, Disp. 7, sec. Sed cum autem et nec obstat.) QUESTION 29. Of what doth the service in the Roman Church consist? ANswer. It consists of prayers and hymns offered to God, angels, and saints; of lessons taken out of the Scriptures, and legends; and of profession of faith in the creeds. REPLY.

2, sec. Probo igitur.) (4.) It was used then for the recovery of the sick; but here it is to be applied only to those that are judged to be past it. Q. 85. Is ordination a sacrament? A. It is truly and properly a sacrament, and doth confer grace; and whoso denies this, is accursed. (Concil. Trid., Sess. 7, Can. 1, 23, cap. 3, Can. 3.) REPLY. We account ordination to be of divine institution, and that by it a ministerial commission is conveyed; but how necessary soever this office is to the Church, and grace for the exercise of it, yet as that grace is not promised to it, we cannot admit it to be properly and truly a sacrament. Q. 86. What are the several orders instituted for the service of the Church? A. The orders always received by the Catholic Church are seven,-the greater and less: The greater are the Priest, Deacon, and Sub-Deacon: The less are the Acolythus, who is to carry the candle and assist the Sub-Deacon; the Exor cist, who is to attend and pray over them that are possessed with the devil; the Reader, and the Ostiarius, or door-keeper. (Catech., par. 2, c. 7, n. 12, 15, &c.) REPLY. We know of no authority there is for any order under a Deacon, so as to anathematize them that do not receive them. (Concil. Trid, ibid., Can. 2.) We know of no authority for the forms used in the ordination of those lower orders; as, when the Bishop admits any to that of Exorcists, he reaches to them a book in which the exorcisms are contained, and saith, “Receive, and commit to memory, and take the power of laying on of hands upon the possessed, or baptized, or catechumens.” (Catech., ibid., n. 17.) We know of no authority for this kind of procedure, for those forms of conjuration contained in those books, or for the use of those rites therein prescribed, for exorcising persons, houses, cattle, milk, butter, fruits, &c., infested with the devil. (See the Pastorale Mechlin, and the Manual of Exorcisms, Antwerp, 1626.) oF THE SACRAMENT of MARRIAGE. Q. 87. Is marriage truly and properly a sacrament? A. Yes; and whosoever denies it so to be, is accursed. (Concil. Trid, Sess. 24, Can. 1.) REPLY. St. Austin saith, that signs, when applied to religious things, are called sacraments. (Epist.

I might have further considered their notes of a Church, and, showed how many of them are not true, or, however, do not belong to the Church of Rome; but that would be too large a subject to enter upon: And what has been said will be sufficient to show how far that Church hath erred from truth and reason. For if we set their Councils, Missals, Breviaries, Rituals, and Catechisms on one side, and Scripture and antiquity on the other, we shall find their doctrines and practices as well opposite to those as they are opposite to ours; and may be assured that persons may sooner lose their eyes, than find there such a primacy of St. Peter as they contend for, or their Vicarship of the Pope, the invocation of saints, the worship of images, service in an unknown tongue, transubstantiation, purgatory, and the rest that we contend against. Scripture and indubitable antiquity are the authority we appeal to ; thither we refer our cause; and can heartily conclude with that of Vincentius Lyrin, “That is to be held, which hath been believed everywhere, always, and by all.” (Contr. Haer., c. 3.)

Shall the cannon-ball be rewarded for flying towards the sun, or punished for receding from it? As incapable of either punish ment or reward is the man who is supposed to be impelled by a force he cannot resist. Justice can have no place in reward ing or punishing mere machines, driven to and fro by an external force. So that your supposition of God’s ordaining from etermity whatsoever should be done to the end of the world; as well as that of God’s acting irresistibly in the elect, and Satan’s acting irresistibly in the reprobates; utterly over throws the Scripture doctrine of rewards and punishments, as well as of a judgment to come. 38. Thus ill does that election which implies reprobation agree with the Scripture account of God’s justice. And does it agree any better with his truth? How will you reconcile it with those plain passages?--“Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die, saith the Lord God; and not that he should return from his ways and live? Cast away from you all your transgressions whereby ye have transgressed: For why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord: Wherefore, turn yourselves, and live ye.” (Ezek. xviii. 23, &c.) “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways: For why will ye die, O house of Israel?” (Ezek. xxxiii. 11.) 39. But perhaps you will say, “These ought to be limited and explained by other passages of Scripture; wherein, this. doctrine is as clearly affirmed, as it is denied in these.” I must answer very plain: If this were true, we must give up all the Scriptures together; nor would the Infidels allow the Bible so honourable a title as that of a “cunningly-devised fable.” But it is not true. It has no colour of truth. It is absolutely, notoriously false. To tear up the very roots of reprobation, and of all doctrines that have a necessary con nexion therewith, God declares in his word these three things, and that explicitly, in so many terms: (1) “Christ died for all,” (2 Cor. v.

“But is not the faithfulness of God engaged to keep all that now believe from falling away?” I cannot say that. Whatever assurance God may give to particular souls, I find no general promise in holy writ, “that none who once believes shall finally fall.” Yet, to say the truth, this is so pleasing an opinion, so agreeable to flesh and blood, so suitable to whatever of nature remains in those who have tasted the grace of God, that I see nothing but the mighty power of God which can restrain any who hears it from closing with it. But still it wants one thing to recommend it,-plain, cogent scripture proof. Arguments from experience alone will never determine this point. They can only prove thus much, on the one hand, that our Lord is exceeding patient; that he is peculiarly unwilling any believer should perish; that he bears long, very long, with all their follies, waiting to be gracious, and to heal their back sliding; and that he does actually bring back many lost sheep, who, to man’s apprehensions, were irrecoverable: But all this does not amount to a convincing proof, that no believer can or does fall from grace. So that this argument, from experience, will weigh little with those who believe the possibility of falling. And it will weigh full as little with those who do not; for if you produce ever so many examples of those who were once strong in faith, and are now more abandoned than ever, they will evade it by saying, “O, but they will be brought back; they will not die in their sins.” And if they do die in their sins, we come no nearer; we have not gained one point still: For it is easy to say, “They were only hypocrites; they never had true faith.” Therefore Scripture alone can determine this question; and Scripture does so fully determine it, that there needs only to set down a very few texts, with some short reflections upon them. 68.

(4.) Here is not the least intimation of their being ever grafted in again. To this you object, (1) “This olive-tree is not the invisible Church, but only the outward gospel Church state.” You affirm this; and I prove the contrary; namely, that it is the invisible Church; for it “consists of holy believers,” which none but the invisible Church does. You object, (2) “The Jews who were broken off were never true believers in Christ.” I am not speaking of the Jews, but of those Gentiles who are mentioned in the twenty-second verse; whom St. Paul exhorts to “continue in his goodness;” otherwise, saith he, “thou shalt be cut off.” Now, I presume these were true believers in Christ. Yet they were still liable to be cut off. You assert, (3) “This is only a cutting off from the outward Church state.” But how is this proved? So forced and unnatural a construction requires some argument to support it. You say, (4) “There is a strong intimation that they shall be grafted in again.” No; not that those Gentiles who did not continue in his goodness should be grafted in after they were once cut off. I cannot find the least intimation of this. “But all Israel shall be saved.” I believe they will; but this does not imply the re-ingrafting of these Gentiles. It remains, then, that those who are grafted into the spiritual, invisible Church, may nevertheless finally fall. 72. Fourthly. Those who are branches of Christ, the true vine, may yet finally fall from grace. For thus saith, our blessed Lord himself: “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh away. I am the vine, ye are the branches. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” (John xv. 1, &c.) Here we may observe, (1.) The persons spoken of were in Christ, branches of the true vine. (2.) Some of these branches abide not in Christ, but “the Father taketh them away.” (3) The branches which “abide not” are “cast forth,” cast out from Christ and his Church. (4) They are not only “cast forth,” but “withered;” consequently, never grafted in again.

(4) They are not only “cast forth,” but “withered;” consequently, never grafted in again. (5.) They are not only “cast forth and withered,” but also “cast into the fire.” And, (6) “They are burned.” It is not possible for words more strongly to declare that those who are branches of the true vine may finally fall. “But this,” you say, “furnishes an argument for, not against, the persevering of the saints.” Yes, just such an argument for final perseverance, as the above cited words of St. Paul to Timothy. But how do you make it out? “Why thus: There are two sorts of branches in Christ the vine; the one fruitful, the other unfruitful. The one are eternally chosen; and these abide in him, and can never withdraw away.” Nay, this is the very point to be proved. So that you now immediately and directly beg the question. “The other sort of branches are such as are in Christ only by profession; who get into Churches, and so are reckoned in Christ; and these in time wither away. These never had any life, grace, or fruitfulness from him.” Surely you do not offer this by way of argument! You are again taking for granted the very point to be proved. But you will prove that “those are branches in Christ, who never had any life or grace from him, because the Churches of Judea and Thessalonica are said to be in Christ, though every individual member was not savingly in him.” I deny the consequence; which can never be made good, unless you can prove that those very Jews or Thessalonians who never had any life or grace from him are nevertheless said by our Lord to be “branches in him.” It remains, that true believers, who are branches of the true vine, may nevertheless finally fall. 73. Fifthly. Those who so effectually know Christ, as by that knowledge to have escaped the pollutions of the world, may yet fall back into those pollutions, and perish everlastingly. For thus saith the Apostle Peter, “If, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,” (the only possible way of escaping them,) “they are entangled again therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.” (2 Peter ii.

Popery Calmly Considered Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 10 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- IN the following Tract, I propose, First, to lay down and examine the chief doctrines of the Church of Rome: Secondly, to show the natural tendency of a few of those doctrines; and that with all the plainness and all the calmness I can. oF THE CHURCH, AND THE RULE of FAITH. 1. THE Papists judge it necessary to salvation, to be subject to the Pope, as the one visible head of the Church. But we read in Scripture, that Christ is the Head of the Church, “from whom the whole body is fitly joined together.” (Col. ii. 19.) The Scripture does not mention any visible head of the Church; much less does it mention the Pope as such; and least of all does it say, that it is necessary to salvation to be subject to him. 2. The Papists say, The Pope is Christ's Vicar, St. Peter's successor, and has the supreme power on earth over the whole Church. We answer, Christ gave no such power to St. Peter him self. He gave no Apostle pre-eminence over the rest. Yea, St. Paul was so far from acknowledging St. Peter's supremacy, that he withstood him to the face, (Gal. ii. 11) and asserted himself “not to be behind the chief of the Apostles.” Neither is it certain, that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome; no, nor that he ever was there. But they say, “Is not Rome the mother, and therefore the mistress, of all Churches?” We answer, No. “The word of the Lord went forth from Jerusalem.” There the Church began. She, therefore, not the Church of Rome, is the mother of all Churches. The Church of Rome, therefore, has no right to require any person to believe what she teaches on her sole authority. 3. St. Paul says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” The Scripture, therefore, being delivered by men divinely inspired, is a rule sufficient of itself: So it neither needs, nor is capable of, any farther addition. Yet the Papists add tradition to Scripture, and require it to be received with equal veneration.

Yet the Papists add tradition to Scripture, and require it to be received with equal veneration. By traditions, they mean, “such points of faith and practice as have been delivered down in the Church from hand to hand without writing.” And for many of these, they have no more Scripture to show, than the Pharisees had for their traditions. 4. The Church of Rome not only adds tradition to Scrip ture, but several entire books; namely, Tobit and Judith, the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the two books of Maccabees, and a new part of Esther and of Daniel; “which whole books,” says the Church of Rome, “whoever rejects, let him be accursed.” We answer, We cannot but reject them. We dare not receive them as part of the Holy Scriptures. For none of these books were received as such by the Jewish Church, “to whom were committed the oracles of God:” (Rom. iii. 2:) Neither by the ancient Christian Church, as appears from the 60th Canon of the Council of Laodicea; wherein is a catalogue of the books of Scriptures, without any mention of these. 5. As the Church of Rome, on the one hand, adds to the Scripture, so, on the other hand, she forbids the people to read them. Yea, they are forbid to read so much as a summary or historical compendium of them in their own tongue. Nothing can be more inexcusable than this. Even under the law, the people had the Scriptures in a tongue vulgarly known; and they were not only permitted, but required, to read them; yea, to be constantly conversant therein. (Deut. vi. 6, &c.) Agreeable to this, our Lord commands to search the Scriptures; and St. Paul directs, that his Epistle be read in all the Churches. (1 Thess. v. 27.) Certainly this Epistle was wrote in a tongue which all of them understood. But they say, “If people in general were to read the Bible, it would do them more harm than good.” Is it any honour to the Bible to speak thus? But supposing some did abuse it, is this any sufficient reason for forbidding others to use it? Surely no. Even in the days of the Apostles, there were some “unstable and ignorant men,” who wrested both St.

Even in the days of the Apostles, there were some “unstable and ignorant men,” who wrested both St. Paul's Epistles, and the other Scriptures, “to their own destruction.” But did any of the Apostles, on this account, forbid other Christians to read them? You know they did not: They only cautioned them not to be “led away by the error of the wicked.” And certainly the way to prevent this is, not to keep the Scriptures from them; (for “they were written for our learning;”) but to exhort all to the diligent perusal of them, lest they should “err, not knowing the Scriptures.” 6. “But seeing the Scripture may be misunderstood, how are we to judge of the sense of it? How can we know the sense of any scripture, but from the sense of the Church 7 ° We answer, (1.) The Church of Rome is no more the Church in general, than the Church of England is. It is only one particular branch of the catholic or universal Church of Christ, which is the whole body of believers in Christ, scattered over the whole earth. (2.) We therefore see no reason to refer any matter in dispute to the Church of Rome, more than any other Church; especially as we know, neither the Bishop nor the Church of Rome is any more infallible than ourselves. (3.) In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church. And Scripture is the best expounder of Scripture. The best way, therefore, to understand it, is carefully to compare Scripture with Scripture, and thereby learn the true meaning of it. 1. THE Church of Rome teaches, that “the deepest repentance or contrition avails nothing without confession to a Priest; but that, with this, attrition, or the fear of hell, is sufficient to reconcile us to God.” This is very dangerously wrong, and flatly contrary to Scrip ture; for the Scripture says, “A broken and contrite heart, thou, O God, wilt not despise.” (Psalm li. 17.) And the same texts which make contrition sufficient without confession, show that attrition even with it is insufficient. Now, as the former doctrine, of the insufficiency of contrition without confession, makes that necessary which God has not made necessary; so the latter, of the sufficiency of attrition with confession, makes that unnecessary which God has made necessary. 2.

14, 15.) But what has this to do with the extreme unction of the Church of Rome? In the first Church, this anointing was a mere rite: In the Church of Rome, it is made a sacrament I It was used in the first Church for the body; it is used in the Church of Rome for the soul: It was used then for the recovery of the sick; now, for those only that are thought past recovery. It is easy, therefore, to see, that the Romish extreme unction has no foundation in Scripture. 9. We are now to consider what the Church of Rome delivers concerning ordination. “This,” says she, “is properly a sacrament. He that denies it, let him be accursed.” “The orders received in the Church of Rome are seven : The Priest, the Deacon, the Subdeacon, the Acolythus, to carry the candle; the Exorcist, to cast out devils; the Reader, and Door-keeper.” On this, we observe, It is not worth disputing, whether ordination should be called a sacrament or not. Let the word then pass: But we object to the thing; there is no divine authority for any order under a Deacon. Much less is there any Scriptural authority for the forms of conjuration prescribed to the Exorcists; or for the rites prescribed in exorcising not only men, women, and children, but likewise houses, cattle, milk, butter, or fruits, said to be infested with the devil. 10. The next of their sacraments, so called, is marriage; concerning which they pronounce, “Marriage is truly and properly a sacrament. He that denies it so to be, let him be accursed.” We answer, In one sense it may be so. For St. Austin says, “Signs, when applied to religious things, are called sacraments.” In this large sense, he calls the sign of the cross a sacrament; and others give this name to washing the feet. But it is not a sacrament according to the Romish definition of the word; for it no more “confers grace,” than washing the feet or signing with the cross. A more dangerous error in the Church of Rome is, the for bidding the Clergy to marry.

The doctrine of the Church of Rome has a natural tendency to destroy truth from off the earth. What can more directly tend to this, what can more incite her own members to all manner of lying and falsehood, than that precious doctrine of the Church of Rome, that no faith is to be kept with heretics? Can I believe one word that a man says, who espouses this principle? I know it has been frequently affirmed, that the Church of Rome has renounced this doctrine. But I ask, When or where? By what public and authentic act, notified to all the world? This principle has been publicly and openly avowed by a whole Council, the ever-renowned Council of Constance: An assembly never to be paralleled, either among Turks or Pagans, for regard to justice, mercy, and truth ! But when and where was it as publicly disavowed? Till this is done in the face of the sun, this doctrine must stand before all mankind as an avowed principle of the Church of Rome. And will this operate only toward heretics? toward the supposed enemies of the Church? Nay, where men have once learned not to keep faith with heretics, they will not long keep it towards Catholics. When they have once over leaped the bounds of truth, and habituated themselves to lying and dissimulation, toward one kind of men, will they not easily learn to behave in the same manner toward all men? So that, instead of “putting away all lying,” they will put away all truth; and instead of having “no guile found in their mouth,” there will be found nothing else therein Thus naturally do the principles of the Romanists tend to banish truth from among themselves. And have they not an equal tendency to cause lying and dissimulation among those that are not of their communion, by that Romish principle, that force is to be used in matters of religion? that if men are not of our sentiments, of our Church, we should thus “compel them to come in ?” Must not this, in the very nature of things, induce all those over whom they have any power, to dissemble if not deny those opinions, who vary ever so little from what that Church has determined ?

11. As to the manner of their preaching, they spoke with authority, as speaking not their own word, but the word of Him that sent them, and “by manifestation of the truth, commending themselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” They were “not as many that cauponize the word of God,” debase and adulterate it with foreign mixtures, “but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, spake they in Christ.” They approved themselves the Minis ters of God, “in much patience, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; by pureness, by knowledge,” knowing all their flock by name, all their circumstances, all their wants; “by long suffering, never weary of well-doing, by kindness, by love unfeigned; by the word of truth, by the power of God” attending it, “by the armour of righteousness on the right hand, and on the left.” Hence they were “instant in season, out of season,” being never afraid of the faces of men, never ashamed of Christ or of his words, even before an adulterous and sinful generation. They went on unmoved through “honour and dishonour,” through “evil report and good report.” They regarded not father or mother, or wife or children, or houses or lands, or ease or pleasure; but, having this single end in view, to save their own souls, and those that heard them, they “counted not their lives dear unto themselves, so that they might” make full proof of their ministry, so that they might “finish their course with joy, and testify the gospel of the grace of God.” Let all the Right Reverend the Bishops, and the Reverend the Clergy, only walk by this rule,--let them thus live, and thus testify, with one heart and one voice, the gospel of the grace of God, and every Papist within these four seas will soon acknowledge the truth as it is in Jesus.

The Advantage of the Members of the Church of England over Those of the Church of Rome Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 10 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- I LAY this down as an undoubted truth:--The more the doctrine of any Church agrees with the Scripture, the more readily ought it to be received. And, on the other hand, the more the doctrine of any Church differs from the Scripture, the greater cause we have to doubt of it. 2. Now, it is a known principle of the Church of England, that nothing is to be received as an article of faith, which is not read in the Holy Scripture, or to be inferred therefrom by just and plain consequence. Hence it follows, that every Christian has a right to know and read the Scripture, that he may be sure what he hears from his teachers agrees with the revealed word of God. 3. On the contrary, at the very beginning of the Reform ation, the Church of Rome began to oppose this principle, that all articles of faith must be provable from Scripture, (till then received throughout the whole Christian world,) and to add, if not prefer, to Holy Scripture, tradition, or the doctrine of Fathers and Councils, with the decrees of Popes. And soon after she determined in the Council of Trent, “that the Old and New Testament, and the traditions of the Church, ought to be received pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia, “with equal piety and reverence;’” and that “it suffices for laymen if they believe and practise what the Church believes and requires, whether they understand the ground of that doctrine and practice or not.” (Sess. 4.) 4. How plain is it that this remedy was found out because they themselves observed that many doctrines, practices, and ceremonies of their Church, not only could not be proved by Scripture, but were flatly contradictory thereto? As to the Fathers and Councils, we cannot but observe, that in an hundred instances they contradict one another: Consequently, they can no more be a rule of faith to us, than the Papal decrees, which are not grounded on Scripture. 5. But the Church of Rome does not stop here. She not only makes tradition of equal authority with the Scripture, but also takes away the Scripture from the people, and denies them the use of it.

She not only makes tradition of equal authority with the Scripture, but also takes away the Scripture from the people, and denies them the use of it. For, soon after, her writers began to teach, yea, and assert in entire volumes, “that the Scripture is obscure, and hard to be understood; that it gives an handle to error and heresies; that it is not a perfect or sufficient rule of life; that it ought to be understood no otherwise than the Church, that is, the Pope, explains it; that, consequently, the reading the Scripture is of more hurt than use to the generality of Christians.” And, in fact, they not only publicly spoke against the reading the Holy Scriptures, but in most countries absolutely forbad the laity to read them, yea, and the Clergy too, till they were ordered to preach. And if any did read it without a particular license, they condemned and punished it as a great crime. 6. Thus the case stands to this day; yea, the late contro versies in France make it undeniably plain, that the Church of Rome does now labour, more earnestly than ever, to take away the use of the Scriptures, even from those who have hitherto enjoyed them. Seeing, therefore, the Church of England contends for the word of God, and the Church of Rome against it, it is easy to discern on which side the advantage lies, with regard to the grand principle of Christianity. 7. But that it may more clearly appear how widely the Church of Rome differs from the Holy Scriptures, we have set down a few instances wherein they flatly contradict the written word of God. Thus the Church of Rome, after acknowledging that the Apostle terms concupiscence sin, yet scruples not to add immediately, “The Catholic Church never understood that this is truly and properly sin; and if any think the contrary, let him be accursed.” (Conc. Trid, Sess. 5.) Thus, although Christ himself says to all his disciples, “Without me ye can do nothing,” yet the Church of Rome condemns this very proposition as false and heretical:--“The grace of Jesus Christ, the effectual principle of all good, is necessary to every good work. Not only nothing good is done without it, but nothing can be done.” (In the Bull Unigenitus.) 8.

A Letter to the Printer of The Public Advertiser Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 10 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- SoME time ago a pamphlet was sent me, entitled, “An Appeal from the Protestant Association, to the People of Great Britain.” A day or two since, a kind of answer to this was put into my hand, which pronounces its style con temptible, its reasoning futile, and its object malicious. On the contrary, I think the style of it is clear, easy, and natural; the reasoning, in general, strong and conclusive; the object or design, kind and benevolent. And in pursuance of the same kind and benevolent design, namely, to preserve our happy constitution, I shall endeavour to confirm the substance of that tract, by a few plain arguments. With persecution I have nothing to do. I persecute nq man for his religious principles. Let there be as “boundless a freedom in religion” as any man can conceive. But this does not touch the point: I will set religion, true or false, utterly out of the question. Suppose the Bible, if you please, to be a fable, and the Koran to be the word of God. I consider not, whether the Romish religion be true or false; I build nothing on one or the other supposition. Therefore, away with all your common-place declamation about intoler ance and persecution for religion 1 Suppose every word of Pope Pius's creed to be true; suppose the Council of Trent to have been infallible; yet, I insist upon it, that no govern ment not Roman Catholic ought to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic persuasion. I prove this by a plain argument: (Let him answer it that can :)--That no Roman Catholic does, or can, give security for his allegiance or peaceable behaviour, I prove thus: It is a Roman Catholic maxim, established, not by private men, but by a public Council, that “no faith is to be kept with heretics.” This has been openly avowed by the Council of Constance; but it never was openly disclaimed. Whether private persons avow or disavow it, it is a fixed maxim of the Church of Rome. But as long as it is so, nothing can be more plain, than that the members of that Church can give no reasonable security to any Government of their allegiance or peaceable behaviour.

But if he proves nothing, he either directly or indirectly asserts many things. In particu lar, he asserts, (1) “Mr. Wesley has arraigned in the jargon of the Schools.” Heigh-day ! What has this to do here? There is no more of the jargon of the Schools in my Letter, than there is of Arabic. “The Catholics all over the world are liars, perjurers,” &c. Nay, I have not arraigned one of them. This is a capital mistake. I arraign the doctrines, not the men. Either defend them, or renounce them. “I do renounce them,” says Mr. O'Leary. Perhaps you do. But the Church of Rome has never renounced them. “He asperses our communion in a cruel manner.” I do not asperse it at all in saying, these are the doctrines of the Church of Rome. Who can prove the contrary? (2) “Mr. O'Leary did not even attempt to seduce the English soldiery.” I believe it; but does this prove any of these three points? “But Queen Elizabeth and King James roasted heretics in Smithfield !” In what year? I doubt the fact. * (3) “Mr. Wesley is become an apologist of those who burned the chapel in Edinburgh.” Is not this said purely ad movendam invidiam? “to inflame the minds of the people?” For it has no shadow of truth. I never yet wrote nor spoke one word in their defence. “He urged the rabble to light that fire.” No more than he urged them to dethrone the King. (4) “Does Mr. Wesley intend to sound Alecto’s horn, or the war-shell of the Mexicans?” All this is cruel aspersion indeed; designed merely to inflame! What I intend is neither more nor less than this,--to contribute my mite to preserve our constitution both in Church and State. (5.) “They were the Scotch and English regicides who gave rise to the Irish massacre.” The Irish massacre Was there ever any such thing? Was not the whole account a mere Protestant lie? O no ! it was a melancholy truth, wrote in the blood of many thousands. But the regicides no more gave rise to that massacre than the Hottentots. The whole matter was planned several years, and executed before the King's death was thought of “But Mr. Wesley is sowing the seeds of another massacre !” Such another as the massacre of Paris? 6.

6. “Was he the trumpeter of persecution when he was per secuted himself?” Just as much as now. Cruel aspersions still ! designed and calculated only to inflame. “Did he then abet persecution on the score of conscience?” No, nor now. Conscience is out of the question. “His Letter contains all the horrors invented by blind misguided zeal, set forth in the most bitter language.” Is this gentleman in his senses? I hope not. Else I know not what excuse to make for him. Not one bitter word is in my Letter. I have learned to put away “all bitterness, with all malice.” But still this is wide of the mark; which of those three points does it prove? 7. “In his Second Letter, he promises to put out the fire which he has already kindled in England.” Second Letter / What is that? I know nothing of it. The fire which he has kindled in England. When? Where? I have kindled no fire in England, any more than in Jamaica. I have done, and will do, all that is in my power to put out that which others have kindled. 8. “He strikes out a creed of his own for Roman Catholics. This fictitious creed he forces upon them.” My words are these: “Suppose every word of Pope Pius's Creed to be true.” I say not a word more of the matter. Now, I appeal to every reasonable man, Is this striking out a creed of my own for Roman Catholics? Is this forcing a fictitious creed on them, “like the Frenchman and the blunderer in the comedy?” What have I to do with one or the other? Is not this dull jest quite out of season? And is the creed, composed by the Council of Trent, and the Bull of Pope Pius IV., a fictitious one? Before Mr. O’Leary asserts this again, let him look into the Concilia Maxima once more, and read there, Bulla Pii Quarti super formá Juramenti professionis fidei.* This forma professionis fidei I call Pope Pius’s Creed. If his “stomach revolts from it,” who can help it? 9. Whether the account given by Philip Melancthon of the * The Bull of Pius IV. concerning the form of the oath on the profession of faith.-EDIT.

Mr. O'Leary has published “Remarks” on this letter; nine parts in ten of which are quite wide of the mark. Not that they are wide of his mark, which is to introduce a plausible panegyric upon the Roman Catholics, mixed with keen invec tives against the Protestants, whether true or false it matters not. All this is admirably well calculated to inspire the reader with aversion to these heretics, and to bring them back to the holy, harmless, much-injured Church of Rome. And I should not wonder, if these six papers should make six thousand converts to her. Close arguing he does not attempt; but he vapours and skips to and fro, and rambles to all points of the compass, in a very lively and entertaining manner. Whatever has the face of an argument in his First Letter I answered before. Those of the 14th, 16th, 18th, and 21st instant, I pass over at present: I have now only to do with what he advances in your Journal of March 12. Here I read: “For Mr. Wesley's Second Letter, see the last page.” I have seen it; but I can find no more of the Second Letter in the last page, than in the first. It would be strange if I did; for that Second Letter was never heard of, but in Mr. O’L.’s “Remarks.” “But why then does he mention it over and over?” Truly, I cannot tell. He begins: “Fanaticism”--Hold ! There is no fanaticism in my Letter, but plain, sober reason. I “now expect” (they are his own words) “a serious answer to a serious charge.” My argument was: The Council of Constance has openly avowed violation of faith with heretics: But it has never been openly disclaimed. Therefore those who receive this Council cannot be trusted by those whom they account heretics. This is my immediate conclusion. And if the premises be admitted, it will infallibly follow. On this Mr. O’L. says, “A Council so often quoted chal lenges peculiar attention. We shall examine it with all possible precision and impartiality. At a time when the broachers of a new doctrine” (as new as the Bible) “were kindling the fire of sedition, and shaking the foundations of thrones and kingdoms,”--big words, but entirely void of truth!--“was held the Council of Constance.

At a time when the broachers of a new doctrine” (as new as the Bible) “were kindling the fire of sedition, and shaking the foundations of thrones and kingdoms,”--big words, but entirely void of truth!--“was held the Council of Constance. To this was cited John Huss, famous for propagating errors, tending to wrest the sceptre from the hands of Kings.”--Equally true ! “He was obnoxious to Church and State.” To the Church of Rome; not to the State in any degree. “Protestant and Catholic legislators enacted laws for burning heretics.” How wisely are these jumbled together; and the Protestants placed first ! But pray, what Protestant legislator made such laws, either before or after the Catholic ones? I know, one man, Servetus, was burned at Geneva; but I know not that there was any law for it. And I know, one woman, Joan Bocher, was burned in Smithfield, much against the mind of King Edward. But what is this to the numbers who were inhumanly butchered by Queen Mary; to say nothing of her savage husband? “But the same laws were executed by Queen Elizabeth and King James.” How? Did either of these burn heretics? Queen Elizabeth put two Anabaptists to death; but what was this to the achievements of her sister? He adds a well-devised apology for the Romish persecutions of the Protestants as necessarily resulting from the nature of things, and not from any wrong principles. And this he illustrates by the treatment formerly given to the Methodists, “whose love-feasts and watch-nights roused the vigilance of the Magistrate, and influenced the rage of the rabble.” Indeed, they did not. Not only no Magistrate ever objected either to one or the other, but no mob, even in the most turbulent times, ever interrupted them. But to the Council: “Huss strikes at the root of all tem poral power and civil authority. He boldly asserts, that all Princes, Magistrates, &c., in the state of mortal sin, are deprived, ipso facto, of all power and jurisdiction. And by broaching these doctrines, he makes Bohemia a theatre of intestine war. See the Acts of the Council of Constance in L’Abbe’s Collection of Councils.” I have seen them, and I can find nothing of all this therein. But more of this by and by.

Thus, what were at first designed as monuments of edification, became the instru ments of superstition. This being a fatal oversight in the Clergy, at first neglected, or winked at, by degrees (as all errors have crept into the Church) gathered strength; so that, from being in the beginning the dotage of the ignorant vulgar, the poison infected those of better rank, and, by their influence and countenance, brought some of the Priests over to their opinion, or rather those Priests were the occasion of deceiving the rich and powerful, especially the female sex, for ends not very reputable or agreeable to the integrity of their profession. But so it was, that what the Priests at first winked at, they afterwards gave countenance to; and what they once countenanced, they thought themselves obliged in honour to defend; till, at last, superstition came to be preached from the pulpits, and gross idolatry obtruded upon the people for true devotion. It is true, there were many of the sacred order, whose sound hearts and clear heads were very averse to this innovation; who both preached and wrote against the worship of images, showing both the wickedness and folly of it. But the disease was so far spread, and the poison had taken such root, that the conse quence of opposition was the dividing the Church into parties and schisms, and at last proceeded to blood and slaughter. N. B. Is it not marvellous that what was so simple in the beginning, should degenerate into such idolatry as is scarce to be found in the heathen world! While this, and several other errors, equally contrary to Scripture and reason, are found in the Church, together with the abominable lives of multitudes who call themselves Christians, the very name of Christianity must stink in the nostrils of the Mahometans, Jews, and Infidels.

A Letter to a Person Lately Joined with the Quakers Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 10 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- YoU ask me, “Is there any difference between Quakerism and Christianity?” I think there is. What that difference is, I will tell you as plainly as I can. I will, First, set down the account of Quakerism, so called, which is given by Robert Barclay; and, Then, add wherein it agrees with, and wherein it differs from, Christianity. “1. Seeing the height of all happiness is placed in the true knowledge of God, the right understanding of this is what is most necessary to be known in the first place. “2. It is by the Spirit alone that the true knowledge of God hath been, is, and can be, revealed. And these revela tions, which are absolutely necessary for the building up of true faith, neither do, nor can, ever contradict right reason or the testimony of the Scriptures.” Thus far there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. “Yet these revelations are not to be subjected to the examination of the Scriptures as to a touchstone.” Here there is a difference. The Scriptures are the touch stone whereby Christians examine all, real or supposed, revelations. In all cases they appeal “to the law and to the testimony,” and try every spirit thereby. “3. From these revelations of the Spirit of God to the saints, have proceeded the Scriptures of truth.” In this there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. “Yet the Scriptures are not the principal ground of all truth and knowledge, nor the adequate, primary rule of faith and manners. Nevertheless, they are a secondary rule, subordinate to the Spirit. By Him the saints are led into all truth. Therefore the Spirit is the first and principal leader.” If by these words, “The Scriptures are not the principal ground of truth and knowledge, nor the adequate, primary rule of faith and manners,” be only meant, that “the Spirit is our first and principal leader;” here is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. But there is great impropriety of expression. For though the Spirit is our principal leader, yet He is not our rule at all; the Scriptures are the rule whereby he leads us into all truth.

4. And as nothing can be determined from Scripture pre cept or example, so neither from the force or meaning of the word. For the words baptize and baptism do not necessarily imply dipping, but are used in other senses in several places. Thus we read, that the Jews “were all baptized in the cloud and in the sea;” (1 Cor. x. 2;) but they were not plunged in either. They could therefore be only sprinkled by drops of the sea-water, and refreshing dews from the cloud; probably intimated in that, “Thou sentest a gracious rain upon thine inheritance, and refreshedst it when it was weary.” (Psalm lxviii. 9.) Again: Christ said to his two disciples, “Ye shall be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ;” (Mark x. 38;) but neither he nor they were dipped, but only sprinkled or washed with their own blood. Again we read (Mark vii. 4) of the baptisms (so it is in the original) of pots and cups, and tables or beds. Now, pots and cups are not necessarily dipped when they are washed. Nay, the Pharisees washed the outsides of them only. And as for tables or beds, none will suppose they could be dipped. Here, then, the word baptism, in its natural sense, is not taken for dipping, but for washing or cleansing. And, that this is the true meaning of the word baptize, is testified by the greatest scholars and most proper judges in this matter. It is true, we read of being “buried with Christ in baptism.” But nothing can be inferred from such a figurative expression. Nay, if it held exactly, it would make as much for sprinkling as for plunging; since, in burying, the body is not plunged through the substance of the earth, but rather earth is poured or sprinkled upon it. 5. And as there is no clear proof of dipping in Scripture, so there is very probable proof of the contrary. It is highly probable, the Apostles themselves baptized great numbers, not by dipping, but by washing, sprinkling, or pouring water. This clearly represented the cleansing from sin, which is figured by baptism. And the quantity of water used was not material; no more than the quantity of bread and wine in the Lord's supper.

19,) as it is to honour our father and mother: But does this put an end to all dispute? Do not these very persons absolutely refuse to do it, notwith standing a plain text, an express command? I answer, (2.) They themselves practise what there is neither express command nor clear example for in Scripture. They have no express command for baptizing women. They say, indeed, “Women are implied in “all nations.” They are; and so are infants too: But the command is not express for either. And for admitting women to the Lord's supper, they have neither express command nor clear example. Yet they do it continually, without either one or the other. And they are justified therein by the plain reason of the thing. This also justifies us in baptizing infants, though without express command or clear example. If it be said, “But there is a command, ‘Let a man,” avópwros, ‘examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread;’ (1 Cor. xi. 28;) the word ‘man,’ in the original, signifying indifferently either men or women: ”I grant it does in other places; but here the word “himself,” immediately following, confines it to men only. “But women are implied in it, though not expressed.” Certainly; and so are infants in “all nations.” “But we have Scripture example for it: For it is said in the Acts, “The Apostles continued in prayer and supplication with the women.”’’ True, in prayer and supplication; but it is not said, “in communicating: ” Nor have we one clear example of it in the Bible. Since, then, they admit women to the communion, without any express command or example, but only by consequence from Scripture, they can never show reason why infants should not be admitted to baptism, when there are so many scriptures which by fair consequence show they have a right to it, and are capable of it. As for the texts wherein God reproves his people for doing “what he commanded them not;” that phrase evidently means, what he had forbidden; particularly in that passage of Jeremiah. The whole verse is, “They have built the high places of Tophet, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I commanded them not.” Now, God had expressly forbidden them to do this; and that on pain of death.

And I doubt not, but many believers at this day have the very same persuasion. termed in Scripture, “The full assurance of hope.” But this does not prove that every believer shall persevere, any more than that every believer is thus fully persuaded of his perseverance. IV. 17. Fourthly. Those who are branches of the true vine, of whom Christ says, “I am the vine, ye are the branches,” may nevertheless so fall from God as to perish everlastingly. For thus saith our blessed Lord himself, “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh it away. I am the vine, ye are the branches. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” (John xv. 1-6.) Here we may observe, (1.) The persons spoken of were in Christ, branches of the true vine : (2.) Some of these branches abide not in Christ, but the Father taketh them away: (3.) The branches which abide not are cast forth, cast out from Christ and his Church: (4.) They are not only cast forth, but withered; consequently, never grafted in again: Nay, (5.) They are not only cast forth and withered, but also cast into the fire: And, (6.) They are burned. It is not possible for words more strongly to declare, that even those who are now branches in the true vine may yet so fall as to perish everlastingly. 18. By this clear, indisputable declaration of our Lord, we may interpret those which might be otherwise liable to dispute; wherein it is certain, whatever he meant beside, he did not mean to contradict himself. For example: “This is the Father’s will, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing.” Most sure; all that God hath given him; or, as it is expressed in the next verse, “every one which believeth on him,” namely, to the end, he “will raise up at the last day,” to reign with him for ever. Again: “I am the living bread:--If any man eat of this bread,” (by faith,) “he shall live for ever.” (John vi. 51.) True; if he continue to eat thereof.

“To believe this fact, Christ rose from the dead, is faith.” (Page 169.) “Ask a man, Is the gospel true or not? If he holds it to be true, this is faith.” (Page 296.) But is this saving faith? “Yes. Every one that believes the gospel history shall be saved.” (Page 333.) This is flat and plain. And, if it is but true, every devil in hell will be saved. For it is absolutely certain, every one of these believes this fact, --Christ rose from the dead. It is certain, every one of these believes the Gospel history. Therefore this is not saving faith: Neither will every one be saved who believes this fact, --Christ rose from the dead. It follows, that, whatever others do, you know not what faith is. I object, Thirdly, 1. That you yourself “shut up our access to the divine righteousness.” 2. That you vehemently contradict yourself, and do the very thing which you charge upon others. 1. You yourself shut up our access to the divine righteous ness by destroying that repentance which Christ has made the way to it. “Ask men,” you say, “have they sinned or not ? If they know they have, this is conviction. And this is preparation enough for mercy.” Soft casuistry indeed ! He that receives this saying, is never likely either to “repent” or “believe the gospel.” And if he do not, he can have no access to the righteousness of Christ. Yet you strangely affirm, “A careless sinner is in full as hopeful a way as one that is the most deeply convicted.” (Page 292.) How can this be, if that conviction be from God? Where He has begun the work, will He not finish it? Have we not reason to hope this? But in a careless sinner that work is not begun; perhaps, never will be. Again: Whereas our Lord gives a general command, “Seek, and ye shall find;” you say, “Saving faith was never yet sought, or in the remotest manner wished for, by an unbe liever:” (Page 372 :) A proposition as contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture, as to the experience of every true believer. Every one who now believes, knows how he sought and wished for that faith, before he experienced it. It is not true even with regard to your faith, a belief of the Bible.

It is not true even with regard to your faith, a belief of the Bible. For I know Deists at this day, who have often wished they could believe the Bible, and owned, “it was happy for them that could.” 2. You vehemently contradict yourself, and do the very thing which you charge upon others. “If we imagine we possess or desire to attain any requisite to our acceptance with God, beside or in connexion with the bare work of Christ, Christ shall profit us nothing.” (Page 96.) Again: “What is required of us in order to our acceptance with God? Nothing. The least attempt to do anything is damnably criminal.” Very good. Now for self-consistency: “What Christ has done is that which quiets the conscience of man as soon as he knows it. So that he need ask no more than, ‘Is it true or not?” If he finds it true, he is happy. If he does not, he can reap no comfort from it. Our comfort arises from the persuasion of this.” (Page 12.) Again: “Men are justified by a knowledge of the righte ousness of Christ.” (Page 406.) And yet again: “The sole requisite to acceptance is, divine righteousness brought to view.” (Page 291.) So you have brought matters to a fine conclusion; confut ing an hundred of your own assertions, and doing the very thing for which you have been all along so unmercifully con demning others. You yourself here teach another “requisite to our acceptance, beside the bare work of Christ,” viz., the knowing that work, the finding it true. Therefore, by your own word, “Christ shall profit you nothing.” In one page you say, “Nothing is required in order to our acceptance with God;” in another, “Divine righteousness brought to view is requisite to our acceptance.” Brought to view / What self-righteousness is this? Which of “the popular Preachers” could have done worse? “Men are justified by a knowledge of the righteousness of Christ.” Knowledge / What ! our own knowledge ! Knowledge in us! Why, this is the very thing which we call faith. So you have fairly given up the whole question, justified your opponents, and condemned yourself as “damnably criminal !” I object, Fourthly, that you have no charity, and that you know not what charity is.

They contain neither more nor less than a prediction of the salvation of the Gentiles. “By the covenant of works man was bound to obey in his own person.” (Page 302.) And so he is under the covenant of grace; though not in order to his justification. “The obedience of our surety is accepted instead of our own.” This is neither a safe nor a scriptural way of speaking. I would simply say, “We are accepted through the Beloved. We have redemption through his blood.” “The second covenant was not made with Adam, or any of his posterity, but with Christ, in those words: ‘The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head.’” (Page 303.) For any authority you have from these words, you might as well have said, it was made with the Holy Ghost. These words were not spoken to Christ, but of him; and give not the least intimation of any such covenant as you plead for. They manifestly contain, if not a covenant made with, a promise made to, Adam and all his posterity. “Christ, we see, undertook to execute the conditions.” (Ibid.) We see no such thing in this text. We see here only a promise of a Saviour made by God to man. “It is true, I cannot fulfil the conditions.” (Ibid.) It is not true. The conditions of the new covenant are, “Repent and believe.” And these you can fulfil, through Christ strengthening you. “It is equally true, this is not required at my hands.” It is equally true; that is, absolutely false: And most dangerously false. If we allow this, Antinomian ism comes in with a full tide. “Christ has performed all that was conditionary for me.” Has He repented and believed for you? You endeavour to evade this by saying, “He performed all that was conditionary in the covenant of works.” This is nothing to the purpose; for we are not talking of that, but of the covenant of grace. Now, he did not perform all that was conditionary in this covenant, unless he repented and believed. “But he did unspeakably more.” It may be so. But he did not do this. “But if Christ’s perfect obedience be ours, we have no more need of pardon than Christ himself.” (Page 308.) The consequence is good. You have started an objection which you cannot answer.

7. I am accused, Secondly, of being self-sufficient, positive, magisterial. “Mr. Wesley, cased in his own self-sufficiency, esteems all these evidences as mere nothings. Reason, grammar, precedents are eclipsed by his bare negative.” (Page 246.) I know not which way this can be inferred from anything I have spoken to Mr. Hervey. “Mr. Wesley replies, with the solemnity of a censor, and the authority of a dictator, ‘No.’” (Page 90.) I am not conscious, that, in making that reply, I assumed any authority at all. “Here I see nothing but the usual argument, the master's ipse divit.” (Page 139.) Love might have seen the friend, not the master, taking the liberty which he had been entreated to take. “Strange | That a man of ordinary discernment should offer to obtrude upon the public such a multitude of naked, unsupported, magisterial assertions! should ever be able to persuade himself, that a positive air would pass for demon stration 1" (Page 240.) I thought nothing of the public when I wrote this Letter, but spoke freely and artlessly to a friend; and I spoke as a friend, (so far as I can judge,) not a censor or dictator. 8. I am accused, Thirdly, of reasoning loosely and wildly. “Is not this the loose way of arguing you blame in Mr. Wesley?” (Page 233.) “What wild reasoning is here ! Such premises and such an inference” (but they are none of mine) “will probably incline the reader to think of a sunbeam and a clod, connected with bands of smoke.” (Page 103.) When I write for the public, especially in controversy, J seek for connected arguments. Sed nunc non eral his locus.* The compass of a letter would hardly admit of them. 9. I am accused, in the Fourth place, of self-contradiction. “See how you are entangled in your own net; how, without being chased by an enemy, you run yourself aground. You avouch palpable inconsistencies.” (Page 195.) “Will Mr. Wesley never have done with self-contradiction? Why will he give me such repeated cause to complain, Quo teneam vultum mutantem Protea nodo?”t (Page 142.) “See, my friend, how thy own mouth condemneth thee, and not I; yea, thy own lips testify against thee!

(2.) That we are justified and sanctified by faith alone, faith in him who lived and died for us. Let my words be twisted and wire-drawn ever so long, they will not fairly bear any other meaning, nor, without apparent violence, contradict either of these propositions. It is true, (3.) That I have, during this whole time, occasionally used those expressions, imputed righteousness, the righteousness of Christ, and others of the same kind,--although the verses cited in several of Mr. Hervey’s Letters are not mine, but my brother's. But it is equally true, (4.) That I never used them at all, in any other meaning than that sound, scriptural one, wherein they are used by many eminent men, Calvin in particular. I choose not to speak farther on this head, lest I should be under a disagreeable necessity of saying anything that might even seem disrespectful to my ever-loved and honoured friend. 10. I am accused, Fifthly, of not understanding criticism and divinity. “What a piddling criticism is this !” (Page 220.) “I can no more admire your taste as a critic, than your doctrine as a Divine.” (Page 145.) “In this interpretation I can neither discern the true critic, nor the sound Divine.” (Page 214) I am not a judge in my own cause. What I am ignorant of, I desire to learn. I do not know whether the following charge may not fall under this head:-- “In another person, this would look like profane levity: In Mr. Wesley, the softest appellation we can give it is idle pomp.” (Page 7.) What | The using the expression, “for Christ's sake?” The whole paragraph runs thus: “‘We are not solicitous as to any particular set of phrases.’ (Page 212.) Then for Christ’s sake, and for the sake of the souls which he has purchased with his blood, do not dispute for that particular phrase, the imputed righteousness of Christ. It is not scriptural; it is not necessary. Men who scruple to use, men who never heard, the expression, may yet ‘be humbled as repenting criminals at his feet, and rely as devoted pensioners on his merits.” But it has done immense hurt.

Hervey said, “On Christ's death sinners are to rely as the cause of their forgiveness; on Christ’s obedience, as the ground of their acceptance.” I asked, “How does this agree with page 58, where we read these words? ‘However I may express myself, I would always have the obedience and the death of Christ understood as a glorious aggregate, looking upon all this as the foundation of my hope.’” I ask again, How does the former sentence agrce with this?' And if a man think it agrees perfectly well, yet he has no ground to charge me with disingenuity for thinking otherwise. (3.) A Third proof is brought, page 37: “Theron calls the terms inherent and imputed, nice distinctions, and meta physical subtilties. Mr. Wesley makes Aspasio apply this to the active and passive righteousness of Christ, whereas he is treating of a subject totally different.” Upon recurring to the “Dialogues,” I find this is true. Here therefore is a breach of literary justice. But it was not a designed one; as may appear from hence, that this was originally sent to Mr. Hervey himself, and him only. Now, had I been ever so dishonest, I should not have been so foolish, had I been conscious of any dishonest dealing, as to appeal to him, who of all others could not fail immediately to detect it. (4.) A Fourth runs thus: “‘Barely to demonstrate his sovereignty, is a principle of action fit for the great Turk, not the most high God.” Such a fraudulent quotation I have not seen, no, not in the Critical Reviewers. To mark the first sentence with commas, and thereby assign it to me, is really a masterpiece, especially when you have thrust in the word barely, and lopped off the word grace.” (Page 284.) In my Letter the whole paragraph is: “‘The grand end which God proposes in all his favourable dispensations to fallen man is, to demonstrate the sovereignty of his grace.’” (Is the word barely thrust in here, or the word grace lopped off? And could any one, who had eyes to read this, be deceived by my citing afterward part of this sentence?) “Not so; to impart happiness to his creatures is his grand end herein.

I have never varied from it, no, not an hair's breadth, from 1738 to this day. Is it not strange, then, that, at this time of day, any one should face me down, (yea, and one who has that very volume in his hands, wherein that sermon on justification by faith is contained,) that I hold justification by works? and that, truly, because there are some expressions in some tracts written by other men, but reprinted by me during a course of years, which seem, at least, to countenance that doctrine ! Let it suffice, (and it will suffice for every impartial man,) that I absolutely, once for all, renounce every expression which contradicts that fundamental truth, We are justified by faith alone. “But you have published John Goodwin’s ‘Treatise on Justification.’” I have so; but I have not undertaken to defend every expression which occurs therein. Therefore, none has a right to palm them upon the world as mine. And yet I desire no one will condemn that treatise before he has carefully read it over; and that seriously and carefully; for it can hardly be understood by a slight and cursory reading. And let whoever has read it declare, whether he has not proved every article he asserts, not only by plain express Scripture, but by the authority of the most eminent Reformers. If Dr. E. thinks otherwise, let him confute him; but let no man condemn what he cannot answer. 4. Dr. E. attacks me, Thirdly, on the head of Christian perfection. It is not my design to enter into the merits of the cause. I would only just observe, (1.) That the great argument which Dr. E. brings against it is of no force; and, (2.) That he misunderstands and misrepresents my sentiments on the subject. First. His great argument against it is of no force. It runs thus: “Paul’s contention with Barnabas is a strong argument against the attainableness of perfection in this life.” (Page 4.1.) True, if we judge by the bare sound of the English version. But Dr. E. reads the original: K2 sysvero Tapo: vTuo;. It does not say that sharpness was on both sides. It does not say that all or any part of it was on St. Paul's side. Neither does the context prove that he was in any fault at all.

E. says of the mischievousness of this, and with great plausibility, (page 27,) depends upon an entire mistake, namely, that the Leader of a class acts just like a Romish Priest; and that the inquiries made in a class are of the same kind with those made in auricular confession. It all therefore falls to the ground at once, when it is observed, * “Advice to the People called Methodists.” that there is no resemblance at all, either between the Leader and the Priest, or between the inquiries made by one and by the other. It is true, that the Leader “sees each person once a week, to inquire how their souls prosper;” and that when they meet, “the Leader or Teacher asks each a few questions relating to the present situation of their minds.” So then, that questions are actually asked, yea, and inquiries made, cannot be denied. But what kind of questions or inquiries? None that expose the answerer to any danger; none that they would scruple to answer before Dr. E., or any other person that fears God. 8. “But you form a Church within a Church, whose mem bers in South Britain profess to belong to the Church of England, and those in North Britain to the Church of Scot land; while yet they are inspected and governed by Teachers who are sent, continued, or removed by Mr. W.” (Page 3.) All this is, in a certain sense, very true. But let us see what all this amounts to. “You form a Church within a Church;” that is, you raise up and join together witnesses of real Christianity, not among Mahometans and Pagans, but within a Church by law established. Certainly so. And that Church, if she knew her own interest, would see she is much obliged to us for so doing. “But the Methodists in South Britain profess to belong to the Church of England.” They profess the truth: For they do belong to it; that is, all who did so before the change was wrought, not in their external mode of worship, but in their tempers and lives. “Nay, but those in Scotland profess to belong to the Church of Scotland.” And they likewise profess the truth: For they do belong to it as they did before. And is there any harm in this? “But they are still inspected by Mr. W.

But I do not roundly affirm this 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 a few words here and there, as I had mentioned in the preface. (2.) As it was not in my power to attend to the press, that care necessarily devolved on others; through whose inattention an hundred passages were left in, which I had scratched out. It is probable too, that 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. The plain inference is, if there are an hundred passages in the ‘Christian Library’ which contradict any or all of my doctrines, these are no proofs that I contradict myself. Be it observed once for all, therefore, citations from the ‘Christian Library’ prove nothing but the carelessness of the correctors.” (Remarks, page 381.) 12. Yet Mr. Hill, as if he had never seen a word of this, or had solidly refuted it, gravely tells us again, “If Mr. W. may be credited, the ‘Farrago’ is all true; part of it being taken out of his own ‘Christian Library, in the preface of which he tells us that the contents are ‘all true, all agreeable to the oracles of God.” Therefore, every single word of it is his own, either by birth or adoption.” (Farrago, p. 12.) No ; I never adopted, I could not adopt, “every single word” of the “Christian Library.” It was impossible I should have such a thought, for the reasons above mentioned. But “there is very great evasion,” says Mr. H., “in Mr. W.’s saying that though he believes “every tract to be true, yet he will not be answerable for “every sentence or expression in the Christian Library;” whereas the matter by no means rests upon a few sentences or expressions, but upon whole treatises, which are diametrically opposite to Mr. W.’s present tenets; particularly the treatises of Dr. Sibbs, Dr. Preston, Bishop Beveridge, and Dr. Owen on indwelling sin.” (Page 16.) 13. Just before, Mr. H.

I have lately read them both over with all the attention I am capable of; and I still believe they contain the true Scripture doctrine concerning justification by faith: But it does not follow, that I am accountable for every sentence contained in either of those treatises. “But does Mr. Wesley believe the doctrine therein con tained, or does he not?” I do; and John Goodwin believed the doctrine contained in the sermon on “The Lord our Righteousness;” the sum of which is, “We are justified, sanctified, and glorified, for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered for us.” Nothing he asserts is inconsistent with this; though it may be inconsistent with passages left in the “Christian Library.” When therefore I write “Nothing” against those passages, or the extracts from Goodwin, that con tradict them, this does not prove, (as Mr. Hill archly says,) that “I have nothing to say,” but that all those passages and extracts put together are nothing to the purpose. For, were it true, that John Goodwin and Richard Baxter contradicted all those passages, it is nothing to the point in hand; it never can prove, that I, John Wesley, contradict myself. 18. But to return to the everlasting covenant: “Mr. Wesley himself, in his Annotations on Gen. i. 1, calls the Elohim, a “covenant God.’” True, in covenant with man. But I say not one word of any covenant between the Father and the Son. But “in his note on Isaiah lv. 4, speaking of the covenant made between God and David, he says, “This David is Christ.’” Undoubtedly I do; but what is this brought to prove? My words are, “I have appointed, and will in due time give him--the David last-mentioned, even Christ--a witness--to declare the will of God concerning the duty and salvation of men, to bear witness to the truth, to confirm God’s promises, and, among others, those which respect the calling of the Gentiles; to be a witness to both parties of that covenant made between God and man.” (Page 209.) Yea, of the “covenant made between God and man l” Of a covenant between the Father and the Son here is not a word. “The only possible conclusion to be drawn from this defence of Mr. Wesley’s is, that he became a commentator on the Bible before he could read the Bible.” That is pity!

Wesley’s is, that he became a commentator on the Bible before he could read the Bible.” That is pity! If he could not read it when he was threescore years old, I doubt he never will. See the candour, the good-nature, of Mr. Hill ! Is this Attic salt, or wormwood ? What conclusion can be possibly drawn in favour of Mr. Hill? The most favourable I can draw is this, that he never read the book which he quotes; that he took the word of some of his friends. But how shall we excuse them? I hope they trusted their memories, not their eyes. But what recompence can he make to me for publishing so gross a falsehood, which, nevertheless, those who read his tract, and not mine, will take to be as true as the gospel? Of Election and Perseverance. 19. In entering upon this head, I observed, “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.” (Remarks, p. 382.) It lies therefore upon Mr. Hill to answer Mr. Sellon before he witticizes upon me. Let him do this, and he talks to the purpose; otherwise, all the pretty, lively things, he says about Dr. Baroe, Bishop Wilkins, Dr. Clark, and George Bell, are utterly thrown away. As to George Bell, Mr. Richard says, Mr. M d “justly censures the enthusiasm and credulity of Mr. John, in paying so much attention to Bell’s ridiculous reveries; in calling him a sensible man, and entreating him to continue in his society, on account of the great good he did. However, Bell refused to remain in connexion with him, because of his double dealings and unfaithful proceedings; for he sometimes was full of Bell’s praises; at other times, he would warn the people against him. He also gives a particular narration of what he rightly calls the ‘comet enthusiasm.” Mr. John preached more than ten times about the comet, which he supposed was to appear in 1758, to burn up all the produce of the earth, and lastly to execute its grand commission on the globe itsclf, causing the stars to fall from heaven.” (Farrago, p. 37.) What an heap of dirt is here raked together ! I must not let it pass quite unnoticed.

Both Adam’s Sun and Christ’s Righteousness are imputed. They are; the question is only, In what sense? Of Merit.* 33. In the Minutes I say, “We are rewarded according to our works, yea, because of our works. (Genesis xxii. 16, 17.) How differs this from for the sake of our works? And how differs this from secundum merita operum, or ‘as our works deserve?” Can you split this hair? I doubt I cannot.” I say so still. Let Mr. Hill, if he can. “And yet I still maintain,” (so I added in the “Remarks;” so I firmly believe,) “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 have, or do, which can, strictly speaking, deserve the least thing at God’s hand. “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, (I mean, I never ascribe it to any man,) yet I do not condemn it. Therefore, with regard to the word merit, I do not contradict myself at all.” “You never use the word l’” says Mr. H.: “What have we then been disputing about?” (Farrago, p. 36.) Why, about a straw; namely, whether there be a sense in which others may use that word without blame. - * Page 35. But can Mr. Hill, or any one living, suppose me to mean, I do not use the word in the present question? What Mr. H. adds, is a mere play upon words: “Does Mr. W., by this looser merit, mean a merit that does not merit?” Yes; by terming a work meritorious in this improper sense, I do not mean, that it merits or deserves a reward in the proper sense of the word. Instances of the word taken in this improper sense occur all over the Bible. “This is shamefully evasive.” No more than it is Greek. It is a plain, rational, solid distinction; and it holds with regard to numberless words in all languages, which may be taken cither in a proper or improper sense. When I say, “I do not grant that works are meritorious, even when accompanied by faith,” I take that word in a proper sense.

Wesley’s.” (Page 33.) Nay, give the honour of this to its true author: Mr. Hill goes to consult a Popish Friar at Paris, a Benedictine Monk, one Father Walsh, concerning the Minutes of the Conference. Father Walsh (Mr. Hill says; and I see no reason to scruple his authority here) assures him that the Minutes contain false doctrine; and that the tenets of the Church of Rome are nearer by half to his (Mr. Hill's) tenets than they are to Mr. Wesley's. (So Mr. Hill himself informs the world, in the Paris Conversation, of famous memory, which I really think he would never have published, unless, as the vulgar say, the devil had owed him a shame.) I add, “Truly, I always thought so.” But I am the more confirmed therein, by the authority of so competent a judge; especially when his judg ment is publicly delivered by so unexceptionable a witness. 50. Nay, but “you know, the principles of the Pope and of John Calvin are quite opposite to each other.” I do not know that they are opposite at all in this point. Many Popes have been either Dominicans or Benedictines: And many of the Benedictines, with all the Dominicans, are as firm Predestinarians as Calvin himself. Whether the present Pope is a Dominican, I cannot tell: If he is, he is far nearer your tenets than mine. Let us make the trial with regard to your ten propositions:-- (1) “You deny election.” “So does the Pope of Rome.” I know not that. Probably he holds it. (2.) “You deny persever- “So does the Pope of ance.” Rome.” That is much to be doubted. (3) “You deny imputed righteousness.” Perhaps the Pope of Rome does; but I assert it continu ally. (4) “You hold free-will.” “So does the Pope of Rome.” No; not as I do ; (unless he is a Predestina rian: Otherwise,) he ascribes it to nature, I to grace. (5) “You hold that works If you mean good works, I are a condition of justifica do not. tion.” (6) “You hold a twofold justification; one now, another at the last day.” “So does the Pope of Rome.” And so do all Pro testants, if they believe the Bible. (7) “You hold the doctrine I do not. Neither does the of merit.” Pope, if Father Walsh says true.

Neither does the of merit.” Pope, if Father Walsh says true. (8) “You hold sinless per “So does the Pope.” I fection.” deny that. How do you prove it? (9.) “You hold, that sins I hold no such thing; and are only infirmities.” you know it well. (10) “You distinguish Not so; I abhor the dis between venial and mortal tinction. sins.” Now, let every man of understanding judge, whether Father Walsh did not speak the very truth. 51. “This pamphlet was finished, when I was told, that Mr. W. had lately a very remarkable dream, which awakened him out of a sound sleep. This dream he communicated to his society. It was in substance as follows:--A big, rough inan came to him, and gave him a violent blow upon the arm with a red-hot iron. “Now, the interpretation thereof I conceive to be as follows:-- “(1.) The big, rough man is Mr. Hill: (2.) The bar of iron” (red-hot 1) “is Logica Wesleiensis: (3.) The blow denotes the shock which Mr. John will receive by the said pamphlet: (4.) His being awakened out of a sound sleep, signifies there is yet hope, that he will, some time or other, come to the right use of his spiritual faculties.” (Page 61.) Pretty, and well devised ! And though it is true I never had any such dream since I was born, yet I am obliged to the inventor of it; and that on many accounts. I am obliged to him, (1.) For sending against me only a big, rough man; it might have been a lion or a bear: (2.) For directing the bar of iron only to my arm; it might have been my poor skull: (3.) For letting the big man give me only one blow; had he repeated it, I had been slain outright: And, (4.) For hoping I shall, some time or other, come to the right use of my spiritual faculties. 52. Perhaps Mr. Hill may expect that I should make him some return for the favour of his heroic poem: But Certes I have, for many days, Sent my poetic herd to graze. And had I not, I should have been utterly unable to present him with a parallel. Yet, upon reflection, I believe I can; although I own it is rather of the lyric than the heroic kind.

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.” (Page 128.) 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.” (Page 128.) “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.

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.” (Page 135.) True; but neither does this prove that I adopted his scheme.

“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.” 90.

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.” (Page 143.) 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.

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.

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.” (Page 147.) 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.” (Page 150.) 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.

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.

4. Suppose, now, the Judge of all the earth,-having just pronounced the awful sentence, “Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels,”-- should say to one on the left hand, “What canst thou offer in thy own behalf?” Might he not, on this scheme, answer, “Lord, why am I doomed to dwell with everlasting burn ings? For not doing good? Was it ever in my power to do any good action? Could I ever do any, but by that grace which thou hadst determined not to give me? For doing evil? Lord, did I ever do any, which I was not bound to do by thy own decree? Was there ever a moment when it was in my power, either to do good, or to cease from evil? Didst not thou fix whatever I should do, or not do, or ever I came into the world? And was there ever one hour, from my cradle to my grave, wherein I could act otherwise than I did?” Now, let any man say whose mouth would be stopped, that of the criminal or the Judge. 5. But if, upon this supposition, there can be no judgment to come, and no future rewards or punishments, it likewise follows, that the Scriptures, which assert both, cannot be of divine original. If there be not “a day wherein God will judge the world, by that Man whom he hath appointed;” if the wicked shall not go into eternal punishment, neither the righteous into life eternal; what can we think of that book which so frequently and solemnly affirms all these things? We can no longer maintain, that “all Scripture was given by inspiration of God,” since it is impossible that the God of truth should be the author of palpable falsehoods. So that, whoever asserts the pre-determination of all human actions, a doctrine totally inconsistent with the scriptural doctrines of a future judgment, heaven and hell, strikes hereby at the very foundation of Scripture, which must necessarily stand or fall with them. 6. Such absurdities will naturally and necessarily follow from the scheme of necessity. But Mr.

You cannot deal with them thus. They scorn being convinced; nor can they be silenced, but in their own way. Thirdly. To a sound understanding, and a lively turn of thought, should be joined a good memory; if it may be, ready, that you may make whatever occurs in reading or conversation your own; but, however, retentive, lest we be “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” On the contrary, “every scribe instructed unto the kingdom of heaven,” every Teacher fitted for his work, “is like an house holder who bringeth out of his treasures things new and old.” 2. And as to acquired endowments, can he take one step aright, without first a competent share of knowledge? a knowledge, First, of his own office; of the high trust in which he stands, the important work to which he is called? Is there any hope that a man should discharge his office well, if he knows not what it is? that he should acquit himself faithfully of a trust, the very nature whereof he does not understand? Nay, if he knows not the work God has given him to do, he cannot finish it. Secondly. No less necessary is a knowledge of the Scrip tures, which teach us how to teach others; yea, a knowledge of all the Scriptures; seeing scripture interprets scripture; one part fixing the sense of another. So that, whether it be true or not, that every good textuary is a good Divine, it is certain none can be a good Divine who is not a good textuary. None else can be mighty in the Scriptures; able both to instruct and to stop the mouths of gainsayers. In order to do this accurately, ought he not to know the literal meaning of every word, verse, and chapter; without which there can be no firm foundation on which the spiritual meaning can be built? Should he not likewise be able to deduce the proper corollaries, speculative and practical, from each text; to solve the difficulties which arise, and answer the objections which are or may be raised against it; and to make a suitable application of all to the consciences of his hearers? Thirdly. But can he do this, in the most effectual manner, without a knowledge of the original tongues?

Was such a thing ever known or heard of before? I know not, but it was spoken of once, near eighteen hundred years ago, in those remarkable words, “There shall be assauoi" (not only “earthquakes,” but various “concussions” or “shakings”) “in divers places.” And so there have been in Spain, in Portugal, in Italy, in Holland, in England, in Ireland; and not improbably in many other places too, which we are not yet informed of. Yet it does not seem that a concussion of this kind has ever been known before, since either the same or some other comet revolved so near the earth. For wc know of no other natural causc in the universe which is adequate to such an effect. And that this is the real cause, we may very possibly be convinced in a short time. but alas! why should we not be convinced sooner, while that conviction may avail, that it is not chance which governs the world? Why should we not now, before London is as Lisbon, Lima, or Catanea, acknowlcdge the hand of the Almighty, arising to maintain his own cause? Why, we have a general answer always ready, to screen us from any such conviction: “All these things are purely natural and accidental; the result of natural causes.” But there are two objections to this answer: First, it is untrue: Secondly, it is uncomfortable. First. If by affirming, “All this is purely natural,” you mean, it is not providential, or that God has nothing to do with it, this is not true, that is, supposing the Bible to be true. For supposing this, you may descant ever so long on the natural causes of murrain, winds, thunder, lightning, and yet you are altogether wide of the mark, you prove nothing at all, unless you can prove that God never works in or by natural causes. But this you cannot prove; may, none can doubt of his so working, who allows the Scripture to be of God.

But none did ever maintain this, nor probably ever will. Therefore this boasted principle falls to the ground, and the whole superstructure with it. So common sense brings us back to the grand truth, “There is no power but of God.”

They discover a good understanding, and behave in a friendly manner to strangers, being of a mild temper and an affable carriage. Upon the whole, therefore, the Negroes who inhabit the coast of Africa, from the river Senegal to the southern bounds of Angola, are so far from being the stupid, senseless, brutish, lazy barbarians, the fierce, cruel, perfidious savages they have been described, that, on the contrary, they are represented, by them who have no motive to flatter them, as remarkably sensible, considering the few advantages they have for improving their understanding; as industrious to the highest degree, perhaps more so than any other natives of so warm a climate; as fair, just, and honest in all their dealings, unless where white men have taught them to be otherwise; and as far more mild, friendly, and kind to strangers, than any of our forefathers were. Our forefathers / Where shall we find at this day, among the fair-faced natives of Europe, a nation generally practising the justice, mercy, and truth, which are found among these poor Africans? Suppose the preceding accounts are true, (which I see no reason or pretence to doubt of) and we may leave England and France, to seek genuine honesty in Benin, Congo, or Angola. III. We have now seen what kind of country it is from which the Negroes are brought; and what sort of men (even white men being the judges) they were in their own country. Inquire we, Thirdly, In what manner are they generally procured, carried to, and treated in, America. 1. First. In what manner are they procured? Part of them by fraud. Captains of ships, from time to time, have invited Negroes to come on board, and then carried them away. But far more have been procured by force. The Christians, landing upon their coasts, seized as many as they found, men, women, and children, and transported them to America. It was about 1551 that the English began trading to Guinea; at first, for gold and elephants’ teeth; but soon after, for men. In 1556, Sir John Hawkins sailed with two ships to Cape Verd, where he sent cighty men on shore to catch Negroes.

In 1556, Sir John Hawkins sailed with two ships to Cape Verd, where he sent cighty men on shore to catch Negroes. But the natives flying, they fell farther down, and there set the men on shore, “to burn their towns and take the inhabitants.” But they met with such resist ance, that they had seven men killed, and took but ten Negroes. So they went still farther down, till, having taken enough, they proceeded to the West Indies and sold them. 2. It was some time before the Europeans found a more compendious way of procuring African slaves, by prevailing upon them to make war upon each other, and to sell their prisoners. Till then they seldom had any wars; but were in general quiet and peaceable. But the white men first taught them drunkenness and avarice, and then hired them to sell one another. Nay, by this means, even their Kings are induced to scll their own subjects. So Mr. Moore, factor of the African Company in 1730, informs us: “When the King of Barsalli wants goods or brandy, he sends to the English Governor at James's Fort, who immediately sends a sloop. Against the time it arrives, he plunders some of his neigh bours towns, selling the people for the goods he wants. At other times he falls upon one of his own towns, and makes bold to sell his own subjects.” So Monsieur Brue says, “I wrote to the King,” (not the same,) “if he had a sufficient number of slaves, I would treat with him. He seized three hundred of his own people, and sent word he was ready to deliver them for the goods.” He adds: “Some of the natives are always ready” (when well paid) “to surprise and carry off their own countrymen. They come at night without noise, and if they find any lone cottage, surround it and carry off all the people.” Barbot, another French factor, says, “Many of the slaves sold by the Negroes are prisoners of war, or taken in the incursions they make into their enemies’ territories. Others are stolen.

A corporation can no more assume to itself privileges which it had not before, than a man can, by his own act and deed, assume titles or dignities. The legislature of a colony may be compared to the vestry of a large parish, which may lay a cess on its inhabitants, but still regulated by the law, and which, whatever be its internal expenses, is still liable to taxes laid by superior authority. 8. But whereas I formerly allowed, “If there is, in the charter of any colony, a clause exempting them from taxes for ever, then they have a right to be so exempted;” I allowed too much. For to say, that the King can grant an exemption from the power of Parliament, is saying in other words, that one branch of the legislature can grant away the power of the others. This is so far from being true, that if there is, in the charter of any colony, a clause exempting them from taxes for ever, yet, unless it were confirmed by an act of the whole Legislature, that clause is void in itself. The King (to use the phrase of the law) was “deceived in his grant,” as having given that which he had no right to bestow. Of all these charters, then, it may be said, either they do contain such a clause, or they do not. If they do not, the plea of charter-exemption drops. If they do, although the charter itself stands good, yet that clause of it is null and void, as being contrary to the principles of the British Constitution. 9. Give me leave to add a few words on this head: The following acts show clearly, that, from the Restoration, the colonies were considered as part of the realm of England, in point of taxation, as well as everything else -- 25th Charles II, chap. 7, expressly relates to the colonies, and lays several specific duties on commodities exported from the plantations. 9th Anne, chap. 10, orders a revenue to be raised in America from the post-office. 9th Anne, chap. 27, lays a duty on several goods imported into America. 3d George II., chap. 28, lays a duty on all rice exported from Carolina to the South of Cape Finisterre. 8th George II., chap. 19, extends the same to Georgia. 6th George II., chap.

But rather let them wish, with an eminent Prophet, (an admirable way of showing our love to our country, and doing it the most effectual service 1) “O that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people!” and with Christ himself, the Inspirer of the Prophets, “when he beheld the rebellious “city, weep over it!” But, it may be, you are of a different complexion. You “fear not the Lord, neither regard the operation of his hands.” Your case, I fear, is too similar to his, who of old said, “Who is the Lord, that I should obey him?” But He is, though you know him not, the God of your life, your health, your strength, and all your mercies. It is “through him you live, move, and have your being; ” and is therefore altogether worthy of all you have and all you are. “Acquaint yourself with him, and be at peace; and thereby good shall come unto thee,” Till this is the case, it is morally impossible that you should be a true patriot, a real lover of your country. You may indeed assume the sounding title; but it is an empty name. You may in word mightily contend for your country’s good; but, while you are a slave to sin, you are an enemy to God, and your country too. But let the time past suffice. Be henceforth, not only in word, but in deed and in truth, a patriot. Put away the accursed thing, the evil that is found in you; so shall you love your country as your own soul, and prevent the fearful end of both.- That we may do this, and that it may please infinite Wisdom to succeed our attempts, I would beg leave to pass from the Second to the First cause. Here I would fix my foot, as on a sure and solid foundation that will stand for ever. The holy Scriptures give us ample accounts of the fall and rise of the greatest monarchies. It is simply this: They rose by virtue; but they fell by vice. “Righteousness” alone “exalteth a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people.” And this ever will be the case, till the end of all things.

An Estimate of the Manners of the Present Times Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 11 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- 2. We allow likewise the abundant increase of luxury, both in meat, drink, dress, and furniture. What an amazing profu sion of food do we see, not only at a Nobleman's table, but at an ordinary city entertainment; suppose of the Shoemakers’ or Tailors’ Company | What variety of wines, instead of the good, home-brewed ale, used by our forefathers! What luxury of apparel, changing like the moon, in the city and country, as well as at Court ! What superfluity of expensive furniture glitters in all our great men's houses ! And luxury naturally increases sloth, unfitting us for exercise either of body or mind. Sloth, on the other hand, by destroying the appetite, leads to still farther luxury. And how many does a regular kind of luxury betray at last into gluttony and drunkenness; yea, and lewdness too of every kind; which indeed is hardly separable from them ! 3. But allowing all these things, still this is not a true estimate of the present manners of the English nation. For whatever is the characteristic of a nation, is, First, universal, found in all the individuals of it, or at least in so very great a majority, that the exceptions are not worth regarding. It is, Secondly, con stant, found not only now and then, but continually, without intermission; and, Thirdly, peculiar to that nation, in contra distinction to all others. But neither luxury nor sloth is either universal or constant in England, much less peculiar to it. 4. Whatever may be the case of many of the Nobility and, Gentry, (the whole body of whom are not a twentieth part of the nation,) it is by no means true, that the English in general, much less universally, are a slothful people. There are not only some Gentlemen, yea, and Noblemen, who are. of the ancient stamp, who are patterns of industry in their calling to all that are round about them, but it is undeniable that a vast majority of the middle and lower ranks of people are diligently employed from morning to night, and from the beginning to the end of the year.

On Christian Perfection: To the Rev. Mr. Dodd Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 11 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- I AM favoured with yours of January 26, for which I return you my sincere thanks. Your frank and open manner of writing is far from needing any apology, and I hope will never occasion your receiving such treatment from me, as I did from Mr. Law, who, after some very keen expressions, in answer to: the second private letter I sent him, plainly told me he desired to hear “no more on that head.” I do desire to hear, and am very willing to consider, whatever you have to wdvance on the head of Christian perfection. When I began to make the Scriptures my chief study, (about seven-and-twenty years ago,) I began to see that Christians are called to love God with all their heart, and to serve him with all their strength; which is precisely what I apprehend to be meant by the scriptural term perfection. After weighing this for some years, I openly declared my sentiments before the University, in the sermon on the Circumcision of the Heart, now printed in the second volume.* About six years after, in consequence of an advice I received from Bishop Gibson, “Tell all the world what you mean by perfection,” I published my coolest and latest thoughts in the sermon on that subject. You easily observe, I therein build on no authority, ancient or modern, but the Scripture. If this supports any doctrine, it will stand; if not, the sooner it falls, the better. Neither the doctrine in question, nor any other, is anything to me, unless it be the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles. If, therefore, you will please to point out to me any passages in that sermon which are either contrary to Scripture, or not supported by it, and to show that they are not, I shall be full as willing to oppose as ever I was to defend them. I search for truth, plain, Bible truth, without any regard to the praise or dispraise of men. If you will assist me in this search, more especially by showing me where I have mistaken my way, it will be gratefully acknowledged by, Reverend Sir, Your affectionate brother and servant, N.B. I had at this time no acquaintance with Dr.

Advice to the People Called Methodists, with Regard to Dress Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 11 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- I. 1. I AM not fond of saying the same thing over and over; especially when I have so many things to say, that the day of life (which with me is far spent) is not likely to suffice for them. But, in some cases, it is needful for you that I should ; and then it is not grievous to me. And it may be best to speak freely and fully at once, that there may be the less need of speaking on this head hereafter. 2. When we look into the Bible with any attention, and then look round into the world, to see who believes and who lives according to this book; we may easily discern that the system of practice, as well as the system of truth, there delivered, is torn in pieces, and scattered abroad, like the members of Absyrtus. Every denomination of Christians retains some part either of Christian truth or practice; these hold fast one part, and those another, as their fathers did before them. What is the duty, meantime, of those who desire to follow the whole word of God? Undoubtedly, to “gather up ’’ all these “fragments,” that, if possible, “nothing be lost;” with all diligence to follow all those we see about us, so far as they follow the Bible; and to join together in one scheme of truth and practice what almost all the world put asunder. 3. Many years ago I observed several parts of Christian practice among the people called Quakers. Two things I particularly remarked among them,-plainness of speech, and plainness of dress. I willingly adopted both, with some restrictions, and particularly plainness of dress; the same I recommended to you, when God first called you out of the world; and after the addition of more than twenty years' experience, I recommend it to you still. 4. But before I go any farther, I must entreat you, in the Yuame of God, be open to conviction. Whatever prejudices you have contracted from education, custom, or example, divest yourselves of them, as far as possible. Be willing to receive light either from God or man; do not shut your eyes. against it.

If then you did an indifferent thing only on this principlc, not to give me any uneasiness, but to oblige, to comfort me in my labour, would you do much amiss? IIow much more may you be excused in doing what I advise, when truth, reason, and Scripture advise the same? when the thing in question is not an indifferent thing, but clearly determined by God himself? 2. Some years ago, when I first landed at Savannah, in Georgia, a gentlewoman told me, “I assure you, Sir, you will see as well-dressed a congregation on Sunday, as most you have seen in London.” I did so; and, soon after, took occasion to expound those scriptures which relate to dress, and to press them freely upon my audience, in a plain and close application. All the time that I afterward ministered at Savannah, I saw neither gold in the church, nor costly apparel; but the congregation in general was almost constantly clothed in plain, clean linen or woollen. 3. And why should not my advice, grounded on Scripture and reason, weigh with you as much as with them? I will tell you why: (1) You are surrounded with saints of the world, persons fashionably, reputably religious. And these are constant opposers of all who would go farther in religion than themselves. These are continually warning you against running into extremes, and striving to beguile you from the simplicity of the Gospel. (2.) You have near you still more dangerous enemies than these, -Antinomians, whether German or English; who, when any Christian practice is enforced, come in with the cuckoo's note, “The law, the law !” and, while they themselves glory in their shame, make you ashamed of what should be your glory. (3.) You have suffered by false Teachers of our own, who undermined the doctrine you had received; negatively, in public, by not insisting upon it, by not exhorting you to dress as persons professing godliness; (and not to speak for a Christian duty is, in effect, to speak against it;) and positively, in private, either by jesting upon your exactness in observing the Scripture rule, or by insinuations, which, if you did not mind them then, yet would afterward weaken your soul. 4.

I. As to the first, I read a remarkable passage in the third Journal, (vol.I., page 196,) the truth of which may be still attested by Mr. Durbin, Mr. Westell, and several others then present, who are yet alive:-" A young man who stood behind, sunk down, as one dead; but soon began to roar out, and beat himself against the ground, so that six men could scarce hold him. This was Thomas Maxfield.” Was this you? If it was, how are you “the first-fruits of Mr. Whitefield's ministry?” And how is it, that neither I, nor your fellow-labourers, ever heard one word of this during all those years wherein you laboured in connexion with us? II. “When he went abroad again, he delivered me, and many thousands, into the hands of Mr. -.” When? where? in what manner? This is quite new to me! I never heard one word of it before ! But stay! here is something more curious still ! “I heard Mr. Whitefield say, at the Tabernacle, in the presence of five or six Ministers, a little before he left England the last time, ‘I delivered thirty thousand people into the hands of you and your brother when I went abroad.’” Mr. Whitefield’s going abroad, which is here referred to, was in the year 1741. Did he then deliver you into my hands? Was you not in my hands before? Had you not then, for above a year, been a member of the society under my care? Nay, was you not, at the very time, one of my Preachers? Did you not then serve me as a son in the Gospel? Did you not eat my bread, and lodge in my house? Is not this then a total misrepresentation? Would to God it be not a wilful one ! “I heard,” you say, “Mr. Whitefield say, at the Taber macle, in the presence of five or six Ministers, a little before he left England the last time:”--Who then can doubt the truth of what follows? For here is chapter and verse! Here both the time, the place, and the persons present, are specified. And they ought to be; seeing the crime alleged is one of a very heinous mature. Many a man has been justly sentenced to death for sins which, in the sight of God, were not equal to this.

A Clear and Concise Demonstration of the Divine Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 11 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- THERE are four grand and powerful arguments which strongly in 'uce us to believe that the Bible must be from God; viz., miracles, prophecies, the goodness of the doctrine, and the moral character of the penmen. All the miracles flow from divine power; all the prophecies, from divine understanding; the goodness of the doctrine, from divine goodness; and the moral character of the penmen, from divine holiness. Thus Christianity is built upon four grand pillars; viz., the power, understanding, goodness, and holiness of God. Divine power is the source of all the miracles; divine understanding, of all the prophecies; divine goodness, of the goodness of the doctrine; and divine holiness, of the moral character of the penmen. I beg leave to propose a short, clear, and strong argument to prove the divine inspiration of the holy Scriptures. The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God. 1. It could not be the invention of good men or angels; for they neither would nor could make a book, and tell lies all the time they were writing it, saying, “Thus saith the Lord,” when it was their own invention. 2. It could not be the invention of bad men or devils; for they would not make a book which commands all duty, forbids all sin, and condemns their souls to hell to all eternity. 3. Therefore, I draw this conclusion, that the Bible must. be given by divine inspiration.

Walsh to be a person of good understanding and real piety; and he testified what he had seen with his own eyes: But still I wanted more witnesses, till, awhile ago, being at Mr. Cary’s in Copthall Buildings, I occasionally mentioned The Brothers' Footsteps; and asked the company if they had heard anything of them. “Sir,” said Mr. Cary, “sixteen years ago, I saw and counted them myself.” Another added, “And I saw them four years ago.” I could then no longer doubt but they had been ; and a week or two after I went with Mr. Cary and another person to seek them. We sought for near half an hour in vain. We could find no steps at all within a quarter of a mile, no, nor half a mile, north of Montague-House. We were almost out of hope, when an honest man, who was at work, directed us to thc next ground, adjoining to a pond. There we found what we sought for, about three-quarters of a mile north of Montague House, and about five hundred yards east of Tottenham Court Road. The steps answer Mr. Walsh's description. They are of the size of a large human foot, about three. inches deep, and lie nearly from north-east to south-west. We counted only seventy-six; but we were not exact in counting. The place where one or both the brothers are: supposed to have fallen, is still bare of grass. The labourer showed us also the bank, where (the tradition is) the wretched woman sat to see the combat. What shall we say to these things? Why, to Atheists, or Infidels of any kind, I would not say one word about them. For “if they hear not Moses and the Prophets,” they will not regard anything of this kind. But to men of candour, who believe the Bible to be of God, I would say, Is not this an astonishing instance, held forth to all the inhabitants of London, of the justice and power of God?

But to men of candour, who believe the Bible to be of God, I would say, Is not this an astonishing instance, held forth to all the inhabitants of London, of the justice and power of God? Does not the curse he has denounced upon this ground bear some little resemblance to that of our Lord on the barren figtree, “Henceforth let no fruit grow upon thce for ever?” I see no reason or pretence for any rational man to doubt of the truth of the story; since it has been confirmed by these open, visible tokens for more than a hundred years successively.

Thoughts upon Dissipation Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 11 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- 1. PERHAPs nothing can be more seasonable at the present time than to bestow a few thoughts on this. It is a fashion able subject, very frequently spoken of, especially in good company. An ingenious writer has lately given us an essay upon the subject. When it fell into my hands a few days since, I was filled with a pleasing expectation of seeing it thoroughly explained. But my expectation was not answered; for although many just and lively things are said there, yet in above twenty pages I could find no definition of dissipa tion, either bad or good. 252. But “the love of dissipation,” says the author, “is the reigning evil of the present day.” Allowing it is; I ask, What do you mean by dissipation? Sometimes you use the word pleasure as an equivalent term. But what pleasure do you mean; the pleasures of sense, or of the imagination in general; or any particular pleasure of one or the other? At other times you seem to make dissipation the same with luxury; at least with a high degree of it. Sometimes, again, you use the love of amusement as the same with the love of dissipation. But the question recurs, What amusement do you mean; for there are numberless sorts. So that still, after talking about them so long, we have only a vague, indeterminate notion of a dissipated age, a dissipated nation, or a dissipated man; without having any clear or distinct idea what the word dissipation means. 3. Those who are content with slight and superficial views of things, may rest in the general account, that a dissipated age is one wherein the bulk of mankind, especially those of any rank or fashion, spend the main of their time in eating and drinking, and diversions, and the other pleasures of sense and imagination. And that we live in a dissipated age, in this meaning of the word, is as plain as that the sun shines at noon-day. Most of those that are commonly termed innocent amusements fall under this head,--the pleasures of imagination. Whenever, therefore, a general fondness of these prevails, that is a dissipated age. A dissipated nation is one where the people in general are vehemently attached to the pleasures of sense and imagination.

The substance of it was this. It was told to the Bishop that a lad in his diocese frequently bragged that he was carried up into the air by invisible hands; who immediately sent for him to find out the truth. The lad in private, though not without menacing, confessed that he was often carried into the air, by he knew not whom, to a fine palace; where he was made to sit down at table with a great many people, who feasted and made merry; but that he was afraid they would be angry with him for telling it. The Bishop endeavored by many arguments to dissuade him from spreading such stories, which he told him could not be true, and were at best but the effects of a troubled fancy. But the boy persisted in it, and told his lordship that if he would have a little patience he would presently be convinced of the truth of his relation; for by certain symptoms which he said always preceded his transportation, he was sure it was not far off. This was presently confirmed in the Bishop's presence, the boy being hoisted away out of the window, to his no small amazement. The next day about the same time the boy was let down into the same room, but so bruised and dispirited that it was an hard matter to get a word from him. After some time and repeated threats and promises, he told the Bishop that he was carried to the place he had before spoken of, but that instead of sitting down, as he used to do' with the company, one or two were set apart to beat him, while the rest were making merry. His lordship now believed it was something more than a jest, being convinced that it was the devil, who for some unknown reasons was permitted to exert an extraordinary power over this lad. He nevertheless proceeded to comfort and pray by him; yet even while he was praying the boy was once more taken from him, nor was he restored again till some hours into the same chamber.

I call faith an assent upon rational grounds, because I hold divine testimony to be the most reasonable of all evidence whatever. Faith must necessarily at length be resolved into reason. God is true; therefore what He says is true. He hath said this; therefore this is true. When any one can bring me more reasonable propositions than these, I am ready to assent to them: till then, it will be highly unreasonable to change my opinion. I used to think that the difficulty of Predestination might be solved by supposing that it was indeed decreed from eternity that a remnant should be elected, but that it was in every man's power to be of that remnant. But the words of our Article will not bear that sense. I see no other way but to allow that some may be saved who were not always of the number of the elected. Your sentiments on this point, especially where I am in an error, will much oblige and I hope improve Your dutiful Son. To his Mother [3] CHRIST CHURCH, November 22, 1725.

My sister Lambert behaved herself unexceptionally while we were in the country. That she had lately altered her conduct, which indeed is highly improbable, I did not hear till now. I very heartily desire (though I see not how it can be effected, unless you will take my word till my actions disprove it) that you should entertain a just opinion, as of the morals in general, so in particular of the gratitude of Your loving Brother.

I have but one thing to add, and that is as to my being formal. If by that be meant that I am not easy and unaffected enough in my carriage, it is very true; but how shall I help it I cannot be genteelly behaved by instinct; and if I am to try after it by experience and observation of others, that is not the work of a month but of years. If by formal be meant that I am serious, this too is very true; but why should I help it Mirth, I grant, is fit for you; but does it follow that it is fit for me Are the same tempers, any more than the same words or actions, fit for all circumstances If you are to 'rejoice evermore' because you have put your enemies to flight, am I to do the same while they continually assault me You are glad, because you are 'passed from death to life'; well, but let him be afraid who knows not whether he is to live or die. Whether this be my condition or no, who can tell better than myself Him who can, whoever he be, I allow to be a proper judge whether I do well to be generally as serious as I can. John Whitelamb wants a gown much, and I am not rich enough to buy him one at present. If you are willing my twenty shillings (that were) should go toward that, I will add ten to them, and let it lie till I have tried my interest with my friends to make up the price of a new one.--I am, dear brother, Yours and my sister's affectionate Brother. The Rector [Euseby Isham, 1731-55.] is much at your service. I fancy I shall some time or other have much to say to you about him. All are pretty well at Epworth, my sister Molly [Mary Wesley, who married John Whitelamb in 1734 and died the same year. See letter of Oct. 4, 1769.] says. From Ann Granville [8] GLOUCASTER, December 1, 1731

Duteous to rulers when they most oppress, Patient in bearing ill, and doing well. [Description of Divine Religion, from The Battle of the Sexes, stanza xxxv., by his brother Samuel. For 'tender' (line 1) read 'cheerful,' for 'rulers' (line 7) 'princes.' Wesley quotes the last line in the obituary of Robert Swindells (Minutes, x783).] Directly contrary to every article of this was his madness. It was harsh, sour, cloudy, and severe. It was sometimes extravagantly light and sometimes sternly serious. It undermined his best resolutions by an absurd deference to example. It damped the fervor of his zeal and gradually impaired the warmth of his charity. It had not, indeed, as yet attacked his duteous regard for his superiors, nor drove him to exterminate sin by fire and sword; for when it had so obscured that clear judgment whereon his holiness stood that his very faith and patience began to be in danger, the God whom he served came to his rescue and snatched him from the evil to Come. 'But though his religion was not the same with his madness, might it not be the cause of it ' I answer, No. 'Tis full as reasonable to believe that light is darkness as that it is the cause of it. We may just as well think that mildness and harshness, sweetness and sternness, gentleness and fury are the same thing, as that the former are the causes of the latter, or have any tendency thereto. 'But he said himself his distemper was religious madness, and who should know better than himself' Who should know the truth better than one out of his senses Why, any one that was in them, especially any one that had observed the several workings of his soul before the corruptible body pressed it down; when his apprehension was unclouded, his' judgment sound, and his reason cool and unimpaired. Then it was that he knew himself and his Master; then he spoke the words of truth and soberness, and justified by those words the wisdom he loved, only not as much as he adorned it by his life.

In the account he gives of me and those friends who are as my own soul, and who watch over it that I may not be myself a castaway, are some things true: as, that we imagine it is our bounden duty to spend our whole lives in the service of Him that gave them, or, in other words, 'whether we eat or drink, or whatever we do, to do all to the glory of God'; that we endeavor, as we are able, to relieve the poor by buying books and other necessaries for them; that some of us read prayers at the prison once a day; that I administer the sacrament once a month, and preach there as often as I am not engaged elsewhere; that we sit together five evenings in a week; and that we observe, in such manner as our health permits, the fasts of the Church. Some things are false, but taken up upon trust, so that I hope Mr. Morgan believed them true: as, that we almost starve ourselves; that one of us had like lately to have lost his life by too great abstinence; that we endeavor to reform notorious whores and to lay spirits in haunted houses; that we all rise every day at five o'clock; and that I am President of the Society. And some things are not only false, but I fear were known so to be when he related them as true (inasmuch as he had then had the repeated demonstration of both his eyes and ears to the contrary): such as that the Society consists of seven members (I know no more than four of them); that from five to eight in the morning they sing psalms and read some piece of divinity; and that they are emaciated to such a degree that they are a frightful sight. As to the circumstance of the brasier's wife (no intimate of mine) I am in doubt; though she positively denies she ever said so.

As strange as it may appear that one present upon the spot should so far vary from the truth in his relation, I can easily account, not only for his mistake, but for his designed misrepresentation too. The company he is almost daily with (from whom, indeed, I should soon have divided him, had not your letter's coming in the article of time tied my hands) abundantly accounts for the former; as his desire to lessen your regard for me, and thereby obviate the force of any future complaint, which he foresaw I might some time have occasion to make to you, does for the latter. And, indeed, I am not without apprehension that some such occasion may shortly come. I need not describe that apprehension to you. Be pleased to reflect what were the sentiments of your own heart when the ship that took your son from you loosed from shore; and such (allowing for the superior tenderness of a parent) are mine. Such were my father's before he parted from us; when, taking him by the hand, he said, 'Mr. Morgan between this and Easter is your trial for life: I even tremble when I consider the danger you are in; and the more because you do not yourself perceive it.' Impute not, sir, this fear either to the error of my youth or to the coldness of his age. Is there not a cause Is he not surrounded, even in this recess, with those who are often more pernicious than open libertines -- men who retain something of outward decency, and nothing else; who seriously idle away the whole day, and reputably revel till midnight, and ff not drunken themselves, yet encouraging and applauding those that are so; who have no more of the form than of the power of godliness, and though they do pretty often drop in at public prayers, coming after the most solemn part of them is over, yet expressly disown any obligation to attend them. 'Tis true they have not yet laughed your son out of all his diligence; but how long it will be before they have, God knows.

24. I should not spend any more words about this great truth, but that it seems at present quite voted out of the world: the masters in Israel, learned men, men of renown, seem absolutely to have forgotten it; nay, censure those who have not forgotten the words of their Lord as setters forth of strange doctrines. And hence it is commonly asked, How can these things be How can contempt be necessary to salvation I answer, As it is a necessary means of purifying souls for heaven; as it is a blessed instrument of cleansing them from pride, which else would turn their very graces into poison; as it is a glorious antidote against vanity, which would otherwise pollute and destroy all their labors; as it is an excellent medicine to heal 'the anger and impatience of spirit apt to insinuate into their best employments; and, in a word, as it is one of the choicest remedies in the whole magazine of God against love of the world, in which whosoever liveth is counted dead before Him.

Conciones omnes meas jamnunc habes, praeter istas quas misi. Aliquae in pyxide sunt (de qua ne verbum scribis) una cum Bibliis in quarto. Liber de Disciplina quam celerrime potes, remittendus est. Quanta est concordia fratrum! Tui vole et fratris Bi. [‘You have now all my sermons, beside those which I have sent. Some are in the box (of which you write not a word) together with the Bible in quarto. The Book of Discipline must be sent back as soon as possible. How great is the concord of brethren! I mean of thee and brother B’ (Benjamin Ingham).] You are not, I think, at liberty stfesa e t ‘, ‘e sfta s ‘aps se. [' To turn to the Gentiles till your own countrymen shall cast you out.'] If that period comes soon, so much the better. Only in the meanwhile reprove and exhort with all authority, even though all men should despise thee. pseta s e at. ['It shall turn to thee for a testimony ': see Luke xxi. 13.] I conjure you, spare no time or address or pains to learn the true cause t pa d t f . ['Of the former distress of my friend.'] I much doubt you are the right. t ‘a ’t p at. Ge, fss sta d. Gfe , p e d fe p at. ['God forbid that she should again in like manner miss the mark. Watch over her, keep her as much as possible. Write to me, how I ought to write to her.'] If Mr. Ingham [Benjamin Ingham had gone to Prederica with General Oglethorpe on Feb. 16, and welcomed Charles on his landing there in March.] were here, I would try to see you. But omit no opportunity. of writing. de pasa ‘a. ‘ te es ae, etea, stea, fea t e. se, ‘a ta at s at sa. ['I stand in jeopardy every hour. Two or three are women, younger, refined, God-fearing. Pray that I know none of them after the flesh.'] Let us be strong and very courageous; for the Lord our God is with us, and there is no counsel or might against Him Adieu! To his Brother Charles [4] SAVANNAH, April 20, 1736.

I am not mad, my dear friend, for asserting these to be the words of truth and soberness; neither are any of those, either in England or here, who have hitherto attempted to follow me. I am, and must be, an example to my flock; not, indeed, in my prudential rules, but in some measure (if, giving God the glory, I may dare to say so) in my spirit and life and conversation. Yet all of them are, in your sense of the word, unlearned, and most of them of low understanding; and still, not one of them has been as yet entangled in any case of conscience which was not solved. And as to the nice distinctions you speak of, it is you, my friend, it is the wise, the learned, the disputers of this world, who are lost in them, and bewildered more and more, the more they strive to extricate themselves. We have no need of nice distinctions; for I exhort all, Dispute with none. I feed my brethren in Christ, as He giveth me power, with the pure, unmixed milk of His Word. And those who are as little children receive it, not as the word of man, but as the word of God. Some grow thereby, and advance apace in peace and holiness: they grieve, it is true, for those who did run well, but are now turned back; and they fear for themselves, lest they also be tempted; yet, through the mercy of God, they despair not, but have still a good hope that they shall endure to the end. Not that this hope has any resemblance to enthusiasm, which is an hope to attain the end without the means: this they know is impossible, and therefore ground their hope on a constant, careful use of all the means. And if they keep in this way, with lowliness, patience, and meekness of resignation, they cannot carry the principle of pressing toward perfection too far. Oh may you and I carry it far enough! Be fervent in spirit. 'Rejoice evermore; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks.' Do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus. Abound more and more in all holiness, and in zeal for every good word and work. To the Georgia Trustees [7] SAVANNAH, March 31, 1737.

GENTLEMEN, -- If you are not apprised that Mr. Dison intends this day publicly to perform several ecclesiastical offices in Savannah, and, as he says, by your authority, ! do now apprise you thereof; and am, gentlemen, Your humble servant.

On Rose Green (which is a plain upon the top of an high hill) are several small hills, where the old coal-pits were. On the edge of one of these I stood in the afternoon, and cried in the name of my Master, ' If any man thirst, let him come unto Me. and drink. He that believeth on Me (as the Scripture hath said) out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.' About five thousand were present, many of 'whom received the word gladly, and all with deep attention. From thence we went to the Society in Baldwin Street, whose room containing but a small part of the company, we opened the doors and windows, by which means all that was spoken of the true Christian life described in the end of the and chapter of the Acts was heard clearly by those in the next room, and on the leads, and in the court below, and in the opposite house and the passage under it. Several of the soldiers and of the rich were there; and verily the power of the Lord was present to heal them. My dear brethren, who among you writes first to strengthen our hands in God Where is our brother Bray and Fish, and whosoever else finds his heart moved to send unto us the word of exhortation You should no more be wanting in your instructions to than your prayers for Your affectionate but weak brother. To James Hutton BRISTOL, April 16, 1739. MY DEAR BRETHERN, -- Sunday, April 8, about eight in the evening, Mr. Wathen and his brethren met and received several persons into their little Society. After prayer their leaders were chose and the bands fixed by lot in the order following: I Band. Richard Leg (haberdasher), leader; Thomas Mitchell, Charles Bonner, William Wynne, Richard Cross. II Band. Jo. Palmer, leader; James Lewis, John Davis, James Smith, William Waters. III Band. Henry Crawley (barber), leader; Thomas Harding, John Wiggins, Samuel Wathen, Thomas Westall. It was farther agreed that a few other persons then mentioned might be admitted into the Society. Monday, April 9, at two in the afternoon, Mrs. Panou and Mrs. Grevil met together with Esther Deschamps and Mary Anne Page (Mrs. Panou's sisters), whom they then received as sisters, and Esther Deschamps was by lot chose leader of the band, which stood as follows:

The portion of scripture which came (in turn) to be explained to-day at Newgate was the former part of the 7th of St. John. The words I was led chiefly to insist on were, ‘The world cannot hate you; but Me it hateth, because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.... And there was murmuring concerning Him among the multitude. For some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but He deceiveth the people.’ When I was going out, a message was delivered me ‘that the Sheriffs had ordered I should preach there for the future but once a week.’ I called on Thursday at the house of one [Mr. Godly. See Journal, ii. 200d, 204d.] who said I had driven his daughter mad, and indeed as such they used her, confining her and obliging her to take physic. He would not suffer me to come in. But we went to prayers for him; and in two days God turned his heart, so that he has now set her at liberty. On Friday I began preaching in a large, convenient room, [Journal ii. 200d: ‘11 preached at the Dial.’] which held near as many as the chapel at Newgate; which I did for three days. And then the Mayor and Aldermen (to whom the tenant was in debt) sent and put a padlock on the door. We had a sweet day in Baldwin Street on Saturday. In the afternoon about two thousand were at the Bowling Green. I wish you would constantly send me extracts of all your foreign letters, to be read on our Intercession Day. At Weavers’ Hall a young woman first and then a boy (about fourteen years old) were deeply bruised and afterwards comforted. At the Bowling Green on Sunday we had about seven thousand. To two thousand at Hanham I explained the same scripture (1 Cor. xiii.). Seeing at Clifton Church [Journal, ii. 201. He was assisting the Rev. John Hedges, the incumbent, and preached for him on the Sunday afternoons of April 29, May 6, 13, and 20, and conducted marriages.] many of the great and rich, my heart was enlarged and my mouth opened toward them. My Testament opened on those words, ‘I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’ The power of the Lord was indeed present to heal them!

All Bath on Tuesday was big with expectation of what a great man was to do to me there; and I was much entreated not to preach, 'because no one knew what might happen.' By this report also I gained (I believe) a thousand new hearers of the rich and great of this world. I told them plainly 'the scripture had concluded them all under sin,' high and low, rich and poor, one with another. They appeared not a little surprised and sinking apace into seriousness, when their champion appeared, and, having forced his way through the people, asked ‘by what authority I did these things.’ I answered, ‘By the authority of Jesus my Master, conveyed to me by the (now) Archbishop of Canterbury.’ He said ‘it was contrary to the Act of Parliament; there was an Act of Parliament against conventicles.’ I replied, ‘The conventicles there mentioned were seditious meetings. But there was no such here.’ He said, ‘Yes, it was; for I frighted people out of their wits.’ I asked if he had ever heard me preach. If not, how he could judge of what he never heard He said, ‘By common report, for he knew my character.’ I then asked, ‘Pray, sir, are you a justice of peace or the mayor of this city’ Answer: ‘No, I am not.’ ‘Why then, sir, pray by what authority do you ask me these things’ Here he paused a little, and I went on: ‘Give me leave, sir, to ask, Is not your name Nash’ Answer: ‘Sir, my name is Nash.’ ‘Why then, sir, I trust common report is no good evidence of truth.’ Here the laugh turned full against him, so that he looked about and could scarce recover. Then a bystander said, ‘Sir, let an old woman answer him.’ Then, turning to Mr. Nash, she said, ‘Sir, if you ask what we come here for, we come for the food of our souls. You care for your body: we care for our souls.’ He replied not one word, but turned and walked away.

The short of the case is this: I think him to be full of love and Christ and the Holy Ghost. And I think the Brethren wrong in a few things, not because I believe him, but because I believe the Bible. The chief thing wherein I think them wrong is in mixing human wisdom with divine, in adding worldly to Christian prudence. And hence cannot but proceed closeness, darkness,' reserve, diffusing itself through the whole behavior; which to me appears as contrary to Christianity as blasphemy or adultery. I can find no Christianity in the Bible but what is a plain, artless, blunt thing. A Scripture Christian I take to be simple in quite another sense than you do: to be quite transparent, far from all windings, turnings, and foldings of behavior. This simplicity I want in the Brethren; though I know when it comes they will be persecuted in good earnest. And till they witness a good confession, as upon the house-top, whether men will hear or whether they [will forbear], I can in no wise believe them to be perfect, entire, and wanting nothing. -- Dear Jemmy, my love to all. To James Hutton BRISTOL, April 12, 1740. DEAR JEMMY, -- I am just come from Wales, where there is indeed a great awakening. God has already done great things by Howell Harris. There is such a simplicity among' the Welsh, who are waiting for salvation, as I have not found anywhere in England. I have not had time to read the Count's Sermons yet. I have sent you one more hymn. [See Methodist Hymn-Book Illustrated, pp. 264-5. The hymn, ‘I thirst, Thou wounded Lamb of God,’ appeared in Hymns and Sacred Poems, 1740, and in the Moravian Hymn-Book, 1742. It was based on four hymns in the Appendix to the Herrnhut Gesang-Buch, 1735.] Captain Williams's affidavit [Captain Williams's slanderous affidavit as to Wesley's life in Georgia was sworn before the Mayor of Bristol on March 14, 1740, and led Wesley to publish his Journal. Williams was a Georgia planter, who resented Wesley's attitude as to slavery. See letter of Aug. 3, 1742.] was cried about the streets here. But the hawkers were so complaisant that, when I went by any of them, they stopped till I was a good way off. I want to hear from C. Delamotte. Does his sugar quite swallow him up

12. Your Church discipline is novel and unprimitive throughout. Your Bishops as such are mere shadows, and are only so termed to please those who lay stress upon the Threefold Order. The Eldest is (in fact) your Bishop, as far as you have arly; but he is only half an ancient Bishop. The ancient Presbyter you have split into Sympresbyters, Lehrers, Aufsehers, and Ermahners; the ancient Deacon into Hilfers, Krankenwarters, Dieners, and so on. 13. The ordination (or whatever it is termed) of your Eldest plainly shows you look upon Episcopal ordination as nothing; although it is true you make use of it at other times, ‘that you may become all things to all men.’ But the Constitution of your Church is indeed congregational, only herein differing from others, -- (1) that you hold neither this nor any other form of Church government to be of divine right: (2) that the Count has, in fact, the whole power which was ever lodged, either in the Bishops and priests of the ancient Church, in the King and Convocation in England, the General Assembly in Scotland, or the Pope in Italy; nay, there is scarce an instance in history of such a stretch of episcopal or royal or papal power, as his causing the Lot to be cast over again in the election of the Eldest at Herrnhut. 14. Fifthly, you receive not the Ancients but the modern Mystics as the best interpreters of Scripture, and, in conformity to these, you mix much of man's wisdom with the wisdom of God; you greatly refine the plain religion taught by the letter of Holy Writ, and philosophize on almost every part of it, to accommodate it to the Mystic theory. Hence you talk much, in a manner wholly unsupported by Scripture, against mixing nature with grace, against imagination, and concerning the animal spirits, mimicking the power of the Holy Ghost. Hence your brethren zealously caution us against animal joy, against natural love of one another, and against selfish love of God; against which (or any of them) there is no one caution in all the Bible. And they have in truth greatly lessened, and had wellnigh destroyed, brotherly love from among us.

This is altogether fit to crown the whole. Now, sir, as you know in your own soul that every word of this is pure invention, without one grain of truth from the beginning to the end, what amends can you ever make, either to God, or to me, or to the world Into what a dreadful dilemma have you here brought yourself! You must openly retract an open slander, or you must wade through thick and thin to support it; till that God, to whom I appeal, shall maintain His own cause and sweep you away from the earth. -- I am, sir, Your friend. N.B. -- This was written July 16, but I had not leisure to transcribe it before August 3, 1742. [Wesley left Bristol on July 18 and found when he got to London that his mother was dying. The letter was transcribed two days after her funeral. It appeared in the Weekly History for Aug. 14, 1742.] To Howell Harris LONDON, August 6, 1742. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I must write; though where my letter will find you, that I know not, only that it will be under the shadow of the Almighty -- yea, in the arms of Him that loveth you. Now, let Him cover your head in the day of battle! Let His faithfulness and truth be thy shield and buckler! Let Him comfort thy heart, and, after thou hast suffered awhile, make thee perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle thee!

‘Mr. Br--d [In the Journal this name is printed B--n, and may be Richard Brampton, journeyman periwig-maker in Bucklersbury, born 1710, at Canon Frome, Hereforshire. In the Works, viii. 377, it is Br--d, which probably stands for Abraham Louis Brandt, painter, brother of Mrs. James Hutton, and a Moravian leader in London.] speaks so slightingly of the means of grace, that many are much grieved to hear him; but others are greatly delighted with him. Ten or fourteen of them meet at our brother Clarke's, with Mr. Molther, and make a mere jest of going to the church or to the sacrament.’ (ii. 327.) ‘You, Mr. Molther, believe it is impossible for a man to use these means, without trusting in them.’ (ii. 329.) ‘“Believers,” said Mr. Simpson, “are not subject to ordinances, and unbelievers have nothing to do with them.”’ (ii. 343.) ‘“Believers need not, and unbelievers may not, use them. These do not sin when they abstain from them; but those do sin when they do not abstain.”’ (ii. 356.) ‘“For one who is not born of God to read the Scriptures, or to pray, or to communicate, or to do any outward work, is deadly poison. If he does any of these things, he destroys himself.” Mr. Bell earnestly defended this.’ (ii. 365.) ‘At eight, the society at Nottingham met: I could not but observe that not one who came in used any prayer at all. I looked for one of our Hymn-books; but both that and the Bible were vanished away, and in the room thereof lay the Moravian Hymns and the Count's Sermons.’ (ii. 464-5.) ‘One of our English brethren, joined with you, said in his public expounding, “As many go to hell by praying as by thieving.” Another, “I knew one who, leaning over the back of a chair, received a great gift. But he must kneel down to give God thanks: So he lost it immediately; and I know not whether he will ever have it again.” And yet another: “You have lost your first joy. Therefore, you pray: That is the devil. You read the Bible: That is the devil. You communicate: That is the devil.”’ (ii. 493.)

But you say, ‘There is nothing distinguishing enough in this to point out the true justifying faith.’ (ibid.) I grant it; supposing a man were to write a book, and say this of it, and no more. But did you ever see any treatise of mine, wherein I said this of faith, and no more nothing whereby to distinguish true faith from false Touching this Journal, your own quotations prove the contrary. Yea, and I everywhere insist, that we are to distinguish them by their fruits, by inward and outward righteousness, by the peace of God filling and ruling the heart, and by patient, active joy in the Holy Ghost. You conclude this point: ‘I have now, Sir, examined at large your account of justification; and, I hope, fully refuted the several articles in which you have comprised it’ (page 49). We differ in our judgment. I do not apprehend you have refuted any one proposition of the four. You have, indeed, amended the second, by adding the word meritorious; for which I give you thanks. 11. You next give what you style, ‘the Christian scheme of justification;’ (page 50;) and afterwards point out the consequences which you apprehend to have attended the preaching justification by faith; the Third point into which I was to inquire. You open the cause thus: ‘The denying the necessity of good works, as the condition of justification, directly draws after it, or rather includes in it, all manner of impiety and vice. It has often perplexed and disturbed the minds of men, and in the last century occasioned great confusions in this nation. These are points which are ever liable to misconstructions, and have ever yet been more or less attended with them. And it appears from what you have lately published, that since you have preached the doctrine, it has had its old consequences, or rather worse ones; it has been more misunderstood, more perverted and abused, than ever.’ (Remarks, pp. 1-2.) ‘The denying the necessity of good works, as the condition of justification, draws after it, or rather includes in it, all manner of impiety and vice.’ Here stands the proposition; but where is the proof Till that appears, I simply say, It does not. ‘It has often perplexed and disturbed the minds of men.’ And so have many other points in St. Paul’s Epistles.

16. You proceed: ‘Kingswood you call your own house: And whenone Mr. C. opposed you there, you reply to him, “You should nothave supplanted me in my own house, stealing the hearts of thepeople.” The parochial Clergy may call their several districts theirown houses, with much more propriety than you could call Kingswood yours. And yet how have you supplanted them therein,and labored to steal the hearts of the people! You have sufferedby the same ways you took to discharge your spleen and maliceagainst your brethren. ‘Your brother's words to Mr. Cennick are, -- ‘Whether his doctrine is true or false, is not the question. But you ought first to have fairly toldhim, I preach contrary to you. Are you, willing, notwithstanding,that I should continue in your house, gainsaying you Shall I stayhere opposing you, or shall I depart ‘Think you hear this spokento you by us. What can you justly reply -- Again, if Mr. Cennick hadsaid thus to you, and you had refused him leave to stay; I ask you,whether in such a case he would have had reason to resent such arefusal I think you cannot say he would. And yet how loudlyhave you objected our refusing our pulpits to you!’ (Remarks, pp. 15-16.) So you judge these to be exactly parallel cases. It lies therefore uponme to show that they are not parallel at all; that there is, in manyrespects, an essential difference between them. (1.) ‘Kingswood you call your own house.’ So I do, that is, theschool-house there. For I bought the ground where it stands, andpaid for the building it, partly from the contribution of my friends, (one of whom contributed fifty pounds,) partly from the income of my own Fellowship. No Clergyman therefore can call his parish his own house with more propriety than I can call this house mine. (2.) ‘Mr. Cennick opposed you there.’ True; but who was Mr. Cennick One I had sent for to assist me there; a friend that was as my own soul; that, even while he opposed me, lay in my bosom. What resemblance then does Mr. Cennick, thus opposing me, bear to me opposing (if I really did) a parochial minister

5. Your last charge is, that I am guilty of enthusiasm to the highest degree. ‘Enthusiasm,’ you say, ‘is a false persuasion of an extraordinary divine assistance, which leads men on to such conduct as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance. An enthusiast is, then, sincere, but mistaken. His intentions are good, but his actions most abominable. Instead of making the word of God the rule of his actions, he follows only that secret impulse which is owing to a warm imagination. Instead of judging of his spiritual estate by the improvement of his heart, he rests only on ecstasies, &c. He is very liable to err, as not considering things coolly and carefully. He is very difficult to be convinced by reason and argument, as he acts upon a supposed principle superior to it, the directions of God’s Spirit. Whoever opposes him is charged with resisting the Spirit. His own dreams must be regarded as oracles. Whatever he does is to be accounted the work of God. Hence he talks in the style of inspired persons; and applies Scripture phrases to himself, without attending to their original meaning, or once considering the difference of times and circumstances.’ (Remarks, pp. 60-1.) You have drawn, Sir, (in the main,) a true picture of an enthusiast. But it is no more like me, than I am like a centaur. Yet you say, ‘They are these very things which have been charged upon you, and which you could never yet disprove.’ I will try for once; and, to that end, will go over these articles one by one.

‘Enthusiasm is a false persuasion of an extraordinary divine assistance, which leads men on to such conduct as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance.’ Before this touches me, you are to prove, (which, I conceive, you have not done yet,) that my conduct is such as is only to be justified by the supposition of an extraordinary divine assistance. ‘An enthusiast is, then, sincere, but mistaken.’ That I am mistaken, remains also to be proved. ‘His intentions are good; but his actions most abominable.’ Sometimes they are; yet not always. For there may be innocent madmen. But, what actions of mine are most abominable I wait to learn. ‘Instead of making the word of God the rule of his actions, he follows only his secret impulse.’ In the whole compass of language, there is not a proposition which less belongs to me than this I have declared again and again, that I make the word of God the rule of all my actions; and that I no more follow any secret impulse instead thereof, than I follow Mahomet or Confucius. Not even a word or look Do I approve or own, But by the model of thy book, Thy sacred book alone. [Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, i. 70. Adapted from George Herbert's The Temple, "Discipline": Not a word or look I affect to own, But by book, And Thy Book alone.]

5. I conceive, therefore, this whole demand, common as it is, of proving our doctrine by miracles, proceeds from a double mistake: (1) A supposition that what we preach is not provable from Scripture; for if it be, what need we farther witnesses ‘To the law and to the testimony!' (2) An imagination that a doctrine not provable by Scripture might nevertheless be proved by miracles. I believe not. I receive the written Word as the whole and sole rule of my faith. II. 6. Perhaps what you object to my phraseology may be likewise answered in few words. I thoroughly agree that it is best to ‘use the most common words, and that in the most obvious sense’; and have been diligently laboring after this very thing for little less than twenty years. I am not conscious of using any uncommon word or any word in an uncommon sense; but I cannot call those uncommon words which are the constant language of Holy Writ. These I purposely use, desiring always to express Scripture sense in Scripture phrase. And this I apprehend myself to do when I speak of salvation as a present thing. How often does our Lord Himself do thus! how often His Apostles, St. Paul particularly! Insomuch that I doubt whether we can find six texts in the New Testament, perhaps not three, where it is otherwise taken. 7. The term ‘faith’ I likewise use in the scriptural sense, meaning thereby ‘the evidence of things not seen.’ And that it is scriptural appears to me a sufficient defense of any way of speaking whatever. For, however the propriety of those expressions may vary which occur in the writings of men, I cannot but think those which are found in the Book of God will be equally proper in all ages. But let us look back, as you desire, to the age of the Apostles. And if it appear that the state of religion now is, according to your own representation of it, the same in substance as it was then, it will follow that the same expressions are just as proper now as they were in the apostolic age.

15. ‘But the Word of God appears to' you 'to be manifestly against such an instantaneous giving of faith, because it speaks of growth in grace and faith as owing to the slow methods of instruction.’ So do I. But this is not the question. We are speaking, not of the progress, but of the first rise of faith. ‘It directs the gentle instilling of faith by long labor and pious industry.’ Not the first instilling; and we speak not now of the continuance or increase of it. ‘It compares even God's part of the work to the slow produce of vegetables, that, while one plants and another waters, it is God all the while who goes on giving the increase.’ Very true. But the seed must first be sown before it can increase at all. Therefore all the texts which relate to the subsequent increase are quite wide of the present question. Perhaps your thinking the nature of the thing to be so clearly against me may arise from your not clearly apprehending it. That you do not, I gather from your own words: ‘It is the nature of faith to be a full and practical assent to truth.’ Surely no. This definition does in no wise express the nature of Christian faith. Christian, saving faith is a divine conviction of invisible things; a supernatural conviction of the things of God, with a filial confidence in His love. Now, a man may have a full assent to the truth of the Bible (probably attained by the slow steps you mention), yea, an assent which has some influence on his practice, and yet not have one grain of this faith. 16. I should be glad to know to which writings in particular of the last age you would refer me for a thorough discussion of the Calvinistical points. I want to have those points fully settled, having seen so little yet wrote on the most important of them with such clearness and strength as one would desire.

19. ‘Another objection,’ you say, ‘I have to make to your manner of treating your antagonists. You seem to think you sufficiently answer your adversary if you put together a number of naked scriptures that sound in your favor. But remember, the question between you and them is, not whether such words are Scripture, but whether they are to be so interpreted.’ You surprise me! I take your word, else I should never have imagined you had read over the latter Appeal; so great a part of which is employed in this very thing, in fighting my ground inch by inch, in proving, not that such words are Scripture, but that they must be interpreted in the manner there set down. 20. One point more remains, which you express in these words: ‘When your adversaries tax you with differing from the Church, they cannot be supposed to charge you with differing from the Church as it was a little after the Reformation, but as it is at this day. And when you profess great deference and veneration for the Church of England, you cannot be supposed to profess it for the Church and its pastors in the year 1545, and not rather in the year 1745. If, then, by “the Church of England” be meant (as ought to be meant) the present Church, it will be no hard matter to show that your doctrines differ widely from the doctrines of the Church.’ Well, how blind was I! I always supposed, till the very hour I read these words, that when I was charged with differing from the Church I was charged with differing from the Articles or Homilies. And for the compilers of these I can sincerely profess great deference and veneration. But I cannot honestly profess any veneration at all for those pastors of the present age who solemnly subscribe to those Articles and Homilies which they do not believe in their hearts. Nay, I think, unless I differ from these men (be they bishops, priests, or deacons) just as widely as they do from those Articles and Homilies, I am no true Church of England man.

4. When I say, ‘The Apostles themselves were to prove their assertions by the written Word,’ I mean the word written before their time, the Law and the Prophets; and so they did. I do not believe the case of Averel Spenser [See for this paragraph the letter of Sept. 28, sect. 4, where Wesley says the Apostles ‘were to prove their assertions by the written Word. You and I are to do the same.’ ‘John Smith’ refers to a teacher who ‘gives out that the Spirit of God gives visible attestations to his ministry by miraculous works (for surely the casting out of devils may be called so, if anything can)’ (see Journal, ii. 291). Charles Wesley says on Oct. 6, 1739 (Journal, i. 186), Averel Spenser of Bristol, ‘one that received faith last night, came to day and declared it.’] was natural; yet, when I kneeled down by her bedside, I had no thought at all of God's then giving any ‘attestation to my ministry.’ But I asked of God to deliver an afflicted soul; and He did deliver her. Nevertheless, I desire none to receive my words, unless they are confirmed by Scripture and reason. And if they are, they ought to be received, though Averel Spenser had never been born. 5. That we ought not to relate a purely natural case in the Scripture terms that express our Lord's miracles, that low and common things are generally improper to be told in Scripture phrase, that scriptural words which are obsolete or which have changed their signification are not to be used familiarly, as neither those technical terms which were peculiar to the controversies of those days, I can easily apprehend. But I cannot apprehend that 'salvation’ or ‘justification’ is a term of this sort; and much less that ‘faith’ and ‘works,’ or ‘spirit’ and ‘flesh,’ are synonymous terms with ‘Christianity’ and ‘Judaism.’ I know this has frequently been affirmed; but I do not know that it has been proved.

If you had not omitted these words, you could have had no color to remark, on my saying, ‘I did not dare to determine anything’: ‘No! Not when by conversing among them you saw these things’ No, I did not ‘dare to determine’ in September 1738 from what I saw in November 1739. ‘But the facts are of such a nature that you could not but be assured of them, if they were true.’ I cannot think so. ‘Is not the Count all in all among you Do not you magnify your own Church too much Do you not use guile and dissimulation in many cases’ These facts are by no means of such a nature, as that whoever converses (even intimately) among the Moravians cannot but be assured of them. ‘Nor do the questions in your letter really imply any doubt of their truth.’ No! Are not my very words prefixed to those questions -- ‘Of some other things I stand in doubt. And I wish that, in order to remove those doubts, you would plainly answer whether the fact be as I suppose.’ ‘But’ these questions ‘are so many appeals to their consciences.’ True. ‘And equivalent to strong assertions.’ Utterly false. ‘If you had not been assured, if you did not dare to determine anything concerning what you saw’ (fifteen months after), ‘your writing bare suspicions to a body of men in such a manner was inexcusable.’ They were strong presumptions then; which yet I did not write to a body of men whom I so highly esteemed -- no, not even in the tenderest manner -- till I was assured they were not groundless.

8. ‘In a note at the bottom of page 8 you observe, “The band society in London began May 1, some time before I set out for Germany.” Would you insinuate here that you did not set it up in imitation of the Moravians’ Sir, I will tell you the naked truth. You had remarked thus: ‘You took the trouble of a journey to Germany to them; and were so much in love with their methods that, at your return hither, you set up their bands among your disciples’ (page 17). This was an entire mistake; for that society was set up, not only before I returned, but before I set out. And I designed that note to insinuate this to you without telling your mistake to all the world. ‘I imagined that, supposing your account of the Moravians true, it would be impossible for any serious Christian to doubt of their being very wicked people.’ I know many serious Christians who suppose it true, and yet believe they are in the main good men. ‘A much worse character, take the whole body together, cannot be given of a body of men.’ Let us try: ‘Here is a body of men who have not one spark of either justice, mercy, or truth among them; who are lost to all sense of right and wrong; who have neither sobriety, temperance, nor chastity; who are, in general, liars, drunkards, gluttons, thieves, adulterers, murderers.’ I cannot but think that this is a much worse character than that of the Moravians, take it how you will. 'Let the reader judge how far you are now able to defend them.' Just as far as I did at first. Still I dare not condemn what is good among them; and I will not excuse what is evil.

‘(3) The life and death of our Lord is the sole meritorious cause of this mercy, which must be firmly believed and trusted in by us. Our faith therefore in Him, though not more meritorious than any other of our actions, yet has a nearer relation to the promises of pardon through Him, and is the mean and instrument whereby we embrace and receive them. ‘(4) True faith must be lively and productive of good works, which are its proper fruits, the marks whereby it is known. ‘(5) Works really good are such as are commanded by God (springing from faith), done by the aid of His Holy Spirit, with good designs and to good ends. These may be considered as internal or external. ‘(6) The inward ones, such as hope, trust, fear, and love of God and our neighbor -- which may be more properly termed “good dispositions” and (are branches of) sanctification -- must always be joined with faith, and consequently be conditions present in justification, though they are not the means or instruments of receiving it. ‘(7) The outward’ (which are more properly termed good works), 'though there be no immediate opportunity of practicing them, and therefore a sincere desire and resolution to perform them be sufficient for the present, yet must follow after as soon as occasion offers, and will then be necessary conditions of preserving our justification. ‘(8) There is a justification conveyed to us in our baptism; or, properly, this state is then begun. But, should we fall into sins, we cannot regain it without true faith and repentance, which implies (as its fruits) a forsaking of our sins and amendment of our whole life.’ I have only one circumstance farther to add -- namely, that I am not newly convinced of these things. For this is the doctrine which I have continually taught for eight or nine years last past; only I abstained from the word ‘condition’ perhaps more scrupulously than was needful.

‘How, then, will you vindicate all these powers’ All these are ‘declaring those are no longer of our Society.’ ‘Here is a manifest congregation. Either it belonged to the Church of England or not. If it did not, you set up a separate communion against her. And how then are you injured, in being thought to have withdrawn from her’ I have nothing to do with this. The antecedent is false: therefore the consequent falls of course. ‘If it did belong to the Church, show where the Church gave you such authority of controlling and regulating it’ Authority of putting disorderly members out of that Society The Society itself gave me that authority. ‘What private clergyman can plead her commission to be thus a judge and ordinary even in his own parish’ Any clergyman or layman, without pleading her commission, may be thus a judge and ordinary. ‘Are not these powers inherent in her governors and committed to the higher order of her clergy’ No; not the power of excluding members from a private society, unless on supposition of some such rule as ours is -- namely, ‘That if any man separate from the Church, he is no longer a member of our Society.’ 7. But you have more proof yet: ‘The Grand Jury in Georgia found that you had called yourself Ordinary of Savannah. Nor was this fact contradicted even by those of the jury who, you say, wrote in your favor: so that it appears you have long had an inclination to be independent and uncontrolled.’ This argument ought to be good; for it is far-fetched. The plain case was this: that Grand Jury did assert that, in Mr. Causton’s hearing, I had called myself Ordinary of Savannah. The minority of the jury in their letter to the Trustees refuted the other allegations particularly; but thought this so idle an one that they did not deign to give it any farther reply than-- ‘As to the eighth bill we are in doubt, as not well knowing the meaning of the word “Ordinary.” [See Journal, i. 395; and letters of Aug. 3 and 17, 1742.]

You remark: (3) ‘His intentions must be good; but his actions will be most abominable.’ I answered, ‘What actions of mine are most abominable’ You reply, ‘The world must be judge whether your public actions have not been in many respects abominable.’ I am glad the charge softens. I hope by-and-by you will think they are only abominable in some respects. You remark: (4) ‘Instead of making the Word of God the rule of his actions he follows only secret persuasion or impulse.’ I answered: ‘I have declared again and again that I make the Word of God the rule of all my actions, and that I no more follow any secret impulse instead thereof than I follow Mahomet or Confucius.’ You reply: ‘You fall again into your strain of boasting, as if declarations could have any weight against facts; assert that “you make the Word of God the rule of all your actions,” and that I “perhaps do not know many persons - ”’ (page 121). Stop, sir: you are stepping over one or two points which I have not done with. You remark: (5) ‘Instead of judging of his spiritual estate by the improvement of his heart, he rests only on ecstasies, &c.’ I answered: ‘Neither is this my case. I rest not on them at all. I judge of my spiritual estate by the improvement of my heart and the tenor of my life conjointly.’ To this I do not perceive you reply one word. Herein, then, I am not an enthusiast.

I observe: (3) That at the times to which your other citations refer, I was utterly uncertain how to act in points of great importance, and such as required a speedy determination; and that by this means my uncertainty was removed, and I went on my way rejoicing (ii. 97, 106, 336). My own experience, therefore, which you think should discourage me for the future from anything of this kind, does, on the contrary, greatly encourage me herein; since I have found much benefit, and no inconvenience -- unless, perhaps, this be one, that you ‘cannot acquit me of enthusiasm’; add, if you please, ‘and presumption.’ But you ask, ‘Has God ever commanded us to do thus’ I believe He has neither commanded nor forbidden it in Scripture. But, then, remember ‘that Scripture’ (to use the words which you cite from ‘our learned and judicious Hooker’) ‘is not the only rule of all things which in this life may be done by men.’ All I affirm concerning this is that it may be done, and that I have, in fact, received assistance and direction thereby. 4. I give the same answer to your assertion that we are not ordered in Scripture to decide any points in question by lots (Second Letter, p. 123). You allow, indeed, there are instances of this in Scripture; but affirm, ‘These were miraculous; nor can we without presumption’ (a species of enthusiasm) ‘apply this method.’ I want proof of this: bring one plain text of Scripture, and I am satisfied. ‘This, I apprehend, you learned from the Moravians.’ I did; though, it is true, Mr. Whitefield thought I went too far therein. ‘Instances of the same occur in your Journals. I will mention only one. It being debated when you should go to Bristol, you say, “We at length all agreed to decide it by lot. And by this it was determined I should go.” (Journal, ii. 158.) Is this your way of carefully considering every step you take Can there be greater rashness and extravagance Reason is thus in a manner rendered useless, prudence is set aside, and affairs of moment left to be determined by chance!’ (Second Letter, p. 124.)

8. To sum up this. No truly wise or sober man can possibly desire or expect miracles to prove either (1) that these doctrines are true; this must be decided by Scripture and reason: or (2) that these facts are true; this can only be proved by testimony: or (3) that to change sinners from darkness to light is the work of God alone, only using what instruments He pleases; this is glaringly self-evident: or (4) that such a change wrought in so many notorious sinners within so short a time is a great and extraordinary work of God; this also carries its own evidence. What, then, is it which remains to be proved by miracles Perhaps you will say, It is this: 'That God hath called or sent you to do this.' Nay, this is implied in the third of the foregoing propositions. If God has actually used us therein, if His work hath in fact prospered in our hands, then He hath called or sent us to do this. I entreat reasonable men to weigh this thoroughly, -- whether the fact does not plainly prove the call; whether He who enables us thus to save souls alive does not commission us so to do; whether, by giving us the power to pluck these brands out of the burning, He does not authorize us to exert it. Oh that it were possible for you to consider calmly, whether the success of the gospel of Jesus Christ, even as it is preached by us, the least of His servants, be not itself a miracle, never to be forgotten; -- one which cannot be denied, as being visible at this day, not in one but an hundred places; one which cannot be accounted for by the ordinary course of any natural cause whatsoever; one which cannot be ascribed with any color of reason to diabolical agency; and, lastly, one which will bear the infallible test--the trial of the written Word!

Let any serious person read over those pages. I therein slander no man: I speak what I know, what I have both heard and read. The men are alive, and the books are extant. And the same conclusion I now defend, touching that part of the clergy who preach or write thus--namely, if they preach the truth as it is in Jesus, I am found a false witness before God. But if I preach the way of God in truth, then they are blind leaders of the blind. (6) You quote those words, ‘Nor can I be said to intrude into the labors of those who do not labor at all, but suffer thousands of those for whom Christ died to perish for lack of knowledge’ (ii. 249). I wrote that letter near Kingswood. I would to God the observation were not terribly true! (7) The first passage you cite from the Earnest Appeal evidently relates to a few only among the clergy; and if the charge be true but of one in five hundred, it abundantly supports my reasoning. (8) In the next I address all those, and those only, who affirm that I preach for gain. [Works, viii. 25-8.] You conclude: ‘The reader has now before him the manner in which you have been pleased to treat the clergy; and your late sermon is too fresh an instance on the like usage of the universities’ [On Scriptural Christianity. See Works, v. 37-52.] (Second Letter, p. 107). It is an instance of speaking the truth in love. So I desire all mankind may use me. Nor could I have said less, either to the university or the clergy, without sinning against God and my own soul.

MY DEAR BRETHREN, -- As many of you as have set your hands to the plough, see that you go on and look not back. The prize and the crown are before you; and in due time you shall reap if you faint not. Meantime fight the good fight of faith, enduring the cross and despising the shame. Beware that none of you return evil for evil or railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing. Show forth out of a loving heart your good conversation with meekness and wisdom. Avoid all disputes as you would avoid fire: so shall ye continue kindly affectioned one toward another. The God of peace be with you. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To John Bennet [7] LONDON, December 20, 1746. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Is what you mention concerning poor David Taylor a certain truth Do you speak on sure grounds Or is it only a flying report It is exceeding strange, if it is true. If it was true, did not his late teachers know it And if they did know it, could they be honest men Surely it would be worth while to talk with him once. It may help him, and not hurt you. Methinks you should see poor Mr. Hutchings also once. I scarce know how to believe that he is so weak. Although, when a believer has once let go his hold, he may sink into anything. You should also talk with as many of the scattered sheep as you can. Some of them, perhaps, may yet return into the way of truth. I shall write to my brother by this post, and mention his coming through Cheshire, if possible. It will be best for you to write to him immediately to Newcastle, and fix a day for meeting him at Birstall or Sheffield.[Charles Wesley was in Newcastle, and reached Sheffield on Feb. 1, 1747.] You should write to me as often as you can. T. Westall [Thomas Westall was one of Wesley’s first lay preachers. ‘He was a pattern of simplicity and humble love.’ He resided at Bristol, where he died in 1794. see Atmore's Memorial, pp. 486-7.]will take advice in all things. Be strong, and God shall comfort your heart. But you must not be always at one place. Grace be with you. Farewell. TO Mr. John Bennet, Chinley End, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire.

6. The sum of what I offered before concerning perceptible inspiration was this: ‘Every Christian believer has a perceptible testimony of God's Spirit that he is a child of God.’ You objected that there was not one word said of this, either in the Bible or in the Appeal, to which I referred. I replied: ‘I think there is in the Bible, in the 16th verse of the 8th chapter to the Romans. And in the Farther Appeal this place is proved to describe the ordinary privilege of every Christian believer.’

It follows that this preaching and prayer were far from 'abominable idolatry.' That expression can never be defended. Say it was a rash word, and give it up. In truth, from the beginning to the end you set this matter upon a wrong foundation. It is not on this circumstance--the being at set times or not--that the acceptableness of our prayers depends, but on the intention and tempers with which we pray. He that prays in faith, at whatsoever time, is heard. In every time and place God accepts him who 'lifts up holy hands without wrath or doubting.' The charge of superstition, therefore, returns upon yourself; for what gross superstition is this, to lay so much stress on an indifferent circumstance and so little on faith and the love of God! But to proceed: 'We confess singing of psalms to be a part of God's worship, and very sweet and refreshful when it proceeds from a true sense of God's love; but as for formal singing, it has no foundation in Scripture.' In this there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. But let it be observed here that the Quakers in general cannot be excused, if this is true; for if they 'confess singing of psalms to be a part of God's worship,' how dare they either condemn or neglect it ' Silence is a principal part of God's worship--that is, men's sitting silent together, ceasing from all outwards, from their own words and actings, in the natural will and comprehension, and feeling after the inward seed of life.' In this there is a manifest difference between Quakerism and Christianity. This is will-worship, if there be any such thing under heaven; for there is neither command nor example for it in Scripture. Robert Barclay, indeed, refers to abundance of scriptures to prove it is a command. But as he did not see good to set them down at length, I will take the trouble to transcribe a few of them:

The Scripture says quite otherwise--that he did give way to the fury of the Jews against him. I read: 'Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure (who had desired a favour against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem, lying in wait in the way to kill him), said to Paul, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgement-seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. If I have done anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die; but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them.' Hence it plainly appears that Festus was a very wicked person-one who, 'to do the Jews a pleasure,' would have betrayed the innocent blood. But although St. Paul was not ignorant of his character, still he called him 'Most Noble Festus,' giving him the title of his office; which, indeed, was neither more nor less than saying, 'Governor Festus' or 'King Agrippa..' It is therefore mere superstition to scruple this. And it is, if possible, greater superstition still to scruple saying you, vous, or ihr, whether to one or more persons, as is the common way of speaking in any country. It is this which fixes the language of every nation. It is this which makes me say you in England, vous in France, and ihr in Germany, rather than thou, tu, or du, rather than su, se, or +HEB+; which, if we speak strictly, is the only scriptural language; not thou or thee any more than you. But the placing religion in such things as these is such egregious trifling, as naturally tends to make all religion stink in the nostrils of infidels and heathens. And yet this, by a far greater abuse of words than that you would reform, you call the plain language. O my friend! he uses the plain language who speaks the truth from his heart; not he who says thee or thou, and in the meantime will dissemble or flatter, like the rest of the world. 'It is not lawful for Christians to kneel, or bow the body, or uncover the head to any man.'

4. I never did censure the whole body of clergy; and God forbid that I ever should. I do not willingly censure any, even the grossly immoral. But you advise to 'complain of these to the Bishop of the diocese.' In what way 'Be so public-spirited as to present them.' Much may be said on that question. I should ask: (1) Have I a right to present them I apprehend not. The churchwardens of each parish are to do this; which they will hardly do at my instance. (2) If I could do it myself, the presenting them to the Court is not presenting them to the Bishop: the Bishop, you cannot but know, has no more authority in what is called the Bishop's Court than the Pope of Rome. (3) I cannot present, suppose, thirty persons in as many counties, to the lay chancellors or officials (men whom I apprehend to have just as much authority from Scripture to administer the sacraments as to try ecclesiastical causes), without such an expense both of labour and money and time as I am by no means able to sustain. And what would be the fruit, if I could sustain it if I was the informer-general against the immoral clergy of England O sir, can you imagine, or dare you say, that I should 'have the thanks of the bishops, and of all good men, both clergy and laity' If you allow only those to be good men who would thank me for this, I fear you would not find seven thousand good men in all our Israel.

5. But you have been 'assured there are proofs about to be produced of very shocking things among us also.' It is very possible you may. And, to say the truth, I expected such things long ago. In such a body of people, must there not be some hypocrites, and some who did for a time serve God in sincerity, and yet afterwards turn back from the holy commandment once delivered to them I am amazed there have been so few instances of this, and look for more every day. The melancholy case of that unhappy man Mr. Hall I do not rank among these; for he had renounced us long ago, and that over and over, both by word and writing, [See letter of Nov. 17, 1742.] And though he called upon me once or twice a year, and lately made some little overtures of friendship, yet I have it under his own hand he could have no fellowship with us because we would not leave the Church. But quia intellexi minus, protrusit foras. ['Because I seemed reluctant to entertain his views, he expelled me from his dwelling.'] To make it quite plain and clear how close a connexion there was between him and me, when I lately called on his poor wife at Salisbury, he fairly turned me out of doors and my sister after me.[See letter of Feb. 2.]

11. Nay, and I am afraid it will hold, on the other hand, medicus non est qui non medetur;--I am afraid, if we use propriety of speech, 'he is no physician who works no cure.' 12. 'Oh, but he has taken his degree of Doctor of Physic, and therefore has authority.' Authority to do what 'Why, to heal all the sick that will employ him.' But (to waive the case of those who will not employ him; and would you have even their lives thrown away) he does not heal those that do employ him. He that was sick before is sick still; or else he is gone hence, and is no more seen. Therefore his authority is not worth a rush; for it serves not the end for which it was given. 13. And surely he has not authority to kill them by hindering another from saving their lives! 14. If he either attempts or desires to hinder him, if he condemns or dislikes him for it, it is plain to all thinking men he regards his own fees more than the lives of his patients. II. Now to apply. 1. Seeing life everlasting and holiness, or health of soul, are things of so great importance, it was highly expedient that ministers, being physicians of the soul, should have all advantages of education and learning. 2. That full trial should be made of them in all respects, and that by the most competent judges, before they enter on the public exercise of their office, the saving souls from death. 3. That after such trial they be authorized to exercise that office by those who are empowered to convey that authority. (I believe bishops are empowered to do this, and have been so from the apostolic age.) 4. And that those whose souls they save ought in the meantime to provide them what is needful for the body. 5. But, suppose a gentleman bred at the University of Dublin, with all the advantages of education, after he has undergone the usual trials, and been regularly authorized to save souls from death,--

12. 'Oh, but he is ordained, and therefore has authority.' Authority to do what 'To save all the souls that will put themselves under his care.' True; but (to waive the case of them that will not; and would you desire that even those should perish) he does not, in fact, save them that are under his care. Therefore what end does his authority serve He that was a drunkard is a drunkard still. The same is true of the Sabbath-breaker, the thief, the common swearer. This is the best of the case; for many have died in their iniquity, and their blood will God require at the watchman's hand. 13. For surely he has no authority to murder souls, either by his neglect, by his smooth if not false doctrine, or by hindering another from plucking them out of the fire and bringing them to life everlasting! 14. If he either attempts or desires to hinder him, if he condemns or is displeased with him for it, how great reason is there to fear that he regards his own profit more than the salvation of souls.--I am, reverend sir, Your affectionate brother. To William Mondet [15] CORK STREET, May 14, 1748. SIR,--What I said at first, I say just now without any intricacy or reserve at all: 'Indemnify me, and take the house to-day.' But be sure; I will keep it till I am indemnified. And if you refuse to do this, 'tis not I refuse to quit, but you refuse to take the house. Every sensible man must see where it sticks--namely, at you, and not at me.--I am Your well-wisher and servant for Christ's sake. Mr. Meriton and Williams have power to transact this without me. To Mr. W. Mondet. To John Cennick [16] May 16, 1748. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I know you cannot indemnify me with regard to the rents and covenants I am under, which was the thing I always insisted on, and must insist on still, without encumbering yourselves. If, therefore, you cannot accept the house 'upon these conditions,' the case is determined at once. I wish you much happiness; and am Your very affectionate brother. To Mr. Cennick. To John Haime [17] LONDON, June 21, 1748.

When your deputy had brought me prisoner into the house, he permitted Mr. Grimshaw, the minister of Haworth, Mr. Colbeck [Thomas Colbeck was steward of the Haworth Round, and a devoted class-leader and local preacher. See Laycock's Great Haworth Round, pp. 139-42; and letter of Nov. 25.] of Keighley, and one more [William Batty, one of Ingham's preachers. See Journal, ii. 294n.] to be with me, promising none should hurt them. Soon after, you and your friends came in and required me to promise 'I would come to Roughlee no more.' I told you 'I would cut off my hand rather than make any such promise.' Neither would I promise that none of my friends should come. After abundance of rambling discourse (for I could keep none of you long to one point) from about one o'clock till between three and four, in which one of you justly said, 'No, we will not be like Gamaliel, we will proceed like the Jews,' you seemed a little satisfied with my saying, 'I will not preach at Roughlee this time, nor shall I be here again till August next; then I will show you the authority by which I preach.' You then undertook to quiet the mob; to whom you went and spoke a few words, and their noise immediately ceased, while I walked out with you at the back door. I should have mentioned that I had desired you to let me go several times before, but could not prevail; and that, when I attempted to go with Richard Bocock, the mob came immediately to me, cursing and swearing and throwing whatever came to hand. One of them beat me down to the ground; and when I rose again, the rest came about me like lions and forced me back into the house.

I answer: (1) Learn from hence to follow neither his nor my practice implicitly; but weigh the reason of each, and then follow reason, wheresoever it stands. But (2) Examine your heart, and beware inclination does not put on the shape of reason. (3) You see with your own eyes I do not drink it at all, and yet I seldom give offence thereby. It is not, then, the bare abstaining, but the manner of doing it, which usually gives the offence. (4) There is therefore a manner wherein you may do it too, and yet give no more offence than I. For instance: If any ask you, simply reply, 'I do not drink tea; I never use it.' If they say, 'Why, you did drink it'; answer, 'I did so; but I have left it off a considerable time.' Those who have either good nature or good manners will say no more. But if any should impertinently add, 'Oh, but why did you leave it off' answer mildly, 'Because I thought watergruel (suppose) was wholesomer as well as cheaper.' If they, with still greater ill-manners and impertinence, go on, 'What, you do it because Mr. Wesley bids you'; reply calmly, 'True; I do it because Mr. Wesley, on good reasons, advises me so to do.' If they add the trite cant phrase, 'What, you follow man!' reply, without any emotion, 'Yes, I follow any man, you or him or any other, who gives me good reason for so doing.' If they persist in cavilling, close the whole matter with, 'I neither drink it nor dispute about it.'

For the time to come, I purpose going from Bristol to Cork, if I can procure a convenient passage; and returning from Dublin to Holyhead, and so through North and South Wales. So that once a year (as long as my life is prolonged) I hope to have the pleasure of seeing you at Fonmon. When I leave London next (probably about a month hence), I am to spend some time at Kingswood, and then embark for Ireland. I am glad Mr. Meriton [Wesley's estimate of his ability is not flattering. See letter of March 28, 1749.] is of use. He should have told me whither he was going. We must always use openness toward each other. If I find any one using cunning or subtlety with me, I set a mark upon that man. There was no guile found in our Lord's mouth; nor can it be in the mouth of any true Christian. Shall not all our afflictions work together for good They must, if God is true. To His care I commit you; and am Your affectionate brother and servant. To Vincent Perronet [25] [25a] {December} 1748. REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--1. Some time since, you desired an account of the whole economy of the people commonly called Methodists. And you received a true (as far as it went) but not a full account. To supply what I think was wanting in that I send you this account, that you may know, not only their practice on every head, but likewise the reasons whereon it is grounded, the occasion of every step they have taken, and the advantages reaped thereby. 2. But I must premise that, as they had not the least expectation at first of anything like what has since followed, so they had no previous design or plan at all; but everything arose just as the occasion offered. They saw or felt some impending or pressing evil or some good end necessary to be pursued. And many times they fell unawares on the very thing which secured the good or removed the evil. At other times they consulted on the most probable means, following only common sense and Scripture; though they generally found, in looking back, something in Christian antiquity likewise, very nearly parallel thereto.

It was easily answered: If you mean only gathering people out of buildings called churches, it is. But if you mean dividing Christians from Christians, and so destroying Christian fellowship, it is not. For (1) These were not Christians before they were thus joined. Most of them were barefaced heathens. (2) Neither are they Christians from whom you suppose them to be divided. You will not look me in the face and say they are. What! drunken Christians! cursing and swearing Christians! lying Christians! cheating Christians! If these are Christians at all, they are devil Christians, as the poor Malabarians term them. (3) Neither are they divided any more than they were before, even from these wretched devil Christians. They are as ready as ever to assist them and to perform every office of real kindness towards them. (4) If it be said, 'But there are some true Christians in the parish, and you destroy the Christian fellowship between these and them,' I answer: That which never existed cannot be destroyed. But the fellowship you speak of never existed. Therefore it cannot be destroyed. Which of those true Christians had any such fellowship with these Who watched over them in love Who marked their growth in grace Who advised and exhorted them from time to time Who prayed with them and for them as they had need This, and this alone, is Christian fellowship; but, alas! where is it to be found Look east or west, north or south; name what parish you please: is this Christian fellowship there Rather, are not the bulk of the parishioners a mere rope of sand What Christian connexion is there between them What intercourse in spiritual things What watching over each other's souls What bearing of one another's burthens What a mere jest is it, then, to talk so gravely of destroying what never was! The real truth is just the reverse of this: we introduce Christian fellowship where it was utterly destroyed. And the fruits of it have been peace, joy, love, and zeal for every good word and work.

10. Another objection was: 'There is no scripture for this, for classes and I know not what.' I answer: (1) There is no scripture against it. You cannot show one text that forbids them. (2) There is much scripture for it, even all those texts which enjoin the substance of those various duties whereof this is only an indifferent circumstance, to be determined by reason and experience. (3) You seem not to have observed that the Scripture in most points gives only general rules, and leaves the particular circumstances to be adjusted by the common sense of mankind. The Scripture, for instance, gives that general rule, 'Let all things be done decently and in order.' But common sense is to determine on particular occasions what order and decency require. So in another instance the Scripture lays it down as a general, standing direction: 'Whether ye eat or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God.' But it is common prudence which is to make the application of this in a thousand particular cases. 11. 'But these,' said another, 'are all man's inventions.' This is but the same objection in another form. And the same answer will suffice for any reasonable person. These are man's inventions. And what then That is, they are methods which men have found, by reason and common sense, for the more effectually applying several Scripture rules, couched in general terms, to particular occasions. 12. They spoke far more plausibly than these, who said: 'The thing is well enough in itself. But the Leaders are insufficient for the work; they have neither gifts nor graces for such an employment.' I answer: (1) Yet, such Leaders as they are, it is plain God has blessed their labour. (2) If any of these is remarkably wanting in gifts or grace, he is soon taken notice of and removed. (3) If you know any such, tell it to me, not to others, and I will endeavour to exchange him for a better. (4) It may be hoped they will all be better than they are, both by experience and observation, and by the advices given them by the Minister every Tuesday night, and the prayers (then in particular) offered up for them.

2. These, therefore, wanted some means of closer union; they wanted to pour out their hearts without reserve, particularly with regard to the sin which did still easily beset them and the temptations which were most apt to prevail over them. And they were the more desirous of this when they observed it was the express advice of an inspired writer: 'Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.' 3. In compliance with their desire, I divided them into smaller companies; putting the married or single men and married or single women together. The chief rules of these bands (that is, little companies; so that old English word signifies) runs thus: 'In order to " confess our faults one to another," and pray one for another that we may be healed, we intend (1) To meet once a week at the least. (2) To come punctually at the hour appointed. (3) To begin with singing or prayer. (4) To speak each of us in order, freely and plainly, the true state of our soul, with the faults we have committed in thought, word, or deed, and the temptations we have felt since our last meeting. (5) To desire some person among us (thence called a Leader) to speak his own state first, and then to ask the rest, in order, as many and as searching questions as may be, concerning their state, sins, and temptations.' 4. That their design in meeting might be the more effectually answered, I desired all the men bands to meet me together every Wednesday evening, and the women on Sunday, that they might receive such particular instructions and exhortations as from time to time might appear to be most needful for them, that such prayers might be offered up to God as their necessities should require, and praise returned to the Giver of every good gift for whatever mercies they had received.

But I grant they are overseen, if they argue against you by citing 'the testimonies of the ancient Fathers' (page 6), seeing they might easily perceive you pay no more regard to these than to the Evangelists or Apostles. Neither do I commend them if they 'insinuate jealousies of consequences dangerous to Christianity' (ibid.). Why they should insinuate these I cannot conceive: I need not insinuate that the sun shines at noonday. You have 'opened too great a glare to the public' (page 7) to leave them any room for such insinuation. Though, to save appearances, you gravely declare still, 'Were my argument allowed to be true, the credit of the Gospel miracles could not in any. degree be shaken by it' (page 6). 4. So far is flourish. Now we come to the point. 'The present question,' you say, 'depends on the joint credibility of the facts and of the witnesses who attest them, especially' on the former. For 'if the facts be incredible, no testimony can alter the nature of things' (page 9). All this is most true. You go on: 'The credibility of facts lies open to the trial of our reason and senses, But the credibility of witnesses depends on a variety of principles wholly concealed from us. And though in many cases it may reasonably be presumed, yet in none can it be certainly known.' (Page 10.) Sir, will you retract this, or defend it If you defend, and can prove as well as assert it, then farewell the credit of all history, not only sacred but profane. If 'the credibility of witnesses' (of all witnesses, for you make no distinction) depends, as you peremptorily affirm, 'on a variety of principles wholly concealed from us'; and consequently, 'though it may be presumed in many cases, yet can be certainly known in none,'--then it is plain all the history of the Bible is utterly precarious and uncertain; then I may indeed presume, but cannot certainly know, that Jesus of Nazareth ever was born, much less that He healed the sick and raised either Lazarus or Himself from the dead. Now, sir, go and declare again how careful you are for 'the credit of the Gospel miracles'!

5. But, for fear any--considering how 'frank and open' your nature is, and how 'warmly disposed to speak what you take to be true' (page 7)--should fancy you meant what you said in this declaration, you take care to inform them soon after: 'The whole which the wit of man can possibly discover, either of the ways or will of the Creator, must be acquired by attending seriously'--to what to the Jewish or Christian revelation No; but 'to that revelation which He made of Himself from the beginning in the beautiful fabric of this visible world.' (Page 22.) 6. I believe your opponents will not hereafter urge you either with that passage from St. Mark or any other from Scripture--at least I will not, unless I forget myself; as I observe you have done just now. For you said but now, 'Before we proceed to examine testimonies for the decision of this dispute, our first care should be to inform ourselves of the nature of those miraculous powers which are the subject of it as they are represented to us in the history of the Gospel' (page 10). Very true; 'this should be our first care.' I was therefore all attention to hear your account of 'the nature of those powers as they are represented to us in the Gospel,' But, alas! you say not a word more about it; but slip away to those 'zealous champions who have attempted' (bold men as they are) 'to refute the Introductory Discourse' (page 11). Perhaps you will say, 'Yes, I repeat that text from St. Mark.' You do; yet not describing the nature of those powers, but only to open the way to 'one of your antagonists' (page 12); of whom you yourself affirm that 'not one of them seems to have spent a thought in considering those powers as they are set forth in the New Testament' (page 11). Consequently the bare repeating that text does not prove you (any more than them) to have 'spent one thought upon the subject.'

7. From this antagonist you ramble away to another; after a long citation from whom, you subjoin: 'It being agreed, then, that in the original promise there is no intimation of any particular period to which their continuance was limited' (pages 13-14). Sir, you have lost your way. We have as yet nothing to do with their continuance. 'For, till we have learned from those sacred records' (I use your own words) 'what they were and in what manner exerted by the Apostles, we cannot form a proper judgement of those evidences which are brought either to confirm or confute their continuance in the Church; and must consequently dispute at random, as chance or prejudice may prompt us, about things unknown to us' (page 11). Now, sir, if this be true (as without doubt it is), then it necessarily follows that--seeing, from the beginning of your book to the end, you spend not one page to inform either yourself or your readers concerning the nature of these miraculous powers 'as they are represented to us in the history of the Gospel'--you dispute throughout the whole 'at random, as chance or prejudice prompts you, about things unknown to you.' 8. Your reply to 'the adversaries of your scheme' (pages 15-27) I may let alone for the present; and the rather, because the arguments used therein will occur again and again. Only I would here take notice of one assertion--'that the miraculous powers conferred on the Apostles themselves were imparted just at the moment of their exertion, and withdrawn again as soon as those particular occasions were served' (page 23). You should not have asserted this, be it true or false, without some stronger proof. 'This, I say, is evident' (ibid.) is not a sufficient proof; nor 'A treatise is prepared on that subject' (page 24). Neither is it proved by that comment of Grotius on our Lord's promise, ['Non omnibus omnia-ita tamen cuilibet credenti tunc data sit admirabilis facultas, quae se, non semper quidem, sed data occasione explicaret' (Grotius in Marcum xvi. 17). ] which, literally translated, runs thus: 'To every believer there was then given some wonderful power, which was to exert itself, not indeed always, but when there was occasion.'

8. But you endeavour to show it is, 'For that surprising confidence,' you say, 'with which the Fathers of the fourth age have affirmed as true what they themselves had forged, or at least knew to be forged' (a little more proof of that), 'makes us suspect that so bold a defiance of truth could not become general at once, but must have been carried gradually to that height by custom and the example of former times' (page 84). It does not appear that it did become general till long after the fourth century. And as this supposition is not sufficiently proved, the inference from it is nothing worth. 9. You say, secondly: 'This age, in which Christianity was established, had no occasion for any miracles. They would not therefore begin to forge miracles at a time when there was no particular temptation to it.' (Ibid.) Yes, the greatest temptation in the world, if they were such men as you suppose. If they were men that would scruple no art or means to enlarge their own credit and authority, they would naturally 'begin to forge miracles' at that time when real miracles were no more. 10. You say, thirdly: 'The later Fathers had equal piety with the earlier, but more learning and less credulity. If these, then, be found either to have forged miracles themselves, or propagated what they knew to be forged, or to have been deluded by the forgeries of others, it must excite the same suspicion of their predecessors.' (Page 85.) I answer: (1) It is not plain that the later Fathers had equal piety with the earlier. Nor (2) That they had less credulity. It seems some of them had much more: witness Hilarion's camel, and smelling a devil or a sinner; though even he was not so quick-scented as St. Pachomius, who (as many believe to this day) could 'smell an heretic at a mile's distance.' (Free Inquiry, pp. 89-90.) But if (3) The earlier Fathers were holier than the later, they were not only less likely to delude others, but (even on Plato's supposition) to be deluded themselves; for they would have more assistance from God.

11. But you say, fourthly: 'The earlier ages of the Church were not purer than the later. Nay, in some respects they were worse: for there never was any age in which so many rank heresies were professed, or so many spurious books forged and published, under the names of Christ and His Apostles; several of which are cited by the most eminent Fathers of those ages as of equal authority with the Scriptures. And none can doubt but those who would forge or make use of forged books would make use of forged miracles.' (Introductory Discourse, pp. 8-7.)

9. But, to complete all, 'Here again,' you say, 'we see a dispensation of things ascribed to God quite different from that which we meet with in the New Testament' (page 24). 'We see a dispensation'! Where Not in the primitive Church: not in the writings of one single Christian; not of one heathen: and only of one Jew; for poor Celsus had not a second, though he multiplies under your forming hand into a cloud of witnesses. He alone ascribes this to the ancient Christians, which you in their name ascribe to God. With the same regard to truth, you go on: 'In those days the power of working miracles' (you should say the extraordinary gifts) 'was committed to none but those who presided in the Church of Christ.' Ipse dixit for that. But I cannot take your word, especially when the Apostles and Evangelists say otherwise. 'But, upon the pretended revival of those powers,'--Sir, we do not pretend the revival of them, seeing we shall believe they never were intermitted till you can prove the contrary,--'we find the administration of them committed, not to those who had the government of the Church, not to the bishops, the martyrs, or the principal champions of the Christian cause, but to boys, to women, and, above all, to private and obscure laymen, not only of an inferior but sometimes also of a bad character.'

With far greater probability than John Croius asserts that Justin forged these passages, a man of candour would hope that he read them in his copy (though incorrect) of the Greek Bible. And, till you disprove this or prove the assertion of Croius, you are got not a jot farther still. But, notwithstanding you have taken true pains to blacken him both with regard to his morals and understanding, he may still be an honest man and an unexceptionable witness as to plain facts done before his face. 11. You fall upon Irenaeus next, and carefully enumerate all the mistakes in his writings. As (1) That he held the doctrine of the Millennium, and related a weak fancy of Papias concerning it. (2) That he believed our Saviour to have lived fifty years. (3) That he believed Enoch and Elias were translated, and St. Paul caught up to that very paradise from which Adam was expelled. So he might, and all the later Fathers with him, without being either the better or the worse. (4) That he believed the story concerning the Septuagint version; nay, and that the Scriptures were destroyed in the Babylonish captivity, but restored again after seventy years by Esdras, inspired for that purpose. 'In this also' you say, but do not prove, 'he was followed by all the principal Fathers that succeeded him; although there is no better foundation for it than that fabulous relation in the Second Book of Esdras.' You add (5) That 'he believed the sons of God who came in to the daughters of men were evil angels.' And all the early Fathers, you are very ready to believe, 'were drawn into the same error by the authority of the apocryphal Book of Enoch cited by St. Jude.' (Page 44.)

And yet this opinion, as you know full well, has its foundation, not only in the histories of all ages and all nations throughout the habitable world, even where Christianity never obtained, but particularly in Scripture--in abundance of passages both of the Old and New Testament, as where the Israelites were expressly commanded not to 'suffer a witch to live' (ibid.); where St. Paul numbers 'witchcraft' with 'the works of the flesh' (Gal. v. 19-20), and ranks it with adultery and idolatry; and where St. John declares, 'Without are sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers' (Rev. xxii. 15). That the gods of the heathens are devils (1 Cor. x. 30) is declared in terms by one of those who are styled inspired writers. And many conceive that another of them gives us a plain instance of their 'assuming the form of those who were called from the dead' (1 Sam. xxviii. 13-14). Of the power of evil spirits to afflict the minds of men none can doubt who believe there are any such beings. And of their power to afflict the body we have abundant proof both in the history of Job and that of the Gospel demoniacs. I do not mean, sir, to accuse you of believing these things: you have shown that you are guiltless in this matter; and that you pay no more regard to that antiquated book the Bible than you do to the Second Book of Esdras. But, alas! the Fathers were not so far enlightened. And because they were bigoted to that old book, they of consequence held for truth what you assure us was mere delusion and imposture.

5. I observe you take much the same liberty in your next quotation from Cyprian. 'He threatens,' you say, 'to execute what he was ordered to do " against them in a vision "' (page 102). Here also the last words, 'in a vision,' are an improvement upon the text. Cyprian's words are, 'I will use that admonition which the Lord commands me to use.' ['Utar ea admonitione, qua me Dominus uti jubet' (Epis. ix.).] But neither was this in order to introduce any questionable point either of doctrine or discipline, no more than his using the same threat to Pupianus, who had spoken ill of him and left his communion. 6. You go on: 'He says likewise he was admonished of God to ordain one Numidicus, a confessor, who had been left for dead, half burnt and buried in stones' (pages 103-4). True; but what 'questionable point of doctrine or discipline' did he introduce hereby or by ordaining Celerinus, 'who was overruled and compelled by a divine vision to accept that office' So you affirm Cyprian says. But Cyprian says it not--at least, not in those words which you cite in the margin, which, literally translated, run thus: 'I recommend to you Celerinus, joined to our clergy, not by human suffrage, but by the divine favour.' ['Non humane suffragatione, sed divina dignatione,conjunctum' (Epis xxxiv.).] 'In another letter, speaking of Aurelius, whom he had ordained a reader, he says to his clergy and people, " In ordaining clergy, my dearest brethren, I use to consult you first; but there is no need to wait for human testimonies when the divine suffrage has been already signified."' An impartial man would wonder what you could infer from these five passages put together. Why, by the help of a short postulatum, 'He was fond of power' (you have as much ground to say, 'He was fond of bloodshed'), you will make it plain, 'this was all a trick to enlarge his episcopal authority.' But as that postulatum is not allowed, you have all your work to begin again.

Indeed, you do not now mention Montanus because it is anything to the question, but only to make way for observing that those who wrote against him 'employed such arguments against his prophecy as shake the credit of all prophecy. For Epiphanius makes this the very criterion between a true and a false prophet, " that the true had no ecstasies, constantly retained his senses, and with firmness of mind apprehended and uttered the divine oracles."' Sir, have you not mistook Have you not transcribed one sentence in the margin and translated another That sentence which stands in your margin is this: 'When there was need, the saints of God among the Prophets prophesied all things with the true Spirit and with a sound understanding and reasonable mind.' Now, it is difficult to find out how this comes to 'shake the credit of all prophecy.' 12. Why thus: 'Before the Montanists had brought those ecstasies into disgrace, the prophecy of the orthodox too was exerted in ecstasy. And so were the prophecies of the Old Testament, according to the current opinion of those earlier days.' (Page 111.) That this was then 'the current opinion' you bring three citations to prove. But if you could cite three Fathers more during the first three centuries expressly affirming that the Prophets were all out of their senses, I would not take their word. For though I take most of the Fathers to have been wise and good men, yet I know none of them were infallible. But do even these three expressly affirm it No, not one of them--at least, in the words you have cited. From Athenagoras you cite only part of a sentence, which, translated as literally as it will well bear, runs thus: 'Who in an ecstasy of their own thoughts, being moved by the Divine Spirit, spoke the things with which they were inspired even as a piper breathes into a pipe.' Does Athenagoras expressly affirm in these words that the Prophets were 'transported out of their senses' I hope, sir, you do not understand Greek. If so, you show here only a little harmless ignorance.

10. From page 127 to page 158 you relate miracles said to be wrought in the fourth century. I have no concern with these; but I must weigh an argument which you intermix therewith again and again. It is in substance this: 'If we cannot believe the miracles attested by the later Fathers, then we ought not to believe those which are attested by the earliest writers of the Church.' I answer: The consequence is not good, because the case is not the same with the one and with the other. Several objections which do not hold with regard to the earlier may lie against the later miracles,--drawn either from the improbability of the facts themselves, such as we have no precedent of in holy writ; from the incompetency of the instruments said to perform them, such as bones, relics, or departed saints; or from the gross 'credulity of a prejudiced or the dishonesty of an interested relater' (page 145). 11. One or other of these objections holds against most of the later though not the earlier miracles. And if only one holds, it is enough; it is ground sufficient for making the difference. If, therefore, it was true that there was not a single Father of the fourth age who was not equally pious with the best of the more ancient, still we might consistently reject most of the miracles of the fourth while we allowed those of the preceding ages, both because of the far greater improbability of the facts themselves and because of the incompetency of the instruments. (Page 159.) But it is not true that 'the Fathers of the fourth age' whom you mention were equally pious with the best of the preceding ages. Nay, according to your account (which I shall not now contest), they were not pious at all; for you say, 'They were wilful, habitual liars.' And if so, they had not a grain of piety. Now, that the earlier Fathers were not such has been shown at large; though, indeed, you complimented them with the same character. Consequently, whether these later Fathers are to be believed or no, we may safely believe the former, who dared not to do evil that good might come or to lie either for God or man.

12. I had not intended to say anything more concerning any of the miracles of the later ages; but your way of accounting for one, said to have been wrought in the fifth, is so extremely curious that I cannot pass it by. The story, it seems, is this: 'Hunneric, an Arian prince, in his persecution of the orthodox in Afric, ordered the tongues of a certain society of them to be cut out by the roots. But, by a surprising instance of God's good providence, they were enabled to speak articulately and distinctly without their tongues. And so, continuing to make open profession of the same doctrine, they became not only preachers but living witnesses of its truth.' (Page 182.) Do not mistake me, sir: I have no design at all to vouch for the truth of this miracle. I leave it just as I find it. But what I am concerned with is your manner of accounting for it. 13. And, first, you say: 'It may not improbably be supposed that though their tongues were ordered to be cut to the roots, yet the sentence might not be so strictly executed as not to leave in some of them such a share of that organ as was sufficient in a tolerable degree for the use of speech' (page 183). So you think, sir, if only an inch of a man's tongue were to be neatly taken off, he would be able to talk tolerably well as soon as the operation was over. But the most marvellous part is still behind. For you add: 'To come more close to the point,--if we should allow that the tongues of these confessors were cut away to the very roots, what will the learned doctor say if this boasted miracle should be found at last to be no miracle at all' (page 184). 'Say' Why, that you have more skill than all the 'strolling wonder-workers' of the first three centuries put together.

Might it not be well, sir, not to be quite so sure yet You may not always have the laugh on your side. You are not yet infallibly assured but that even Protestantism may produce something worth an answer. There may be some Protestants, for aught you know, who have a few grains of common sense left, and may find a way to defend, at least the Ante-Nicene Fathers, without 'disgracing their own character.' Even such an one as I have faintly attempted this; although I neither have, nor expect to have, any preferment, not even to be a Lambeth chaplain, which if Dr. Middleton is not, it is not his own fault. V. 1. The last thing you proposed was 'to refute some of the most plausible objections which have been hitherto made.' To what you have offered on this head I must likewise attempt a short reply. You say: 'It is objected, first, that, by the character I have given of the Fathers, the authority of the books of the New Testament, which were transmitted to us through their hands, will be rendered precarious and uncertain' (page 190). After a feint of confuting it, you frankly acknowledge the whole of this objection. 'I may venture,' you say, 'to declare that, if this objection be true, it cannot hurt my argument. For if it be natural and necessary that the craft and credulity of witnesses should always detract from the credit of their testimony, then who can help it And if this charge be proved on the Fathers, it must be admitted, how far soever the consequences may reach.' (Page 192.) 'If it be proved'! Very true. If that charge against the Fathers were really and substantially proved, the authority of the New Testament would be at an end so far as it depends on one kind of evidence. But that charge is not proved. Therefore even the traditional authority of the New Testament is as firm as ever. 2. 'It is objected,' you say, 'secondly, that all suspicion of fraud in the case of the primitive miracles is excluded by that public appeal and challenge which the Christian apologists make to their enemies the heathens to come and see with their own eyes the reality of the facts which they attest' (page 193).

2. It lies upon me to answer for one. But I must not burthen you with too long an answer, lest ‘for want either of leisure or inclination’ (page 5) you should not give this any more than my other tracts a reading. In order, therefore, to spare both you and myself, I shall consider only your First Part, and that as briefly as possible. Accordingly I shall not meddle with your other quotations; but, leaving them to whom they may concern, shall only examine whether those you have made from my writings prove the charge of enthusiasm or no. This I conceive will be abundantly sufficient to decide the question between you and me. If these do prove the charge, I am cast; if they do not, if they are the words of truth and soberness, it will be an objection of no real weight against sentiments just in themselves, though they should also be found in the writings of Papists -- yea, of Mahometans or Pagans. 3. Let the eight pages you borrow stand as they are. I presume they will do neither good nor harm. In the tenth you say: ‘The Methodists act on the same plan with the Papists; not perhaps from compact and design, but a similar configuration and texture of brain or the fumes of imagination producing similar effects. From a commiseration of horror, arising from the grievous corruptions of the world, perhaps from a real motive of sincere piety, they both set out with warm pretences to a reformation.’ Sir, this is an uncommon thought -- that sincere piety should arise from the ‘configuration and texture of the brain’ I as well as that ‘pretences to a reformation’ should spring from ‘a real motive of sincere piety’! 4. You go on: ‘Both commonly begin their adventures with field-preaching’ (Enthusiasm, &c., p. 11). Sir, do you condemn field-preaching toto genere, as evil in itself Have a care! or you (I should say the gentleman that assists you) will speak a little too plain, and betray the real motives of his sincere antipathy to the people called Methodists.

‘Here we have,’ say you, ‘the true spirit and very essence of enthusiasm, which sets men above carnal reasoning and all conviction of plain Scripture’ (page 49). It may or may not: that is nothing to me. I am not above either reason or Scripture. To either of these I am ready to submit. But I cannot receive scurrilous invective instead of Scripture, nor pay the same regard to low buffoonery as to clear and cogent reasons. 23. With your two following pages I have nothing to do. But in the fifty-second I read as follows: ‘ “A Methodist,” says Mr. Wesley, “went to receive the sacrament, when God was pleased to let him see a crucified Savior.”’ Very well; and what is this brought to prove Why (1) that I am an enthusiast; (2) that I ‘encourage the notion of the real, corporal presence in the sacrifice of the Mass.’ How so why, ‘this is as good an argument for transubstantiation as several produced by Bellarmine’ (page 57). Very likely it may; and as good as several produced by you for the enthusiasm of the Methodists. 24. In that ‘seraphic rhapsody of divine love,’ as you term it, which you condemn in the lump as rant and madness, there are several scriptural expressions both from the Old and New Testament. At first I imagined you did not know them, those being books which you did not seem to be much acquainted with. But, upon laying circumstances together, I rather suppose you was glad of so handsome an opportunity to make as if you aimed at me, that you might have a home-stroke at some of those old enthusiasts. 25. The next words which you cite from me as a proof of my enthusiasm are, ‘The power of God was in an unusual manner present’ (page 61). I mean many found an unusual degree of that peace, joy, and love which St. Paul terms ‘the fruit of the Spirit.’ And all these, in conformity to his doctrine, I ascribe to the power of God. I know you, in conformity to your principles, ascribe them to the power of nature. But I still believe, according to the old, scriptural hypothesis, that whenever, in hearing the word of God, men are filled with peace and love, God ‘confirms that word by the Holy Ghost given unto those that hear it.’

I see a danger you are in, which perhaps you do not see yourself. Is it not most pleasing to me as well as you to be always preaching of the love of God And is there not a time when we are peculiarly led thereto, and find a peculiar blessing therein Without doubt so it is. But yet it would be utterly wrong and unscriptural to preach of nothing else. Let the law always prepare for the gospel. I scarce ever spoke more earnestly here of the love of God in Christ than last night; but it was after I had been tearing the unawakened in pieces. Go thou and do likewise. It is true the love of God in Christ alone feeds His children; but even they are to be guided as well as fed -- yea, and o~en physicked too: and the bulk of our hearers must be purged before they are fed; else we only feed the disease Beware of all honey. It is the best extreme; but it is an extreme. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Gilbert Boyce [8] BANDON, May 22, 1750. DEAR SIR, -- I do not think either the Church of England, or the People called Methodist or any other particular Society under heaven to be the True Church of Christ. For that Church is but one and contains all the true believers on earth. But I conceive every society of true believers to be a branch of the one true Church of Christ. ‘Tis no wonder that young and unlearned preachers use some improper expressions. I trust, upon friendly advice, they will lay them aside. And as they grow in years they will increase in knowledge. I have neither inclination nor time to draw the saw of controversy. But a few here remarks I would make in order to our understanding and (I hope) loving one another the better. You think the mode of baptism is ‘necessary to salvation’: I deny that even baptism itself is so; if it were, every Quaker must be damned which I can in no wise believe. I hold nothing to be (strictly speaking) necessary to salvation but the mind which was in Christ. If I did not think you had a measure of this, I could one love you as an heathen man or a publican.

REVEREND SIR, -- 1. Why do you not subscribe your name to a performance so perfectly agreeing both as to the matter and form with the sermons you have been occasionally preaching for more than a year last past As to your seeming to disclaim it by saying once and again, ‘I am but a plain, simple man,’ and ‘The doctrine you teach is only a revival of the old Antinomian heresy, I think they call it,’ I presume it is only a pious fraud. But how came so plain and simple a man to know the meaning of the Greek word Philalethes Sir, this is not of a piece. If you did not care to own your child, had not you better have subscribed the second (as well as the first) letter George Fisher [The letter thus subscribed was published in Cork on May 30, 1750.] 2. I confess you have timed your performance well. When the other pointless thing was published, I came unluckily to Cork on the selfsame day. But you might now suppose I was at a convenient distance. However, I will not plead this as an excuse for taking no notice of your last favor; although, to say the truth, I scarce know how to answer it, as you write in a language I am not accustomed to. Both Dr. Tucker, Dr. Church, and all the other gentlemen who have wrote to me in public for some years have wrote as gentlemen, having some regard to their own, whatever my character was. But as you fight in the dark, you regard not what weapons you use. We are not, therefore, on even terms: I cannot answer you in kind; I am constrained to leave this to your good allies of Blackpool and Fair Lane. [Celebrated parts of Cork.] I shall first state the facts on which the present controversy turns, and then consider the most material parts of your performance. I. I am to state the facts. But here I am under a great disadvantage, having few of my papers by me. Excuse me, therefore, if I do not give so full an account now, as I may possibly do hereafter; if I only give you for the present the extracts of some papers which were lately put into my hands, 1. ' THOMAS JONES, of Cork, merchant, deposes,

‘That on May 3, 1749, Nicholas Butler, ballad-singer, came before the house of this deponent, and assembled a large mob: that this deponent went to Daniel Crone, Esq., then Mayor of Cork, and desired that he would put a stop to those riots; asking at the same time whether he gave the said Butler leave to go about in this manner: that Mr. Mayor said he neither gave him leave, neither did he hinder him: that in the evening Butler gathered a larger mob than before, and went to the house where the people called Methodists were assembled to hear the word of God, and as they came out threw dirt and hurt several of them. That on May 4 this deponent with some others went to the Mayor and told what had been done; adding, “If your Worship pleases only to speak three words to Butler, it will all be over”: that the Mayor gave his word and honor there should be no more of it, he would put an entire stop to it: that, notwithstanding, a larger mob than ever came to the house the same evening: that they threw much dirt and many stones at the people, both while they were in the house and when they came out: that the mob then fell upon them, both on men and women, with clubs, hangers, and swords; so that many of them were much wounded and lost a considerable quantity of blood.

‘That on May 5 this deponent informed the Mayor of all, and also that Butler had openly declared there should be a greater mob than ever there was that night: that the Mayor promised he would prevent it: that in the evening Butler did bring a greater mob than ever: that this deponent, hearing the Mayor designed to go out of the way, set two men to watch him, and when the riot was begun went to the ale-house and inquired for him: that the woman of the house denying he was there, this deponent insisted he was, declared he would not go till he had seen him, and began searching the house: that Mr. Mayor then appearing, he demanded his assistance to suppress a riotous mob: that when the Mayor came in sight of them, he beckoned to Butler, who immediately came down from the place where he stood: that the Mayor then went with this deponent, and looked on many of the people covered with dirt and blood: that some of them still remained in the house, fearing their lives, till James Chatterton and John Reilly, Esqrs., Sheriffs of Cork, and Hugh Millard, jun., Esq., Alderman, turned them out to the mob and nailed up the doors.’ 2. ‘ELIZABETH HOLLERAN, of Cork, deposes, ‘That on May 3, as she was going down to Castle Street, she saw Nicholas Butler on a table, with ballads in one hand and a Bible in the other: that she expressed some concern thereat; on which Sheriff Reilly ordered his bailiff to carry her to Bridewell: that afterward the bailiff came and said his master ordered she should be carried to jail: and that she continued in jail from May 3, about eight in the evening, till between ten and twelve on May 5.’ 3. ‘JOHN STOCKDALE, of Cork, tallow-chandler, deposes,

The first you preface thus: 'Upon the people's ill usage (or supposed ill usage) of Mr. Wesley in Georgia, and their speaking of all manner of evil falsely (as he says) against him, and trampling under-foot the word after having been very attentive to it, what an emotion in him is hereby raised I “I do hereby bear witness against myself that I could scarce refrain from giving the lie to experience and reason and Scripture all together.”’ The passage as I wrote it stands thus: 'Sunday, March 7. I entered upon my ministry at Savannah. In the Second Lesson (Luke xviii.) was our Lord's prediction of the treatment which He Himself, and consequently His followers, were to meet with from the world.... ‘Yet, notwithstanding these plain declarations of our Lord, notwithstanding my own repeated experience, notwithstanding the experience of all the sincere followers of Christ whom I ever talked with, read, or heard of -- nay, and the reason of the thing evincing to a demonstration that all who love not the light must hate him who is continually laboring to pour it in upon them -- I do here bear witness against myself that when I saw the number of people crowding into the church, the deep attention with which they received the word, and the seriousness that afterwards sat on all their faces, I could scarce refrain from giving the lie to experience and reason and Scripture all together. I could hardly believe that the greater, the far greater part of this attentive, serious people would hereafter trample under-foot that word, and say all manner of evil falsely of him that spoke it.’ (i. 176-9.) Sir, does this prove me guilty of skepticism or infidelity, of doubting or denying the truth of Revelation Did I speak this ‘upon the people using me ill and saying all manner of evil against me’ Or am I here describing ‘any emotion raised in me hereby’ Blush, blush, sir, if you can blush. You had here no possible room for mistake. You grossly and willfully falsify the whole passage to support a groundless, shameless accusation.

You quote, fifthly, these words: ‘I spent an hour with Stonehouse. Oh what paa, “persuasiveness of speech,” is here! Surely all the deceivableness of unrighteousness.’ (Journal. ii. 394.) But there was no fierceness or rancor on either side. The passage, a fragment of which you produce as a sixth argument, stands thus: ‘A few of us had a long conference together. Mr. Cennick now told me plainly he could not agree with me, because I did not preach the truth, particularly with regard to Election.’ He did so; but without any rancor. We had a long conference; but not a fierce one. (ii. 408-9.) You, seventhly, observe, ‘What scurrility of language the Moravians throw out against Mr. Wesley!’ Perhaps so. But this will not prove that ‘the Methodists quarrel with each other.’ ‘And how does he turn their own artillery upon them!’ This is your eighth argument. But if I do, this no more proves the ‘mutual quarrels of the Methodists’ than my turning your own artillery upon you. 33. Having, by these eight irrefragable arguments, dearly carried the day, you raise your crest, and cry out, ‘Is this Methodism And reign such mortal feuds in heavenly minds’ Truly, sir, you have not yet brought one single proof (and yet I dare say you have brought the very best you have) of any such feuds among the Methodists as may not be found among the most heavenly-minded men on earth. But you are resolved to pursue your victory, and so go on: ‘What are we to think of these charges of Whitefield and Wesley and the Moravians one against another’ The Moravians, sir, are out of the question; for they are no Methodists: and as to the rest, Mr. Whitefield charges Mr. Wesley withholding Universal Redemption, and I charge him with holding Particular Redemption. This is the standing charge on either side. And now, sir, ‘what are we to think’ Why, that you have not proved one point of this charge against the Methodists. However, you stumble on: ‘Are these things so Are they true, or are they not true If not true, they are grievous calumniators; if true, they are detestable sectarists. Whether true or false, the allegation stands good of their fierce and rancorous quarrels and mutual heinous accusations.’

I had occasion once before to say to an opponent, ‘You know not to show mercy.’ Yet that gentleman did regard truth and justice. But you regard neither mercy, justice, nor truth. To vilify, to blacken is your one point. I pray God it may not be laid to your charge! May He show you mercy, though you show none I --I am, sir, Your friend and well-wisher.

Your Lordship adds: 'The following attestations will sufficiently clear me from any imputation or even suspicion of having published a falsehood.’ I apprehend otherwise; to waive what is past, if the facts now published by your Lordship, or any part of them, be not true, then certainly your Lordship will be under more than a ‘suspicion of having published a falsehood.’ The attestations your Lordship produces are (1) those of your Lordship’s Chancellor and Archdeacon; 2) those of Mr. Bennet. The former attests that on June or July 1748 Mrs. Morgan did say those things to your Lordship (page 8). I believe she did, and therefore acquit your Lordship of being the inventor of those falsehoods. Mr. Bennet avers that in January last Mrs. Morgan repeated to him what she had before said to your Lordship (page 11). Probably she might: having said these things one, I do not wonder if she said them again. Nevertheless Beam Mr. Trembath and Mr. Haime she denied every word of it To get over this difficulty your Lordship publishes a second letter from Mr. Bennet, wherein he says, ‘On March 4 last Mrs. Morgan said, "I was told by my servant that I was wanted above-stairs; where, when I came, the chamber door being open I found them" (Mr. Wesley and others) “round the table on their knees.”’ He adds: ‘That Mrs. Morgan owned one circumstance in it was true; but as to the other parts of Mr. Wesley’s letter to the Bishop, she declares it is all false.’ I believe Min. Morgan did say this to Mr. Bennet, and that therefore nether is he ‘the maker of a lie.’ But he is the relater of a whole train of falsehoods, and those told merely for telling sake. I was never yet in any chamber at Mrs. Morgan’s. I was never above-stairs there in my life. On August 25, 1750, I was bellow-stars all the time I was in the house. When Mrs. Morgan came in, I was standing in the huge parlor; nor did any of us kneel while we were under the roof. This both Mr. Trembath and Mr. Haime can attest upon oath, whatsoever Mrs. Morgan may declare to ire contrary.

I am persuaded you will receive these short lines in the same lo, e wherein I write them. That you may prosper more and more, both in your soul and in your labors, is the hearty desire of, my dear brother, [Wesley endorsed this letter ‘My letter to G. Whitd. He denies all!’] Your affectionate fellow laborer. To Ebenezer Blackwell [5] LONDON June. 27 1753. DEAR SIR, -- Your speaking so freely lays me under a new obligation of speaking without any reserve. And the rather because you receive what is spoken in the manner which I desire -- that is, not so much regarding the person who speaks as the thing which is spoken. If there is truth and weight in this, let it stand; if not, let it fall to the ground. Some time since, I was considering what you said concerning our wanting a plan in our Societies. There is a good deal of truth in this remark; for although we have a plan as to our spiritual economy (the several branches of which are particularly recited in the Plain Account of the People called Methodists [See letter in Dec. 1748 to Vincent Perronet.]), yet it is certain we have barely the first outlines of a plan with regard to temporals. The reason is, I had no design for several years to concern myself with temporals at all. And when I began to do this, it was wholly and solely with a view to relieve not employ the poor, unless now and then with respect to a small number; and even this I found was too great a burthen for me, as requiring both more money, more time, and more thought than I could possibly spare: I say, than I could spare; for the whole weight laid on me. If I left it to others, it surely came to nothing. They wanted either understanding, or industry, or love, or patience to bring anything to perfection. Thus far I thought it needful to explain myself with regard to the economy of our Society. I am still to speak of your case, of my own, and of some who are dependent on me.

DEAR SIR, -- Being fully persuaded that my brother would gladly embrace any overture of peace, I told him almost as soon as we met what my wife had agreed to. He answered not a word. After a day or two I spoke to him again. It had the same success. The Sunday before he left Bristol I desired to speak to him, but he did not come. Just as I was going out of town the next morning he sent to me to can at his house. But I could not then; and before I came back he was set out for London, only leaving a note that he had left his answer with Lady Huntingdon. It may be so; but I saw her twice afterwards, and she said nothing of it to me. Nether am I (any more than my wife) willing to refer the matter to her arbitration. [See next letter.] From the whole I learn that there is no prospect of peace. When one is willing, then the other flies off. I shall profit by both; but I am sorry to do it at the expense of others. I have another favor to beg of you -- to procure Mr. Belcher's [See letters of March 15, 1748, and May 28, 1757.] leave for me to enclose my proof-sheets [Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament. The work was begun on Jan. 6, 1754. See Journal, iv. 91; Green’s Bibliography, No. 172; and letter of June 20.] to him. Mr. C. Perronet [Charles Perronet had charge of the Notes, which Wesley was passing through the press. See Jackson’s Ch~s Wesley, ii. 87; and letter of Sept. 12 to Blackwell.] sends them down to me in thanks; then I correct and send them back to him. The next week I am to spend at Liverpool. Toward the end of the week following I hope to be at Haworth, near Keighley, in Yorkshire. God has blessed me with a prosperous journey hither, though the roads and the weather were rough. I hope both Mrs. Blackwell and you are making the best use of a~ things, rough and smooth. That is the part of a good solder of Jesus Christ, -- To trace His example, the world to disdain, And cheerfully trample on pleasure and pain. [Poetical Works v. 427.] --I am, dear sir, Your very affectionate servant.

REVEREND DEAR SIR, -- 1. You greatly oblige me by speaking your thoughts so freely, and the more by giving me hopes of seeing your farther sentiments on so nice and important an affair. I did not delay one day to follow your advice with regard to Mr. Adam, but sent him by the very next post a copy of those papers; although I am satisfied already as to the publishing them, and have laid aside that design, the reasons you urge against the expediency of it being abundantly sufficient. But you seem a little to misapprehend what we speak of hearing predestinarian preachers. We find by long experience that this is ‘deadly poison,’ not in itself but to the members of our Societies. This we know to be unquestionable truth; and it is a truth necessary to be observed, nay, and strongly insisted on (though without any deign of bearing hard on any particular person), when many were enlarging on ‘the poisonous doctrines’ which they heard at many of their parish churches. 2. All that you say concerning the inexpediency of a separation from the Church I readily allow; as likewise that the first and main question must be, ‘Is it lawful to separate’ Accordingly this was debated first, and that at large, in seven or eight long conversations. And it was then only, when we could not agree concerning the, that we proceeded to weigh the expediency of it. 3. As to the grounds on which those who plead for separation from the Church proceed, some of them have weighed the point long and deeply. They have very particularly, and with earnest and continued prayer, considered the lawfulness of it. And they allow, ‘If it be lawful to abide therein, then it is not lawful to separate.’ But they aver, ‘It is not lawful to abide therein’; and that for the following reasons: --

‘(11) Wrath and evil are but two words for the same thing’' (ibid.). This is home; but it cannot be granted without proof. ‘(12) God is as incapable of wrath as of thickness, hardness, and darkness, because wrath can exist nowhere else but in thickness, and hardness, and darkness’ (page 71). So far from it, that wrath cannot exist in thickness or hardness at all. For these are qualities of bodies, and nothing can be wrathful but spirit. ‘(13) Wrath cannot be in any creature till it has lost its first perfection’ (page 72). That remains to be proved. Thus far you have advanced arguments for your doctrine. Your next attempt to answer objections. And to the objection that Scripture speaks so frequently of the wrath of God you answer, -- ‘(1) All the wrath and vengeance that ever was in any creature is to be called and looked on as the wrath and vengeance of God.’ I totally deny that proposition, and call for the proof of it. ‘(2), God works everything in nature. Therefore all death or rage or curse, wherever it is, must be said in the language of Scripture to be the wrath or vengeance of God’ (Page 55.) I deny the consequence. The latter proposition does not follow from the former. And, indeed, it is not true. All death and rage and curse is not in the language of Scripture termed the wrath and vengeance of God. ‘3) Because the devils have their life from God, therefore their cursed, miserable, wrathful life is said to be the curse and misery and wrath of God upon them’(page 53). Neither can this be proved, that the devils having their life from God is the reason why they are said to be under His wrath. Nor does the Scripture ever term their wrathful, miserable life the wrath or misery of God. ‘4) Devils are His as wall as holy angels. Therefore all the wrath and rage of the one must be as truly His wrath and rage burning in them as the joy the others is His joy.’ (Page 54.)

You add: ‘His Spirit is more distinguishable from all other spirits than any of your natural affections are from one another’ (page 199). Suppose joy and grief: is it more distinguishable from all other spirits than these are from one another Did any man ever mistake grief for joy No, not from the beginning of the world. But did none ever mistake nature for grace Who will be so hardy as to affirm this But you set your pupil as much above the being taught by books as being taught by men. ‘Seek,’ say you, ‘for help no other way, neither from men nor books; but wholly leave yourself to God’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. p. 225). But how can a man ‘leave himself wholly to God’ in the total neglect of His ordinances The old Bible way is to ‘leave ourselves wholly to God’ in the constant use of all the means He hath ordained. And I cannot yet think the new is better, though you are fully persuaded it is. ‘There are two ways,’ you say, ‘of attaining goodness and virtue: the one by books or the ministry of men; the other by an inward birth. The former is only in order to the latter.’ This is most true, that all the externals of religion are in order to the renewal of our soul in righteousness and true holiness, But it is not true that the external way is one and the internal way another. There is but one scriptural way wherein we receive inward grace -- through the outward means which God hath appointed.

Some might think that when you advised ‘not to seek help from books’ you did not include the Bible. But you clear up this where you answer the objection of your not esteeming the Bible enough. You say: ‘How could you more magnify John the Baptist than by going from his teaching to be taught by that Christ to whom he directed you Now, the Bible can have no other office or power than to direct you to Christ. How, then, can you more magnify the Bible than by going from its teaching to be taught by Christ’ So you set Christ and the Bible in flat opposition to each other! And is this the way we are to learn of Him Nay, but we are taught of Him, not by going from the Bible, but by keeping close to it. Both by the Bible and by experience we know that His Word and His Spirit act in connection with each other. And thus it is that, by Christ continually teaching and strengthening him through the Scripture, ‘the man of God is made perfect, and thoroughly furnished for every good word and work.’ According to your veneration for the Bible is your regard for public worship and for the Lord's Supper. ‘Christ,’ you say, ‘is the church or temple of God within thee. There the supper of the Lamb is kept. When thou art well grounded in this inward worship, thou wilt have learned to live unto God above time and place. For every day will be Sunday to thee, and wherever thou goest thou wilt have a priest, a church, and an altar along with thee.’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part I. p. 73.) The plain inference is: Thou wilt not need to make any difference between Sunday and other days. Thou wilt need no other church than that which thou hast always along with thee; no other supper, worship, priest, or altar. Be well grounded in this inward worship, and it supersedes all the rest.

Doubtless this eminent man (whose books on the Human Understanding and on Divine Analogy I would earnestly recommend to all who either in whole or in part deny the Christian Revelation) grounded his judgment both of the nature and duration of future punishments on these and the like passages of Scripture: -- ‘If we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge Of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins; but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy: of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God! For we know Him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto Me, I will recompense. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.’ (Heb. x. 26-31.)

REVRAND SIR -- I am favored with yours of January 26, for which I return you my sincere thanks. Your frank and open manner of writing is far from needing any apology and I hope will never occasion your receiving such treatment from me as I did from Mr. Law, who, after some very keen expressions, in answer to the second private letter I sent him, plainly told me he desired to ‘hear no more on that head.’ I do desire to hear, and am very willing to consider whatever you have to advance on the head of Christian Perfection. When I began to make the Scriptures my study (about seven-and-twenty years ago), I began to see that Christians are called to love God with all their heart and to serve Him with all their strength; which is precisely what I apprehend to be meant by the scriptural term Perfection. After weighing this for some years, I openly declared my sentiments before the University [On Jan. 1, 1733. See Works, v. 202-12.] in the sermon on the Circumcision of the Heart, now printed in the second volume. About six years after, in consequence of an advice I received from Bishop Gibson, ‘Tell all the world what you mean by perfection,’ I published my coolest and latest thoughts in the sermon on that subject. I therein build on no authority, ancient or modern, but the Scripture. If this supports any doctrine it will stand; if not, the sooner it falls the better. Neither the doctrine in question nor any other is anything to me, unless it be the doctrine of Christ and His Apostles. If, therefore, you will please to point out to me any passages in that sermon which are either contrary to Scripture or not supported by it, and to show that they are not, I shall be full as willing to oppose as ever I was to defend them. I search for truth, plain Bible truth, without any regard to the praise or dispraise of men. If you will assist me in this search, more especially by showing me where I have mistaken my way, it will be gratefully acknowledged by, reverend sir, Your affectionate brother and servant. To Richard Tompson [6] LONDON, February 5, 1756.

13. In your last paragraph you say, ‘You set aside all authority, ancient and modern.’ Sir, who told you so I never did; it never entered my thoughts. Who it was gave you that rule I know not; but my father gave it me thirty years ago (I mean concerning reverence to the ancient Church and our own), and I have endeavored to walk by it to this day. But I try every Church and every doctrine by the Bible. This is the word by which we are to be judged in that day. Oh that we may then give up our account with joy! Whatever farther thoughts you are pleased to communicate will be seriously considered by, reverend dear sir, Your affectionate brother and fellow laborer. To Samuel Furly KINGSWOOD, March 14, 1756. DEAR SAMMY, -- You are sick of two diseases: that affection for a poor silly worm like yourself, which only absence (through the grace of God) will cure [See letters of Feb. 21 and April 16.]; and that evil disease which Marcus Antoninus complains of -- the da . [‘Thirst after books,’ Meditations II. sect. 3. See letter of Nov. 30, 1770.] That you are far gone in the latter plainly appears from your not loving and admiring that masterpiece of reason and religion, the Reflections on the Conduct of Human Life, with Regard to Knowledge and Learning, [Extracts from a work by John Norris, published by Wesley in 1734, 12mo 36 pp. The third edition, issued in 1755, has ‘A Scheme of Books suited to the preceding Reflections’' Wesley alludes to page 33 of the extract: ‘I now intend to follow the advice of the heathen (Marcus Antoninus), as I remembeh t da ‘ (“Rid thyself of the thirst after books”); and to study nothing at all but what serves to the advancement of piety and a good life.’ See letters of April 16, 1756 and Sept. 28, 1745, sect. 21.] every paragraph of which must stand unshaken (with or without the Bible) till we are no longer mortal.

But suppose this would better answer the end with regard to those two Societies, would it answer in those where W. Alwood and W. Crabb were settled as inspectors or readers First, who shall feed them with the milk of the Word The ministers of their parishes Alas, they cannot! they themselves neither know, nor live, nor teach the gospel. These readers Can, then, either they or I or you always find something to read to our congregation which will be as exactly adapted to their wants and as much blessed to them as our preaching And here is another difficulty still: what authority have I to forbid their doing what I believe God has called them to do I apprehend, indeed, that there ought, if possible, to be both an outward and inward call to this work; yet, if one of the two be supposed wanting I had rather want the outward than the inward call. I rejoice that I am called to preach the gospel both by God and man. Yet I acknowledge I had rather have the divine without the human than the human without the divine call. But, waiving this, and supporting these four Societies to be better provided for than they were before, what becomes of the other thirty Will they prosper as well when they are left as sheep without a shepherd The experiment has been tried again and again, and always with the same event: even the strong in faith grew weak and faint; many of the weak made shipwreck of the faith; the awakened fell asleep; sinners, changed for a while, returned as a dog to the vomit. And so, by our lack of service, many of the souls perished for whom Christ died. Now, had we willingly withdrawn our service from them by voluntarily settling in one place, what account of this could we have given to the great Shepherd of all our souls I cannot therefore see how any of those four preachers or any others in like circumstances can ever, while they have health and strength, ordained or unordained, fix in one place, without a grievous wound to their own conscience and damage to the general work of God. Yet I trust I am open to conviction; and your farther thoughts on this or any subject will be always acceptable to, reverend and dear sir,

5. How Phavorinus [Favorinus, so called from Favera, his birthplace, was a Benedictine, who in 1512 became librarian to the future Leo X. He was made Bishop of Nuceria in 1514, and died in 1537. He compiled a Greek Lexicon.] or many more may define heresy or schism I am not concerned to know. I well know heresy is vulgarly defined ‘a false opinion touching some necessary article of faith, and schism a causeless separation from a true Church.’ But I keep to my Bible, as our Church in her Sixth Article teaches me; therefore I cannot take schism for a separation from a Church, because I cannot find it so taken in Scripture. The first time I meet the term there is 1 Corinthians i. 10: I meet with it again, chap. xi. 18. But it is plain in both places by schism is meant not any separation from the Church but uncharitable divisions in it. For the Corinthians continued to be one Church, notwithstanding then strife and contention; there was no separation of one part from the other with regard to external communion. It is in the same sense the word is used chap. xii. 25. And these are the only places in the New Testament where the term occurs. Therefore the indulging any unkind temper towards our fellow Christians is the true scriptural schism. Indeed, both heresy and schism (which are works of the flesh, and consequently damnable if not repented) are here mentioned by the Apostle in very near the same sense; unless by schisms be meant rather those inward animosity which occasioned heresies -- that is, outward divisions and parties. So that while one said, ‘I am Paul; another, I am of Apollos,’ this implied both heresy and schism: so wonderfully have latter ages distorted the words ‘heresies’ and ‘schisms’ from their scriptural meaning! Heresy is not in all the Bible taken for an error in fundamentals, nor in anything ere; nor schism for any separation from the communion of others. Therefore heresy and schism in the modern sense of the words are sins that the Scriptures know nothing of.

6. But though I aver this, am I quite indifferent to any man’s principles in religion Far from it; as I have declared again and again, in the very sermon under present consideration, in the Character of a Methodist, in the Plain Account, and twenty tracts besides, I have written severally against Deists, Papists, Mystics, &c. An odd way to ingratiate myself with them, to strike at the apple of their eye! [The version followed here and in the other letter to Clark is that which appears in Montanus Redivivus. Compare sect. 6 with that in Works, xiii. 214-15.] Nevertheless in all things indifferent (but not at the expense of truth) I rejoice to please all men for their good to edification, if happily I may gain the more proselytes to genuine scriptural Christianity, if I may prevail on the more to love God and their neighbor and to walk as Christ walked. So far as I find them obstructive of these, I oppose opinions with my might; though even then rather by guarding those that are free than by disputing with those that are deeply infected: I need not dispute with many of them to know there is no probability of success or of convincing them. A thousand times I have found my father’s word true: ‘You may have peace with the Dissenters, if you do not so humor them as to dispute with them; if you do, they will outface and outlung you, and at the end you will be just where you were in the beginning.’ I have now, sir, humored you so as to dispute a little with you. But with what probability of success Suppose you have a single eye in this debate; suppose you aim, not at victory, but at the truth; yet what man of threescore (unless perchance one in an age) was ever convinced Is not an cid man’s motto, Non persuadebis etiamsi persuaseris [‘I will not be persuaded, even though you should convince me.’] When we are past middle age, do we not find a kind of stiffness and inflexibility stealing upon the mind as well as on the body And does not this bar the gate against all conviction even before the eye of the soul grows dim, and so less and less capable of diving things which we are not already well acquainted with!

‘The conditions of the covenant are recorded: “Lo, I come to do Thy will”’ (page 301). Nay; here is no mention of any covenant, nor anything from which it can be inferred. ‘The recompense stipulated in this glorious treaty.’ But I see not one word of the treaty itself; nor can I possibly allow the existence of it without far other proof than this. ‘Another copy of this grand treaty is recorded, Isa. xlix., from the 1st to the 6th verse’ (ibid.). I have read them, but cannot find a word about it in all those verses. They contain neither more nor less than a prediction of the salvation of the Gentiles. ‘By the covenant of works man was bound to obey in his own person’ (page 302). And so he is under the covenant of grace; though not in order to his justification. ‘The obedience of our Surety is accepted instead of our own.’ This is neither a safe nor a scriptural way of speaking. I would simply say, ‘We are accepted through the Beloved. We have redemption through His blood.’ ‘The second covenant was not made with Adam or any of his posterity, but with Christ, in those words, “The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head”’ (page 303). For any authority you have from these words, you might as well have said it was made with the Holy Ghost. These words were not spoken to Christ but of Him, and give not the least intimation of any such covenant as you plead for. They manifestly contain, if not a covenant made with, a promise made to Adam and all his posterity. ‘Christ, we see, undertook to execute the conditions’ (ibid.). We see no such thing in this text. We see here only a promise of a Savior made by God to man.

‘It is true I cannot fulfill the conditions’ (ibid.). It is not true. The conditions of the new covenant are, ‘Repent and believe’; and these you can fulfill through Christ strengthening you. ‘It is equally true this is not required at my hands.’ It is equally true -- that is, absolutely false; and most dangerously false. If we allow this, Antinomianism comes in with a full tide. ‘Christ has performed all that was conditionary for me.’ Has He repented and believed for you You endeavor to evade this by saying, ‘He performed all that was conditionary in the covenant of works.’ This is nothing to the purpose; for we are not talking of that, but of the covenant of grace. Now, He did not perform all that was conditionary in this covenant unless He repented and believed. ‘But He did unspeakably more.’ It may be so; but He did not do this. ‘But if Christ's perfect obedience be ours, we have no more need of pardon than Christ Himself’ (page 308). The consequence is good. You have started an objection which you cannot answer. You say indeed, ‘Yes, we do need pardon; for in many things we offend all.’ What then If His obedience be ours, we still perfectly obey in Him. ‘Both the branches of the law, the preceptive and the penal, in the case of guilt contracted must be satisfied’ (page 309). Not so. ‘Christ by His death alone’ (so our Church teaches) ‘fully satisfied for the sins of the whole world.’ The same great truth is manifestly taught in the Thirty-first Article. Is it therefore fair, is it honest, for any one to plead the Articles of our Church in defense of Absolute Predestination, seeing the Seventeenth Article barely defines the term without either affirming or denying the thing, whereas the Thirty-first totally overthrows and razes it from the foundation ‘Believers who are notorious transgressors in themselves have a sinless obedience in Christ’ (ibid.). Oh syren song! Pleasing sound to James Wheatley, Thomas Williams, James Relly! I know not one sentence in the Eleventh Dialogue which is liable to exception; but that grand doctrine of Christianity, Original Sin, is therein proved by irrefragable arguments.

REVEEREND AND DEAR SIR, -- Nothing can be more kind than the mentioning to me whatever you think is amiss in my conduct; and the more freedom you use in doing this, the more I am indebted to you. I am thoroughly convinced that you ‘wish me well,’ and that it is this, together with a ‘concern for the common interests of religion,’ which obliges you to speak with more plainness than otherwise you would. The same motives induce me to lay aside aH reserve and tell you the naked sentiments of my heart. Two years since, eleven or twelve persons of Falmouth were members of our Society. Last year I was informed that a young man them had begun to teach them new opinions, and that soon after offence and prejudice crept in and increased till they were all torn asunder. What they have done since I know not; for they have no connection with us. I do ‘exert myself’ so far as to separate from us those that separate from the Church. But in a thousand other instances I feel the want of more resolution and firmness of spirit. Yet sometimes that may appear irresolution which is not so. I exercise as little authority as possible, because I am afraid of people’s depending upon me too much and paying me more reverence than they ought. But I proceed to the substance of your letter. You say, -- 1. ‘If you still hold the essence of justifying faith to lie in assurance, why did you encourage John Hingeston to believe his state good’ Assurance is a word I do not use because it is not scriptural. But I hold a divine evidence or conviction that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me is essential to if not the very essence of justifying faith. John Hingeston told me he had more than this, even a clear conviction that his sins were forgiven; although he said that conviction was not so clear now as it had been in time past.

But you go on: ‘They who partake of Christ’s joy receive the highest evidence that He is the Christ. Thus, then, faith is greatly confirmed by a kind of presence of its object. Their love is joyfully inflamed, and they obtain the assurance of hope, by having in themselves an experimental foretaste of their eternal enjoyment.’ (Page 415.) Why, then, what are we disputing about, seeing you are now so kind as to allow, not only the possibility, but the real existence of all that we contend for ‘Oh, but this is not faith. Faith is quite another thing.’ What is it Let us hear your account of it. ‘The essence of true faith is the eternal God’ (page 288). ‘What is faith It is the blood of Christ.’ (Page 330.) Stark, staring nonsense! Sir, you can talk sense if you please. Why should you palm upon your readers such stuff as this Very little better than this is your third definition: ‘The truth which a man believes is his faith’ (page 301). No it is not; no more than the light which a man sees is his sight. You must therefore guess again. ‘To believe this fact, Christ rose from the dead, is faith’ (page 169). ‘Ask a man, Is the gospel true or not If he holds it to be true, this is faith.’ (Page 296.) But is this saving faith ‘Yes, every one that believes the Gospel history shah be saved’ (page 333). This is flat and plain. And if it is but true, every devil in hell will be saved. For it is absolutely certain every one of these believes this fact -- Christ rose from the dead. It is certain every one of these believes the Gospel history. Therefore this is not saving faith; neither will every one be saved who believes this fact -- Christ rose from the dead. It follows that, whatever others do, you know not what faith is. I object thirdly, (1) That you yourself ‘shut up our access to the divine righteousness’; (2) that you vehemently contradict yourself, and do the very thing which you charge upon others.

(1) You yourself shut up our access to the divine righteousness by destroying that repentance which Christ has made the way to it. ‘Ask men,’ you say, ‘have they sinned or not If they know they have, this is conviction. And this is preparation enough for mercy.’ Soft casuistry indeed! He that receives this saying is never likely either to ‘repent’ or ‘believe the gospel.’ And if he do not, he can have no access to the righteousness of Christ. Yet you strangely affirm: ‘A careless sinner is in full as hopeful a way as one that is the most deeply convicted’ (page 292). How can this be, if that conviction be from God Where He has begun the work, will He not finish it Have we not reason to hope this But in a careless sinner that work is not begun; perhaps never will be. Again: whereas our Lord gives a general command, ‘Seek, and ye shah find,’ you say, ‘Saving faith was never yet sought or in the remotest manner wished for by an unbeliever’ (page 372); a proposition as contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture as to the experience of every true believer. Every one who now believes knows how he sought and wished for that faith before he experienced it. It is not true even with regard to your faith, a belief of the Bible. For I know Deists at this day who have often wished they could believe the Bible, and owned ‘it was happy for them that could.’ (2) You vehemently contradict yourself, and do the very thing which you charge upon others. ‘If we imagine we possess or desire to attain any requisite to our acceptance with God beside or in connection with the bare work of Christ, Christ shah profit us nothing’ (page 96). Again: ‘What is required of us in order to our acceptance with God Nothing. The least attempt to do anything is damnably criminal.’ Very good. Now for self-consistency: ‘What Christ has done is that which quiets the conscience of man as soon as he knows it. So that he need ask no more than, “Is it true or not” If he finds it true, he it happy. If he does not, he can reap no comfort from it. Our comfort arises from the persuasion of this.’ (Page 12.)

You ask, ‘Thirdly, how came the civil magistrate by this power’ (Page 11.) ‘Christ commands us to “call no man upon earth father and master” -- that is, to acknowledge no authority of any in matters of religion’ (page 12). At length we are come to the express command, which, according to your interpretation, is express enough - ‘that is, Acknowledge no authority of any in matters of religion,’ own no power in any to appoint any circumstance of public worship, anything pertaining to decency and order. But this interpretation is not allowed. It is the very point in question. We allow Christ does here expressly command to acknowledge no such authority of any, as the Jews paid their Rabbis, whom they usually styled either fathers or masters, implicitly believing all they affirmed and obeying all they enjoined. But we deny that He expressly commands to acknowledge no authority of governors in things purely indifferent, whether they relate to the worship of God or other matters. You attempt to prove it by the following words: ‘“One is your Master” and Lawgiver, “even Christ; and all ye are brethren” (Matt. xxiii. 8-9), all Christians, having no dominion over one another.’ True, no such dominion as their Rabbis claimed; but in all things indifferent, Christian magistrates have dominion. As to your inserting ‘and Lawgiver’ in the preceding clause, you have no authority from the text; for it is not plain that our Lord is here speaking of Himself in that capacity. dsa, the word here rendered ‘Master,’ you well know conveys no such idea. It should rather have been translated 'Teacher.' And, indeed, the whole text primarily relates to doctrines. But you cite another text: ‘The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them; but it shall not be so among you’ (Matt. xx. 25). Very good; that is, Christian pastors shall not exercise such dominion over their flock as heathen princes do over their subjects. Most sure; but, without any violation of this, they may appoint how things shall ‘be done decently and in order.’

Such are (to go but a few days back)--'that I beat you,' which you told James Burges [One of the masters at Kingswood. Wesley visited the schoolhouse in 1739, and was there during the fire of 1757. See Diary in Journal, ii. 206, 240, 302; iv. 242.]; that I rode to Kingswood with Sarah Ryan, which you told Sarah Crosby; and that I required you, when we were first married, never to sit in my presence without my leave, which you told Mrs. Lee, [Eleanor Lee, 'a mother in Israel,' whom Wesley buried in 1778. See Journal, vi. 213.] Mrs. Fry, and several others, and stood it before my face. I dislike (9) Your common custom of saying things not true. To instance only in two or three particulars. You told Mr. Ireland [James Ireland, of Brislington, near Bristol. See next letter.] 'Mr. Vazeille learnt Spanish in a fortnight.' You told Mr. Fry 'Mrs. Ellison [Wesley's sister Susanna, who spent her last years in London. Evidently some reference to Sophia Hopkey.] was the author as to my intrigue in Georgia.' You told Mrs. Ellison 'you never said any such thing; you never charged her with it.' You also told her 'that I had laid a plot to serve you as Susannah was served by the two elders.' I dislike (10) Your extreme, immeasurable bitterness to all who endeavour to defend my character (as my brother, Joseph Jones, Clayton Carthy [See letter of June 12. ]), breaking out even into foul, unmannerly language, such as ought not to defile a gentlewoman's lips if she did not believe one word of the Bible.

I doubt not of Abraham's being perfected in love. But he was rather under the evangelical than the legal dispensation. And none can doubt but all the Jewish believers were perfected before they died. But that many of them were perfected long before they died I see no reason to think. The Holy Ghost was not fully given before Jesus was glorified. Therefore the law (unless in a very few exempt cases) made nothing perfect. It is certain the word 'perfect' in the Old Testament bears several senses. But we lay no stress upon the word at all. The thing is pure love. The promise of this was given by Moses, but not designed to be fulfilled till long after. See Deuteronomy xxx. 1-6. By the whole tenor of the words it appears it was then, when He had gathered the Jews from all nations, that God was so to circumcise their hearts. However, this may be fulfilled in you and me. Let us hasten toward it! With love to Nancy, I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev. Mr. Furly, At Kippax, Near Ferry Bridge, Yorks. To his Wife BEDFORD, November 24, 1759. MY DEAR MOLLY,--You have been much upon my thoughts this morning. Shall I tell you what I thought Then take it in good part. Take it kindly, as it is kindly meant. What do you gain by keeping my papers [See letter of Oct. 23.] or, at least, think you gain Why, this: you gain the satisfaction of showing them, or parts of them, to others; you gain the power of justifying yourself, and of hurting (at least by vexing) me; you gain occasion to make people think ill of me, and to make them think well of you. And hereby you make yourself more friends and me more enemies.

But possibly you go farther yet; do not you explicitly condemn all your fellow labourers, blaming one in one instance, one in another, so as to be throughly pleased with the conduct of none Does not this argue a vehement proneness to condemn a very high degree of censoriousness Do you not censure even peritos in sua arte ['Those who are clever in their particular profession.' ] Permit me to relate a little circumstance to illustrate this. After we had been once singing an hymn at Everton, I was just going to say, 'I wish Mr. Whitefield would not try to mend my brother's hymns. He cannot do it. How vilely he has murdered that hymn, weakening the sense as well as marring the poetry!' But how was I afterwards surprised to hear it was not Mr. Whitefield, but Mr. B.! In very deed it is not easy to mend his hymns any more than to imitate them. Has not this aptness to find fault frequently shown itself in abundance of other instances sometimes with regard to Mr. Parker or Mr. Hicks, [William Parker, Mayor of Bedford, was excluded by the Moravians from their Society, and preached at the Foundery in 1758 (Journal, iv.86, 201, 248). For William Hicks, see ibid. 335, 344; and letter of June 14, 1780.] sometimes with regard to me And this may be one reason why you take one step which was scarce ever before taken in Christendom: I mean, the discouraging the new converts from reading--at least, from reading anything but the Bible. Nay, but get off the consequence who can: if they ought to read nothing but the Bible, they ought to hear nothing but the Bible; so away with sermons, whether spoken or written! I can hardly imagine that you discourage reading even our little tracts, out of jealousy lest we should undermine you or steal away the affections of the people. I think you cannot easily suspect this. I myself did not desire to come among them; but you desired me to come. I should not have obtruded myself either upon them or you: for I have really work enough, full as much as either my body or mind is able to go through; and I have, blessed be God, friends enough--I mean, as many as I have time to converse with.

MY DEAR BROTHER,--The conversation I had with you yesterday in the afternoon gave me a good deal of satisfaction. As to some things which I had heard (with regard to your wasting your substance, drinking intemperately, and wronging the poor people of Siberton), I am persuaded they were mistakes; as I suppose it was that you converse much with careless, unawakened people. And I trust you will be more and more cautious in all these respects, abstaining from the very appearance of evil. [See letter of Sept. 21, 1755.] That you had not always attended the preaching when you might have done it you allowed, but seemed determined to remove that objection, as well as the other of using such exercises or diversions as give offence to your brethren. I believe you will likewise endeavour to avoid light and trifling conversation, and to talk and behave in all company with that seriousness and usefulness which become a preacher of the gospel. Certainly some years ago you was alive to God. You experienced the life and power of religion. And does not God intend that the trials you meet with should bring you back to this You cannot stand still; you know this is impossible. You must go forward or backward. Either you must recover that power and be a Christian altogether, or in a while you will have neither power nor form, inside nor outside. Extremely opposite both to one and the other is that aptness to ridicule others, to make them contemptible, by exposing their real or supposed foibles. This I would earnestly advise you to avoid. It hurts yourself; it hurts the hearers; and it greatly hurts those who are so exposed, and tends to make them your irreconcilable enemies. It has also sometimes betrayed you into speaking what was not strictly true. O beware of this above all things! Never amplify, never exaggerate anything. Be rigorous in adhering to truth. Be exemplary therein. Whatever has been in time past, let all men now know that John Trembath abhors lying, that he never promises anything which he does not perform, that his word is equal to his bond. I pray be exact in this; be a pattern of truth, sincerity, and godly simplicity.

But you complain, I have 'passed over the most interesting and material circumstances' in your letter. I apprehend just the contrary: I think nothing in it is passed over which is at all material. Nor will I knowingly pass over anything material in this; though I am not a dealer in many words. You say: (1) 'You have impiously apostatized from those principles of religion which you undertook to defend.' I hope not. I still (as I am able) defend the Bible, with the Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies of our Church; and I do not defend or espouse any other principles, to the best of my knowledge, than those which are plainly contained in the Bible as well as in the Homilies and Book of Common Prayer. You blame me (2) for teaching heterodox doctrine concerning faith and good works (I am obliged to put the meaning of many of your straggling sentences together as well as I can). As to the former, which you still awkwardly and unscripturally style the grace of assurance (a phrase I never use), you say: 'You have given it a true Methodistical gloss. But where are the proofs from Scripture Not one single text.' Sir, that is your ignorance. I perceive the Bible is a book you are not acquainted with. Every sentence in my account is a text of Scripture. I purposely refrained from quoting chapter and verse, because I expected you would bewray your ignorance, and show that you was got quite out of your depth. As your old friend Mr. Vellum says, 'You will pardon me for being jocular.' To one who seriously desired information on this point I would explain it a little farther. Faith is an evidence or conviction of things not seen, of God, and the things of God. This is faith in general. More particularly it is a divine evidence or conviction that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me. This directly leads us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling; not with slavish, painful fear, but with the utmost diligence, which is the proper import of that expression. When this evidence is heightened to exclude all doubt, it is the plerophory or full assurance of faith. But any degree of true faith prompts the believer to be zealous of good works.

You blame me (4) for acting from 'a lucrative principle,' though you 'deny you used the word robbing.' (True; for you only said, 'To rob and plunder.') In proof of this you refer to the houses I have built (in Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne). But don't you know, sir, those houses are none of mine I made them over to trustees long ago. I have food to eat and raiment to put on; and I will have no more till I turn Turk or Pagan.--I am, sir, in very good humour, Your well-wisher. PS.--It is not very material whether T. H., Somebody, and Philodemus are the same individual or not. I have subjoined his Questions with my Answers; though they have all been answered fifty times before. Q. 1. Whether a very considerable body of the Methodists do not declare that there can be no good hopes of salvation without Assurance A. Yes: if you mean by that term a divine evidence or conviction that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me. Q. 2. Whether they do not put a greater confidence in what they call Regeneration than in the moral or social duties of life A. No. They hold the due discharge of all these duties to be absolutely necessary to salvation. The latter part of this query, 'of the mercy of the Divine Being,' seems to have lost its way. Q. 3. Whether the Stage in later years has ever ridiculed anything really serious A. Yes; a thousand times. Who that reads Dryden's, Wycherley's, or Congreve's plays can doubt it Q. 4. Whether anything can be religious that has not right reason to countenance it A. No. True religion is the highest reason. It is indeed wisdom, virtue, and happiness in one. To Samuel Furly LONDON, December 9, 1760. DEAR SAMMY,--I am determined to publish nothing against Mr. Hervey unless his answer to my letter is published. Indeed, it is not his; it is Mr. Cudworth's, [See letter of Nov. 29, 1758.] both as to matter and manner. So let it pass for the present.

December 20, 1760. What, my good friend again! Only a little disguised with a new name and a few scraps of Latin! I hoped, indeed, you had been pretty well satisfied before; but since you desire to hear a little farther from me, I will add a few words, and endeavour to set our little controversy in a still clearer light. Last month you publicly attacked the people called Methodists without either fear or wit. You charged them with 'madness, enthusiasm, self-contradiction, imposture,' and what not! I considered each charge, and, I conceive, refuted it to the satisfaction of all indifferent persons. You renewed the attack, not by proving anything, but affirming the same things over and over. I replied; and, without taking notice of the dull, low scurrility, either of the first or second letter, confined myself to the merits of the cause, and cleared away the dirt you had thrown. You now heap together ten paragraphs more, most of which require very little answer. In the first you say: 'Your foolishness is become the wonder and admiration of the public.' In the second: 'The public blushes for you, till you give a better solution to the articles demanded of you.' In the third you cite my words, I still maintain 'the Bible, with the Liturgy, and Homilies of our Church; and do not espouse any other principles but what are consonant to the Book of Common Prayer.' You keenly answer: 'Granted, Mr. Methodist; but whether or no you would not espouse other principles if you durst is evident enough from some innovations you have already introduced, which I shall attempt to prove in the subsequent part of my answer.' Indeed, you will not. You neither prove, nor attempt to prove, that I would espouse other principles if I durst. However, you give me a deadly thrust: 'You falsify the first Article of the Athanasian Creed.' But how so Why, I said: 'The fundamental doctrine of the people called Methodists is, Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the true faith.' Sir, shall I tell you a secret--It was for the readers of your class that I changed the hard word 'catholic' into an easier.

The enthusiasm which has lately gone abroad is faith which worketh by love. Does this 'endanger government itself'? Just the reverse. Fearing God, it honours the King. It teaches all men to be subject to the higher powers, not for wrath, but for conscience' sake. But 'no power in England ought to be independent of the supreme power.' Most true; yet 'the Romanists own the authority of a Pope, independent of civil government.' They do, and thereby show their ignorance of the English Constitution. 'In Great Britain we have many popes, for so I must call all who have the souls and bodies of their followers devoted to them.' Call them so, and welcome. But this does not touch me; nor Mr. Whitefield, Jones, [Thomas Jones, M.A., of St. Saviour's, Southwark, died of fever on June 6, 1762, in his thirty-third year. He set up a weekly lecture in his church: but before long this was stopped by his enemies. See letter to Wesley in Arminian Mag. 1780, p. 165; Tyerman's Wesley, ii. 324-5.] or Romaine; nor any whom I am acquainted with. None of us have our followers --thus devoted to us. Those who follow the advice we constantly give are devoted to God, not man. But 'the Methodist proclaims he can bring into the field twenty-five thousand men.' What Methodist? Where and when? Prove this fact, and I will allow you I am a Turk.

Indeed, your first attack under the character of G. R. is not very desperate. You first give a short history of Montanism, and innocently say: 'It would fill a volume to draw a parallel between Montanism and Methodism.' According as it was drawn; but if it contained nothing but truth, it would not fill a nutshell. You add: 'Such a crude composition is this Methodism, that there is scarce any one pestilent heresy that has infested the Church but what is an actual part of their doctrine.' This is easily said: but, till you can prove it, it will pass for nothing. In your second letter you say: 'The present troublers of our Israel are that heterogeneous mass, the Methodists.' 'Heterogeneous'! an hard word, a very hard word! Pray, sir, what is the meaning of it? 'They are avowed enemies to the doctrine and discipline of the Church.' Surely not avowed enemies (if they are secret ones, which no man can prove): they flatly disavow any such thing. 'Have faithfully copied the worst of men in the worst of times.' This means nothing; it is mere garniture of the dish. 'If such men's enthusiastical notions be the true doctrine of Jesus Christ, better would it be to be a Jew, a Turk, an infidel, than a Christian.' This proves nothing but what was pretty plain before --namely, that you are very angry. 'Notions repugnant to common sense and to the first principles of truth and equity.' My fundamental notions are that true religion is love, the love of God and our neighbour; the doing all things to the glory of God, and doing to all men as we would be done to. Are these notions repugnant to common sense or to the first principles of truth and equity? 'What punishment do they deserve?' they who walk by this rule? By nature they deserve hell; but by the grace of God, if they endure to the end, they will receive eternal life.

SIR, --Is it not surprising that every person of understanding does not discern -- at the very first view that the tract entitled A Caveat against the Methodists is in reality a Caveat against the Protestants? Do not the arguments conclude (if they conclude at all), not against the Methodists only, but against the whole body of Protestants? The names, indeed, of Mr. Whitefield and Mr. Wesley are used; but this is mere finesse! Greater men are designed, and all along are wounded through our sides. I was long in hopes of seeing an answer to this artful performance from someone of more leisure as well as abilities, and some whose name would have recommended his work. For that thought has something of truth in it, -- Oh what a tuneful wonder seized the throng When Marlbro's conquering name alarmed the foe! Had Whiznowisky [Duke Michael Wisnowiski, son of a famous general, was a weak man elected king in 1668 by the Poles, and was a mere puppet in their hands: 'infirm in body and weak in mind, without influence, because without courage and riches,' 'an object of somewhat contemptuous homage.' He died in 1674. See W.H.S. vii. 115-16.] 1ed the armies on, The General's scarecrow name had foiled each blow. However, who knows but reason for once may be stronger than prejudice? And many may forget my scarecrow name, and mind not who speaks but what is spoken. I am pleading now not for Methodists only, but for the whole body of Protestants; first for the Church of England, then for the Protestants of every denomination: in doing which I shall first give the substance of each section of the Romish tract; secondly an answer, and retort it upon the members of the Church of Rome. Oh that this may incite some more skilful advocate to supply my lack of service! 'The Methodists' (Protestants) 'are not the people of God; they are not true gospel Christians; nor is their new raised Society the true Church of Christ, nor any part of it' (page 3). 'This is demonstrated by the Word of God marking out the people of God, the true Church of Christ, by such characters as cannot agree to the Methodists or any other new-raised sect or community' (ibid.).

'This appears from what has been already demonstrated; for if the Protestants are not the true people of Christ, their ministers cannot be the true ministers of Christ' (ibid.). Farther, 'The true ministers came down by succession from the Apostles; but the Protestant teachers do not: therefore they are not the true ministers of Christ' (ibid.). 'All power in the Church of Christ comes from Him; so that whoever without a commission from Him intrudes into the pastoral office is a thief and a robber. Now, the commission can be conveyed but two ways: either immediately from God Himself, as it was to the Apostles, or from men who have the authority handed down to them from the Apostles. 'But this commission has not been conveyed to Protestant preachers either of these ways. Not immediately from God Himself; for how do they prove it? By what miracles? Neither by men deriving authority from the Apostles through the channel of the Church. And they stand divided in communion from all Churches that have any pretensions to antiquity. Their doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone was anathematized at its first appearance by the undoubted heirs of the Apostles, the pastors of the apostolic Churches; consequently they are sent by no other but him who sent all the false prophets from the beginning.' (Pages 8-9.) I answer, 'from what has been already demonstrated,' that nothing will follow; for you have demonstrated just nothing. Now for your 'farther' proof. 'The true ministers came down by succession from the Apostles.' So do the Protestant ministers if the Romish do; the English in particular; as even one of yourselves, F. Courayer, [Peter F. Courayer (1681-1776), the Roman Catholic professor, wrote A Defence of the Validity of the English Ordinations in 1723; and had to take refuge in England in 1728, where he joined the English Church.] has irrefragably proved.

'All power in the Church of Christ comes from Him; either immediately from Himself, or from men who have the authority handed down to them from the Apostles. But this commission has not been conveyed to the Protestant preachers either of these ways: not immediately; for by what miracles do they prove it?' So said Cardinal Bellarmine long ago. Neither 'by men deriving authority from the Apostles.' Read F. Courayer, and know better. Neither are the Protestants 'divided from' any 'Churches' who have true 'pretensions to antiquity.' But 'their doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone was anathematized at its first appearance by the undoubted heirs of the Apostles, the pastors of the apostolic Church.' By the prelates at the Council of Trent it was; who thereby anathematized the Apostle Paul, to all intents and purposes. Here you throw off the mask; otherwise you might have passed for a Protestant a little longer. 'Consequently they are sent by no other but him who sent all the false prophets from the beginning.' Sir, we thank you. This is really a very modest assertion for the subject of a Protestant king. But to turn the tables: I said, 'If the Romish bishops do.' For this I absolutely deny. I deny that the Romish bishops came down by uninterrupted succession from the Apostles. I never could see it proved; and I am persuaded I never shall. But unless this is proved, your own pastors on your principles are no pastors at all.

But you say: 'Such as do not profess this doctrine will not be affected by my sermon.' Indeed they will; for the world (as you yourself did) lump all that are called Methodists together. Consequently whatever you then said of Methodists in general falls on us as well as them; and so we are condemned for those very principles which we totally detest and abhor: a small part of the Preservative (had you taken the pains to read it) would have convinced you of this. 'Did you send them to convince me of some important truth? I have the New Testament.' So have I; and I have read it for above these fifty years, and for near forty with some attention. Yet I will not say that Mr. Green may not convince me of some truth which I never yet learned from it. I want every help, especially from those who strive both to preach and to live the gospel. Yet certainly I must dissent from you or you from me wherever either conceives the other to vary from it. Some of my writings you 'have read.' But allow me to ask, Did not you read them with much prejudice or little attention? Otherwise surely you would not have termed them 'perplexing.' Very few lay obscurity or intricacy to my charge. Those who do not allow them to be true do not deny them to be plain. And if they believe me to have done any good at all by writing, they suppose it is by this very thing --by speaking on practical and experimental religion more plainly than others have done. I quite agree we 'neither can be better men nor better Christians than by continuing members of the Church of England.' And not only her doctrines but many parts of her discipline I have adhered to at the hazard of my life. If in any point I have since varied therefrom, it was not by choice but necessity. Judge, therefore, if they do well who throw me into the ditch, and then beat me because my clothes are dirty! Wishing you much of the love of God in your heart and much of His presence in your labours, I remain, reverend sir, Your affectionate brother. To George Downing [7] LIVERPOOL, April 6, 1761.

'(iv) These principles they industriously propagate among their followers.' Indeed they do not: the bulk of their followers know just nothing of the matter. They industriously propagate among them nothing but inward and outward holiness. (7) 'Now these are oppositions to the most fundamental principles and essentially constituent parts of our Establishment; and not of ours only, but of every ecclesiastical Establishment that is or ever has been in the Christian world.' 'The most fundamental principles'! No more than the tiles are the most fundamental principles of an house. Useful, doubtless, they are; yet you must take them off if you would repair the rotten timber beneath. 'Essentially constituent parts of our Establishment'! Well, we will not quarrel for a word. Perhaps the doors may be essentially constituent parts of the building we call a church. Yet, if it were on fire, we might innocently break them open or even throw them for a time off the hinges. Now this is really the case. The timber is rotten--yea, the main beams of the house; and they want to place that firm beam, salvation by faith, in the room of salvation by works. A fire is kindled in the Church, the house of the living God: the fire of love of the world, ambition, covetousness, envy, anger, malice, bitter zeal--in one word, of ungodliness and unrighteousness. Oh who will come and help to quench it? Under disadvantages and discouragements of every kind, a little handful of men have made a beginning; and I trust they will not leave off till the building is saved or they sink in the ruins of it. 4. To sum up the whole. A few irregular men openly witness those truths of God which the regular clergy (a few excepted) either suppress or wholly deny. Their word is accompanied with the power of God, convincing and converting sinners. The word of those is not accompanied with power: it neither wounds nor heals. The former witness the truth and the power of God by their own life and conversation: therefore the world, men who know not God, hate them and speak all manner of evil against them falsely. The latter are of the world: therefore the world loves its own and speaks honourably of them.

Which of these ought you to hear,--those who declare or those who deny the truth of God? that word which is the power of God unto salvation, or that which lulls men on to destruction? the men who live as well as preach the gospel, or those whose lives are no better than their doctrine? 'But they are irregular.' I answer: (1) That is not their choice. They must either preach irregularly or not at all. (2) Is such a circumstance of weight to turn the scale against the substance of the gospel? If it is, if none ought to speak or hear the truth of God unless in a regular manner, then (to mention but one consequence) there never could have been any reformation from Popery. For here the entire argument for Church order would have stood in its full force. Suppose one had asked a German nobleman to hear Martin Luther preach; might not his priest have said (without debating whether he preached the truth or not): 'My lord, in every nation there must be some settled order of government, ecclesiastical and civil. There is an ecclesiastical order established in Germany. You are born under this Establishment. Your ancestors supported it, and your very rank and station constitute you a formal and eminent guardian of it. How, then, can it consist with the duty arising from all these to give encouragement, countenance, and support to principles and practices that are a direct renunciation of the established constitution?' Had the force of this reasoning been allowed, what had become of the Reformation? Yet it was right; though it really was a subversion of the whole ecclesiastical constitution with regard to doctrine as well as discipline. Whereas this is no such thing. The doctrine of the Established Church, which is far the most essential part of her constitution, these preachers manifestly confirm, in opposition to those who subvert it. And it is the opposition made to them by those subverters which constrains them in some respects to deviate from her discipline; to which in all others they conform for conscience. Oh what pity that any who preach the same doctrine, and whom those subverters have not yet been able to thrust out, should join with them against their brethren in the common faith and fellow witnesses of the common salvation!--I am, dear sir, Your willing servant for Christ's sake.

'The Scriptures insist upon the necessity of repentance in particular for that purpose. But repentance comprehends compunction, humiliation, hatred of sin, confession of it, prayer for mercy, ceasing from evil, a firm purpose to do well, restitution of ill-got goods, forgiveness of all who have done us wrong, and works of beneficence.' (Pages 11-12.) I believe it does comprehend all these, either as parts or as fruits of it and it comprehends 'the fear' but not 'the love of God' that flows from an higher principle. And he who loves God is not barely in the right way to justification: he is actually justified. The rest of the paragraph asserts just the same thing which was asserted in those words: 'Previous to justifying faith must be repentance, and, if opportunity permits, "fruits meet for repentance."' But still I must observe that 'neither the one nor the other is necessary either in the same sense or in the same degree with faith.' No scripture testimony can be produced which any way contradicts this. 2. 'That works are a necessary condition of our justification may be proved, secondly, from scripture examples; particularly those recited in the 11th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. These all 'through faith wrought righteousness: without working righteousness, they had never obtained the promises.' (Page 13.) I say the same thing: none are finally saved but those whose faith 'worketh by love.' 'Even in the thief upon the cross faith was attended by repentance, piety, and charity.' It was: repentance went before his faith; piety and charity accompanied it. 'Therefore he was not justified by faith alone.' Our Church, adopting the words of St. Chrysostom, expressly affirms in the passage above cited he was justified by faith alone. And her authority ought to weigh more than even that of Bishop Bull, or of any single man whatever. Authority, be pleased to observe, I plead against authority, reason against reason. It is no objection that the faith whereby he was justified immediately produced good works.

Here are persons exceeding holy and happy; rejoicing evermore, praying always, and in everything giving thanks; feeling the love of God and man every moment; feeling no pride or other evil temper. If these are not perfect, that scriptural word has no meaning. Stop! you must not cavil at that word: you are not wiser than the Holy Ghost. But if you are not, see that you teach perfection too. 'But are they not sinners' Explain the term one way, and I say, Yes; another, and I say, No. 'Are they cleansed from all sin' I believe they are; meaning from all sinful tempers. 'But have they then need of Christ' I believe they have in the sense and for the reasons above mentioned. Now, be this true or false, it is no contradiction; it is consistent with itself, and I think consistent with right reason and the whole oracles of God. O let you and I go on to perfection! God grant we may so run as to attain!--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Miss March BRISTOL, October 9, 1762. Though I have very little time, I must write a few lines. I thank you for your comfortable letter. Some have more of heat and some of light. The danger is that one should say to the other, 'I have no need of thee,' or that any should mistake his place and imagine himself to be what he is not. Be not backward to speak to any whom you think are mistaken either in this or other things. A loving word spoken in faith shall not fall to the ground; and the more freely you speak to me at any time or on any head the more you will oblige Your ever affectionate brother. To Samuel Furly BRISTOL, October 13, 1762. MY DEAR BROTHER,--In general, when I apprehend, 'Certainly this is a contradiction,' if I find other persons of equal sagacity with myself, of equal natural and acquired abilities, apprehend it is not, I immediately suspect my own judgement; and the more so because I remember I have been many times full as sure as I am now, and yet afterwards I found myself mistaken.

Remark 1. 'You say (page 148), " Even with respect to the distance of the Sun, it is wisest to confess our ignorance, and to acknowledge we have nothing to rest upon here but mere uncertain conjecture."' I did not say this of the distance of the Sun in particular. My words are: 'With regard to their distance from the Earth (the distance of all the bodies in the solar system), there is such an immense difference in the calculations of astronomers, even with respect to the distance of the Sun, that it is wisest to confess our ignorance'--namely, with regard to their distance (page 146). To prove that we are not ignorant hereof you say: 'The knowledge of the Sun's distance depends on finding its parallax, or the angle that the semi-diameter of the Earth appears under at the Sun; which angle is so very minute that an error of a single second will give the distance very considerably greater or less than the true distance.' It will; and therefore I doubt whether the distance of any heavenly body can ever be known by this means. 'But Mr. Keil says: " We are assured, by various methods made use of to obtain the Sun's parallax, that his distance from us is more than twenty-eight millions of miles."' He may be assured; but I am not. 'He says farther: " Two eminent astronomers have since determined the Sun's distance to be about seventy-six millions of miles." Now, if the least distance possible is absolutely determined, how can it be wisest to confess our ignorance' If it be: but I doubt it cannot be determined at all--at least, not by the Sun's parallax, 'seeing this is so very minute that an error of a single second will give the distance very considerably greater or less than the true.'

I see no argument in this; but perhaps I do not understand it. Are you applauding the supposed inhabitants of Venus for not being slaves to the Christian sect Otherwise what has superstition to do in the case Why is this dragged in by head and shoulders If there be superstition here, it is on your side, who believe because you will believe; who assent to what you have no evidence for, and maintain what you cannot prove. At present you are the volunteer in faith; you swallow what chokes my belief. Remark 4. 'You quote Dr. Rogers.' But I do not undertake to defend his hypothesis or any other. 'Our best observators could never find the parallax of the Sun to be above eleven seconds.' But I cannot depend on their observations; especially when I find one of the chief of them, in computing the distance of the Sun, to stride from twenty eight millions to seventy-six; near fifty millions of miles at once! After this, let any impartial man judge what stress is to be laid on parallaxes. 'But Dr. Rogers supposes the parallax of the Sun to be five minutes, which others cannot find to be above eleven seconds. Why, doctor, if this be true' (namely, that the parallax which lately was but eleven seconds is now increased to five minutes), 'the Earth has approximated thirty times nearer' (a little harmless tautology) 'to the Sun.' That is, if both the computation of Mr. Keil and that of Dr. Rogers be true. But who ever supposed this If the one be true, the other is undoubtedly false. 'To conclude: since there is no arguing against facts, and since the Sun's parallax is not found to exceed eleven seconds, ought you not to give up that hypothesis as absurd and ridiculous' Yes; as soon as any of those facts appear. Till then, I neither espouse nor give it up. But I still look upon it as ingenious, and as probable as any other.

You have admirably well expressed what I mean by an opinion contradistinguished from an essential doctrine. Whatever is 'compatible with a love to Christ and a work of grace' I term an opinion. And certainly the holding Particular Election and Final Perseverance is compatible with these. 'Yet what fundamental error,' you ask, 'have you opposed with half that frequency and vehemence as you have these opinions' So doubtless you have heard. But it is not true. I have printed near fifty sermons, and only one of these opposes them at all. I preach about eight hundred sermons in a year; and, taking one year with another, for twenty years past I have not preached eight sermons in a year upon the subject. But, 'How many of your best preachers have been thrust out because they dissented from you in these particulars' Not one, best or worst, good or bad, was ever thrust out on this account. There has been not a single instance of the kind. Two or three (but far from the best of our preachers) voluntarily left us after they had embraced those opinions. But it was of their own mere motion: and two I should have expelled for immoral behaviour; but they withdrew, and pretended 'they did not hold our doctrine.' Set a mark, therefore, on him who told you that tale, and let his word for the future go for nothing. 'Is a man a believer in Jesus Christ and is his life suitable to his profession' are not only the main but the sole inquiries I make in order to his admission into our Society. If he is a Dissenter, he may be a Dissenter still: but if he is a Church-man, I advise him to continue so; and that for many reasons, some of which are mentioned in the tract upon that subject. When you have read what I have wrote on occasion of the Letters lately published, I may say something more on that head. And it will then be time enough to show you why some part of those Letters could not be wrote by Mr. Hervey. I think on Justification just as I have done any time these seven-and-twenty years, and just as Mr. Calvin does. In this respect I do not differ from him an hair's breadth.

1766 To Mrs. Wyndowe LONDON, January 7, 1766. MY DEAR SALLY,--From the time that I first took acquaintance with you at Earl's Bridge, [Wesley spent an hour at Byford on March 16, 1789. The Diary note is, '11 Byford, tea, within; 12 chaise' (Journal, vii. 478d).] I have still retained the same regard for you. Therefore I am always well pleased with hearing from you, especially when you inform me that you are pursuing the best things. And you will not pursue them in vain if you still resolutely continue to spend some time in private every day. It is true you cannot fix any determinate measure of time because of numberless avocations. And it is likewise true that you will often find yourself so dead and cold that it will seem to be mere labour lost. No; it is not. It is the way wherein He that raises the dead has appointed to meet you. And we know not how soon He may meet you, and say, 'Woman! I say unto thee, Arise!' Then the fear of [death] which has so long triumphed over you shall be put under your feet. Look up! my friend! Expect that He who loves you will soon come and will not tarry! To His care I commit you; and am, my dear Sally, Yours most affectionately. Mrs. Wyndowe, Byford, Near Stroud, Gloucestershire. To Thomas Rankin [1] COLCHESTER, January 23, 1766. DEAR TOMMY,--Suppose the numbers swell to an hundred (as probably they will), consider what it would amount to to give seventy persons 50s. apiece before I am reimbursed for the expense of the edition! [Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament, vol. i. (4to, 852 pp.), had been published in 1765. See letter of June 20.] Indeed, I did not think of this till my brother mentioned it. But all the preachers shall, if they desire it, have them at half price. I am glad John Ellis takes care of the books while you are in Newcastle Circuit. When Matthew Lowes returns, let Moseley Cheek go into the Barnard Castle Circuit. At Lady Day, or within a few days after, you should return thither yourself. Speak quite freely to John Fenwick. You may trust him.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Thomas Rankin, At the Orphan House, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. To George Merryweather [2] LONDON, February 8, 1766.

Secondly. That interpretation contradicts itself; and that in every article. For, 1. If by 'goodness' be meant 'the conduct of particulars to the whole,' then it does not consist in habits of social virtue: for social virtue regulates the conduct of particulars not so properly to the whole as to each other. 2. If by 'righteousness' be meant 'the conduct of the whole to particulars,' then it cannot consist in the gentleness of Church authority; unless Church governors are the whole Church, or the Parliament the whole Nation. 3. If by 'truth' be meant 'the conduct of the whole and of particulars to one another,' then it cannot possibly consist in orthodoxy or right opinion: for opinion, right or wrong, is not conduct; they differ toto genere. If, then, it be orthodoxy, it is not 'the conduct of the governors and governed toward each other.' If it be their conduct toward each other, it is not orthodoxy. Although, therefore, it be allowed that right opinions are a great help and wrong opinions a great hindrance to religion, yet, till stronger proof be brought against it, that proposition remains unshaken, 'Right opinions are a slender part of religion, if any part if it at all' (page 160). As to the affair of Abbe Paris, whoever will read over with calmness and impartiality but one volume of Monsieur Montgeron will then be a competent judge. Meantime I would just observe that if these miracles were real they strike at the root of the whole Papal authority, as having been wrought in direct opposition to the famous Bull Unigenitus. (Page 161.) Yet I do not say, 'Errors in faith have little to do with religion,' or that they 'are no let or impediment to the Holy Spirit' (page 162). But still it is true that 'God generally speaking begins His work at the heart' (ibid.). Men usually feel desires to please God before they know how to please Him. Their heart says 'What must I do to be saved' before they understand the way of salvation.

'Good fruits come next to be considered, which Mr. Wesley's idea of true religion does not promise. He saith' (I will repeat the words a little at large, that their true sense may more clearly appear), '"In explaining those words, The kingdom of God, or true religion, is not meats and drinks, I was led to show that religion does not properly consist in harmlessness, using the means of grace, and doing good, that is, helping our neighbours, chiefly by giving alms; but that a man might both be harmless, use the means of grace, and do much good, and yet have no true religion at all."' (Tract, p. 203.) He may so. Yet whoever has true religion must be 'zealous of good works.' And zeal for all good works is, according to my idea, an essential ingredient of true religion.

Meantime how many untruths are here in one page! (1) 'He made the path doubly perplexed for his followers. (2) He left them to answer for his crimes. (3) He longed for persecution. (4) He went as far as Georgia for it. (5) The truth of his mission was questioned by the Magistrate, and (6) decried by the people, (7) for his false morals. (8) The gospel was wounded through the sides of its pretended missionary. (9) The first Christian preachers offered up themselves.' So did I. 'Instead of this, our paltry mimic' (page 244). Bona verba! Surely a writer should reverence himself, how much soever he despises his opponent. So, upon the whole, this proof of my hypocrisy is as lame as the three former. 5. 'We have seen above how he sets all prudence at defiance.' None but false prudence. 'But he uses a different language when his rivals are to be restrained.' No; always the same, both with regard to false prudence and true. 'But take the affair from the beginning. He began to suspect rivals in the year thirty-nine; for he says, "Remembering how many that came after me were preferred before me."' The very next words show in what sense. They 'had attained unto the law of righteousness': I had not. But what has this to do with rivals However, go on: 'At this time, December 8, 1739, his opening the Bible afforded him but small relief. He sunk so far in his despondency as to doubt if God would not lay him aside and send other labourers into His harvest.' But this was another time. It was June 22; and the occasion of the doubt is expressly mentioned: 'I preached, but had no life or spirit in me, and was much in doubt' on that account. Not on account of Mr. Whitefield. He did not 'now begin to set up for himself.' We were in full union; nor was there the least shadow of rivalry or contention between us. I still sincerely 'praise God for His wisdom in giving different talents to different preachers' (page 250), and particularly for His giving Mr. Whitefield the talents which I have not.

I do not comprehend. Is all the world sanctified Is not to be sanctified the same as to be made holy Is all the world holy And can no man frustrate his own sanctification 'The Holy Ghost establishes our faith and perfects our obedience by enlightening the understanding and rectifying the will' (page 3). 'In the former respect, 1. He gave the gift of tongues at the day of Pentecost. 'Indeed, enthusiasts in their ecstasies have talked very fluently in languages they had a very imperfect knowledge of in their sober intervals.' I can no more believe this on the credit of Lord Shaftesbury and a Popish exorcist than I can believe the tale of an hundred people talking without tongues on the credit of Dr. Middleton. [See letter of Jan. 4, 1749, sect.vi. 12-14, p. 367] 'The other gifts of the Spirit St. Paul reckons up thus: "To one is given the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge, to another the gifts of healing, to another working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the discerning of spirits"' (page 23). But why are the other three left out--faith, divers kinds of tongues, and the interpretation of tongues I believe the 'word of wisdom' means light to explain the manifold wisdom of God in the grand scheme of gospel salvation; the 'word of knowledge,' a power of explaining the Old Testament types and prophecies. 'Faith' may mean an extraordinary trust in God under the most difficult and dangerous circumstances; 'the gifts of healing,' a miraculous power of curing diseases; 'the discerning of spirits,' a supernatural discernment whether men were upright or not, whether they were qualified for offices in the Church, and whether they who professed to speak by inspiration really did so or not. But 'the richest of the fruits of the Spirit is the inspiration of Scripture' (page 30). 'Herein the promise that "the Comforter" should "abide with us for ever" is eminently fulfilled. For though His ordinary influence occasionally assists the faithful of all ages, yet His constant abode and supreme illumination is in the Scriptures of the New Testament. I mean, He is there only as the Illuminator of the understanding.' (Page 39.)

But does this agree with the following words--'Nature is not able to keep a mean: but grace is able; for "the Spirit helpeth our infirmities." We must apply to the Guide of truth to prevent our being "carried about with divers and strange doctrines."' (Page 340.) Is He not, then, everywhere to illuminate the understanding as well as to rectify the will And, indeed, do we not need the one as continually as the other 'But how did He inspire the Scripture He so directed the writers that no considerable error should fall from them.' (Page 45.) Nay, will not the allowing there is any error in Scripture shake the authority of the whole Again: what is the difference between the immediate and the virtual influence of the Holy Spirit I know Milton speaks of 'virtual or immediate touch [Paradise Lost, viii. 617.]'; but most incline to think virtual touch is no touch at all. 'Were the style of the New Testament utterly rude and barbarous and abounding with every fault that can possibly deform a language, this is so far from proving such language not divinely inspired that it is one certain mark of this original' (page 55). A vehement paradox this! But it is not proved yet, and probably never will. 'The labours of those who have attempted to defend the purity of Scripture Greek have been very idly employed' (page 66). Others think they have been very wisely employed, and that they have abundantly proved their point. Having now 'considered the operations of the Holy Spirit as the Guide of truth, who clears and enlightens the understanding, I proceed to consider Him as the Comforter who purifies and supports the will' (page 89). 'Sacred antiquity is full in its accounts of the sudden and entire change made by the Holy Spirit in the dispositions and manners of those whom it had enlightened; instantaneously effacing their evil habits and familiarizing them to the performance of every good action' (page 90). 'No natural cause could effect this. Neither fanaticism nor superstition, nor both of them, will account for so sudden and lasting a conversion.' (Ibid.) 'Superstition never effects any considerable change in the manners. Its utmost force is just enough to make us exact in the ceremonious offices of religion or to cause some acts of penitence as death approaches.' (Page 91.)

SIR,--Many times the publisher of the Christian Magazine has attacked me without fear or wit; and hereby he has convinced his impartial readers of one thing at least--that (as the vulgar say) his fingers itch to be at me, that he has a passionate desire to measure swords with me. But I have other work upon my hands: I can employ the short remainder of my life to better purpose. The occasion of his late attack is this: Five- or six-and thirty years ago I much admired the character of a perfect Christian drawn by Clemens Alexandrinus. Five- or six-and twenty years ago a thought came into my mind of drawing such a character myself, only in a more scriptural manner, and mostly in the very words of Scripture; this I entitled The Character of a Methodist, believing that curiosity would incite more persons to read it, and also that some prejudice might thereby be removed from candid men. But, that none might imagine I intended a panegyric either on myself or my friends, I guarded against this in the very title-page, saying, both in the name of myself and them, 'Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect.' To the same effect I speak in the conclusion: 'These are the principles and practices of our sect; these are the marks of a true Methodist'--i.e. a true Christian, as I immediately after explain myself: 'by these alone do those who are in derision so called desire to be distinguished from other men' (page 11). 'By these marks do we labour to distinguish ourselves from those whose minds or lives are not according to the gospel of Christ' (page 12). Upon this Rusticulus, or Dr. Dodd, says: 'A Methodist, according to Mr. Wesley, is one who is perfect, and sinneth not in thought, word, or deed.' Sir, have me excused. This is not 'according to Mr. Wesley.' I have told all the world I am not perfect; and yet you allow me to be a Methodist. I tell you flat I have not attained the character I draw. Will you pin it upon me in spite of my teeth

MY DEAR PEGGY,--It is a certain truth that the witness of sanctification is a privilege which every one that is sanctified may claim. Yet it is not true that every one that is sanctified does enjoy this. Many who are really sanctified (that is, wholly devoted to God) do not enjoy it as soon as that work is wrought; and many who received it do not retain it, or at the least not constantly. Indeed, they cannot retain it in two cases: either if they do not continue steadily watching unto prayer; or, secondly, if they give way to reasoning, if they let go any parts of 'love's divine simplicity.' I am afraid this was your case: you did not remain simple; you gave way to evil reasoning. But you was as surely sanctified as you was justified. And how soon may you be so again The way, the new and living way, is open! Believe, and enter in!-- I am, my dear Peggy, Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Benson [7] LONDON, January 31, 1768. DEAR JOSEPH,--Tommy Taylor we have tried. Therefore I do not desire to part with him. But was T. Dancer out of his wits How was it possible he could write to me about another master without first consulting you I understood what he wrote to be wrote by you all, and therefore immediately spoke to the young man and desired him to give warning where he was that he might be at liberty in March. Perhaps there is a Providence in this blunder. For if Mr. Williams is what he appears to be, he is deeply devoted to God. You shall have what money you want; if T. Lewis will draw upon Mr. Franks for it, not only sixty pounds, but (if need be) sixty to that. You should write to me often and not too briefly. I am, with love to Brother and Sister Hindmarsh and T. Taylor, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. If T. Lewis will not, do you draw on Mr. Franks. To Mr. Joseph Benson, At Kingswood School, Near Bristol. To Mrs. Woodhouse LONDON, February 3, 1768.

2. Not having leisure myself, I desired Mr. Bourke to wait upon you the next morning. He proposed our writing to each other. You said, No; if anything can be said against my sermons, I expect it shall be printed: let it be done in a public, not a private way.' I did not desire this; I had much rather it had been done privately. But, since you will have it so, I submit. 3. Your text was, I know this, that after my departure shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.' (Acts xx. 29-30.) Having shown that St. Paul foresaw these false teachers, you undertake to show, (1) the mischiefs which they occasioned; (2) the character of them, and how nearly this concerns a set of men called Methodists. (First Sermon, pp. 1-4 ) 4. Against these false teachers, you observe, St. Paul warned the Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, and Hebrews (pages 5-8). Very true; but what is this to the point Oh, much more than some are aware of! The insinuation was all along just as if you had said: I beseech you, my dear hearers, mark the titles he gives to these grievous wolves, false apostles, deceitful workers, and apply them to the Methodist teachers. There I give them a deadly thrust.' 5. These are well styled by Christ "ravening wolves," by St. Paul "grievous wolves," from the mischiefs they do, rending the Church of Christ, and perverting the true sense of the gospel for their own private ends. They ever did, and to this day do, pretend to extraordinary inspiration.' (Page 8.)

If you wrote more than once in three months, it would not be amiss. Few are more tenderly concerned for you than, my dear Miss Bishop, Your affectionate brother. PS.--You need only direct to Dr. C-- To Miss Bishop, Near Lady Huntingdon's Chapel, In Bath. To Philothea Briggs GALWAY, May 28, 1771. MY DEAR PHILLY,--Your concern is with the present moment; your business is to live to-day. In every sense let the morrow take thought for the things of itself. It is true the full assurance of hope excludes all doubt of our final salvation; but it does not and cannot continue any longer than we walk closely with God. And it does not include any assurance of our future behaviour; neither do I know any word in all the Bible which gives us any authority to look for a testimony of this kind. But just so far you may certainly go with regard to the present moment,-- I want the witness, Lord, That all I do is right, According to Thy will and word, Well-pleasing in Thy sight. Seriously and steadily, my dear maid, aim at this, and you will not be disappointed of your hope. With regard to the impression you speak of, I am in doubt whether it be not a temptation from the enemy. It may occasion many wrong tempers; it may feed both pride and uncharitableness. And the Bible gives us no authority to think ill of any one, but from plain, undeniable, overt acts. In the Thoughts upon a Single Life [Published in 1765. See Works, xi. 456-63.] you have what has been my deliberate judgement for many years. I have not yet seen any reason to alter it, though I have heard abundance of objections. I do not know whether your particular case [See letter of May 2 to her.] be an exception to the general rule. It is true your temper is both lively and unstable, and your passions are naturally strong. But that is not much: the grace of God can totally subdue the most stubborn nature. So far, then, you may certainly go. You may now devote yourself to God soul and body in your present state, and resolve never to alter it--without strong and urgent reasons. Of the weight of those reasons likewise, not yourself but your most spiritual friends should judge. To Thomas Mason [19]

'5. What have we, then, been disputing about these thirty years I am afraid about words.' That is, so far as we have been disputing (as I did with Dr. Church) whether works be a condition of salvation--yea, or of justification, suppose you take that term as our Lord does (Matt. xii. 37), where (speaking of the Last Day) He says, 'By thy words thou shalt be justified.' With justification as it means our first acceptance with God this proposition has nothing to do. 'Tis true thirty years ago I was very angry with Bishop Bull, that great light of the Christian Church, because in his Harmonica Apostolica he distinguishes our first from our final justification, and affirms both inward and outward good works to be the condition of the latter, though not the former. '6. As to merit itself, of which we have been so dreadfully afraid, we are rewarded according to our works--yea, because of our works. How does this differ from for the sake of our works And how differs this from secundum merita operum as our works deserve Can you split this hair I doubt I cannot.' I follow after truth; and wherever I find it, I not only embrace it, but own it in the face of the sun. If any will show me this is not the truth, I will retract it. But let us consider it part by part. (1) 'We were dreadfully afraid of the word merit.' None can deny this. (2) 'We are rewarded (at the Last Day) according to our works.' Neither can this be denied. (3) 'Yea, because of our works.' Witness Abraham, the grand pattern of believers: 'Because thou hast done this thing, . . . in blessing I will bless thee' (Gen. xxii. 16-17). (4) 'How differs this from secundum merita operum as our works deserve ' I say again, I cannot split this hair. Whoever can has my free leave. And afterwards let him split his throat with crying out, 'Oh dreadful heresy!' '7. The grand objection to one of the preceding propositions is drawn from matter of fact. God does in fact justify those who by their own confession neither feared God nor wrought righteousness. Is not this an exception to the general rule It is a doubt if God makes any exception at all.'

MY DEAR LADY,--When I received the former letter from your Ladyship, I did not know how to answer; and I judged, not only that silence would be the best answer, but also that with which your Ladyship would be best pleased. When I received your Ladyship's of the 2nd instant, I immediately saw that it required an answer; only I waited till the hurry of the Conference was over that I might do nothing rashly. I know your Ladyship would not 'servilely deny the truth.' I think neither would I; especially that great truth Justification by Faith, which Mr. Law indeed flatly denies (and yet Mr. Law was a child of God), but for which I have given up all my worldly hopes, my friends, my reputation--yea, for which I have so often hazarded my life, and by the grace of God will do again. 'The principles established in the Minutes' I apprehend to be no way contrary to this, or to that faith, that consistent plan of doctrine, which was once delivered to the saints. I believe, whoever calmly considers Mr. Fletcher's Letters [Five Letters to the Hon. and Rev. Walter Shirley, which formed the First Check to Antinomianism. See Tyerman's Wesley's Designated Successor, p. 192. ] will be convinced of this. I fear, therefore, 'zeal against those principles' is no less than zeal against the truth and against the honour of our Lord. 'The preservation of His honour appears so sacred' to me, and has done for above these forty years, that I have counted, and do count, all things loss in comparison of it. But till Mr. Fletcher's printed letters are answered, I must think everything spoke against those Minutes is totally destructive of His honour, and a palpable affront to Him both as our Prophet and Priest, but more especially as the King of His people. Those letters (which therefore could not be suppressed without betraying the honour of our Lord) largely prove that the Minutes lay no other foundation than that which is laid in Scripture, and which I have been laying, and teaching others to lay, for between thirty and forty years.

I incline to think that when you engaged in business, though you had no leisure for reading polemical writers, you had leisure to converse with those who ridiculed the doctrines which you till then believed, and perhaps of hearing a preacher who disbelieved them, and talked largely against human authority, bodies of divinity, systems of doctrine, and compiling of creeds. These declamations would certainly make an impression upon an unexperienced mind, especially when confirmed by frequent descants upon the errors of translators; although I really believe our English translation, with all its faults, is the best translation of the Bible now in the world. When you had heard a good deal of this kind, then was the time to offer you such arguments as the cause afforded; which, to a mind so prepared, would naturally appear as so many demonstrations. And it is no wonder at all that, by lending you a few books and properly commenting upon them, those new apostles should confirm you in the sentiments which they had so artfully infused. To the questions which you propose, I answer:-- 1. I really think that if an hundred or an hundred thousand sincere, honest (I add humble, modest, self-diffident) men were with attention and care to read over the New Testament, uninfluenced by any but the Holy Spirit, nine in ten of them at least, if not every one, would discover that the Son of God was 'adorable' and one God with the Father; and would be immediately led to 'honour Him, even as they honoured the Father'; which would be gross, undeniable idolatry, unless He and the Father are one.

If 'Zoroaster and Pythagoras did visit them about the time of Romulus’ (which I do not allow), what then Romulus did not live three thousand years ago; and Zoroaster a late author has sufficiently proved to be no other than Moses himself. The antiquity, therefore, of the Shastah is utterly uncertain, being unsupported by any clear authority. Equally doubtful is the antiquity of that empire. Nay, ' Indostan, by their own account, was peopled as early as most other parts of the known word.' But who can rely on their own accounts This authority is just none at all. But 'the first invaders of it found the inhabitants a potent, civilized, wise, and learned people: Alexander the Great found it so.' No. Arrian and Q. Curtius (the only writers who give us the particulars of that expedition) say quite the contrary. But 'the Gentoo records affirm it, which mention the invasion of a great and mighty robber.' I answer (1) How is it proved this was Alexander the Great There have been more great and mighty robbers than him. But if it was, (2) Of what antiquity was he who died little above two thousand years since (3) Of what authority are the Gentoo records As much as the visions of Mirza. But 'these doctrines were universally professed by the Gentoos, some thousand years before Christ; and the Metempsychosis was held in the most early ages by at least four-fifths of the earth; and the Gentoos were eminently distinguished in the most early times.' Roundly asserted: but that is not enough; a little proof would do well. Here it is at last. 'The Gentoos admit no proselytes to their faith or worship. This proves their great antiquity.' I know not how: the consequence halts sadly. But see another argument. 'This is also proved by the perpetuity of their doctrine through a succession of so many ages.' Right, when that succession is proved. A third proof! ' Pythagoras took his doctrines from them, which the Egyptians took from him.' I am an infidel as to both these facts till I see some proof of them. His true doctrines I believe Pythagoras learned from the Egyptians, and they from the Israelites.

I come, in the third place, to observe some instances of this writer's esteem for the Bible. 'We profess ourselves' says he, 'an unworthy though zealous subscriber to the pure, original Scriptures.' But for fear you should believe him, he immediately adds, 'and propagate no system but what coincides with every religious creed that has been or is now professed throughout the known world.' Why, are there not an hundred religious creeds now in the word that are taffy contradictory to each other How, then, can your system coincide with them all Certainly you do not understand the word. But if it coincides both with Paganism and Mahometanism, it does not with Christianity. For you everywhere strike at the root of those Scriptures on which alone it is built. This I shall briefly show both with regard to Moses, the Law, the Prophets, and the New Testament. As to the first, 'Moses' detail of the Creation and Fall of Man is clogged with too many incomprehensible difficulties to gain our belief.' (Add, for decency’s sake, 'that it can be understood literally.’) Hence his anger at Milton's diabolical conceits'; because he has shown that detail in all its parts to be not only simple, plain, and comprehensible, but consistent with the highest reason, and altogether worthy of God. Again: 'To suppose the Indians less the care of God than the Israelites,'--that is, to suppose He ever had a peculiar people, or that He regarded the seed of Jacob more than that of Esau,--‘this would arraign His justice.' Then what is Moses, who perpetually supposes this throughout the whole Pentateuch As to the Law: ‘Nothing but the devil himself’ (insert, for decency, 'the Bramins say') 'could have invented bloody sacrifices, so manifestly repugnant to the true spirit of devotion and abhorrent to' (it should be abhorred by) 'God.' This is an home thrust at the Mosaic Law, wherein without shedding of blood there was no remission. Therefore with him it is 'manifestly repugnant to the true spirit of devotion and abhorred by God.' As to the Prophets: 'Gods prescience' (so he affirms) 'of the actions of free agents is utterly repugnant and contradictory to the very nature and essence of free agency.' If so, the inference is plain: the Prophets were all a pack of impostors; for it is certain they all pretended to foretell the actions of free agents.

LONDON, January [25], 1776. In one respect I am much obliged to the gentlemen (or gentleman) who spend so much time upon the Primitive Physick; and would humbly entreat them to say something about it (no matter what) in half a dozen more of your papers. If nothing was said about it, most people might be ignorant that there was any such tract in the world. But their mentioning it makes many inquire concerning it, and so disperses it more and move. The gentleman signing himself XXX in your last week's paper (Probably Mr. Antidote) seems now to have shot his last bolt, anti that feebly indeed. But he begins magnanimously: 'Mr. Wesley is too proud, too self-sufficient, and too much wrapped up in his self-importance, to vouchsafe either Mr. Caleb Evans or any other correspondent anything in the shape of an answer.' How grievously does this man stumble at the threshold! with what glaring, palpable falsehood does he set out! Have I not given a direct answer, both to Mr. Evans and Antidote, and S. E. and P. P. in the public papers However, I am obliged to him for informing me of the difference between 'ounces, scruples, drachms, or drams, and grains.' Otherwise, after mistaking a dram for a grain, I might have mistaken an ounce for a dram. But a dreadful objection comes next: 'Some people run as they read. Mr. Wesley's whole progressive life stands as a proof that he is one of that species of readers. In that mode he hath read the Scriptures, and in that mode doth he read every book.’ There is some truth in this. For several years, while my brother and I traveled on foot, our manner was for him that walked behind to read aloud some book of history, poetry, or philosophy. Afterwards for many years (as my time at home was spent mostly in writing) it was my custom to read things of a lighter nature, chiefly when I was on horseback. Of late years, since a friend gave me a chaise, I have read them in my carriage. But it is not in this manner I treat the Scriptures: these I read and meditate upon day and night. It was not in running that I wrote twice over the Notes on the New Testament (to say nothing of those on the Old), containing above 800 quarto pages.

It is usual, I am informed, for the compilers of magazines to employ the outside covers in acquainting the courteous reader with the beauties and excellencies of what he will find within. I beg him to excuse me from this trouble: from writing panegyric upon myself. Neither can I desire my friends to do it for me in their recommendatory letters. I am content this Magazine should stand or fall by its own intrinsic value. If it is a compound of falsehood, ribaldry, and nonsense, let it sink into oblivion. If it contains only the words of truth and soberness, then let it meet with a favorable reception. It is usual likewise with magazine writers to speak of themselves in the plural number: ' We will do this.' And, indeed, it is the general custom of great men so to do. But I am a little one. Let me, then, be excused in this also, and permitted to speak as I am accustomed to do. To Mrs. Crosby [25] LONDON, December 2, 1777. MY DEAR SISTER,--I hope you will always have your time much filled up. You will, unless you grow weary of well doing. For is not the harvest plenteous still? Had we ever a larger field of action? And shall we stand all or any part of the day idle? Then we should wrong both our neighbor and our own souls. For the sake of retrenching her expenses, I thought it quite needful for Miss Bosanquet to go from home. And I was likewise persuaded (as she was herself) that God had something for her to do in Bath and Kingswood; perhaps in Bristol too, although I do not think she will be called to speak there in public. The difference between us and the Quakers in this respect is manifest. They flatly deny the rule itself, although it stands clear in the Bible. We allow the rule; only we believe it admits of some exceptions. At present I know of those, and no more, in the whole Methodist Connection. You should send word of what our Lord is doing where you go to, dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To Joseph Benson LONDON, December 8, 1777.

I. As to the first, I read a remarkable passage in the Third Journal, the truth of which may, be still attested by Mr. Durbin, Mr. Westall, and several others then present, who are yet alive: 'A young man who stood behind sunk down as one dead; but soon began to roar out and beat himself against the ground, so that six men could scarce hold him. This was Thomas Maxfield.' [See letter of May 28, 1739; and for Henry Durbin, May 3, 1786, n.] Was this you If it was, how are you 'the first-fruits of Mr. Whitefield's ministry' And how is it that neither I nor your fellow laborers ever heard one word of this during all those years wherein you labored in connection with us II. 'When he went abroad again, he delivered me and many thousands into the hands of Mr. Wesley.' When where in what manner This is quite new to me! I never heard one word of it before! But stay! here is something more curious still! 'I heard Mr. Whitefield say at the Tabernacle, in the presence of five or six ministers, a little before he left England the last time, "I delivered thirty thousand people into the hands of you and your brother when I went abroad."' Mr. Whitefield's going abroad, which is here referred to, was in the year 1741. Did he then deliver you into my hands Was you not in my hands before Had you not then for above a year been a member of the Society under my care Nay, was you not at the very time one of my preachers Did you not then serve me as a son in the gospel Did you not eat my bread and lodge in my house Is not this, then, a total misrepresentation Would to God it be not a willful one!

I hope to be at the Man of War [A small decayed hamlet in co. Dublin. Bradburn went there to meet Wesley on June 26, and slept there. Wesley married him on the 28th to Betsy Nangle.] on the 26th instant at five or six in the evening; at Dublin on the 27th. On Monday and Tuesday I may meet the classes; so the Conference will begin on Tuesday, July the 7th. - I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To a Friend LONDONDERRY, June 5, 1778. DEAR SIR, - I have a long letter from an anonymous correspondent respecting the Arminian Magazine. It appears to be wrote with a friendly design and in an excellent spirit. The objections mentioned therein seem to be partly his own, partly repeated from others. The first is: 'It is too short; some other magazines are almost as long again. It is true there are as many pages as in others; but there are not so many lines in a page, not so many by ten or twelve, as in the Spiritual Magazine.' I answer by confessing the charge. It is undeniably true that it does not contain so many lines either in prose or verse as the Spiritual Magazine. And Tonson, who is himself a wit, Weighs writers' merits by the sheet. [Prior's Epistle to F. Shephard.] So do thousands besides; but I do not write for these. I write for those who judge of books not by the quantity but by the quality of them, who ask not how long but how good they are. I spare both my reader's time and my own by couching my sense in as few words as I can. Those who prefer the dealers in many words may find them on every side. And from these they may have not only as much more but ten times as much for their money.

You sent me no word about Betsy Ellison. [Elizabeth, daughter of John Ellison and granddaughter of Wesley's sister Susanna. Dr. Clarke says she turned out unfortunate, and that Wesley showed her 'great kindness, often relieving her in distresses to which her imprudence had reduced her, treating her with great tenderness, and giving her advices which, had she followed, would have led her to true happiness.' For her sister Patience, see letters of Sept. 7, 1777, and Feb. 4, 1789.] I hope no news is good news. You must not forsake her. She has hardly any real friend in the world but you and me. What a blessing it is to have one Friend! How many have never found one in their lives! - I am. To Ann Bolton SUNDERLAND, May 18, 1779. MY DEAR NANCY, - You make me smile. You address me as if you had never seen me. Why so Have I told you that I did not love you as well as ever I did in my life And yet, to say the truth, I was scarce ever more tried about you than I was lately. You was under my own roof for many days. And yet I hardly got an hour's conversation with you. That cruel 'something or other' always interposed and defrauded me of your company. I am glad, however, that others enjoyed it. And your labor with them was not in vain. You was a messenger of good to many souls, who bless God for the consolation. If you suffer a little yourself in conveying help to others, so much the better; this will turn to your account. I can wish nothing better for you than that you may be 'patient in bearing ill and doing well.'

SIR, - Some time ago a pamphlet was sent me entitled An Appeal from the Protestant Association to the People of Great Britain. A day or two since, a kind of answer to this was put into my hand, which pronounces 'its style contemptible, its reasoning futile, and its object malicious.' On the contrary, I think the style of it is clear, easy, and natural; the reasoning, in general, strong and conclusive; the object, or design, kind and benevolent. And in pursuance of the same kind and benevolent design, namely, to preserve our happy constitution, I shall endeavor to confirm the substance of that tract by a few plain arguments. With persecution I have nothing to do. I persecute no man for his religious principles. Let there be 'as boundless a freedom in religion' as any man can conceive. But this does not touch the point; I will set religion, true or false, utterly out of the question. Suppose the Bible, if you please, to be a fable, and the Koran to be the word of God. I consider not whether the Romish religion be true or false; I build nothing on one or the other supposition. Therefore away with all your commonplace declamation about intolerance and persecution in religion! Suppose every word of Pope Pius's Creed to be true; suppose the Council of Trent to have been infallible; yet I insist upon it that no Government not Roman Catholic ought to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic persuasion. I prove this by a plain argument (let him answer it that can). That no Roman Catholic does or can give security for his allegiance or peaceable behavior I prove thus: It is a Roman Catholic maxim, established not by private men but by a public council, that 'no faith is to be kept with heretics.' This has been openly avowed by the Council of Constance; but it never was openly disclaimed. Whether private persons avow or disavow it, it is a fixed maxim of the Church of Rome. But as long as it is so, nothing can be more plain than that the members of that Church can give no reasonable security to any Government of their allegiance or peaceable behavior. Therefore they ought not to be tolerated by any Government, Protestant, Mahometan, or Pagan.

(3) 'Mr. Wesley is become an apologist of those who burned the chapel in Edinburgh.' Is not this said purely ad movendam invidiam ' to inflame the minds of the people' For it has no shadow of truth. I never yet wrote nor spoke one word in their defence. 'He urged the rabble to light that fire.' No more than he urged them to dethrone the King. (4) 'Does Mr. Wesley intend to sound Alecto's [Alecto was one of the Furies, whose head was covered with snakes.] horn or the war-shell of the Mexicans' All this is cruel aspersion indeed, designed merely to inflame! What I intend is neither more nor less than this--to contribute my mite to preserve our constitution both in Church and State. (5) 'They were the Scotch and English regicides who gave rise to the Irish massacre.' 'The Irish massacre'! Was there ever any such thing Was not the whole account a mere Protestant lie Oh no! it was a melancholy truth, wrote in the blood of many thousands. But the regicides no more gave rise to that massacre than the Hottentots. The whole matter was planned several years, and executed before the King's death was thought of. 'But Mr. Wesley is sowing the seeds of another massacre'! Such another as the massacre of Paris 6. 'Was he the trumpeter of persecution when he was persecuted himself' Just as much as now. Cruel aspersions still! designed and calculated only to inflamed he then abet persecution on the score of conscience No, nor now Conscience is out of the question. 'His letter contains all the horrors invented by blind 'misguided zeal, set forth in the most bitter language.' Is this gentleman in his senses I hope not. Else I know not what excuse to make for him. Not one bitter word is in my letter. I have learned to put away all bitterness, with all malice, But still this is wide of the mark; which of these three points does it prove

7. 'In his second letter he promises to put out the fire which he has already kindled in England.' ' Second letter' What is that I know nothing of it. 'The fire which he has kindled in England'! When Where I have kindled no fire in England any more than in Jamaica. I have done and will do all that is in my power to put out that which others have kindled. 8. 'He strikes out a creed of his own for Roman Catholics. This fictitious creed he forces upon them.' My words are these: ' Suppose every word of Pope Pius's Creed to be true.' I say not a word more of the matter. Now, I appeal to every reasonable man, Is this striking out a creed of my own for Roman Catholics Is this forcing a fictitious creed on them, ' like the Frenchman and the blunderer in the Comedy' What have I to do with one or the other Is not this dull jest quite out of season And is the creed composed by the Council of Trent and the Bull of Pope Pius IV a fictitious one Before Mr. O'Leary asserts this again, let him look into the Concilia Maxima once more, and read there, Bulla Pii Quarti super forma juramenti professionis fidei [The Bull of Pius IV concerning the form of the oath on the profession of Faith]. This forma professionis fidei I call Pope Pius's Creed, If his 'stomach revolts from it,' who can help it 9. Whether the account given by Philip Melanchthon of the words spoken (not in Hebrew, but in Latin) be true or false, it does not at all affect the account of Miss Duchesne, which I gave in her own words [See letter of Jan. 12.]. And I cannot but observe that, after all the witticisms which he has bestowed upon it, Mr. O'Leary does not deny that the priest might have burnt her, 'had it been for the good of the Church.'

1782 To Joseph Benson () LONDON, January 5, 1782. DEAR JOSEPH, -- It gives me pleasure to hear that you are not weary in well doing, but are diligent in advancing the cause of religion. There is one means of doing this in which it will be worth your while to take some pains; I mean in recommending the Magazines. If you say of them in every Society what you may say with truth, and say it with an air of earnestness, you will produce several new subscribers. -- I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ellen Gretton LONDON, January 5, 1782. MY DEAR SISTER, -- It is a true word, ‘Gold is tried in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of affliction.’ But we know the exhortation, ‘Despise not thou the chastening of the Lord’; count it not an insignificant or accidental thing: ‘neither hint when thou art rebuked of Him,’ but receive it as a token of His love. I do not despair of seeing you again in Lincolnshire [See letter of Nov. 19, 1781, to her.] and taking another little journey with you. This will be if it is best, and it is not impossible that I shoed see you in London. Perhaps it may be (if we shoed live so long) at the time of the Conference. That might be of particular service to you if Providence should make a way for you. In the meantime let Brother Derry [A conspicuous Methodist in Grantham for many years. In his house the meetings were first held. For an account of the persecution of Methodists in Grantham, and especially of Mr. Derry, see Cocking’s Methodism in Grantham, pp. 153-62.] and Sister Fisher [See Conference Handbook for 1925.] and you do all the good you can. -- I am, dear Nelly, Your affectionate brother. To Miss Gretton, At Mr. Derry’s, In Grantham, Lincolnshire. To James ------ LONDON, January 6, 1782. DEAR JAMES, -- You may meet with Brother Alderman, Highland, or any other leader you choose. But I am willing to hear what objection you have to James Dewey and the two other leaders you refer to. You may know them better than I do. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Hester Anne Roe LONDON, January 7, 1782.

MY DEAR SISTER, - I sincerely congratulate my good old friend John Johnson and you on your happy union; I am clearly persuaded that it is of God, and cannot doubt but it was His will, and gracious providence, which pointed out to you both the time and the persons. May you be a lasting blessing to each other! But one thing has been much upon my mind. Both Brother Johnson and you love the work of God, and would not easily be induced to take any step that would hinder it; but if so, I advise you by no means to think of leaving Dublin. In the city, indeed, he cannot have health; but you may have an healthy abode in the skirts of it. Pray give my kind love to my dear Sister Freeman. Peace be with your spirits! - I am, my dear sister, Your invariable friend. To 'Our Brethren in America' [12] BRISTOL, September 10, 1784. 1. By a very uncommon train of providences many of the' Provinces of North America are totally disjoined from their Mother Country and erected into independent States. The English Government has no authority over them, either civil or ecclesiastical, any more than over the States of Holland. A civil authority is exercised over them, partly by the Congress, partly by the Provincial Assemblies. But no one either exercises or claims any ecclesiastical authority at all. In this peculiar situation some thousands of the inhabitants of these States desire my advice; and in compliance with their desire I have drawn up a little sketch. 2. Lord King's Account of the Primitive Church [See heading to letter of Dec. 30, 1745, to Westley Hall.] convinced me many years ago that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain. For many years I have been importuned from time to time to exercise this right by ordaining part of our traveling preachers. But I have still refused, not only for peace' sake, but because I was determined as little as possible to violate the established order of the National Church to which I belonged.

1785 To Dean D-- [1] [1785.] REVEREND SIR, - When Dr. Bentley published his Greek Testament, one remarked, 'Pity but he would publish the Old; then we should have two New Testaments! [Dr. Richard Bentley, the great classical scholar, issued in 1720 proposals for a new edition of the New Testament in Greek with the Latin Version of Jerome.] It is done. Those who receive Mr. Hutchinson's emendations certainly have two New Testaments! But I stumble at the threshold. Can we believe that God left His whole Church so ignorant of the Scripture till yesterday And if He was pleased to reveal the sense of it' now, to whom may we suppose He would reveal it 'All Scripture,' says Kempis, 'must be understood by the same Spirit whereby it was written.' [Robert Spearman, a pupil of John Hutchinson, published An Enquiry after, Philosophy and Theology in 1755. For William Jones's Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity, see letter of April 17, 1776.] And a greater than he says, 'Them that are meek will He guide in judgment, and them that are gentle will He learn His way.' But was Mr. Hutchinson eminently meek and gentle However, in order to learn all I could from his Works, after first consulting them, I carefully read over Mr. Spearman, [Book I, chap. v.] Mr. Jones's ingenious book, and the Glasgow [Edinburgh] Abridgement. I read the last with Mr. Thomas Walsh, the best Hebraean I ever knew. I never asked him the meaning of an Hebrew word but he would immediately tell me how often it occurred in the Bible and what it meant in each place! We then both observed that Mr. Hutchinson's whole scheme is built upon etymologies; the most uncertain foundation in the world, and the least to be depended upon. We observed, secondly, that if the points be allowed, all his building sinks at once; and, thirdly, that, setting them aside, many of his etymologies are forced and unnatural. He frequently, to find the etymology of one word, squeezes two radices together; a liberty never to be taken where a word may fairly be derived from a single radix.

But here another question occurs: 'What is the Church of England' It is not 'all the people of England.' Papists and Dissenters are no part thereof. It is not all the people of England except Papists and Dissenters. Then we should have a glorious Church indeed! No; according to our Twentieth Article, a particular Church is 'a congregation of faithful people' (coetus credentium, the words in our Latin edition), 'among whom the word of God is preached and the sacraments duly administered.' Here is a true logical definition, containing both the essence and the properties of a Church. What, then, according to this definition, is the Church of England Does it mean 'all the believers in England (except the Papists and Dissenters) who have the word of God and the sacraments duly administered among them' I fear this does not come up to your idea of 'the Church of England.' Well, what more do you include in that phrase 'Why, all the believers that adhere to the doctrine and discipline established by the Convocation under Queen Elizabeth.' Nay, that discipline is wellnigh vanished away, and the doctrine both you and I adhere to. I do not mean I will never ordain any while I am in England, but not to use the power they receive while in England. [This sentence is quoted in the manuscript Life of Benson, ii. 1388.]

MY DEAR SISTER, - While I had the pleasure of sitting by you I quite forgot [what] I intended before we set out. [Two days previously Wesley had been at Trowbridge, where Miss Cooke lived, See letter of Sept. 24 to her.] Considering the bent of your mind, I cannot doubt but you have many copies of verses by you. Probably you have some (beside those on Mr. Turner) made upon affecting subjects. Will you favor me with two or three of them Do, if you have any desire to oblige, my dear friend, Yours affectionately. To his Brother Charles [5] BATH, September 13, 1785. DEAR BROTHER, - I see no use of you and me disputing together; for neither of us is likely to convince the other. You say I separate from the Church; I say I do not. Then let it stand. Your verse is a sad truth. I see fifty times more of England than you do, and I find few exceptions to it. I believe Dr. Coke is as free from ambition as from covetousness. He has done nothing rashly that I know; but he has spoken rashly, which he retracted the moment I spoke to him of it. To publish as his present thoughts what he had before retracted was not fair play. He is now such a right hand to me as Thomas Walsh was. If you will not or cannot help me yourself, do not hinder those that can and will. I must and will save as many souls as I can while I live without being careful about what may possibly be when I die. I pray do not confound the intellects of the people in London. You may thereby a little weaken my hands, but you will greatly weaken your own. - I am Your affectionate Brother. [The following answer, sent by Charles on the 19th, is given at the foot of his brother's letter:] DEAR BROTHER, - I did not say, You separate from the Church; but I did say, If I could prove it, I would not. That 'sad truth' is not a new truth. You saw it when you expressed in your Reasons such tenderness of love for the unconverted clergy. Of the second T. Walsh we had better talk than write.

MY DEAR BROTHER, - Striking a woman in the street, and crying amain, Strumpet, strumpet! was enough to enrage a woman, even to madness. It had not been strange if, instead of scolding, she had shot her husband or herself. I wonder she can sustain life. Do not cast water upon a drowning man; and take care of receiving anything upon Joseph Brundrell's testimony. Speaking is not the thing, but revealing what is spoken in band, had it been true. Unless Sister Pitt [See letter of Oct. 9 to Valton.] be convinced of this sin, I will expel her the Society the first time I come to Bath. I must do justice if the sky falls. I am the last resort. A word to the wise! I am sure Michael Griffith [See letter of Dec. 22.] is good enough for the place, if he is not too good. I hope Mr. Jones is set out for Brecon. [Thomas Jones had been appointed there.] See that Michael have fair play. John Atlay knows nothing about the hundred pounds; neither do I. I am afraid it is a castle in the air, I am glad to hear you have so fair a prospect in the circuit. You will find all things work together for good. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Wride [13] LONDON, October 29, 1786. DEAR TOMMY, - I am entirely of your mind. If any man (to waive everything else) can make me sleep without touching me, he may call the matter what he pleases; I know it is not magnetism, but magic. Mr. Mears did not tell me (that I know) anything about letters one, two, three. Women told me at Chatham. 'We called on Mrs. Wride and offered her any service in our power; but she was so sullen and surly, we had not the heart to go again.' But is it true, Tommy, that you have an estate left you I fear it is not so large as the Duke of Bedford's! I should be glad to bring you all to a good agreement. If I knew how. - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Henry Moore [14] LONDON, Novernber 4, 1786.

These Meetings will do you no harm at all. Only go quietly on your way. There should be no delay in enlarging the house if you can get a good title to the ground. [See letter of Aug. 8 to Arthur Keene.] As far as is possible I should advise you to take no notice, good or bad, of the warm men. Let them say what they will and do what they can. Neddy Smyth [Edward Smyth, of Bethesda, and his brother William, one of the Dublin Methodists who objected to services in Church hours. Bethesda had been built at his cost.] wrote lately to me, and I to him, but without a word of dispute. Probably I shall see Mr. W. Smyth; but if I do, I will not dispute with him. I am a man of peace. Peace be with you and yours.--I am, dear Henry, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Henry Brooke [21] HULL, June 21, 1788. Of the Methodists and the Church I think as you do: they must not leave the Church -- at least, while I live; if they leave it then, I expect they will gradually sink into a formal, honorable sect. Dear Harry, adieu! To Peard Dickinson THIRSK, June 24, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I do not know any little piece of news which has given me more satisfaction than this, that my Sister Hall has taken a lodging in Th. Philip's house. I hope to see her and you in about a fortnight, that I may have time to prepare for the Conference. [Held at London on July 29.] You do well not to indulge your thirst after books, but to confine yourself to a very few. I know no commentator on the Bible equal to Bengal. His Gnomon is a jewel; so is his Ordo Temp [His Gnomon 'as a brief and suggestive commentary on the New Testament remains unrivalled.' McClintock and Strong's Cyclopodia. Ordo temporum a principio per periodos conomio, divino, 1753.]: the finest system of chronology that ever appeared in the world. Now consider with yourself and [set] down whatever relates to the Conference. Peace be with both your spirits I -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev. Mr. Dickinson, In the City Road, Near Moorfields, London. To Walter Churchey YORK, June 26, 1788.

MY DEAR SISTER, -- The account you give of James M'Quigg is very remarkable. [J. M'Quigg was one of the preachers at Limerick. Wesley preached at Moate near Athlone, on April 2, 1748, and calls it 'the pleasantest town I have yet seen in Ireland.'] The sending him to Athlone just at this time was a signal instance of Divine Providence; and his going to Moate, where we had so long labored in vain, was in an acceptable time. Many of our friends were in dread to [hear] him! God honored him. I pray He will honor him more as long as his eye is single, seeking his happiness in God alone. You cannot tell, my dear Jenny, what good you may do by now and then speaking a word for God. Be not ashamed nor afraid to put in a word when occasion offers. Indeed, you are not called for any public work; but even in private conversation a word spoken in season how good it is! You need not be a drone; you will not want opportunities of doing good in various kinds. To hear of you or from you will always be a pleasure. -- My dear Jenny, Yours very affectionately. To Mrs. Jane Armstrong, Athlone. To Henry Moore [9] BRISTOL, September 15, 1789. DEAR HENRY, -- I am glad you delayed the making of the collection for Dewsbury. I suppose you have now my second paper, [See letter of Sept. 11.] which should be printed and sent to every Assistant. Herewith I show them more plainly what my sentiments are than I have ever done. Geo. Paramore writes to desire his brother and sister may succeed Brother and Sister Shropshire at Spiralfields. I have no objection. I refer that matter to you, who are upon the spot. All in our house are in great peace. We are a family of love. I love Sister Clarke, only not as much as my dear Nancy; and am, dear Henry, Your affectionate friend and brother. To his Nephew Samuel Wesley Near BRISTOL, September, 16, 1789.

Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Mason BRISTOL, October 3, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- If, as I am informed, Mr. Gregor is a lover of King George and the present Administration, I wish you would advise all our brethren that have votes to assist him in the ensuing election. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Mason, St. Austle's, Cornwall. To the Printer of the 'Bristol Gazette' [See letters of Sept. 25 and Oct. 12 (to Adam Clarke).] BRISTOL, October 3, 1789. SIR, -- I am much obliged to your last correspondent also for the candor with which he writes. 'Mr. Wesley,' he observes, 'had cautioned us against the use of hops on account of its poisonous quality. But the authority on which he grounds this is only an old obsolete Act of Parliament. He has not informed us of its mode of operation on the animal frame.' 'Tis very true. I leave that to the gentlemen of the Faculty, for many of whom I have an high respect. Meantime I declare my own judgment, grounded not only on the Act of Parliament, but first on my own experience with regard to the gravel or stone, and secondly on the opinion of all the physicians I have heard or read that spoke on the subject. I do not apprehend that we need recur either to 'the Elements of Chemistry' or to the College of Physicians on the head. I urge a plain matter of fact - 'that hops are pernicious.' I did not say to all (though perhaps they may more or less) but to those that are inclined to stone, gout, or scurvy. So I judge, because I feel it to myself if I drink it two or three days together; and because so I hear from many skillful physicians; and I read in their works. I cannot but return thanks to both your correspondents for their manner of writing, worthy of gentlemen. As to the gentleman brewer of Bath that challenges me to engage him for five hundred pounds, I presume he had taken a draught of his well-hopped beverage, or he would not have been so valiant. So I wish him well; and am, sir, Your humble servant. To Elizabeth Baker SARUM, October 5, 1789.

If you defend, and can prove, as well as assert it, then farewell the credit of all history, not only sacred but profane. If “the credibility of witnesses,” of all witnesses, (for you make no distinction,) depends, as you peremptorily affirm, “on a variety of principles wholly concealed from us;” and, consequently, “though it may be presumed in many cases, yet can be certainly known in none;” then it is plain, all the history of the Bible is utterly precarious and uncertain; then I may indeed presume, but cannot certainly know, that Jesus of Nazareth ever was born; much less that he healed the sick, and raised either Lazarus or himself from the dead. Now, Sir, go and declare again how careful you are for “the credit of the gospel miracles !” 5. But for fear any (considering how “frank and open” your nature is, and how “warmly disposed to speak what you take to be true”) (page 7) should fancy you meant what you said in this declaration, you take care to inform them soon after: “The whole which the wit of man can possibly discover, either of the ways or will of the Creator, must be acquired by attending seriously” (to what? to the Jewish or Christian Revelation? No; but) “to that revelation which he made of himself from the beginning, in the beautiful fabric of this visible world.” (Page 22.) 6. I believe your opponents will not hereafter urge you, either with that passage from St. Mark, or any other from Scripture. At least, I will not, unless I forget myself; as I observe you have done just now. For you said but now, “Before we proceed to examine testimonies for the decision of this dispute, our first care should be, to inform ourselves of the nature of those miraculous powers which are the subject of it, as they are represented to us in the history of the gospel.” (Page 10.) Very true; “this should be our first care.” I was therefore all attention to hear your account of “the nature of those powers, as they are represented to us in the gospel.” But, alas! you say not a word more about it; but slip away to those “zealous champions who have attempted” (bold men as they are) “to refute the ‘Introductory Discourse.’” (Page 11.) Perhaps you will say, “Yes, I repeat that text from St.

you say not a word more about it; but slip away to those “zealous champions who have attempted” (bold men as they are) “to refute the ‘Introductory Discourse.’” (Page 11.) Perhaps you will say, “Yes, I repeat that text from St. Mark.” You do; yet not describing the nature of those powers; but only to open the way to “one of your antago mists;” (page 12;) of whom you yourself affirm, that “not one of them seems to have spent a thought in considering those powers as they are set forth in the New Testament.” (Page 11.) Consequently, the bare repeating that text does not prove you (any more than them) to have “spent one thought upon the subject.” 7. From this antagonist you ramble away to another; after a long citation from whom, you subjoin: “It being agreed then that, in the original promise, there is no intimation of any par ticular period, to which their continuance was limited.” (Pages 13, 14.) Sir, you have lost your way. We have as yet nothing to do with their continuance. “For till we have learned from those sacred records” (I use your own words) “what they were, and in what manner exerted by the Apostles, we cannot form a proper judgment of those evidences which are brought either to confirm or confute their continuance in the Church; and must consequently dispute at random, as chance or preju dice may prompt us, about things unknown to us.” (Page 11.) Now, Sir, if this be true, (as without doubt it is,) then it necessarily follows, that, seeing from the beginning of your book to the end, you spend not one page to inform either yourself or your readers concerning the nature of these miraculous powers, “as they are represented to us in the history of the gospel;” you dispute throughout the whole “atrandom, as chance or prejudice prompts you, about things unknown to you.” 8.

In this very Discourse you yourself said just the contrary. You told us awhile ago, that, not only Dr. Marshall, Dr. Dodwell, and Archbishop Tillot son, but the generality of the Protestant Doctors, were agreed to what period they should confine themselves; believing that miracles subsisted through the three first centuries, and ceased in the beginning of the fourth. (Page 46, et seq.) 7. However, that none of them may ever be puzzled any more, you will “lay down some general principles, which may lead us to a more rational solution of the matter than any that has hitherto been offered.” (Ibid.) Here again I was all attention. And what did the mountain bring forth? What are these general principles, preceded by so solemn a declara tion, and laid down for thirteen pages together? (Pages 71 --84.) Why, they are dwindled down into one, “that the forged miracles of the fourth century taint the credit of all the later miracles !” I should desire you to prove, that the miracles of the fourth century were all forged, but that it is not material to our question. 8. But you endeavour to show it is: “For that surprising confidence,” you say, “with which the Fathers of the fourth age have affirmed as true what they themselves had forged, ThE REV. DR. MIDDLETON. 11 or, at least, knew to be forged,” (a little more proof of that,) “makes us suspect, that so bold a defiance of truth could not become general at once, but must have been carried gradually to that height by custom and the example of former times.” (Page 84.) It does not appear that it did become general till long after the fourth century. And as this supposition is not sufficiently proved, the inference from it is nothing worth. 9. You say, Secondly, “This age, in which Christianity was established, had no occasion for any miracles. They would not, therefore, begin to forge miracles at a time when there was no particular temptation to it.” (Ibid.) Yes, the greatest temptation in the world, if they were such men as you suppose. If they were men that would scruple no art or means to enlarge their own credit and authority, they would naturally “begin to forge miracles” at that time when real miracles were no more. 10.

We are come at last to your general conclusion: “There is no sufficient reason to believe, that any miraculous powers subsisted in any age of the Church after the times of the Apostles.” (Page 91.) But pretended miracles, you say, arose thus: “As the high authority of the apostolic writings excited some of the most learned Christians” (prove that !) “to forge books under their names; so the great fame of the apostolic miracles would naturally excite some of the most crafty, when the Apostles were dead, to attempt some juggling tricks in imitation of them. And when these artful pretenders had maintained their ground through the first three centuries, the leading Clergy of the fourth understood their interest too well to part with the old plea of miraculous gifts.” (Page 92.) Round assertions indeed! But surely, Sir, you do not think that reasonable men will take these for proofs You are here advancing a charge of the blackest nature. But where are your vouchers? Where are the witnesses to support it? Hitherto you have not been able to produce one, through a course of three hundred years; unless you bring in those Heathen, of whose senseless, shameless prejudices you have yourself given so clear an account. But you designed to produce your witnesses in the “Free Inquiry,” a year or two after the “Introductory Discourse” was published. So you condemn them first, and try them afterwards: You will pass sentence now, and hear the evidence by and by A genuine specimen of that “impartial regard to truth,” which you profess upon all occasions. 13. Another instance of this is in your marginal note: “The primitive Christians were perpetually reproached for their gross credulity.” They were; but by whom? Why, by Jews and Heathens. Accordingly, the two witnesses you produce here are Celsus the Jew, and Julian the apostate. But lest this should not suffice, you make them confess the charge: “The Fathers,” your words are, “defend them selves by saying, that they did no more than the philosophers had always done: That Pythagoras's precepts were incul cated with an ipse divit, and they found the same method useful with the vulgar.” (Page 93.) And is this their whole defence? Do the very men to whom you refer, Origen and Arnobius, in the very tracts to which you refer, give no other answer than this argument ad hominem?

Thus, Justin himself was imposed upon by those of Alexandria, who showed him some old ruins under the name of cells. And so he was by those who told him, there was a statue at Rome, inscribed, Simoni Deo Sancto; whereas it was really inscribed, Semoni Sanco Deo; to an old deity of the Sabines. Now,” say you, “if he was deceived in such obvious facts, how much more easily would he be deceived by subtle and crafty impostors!” (Pages 40, 41.) Far less easily. A man of good judgment may be deceived in the inscriptions of statues, and points of ancient history. But, if he has only eyes and ears, and a small degree of common sense, he cannot be deceived in facts where he is both an eye and ear witness. 10. For a parting blow, you endeavour to prove, Sixthly, that Justin was a knave, as well as a fool. To this end you remark, that “he charges the Jews with erasing three passages out of the Greek Bible; one whereof stands there still, and the other two were not expunged by some Jew, but added by some Christian. Nay, that able critic and Divine, John Croius,” (you know when to bestow honourable appel lations,) “says Justin forged and published this passage for the confirmation of the Christian doctrine, as well as the greatest part of the Sibylline oracles, and the sentences of Mercurius.” (Page 42.) With far greater probability than John Croius asserts that Justin forged these passages, a man of candour would hope that he read them in his copy (though incorrect) of the Greek Bible. And till you disprove this, or prove the assertion of Croius, you are got not a jot farther still. But, notwith standing you have taken true pains to blacken him, both with regard to his morals and understanding, he may still be an honest man, and an unexceptionable witness, as to plain facts done before his face. 11. You fall upon Irenaeus next, and carefully enumerate all the mistakes in his writings. As, First, that he held the doctrine of the millennium, and related a weak fancy of Tapias concerning it. Secondly: That he believed our Saviour to have lived fifty years. Thirdly: That he believed Enoch and Elias were translated, and St. Paul caught up to that very paradise from which Adam was expelled.

And of their power to afflict the body, we have abundant proof, both in the history of Job, and that of the gospel demoniacs. I do not mean, Sir, to accuse you of believing these things. You have shown that you are guiltless in this matter; and that Th E REV. D.R. MIDDLETON. 37 you pay no more regard to that antiquated book, the Bible, than you do to the Second Book of Esdras. But, alas ! the Fathers were not so far enlightened. And because they were bigoted to that old book, they of consequence held for truth what, you assure us, was mere delusion and imposture. 20. Now to apply: “A mind,” you say, “so totally possessed by superstitious fancies, could not even suspect the pretensions of those vagrant jugglers, who in those primitive ages were so numerous, and so industriously employed in deluding their fellow-creatures. Both Heathens, Jews, and Christians are all allowed to have had such impostors among them.” (Page 71.) By whom, Sir, is this allowed of the Christians? By whom, but Celsus, was it affirmed of them? Who informed you of their growing so numerous, and using such industry in their employment? To speak the plain truth, your mind appears to be “so totally possessed by ” these “vagrant jugglers,” that you cannot say one word about the primitive Church, but they immediately start up before you; though there is no more proof of their ever existing, than of a witch’s sailing in an egg-shell. 21. You conclude this head: “When pious Christians are arrived to this pitch of credulity, as to believe that evil spirits or evil men can work miracles, in opposition to the gospel; their very piety will oblige them to admit as miraculous what- . ever is pretended to be wrought in defence of it.” (Ibid.) Once more you have spoken out; you have shown, without disguise, what you think of St. Paul, and the “lying miracles” (2 Thess. ii. 9) which he (poor man!) believed evil spirits or evil men could work in opposition to the gospel; and of St. John, talking so idly of him who “doeth great wonders, and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth” (even though they were not Christians) “by means of those miracles which he hath power to do.” (Rev. xiii. 13, 14.) 22.

6. You go on: “He says likewise, he was admonished of God to ordain one Numidicus, a Confessor, who had been left for dead, half burnt and buried in stones.” (Pages 103, 104.) True, but what “questionable point of doctrine” or discipline did he introduce hereby ? or by ordaining Celerinus; “who was over-ruled and compelled by a divine vision to accept that office?” So you affirm Cyprian says. But Cyprian says it not; at least, not in those words which you cite in the margin: which, literally translated, run thus: “I recommend to you Celerinus, joined to our Clergy, not by human suffrage, but by the divine favour.”f “In another letter, speaking of Aurelius, whom he had ordained a Reader, he says to his Clergy and people, “In ordain ing Clergy, my dearest brethren, I use to consult you first; but * Utar ea admonitione, quá me Dominus uti jubet. Epis. 9. t Non humaná suffragatione, sed diviná dignatione, conjunctum. Epis. 34. THE REW, DR, MIDisileTON. 49 there is no need to wait for human testimonies, when the divine suffrage has been already signified.’” An impartial man would wonder what you could infer from these five passages put together. Why, by the help of a short postulatum, “He was fond of power,” (you have as much ground to say, “He was fond of bloodshed,”) you will make it plain, “this was all a trick to enlarge his episcopal authority.” But as that postulatum is not allowed, you have all your work to begin again. 7. Hitherto then the character of Cyprian is unhurt; but now you are resolved to blow it up at once. So you proceed : “The most memorable effect of any of his visions was his flight from his Church in the time of persecution. He affirms, that he was commanded to retire by a special revelation from heaven.

10. You now bring forth your grand discovery, that “all the visions of those days were contrived, or authorized at least, by the leading men of the Church. For they were all applied, either, (1.) To excuse the conduct of particular persons, in some instances of it liable to censure; or, (2.) To enforce some doctrine or discipline pressed by some, but not relished by others; or, (3.) To confirm things not only frivolous, but sometimes even superstitious and hurtful.” (Page 109.) Well, Sir, here is the proposition. But where is the proof? I hope we shall have it in your next “Free Inquiry;” and that you will then give us a few instances of such applications, from the writers of the three first centuries. 11. Being not disposed to do this at present, you fall again upon the poor “heretic Montanus; who first gave a vogue” (as you phrase it) “to visions and ecstasies in the Christian Church.” (Page 110.) So you told us before. But we cannot believe it yet; because Peter and Paul tell us the contrary. Indeed, you do not now mention Montanus because it is any thing to the question, but only to make way for observing, that those who wrote against him “employed such arguments against his prophecy as shake the credit of all prophecy. For Epipha nius makes this the very criterion between a true and a false prophet, ‘that the true had no ecstasies, constantly retained his senses, and with firmness of mind apprehended and uttered the divine oracles.’” Sir, have you not mistook? Have you not transcribed one sentence in the margin, and translated another? That sentence which stands in your margin is this: “When there was need, the saints of God among the Prophets prophesied all things with the true Spirit, and with a sound understanding and reasonable mind.” Now, it is difficult to find out how this comes to “shake the credit of all prophecy.” 12. Why thus: “Before the Montanists had brought those ecstasies into disgrace, the prophecy of the orthodox too was exerted in ecstasy. And so were the prophecies of the Old Testament, according to the current opinion of those earlier days.” (Page 111.) That this was then “the current opinion,” you bring three citations to prove.

Those reasons have been coolly examined. And now let every impartial man, every person of true and unbiassed reason, calmly consider and judge, whether you have made out one point of all that you took in hand; and whether some miracles of each kind may not have been wrought in the ancient Church, for anything you have advanced to the contrary. 10. From page 127 to page 158, you relate miracles said to be wrought in the fourth century. I have no concern with these; but I must weigh an argument which you intermix therewith again and again. It is in substance this: “If we cannot believe the miracles attested by the later Fathers, then we ought not to believe those which are attested by the earliest writers of the Church.” I answer, The consequence is not good; because the case is not the same with the one and with the other. Several objections, which do not hold with regard to the earlier, may lie against the later, miracles; drawn either from the improbability of the facts themselves, such as we have no precedent of in holy writ; from the incompetency of the instruments said to perform them, such as bones, relics, or departed saints; or from the gross “credulity of a prejudiced, or the dishonesty of an interested, relater.” (Page 145.) 11. One or other of these objections holds against most of the later, though not the earlier, miracles. And if only one holds, it is enough; it is ground sufficient for making the difference. If, therefore, it was true that there was not a single Father of the fourth age, who was not equally pious with the best of the more ancient, still we might consistently reject most of the miracles of the fourth, while we allowed those of the preceding ages; both because of the far greater improbability of the facts themselves, and because of the incompetency of the instruments. (Page 159.) But it is not true, that “the Fathers of the fourth age,” whom you mention, were equally pious with the best of the preceding ages. Nay, according to your account, (which I shall not now contest,) they were not pious at all. For you say, “They were wilful, habitual liars.” And, if so, they had not a grain of piety.

For you say, “They were wilful, habitual liars.” And, if so, they had not a grain of piety. Now, that the earlier Fathers were not such has been shown at large; though, indeed, you complimented them with the same character. Consequently, whether these later Fathers are to be believed or no, we may safely believe the former; who dared not to do evil that good might come, or to lie either for God or man. 12. I had not intended to say anything more concerning any of the miracles of the later ages; but your way of accounting for one, said to have been wrought in the fifth, is so extremely curious that I cannot pass it by. The story, it seems, is this: “Hunneric, an Arian Prince, in his persecution of the orthodox in Afric, ordered the tongues of a certain society of them to be cut out by the roots. But, by a surprising instance of God’s good providence, they were enabled to speak articulately and distinctly without their tongues. And so continuing to make open profession of the same doctrine, they became not only Preachers, but living witnesses, of its truth.” (Page 182.) Do not mistake me, Sir: I have no design at all to vouch for the truth of this miracle. I leave it just as I find it. But what I am concerned with is, your manner of accounting for it. 13. And, First, you say, “It may not improbably be supposed, that though their tongues were ordered to be cut to the roots, yet the sentence might not be so strictly executed as not to leave in some of them such a share of that organ as was sufficient, in a tolerable degree, for the use of speech.” (Page 183.) So you think, Sir, if only an inch of a man’s tongue were to be neatly taken off, he would be able to talk tolerably well, as soon as the operation was over. But the most marvellous part is still behind.

15. “I have now,” you say, “thrown together all which I had collected for the support of my argument;” (page 187;) after a lame recapitulation of which you add with an air of triumph and satisfaction: “I wish the Fathers the ablest advocates which Popery itself can afford; for Protestantism, I am sure, can supply none whom they would choose to retain in their cause; none who can defend them without contradicting their own profession and disgracing their own character; or produce anything, but what deserves to be laughed at, rather than answered.” (Pages 188, 189.) Might it not be well, Sir, not to be quite so sure yet? You may not always have the laugh on your side. You are not yet infallibly assured, but that even Protestantism may produce something worth an answer. There may be some Protestants, for aught you know, who have a few grains of common sense left, and may find a way to defend, at least the Ante-Nicene Fathers, without “disgracing their own character.” Even such an one as I have faintly attempted this, although I neither have, nor expect to have, any preferment, not even to be a Lambeth Chaplain; which if Dr. Middleton is not, it is not his own fault.- V. l. The last thing you proposed was, “to refute some of the most plausible objections which have been hitherto made.” To what you have offered on this head, I must likewise attempt a short reply. You say, “It is objected, First, that by the character I have given of the Fathers, the authority of the books of the New Testament, which were transmitted to us through their hands, will be rendered precarious and uncertain.” (Page 190.) After a feint of confuting it, you frankly acknowledge the whole of this objection. “I may venture,” you say, “to declare, that if this objection be true, it cannot hurt my argument. For if it be natural and necessary, that the craft and credulity of witnesses should always detract from the credit of their testimony, then who can help it? And if this charge be proved on the Fathers, it must be admitted, how far soever the consequences may reach.” (Page 192.) “If it be proved !” Very true.

And if this charge be proved on the Fathers, it must be admitted, how far soever the consequences may reach.” (Page 192.) “If it be proved !” Very true. If that charge against the Fathers were really and substantially proved, the authority of the New Testament would be at an end, so far as it depends on one kind of evidence. But that charge is not proved. Therefore even the traditional authority of the New Testament is as firm as ever. 2. “It is objected,” you say, “Secondly, that all suspicion of fraud in the case of the primitive miracles is excluded by that public appeal and challenge which the Christian apolo gists make to their enemies the Heathens, to come and see with their own eyes the reality of the facts which they attest.” (Page 193.) You answer: “This objection has no real weight with any who are acquainted with the condition of the Christians in those days.” You then enlarge (as it seems, with a peculiar pleasure) on the general contempt and odium they lay under, from the first appearance of Christianity in the world, till it was established by the civil power. (Pages 194-196.) “In these circumstances, it cannot be imagined,” you say, “that men of figure and fortune would pay any attention to the apologies or writings of a sect so utterly despised.” (Page 197.) But, Sir, they were hated, as well as despised; and that by the great vulgar, as well as the small. And this very hatred would naturally prompt them to examine the ground of the challenges daily repeated by them they hated; were it only, that, by discovering the fraud, (which they wanted neither opportunity nor skill to do, had there been any,) they might have had a better pretence for throwing the Christians to the lions, than because the Nile did not, or the Tiber did, overflow. 3. You add: “Much less can we believe that the Emperor or Senate of Rome should take any notice of those apologies, or even know indeed that any such were addressed to them.” (Ibid.) Why, Sir, by your account, you would make us believe, that all the Emperors and Senate together were as “senseless, ThE REV. DR. MIDDLETON, 61 stupid a race of blockheads and brutes,” as even the Christians themselves. But hold.

Is there any one point which you do not believe as well as we? But you think we ought to believe more. We will not now enter into the dispute. Only let me ask, If a man sincerely believes thus much, and practises accordingly, can any one possibly persuade you to think that such a man shall perish everlastingly? 12. “But does he practise accordingly?” If he does not, we grant all his faith will not save him. And this leads me to show you, in few and plain words, what the practice of a true Protestant is. I say, a true Protestant; for I disclaim all common swearers, Sabbath-breakers, drunkards; all whoremongers, liars, cheats, extortioners; in a word, all that live in open sin. These are no Protestants; they are no Christians at all. Give them their own name; they are open Heathens. They are the curse of the nation, the bane of society, the shame of mankind, the scum of the earth. 13. A true Protestant believes in God, has a full confidence in his mercy, fears him with a filial fear, and loves him with all his soul. He worships God in spirit and in truth, in everything gives him thanks; calls upon him with his heart as well as his lips, at all times and in all places; honours his holy name and his word, and serves him truly all the days of his life. Now, do not you yourself approve of this? Is there any one point you can condemn? Do not you practise as well as approve of it? Can you ever be happy if you do not? Can you ever expect true peace in this, or glory in the world to come, if you do not believe in God through Christ? if you do not thus fear and love God? My dear friend, consider, I am not persuading you to leave or change your religion, but to follow after that fear and love of God without which all reli gion is vain. I say not a word to you about your opinions or outward manner of worship. But I say, all worship is an abomi nation to the Lord, unless you worship him in spirit and in truth; with your heart, as well as your lips; with your spirit, and with your understanding also.

The latter justify their charge by producing such authors as have in several ages not only taught that doctrine, but taught it as the doctrine of their Church; the former deny the charge, by appealing from particular authors to an higher authority, to Councils and public acts and decrees, to Missals, Breviaries, and Catechisms. Now, though those Protestants are not to be blamed, when the authors they quote have been first licensed and approved in that Church, and were never afterward condemned by it; yet in composing this Catechism, to avoid contention as much as I can, I have generally observed their directions, and have seldom made use of particular authors, but when it is for the explication of a doctrine that is not sufficiently explained, or for confirmation of a doctrine generally received. I am very confident that the quotations throughout are true, having again and again examined them; and I have been as careful as I could not to mistake the sense of them; that I might rightly understand and truly represent the doctrine which I profess to censure; for without a faithful and impartial examination of an error, there can be no solid confutation of it. oF THE CHURCH, AND RULE of FAITH. QUESTION 1. WHAT is the Church of Rome? ANswer. The Church of Rome is that Society of Christians which professes it necessary to salvation to be subject to the Pope of Rome,” as the alone visible head of the Church.t REPLY. Christ is the Head, from whom the whole body is fitly joined together. And the holding to that Head (Coloss. ii. 19) is the one great note of the Church, given by St. Austin. * Dicimus, definimus, pronunciamus absolute necessarium ad salutem, omni humanae creature subesse Romano Pontifici. Extravag. c. Unam sanctam de Majoritate et Obedientia. “We say, define, and pronounce, that it is absolutely necessary to salvation, for every man to be subject to the Pope of Rome.” + Bellarm. De Eccles. milit. l. 3, c. 2, sec. Nostra autem sententia; et cap. 5, sec. Respondeo neminem (De Unit. Eccles. c. 3, 4.) But there is neither in Scripture nor antiquity any evidence for a visible head, and much less for the visible head, the Pope; and, least of all, that it is necessary to salvation to be subject to him.

de Purgatorio. And there are above a hun dred anathemas in that Council in point of doctrine against such as do not so believe. + Hanc veram catholicam fidem, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest: That is, “This is the true Catholic faith, without which no man can be saved.”--Bulla Pii IV., super Form. Juram. / 90 RoMAN CATECHISM, AND REPLY. when she requires to bow down before an image, which the Scripture forbids; and forbids to read the Scripture, which it requires. And without doubt the text of the Apostle holds as much against any other, as against himself or an angel from heaven. Q. 5. Doth not the Church of Rome acknowledge the holy Scripture to be a sufficient rule for faith and manners? A. No: For there are some doctrines proposed by that Church as matters of faith, and some things required as necessary duty, which are by many learned men among themselves confessed not to be contained in Scripture. REPLY. We read in Scripture of “the faith once delivered to the saints;” (Jude 3;) and “all” or the whole “Scrip ture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.) The Scripture, therefore, is a rule sufficient in itself, and was by men divinely inspired at once delivered to the world; and so neither needs, nor is capable of, any further addition. So Tertullian: “Let Hermogenes show that this thing is written. If it be not written, let him fear the woe pronounced against them that add to, or take from, Scripture.” (Contra Hermog., c. 22.) Q. 6. What doctrines of faith and matters of practice are thus acknowledged not to be in Scripture? A. The doctrines of transubstantiation, (Scotus in 4 Sent. Dist. 11, q.3, et Yribarn in Scot.,) of the seven sacraments, (Bellarm. l. 2, de Effectu Sacram., c. 25, sec. Secunda pro batio, ) of purgatory, (Roffens. contra Luther., art. 18,) and the practice of half-communion, (Concil. Constan., Sess. 13, Cassander, art. 22,) worshipping of saints and images, (Bel larm. de Cult. Sanct, l. 3, c. 9, sec. Praeterea. Cassand. Con sult, art. 21, sec. 4) indulgences, (Polyd. Virg. de Invent., l. 8, c. 1) and service in an unknown tongue. (Bellarm. de Verb. Dei, l. 2, c. 26.) REPLY.

26.) REPLY. On the contrary, St. Augustine writes, “If any one concerning Christ and his Church, or concerning any other things which belong to faith or life, I will not say if we, but (which St. Paul hath added) if an angel from heaven, preach unto you besides what ye have received in the Law and Evangelical Writings, let him be accursed.” (Contr. Petil, l. 3, c. 6.) For as all faith is founded upon divine authority, so there is now no divine authority but the Scriptures; and, therefore, no one can make that to be of divine authority which is not contained in them. And if transubstantiation and purgatory, &c., are not delivered in Scripture, they cannot be doctrines of faith. Q. 7. What doth the Church of Rome propound to herself as an entire rule of faith? A. Scripture with tradition; and she requires that the traditions be received and reverenced with the like pious regard and veneration as the Scriptures; and whosoever knowingly contemns them, is declared by her to be accursed. (Concil. Trid. Sess. 4; Decret. de Can. Script.) REPLY. “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men;” (Matt. xv. 9;) forbidding that as unlawful which God hath not forbidden, and requiring that as necessary duty which God hath not required. So St. Hierom: “The sword of God,” his word, “doth smite those other things, which they find and hold of their own accord, as by apostolical tradition, without the authority and testimony of Scripture.” (In Cap. 1, Aggaei.) Q. 8. What do they understand by traditions? A. Such things belonging to faith and manners as were dictated by Christ, or the Holy Ghost in the Apostles, and have been preserved by a continual succession in the Catholic Church, from hand to hand, without writing. (Concil. Trid. ibid.) REPLY. But St. Cyril affirms, “It behoveth us not to deliver, no, not so much as the least thing of the holy mysteries of faith, without the holy Scripture. That is the security of our faith, not which is from our own inventions, but from the demonstration of the holy Scriptures.” (Catechis. 5.) Q. 9. What are those traditions which they profess to have received from Christ and his Apostles? A. The offering the sacrifice of the mass for the souls in purgatory, (Conc. Trid. Sess. 22, c.

22, c. 2) the mystical bene dictions, incensings, garments, and many other things of the like kind, (c. 5) salt, spittle, exorcisms, and wax candles used in baptism, &c., (Catech. Rom., par. 2, c. 2, n. 59, 65, &c.,) the Priests shaving the head after the manner of a crown. (Ibid. c. 7, n. 14.) REPLY. “Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men.” (Mark vii. 8.) “It is necessary even for novices to learn the Scriptures, that the mind may be well confirmed in piety, and that they may not be accustomed to human traditions.” (St. Basil in Reg. Brev. Reg. 95.) The Church of Rome hath no more to show for their holy water, and incensings, and salt, and spittle, &c., than the Pharisees for their traditions; and since they no less impose them as divine than the other, they are alike guilty with them. Q. 10. Doth the Church of Rome agree with other Churches in the number of canonical books of Scripture? A. No: For she hath added to the canonical books of the Old Testament, Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the two Books of Maccabees,” and a new part of Esther and Daniel; which whole Books, with all their parts,f whosoever rejects as not canonical, is accursed. (Concil. Trident. Sess. 4, Decret. de Scriptur.) REPLY. These apocryphal books were wrote after prophecy and divine inspiration ceased, and so were not received by the Jewish Church, (to whom “were committed the oracles of God,” Rom. iii. 2) nor by the Christian Church, as the Sixtieth Canon of the Council of Laodicea shows, where there is a catalogue of the canonical Books, without any mention of these. “As therefore the Church doth read Tobias, Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees, but doth not receive them into the canonical Scriptures; so it doth read the two volumes of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not to establish the authority of ecclesiastical principles.” St. Jerome. (In Prologo Proverb.)--See Bellarm. de Verbo, l. 1, c. 10 init. * These books are so sacred, as that they are of infallible truth.-Bellarm. De Verbo, l. 1, c. 10, sec. Ecclesia vera.

Ecclesia vera. + Wherefore doth the Council add, “with all their parts; ” unless that all should understand those parts also, about which there was some time a dispute, to belong to the sacred canon of the Bible?--Ibid. c. 7, sec. Denique. Q. 11, Are the people of the Church of Rome permitted to read the Scripture in a tongue vulgarly known? A. No; they were for a time permitted to read it, under the caution of a license, where it could be obtained; (Reg. Ind. Libr. Prohib. Reg. 4;) but since they are forbid it, or to have so much as any summary or historical compendium of it in their own tongue. (Index Libr. Prohib. Auctor. Sixti V., et Clem. VIII. Observat. circa 4 Regulam.) REPLY. Under the Law, the people had the Scriptures in a tongue vulgarly known; and they were required to read the law, and to be conversant in it: “These words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart,” &c.; (Deut. vi. 6;) and accordingly our Saviour sends them thither: “Search the Scriptures.” (John v. 39.) So St. Paul requires that his “Epistle be read to all the brethren;” (1 Thess. v. 27;) and, if so, it was wrote in a language they understood. And so it was in the primitive Church; therefore St. Chrysostom exhorts his hearers, though secular men, to provide themselves Bibles, the medicines of their souls, to be their perpetual instructers. (Comment. in Coloss. iii. 16.) Q. 12. For what reason is the Scripture thus prohibited among them? A. “Because,” say they, “if it be permitted to be read every where, without difference, there would more prejudice than profit proceed from it.” (Reg. Ind. Libr. Prohib. Reg. 4.) REPLY. In the Apostles’ times there were some that “wrested the Scriptures to their own destruction;” and yet the Apostle thought of no other expedient than to give the Christians a caution, that they were “not also led away with the error of the wicked.” (2 Pet. iii. 16, 17.) The way to prevent this, therefore, is, not to keep the Scriptures from the people, which “were written for our learning,” (Rom. xv. 4,) but to exhort them to a diligent perusal of them: “Ye err, not knowing the Scriptures.” (Matt. xxii. 29.) “The sheep should not cast away their skin, because wolves sometimes hide themselves under it.” (St.

29.) “The sheep should not cast away their skin, because wolves sometimes hide themselves under it.” (St. Austin de Serm. Dom. in Monte.) Q. 13. Since the Scripture may be misunderstood, have they no judge to determine the sense of it? A. They say, “It belongs to the Church” (of Rome) “to 94 RoMAN CATECHISM, AND REPLY. judge of the sense of Scripture, and no one may presume to interpret the Scripture contrary to the sense which Mother Church hath held and doth hold.” (Concil. Trid. Sess. 4. Decret. de Edit. et Usu Script.) It cannot be called the Church of God where the legitimate successor of St. Peter in the Roman Chair, and the undoubted vicar of Christ, doth not preside: What the Church doth teach is the express word of God; and what is taught against the sense and consent of the Church, is the express word of the devil. (Cardinal Hosius de expresso Dei verbo, p. 642, 643.) REPLY. While the Apostles were alive, the Churches of Christ, in matters of dispute, applied themselves to them, as in the point of circumcision; (Acts xv.2;) but since they of the Church of Rome can never prove the like infallibility in their Church, nor direct us where it is, we think ourselves as well in our Church as they can be in theirs; and that as long as we have the Scripture, the Church is to be referred to the Scripture, and not the Scripture to the Church; and that, as the Scripture is the best expounder of itself, so the best way to know whether anything be of divine authority, is to apply ourselves to the Scripture. “If I would have the Church demonstrated, it is not by human teachings, but by the divine oracles.” (St. Aug. de Unit. Eccles. cap. 3.) “The way for understanding the Scriptures, is to demon strate out of themselves, concerning themselves.” (Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 7, p. 757.) QUESTION 14. WHAT doth the Church of Rome teach concerning repentance? ANswer (1.) It teacheth that contrition, which is a sorrow for sin past, and a purpose of not committing it for the future, though perfected with charity, is not sufficient to reconcile a person to God without penance, or confession to a Priest either in act or desire. (Concil. Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4. Catech. Rom. Pars 2, de Sacrament. Paenit. n.

They are not agreed in the nature and condition of the place: For the Catechism saith, “They were sustained by hope, and were without any sense of grief.” (N. 3.) And presently, that, “although they were without other sense of grief, yet, being kept in suspense, they were tormented with the hope of that blessed glory which they did expect.” (N. 4.) REPLY. But the Scripture tells us, that the state where Abraham was, was not only a state of rest, but also of comfort. (Luke xvi. 25.) Q. 27. How and when were they delivered thence? A. They were delivered by Christ at his descent into hell; (Catech. Rom, ibid., n.5, 6;) so that ever since that place remains empty. (Bellarm. de Purg., l. 2, c. 6, sec. Octava est.) REPLY. The Scripture says not one word of this. Q. 28. What use do they make of this doctrine? A. Hereby they give a reason why there is neither precept nor example in the Old Testament for the invocation of saints departed, (Bellarm. de Sanct. Beat., l. 1, c. 19, sec. Item Exod,) because they were, for their punishment, enclosed in this place, and were there held bound by the devils, till delivered by Christ. (Catech. Rom, ibid., n. 5.) And so the people of those times only prayed to God; and did not use to say, “Holy Abraham, pray for me.” (Bellarm, ibid.) REPLY. There is neither precept nor example for the invo cation of saints in the New Testament; and if that be a reason for a limbus before Christ, it may be a reason for a limbus still; and they may as well exclude the saints from heaven now as then, if there be no more for their invocation in the New Testament than was in the Old. Thus Salmero, a learned disputant in the Council of Trent: “Invocations of saints have no express ground in all the Scriptures.” (Ad 1 Tim. 2, Disp. 7, sec. Sed cum autem et nec obstat.) QUESTION 29. Of what doth the service in the Roman Church consist? ANswer. It consists of prayers and hymns offered to God, angels, and saints; of lessons taken out of the Scriptures, and legends; and of profession of faith in the creeds. REPLY.

2, sec. Probo igitur.) (4.) It was used then for the recovery of the sick; but here it is to be applied only to those that are judged to be past it. Q. 85. Is ordination a sacrament? A. It is truly and properly a sacrament, and doth confer grace; and whoso denies this, is accursed. (Concil. Trid., Sess. 7, Can. 1, 23, cap. 3, Can. 3.) REPLY. We account ordination to be of divine institution, and that by it a ministerial commission is conveyed; but how necessary soever this office is to the Church, and grace for the exercise of it, yet as that grace is not promised to it, we cannot admit it to be properly and truly a sacrament. Q. 86. What are the several orders instituted for the service of the Church? A. The orders always received by the Catholic Church are seven,-the greater and less: The greater are the Priest, Deacon, and Sub-Deacon: The less are the Acolythus, who is to carry the candle and assist the Sub-Deacon; the Exor cist, who is to attend and pray over them that are possessed with the devil; the Reader, and the Ostiarius, or door-keeper. (Catech., par. 2, c. 7, n. 12, 15, &c.) REPLY. We know of no authority there is for any order under a Deacon, so as to anathematize them that do not receive them. (Concil. Trid, ibid., Can. 2.) We know of no authority for the forms used in the ordination of those lower orders; as, when the Bishop admits any to that of Exorcists, he reaches to them a book in which the exorcisms are contained, and saith, “Receive, and commit to memory, and take the power of laying on of hands upon the possessed, or baptized, or catechumens.” (Catech., ibid., n. 17.) We know of no authority for this kind of procedure, for those forms of conjuration contained in those books, or for the use of those rites therein prescribed, for exorcising persons, houses, cattle, milk, butter, fruits, &c., infested with the devil. (See the Pastorale Mechlin, and the Manual of Exorcisms, Antwerp, 1626.) oF THE SACRAMENT of MARRIAGE. Q. 87. Is marriage truly and properly a sacrament? A. Yes; and whosoever denies it so to be, is accursed. (Concil. Trid, Sess. 24, Can. 1.) REPLY. St. Austin saith, that signs, when applied to religious things, are called sacraments. (Epist.

I might have further considered their notes of a Church, and, showed how many of them are not true, or, however, do not belong to the Church of Rome; but that would be too large a subject to enter upon: And what has been said will be sufficient to show how far that Church hath erred from truth and reason. For if we set their Councils, Missals, Breviaries, Rituals, and Catechisms on one side, and Scripture and antiquity on the other, we shall find their doctrines and practices as well opposite to those as they are opposite to ours; and may be assured that persons may sooner lose their eyes, than find there such a primacy of St. Peter as they contend for, or their Vicarship of the Pope, the invocation of saints, the worship of images, service in an unknown tongue, transubstantiation, purgatory, and the rest that we contend against. Scripture and indubitable antiquity are the authority we appeal to ; thither we refer our cause; and can heartily conclude with that of Vincentius Lyrin, “That is to be held, which hath been believed everywhere, always, and by all.” (Contr. Haer., c. 3.) • 1. It is a melancholy consideration to those who love the Protestant interest, that so small a part of this nation is yet reformed from Popery. They cannot observe without a very sensible concern, that, in many parts of the kingdom, there are still ten, nay, fifteen, perhaps upwards of twenty, Papists to one Protestant. Nor can they see any prospect of its being otherwise; few Papists being brought over to our Church, notwithstanding all the methods which have been used, while many Protestants are seduced from it. 2. Yet they cannot but earnestly desire, that all the Papists were convinced of their errors. How much would this redound to the glory of God, who willeth all to come to the knowledge of his truth ! How greatly would it advantage their own souls both in this world and in the world to come !

11. As to the manner of their preaching, they spoke with authority, as speaking not their own word, but the word of Him that sent them, and “by manifestation of the truth, commending themselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” They were “not as many that cauponize the word of God,” debase and adulterate it with foreign mixtures, “but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, spake they in Christ.” They approved themselves the Minis ters of God, “in much patience, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; by pureness, by knowledge,” knowing all their flock by name, all their circumstances, all their wants; “by long suffering, never weary of well-doing, by kindness, by love CHURCH of ENGLAND’s ADVANTAGE. 133 unfeigned; by the word of truth, by the power of God” attending it, “by the armour of righteousness on the right hand, and on the left.” Hence they were “instant in season, out of season,” being never afraid of the faces of men, never ashamed of Christ or of his words, even before an adulterous and sinful generation. They went on unmoved through “honour and dishonour,” through “evil report and good report.” They regarded not father or mother, or wife or children, or houses or lands, or ease or pleasure; but, having this single end in view, to save their own souls, and those that heard them, they “counted not their lives dear unto themselves, so that they might” make full proof of their ministry, so that they might “finish their course with joy, and testify the gospel of the grace of God.” Let all the Right Reverend the Bishops, and the Reverend the Clergy, only walk by this rule,--let them thus live, and thus testify, with one heart and one voice, the gospel of the grace of God, and every Papist within these four seas will soon acknowledge the truth as it is in Jesus. of THE I LAY this down as an undoubted truth:--The more the doctrine of any Church agrees with the Scripture, the more readily ought it to be received. And, on the other hand, the more the doctrine of any Church differs from the Scripture, the greater cause we have to doubt of it. 2.

2. Now, it is a known principle of the Church of England, that nothing is to be received as an article of faith, which is 134 CHURCH of ENGLAND’s ADVANTAGE not read in the Holy Scripture, or to be inferred therefrom by just and plain consequence. Hence it follows, that every Christian has a right to know and read the Scripture, that he may be sure what he hears from his teachers agrees with the revealed word of God. 3. On the contrary, at the very beginning of the Reform ation, the Church of Rome began to oppose this principle, that all articles of faith must be provable from Scripture, (till then received throughout the whole Christian world,) and to add, if not prefer, to Holy Scripture, tradition, or the doctrine of Fathers and Councils, with the decrees of Popes. And soon after she determined in the Council of Trent, “that the Old and New Testament, and the traditions of the Church, ought to be received pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia, “with equal piety and reverence;’” and that “it suffices for laymen if they believe and practise what the Church believes and requires, whether they understand the ground of that doctrine and practice or not.” (Sess. 4.) 4. How plain is it that this remedy was found out because they themselves observed that many doctrines, practices, and ceremonies of their Church, not only could not be proved by Scripture, but were flatly contradictory thereto? As to the Fathers and Councils, we cannot but observe, that in an hundred instances they contradict one another: Consequently, they can no more be a rule of faith to us, than the Papal decrees, which are not grounded on Scripture. 5. But the Church of Rome does not stop here. She not only makes tradition of equal authority with the Scripture, but also takes away the Scripture from the people, and denies them the use of it.

She not only makes tradition of equal authority with the Scripture, but also takes away the Scripture from the people, and denies them the use of it. For, soon after, her writers began to teach, yea, and assert in entire volumes, “that the Scripture is obscure, and hard to be understood; that it gives an handle to error and heresies; that it is not a perfect or sufficient rule of life; that it ought to be understood no otherwise than the Church, that is, the Pope, explains it; that, consequently, the reading the Scripture is of more hurt than use to the generality of Christians.” And, in fact, they not only publicly spoke against the reading the Holy Scriptures, but in most countries absolutely forbad the laity to read them, yea, and the Clergy too, till they were ordered to preach. And if any did read it without a particular license, they condemned and punished it as a great crime. 6. Thus the case stands to this day; yea, the late contro versies in France make it undeniably plain, that the Church of Rome does now labour, more earnestly than ever, to take away the use of the Scriptures, even from those who have hitherto enjoyed them. Seeing, therefore, the Church of England contends for the word of God, and the Church of Rome against it, it is easy to discern on which side the advantage lies, with regard to the grand principle of Christianity. 7. But that it may more clearly appear how widely the Church of Rome differs from the Holy Scriptures, we have set down a few instances wherein they flatly contradict the written word of God. Thus the Church of Rome, after acknowledging that the Apostle terms concupiscence sin, yet scruples not to add immediately, “The Catholic Church never understood that this is truly and properly sin; and if any think the contrary, let him be accursed.” (Conc. Trid, Sess. 5.) Thus, although Christ himself says to all his disciples, “Without me ye can do nothing,” yet the Church of Rome condemns this very proposition as false and heretical:--“The grace of Jesus Christ, the effectual principle of all good, is necessary to every good work. Not only nothing good is done without it, but nothing can be done.” (In the Bull Unigenitus.) 8.

1. THE Papists judge it necessary to salvation, to be subject to the Pope, as the one visible head of the Church. But we read in Scripture, that Christ is the Head of the Church, “from whom the whole body is fitly joined together.” (Col. ii. 19.) The Scripture does not mention any visible head of the Church; much less does it mention the Pope as such; and least of all does it say, that it is necessary to salvation to be subject to him. 2. The Papists say, The Pope is Christ's Vicar, St. Peter's successor, and has the supreme power on earth over the whole Church. We answer, Christ gave no such power to St. Peter him self. He gave no Apostle pre-eminence over the rest. Yea, Pop ERY CALMLY CONSIDERED. 141 St. Paul was so far from acknowledging St. Peter's supremacy, that he withstood him to the face, (Gal. ii. 11) and asserted himself “not to be behind the chief of the Apostles.” Neither is it certain, that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome; no, nor that he ever was there. But they say, “Is not Rome the mother, and therefore the mistress, of all Churches?” We answer, No. “The word of the Lord went forth from Jerusalem.” There the Church began. She, therefore, not the Church of Rome, is the mother of all Churches. The Church of Rome, therefore, has no right to require any person to believe what she teaches on her sole authority. 3. St. Paul says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” The Scripture, therefore, being delivered by men divinely inspired, is a rule sufficient of itself: So it neither needs, nor is capable of, any farther addition. Yet the Papists add tradition to Scripture, and require it to be received with equal veneration. By traditions, they mean, “such points of faith and practice as have been delivered down in the Church from hand to hand without writing.” And for many of these, they have no more Scripture to show, than the Pharisees had for their traditions. 4.

4. The Church of Rome not only adds tradition to Scrip ture, but several entire books; namely, Tobit and Judith, the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the two books of Maccabees, and a new part of Esther and of Daniel; “which whole books,” says the Church of Rome, “whoever rejects, let him be accursed.” We answer, We cannot but reject them. We dare not receive them as part of the Holy Scriptures. For none of these books were received as such by the Jewish Church, “to whom were committed the oracles of God:” (Rom. iii. 2:) Neither by the ancient Christian Church, as appears from the 60th Canon of the Council of Laodicea; wherein is a catalogue of the books of Scriptures, without any mention of these. 5. As the Church of Rome, on the one hand, adds to the Scripture, so, on the other hand, she forbids the people to read them. Yea, they are forbid to read so much as a summary or historical compendium of them in their own tongue. Nothing can be more inexcusable than this. Even under the law, the people had the Scriptures in a tongue vulgarly known; and they were not only permitted, but required, to read them; yea, to be constantly conversant therein. (Deut. vi. 6, &c.) Agreeable to this, our Lord commands to search the Scriptures; and St. Paul directs, that his Epistle be read in all the Churches. (1 Thess. v. 27.) Certainly this Epistle was wrote in a tongue which all of them understood. But they say, “If people in general were to read the Bible, it would do them more harm than good.” Is it any honour to the Bible to speak thus? But supposing some did abuse it, is this any sufficient reason for forbidding others to use it? Surely no. Even in the days of the Apostles, there were some “unstable and ignorant men,” who wrested both St. Paul's Epistles, and the other Scriptures, “to their own destruction.” But did any of the Apostles, on this account, forbid other Christians to read them?

Paul's Epistles, and the other Scriptures, “to their own destruction.” But did any of the Apostles, on this account, forbid other Christians to read them? You know they did not: They only cautioned them not to be “led away by the error of the wicked.” And certainly the way to prevent this is, not to keep the Scriptures from them; (for “they were written for our learning;”) but to exhort all to the diligent perusal of them, lest they should “err, not knowing the Scriptures.” 6. “But seeing the Scripture may be misunderstood, how are we to judge of the sense of it? How can we know the sense of any scripture, but from the sense of the Church 7 ° We answer, (1.) The Church of Rome is no more the Church in general, than the Church of England is. It is only one particular branch of the catholic or universal Church of Christ, which is the whole body of believers in Christ, scattered over the whole earth. (2.) We therefore see no reason to refer any matter in dispute to the Church of Rome, more than any other Church; especially as we know, neither the Bishop nor the Church of Rome is any more infallible than ourselves. (3.) In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church. And Scripture is the best expounder of Scripture. The best way, therefore, to understand it, is carefully to compare Scripture with Scripture, and thereby learn the true meaning of it. 1. THE Church of Rome teaches, that “the deepest repentance or contrition avails nothing without confession to a Priest; but that, with this, attrition, or the fear of hell, is sufficient to reconcile us to God.” This is very dangerously wrong, and flatly contrary to Scrip ture; for the Scripture says, “A broken and contrite heart, thou, O God, wilt not despise.” (Psalm li. 17.) And the same texts which make contrition sufficient without confession, show that attrition even with it is insufficient. Now, as the former doctrine, of the insufficiency of contrition without confession, makes that necessary which God has not made necessary; so the latter, of the sufficiency of attrition with confession, makes that unnecessary which God has made necessary. 2.

14, 15.) But what has this to do with the extreme unction of the Church of Rome? In the first Church, this anointing was a mere rite: In the Church of Rome, it is made a sacrament I It was used in the first Church for the body; it is used in the Church of Rome for the soul: It was used then for the recovery of the sick; now, for those only that are thought past recovery. It is easy, therefore, to see, that the Romish extreme unction has no foundation in Scripture. 9. We are now to consider what the Church of Rome delivers concerning ordination. “This,” says she, “is properly a sacrament. He that denies it, let him be accursed.” “The orders received in the Church of Rome are seven : The Priest, the Deacon, the Subdeacon, the Acolythus, to carry the candle; the Exorcist, to cast out devils; the Reader, and Door-keeper.” On this, we observe, It is not worth disputing, whether ordination should be called a sacrament or not. Let the word then pass: But we object to the thing; there is no divine authority for any order under a Deacon. Much less is there any Scriptural authority for the forms of conjuration prescribed to the Exorcists; or for the rites prescribed in exorcising not only men, women, and children, but likewise houses, cattle, milk, butter, or fruits, said to be infested with the devil. 10. The next of their sacraments, so called, is marriage; concerning which they pronounce, “Marriage is truly and properly a sacrament. He that denies it so to be, let him be accursed.” We answer, In one sense it may be so. For St. Austin says, “Signs, when applied to religious things, are called sacraments.” In this large sense, he calls the sign of the cross a sacrament; and others give this name to washing the feet. But it is not a sacrament according to the Romish definition of the word; for it no more “confers grace,” than washing the feet or signing with the cross. A more dangerous error in the Church of Rome is, the for bidding the Clergy to marry.

The doctrine of the Church of Rome has a natural tendency to destroy truth from off the earth. What can more directly tend to this, what can more incite her own members to all manner of lying and falsehood, than that precious doctrine of the Church of Rome, that no faith is to be kept with heretics? Can I believe one word that a man says, who espouses this principle? I know it has been frequently affirmed, that the Church of Rome has renounced this doctrine. But I ask, When or where? By what public and authentic act, notified to all the world? This principle has been publicly and openly avowed by a whole Council, the ever-renowned Council of Constance: An assembly never to be paralleled, either among Turks or Pagans, for regard to justice, mercy, and truth ! But when and where was it as publicly disavowed? Till this is done in the face of the sun, this doctrine must stand before all mankind as an avowed principle of the Church of Rome. And will this operate only toward heretics? toward the supposed enemies of the Church? Nay, where men have once learned not to keep faith with heretics, they will not long keep it towards Catholics. When they have once over leaped the bounds of truth, and habituated themselves to lying and dissimulation, toward one kind of men, will they not easily learn to behave in the same manner toward all men? So that, instead of “putting away all lying,” they will put away all truth; and instead of having “no guile found in their mouth,” there will be found nothing else therein Thus naturally do the principles of the Romanists tend to banish truth from among themselves. And have they not an equal tendency to cause lying and dissimulation among those that are not of their communion, by that Romish principle, that force is to be used in matters of religion? that if men are not of our sentiments, of our Church, we should thus “compel them to come in ?” Must not this, in the very nature of things, induce all those over whom they have any power, to dissemble if not deny those opinions, who vary ever so little from what that Church has determined ?

To To WHICH IS ADDED, To THE EDITORs of “THE FREEMAN's Journ AL,” DUBLIN. SoME time ago a pamphlet was sent me, entitled, “An Appeal from the Protestant Association, to the People of Great Britain.” A day or two since, a kind of answer to this was put into my hand, which pronounces its style con temptible, its reasoning futile, and its object malicious. On the contrary, I think the style of it is clear, easy, and natural; the reasoning, in general, strong and conclusive; the object or design, kind and benevolent. And in pursuance of the same kind and benevolent design, namely, to preserve our happy constitution, I shall endeavour to confirm the substance of that tract, by a few plain arguments. With persecution I have nothing to do. I persecute nq man for his religious principles. Let there be as “boundless a freedom in religion” as any man can conceive. But this does not touch the point: I will set religion, true or false, utterly out of the question. Suppose the Bible, if you please, to be a fable, and the Koran to be the word of God. I consider not, whether the Romish religion be true or false; I build nothing on one or the other supposition. Therefore, away with all your common-place declamation about intoler 160 LETTER. To THE PRINTER ance and persecution for religion 1 Suppose every word of Pope Pius's creed to be true; suppose the Council of Trent to have been infallible; yet, I insist upon it, that no govern ment not Roman Catholic ought to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic persuasion. I prove this by a plain argument: (Let him answer it that can :)--That no Roman Catholic does, or can, give security for his allegiance or peaceable behaviour, I prove thus: It is a Roman Catholic maxim, established, not by private men, but by a public Council, that “no faith is to be kept with heretics.” This has been openly avowed by the Council of Constance; but it never was openly disclaimed. Whether private persons avow or disavow it, it is a fixed maxim of the Church of Rome. But as long as it is so, nothing can be more plain, than that the members of that Church can give no reasonable security to any Government of their allegiance or peaceable behaviour.

It is hard to say. But if he proves nothing, he either directly or indirectly asserts many things. In particu lar, he asserts, (1) “Mr. Wesley has arraigned in the jargon of the Schools.” Heigh-day ! What has this to do here? There is no more of the jargon of the Schools in my Letter, than there is of Arabic. “The Catholics all over the world are liars, perjurers,” &c. Nay, I have not arraigned one of them. This is a capital mistake. I arraign the doctrines, not the men. Either defend them, or renounce them. “I do renounce them,” says Mr. O'Leary. Perhaps you do. But the Church of Rome has never renounced them. “He asperses our communion in a cruel manner.” I do not asperse it at all in saying, these are the doctrines of the Church of Rome. Who can prove the contrary? (2) “Mr. O'Leary did not even attempt to seduce the English soldiery.” I believe it; but does this prove any of these three points? “But Queen Elizabeth and King James roasted heretics in Smithfield !” In what year? I doubt the fact. * (3) “Mr. Wesley is become an apologist of those who burned the chapel in Edinburgh.” Is not this said purely ad movendam invidiam? “to inflame the minds of the people?” For it has no shadow of truth. I never yet wrote nor spoke one word in their defence. “He urged the rabble to light that fire.” No more than he urged them to dethrone the King. (4) “Does Mr. Wesley intend to sound Alecto’s horn, or the war-shell of the Mexicans?” All this is cruel aspersion indeed; designed merely to inflame! What I intend is neither more nor less than this,--to contribute my mite to preserve our constitution both in Church and State. (5.) “They were the Scotch and English regicides who gave rise to the Irish massacre.” The Irish massacre Was there ever any such thing? Was not the whole account a mere Protestant lie? O no ! it was a melancholy truth, THE FREEMAN's Journal. 165 wrote in the blood of many thousands. But the regicides no more gave rise to that massacre than the Hottentots. The whole matter was planned several years, and executed before the King's death was thought of “But Mr.

The whole matter was planned several years, and executed before the King's death was thought of “But Mr. Wesley is sowing the seeds of another massacre !” Such another as the massacre of Paris? 6. “Was he the trumpeter of persecution when he was per secuted himself?” Just as much as now. Cruel aspersions still ! designed and calculated only to inflame. “Did he then abet persecution on the score of conscience?” No, nor now. Conscience is out of the question. “His Letter contains all the horrors invented by blind misguided zeal, set forth in the most bitter language.” Is this gentleman in his senses? I hope not. Else I know not what excuse to make for him. Not one bitter word is in my Letter. I have learned to put away “all bitterness, with all malice.” But still this is wide of the mark; which of those three points does it prove? 7. “In his Second Letter, he promises to put out the fire which he has already kindled in England.” Second Letter / What is that? I know nothing of it. The fire which he has kindled in England. When? Where? I have kindled no fire in England, any more than in Jamaica. I have done, and will do, all that is in my power to put out that which others have kindled. 8. “He strikes out a creed of his own for Roman Catholics. This fictitious creed he forces upon them.” My words are these: “Suppose every word of Pope Pius's Creed to be true.” I say not a word more of the matter. Now, I appeal to every reasonable man, Is this striking out a creed of my own for Roman Catholics? Is this forcing a fictitious creed on them, “like the Frenchman and the blunderer in the comedy?” What have I to do with one or the other? Is not this dull jest quite out of season? And is the creed, composed by the Council of Trent, and the Bull of Pope Pius IV., a fictitious one? Before Mr. O’Leary asserts this again, let him look into the Concilia Maxima once more, and read there, Bulla Pii Quarti super formá Juramenti professionis fidei.* This forma professionis fidei I call Pope Pius’s Creed. If his “stomach revolts from it,” who can help it? 9.

We shall examine it with all possible precision and impartiality. At a time when the broachers of a new doctrine” (as new as the Bible) “were kindling the fire of sedition, and shaking the foundations of thrones and kingdoms,”--big words, but entirely void of truth!--“was held the Council of Constance. To this was cited John Huss, famous for propagating errors, tending to wrest the sceptre from the hands of Kings.”--Equally true ! “He was obnoxious to Church and State.” To the Church of Rome; not to the State in any degree. “Protestant and Catholic legislators enacted laws for burning heretics.” How wisely are these jumbled together; and the Protestants placed first ! But pray, what Protestant legislator made such laws, either before or after the Catholic ones? I know, one man, Servetus, was burned at Geneva; but I know not that there was any law for it. And I know, one woman, Joan Bocher, was burned in Smithfield, much against the mind of King Edward. But what is this to the numbers who were inhumanly butchered by Queen Mary; to say nothing of her savage husband? “But the same laws were executed by Queen Elizabeth and King James.” How? Did either of these burn heretics? Queen Elizabeth put two Anabaptists to death; but what was this to the achievements of her sister? He adds a well-devised apology for the Romish persecutions of the Protestants as necessarily resulting from the nature of things, and not from any wrong principles. And this he illustrates by the treatment formerly given to the Methodists, “whose love-feasts and watch-nights roused the vigilance of the Magistrate, and influenced the rage of the rabble.” Indeed, they did not. Not only no Magistrate ever objected either to one or the other, but no mob, even in the most turbulent times, ever interrupted them. But to the Council: “Huss strikes at the root of all tem poral power and civil authority. He boldly asserts, that all Princes, Magistrates, &c., in the state of mortal sin, are deprived, ipso facto, of all power and jurisdiction. And by broaching these doctrines, he makes Bohemia a theatre of intestine war. See the Acts of the Council of Constance in L’Abbe’s Collection of Councils.” I have seen them, and I can find nothing of all this therein. But more of this by and by.

The uncommon expression, “This holy birth brought forth,” is taken from Jacob Behmen. And indeed so are many other expressions used by the Quakers, as are also many of their sentiments. “10. By this light of God in the heart, every true Minister is ordained, prepared, and supplied in the work of the ministry.” As to part of this proposition, there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. Doubtless, “every true Minis ter is by the light of God prepared and supplied in the work of the ministry.” But the Apostles themselves ordained them by “laying on of hands.” So we read throughout the Acts of the Apostles. “They who have received this gift, ought not to use it as a trade, to get money thereby. Yet it may be lawful for such to receive what may be needful to them for food and clothing.” In this there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. “We judge it noways unlawful for a woman to preach in the assemblies of God’s people.” In this there is a manifest difference: For the Apostle Paul saith expressly, ‘Let your women keep silence in the Churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the Church.” (1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35.) Robert Barclay, indeed, says, “Paul here only reproves the inconsiderate and talkative women.” But the text says no such thing. It evidently speaks of women in general. Again: The Apostle Paul saith to Timothy, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. For I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man,” (which public teaching necessarily implies,) “but to be in silence.” (1 Tim. ii. 11, 12.) To this Robert Barclay makes only that harmless reply: “We think this is not anyways repugnant to this doctrine.” Not repugnant to this, “I do suffer a woman to teach !” Then I know not what is. “But a woman “laboured with Paul in the work of the gospel.’” Yea, but not in the way he had himself expressly forbidden. “But Joel foretold, ‘Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.’ And ‘Philip had four daughters which prophe sied.’ And the Apostle himself directs women to prophesy; only with their heads covered.” Very good.

We know not, indeed, the exact time of its insti tution; but we know it was long before our Lord’s ascension. And it was instituted in the room of circumcision. For, as that was a sign and seal of God’s covenant, so is this. 2. The matter of this sacrament is water; which, as it has a natural power of cleansing, is the more fit for this symbolical use. Baptism is performed by washing, dipping, or sprinkling the person, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who is hereby devoted to the ever-blessed Trinity. I say, by washing, dipping, or sprinkling; because it is not determined in Scripture in which of these ways it shall be done, neither by any express precept, nor by any such example as clearly proves it; nor by the force or meaning of the word baptize. 3. That there is no express precept, all calm men allow. Neither is there any conclusive example. John’s baptism in some things agreed with Christ's, in others differed from it. But it cannot be certainly proved from Scripture, that even John’s was performed by dipping. It is true he baptized in Enon, near Salim, where there was “much water.” But this might refer to breadth rather than depth; since a narrow place would not have been sufficient for so great a multitude. Nor can it be proved, that the baptism of our Saviour, or that administered by his disciples, was by immersion. No, nor that of the eunuch baptized by Philip ; though “they both went down to the water:” For that going down may relate to the chariot, and implies no determinate depth of water. It might be up to their knees; it might not be above their ankles. 4. And as nothing can be determined from Scripture pre cept or example, so neither from the force or meaning of the word. For the words baptize and baptism do not necessarily imply dipping, but are used in other senses in several places. Thus we read, that the Jews “were all baptized in the cloud and in the sea;” (1 Cor. x. 2;) but they were not plunged in either.

2;) but they were not plunged in either. They could therefore be only sprinkled by drops of the sea-water, and refreshing dews from the cloud; probably intimated in that, “Thou sentest a gracious rain upon thine inheritance, and refreshedst it when it was weary.” (Psalm lxviii. 9.) Again: Christ said to his two disciples, “Ye shall be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ;” (Mark x. 38;) but neither he nor they were dipped, but only sprinkled or washed with their own blood. Again we read (Mark vii. 4) of the baptisms (so it is in the original) of pots and cups, and tables or beds. Now, pots and cups are not necessarily dipped when they are washed. Nay, the Pharisees washed the outsides of them only. And as for tables or beds, none will suppose they could be dipped. Here, then, the word baptism, in its natural sense, is not taken for dipping, but for washing or cleansing. And, that this is the true meaning of the word baptize, is testified by the greatest scholars and most proper judges in this matter. It is true, we read of being “buried with Christ in baptism.” But nothing can be inferred from such a figurative expression. Nay, if it held exactly, it would make as much for sprinkling as for plunging; since, in burying, the body is not plunged through the substance of the earth, but rather earth is poured or sprinkled upon it. 5. And as there is no clear proof of dipping in Scripture, so there is very probable proof of the contrary. It is highly probable, the Apostles themselves baptized great numbers, not by dipping, but by washing, sprinkling, or pouring water. This clearly represented the cleansing from sin, which is figured by baptism. And the quantity of water used was not material; no more than the quantity of bread and wine in the Lord's supper. The jailer “ and all his house were baptized” in the prison; Cornelius with his friends, (and so several households,) at home. Now, is it likely, that all these had ponds or rivers, in or near their houses, sufficient to plunge them all? Every unprejudiced person must allow, the contrary is far more probable. Again : Three thousand at one time, and five thousand at another, were converted and baptized by St.

19,) as it is to honour our father and mother: But does this put an end to all dispute? Do not these very persons absolutely refuse to do it, notwith standing a plain text, an express command? I answer, (2.) They themselves practise what there is neither express command nor clear example for in Scripture. They have no express command for baptizing women. They say, indeed, “Women are implied in “all nations.” They are; and so are infants too: But the command is not express for either. And for admitting women to the Lord's supper, they have neither express command nor clear example. Yet they do it continually, without either one or the other. And they are justified therein by the plain reason of the thing. This also justifies us in baptizing infants, though without express command or clear example. If it be said, “But there is a command, ‘Let a man,” avópwros, ‘examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread;’ (1 Cor. xi. 28;) the word ‘man,’ in the original, signifying indifferently either men or women: ”I grant it does in other places; but here the word “himself,” immediately following, confines it to men only. “But women are implied in it, though not expressed.” Certainly; and so are infants in “all nations.” “But we have Scripture example for it: For it is said in the Acts, “The Apostles continued in prayer and supplication with the women.”’’ True, in prayer and supplication; but it is not said, “in communicating: ” Nor have we one clear example of it in the Bible. Since, then, they admit women to the communion, without any express command or example, but only by consequence from Scripture, they can never show reason why infants should not be admitted to baptism, when there are so many scriptures which by fair consequence show they have a right to it, and are capable of it. As for the texts wherein God reproves his people for doing “what he commanded them not;” that phrase evidently means, what he had forbidden; particularly in that passage of Jeremiah. The whole verse is, “They have built the high places of Tophet, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I commanded them not.” Now, God had DIFFERENCE BETweeN THE MoRAVIANs, &c. 201 expressly forbidden them to do this; and that on pain of death.

“But is not the faithfulness of God engaged to keep all that now believe from falling away?” I cannot say that. Whatever assurance God may give to particular souls, I find no general promise in holy writ, “that none who once believes shall finally fall.” Yet, to say the truth, this is so pleasing an opinion, so agreeable to flesh and blood, so suitable to whatever of nature remains in those who have tasted the grace of God, that I see nothing but the mighty power of God which can restrain any who hears it from closing with it. But still it wants one thing to recommend it,-plain, cogent scripture proof. Arguments from experience alone will never determine this point. They can only prove thus much, on the one hand, that our Lord is exceeding patient; that he is peculiarly unwilling any believer should perish; that he bears long, very long, with all their follies, waiting to be gracious, and to heal their back sliding; and that he does actually bring back many lost sheep, who, to man’s apprehensions, were irrecoverable: But all this does not amount to a convincing proof, that no believer can or does fall from grace. So that this argument, from experience, will weigh little with those who believe the possibility of falling. And it will weigh full as little with those who do not; for if you produce ever so many examples of those who were once strong in faith, and are now more abandoned than ever, they will evade it by saying, “O, but they will be brought back; they will not die in their sins.” And if they do die in their sins, we come no nearer; we have not gained one point still: For it is easy to say, “They were only hypocrites; they never had true faith.” Therefore Scripture alone can determine this question; and Scripture does so fully determine it, that there needs only to set down a very few texts, with some short reflections upon them. 68.

(4.) Here is not the least intimation of their being ever grafted in again. To this you object, (1) “This olive-tree is not the invisible Church, but only the outward gospel Church state.” You affirm this; and I prove the contrary; namely, that it is the invisible Church; for it “consists of holy believers,” which none but the invisible Church does. You object, (2) “The Jews who were broken off were never true believers in Christ.” I am not speaking of the Jews, but of those Gentiles who are mentioned in the twenty-second verse; whom St. Paul exhorts to “continue in his goodness;” otherwise, saith he, “thou shalt be cut off.” Now, I presume these were true believers in Christ. Yet they were still liable to be cut off. You assert, (3) “This is only a cutting off from the outward Church state.” But how is this proved? So forced and unnatural a construction requires some argument to support it. You say, (4) “There is a strong intimation that they shall be grafted in again.” No; not that those Gentiles who did not continue in his goodness should be grafted in after they were once cut off. I cannot find the least intimation of this. “But all Israel shall be saved.” I believe they will; but this does not imply the re-ingrafting of these Gentiles. It remains, then, that those who are grafted into the spiritual, invisible Church, may nevertheless finally fall. 72. Fourthly. Those who are branches of Christ, the true vine, may yet finally fall from grace. For thus saith, our blessed Lord himself: “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh away. I am the vine, ye are the branches. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” (John xv. 1, &c.) Here we may observe, (1.) The persons spoken of were in Christ, branches of the true vine. (2.) Some of these branches abide not in Christ, but “the Father taketh them away.” (3) The branches which “abide not” are “cast forth,” cast out from Christ and his Church. (4) They are not only “cast forth,” but “withered;” consequently, never grafted in again.

(4) They are not only “cast forth,” but “withered;” consequently, never grafted in again. (5.) They are not only “cast forth and withered,” but also “cast into the fire.” And, (6) “They are burned.” It is not possible for words more strongly to declare that those who are branches of the true vine may finally fall. “But this,” you say, “furnishes an argument for, not against, the persevering of the saints.” Yes, just such an argument for final perseverance, as the above cited words of St. Paul to Timothy. But how do you make it out? “Why thus: There are two sorts of branches in Christ the vine; the one fruitful, the other unfruitful. The one are eternally chosen; and these abide in him, and can never withdraw away.” Nay, this is the very point to be proved. So that you now immediately and directly beg the question. “The other sort of branches are such as are in Christ only by profession; who get into Churches, and so are reckoned in Christ; and these in time wither away. These never had any life, grace, or fruitfulness from him.” Surely you do not offer this by way of argument! You are again taking for granted the very point to be proved. But you will prove that “those are branches in Christ, who never had any life or grace from him, because the Churches of Judea and Thessalonica are said to be in Christ, though every individual member was not savingly in him.” I deny the consequence; which can never be made good, unless you can prove that those very Jews or Thessalonians who never had any life or grace from him are nevertheless said by our Lord to be “branches in him.” It remains, that true believers, who are branches of the true vine, may nevertheless finally fall. 73. Fifthly. Those who so effectually know Christ, as by that knowledge to have escaped the pollutions of the world, may yet fall back into those pollutions, and perish everlastingly. For thus saith the Apostle Peter, “If, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,” (the only possible way of escaping them,) “they are entangled again therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.” (2 Peter ii.

And I doubt not, but many believers at this day have the very same persuasion. termed in Scripture, “The full assurance of hope.” But this does not prove that every believer shall persevere, any more than that every believer is thus fully persuaded of his perseverance. IV. 17. Fourthly. Those who are branches of the true vine, of whom Christ says, “I am the vine, ye are the branches,” may nevertheless so fall from God as to perish everlastingly. For thus saith our blessed Lord himself, “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh it away. I am the vine, ye are the branches. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” (John xv. 1-6.) Here we may observe, (1.) The persons spoken of were in Christ, branches of the true vine : (2.) Some of these branches abide not in Christ, but the Father taketh them away: (3.) The branches which abide not are cast forth, cast out from Christ and his Church: (4.) They are not only cast forth, but withered; consequently, never grafted in again: Nay, (5.) They are not only cast forth and withered, but also cast into the fire: And, (6.) They are burned. It is not possible for words more strongly to declare, that even those who are now branches in the true vine may yet so fall as to perish everlastingly. 18. By this clear, indisputable declaration of our Lord, we may interpret those which might be otherwise liable to dispute; wherein it is certain, whatever he meant beside, he did not mean to contradict himself. For example: “This is the Father’s will, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing.” Most sure; all that God hath given him; or, as it is expressed in the next verse, “every one which believeth on him,” namely, to the end, he “will raise up at the last day,” to reign with him for ever. Again: “I am the living bread:--If any man eat of this bread,” (by faith,) “he shall live for ever.” (John vi. 51.) True; if he continue to eat thereof.

“To believe this fact, Christ rose from the dead, is faith.” (Page 169.) “Ask a man, Is the gospel true or not? If he holds it to be true, this is faith.” (Page 296.) But is this saving faith? “Yes. Every one that believes the gospel history shall be saved.” (Page 333.) This is flat and plain. And, if it is but true, every devil in hell will be saved. For it is absolutely certain, every one of these believes this fact, --Christ rose from the dead. It is certain, every one of these believes the Gospel history. Therefore this is not saving faith: Neither will every one be saved who believes this fact, --Christ rose from the dead. It follows, that, whatever others do, you know not what faith is. I object, Thirdly, 1. That you yourself “shut up our access to the divine righteousness.” 2. That you vehemently contradict yourself, and do the very thing which you charge upon others. 1. You yourself shut up our access to the divine righteous ness by destroying that repentance which Christ has made the way to it. “Ask men,” you say, “have they sinned or not ? If they know they have, this is conviction. And this is preparation enough for mercy.” Soft casuistry indeed ! He that receives this saying, is never likely either to “repent” or “believe the gospel.” And if he do not, he can have no access to the righteousness of Christ. Yet you strangely affirm, “A careless sinner is in full as hopeful a way as one that is the most deeply convicted.” (Page 292.) How can this be, if that conviction be from God? Where He has begun the work, will He not finish it? Have we not reason to hope this? But in a careless sinner that work is not begun; perhaps, never will be. ThE AUTHOR OF THERON AND ASPASIO. 303 Again: Whereas our Lord gives a general command, “Seek, and ye shall find;” you say, “Saving faith was never yet sought, or in the remotest manner wished for, by an unbe liever:” (Page 372 :) A proposition as contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture, as to the experience of every true believer. Every one who now believes, knows how he sought and wished for that faith, before he experienced it.

Every one who now believes, knows how he sought and wished for that faith, before he experienced it. It is not true even with regard to your faith, a belief of the Bible. For I know Deists at this day, who have often wished they could believe the Bible, and owned, “it was happy for them that could.” 2. You vehemently contradict yourself, and do the very thing which you charge upon others. “If we imagine we possess or desire to attain any requisite to our acceptance with God, beside or in connexion with the bare work of Christ, Christ shall profit us nothing.” (Page 96.) Again: “What is required of us in order to our acceptance with God? Nothing. The least attempt to do anything is damnably criminal.” Very good. Now for self-consistency: “What Christ has done is that which quiets the conscience of man as soon as he knows it. So that he need ask no more than, ‘Is it true or not?” If he finds it true, he is happy. If he does not, he can reap no comfort from it. Our comfort arises from the persuasion of this.” (Page 12.) Again: “Men are justified by a knowledge of the righte ousness of Christ.” (Page 406.) And yet again: “The sole requisite to acceptance is, divine righteousness brought to view.” (Page 291.) So you have brought matters to a fine conclusion; confut ing an hundred of your own assertions, and doing the very thing for which you have been all along so unmercifully con demning others. You yourself here teach another “requisite to our acceptance, beside the bare work of Christ,” viz., the knowing that work, the finding it true. Therefore, by your own word, “Christ shall profit you nothing.” In one page you say, “Nothing is required in order to our acceptance with God;” in another, “Divine righteousness brought to view is requisite to our acceptance.” Brought to view / What self-righteousness is this? Which of “the popular Preachers” could have done worse? “Men are justified by a knowledge of the righteousness of Christ.” Knowledge / What ! our own knowledge ! Knowledge in us! Why, this 304 ANSWER TO LETTERS To is the very thing which we call faith.

“According to the counsel of his will;” that is, in the way or method he had chosen. Therefore, neither any of these texts, nor all of them, prove what they were brought to prove. They do by no means prove, that there ever was any such covenant made between the Father and the Son. “The conditions of the covenant are recorded: ‘Lo, I come to do thy will.’” (Page 301.) Nay, here is no mention of any covenant, nor anything from which it can be inferred. “The recompense stipulated in this glorious treaty.” But I see not one word of the treaty itself. Nor can I possibly allow the existence of it, without far other proof than this. “Another copy of this grand treaty is recorded, Isaiah xlix, from the first to the sixth verse.” (Ibid.) I have read them, but cannot find a word about it in all those verses. They contain neither more nor less than a prediction of the salvation of the Gentiles. “By the covenant of works man was bound to obey in his own person.” (Page 302.) And so he is under the covenant of grace; though not in order to his justification. “The obedience of our surety is accepted instead of our own.” This is neither a safe nor a scriptural way of speaking. I would simply say, “We are accepted through the Beloved. We have redemption through his blood.” “The second covenant was not made with Adam, or any of his posterity, but with Christ, in those words: ‘The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head.’” (Page 303.) For any authority you have from these words, you might as well have said, it was made with the Holy Ghost. These words were not spoken to Christ, but of him; and give not the least intimation of any such covenant as you plead for. They manifestly contain, if not a covenant made with, a promise made to, Adam and all his posterity. “Christ, we see, undertook to execute the conditions.” (Ibid.) We see no such thing in this text. We see here only a promise of a Saviour made by God to man. “It is true, I cannot fulfil the conditions.” (Ibid.) It is not true. The conditions of the new covenant are, “Repent and believe.” And these you can fulfil, through Christ strengthening you.

7. I am accused, Secondly, of being self-sufficient, positive, magisterial. “Mr. Wesley, cased in his own self-sufficiency, esteems all these evidences as mere nothings. Reason, grammar, precedents are eclipsed by his bare negative.” (Page 246.) I know not which way this can be inferred from anything I have spoken to Mr. Hervey. “Mr. Wesley replies, with the solemnity of a censor, and the authority of a dictator, ‘No.’” (Page 90.) I am not conscious, that, in making that reply, I assumed any authority at all. “Here I see nothing but the usual argument, the master's ipse divit.” (Page 139.) Love might have seen the friend, not the master, taking the liberty which he had been entreated to take. “Strange | That a man of ordinary discernment should offer to obtrude upon the public such a multitude of naked, unsupported, magisterial assertions! should ever be able to persuade himself, that a positive air would pass for demon stration 1" (Page 240.) I thought nothing of the public when I wrote this Letter, but spoke freely and artlessly to a friend; and I spoke as a friend, (so far as I can judge,) not a censor or dictator. 8. I am accused, Thirdly, of reasoning loosely and wildly. “Is not this the loose way of arguing you blame in Mr. Wesley?” (Page 233.) “What wild reasoning is here ! Such premises and such an inference” (but they are none of mine) “will probably incline the reader to think of a sunbeam and a clod, connected with bands of smoke.” (Page 103.) When I write for the public, especially in controversy, J seek for connected arguments. Sed nunc non eral his locus.* The compass of a letter would hardly admit of them. 9. I am accused, in the Fourth place, of self-contradiction. “See how you are entangled in your own net; how, without being chased by an enemy, you run yourself aground. You avouch palpable inconsistencies.” (Page 195.) “Will Mr. Wesley never have done with self-contradiction? Why will he give me such repeated cause to complain, Quo teneam vultum mutantem Protea nodo?”t (Page 142.) “See, my friend, how thy own mouth condemneth thee, and not I; yea, thy own lips testify against thee!

(2.) That we are justified and sanctified by faith alone, faith in him who lived and died for us. Let my words be twisted and wire-drawn ever so long, they will not fairly bear any other meaning, nor, without apparent violence, contradict either of these propositions. It is true, (3.) That I have, during this whole time, occasionally used those expressions, imputed righteousness, the righteousness of Christ, and others of the same kind,--although the verses cited in several of Mr. Hervey’s Letters are not mine, but my brother's. But it is equally true, (4.) That I never used them at all, in any other meaning than that sound, scriptural one, wherein they are used by many eminent men, Calvin in particular. I choose not to speak farther on this head, lest I should be under a disagreeable necessity of saying anything that might even seem disrespectful to my ever-loved and honoured friend. 10. I am accused, Fifthly, of not understanding criticism and divinity. “What a piddling criticism is this !” (Page 220.) “I can no more admire your taste as a critic, than your doctrine as a Divine.” (Page 145.) “In this interpretation I can neither discern the true critic, nor the sound Divine.” (Page 214) I am not a judge in my own cause. What I am ignorant of, I desire to learn. I do not know whether the following charge may not fall under this head:-- “In another person, this would look like profane levity: In Mr. Wesley, the softest appellation we can give it is idle pomp.” (Page 7.) What | The using the expression, “for Christ's sake?” The whole paragraph runs thus: “‘We are not solicitous as to any particular set of phrases.’ (Page 212.) Then for Christ’s sake, and for the sake of the souls which he has purchased with his blood, do not dispute for that particular phrase, the imputed righteousness of Christ. It is not scriptural; it is not necessary. Men who scruple to use, men who never heard, the expression, may yet ‘be humbled as repenting criminals at his feet, and rely as devoted pensioners on his merits.” But it has done immense hurt.

‘However I may express myself, I would always have the obedience and the death of Christ understood as a glorious aggregate, looking upon all this as the foundation of my hope.’” I ask again, How does the former sentence agrce with this?' And if a 344 PREFA CE. To man think it agrees perfectly well, yet he has no ground to charge me with disingenuity for thinking otherwise. (3.) A Third proof is brought, page 37: “Theron calls the terms inherent and imputed, nice distinctions, and meta physical subtilties. Mr. Wesley makes Aspasio apply this to the active and passive righteousness of Christ, whereas he is treating of a subject totally different.” Upon recurring to the “Dialogues,” I find this is true. Here therefore is a breach of literary justice. But it was not a designed one; as may appear from hence, that this was originally sent to Mr. Hervey himself, and him only. Now, had I been ever so dishonest, I should not have been so foolish, had I been conscious of any dishonest dealing, as to appeal to him, who of all others could not fail immediately to detect it. (4.) A Fourth runs thus: “‘Barely to demonstrate his sovereignty, is a principle of action fit for the great Turk, not the most high God.” Such a fraudulent quotation I have not seen, no, not in the Critical Reviewers. To mark the first sentence with commas, and thereby assign it to me, is really a masterpiece, especially when you have thrust in the word barely, and lopped off the word grace.” (Page 284.) In my Letter the whole paragraph is: “‘The grand end which God proposes in all his favourable dispensations to fallen man is, to demonstrate the sovereignty of his grace.’” (Is the word barely thrust in here, or the word grace lopped off? And could any one, who had eyes to read this, be deceived by my citing afterward part of this sentence?) “Not so; to impart happiness to his creatures is his grand end herein. Barely ‘to demonstrate his sovereignty” is a principle of action fit for the great Turk, not the most high God.” You see, there needs only to correct the mistake of the printer, who sets the commas on the wrong word, and this “specimen too of my want of integrity” vanishes into nothing.

I have never varied from it, no, not an hair's breadth, from 1738 to this day. Is it not strange, then, that, at this time of day, any one should face me down, (yea, and one who has that very volume in his hands, wherein that sermon on justification by faith is contained,) that I hold justification by works? and that, truly, because there are some expressions in some tracts written by other men, but reprinted by me during a course of years, which seem, at least, to countenance that doctrine ! Let it suffice, (and it will suffice for every impartial man,) that I absolutely, once for all, renounce every expression which contradicts that fundamental truth, We are justified by faith alone. “But you have published John Goodwin’s ‘Treatise on Justification.’” I have so; but I have not undertaken to defend every expression which occurs therein. Therefore, none has a right to palm them upon the world as mine. And yet I desire no one will condemn that treatise before he has carefully read it over; and that seriously and carefully; for it can hardly be understood by a slight and cursory reading. And let whoever has read it declare, whether he has not proved every article he asserts, not only by plain express Scripture, but by the authority of the most eminent Reformers. If Dr. E. thinks otherwise, let him confute him; but let no man condemn what he cannot answer. 4. Dr. E. attacks me, Thirdly, on the head of Christian perfection. It is not my design to enter into the merits of the cause. I would only just observe, (1.) That the great argument which Dr. E. brings against it is of no force; and, (2.) That he misunderstands and misrepresents my sentiments on the subject. First. His great argument against it is of no force. It runs thus: “Paul’s contention with Barnabas is a strong argument against the attainableness of perfection in this life.” (Page 4.1.) True, if we judge by the bare sound of the English version. But Dr. E. reads the original: K2 sysvero Tapo: vTuo;. It does not say that sharpness was on both sides. It does not say that all or any part of it was on St. Paul's side. Neither does the context prove that he was in any fault at all.

E. says of the mischievousness of this, and with great plausibility, (page 27,) depends upon an entire mistake, namely, that the Leader of a class acts just like a Romish Priest; and that the inquiries made in a class are of the same kind with those made in auricular confession. It all therefore falls to the ground at once, when it is observed, * “Advice to the People called Methodists.” that there is no resemblance at all, either between the Leader and the Priest, or between the inquiries made by one and by the other. It is true, that the Leader “sees each person once a week, to inquire how their souls prosper;” and that when they meet, “the Leader or Teacher asks each a few questions relating to the present situation of their minds.” So then, that questions are actually asked, yea, and inquiries made, cannot be denied. But what kind of questions or inquiries? None that expose the answerer to any danger; none that they would scruple to answer before Dr. E., or any other person that fears God. 8. “But you form a Church within a Church, whose mem bers in South Britain profess to belong to the Church of England, and those in North Britain to the Church of Scot land; while yet they are inspected and governed by Teachers who are sent, continued, or removed by Mr. W.” (Page 3.) All this is, in a certain sense, very true. But let us see what all this amounts to. “You form a Church within a Church;” that is, you raise up and join together witnesses of real Christianity, not among Mahometans and Pagans, but within a Church by law established. Certainly so. And that Church, if she knew her own interest, would see she is much obliged to us for so doing. “But the Methodists in South Britain profess to belong to the Church of England.” They profess the truth: For they do belong to it; that is, all who did so before the change was wrought, not in their external mode of worship, but in their tempers and lives. “Nay, but those in Scotland profess to belong to the Church of Scotland.” And they likewise profess the truth: For they do belong to it as they did before. And is there any harm in this? “But they are still inspected by Mr. W.

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! MR. HILL's REVIEw. 381 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.” (Page 128.) 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.” (Page 128.) “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.

For gay apparel. 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.” (Page 135.) True; but neither does this prove that I adopted his scheme.

“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. MR. HILL's REVIEw. 397 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.” 90.

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.” (Page 143.) 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. MR. HILL's REVIEw. 403 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.

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.

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. 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.” (Page 147.) 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.” (Page 150.) 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.

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.

There was an ever- “There never was such a lasting covenant between the covenant.” Father and Son, concerning man’s redemption.” The former proposition is taken from the “Christian Library;” on which Mr. H. says again, “Mr. W. affirms that the Christian Library is “all true, all agreeable to the word of God.’” I answered before, “I do not. My words are: ‘I have endeavoured to extract such a collection of English divinity, as I believe is all true, all agreeable to the oracles of God.” (Christian Library, preface, p. 4.) I did believe, and do believe, every tract therein to be true and agreeable to the oracles of God. But I do not roundly affirm this 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 a few words here and there, as I had mentioned in the preface. (2.) As it was not in my power to attend to the press, that care necessarily devolved on others; through whose inattention an hundred passages were left in, which I had scratched out. It is probable too, that 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. The plain inference is, if there are an hundred passages in the ‘Christian Library’ which contradict any or all of my doctrines, these are no proofs that I contradict myself. Be it observed once for all, therefore, citations from the ‘Christian Library’ prove nothing but the carelessness of the correctors.” (Remarks, page 381.) 12. Yet Mr. Hill, as if he had never seen a word of this, or had solidly refuted it, gravely tells us again, “If Mr. W. may be credited, the ‘Farrago’ is all true; part of it being taken out of his own ‘Christian Library, in the preface of which he tells us that the contents are ‘all true, all agreeable to the oracles of God.” Therefore, every single word of it is his own, either by birth or adoption.” (Farrago, p.

may be credited, the ‘Farrago’ is all true; part of it being taken out of his own ‘Christian Library, in the preface of which he tells us that the contents are ‘all true, all agreeable to the oracles of God.” Therefore, every single word of it is his own, either by birth or adoption.” (Farrago, p. 12.) No ; I never adopted, I could not adopt, “every single word” of the “Christian Library.” It was impossible I should have such a thought, for the reasons above mentioned. But “there is very great evasion,” says Mr. H., “in Mr. W.’s saying that though he believes “every tract to be true, yet he will not be answerable for “every sentence or expression in the Christian Library;” whereas the matter by no means rests upon a few sentences or expressions, but upon whole treatises, which are diametrically opposite to Mr. W.’s present tenets; particularly the treatises of Dr. Sibbs, Dr. Preston, Bishop Beveridge, and Dr. Owen on indwelling sin.” (Page 16.) 13. Just before, Mr. H. affirmed, “Every single word in the ‘Christian Library’ is his own.” Beaten out of this hold, he retreats to another; but it is as untenable as the former: “The matter,” he says, “does not rest on a few sentences; whole treatises are diametrically opposite to his present tenets.” He instances in the works of Dr. Sibbs, Preston, Beveridge, and a treatise of Dr. Owen’s. I join issue with him on this point. Here I pin him down. The works of Dr. Preston and Sibbs are in the ninth and tenth volumes of the Library; that treatise of Dr. Owen's in the seventeenth; that of Bishop Beveridge in the forty seventh. Take which of them you please; suppose the last, Bishop Beveridge’s “Thoughts upon Religion.” Is this whole treatise “ diametrically opposite to my present tenets?” The 420 REMARKS ON MR. HILL’s “Resolutions” take up the greatest part of the book; every sentence of which exactly agrees with my present judgment; as do at least nine parts in ten of the preceding “Thoughts,” on which those Resolutions are formed. Now, what could possibly induce a person of Mr.

But to return to the everlasting covenant: “Mr. Wesley himself, in his Annotations on Gen. i. 1, calls the Elohim, a “covenant God.’” True, in covenant with man. But I say not one word of any covenant between the Father and the Son. But “in his note on Isaiah lv. 4, speaking of the covenant made between God and David, he says, “This David is Christ.’” Undoubtedly I do; but what is this brought to prove? My words are, “I have appointed, and will in due time give him--the David last-mentioned, even Christ--a witness--to declare the will of God concerning the duty and salvation of men, to bear witness to the truth, to confirm God’s promises, and, among others, those which respect the calling of the Gentiles; to be a witness to both parties of that covenant made between God and man.” (Page 209.) Yea, of the “covenant made between God and man l” Of a covenant between the Father and the Son here is not a word. “The only possible conclusion to be drawn from this defence of Mr. Wesley’s is, that he became a commentator on the Bible before he could read the Bible.” That is pity! If he could not read it when he was threescore years old, I doubt he never will. See the candour, the good-nature, of Mr. Hill ! Is this Attic salt, or wormwood ? What conclusion can be possibly drawn in favour of Mr. Hill? The most favourable I can draw is this, that he never read the book which he quotes; that he took the word of some of his friends. But how shall we excuse them? I hope they trusted their memories, not their eyes. But what recompence can he make to me for publishing so gross a falsehood, which, nevertheless, those who read his tract, and not mine, will take to be as true as the gospel? Of Election and Perseverance. 19. In entering upon this head, I observed, “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.” (Remarks, p. 382.) It lies therefore upon Mr. Hill to answer Mr. Sellon before he witticizes upon me. Let him do this, and he talks to the purpose; otherwise, all the pretty, lively things, he says about Dr. Baroe, Bishop Wilkins, Dr.

John says he will not be answerable.” I will now explain myself on this head. Though there are some expressions in my brother's Hymns which I do not use, as being very liable to be misconstrued; yet I am fully satisfied, that, in the whole tenor of them, they thoroughly agree with mine, and with the Bible. (2) That there is no jot of Calvinism therein; that not one hymn, not one verse of an hymn, maintains either unconditional election, or infallible perseverance. Therefore, I can readily answer Mr. H.’s question, “How can Mr. W. answer it to his own conscience, to write prefaces and recommendations to Hymns which he does not believe?” There is the mistake. I do believe them; although still I will not be answerable for every expression which may occur therein. But as to those expressions which you quote in proof of final perseverance, they prove thus much, and no more, that the persons who use them have at that time “the full assurance of hope.” Hitherto, then, Mr. Hill has brought no proof that I contradict myself. Of Imputed Righteousness. 24. “Blessed be God, we are not among those who are so dark in their conceptions and expressions. “We no more deny,” says Mr. W., ‘the phrase of imputed righteousness, than the thing.’” (Page 23.) It is true: For I continually * Page 21. affirm, to them that believe, faith is imputed for righteous ness. And I do not contradict this, in still denying that phrase, “the imputed righteousness of Christ,” to be in the Bible; or in beseeching both Mr. Hervey and you, “not to dispute for that particular phrase.” But “since Mr. W. blesses God for enlightening him to receive the doctrine, and to adopt the phrase of ‘imputed righteousness; how came he to think that clear conceptions of the doctrine were so unnecessary, and the phrase itself so useless, after having so deeply lamented the dark conceptions of those who rejected the term and the thing?” It was neither this term, “the imputed righteousness of Christ,” nor the thing which Antinomians mean thereby, the rejection of which I supposed to argue any darkness of conception. But those I think dark in their conceptions, who reject either the Scripture phrase, “faith imputed for righteousness,” or the thing it means. 25. However, to prove his point, Mr.

And there fore I wish my readers would closely compare the “Remarks’ with the “Review’ itself;” (I desire no more. Whoever does this, will easily discern on which side the truth lies;) “as it is impracticable to point out half the little arts of this kind which Mr. W. has stooped to.” That is, in civil terms, “Sir, you are a knave.” Sir, I crave your mercy. I stoop to mo art, but that of plain, sound reasoning. By this art, and by this alone, I am able to untwist truth from falsehood, how skilfully soever they are woven together. I dare use no other; for (whether you know it or no) I fear God. And by his grace, in simplicity and godly sincerity I have my conversation in the world. “But how agrees this with what Mr. W. tells us, that he has never contradicted himself with regard to justification, since the year 1738?” (Farrago, p. 39.) Perfectly well. “How long has he held that justification is fourfold?” I have said nothing about it yet. “And how will he reconcile this with its being twofold, and with his preceding affirmation, that it is one and no more?” When time is, this mystery too may be cleared up. Of a Justified State. 30. Mr. W. says, “The state of a justified person is inex pressibly great and glorious.” (Page 34.) “Yet he asks elsewhere, “Does not talking of a justified or sanctified state, tend to mislead men ?” He answers: ‘It frequently does mislead men;’” namely, when it is spoken of in an unguarded manner. “‘But where is the contradiction?’ Whatever may be the contradiction, this is clearly the con clusion,-that Mr. W., by his own confession, is a misleader of men.” It is not quite clear yet. You have first to prove that I use the phrase “in an unguarded manner.” I confess, when it is so used, it tends to mislead men; but I do not confess that I use it so. 432 REMARKs on MR. HILL’s Are Works a Condition of Justification? 31. “Mr. W. says, “No good works can be previous to justification.’ And yet in the same page he asserts, ‘Who ever desires to find favour with God should cease from evil, and learn to do well.’” I answered: “Does not the Bible say so? Who can deny it? “Nay, but Mr. W.

It is this, and this only, that I affirm (whatever Luther does) to be articulus stantis vel cadentis Ecclesiae.” (Remarks, page 391.) But Mr. Hill thinks, “justification by faith, and by trusting in the merits of Christ, are all one.” (Farrago, page 16.) Be they or not, I still think, “ some may doubt of justification by faith, and yet not perish everlastingly.” Does Mr. Hill judge that such an one cannot be saved? that all Mystics (as well as Mr. Law) go to hell? Both Adam’s Sun and Christ’s Righteousness are imputed. They are; the question is only, In what sense? Of Merit.* 33. In the Minutes I say, “We are rewarded according to our works, yea, because of our works. (Genesis xxii. 16, 17.) How differs this from for the sake of our works? And how differs this from secundum merita operum, or ‘as our works deserve?” Can you split this hair? I doubt I cannot.” I say so still. Let Mr. Hill, if he can. “And yet I still maintain,” (so I added in the “Remarks;” so I firmly believe,) “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 have, or do, which can, strictly speaking, deserve the least thing at God’s hand. “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, (I mean, I never ascribe it to any man,) yet I do not condemn it. Therefore, with regard to the word merit, I do not contradict myself at all.” “You never use the word l’” says Mr. H.: “What have we then been disputing about?” (Farrago, p. 36.) Why, about a straw; namely, whether there be a sense in which others may use that word without blame. - * Page 35. 434 REMARKs on MR. HILL’s But can Mr. Hill, or any one living, suppose me to mean, I do not use the word in the present question? What Mr. H. adds, is a mere play upon words: “Does Mr.

adds, is a mere play upon words: “Does Mr. W., by this looser merit, mean a merit that does not merit?” Yes; by terming a work meritorious in this improper sense, I do not mean, that it merits or deserves a reward in the proper sense of the word. Instances of the word taken in this improper sense occur all over the Bible. “This is shamefully evasive.” No more than it is Greek. It is a plain, rational, solid distinction; and it holds with regard to numberless words in all languages, which may be taken cither in a proper or improper sense. When I say, “I do not grant that works are meritorious, even when accompanied by faith,” I take that word in a proper sense. But others take it in an improper, as nearly equivalent with rewardable. Here, therefore, I no more contradict Mr. Fletcher than I do myself. Least of all do I plead, as Mr. H. roundly affirms, “for justification by the merit of my own good works.” (Page 52.) Of Marriage. 34. “Mr. W. says, his thoughts on a single life are just the same they have been these thirty years.” (I mean, with regard to the advantages which attend that state in general.) “Why then did he marry?” (Page 39.) I answered short, “For reasons best known to himself.” As much as to say, I judge it extremely impertinent for any but a superior to ask me the question. So the harmless raillery which Mr. H. pleases himself with upon this occasion may stand just as it is. Concerning Dress. 35. “Mr. W.

to use what had before thrown him into the palsy ?” I did not say so. I never had the palsy yet; though my hand shook, which is a “paralytic disorder.” But be it strange or not, so Dr. F. advised; if you believe not me, you may inquire of himself. The low wit that follows, I do not meddle with ; I leave it with the gentle reader. * O rare Wesleyan Logic teacher.--EDIT. He who is clear in making distinctions is an able fARRAGO DOUBLE-DISTILLED. 437 Of Baptism. 38. “Mr. W. says, “As there is no clear proof for dip ping in Scripture, so there is very probable proof to the contrary.’ “Why then did you at Savannah baptize all children by immersion, unless the parents certified they were weak?” (Farrago, p. 42.) I answered: “Not because I had any scruple, but in obedience to the Rubric.” Mr. H., according to custom, repeats the objection, without taking the least notice of the answer. As to the story of half drowning Mrs. L. S., let her aver it to my face, and I shall say more. Only observe, Mr. Toplady is not “my friend.” He is all your own; your friend, ally, and fellow soldier:-- Ut non Compositus melius cum Bitho Bacchius ! * You are in truth, duo fulmina belli.t. It is not strange if their thunder should quite drown the sound of my “poor pop-guns.” 39. “But what surpasses everything else is, that Mr. W. cannot even speak of his contradictions, without contradicting himself afresh. For he absolutely denies, not only that he ever was unsettled in his principles, but that he was ever accused of being so, either by friends or foes.” (Pages 39, 40.) Either by friends or foes / I will rest the whole cause upon this. If this be true, I am out of my wits. If it be false, what is Mr. Hill? An honest, upright, sensible man; but a little too warm, and therefore not seeing so clearly in this as in other things. My words are: “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.” (Remarks, p.

Wesley’s.” (Page 33.) Nay, give the honour of this to its true author: Mr. Hill goes to consult a Popish Friar at Paris, a Benedictine Monk, one Father Walsh, concerning the Minutes of the Conference. Father Walsh (Mr. Hill says; and I see no reason to scruple his authority here) assures him that the Minutes contain false doctrine; and that the tenets of the Church of Rome are nearer by half to his (Mr. Hill's) tenets than they are to Mr. Wesley's. (So Mr. Hill himself informs the world, in the Paris Conversation, of famous memory, which I really think he would never have published, unless, as the vulgar say, the devil had owed him a shame.) I add, “Truly, I always thought so.” But I am the more confirmed therein, by the authority of so competent a judge; especially when his judg ment is publicly delivered by so unexceptionable a witness. 50. Nay, but “you know, the principles of the Pope and of John Calvin are quite opposite to each other.” I do not know that they are opposite at all in this point. Many Popes have been either Dominicans or Benedictines: And many of the Benedictines, with all the Dominicans, are as firm Predestinarians as Calvin himself. Whether the present Pope is a Dominican, I cannot tell: If he is, he is far nearer your tenets than mine. Let us make the trial with regard to your ten propositions:-- (1) “You deny election.” “So does the Pope of Rome.” I know not that. Probably he holds it. (2.) “You deny persever- “So does the Pope of ance.” Rome.” That is much to be doubted. 444 REMARKs on MR. HILL’s (3) “You deny imputed righteousness.” Perhaps the Pope of Rome does; but I assert it continu ally. (4) “You hold free-will.” “So does the Pope of Rome.” No; not as I do ; (unless he is a Predestina rian: Otherwise,) he ascribes it to nature, I to grace. (5) “You hold that works If you mean good works, I are a condition of justifica do not. tion.” (6) “You hold a twofold justification; one now, another at the last day.” “So does the Pope of Rome.” And so do all Pro testants, if they believe the Bible. (7) “You hold the doctrine I do not. Neither does the of merit.” Pope, if Father Walsh says true.

Neither does the of merit.” Pope, if Father Walsh says true. (8) “You hold sinless per “So does the Pope.” I fection.” deny that. How do you prove it? (9.) “You hold, that sins I hold no such thing; and are only infirmities.” you know it well. (10) “You distinguish Not so; I abhor the dis between venial and mortal tinction. sins.” Now, let every man of understanding judge, whether Father Walsh did not speak the very truth. 51. “This pamphlet was finished, when I was told, that Mr. W. had lately a very remarkable dream, which awakened him out of a sound sleep. This dream he communicated to his society. It was in substance as follows:--A big, rough inan came to him, and gave him a violent blow upon the arm with a red-hot iron. “Now, the interpretation thereof I conceive to be as follows:-- “(1.) The big, rough man is Mr. Hill: (2.) The bar of iron” (red-hot 1) “is Logica Wesleiensis: (3.) The blow denotes the shock which Mr. John will receive by the said pamphlet: (4.) His being awakened out of a sound sleep, signifies there is yet hope, that he will, some time or other, come to the right use of his spiritual faculties.” (Page 61.) Pretty, and well devised ! And though it is true I never had any such dream since I was born, yet I am obliged to the inventor of it; and that on many accounts. I am obliged to him, (1.) For sending against me only a big, rough man; it might have been a lion or a bear: (2.) For directing the bar of iron only to my arm; it might have been my poor skull: (3.) For letting the big man give me only one blow; had he repeated it, I had been slain outright: And, (4.) For hoping I shall, some time or other, come to the right use of my spiritual faculties. 52. Perhaps Mr. Hill may expect that I should make him some return for the favour of his heroic poem: But Certes I have, for many days, Sent my poetic herd to graze. And had I not, I should have been utterly unable to present him with a parallel. Yet, upon reflection, I believe I can; although I own it is rather of the lyric than the heroic kind.

Was it ever in my power to do any good action? Could I ever do any, but by that grace which thou hadst determined not to give me? For doing evil? Lord, did I ever do any, which I was not bound to do by thy own decree? Was there ever a moment when it was in my power, either to do good, or to cease from evil? Didst not thou fix whatever I should do, or not do, or ever I came into the world? And was there ever one hour, from my cradle to my grave, wherein I could act otherwise than I did?” Now, let any man say whose mouth would be stopped, that of the criminal or the Judge. 5. But if, upon this supposition, there can be no judgment to come, and no future rewards or punishments, it likewise follows, that the Scriptures, which assert both, cannot be of divine original. If there be not “a day wherein God will judge the world, by that Man whom he hath appointed;” if the wicked shall not go into eternal punishment, neither the righteous into life eternal; what can we think of that book which so frequently and solemnly affirms all these things? We can no longer maintain, that “all Scripture was given by inspiration of God,” since it is impossible that the God of truth should be the author of palpable falsehoods. So that, whoever asserts the pre-determination of all human actions, a doctrine totally inconsistent with the scriptural doctrines of a future judgment, heaven and hell, strikes hereby at the very foundation of Scripture, which must necessarily stand or fall with them. 6. Such absurdities will naturally and necessarily follow from the scheme of necessity. But Mr. Edwards has found out a most ingenious way of evading this consequence: “I grant,” says that good and sensible man, “if the actions of men were involuntary, the consequence would inevitably follow,-they could not be either good or evil; nor, therefore, could they be the proper object either of reward or punish ment. But here lies the very ground of your mistake; their actions are not involuntary. The actions of men are quite voluntary; the fruit of their own will. They love, they desire, evil things; therefore they commit them. But love and hate, desire and aversion, are only several modes of willing.

Let us try whether something of this kind may not be done in a few words. Indeed, as to the first scheme, that of the Manichees, the maintainers of a good and an evil god, though it was formerly espoused by men of renown, St. Augustine in particular; yet it is now so utterly out of date, that it would be lost labour to confute it. A little more plausible is this scheme of the Stoics', building necessity upon fate, upon the insuperable stubbornness of matter, or the indissoluble chain of causes and effects. Perhaps they invented this scheme to exculpate God, to avoid laying the blame upon him, by allowing He would have done better if he could; that he was willing to cure the evil, but was not able. But we may answer them short, There is no fate above the Most High; that is an idle, irrational fiction. Neither is there anything in the nature of matter, which is not obedient to his word. The Almighty is able, in the twinkling of an eye, to reduce any matter into any form he pleases; or to speak it into nothing; in a moment to expunge it out of his creation. 2. The still more plausible scheme of Dr. Hartley, (and I might add, those of the two gentlemen above-mentioned, which nearly coincide with it,) now adopted by almost all who doubt of the Christian system, requires a more particular consideration, were it only because it has so many admirers. And it certainly contains a great deal of truth, as will appear to any that considers it calmly. For who can deny, that not only the memory, but all the operations of the soul, are now dependent on the bodily organs, the brain in particular? insomuch that a blow on the back part of the head (as frequent cxperience shows) may take away the understanding, and destroy at once both sensation and reflection; and an irregular flow of spirits may quickly turn the deepest philoso pher into a madman. We must allow likewise, that while the very power of thinking depends so much upon the brain, our judgments must needs depend thereon, and in the same pro portion.

Is it not necessary, with respect to the numerous enemies whom he has to encounter? Can a fool cope with all the men that know not God, and with all the spirits of darkness? Nay, he will neither be aware of the devices of Satan, nor the craftiness of his children. Secondly. Is it not highly expedient that a guide of souls should have likewise some liveliness and readiness of thought? Or how will he be able, when need requires, to “answer a fool according to his folly?” How frequent is this need ! seeing we almost everywhere meet with those empty, yet petulant creatures, who are far “wiser in their own eyes, than seven men that can render a reason.” Reasoning, therefore, is not the weapon to be used with them. You cannot deal with them thus. They scorn being convinced; nor can they be silenced, but in their own way. Thirdly. To a sound understanding, and a lively turn of thought, should be joined a good memory; if it may be, ready, that you may make whatever occurs in reading or conversation your own; but, however, retentive, lest we be “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” On the contrary, “every scribe instructed unto the kingdom of heaven,” every Teacher fitted for his work, “is like an house holder who bringeth out of his treasures things new and old.” 2. And as to acquired endowments, can he take one step aright, without first a competent share of knowledge? a knowledge, First, of his own office; of the high trust in which he stands, the important work to which he is called? Is there any hope that a man should discharge his office well, if he knows not what it is? that he should acquit himself faithfully of a trust, the very nature whereof he does not understand? Nay, if he knows not the work God has given him to do, he cannot finish it. Secondly. No less necessary is a knowledge of the Scrip tures, which teach us how to teach others; yea, a knowledge of all the Scriptures; seeing scripture interprets scripture; one part fixing the sense of another. So that, whether it be true or not, that every good textuary is a good Divine, it is certain none can be a good Divine who is not a good textuary.

So that, whether it be true or not, that every good textuary is a good Divine, it is certain none can be a good Divine who is not a good textuary. None else can be mighty in the Scriptures; able both to instruct and to stop the mouths of gainsayers. In order to do this accurately, ought he not to know the literal meaning of every word, verse, and chapter; without which there can be no firm foundation on which the spiritual meaning can be built? Should he not likewise be able to deduce the proper corollaries, speculative and practical, from each text; to solve the difficulties which arise, and answer the objections which are or may be raised against it; and to make a suitable application of all to the consciences of his hearers? Thirdly. But can he do this, in the most effectual manner, without a knowledge of the original tongues? Without this, will he not frequently be at a stand, even as to texts which regard practice only ? But he will be under still greater difficulties, with respect to controverted scriptures. He will be ill able to rescue these out of the hands of any man of learning that would pervert them: For whenever an appeal is made to the original, his n:outh is stopped at once. Fourthly. Is not a knowledge of profane history, likewise, of ancient customs, of chronology and geography, though not absolutely necessary, yet highly expedient, for him that would throughly understand the Scriptures? since the want even of this knowledge is but poorly supplied by reading the comments of other men. Fifthly. Some knowledge of the sciences also, is, to say the least, equally expedient. Nay, may we not say, that the knowledge of one, (whether art or science,) although now quite unfashionable, is even necessary next, and in order to, the knowledge of the Scripture itself? I mean logic. For what is this, if rightly understood, but the art of good sense? of apprehending things clearly, judging truly, and reasoning conclusively? What is it, viewed in another light, but the art of learning and teaching; whether by convincing or persuading? What is there, then, in the whole compass of science, to be desired in comparison of it? Is not some acquaintance with what has been termed the second part of logic, (metaphysics,) if not so necessary as this,.

But this is not to the purpose. I want “the express command of Christ.” You say, “Secondly, The persons who have this power in England, are not the Clergy, but the Parliament.” (Pages 8, 9.) Perhaps so. But this also strikes wide. Where is “the express command of Christ?” You ask, “Thirdly, How came the civil Magistrate by this power?” (Page 11.) “Christ commands us to ‘call no man upon earth father and master;’ that is, to acknowledge no authority of any in matters of religion.” (Page 12.) At length we are come to the express command, which, according to your interpretation, is express enough ; “that is, Acknow ledge no authority of any in matters of religion;” own no power in any to appoint any circumstance of public worship, anything pertaining to decency and order. But this inter pretation is not allowed. It is the very point in question. We allow, Christ does here expressly command, to acknow ledge no such authority of any, as the Jews paid their Rabbies, whom they usually styled either Fathers or Masters; implicitly believing all they affirmed, and obeying all they enjoined. But we deny, that he expressly commands, to acknowledge no authority of governors, in things purely indifferent, whether they relate to the worship of God, or other matters. You attempt to prove it by the following words: “‘One is your Master’ and Lawgiver, “even Christ; and all ye are brethren;’ (Matt. xxiii. 8, 9;) all Christians; having no dominion over one another.” True; no such dominion as their Rabbies claimed; but in all things indifferent, Christian Magistrates have dominion. As to your inserting, “ and Lawgiver,” in the preceding clause, you have no authority from the text; for it is not plain, that our Lord is here speaking of himself in that capacity. A 3xxx xxos, the word here rendered “Master,” you well know, conveys no such idea. It should rather have been translated “Teacher.” And indeed the whole text primarily relates to doctrines. But you cite another text: “The Princes of the Gen tiles exercise dominion over them; but it shall not be so among you.” (Matt. xx. 25.) Very good; that is, Christian Pastors shall not exercise such dominion over their flock, as heathen Princes do over their subjects.

. .• * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . . . . . 154 An Estimate of the Manners of the Present Times . . . . . 156 A Word to a Sabbath-Breaker. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 A Word to a Swearer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 A Word to a Drunkard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 A Word to an Unhappy Woman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 A Word to a Smuggler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 A Word to a Condemned Malefactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 A Word in Season: Or, Advice to an Englishman . . . . . 182 A Word to a Protestant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 XXIII. Page. A Word to a Freeholder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 Advice to a Soldier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 A Collection of Forms of Prayer, for every Day in the Week. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 A Collection of Prayers for Families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Arayers for Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Why should we not now, before London is as Lisbon, Lima, or Catanea, acknowlcdge the hand of the Almighty, arising to maintain his own cause? Why, we have a general answer always ready, to screen us from any such conviction: “All these things are purely natural and accidental; the result of natural causes.” But there are two objections to this answer: First, it is untrue: Secondly, it is uncomfortable. First. If by affirming, “All this is purely natural,” you mean, it is not providential, or that God has nothing to do with it, this is not true, that is, supposing the Bible to be true. For supposing this, you may descant ever so long on the natural causes of murrain, winds, thunder, lightning, and yet you are altogether wide of the mark, you prove nothing at all, unless you can prove that God never works in or by natural causes. But this you cannot prove; may, none can doubt of his so working, who allows the Scripture to be of God. For this asserts, in the clearest and strongest terms, that “all things” (in nature) “serve him;” that (by or without a train of natural causes) He “sendeth his rain on the earth;” that He “bringeth the winds out of his treasures,” and “maketh a way for the lightning and the thunder;” in general, that “fire and hail, snow and vapour, wind and storm, fulfil his word.” Therefore, allowing there are natural causes of all these, they are still under the direc tion of the Lord of nature: Nay, what is nature itself, but the art of God, or God’s method of acting in the material world? True philosophy therefore ascribes all to God, and says, in the beautiful language of the wise and good man, Here like a trumpet, loud and strong, Thy thunder shakes our coast; While the red lightnings wave along, The banners of thy host. A Second objection to your answer is, It is extremely uncomfortable. For if things really be as you affirm; if all these afflictive incidents entirely depend on the fortuitous concourse and agency of blind, material causes; what hope, what help, what resource is left for the poor sufferers by them?

They are punctually just and honest in their dealings; and are also very charitable, the King and the great Lords taking care to employ all that are capable of any work. And those that are utterly helpless they keep for God’s sake; so that here also are no beggars. The inhabitants of Congo and Angola are generally a quiet people. They discover a good understanding, and behave in a friendly manner to strangers, being of a mild temper and an affable carriage. Upon the whole, therefore, the Negroes who inhabit the coast of Africa, from the river Senegal to the southern bounds of Angola, are so far from being the stupid, senseless, brutish, lazy barbarians, the fierce, cruel, perfidious savages they have been described, that, on the contrary, they are represented, by them who have no motive to flatter them, as remarkably sensible, considering the few advantages they have for improving their understanding; as industrious to the highest degree, perhaps more so than any other natives of so warm a climate; as fair, just, and honest in all their dealings, unless where white men have taught them to be otherwise; and as far more mild, friendly, and kind to strangers, than any of our forefathers were. Our forefathers / Where shall we find at this day, among the fair-faced natives of Europe, a nation generally practising the justice, mercy, and truth, which are found among these poor Africans? Suppose the preceding accounts are true, (which I see no reason or pretence to doubt of) and we may leave England and France, to seek genuine honesty in Benin, Congo, or Angola. III. We have now seen what kind of country it is from which the Negroes are brought; and what sort of men (even white men being the judges) they were in their own country. Inquire we, Thirdly, In what manner are they generally procured, carried to, and treated in, America. 1. First. In what manner are they procured? Part of them by fraud. Captains of ships, from time to time, have invited Negroes to come on board, and then carried them away. But far more have been procured by force. The Christians, landing upon their coasts, seized as many as they found, men, women, and children, and transported them to America.

19. And by what right, (setting the Scriptures aside, on which you do not choose to rest the point,) by what right do you exclude women, any more than men, from choosing their own Governors? Are they not free agents, as well as men? I ask a serious question, and demand a serious answer. Have they not “a will of their own?” Are they not “members of the state?” Are they not part of “the individuals that compose it?” With what consistency, them, can any who assert the people, in the above sense, to be the origin of power, deny them the right of choosing their Governors, and “giving their suffrages by their representatives?” “But do you desire or advise that they should do this?” Nay, I am out of the question. I do not ascribe these rights to the people; therefore, the difficulty affects not me; but, do you get over it how you can, without giving up your principle. 20. I ask a second question: By what right do you exclude men who have not lived one-and-twenty years from that “unalienable privilege of human nature,” choosing their own Governors? Is not a man a free agent, though he has lived only twenty years, and ten or eleven months? Can you deny, that men from eighteen to twenty-one are “members of the state?” Can any one doubt, whether they are a part of “the individuals that compose it?” Why then are not these permitted to “choose their Governors, and to give their suffrages by their representatives?” Let any who say these rights are inseparable from the people, get over this difficulty, if they can; not by breaking an insipid jest on the occasion, but by giving a plain, sober, rational answer. If it be said, “O, women and striplings have not wisdom enough to choose their own Governors;” I answer, Whether they have or no, both the one and the other have all the rights which are “inseparable from human nature.” Either, therefore, this right is not inseparable from human nature, or both women and striplings are partakers of it. 21. I ask a third question: By what authority do you exclude a vast majority of adults from choosing their own Governors, and giving their votes by their representatives, merely because they have not such an income; because they have not forty shillings a year?

But rather let them wish, with an eminent Prophet, (an admirable way of showing our love to our country, and doing it the most effectual service 1) “O that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people!” and with Christ himself, the Inspirer of the Prophets, “when he beheld the rebellious “city, weep over it!” But, it may be, you are of a different complexion. You “fear not the Lord, neither regard the operation of his hands.” Your case, I fear, is too similar to his, who of old said, “Who is the Lord, that I should obey him?” But He is, though you know him not, the God of your life, your health, your strength, and all your mercies. It is “through him you live, move, and have your being; ” and is therefore altogether worthy of all you have and all you are. “Acquaint yourself with him, and be at peace; and thereby good shall come unto thee,” Till this is the case, it is morally impossible that you should be a true patriot, a real lover of your country. You may indeed assume the sounding title; but it is an empty name. You may in word mightily contend for your country’s good; but, while you are a slave to sin, you are an enemy to God, and your country too. But let the time past suffice. Be henceforth, not only in word, but in deed and in truth, a patriot. Put away the accursed thing, the evil that is found in you; so shall you love your country as your own soul, and prevent the fearful end of both.- That we may do this, and that it may please infinite Wisdom to succeed our attempts, I would beg leave to pass from the Second to the First cause. Here I would fix my foot, as on a sure and solid foundation that will stand for ever. The holy Scriptures give us ample accounts of the fall and rise of the greatest monarchies. It is simply this: They rose by virtue; but they fell by vice. “Righteousness” alone “exalteth a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people.” And this ever will be the case, till the end of all things.

Yea, if they only ride on the outside. See here the grand cause (together with intem perance) of our innumerable nervous complaints | For how imperfectly do either medicines or the cold bath supply the place of exercise ! without which the human body can no more continue in health than without sleep or food. 2. We allow likewise the abundant increase of luxury, both in meat, drink, dress, and furniture. What an amazing profu sion of food do we see, not only at a Nobleman's table, but at an ordinary city entertainment; suppose of the Shoemakers’ or Tailors’ Company | What variety of wines, instead of the AN ESTIMATE OF THE MANNERs, &c. 157 good, home-brewed ale, used by our forefathers! What luxury of apparel, changing like the moon, in the city and country, as well as at Court ! What superfluity of expensive furniture glitters in all our great men's houses ! And luxury naturally increases sloth, unfitting us for exercise either of body or mind. Sloth, on the other hand, by destroying the appetite, leads to still farther luxury. And how many does a regular kind of luxury betray at last into gluttony and drunkenness; yea, and lewdness too of every kind; which indeed is hardly separable from them ! 3. But allowing all these things, still this is not a true estimate of the present manners of the English nation. For whatever is the characteristic of a nation, is, First, universal, found in all the individuals of it, or at least in so very great a majority, that the exceptions are not worth regarding. It is, Secondly, con stant, found not only now and then, but continually, without intermission; and, Thirdly, peculiar to that nation, in contra distinction to all others. But neither luxury nor sloth is either universal or constant in England, much less peculiar to it. 4. Whatever may be the case of many of the Nobility and, Gentry, (the whole body of whom are not a twentieth part of the nation,) it is by no means true, that the English in general, much less universally, are a slothful people. There are not only some Gentlemen, yea, and Noblemen, who are.

Law, who, after some very keen expressions, in answer to: the second private letter I sent him, plainly told me he desired to hear “no more on that head.” I do desire to hear, and am very willing to consider, whatever you have to wdvance on the head of Christian perfection. When I began to make the Scriptures my chief study, (about seven-and-twenty years ago,) I began to see that Christians are called to love God with all their heart, and to serve him with all their strength; which is precisely what I apprehend to be meant by the scriptural term perfection. After weighing this for some years, I openly declared my sentiments before the University, in the sermon on the Circumcision of the Heart, now printed in the second volume.* About six years after, in consequence of an advice I received from Bishop Gibson, “Tell all the world what you mean by perfection,” I published my coolest and latest thoughts in the sermon on that subject. You easily observe, I therein build on no authority, ancient or modern, but the Scripture. If this supports any doctrine, it will stand; if not, the sooner it falls, the better. Neither the doctrine in question, nor any other, is anything to me, unless it be the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles. If, therefore, you will please to point out to me any passages in that sermon which are either contrary to Scripture, or not supported by it, and to show that they are not, I shall be full as willing to oppose as ever I was to defend them. I search for truth, plain, Bible truth, without any regard to the praise or dispraise of men. If you will assist me in this search, more especially by showing me where I have mistaken my way, it will be gratefully acknowledged by, Reverend Sir, Your affectionate brother and servant, N.B. I had at this time no acquaintance with Dr. Dodd; nor did I ever see him till I saw him in prison. * Volume V., p. 202, of the present edition.-EDIT. 1. YoU and I may the more easily bear with each other, because we are both of us rapid writers, and therefore the more liable to mistake.

I advise those who are able to receive this saying, Buy no velvcts, no silks, no fine linen, no superfluities, no mere ornaments, though cver so much in fashion. Wear nothing, though you have it already, which is of a glaring colour, or which is in any kind gay, glistering, or showy, nothing made in the very height of the fashion, nothing apt to attract the eyes of the by-standers. I do not advise women to wear rings, ear-rings, inccklaces, lace, (of whatever kind or colour,) or ruffles, which, by little and little, may easily shoot out from one to twelve inches decp. Neither do I advise men to wear coloured waistcoats, shining stockings, glittering or costly buckles or buttons, either on their coats, or in their sleeves, any more than gay, fashionable, or expensive perukes. It is true, these arc little, very little things, which are not worth defending; therefore, give them up, let them drop, throw them away without another word; else, a little needle may cause much pain in your flesh, a little self-indulgence much hurt to your soul. III. 1. For the preceding exhortation I have the authority of God, in clear and express terms: “I will that women” (and, by parity of reason, men too) “adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broidered” (curled) “hair, or gold, or pearls,” (one kind of precious stones, which was then most in use, put for all,) “or costly apparel; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.” (1 Tim. ii. 9, 10.) Again: “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting” (curling) “the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparcl. But let it be the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.” (1 Peter iii. 3, 4.) Nothing can be more express; the wearing of gold, of precious stones, and of costly apparel, together with curling of hair, is here forbidden by name: Nor is there any restriction made, either here, or in any other scripture. Whoever, therefore, says, “There is no harm in these things,” may as well say, “There is no harm in stealing or adultery.” 2. There is something peculiarly observable in the nauner wherein both St. Peter and St. Paul speak of these things. “Let not your adorning,” says St.

Such may be constrained to do, in some degree, what otherwise they would not. And they are blameless herein, if, (1.) They use all possible means, arguments, entreaties, to be excused from it; and, when they cannot prevail, (2.) Do it just so far as they are constrained, and no farther. VI. 1. And now, brethren, what remains, but that I beseech you who are not under the yoke, who arc under God the directors of your own actions, to set prejudice, obstinacy, fashion aside, and to yield to Scripture, to reason, to truth. Suppose, as some affirm, you acted on no higher motive than to please me herein, I know not that you would have need to be ashamed; even this you might avow in the face of the sun. You owe something to me; perhaps it is not my fault if you owe not your own souls also. If then you did an indifferent thing only on this principlc, not to give me any uneasiness, but to oblige, to comfort me in my labour, would you do much amiss? IIow much more may you be excused in doing what I advise, when truth, reason, and Scripture advise the same? when the thing in question is not an indifferent thing, but clearly determined by God himself? 2. Some years ago, when I first landed at Savannah, in Georgia, a gentlewoman told me, “I assure you, Sir, you will see as well-dressed a congregation on Sunday, as most you have seen in London.” I did so; and, soon after, took occasion to expound those scriptures which relate to dress, and to press them freely upon my audience, in a plain and close application. All the time that I afterward ministered at Savannah, I saw neither gold in the church, nor costly apparel; but the congregation in general was almost constantly clothed in plain, clean linen or woollen. 3. And why should not my advice, grounded on Scripture WITH REGARD To DRESs. 475 and reason, weigh with you as much as with them? I will tell you why: (1) You are surrounded with saints of the world, persons fashionably, reputably religious. And these are constant opposers of all who would go farther in religion than themselves. These are continually warning you against running into extremes, and striving to beguile you from the simplicity of the Gospel.

These are continually warning you against running into extremes, and striving to beguile you from the simplicity of the Gospel. (2.) You have near you still more dangerous enemies than these, -Antinomians, whether German or English; who, when any Christian practice is enforced, come in with the cuckoo's note, “The law, the law !” and, while they themselves glory in their shame, make you ashamed of what should be your glory. (3.) You have suffered by false Teachers of our own, who undermined the doctrine you had received; negatively, in public, by not insisting upon it, by not exhorting you to dress as persons professing godliness; (and not to speak for a Christian duty is, in effect, to speak against it;) and positively, in private, either by jesting upon your exactness in observing the Scripture rule, or by insinuations, which, if you did not mind them then, yet would afterward weaken your soul. 4. You have been, and are at this day, “in perils among false brethren;” I mean, not only those of other congrega tions, who count strictness all one with bondage, but many of our own; in particular those who were once clearly convinced of the truth; but they have sinned away the conviction themselves, and now endeavour to harden others against it, at least by example; by returning again to the folly from which they were once clean escaped. But what is the example of all mankind, when it runs counter to Scripture and reason? I have warned you a thousand times not to regard any example which contradicts reason or Scripture. If it ever should be, (pray that it may not be, but if ever it should,) that I or my brother, my wife or his, or all of us together, should set an example contrary to Scripture and reason, I entreat you, regard it not at all; still let Scripture and reason prevail. 5. You who have passed the morning, perhaps the noon, of life, who find the shadows of the evening approach, set a better example to those that are to come, to the now rising generation. With you the day of life is far spent; the night of death is at hand. You have no time to lose; see that you redeem every moment that remains.

Whitefield's ministry.” (Page 18.) 2. “When he went abroad, he delivered me, and many thousands more, into the hands of those he thought he could have trusted them with, and who would have given them back to him again at his return. But, alas! it was not so.” (Ibid.) REV. TrioMAS MAXFIELD. 470 “I heard Mr. Whitefield say, at the Tabernacle, in the presence of five or six Ministers, to Mr. -- a little before he left England for the last time, ‘I delivered thirty thou sand people into the hands of your brother and you, when I went abroad. And by the time I came back, you had so turned their hearts against me, that not three hundred of them would come to hear me.” I knew this was true.” (Ibid.) 3. “I heard Mr. Whitefield say, ‘When I came back from Georgia, there was no speaking evil of each other. O what would I not give, or suffer, or do, to see such times again But O that division I that division ? What slaughter jt has made l’ “It was doctrine that caused the difference; or, at least, it was so pretended.” (Ibid.) “He preached a few times in connexion with his old friends. But, ah! how soon was the sword of contention drawn l’’ (Page 19.) 4. “Where can you now find any loving ones, of either party? They have no more love to each other than Turks.” (Ibid.) “Read their vile contentions, and the evil characters they give of each other, raking the filthiest ashes, to find some black story against their fellow-Preachers.” (Page 20.) They “slay with the sword of bitterness, wrath, and envy. Still more their shame is what they have sent out into the world against each other, on both sides, about five or six years ago, and till this very day.” (Page 21.) To satisfy both friends and foes, I propose a few queries on each of these four heads. I. As to the first, I read a remarkable passage in the third Journal, (vol.I., page 196,) the truth of which may be still attested by Mr. Durbin, Mr. Westell, and several others then present, who are yet alive:-" A young man who stood behind, sunk down, as one dead; but soon began to roar out, and beat himself against the ground, so that six men could scarce hold him.

“Still more to their shame is what they have sent out into the world, against each other, on both sides, about five or six years ago, and till this very day.” “What they have sent out against each other, on both sides, about five or six years ago.” Within five or six years I have been vehemently called to answer for myself; twice Ly Mr. Richard Hill, and afterwards by his brother. Have you read what we “have sent out into the world, against each other, on both sides?” If you have not, how can you so peremptorily affirm what “both sides” have done? You cannot possibly be a judge of what you have not read; and if you had read, you could not have passed such a sentence. Three tracts I have wrote; but in none of these do I “slay with the sword of bitterness, or wrath, or envy.” In none of them do I speak one bitter, or passionate, or disrespectful word. Bitterness and wrath, yea, low, base, virulent invec tive, both Mr. Richard and Mr. Rowland Hill (as well as Mr. Toplady) have poured out upon me, in great abundance. But where have I, in one single instance, returned them railing for railing? I have not so learned Christ. I dare not rail, either at them or you. I return not cursing, but blessing. That the God of love may bless both them and you, is the prayer of your injured, Yet still affectionate brother, February 14, 1778. oF THE THERE are four grand and powerful arguments which strongly in 'uce us to believe that the Bible must be from God; viz., miracles, prophecies, the goodness of the doctrine, and the moral character of the penmen. All the miracles flow from divine power; all the prophecies, from divine understanding; the goodness of the doctrine, from divine goodness; and the moral character of the penmen, from divine holiness. Thus Christianity is built upon four grand pillars; viz., the power, understanding, goodness, and holiness of God. Divine power is the source of all the miracles; divine understanding, of all the prophecies; divine goodness, of the goodness of the doctrine; and divine holiness, of the moral character of the penmen. I beg leave to propose a short, clear, and strong argument to prove the divine inspiration of the holy Scriptures.

I knew Mr. Walsh to be a person of good understanding and real piety; and he testified what he had seen with his own eyes: But still I wanted more witnesses, till, awhile ago, being at Mr. Cary’s in Copthall Buildings, I occasionally mentioned The Brothers' Footsteps; and asked the company if they had heard anything of them. “Sir,” said Mr. Cary, “sixteen years ago, I saw and counted them myself.” Another added, “And I saw them four years ago.” I could then no longer doubt but they had been ; and a week or two after I went with Mr. Cary and another person to seek them. We sought for near half an hour in vain. We could find no steps at all within a quarter of a mile, no, nor half a mile, north of Montague-House. We were almost out of hope, when an honest man, who was at work, directed us to thc next ground, adjoining to a pond. There we found what we sought for, about three-quarters of a mile north of Montague House, and about five hundred yards east of Tottenham Court Road. The steps answer Mr. Walsh's description. They are of the size of a large human foot, about three. inches deep, and lie nearly from north-east to south-west. We counted only seventy-six; but we were not exact in counting. The place where one or both the brothers are: supposed to have fallen, is still bare of grass. The labourer showed us also the bank, where (the tradition is) the wretched woman sat to see the combat. What shall we say to these things? Why, to Atheists, or Infidels of any kind, I would not say one word about them. For “if they hear not Moses and the Prophets,” they will not regard anything of this kind. But to men of candour, who believe the Bible to be of God, I would say, Is not this an astonishing instance, held forth to all the inhabitants of London, of the justice and power of God?

This sister wrote to her from another part of the kingdom, that she had dreamed the very same thing. She carried this letter to her father, a gentleman that lives not far off, and was surprised to hear that he likewise, on the same night, had had a dream to the same effect. The lad had been observed to come up, about noon, into his lady's apartment, with a case-knife in his hand; and being asked why he did so, he said, he was going into the adjoining room, to scrape the dirt off from his master's embroidered clothes.- His master now took the lad aside, and examined him strictly. After denying it for a considerable time, it was at length extorted from him, that he had always remembered, with indignation, his master’s severity to him, and that he was fully resolved to be revenged, but in what particular manner he would not confess. On this he was totally dismissed without delay. I HAVE lately heard; to my no small surprise, that a person professing himself a Quaker, and supposed to be a man of some character, has confidently reported, that he has been at Sunderland himself, and inquired into the case of Elizabeth Hobson; that she was a woman of a very indiffer ent character; that the story she told was purely her own invention; and that John Wesley himself was now fully convinced that there was no truth in it. From what motive a man should invent and publish all over England (for I have heard this in various places) a whole train of absolute, notorious falsehoods, I cannot at all imagine. On the contrary, I declare to all the world, 1. That Elizabeth Hobson was an eminently pious woman; that she lived and died without the least blemish of any kind, without the least stain upon her character. 2. That the relation could not possibly be her own invention, as there were many witnesses to several parts of it; as Mr. Parker, the two Attorneys whom she employed, Miss Hosmer, and many others. And, 3. That I myself am fully persuaded, that every circumstance of it is literally and punctually true. I know that those who fashionably deny the existence of spirits are hugely disgusted at accounts of this kind.

You are heaping up to yourself wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God. Doubtless, if the Scripture is true, and you remain thus, it had been good for you if you had never been born. 40. Howisit that you call yourselves men of reason? Is reason inconsistent with itself? You are the farthest of all men under the sun from any pretence to that character. A common swearer, a Sabbath-breaker, a whoremonger, a drunkard, who says he believes the Scripture is of God, is a monster upon earth, the greatest contradiction to his own, as well as to the reason of all mankind. In the name of God, (that worthy name whereby you are called, and which you daily cause to be blasphemed,) turn either to the right hand or to the left. Either profess you are an infidel, or be a Christian. Halt no longer thus between two opinions. Either cast off the Bible, or your sins. And, in the mean time, if you have any spark of your boasted reason left, do not “count us your enemies,” (as I fear you have done hitherto, and as thousands do wherever we have declared, “They who do such things shall not inherit eternal life,”) “because we tell you the truth; ” seeing these are not our words, but the words of Him that sent us; yea, though, in doing this, we use “great plainness of speech,” as becomes the ministry we have received. “For we are not as many who corrupt” (cauponize, soften, and thereby adulterate, “the word of God. But as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.” 41. But, it may be, you are none of these. You abstain from all such things. You have an unspotted reputation. You are a man of honour, or a woman of virtue. You scorn to do an unhandsome thing, and are of an unblamable life and conver sation. You are harmless (if I understand you right) and use less from morning to night. You do no hurt,-and no good to any one, no more than a straw floating upon the water. Your life glides smoothly on from year to year; and from one season to another, having no occasion to work, You waste away In gentle inactivity the day. 42.

Or who among them is more ready to be offered up for their flock “upon the sacrifice and service of their faith ?” 74. Will ye say, (as the historian of Catiline,) Si sic pro patrid “If this were done in defence of the Church, and not in order to undermine and destroy it !” That is the very pro position I undertake to prove,--that we are now defending the Church, even the Church of England, in opposition to all those who either secretly undermine or more openly attempt to destroy it. 75. That we are Papists, (we who are daily and hourly preach ing that very doctrine which is so solemnly anathematized by the whole Church of Rome,) is such a charge that I dare not waste my time in industriously confuting it. Let any man of common sense only look on the title-pages of the sermons we have lately preached at Oxford, and he will need nothing moreto show him the weight of this senseless, shameless accusation;- unless he can suppose the Governors both of Christ Church and Lincoln College, nay, and all the University, to be Papists too. 76. You yourself can easily acquit us of this; but not of the other part of the charge. You still think we are secretly undermining, if not openly destroying, the Church. What do you mean by the Church? A visible Church (as our article defines it) is a company of faithful or believing people;--coetus credentium. This is the essence of a Church; and the propertiesthereofare, (as they are described in the words that follow,) “among whom the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered.” Now then, (according to this authentic account,) what is the Church of England? What is it indeed, but the faithful people, the true believers in England? It is true, if these are scattered abroad, they come under another consideration: But when they are visibly joined, by assembling together to hear the pure word of God preached, and to eat of one bread, and drink of one coup, they are then properly the visible Church of England. 77. It were well if this were a little more considered by those who so vehemently cry out, “The Church ! the Church !” (as those of old, “The temple of the Lord!

Do we leave the ordinances of the Church 7 You daily see and know the contrary. Do we leave the fundamental doctrine of the Church, namely, salvation by faith? It is our constant theme, in public, in private, in writing, in conversation. Do we leave the practice of the Church, the standard whereof are the ten commandments? which are so essentially in-wrought in her constitution, (as little as you may apprehend it,) that whosoever breaks one of the least of these is no member of the Church of England. I believe you do not care to put the cause on this issue. Neither do you mean this by leaving the Church. In truth, I cannot conceive what you mean. I doubt you cannot conceive yourself. You have retailed a sentence from somebody else, which you no more understand than he. And no marvel; for it is a true observation, Nonsense is never to be understood. 85. Nearly related to this is that other objection, that we divide the Church. Remember, the Church is the faithful peo ple, or true believers. Now, how do we divide these ? “Why, by our societies.” Very good. Now the case is plain. “We further notice of, this performance; the writer being so utterly unacquainted with the merits of the cause; and showing himself so perfectly a stranger, both to my life, preaching, and writing, and to the word of God, and to the Articles and Homilies of the Church of England. divide them,” you say, “by uniting them together.” Truly, a very uncommon way of dividing. “O, but we divide those who are thus united with each other, from the rest of the Church !” By no means. Many of them were before joined to all their brethren of the Church of England (and many were not, until they knew us) by “assembling themselves together,” to hear the word of God, and to eat of one bread, and drink of one cup. And do they now forsake that assembling themselves together? You cannot, you dare not, say it. You know they are more diligent therein than ever; it being one of the fixed rules of our societies, that every member attend the ordinances of God; that is, do not divide from the Church. And if any member of the Church does thus divide from or leave it, he hath no more place among us.

And yet I allow you this, that although both repent ance and the fruits thereof are in some sense necessary be fore justification, yet neither the one nor the other is neces sary in the same sense, or in the same degree, with faith. Not in the same degree; for in whatever moment a man believes (in the Christian sense of the word) he is justified, his sins are blotted out, “his faith is counted to him for right eousness.” But it is not so at whatever moment he repents, or brings forth any or all the fruits of repentance. Faith alone, therefore, justifies; which repentance alone does not, much less any outward work. And, consequently, none of these are necessary to justification, in the same degree with faith. Nor in the same sense. For none of these has so direct, immediate a relation to justification as faith. This is proxi mately necessary thereto; repentance, remotely, as it is neces sary to the increase or continuance of faith. And even in this sense these are only necessary on supposition,--if there be time and opportunity for them; for in many instances there is not; but God cuts short his work, and faith prevents the fruits of repentance. So that the general proposition is not overthrown, but clearly established by these concessions; and we conclude still, both on the authority of Scripture and the Church, that faith alone is the proximate condition of justification. III. l. Iwasonceinclined to believe that none would openly object against what I had anywhere said of the nature of salva tion. How greatly, then was I surprised some months ago, when I was shown a kind of circular letter, which one of those whom “the Holy Ghost hath made overseers” of his Church,” I was informed, had sent to all the Clergy of his diocese ! Past of it ran (nearly, if not exactly) thus:-- “There is great indiscretion in preaching up a sort of religion, as the true and only Christianity, which, in their own account of it, consists in an enthusiastic ardour, to be understood or attained by very few, and not to be practised without breaking in upon the common duties of life.” O, my Lord, what manner of words are these ! Supposing candour and love out of the question, are they the words of truth?

While we have time, let us do good unto all men; espe cially unto them that are of the household of faith. Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do unto them.” These are my favourite tenets, and have been for many years. O that I could instil them into every soul throughout the land! Ought they not to be instilled with such diligence and zeal, as if the whole of Christianity depended upon them? For who can deny, that all efforts toward a Christian life, without more than a bare belief, without a thorough experience and practice of these, are utterly vain and ineffectual? 8. Part of your Ninth query is to the same effect:-- “A few young heads set up their own schemes as the great standard of Christianity; and indulge their own notions to such a degree, as to perplex, unhinge, terrify, and distract the minds of multitudes of people, who have lived from their infancy under a gospel ministry, and in the regular exercise of a gospel wor ship. And all this, by persuading them that they neither are anor can be true Christians, but by adhering to their doctrines.” What do you mean by their own schemes, their own notions, their doctrines? Are they not yours too? Are they not the schemes, the notisms, the doctrines of Jesus Christ; the great fundamental truths of his gospel? Can you deny one of them without denying the Bible? It is hard for you to kick against the pricks! “They persuade,” you say, “multitudes of people, that. they cannot be true Christians but by adhering to their doc trines.” Why, who says they can? Whosoever he be, I will prove him to be an infidel. Do you say that any man can be a true Christian without loving God and his neighbour? Surely you have not so learned Christ ! It is your doctrine as well as mine, and St.

And “this interpretation also,” it is said, “is confirmed by the authority of Chrysostom, Origen, and other ancient writers.” (P. 33.) With those other “ancient writers” I have no con cern yet. St. Chrysostom so far confirms this interpretation, as to explain that whole phrase “the demonstration of the Spirit and of power,” of “the power of the Spirit shown by miracles.” But he says not one word of any “proof of the Christian religion arising from the types and prophecies of the Old Testament.” Origen has these words:-- “Our word has a certain peculiar demonstration, more divine than the Grecian logical demonstration. This the Apostle terms, ‘the demonstration of the Spirit and of power;” of the Spirit, because of the prophecies, sufficient to convince any one, especially of the things that relate to Christ; of power, because of the miraculous powers, some footsteps of which still remain.” (Vol. i., p. 321.) Hence we may doubtless infer, that Origen judged this text to relate, in its primary sense, to the Apostles; but can we thence infer, that he did not judge it to belong, in a lower sense, to all true Ministers of Christ? Let us hear him speaking for himself in the same treatise: “‘And my speech and my preaching were not with entic ing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” Those who hear the word preached with power are themselves filled with power,” (N.B. 98 A FARTHER AppEAL TO MEN not the power of working miracles,) “which they demon strate both in their disposition, and in their life, and in their striving for the truth unto death. But some, although they profess to believe, have not this power of God in them, but are empty thereof.” (P. 377.) (Did Origen, then, believe that the power mentioned in this text belonged only to the apostolical age?) “See the force of the word, conquering believers by a per suasiveness attended with the power of God!

You want nothing; you have a good pro vision for life; and are in a fair way of preferment. And must you leave all, to fight windmills; to convert savages in America?” I could only reply, “Sir, if the Bible is a lie, I am as very a madman as you can conceive. But if it be true, I am in my senses; I am neither a madman nor enthusiast. ‘For there is no man who hath left father, or mother, or wife, or house, or land, for the gospel’s sake; but he shall receive an hundred fold, in this world, with persecutions, and in the world to come, eternal life.’” Nominal, outside Christians too, men of form, may pass the same judgment. For we give up all our pretensions to what they account happiness, for what they (with the Deists) believe to be a mere dream. We expect, therefore, to pass for enthu siasts with these also: “But wisdom is justified of ’’ all “her children.” 32. I cannot conclude this head without one obvious remark: Suppose we really were enthusiasts; suppose our doc trines were false, and unsupported either by reason, Scripture, or authority; then why hath not some one, “who is a wise man, and endued with knowledge among you,” attempted at least to show us our fault “in love and meekness of wisdom ?” Brethren, “if ye have bitter zeal in your hearts, your wisdom descendeth not from above. The wisdom that is from above, is pure, peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy” or pity. Does this spirit appear in one single tract of all those which have been published against us? Is there one writer that has reproved us in love? Bring it to a single point. “Love hopeth all things.” If you had loved usin any degree, you would have hoped that God would some time give us the knowledge of his truth. But where shall we find even this slender instance of love? Has not every one who has wrote at all (I do not remember so much as one exception) treated us as incorrigible? Brethren, how is this? Why do ye labour to teach us an evil lesson against yourselves? O may God never suffer others to deal with you as ye have dealt with us! VI. 1.

Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?” 23. There is one instance more of (I know not what to term it) injustice, oppression, sacrilege, which hath long cried aloud in the ears of God. For among men, who doth hear? I mean the management of many of those who are entrusted with our public charitics. By the pious munificence of our forefathers we have abundance of these of various kinds: But is it not glaringly true, (to touch only on a few generals,) that the managers of many of them either (1.) do not apply the bene faction to that use for which it was designed by the benefactor; or (2.) do not apply it with such care and frugality as in such a case are indispensably required; or (3.) do not apply the whole of the benefaction to any charitable use at all; but secrete part thereof, from time to time, for the use of themselves and their families; or, lastly by plain barefaced oppression, exclude those from having any part in such benefaction, who dare (though with all possible tenderness and respect) set before them the things that they have done? Yet Brutus is an honourable man: So are they all: All honourable men 1 And some of them had in esteem for religion; accounted pat terns both of honesty and piety But God “seeth not as man seeth.” He “shall repay them to their face;” perhaps even in the present world. For that scripture is often still fulfilled: “This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth. I will bring it forth, saith the Lord of Hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief,” (such he is, and no better, in the eyes of God, no whit honester than a highway man,) “and it shall remain in the midst of the house, and shall consume it, with the timber thereof, and the stones thereof.” 24. And is not truth, as well as “justice, fallen in our streets?” For who “speaketh the truth from his heart?” Who is there that makes a conscience of speaking the thing as it is, whenever he speaks at all? Who scruples the telling of offi cious lies? the varying from truth, in order to do good?

the varying from truth, in order to do good? How strange does that saying of the ancient fathers sound in modern ears “I would not tell a lie, no, not to save the souls of the whole world.” Yet is this strictly agreeable to the word of Sod; to that of St. Paul in particular, If any say, “Let us do evil that good may come, their damnation is just.” But how many of us do this evil without ever considering whether good will come or no; speaking what we do not mean, merely out of custom, because it is fashionable so to do ! What an immense quantity of falsehood does this ungodly fashion occasion day by day! for hath it not overrun every part of the nation? How is all our language swoln with compliment; so that a well-bred person is not expected to speak as he thinks; we do not look for it at his hands ! Nay, who would thank him for it? how few would suffer it ! It was said of old, even by a warrior and a King, “He that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight:” But are we not of another mind? Do not we rather say, “He that telleth not lies shall not tarry in my sight?” Indeed the trial seldom comes; for both speakers and hearers are agreed that form and ceremony, flattery and compliment, should take place, and truth be banished from all that know the world. And if the rich and great have so small regard to truth, as to lie even for lying sake, what wonder can it be that men of lower rank will do the same thing for gain? what wonder that it should obtain, as by common consent, in all kinds of buying and selling? Is it not an adjudged case, that it is no harm to tell lies in the way of trade; to say that is the lowest price which is not the lowest; or that you will not take what you do take immediately?

John Sheldon seeing the spoil they had made, smiled and said, “Here is strange work.” His wife told him, if she had complied with their terms, not one pennyworth would have been hurt. He replied, that if she had complied to deny the truth, and he had found his goods whole on that account, he should never have been easy as long as he lived; but he blessed God that she had rather chosen to suffer wrong. I believe every reasonable man will allow, that nothing can possibly excuse these proceedings; seeing they are open, bare faced violations both of justice and mercy, and of all laws divine and human. III. l. I suppose no Protestant will undertake to defend such proceedings, even toward the vilest miscreants. But abundance of excuses have been made, if not for opposing it thus, yet for denying this work to be of God, and for not acknowledging the time of our visitation. Some allege that the doctrines of these men are false, errone ous, and enthusiastic; that they are new, and unheard of till of late; that they are Quakerism, fanaticism, Popery. This whole pretence has been already cut up by the roots; t having been shown at large, that every branch of this doc trine is the plain doctrine of Scripture, interpreted by our own Church. Therefore it cannot be either false or erroneous, provided the Scripture be true. Neither can it be enthu siastic, unless the same epithet belongs to our Articles, Homilies, and Liturgy. Nor yet can these doctrines be termed new; no newer, at least, than the reign of Queen Elizabeth; not even with regard to the way of expression, or the manner wherein they are proposed. And as to the sub stance, they are more ancient still; as ancient, not only as the gospel, as the times of Isaiah, or David, or Moses, but as the first revelation of God to man. If, therefore, they were unheard of till of late, in any that is termed a Christian country, the greater guilt is on those who, as ambassadors of Christ, ought to publish them day by day. Fanaticism, if it means anything at all, means the same with enthusiasm, or religious madness, from which (as was observed before) these doctrines are distant as far as the east from the west.

Not so. The proper way to prove these facts is by the testi mony of competent witnesses; and these witnesses are ready, whenever required, to give full evidence of them. Or, would you have us prove by miracles, (4.) That this was not done by our own power or holiness? that God only is able to raise the dead, those who are dead in trespasses and sins? Nay, if you “hear not Moses and the Prophets” and Apostles, on this head, neither would you believe, “though one rose from the dead.” It is therefore utterly unreasonable and absurd to require or expect the proof of miracles, in questions of such a kind as are always decided by proofs of quite another nature. 29. “But you relate them yourself.” I relate just what I saw, from time to time: And this is true, that some of those circumstances seem to go beyond the ordinary course of nature. But I do not peremptorily determine, whether they were supernatural or no; much less do I rest upon them either the proof of other facts, or of the doctrines which I preach. I prove these in the ordinary way; the one by testimony, the other by Scripture and reason. “But if you can work miracles when you please, is not this the surest way of proving them? This would put the matter out of dispute at once, and supersede all other proof.” You seem to lie under an entire mistake, both as to the nature and use of miracles. It may reasonably be questioned, whether there ever was that man living upon earth, except the man Christ Jesus, that could work miracles when he pleased. God only, when he pleased, exerted that power, and by whomsoever it pleased him. But if a man could work miracles when he pleased, yet there is no Scripture authority, nor even example, for doing it in order to satisfy such a demand as this. I do not read that either our Lord, or any of his Apostles, wrought any miracle on such an occasion.

They are as ready as ever to assist them, and to perform every office of real kindness towards them. (4.) If it be said, “But there are some true Christians in the parish, and you destroy the Christian fellowship between these and them;” I answer, That which never existed, cannot be destroyed. But the fellowship you speak of never existed. Therefore it can- O not be destroyed. Which of those true Christians had any - 2. such fellowship with these? Who watched over them in love? | e * Who marked their growth in grace? Who advised and ex- %- horted them from time to time? Who prayed with them and t for them, as they had need? This, and this alone, is Christian - . fellowship: But, alas! where is it to be found? Look east or west, north or south; name what parish you please: Is this Christian fellowship there? Rather, are not the bulk of the parishioners a mere rope of sand? What Christian connexion is there between them? What intercourse in spiritual things? What watching over each other's souls? What bearing of one another's burdens? What a mere jest is it then, to talk so gravely of destroying what never was ! The real truth is just the reverse of this: We introduce Christian fellowship where it was utterly destroyed. And the fruits of it have been peace, joy, love, and zeal for every good word and work. II. 1. But as much as we endeavoured to watch over each X4. %, other, we soon found some who did not live the gospel. I do not know that any hypocrites were crept in; for indeed there • *, was no temptation: But several grew cold, and gave way to the 2, 4. ** sins which had long easily beset them. We quickly perceived *_* there were many ill consequences of suffering these to remain ‘... among us. It was dangerous to others; inasmuch as all sin is 2 of an infectious nature. It brought such a scandal on their brethren as exposed them to what was not properly the reproach of Christ. It laid a stumbling-block in the way of others, and caused the truth to be evil spoken of. 2. We groaned under these inconveniences long, before a remedy could be found.

These, therefore, wanted some means of closer union; they wanted to pour out their hearts without reserve, particu larly with regard to the sin which did still easily beset them, and the temptations which were most apt to prevail over them. And they were the more desirous of this, when they observed it was the express advice of an inspired writer: “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.” 3. In compliance with their desire, I divided them into smaller companies; putting the married or single men, and married or single women, together. The chief rules of these bands (that is, little companies; so that old English word signifies) run thus: “In order to ‘confess our faults one to another,’ and pray one for another that we may be healed, we intend, (1.) To meet once a week, at the least. (2.) To come punctually at the hour appointed. (3.) To begin with singing or prayer. (4.) To speak each of us in order, freely and plainly, the true state of our soul, with the faults we have committed in thought, word, or deed, and the temptations we have felt since our last meeting. (5.) To desire some person among us (thence called a Leader) to speak his own state first, and then to ask the rest, in order, as many and as searching questions as may be, concerning their state, sins, and temptations.” 4. That their design in meeting might be the more effec tually answered, I desired all the men-bands to meet me to gether every Wednesday evening, and the women on Sunday, that they might receive such particular instructions and ex hortations as, from time to time, might appear to be most need ful for them; that such prayers might be offered up to God, as their necessities should require; and praise returned to the Giver of every good gift, for whatever mercies they had received. 5.

(2.) From four to five in the morning, and from five to six in the evening, to meditate, pray, and read, partly the Scripture with the Notes, partly the closely practical parts of what we have published. (3.) From six in the morning till twelve, (allowing an hour for breakfast,) to read in order with much prayer, first, “The Christian Library,” and the other books which we have published in prose and verse, and then those which we recom mended in our Rules of Kingswood School. Q. 30. Should our Helpers follow trades? A. The question is not, whether they may occasionally work with their hands, as St. Paul did, but whether it be proper for them to keep shop or follow merchandise. After long consi deration, it was agreed by all our brethren, that no Preacher who will not relinquish his trade of buying and selling, (though it were only pills, drops, or balsams) shall be considered as a Travelling Preacher any longer. Q. 31. Why is it that the people under our care are no better? A. Other reasons may concur; but the chief is, because we are not more knowing and more holy. Q. 32. But why are we not more knowing? A. Because we are idle. We forget our very first rule, “Be diligent. Never be unemployed a moment. Never be tri flingly employed. Never while away time; neither spend any more time at any place than is strictly necessary.” I fear there is altogether a fault in this matter, and that few of us are clear. Which of you spends as many hours a day in God’s work as you did formerly in man’s work? We talk, --or read history, or what comes next to hand. We must, absolutely must, cure this evil, or betray the cause of God. But how? (1.) Read the most useful books, and that regularly and constantly. Steadily spend all the morning in this employ, or, at least, five hours in four-and-twenty. “But I read only the Bible.” Then you ought to teach others to read only the Bible, and, by parity of reason, to hear only the Bible: But if so, you need preach no more. Just so said George Bell. And what is the fruit? Why, now he neither reads the Bible, nor anything else. This is rank enthusiasm.

But as to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think. So that whatsoever they are, whether right or wrong, they are no distinguishing marks of a Methodist. 2. Neither are words or phrases of any sort. We do not place our religion, or any part of it, in being attached to any peculiar mode of speaking, any quaint or uncommon set of expressions. The most obvious, easy, common words, wherein our meaning can be conveyed, we prefer before others, both on ordinary occasions, and when we speak of the things of God. We never, therefore, willingly or designedly, deviate from the most usual way of speaking; unless when we express scripture truths in scripture words, which, we presume, no Christian will condemn. Neither do we affect to use any particular expressions of Scripture more frequently than others, unless they are such as are more frequently used by the inspired writers themselves. So that it is as gross an error, to place the marks of a Methodist in his words, as in opinions of any sort. CHARACTER OF A METHODIST. 34l 3. Nor do we desire to be distinguished by actions, customs, or usages, of an indifferent nature. Our religion does not lie in doing what God has not enjoined, or abstaining from what he hath not forbidden. It does not lie in the form of our apparel, in the posture of our body, or the covering of our heads; nor yet in abstaining from marriage, or from meats and drinks, which are all good if received with thanksgiving. Therefore, neither will any man, who knows whereof he affirms, fix the mark of a Methodist here,--in any actions or customs purely indifferent, undetermined by the word of God. 4. Nor, lastly, is he distinguished by laying the whole stress of religion on any single part of it. If you say, “Yes, he is; for he thinks “we are saved by faith alone:’” I answer, You do not understand the terms. By salvation he means holiness of heart and life. And this he affirms to spring from true faith alone. Can even a nominal Christian deny it? Is this placing a part of religion for the whole? “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid!

Your humilia tion has no influence on that.” Not as a cause; so the very last words explain it. “Again, I believe that in order to obtain justification, I must go straight to Christ, with all my ungodliness, and plead nothing else.” “Yet I believe we should not insist on anything we door feel, as if it were necessary previous to justification.” No, nor on anything else. So the whole tenor of Christian David’s words implies. 27. “I believe a man may have a strong assurance he is jus tified, and not be able to affirm he is a child of God.” Feder’s words are these: “I found my heart at rest, in good hope that mysins were forgiven; of which I had a stronger assur ance six weeks after.” (True, comparatively stronger, though still mixed with doubt and fear.) “But I dare not affirm, I am a child of God.” I see no inconsistency in all this. Many such instances I know at this day. I myself was one for some time. “A man may be fully assured that his sins are forgiven, yet may not be able to tell the day when he received this full assur ance; because it grew up in him by degrees.” (Of this also I know a few other instances.) “But from the time this full assurance was confirmed in him, he never lost it.” Very true, and, I think, consistent. Neuser's own words are, “In him I found true rest to my soul, being fully assured that all my sins were forgiven. Yet I cannot tell the hour or day when I first received that full assurance. For it was not given me at first, neither at once;” (not in its fulness;) “but grew up in me by degrees. And from the time it was confirmed in me, I have never lost it, having never since doubted, no, not for a moment.” “A man may have a weak faith, at the same time that he has peace with God, and no unholy desires.” A man may be justified, who has not a clean heart. 28. (11.) Not in the full sense of the word. This I doverily believe is sound divinity, agreeable both to Scripture and ex perience. And I believe it is consistent with itself.

I must, (3.) Observe that I never knew one of the Moravian Church, but that single per son, affirm that a believer does not grow in holiness. And perhaps he would not affirm it on reflection. But I am still afraid their whole Church is tainted with Quietism, Universal Salvation, and Antinomianism: I speak, as I said elsewhere, of Antinomian opinions, abstracted from practice, good or bad. 3. But I should rejoice if there lay no other objection against them, than that of erroneous opinions. I know in some measure how to have compassion on the ignorant: I know the incredible force of prepossession. And God only knows, what ignorance or error (all things considered) is invincible; and what allowance his mercy will make, in such cases, to those who desire to be led into all truth. But how far what follows may be imputed to invincible ignorance or prepossession, I cannot tell. Many of “you greatly, yea, above measure, exalt yourselves, (as a Church,) and despise others. I have scarce heard one Moravian brother own his Church to be wrong in anything. Many of you I have heard speak of it, as if it were infallible. Some of you have set it up as the judge of all the earth, of all persons as well as doctrines. Some of you have said, that there is no true Church but yours; yea, that there are no true Chris tians out of it. And your own members you require to have implicit faith in her decisions, and to pay implicit obedience to her directions.” (Vol. I. p. 329.) I can in no degree justify these things. And yet neither can I look upon them in the same light that you do, as “some of the very worst things which are objected to the Church of Rome.” (Remarks, p.7.) They are exceeding great mistakes: Yet in as great mistakes have holy men both lived and died;-- Thomas à Kempis, for instance, and Francis Sales. And yet I doubt not they are now in Abraham’s bosom. 4.

“‘Do you not magnify your own Church too much 2 “‘Do you not use guile and dissimulation in many cases? “‘Are you not of a close, dark, reserved temper and beha viour P’ “It may easily be seen, that my objections then were nearly the same as now.” Only with this difference,--I was not then assured that the facts were as I supposed. “Yet I cannot say my affection was lessened at all: (For I did not dare to deter mine anything :) But from November 1, I could not but see more and more things which I could not reconcile with the gospel.” “These I have set down with all simplicity. Yet do I this, because I love them not? God knoweth: Yea, and in part, I esteem them still; because I verily believe they have a sincere desire to serve God; because many of them have tasted of his love, and some retain it in simplicity; because they love one another; because they have so much of the truth of the gospel, and so far abstain from outward sin. And lastly, because their discipline is, in most respects, so truly excellent; notwith standing that visible blemish, the paying too much regard to their great patron and benefactor, Count Zinzendorf.” 6. I believe, if you coolly consider this account, you will not find, either that it is inconsistent with itself, or that it lays you under any necessity of speaking in the following manner: “What charms there may be in a demure look and a sour be haviour, I know not. But sure they must be in your eye very extraordinary, as they can be sufficient to cover such a multi tude of errors and crimes, and keep up the same regard and affection for the authors and abettors of them. I doubt your regard for them was not lessened, till they began to interfere with what you thought your province. You was influenced, not by a just resentment to see the honour of religion and virtue so injuriously and scandalously trampled upon, but by a fear of losing your own authority.” (Remarks, pp. 18, 19.) I doubt, there is scarce one line of all these which is consistent either with truth or love.

But I had not the same degree of regard for them when I saw the dark as well as the bright side of their character. “I doubt your regard for them was not lessened till they began to interfere with what you thought your province.” If this were only a doubt, it were not much amiss; but it presently shoots up into an assertion, equally groundless: For my regard for them lessened, even while I was in Georgia; but it increased again after my return from thence, especially while I was at Hernhuth; and it gradually lessened again for some years, as I saw more and more which I approved not. How then does it appear that “I was influenced herein by a fear of losing my own authority; not by a just resentment to see the honour of religion and virtue so scandalously trampled upon?”--Trampled upon! By whom? Not by the Moravians: I never saw any such thing among them. But what do you mean by “a just resentment?” I hope you do not mean what is commonly called zeal; a flame which often “sets on fire the whole course of nature, and is itself set on fire of hell!” “Rivers of water run from my eyes, because men keep not thy law.” This resentment on such an occasion I understand. From all other may God deliver me ! 8. You go on: “How could you so long and so intimately converse with--such desperately wicked people as the Moravi ans, according to your own account, were known by you to be?” O Sir, what another assertion is this! “The Moravians, accord ing to your own account, were known by you to be desperately wicked people, while you intimately conversed with them l” Utterly false and injurious. I never gave any such account. I conversed intimately with them, both at Savannah and Hern huth.

Against that part of the fourth proposition, “Faith is a sure trust which a man hath, that Christ loved him and died for him,” you object, “This definition is absurd; as it sup poses that such a sure trust can be in one who does not repent of his sins.” (Page 48.) I suppose quite the contrary, as I have declared over and over; nor, therefore, is there any such danger as you apprehend. But you say, “There is nothing distinguishing enough in this to point out the true justifying faith.” (Ibid.) I grant it; supposing a man were to write a book, and say this of it, and no more. But did you ever see any treatise of mine, wherein I said this of faith, and no more? nothing whereby to distin guish true faith from false? Touching this Journal, your own quotations prove the contrary. Yea, and I everywhere insist, that we are to distinguish them by their fruits, by inward and outward righteousness, by the peace of God filling and ruling the heart, and by patient, active joy in the Holy Ghost. You conclude this point: “I have now, Sir, examined at. large your account of justification; and, I hope, fully refuted the several articles in which you have comprised it.” (Page 49.) We differ in our judgment. I do not apprehend you have refuted any one proposition of the four. You have, indeed, amended the second, by adding the word meritorious ; for which I give you thanks. 11. You next give what you style, “the Christian scheme of justification;” (page 50;) and afterwards point out the consequences which you apprehend to have attended the preaching justification by faith; the Third point into which I was to inquire. You open the cause thus: “The denying the necessity of good works, as the condition of justification, directly draws after it, or rather includes in it, all manner of impiety and vice. It has often perplexed and disturbed the minds of men, and in the last century occasioned great confusions in this nation. These are points which are ever liable to misconstructions, and have ever yet been more or less attended with them.

But “complaints,” you say, “of their errors, come very ill from you, because you have occasioned them.” Nay, if it were so, for that very cause they ought to come from me. If I had occasioned an evil, surely I am the very person who ought to remove it as far as I can; to recover, if possible, those who are hurt already, and to caution others against it. 14. On some of those complaints, as you term them, you remark as follows:- “Many of those who once knew in whom they had believed” (these are my words) “were thrown into idle reasonings, and thereby filled with doubts and fears.” (Page 13.) “This,” you add, “it is to be feared, has been too much the case of the Methodists in general.--Accordingly we find, in this Journal, several instances, not barely of doubts and 398 ANSWER. To fears, but of the most desperate despair. This is the conse quence of resting so much on sensible impressions.--Bad men may be led into presumption thereby; an instance of which you give, Vol. I. p. 295.” That instance will come in our way again: “Many of those who once knew in whom they had believed were thrown,” by the Antinomians, “into idle reasonings, and thereby filled with doubts and fears. This,” you fear, “has been the case with the Methodists in general.” You must mean, (to make it a parallel case,) that the generality of the people now termed Methodists were true believers till they heard us preach, but were thereby thrown into idle reasonings, and filled with needless doubts and fears. Exactly contrary to truth in every particular. For, (1) They lived in open sins till they heard us preach, and, consequently, were no better believers than their father the devil. (2.) They were not then thrown into idle reasonings, but into serious thought how to flee from the wrath to come. Nor, (3) Were they filled with needless doubts and fears, but with such as were needful in the highest degree, such as actually issued in repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. “Accordingly, we find in this Journal several instances of the most desperate despair. (Ibid. pp. 261, 272,294.)” Then I am greatly mistaken.

16. You proceed: “Kingswood you call your own house: And when one Mr. C. opposed you there, you reply to him, ‘You should not have supplanted me in my own house, stealing the hearts of the people. The parochial Clergy may call their several districts their own houses, with much more propriety than you could call Kingswood yours. And yet how have you supplanted them therein, and laboured to steal the hearts of the people ! You have suffered by the same ways you took to dis charge your spleen and malice against your brethren. “Your brother’s words to Mr. C. are,--“Whether his doctrine is true or false, is not the question. But you ought first to have fairly told him, I preach contrary to you. Are you willing, notwithstanding, that I should continue in your house, gain saying you ? Shall I stay here opposing you, or shall I depart 2' Think you hear this spoken to you by us. What can you justly reply?--Again, if Mr. C. had said thus to you, and you had refused him leave to stay; I ask you, whether in such a case he would have had reason to resent such a refusal? I think you cannot say he would. And yet how loudly have you objected our refusing our pulpits to you!” (Remarks, page 15.) So you judge these to be exactly parallel cases. It lies therefore upon me to show that they are not parallel at all; that there is, in many respects, an essential difference between them. (1) “Kingswood you call your own house.” So I do, that is, the school-house there. For I bought the ground where it stands, and paid for the building it, partly from the contribution of my friends, (one of whom contributed fifty pounds,) partly * Wol. I. pp. 300, 301, and 305, of the present Edition.--EDIT. + For the purpose of exciting ill-will.-EDIT. from the income of my own Fellowship. No Clergyman therefore can call his parish his own house with more pro priety than I can call this house mine. (2) “Mr. C. opposed you there.” True; but who was Mr. C.? One I had sent for to assist me there; a friend that was as my own soul; that, even while he opposed me, lay in my bosom. What resemblance then does Mr.

p. 283.) Do I say here, that “we ought not in the strongest pain once to desire to have a moment's ease?” What a frightful distortion of my words is this ! What I say is, “A serious person affirmed to me, that God kept her for two days in such a state.” And why not? Where is the absurdity? “At the end of one of your hymns, you seem to carry this notion to the very height of extravagancy and presumption. You say, “Doom, if thou canst, to endless pains, And drive me from thy face.” If thou canst; that is, if thou canst deny thyself, if thou canst forget to be gracious, if thou canst cease to be truth and love. So the lines both preceding and following fix the sense. I see nothing of stoical insensibility, neither of extravagancy or presumption, in this. 5. Your last charge is, that I am guilty of enthusiasm to the highest degree. “Enthusiasm,” you say, “is a false persuasion of an extraordinary divine assistance, which leads men on to such conduct as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance. An enthusiast is, then, sincere, but mistaken. His intentions are good, but his actions most abominable. Instead of making the word of God the rule of his actions, he follows only that secret impulse which is owing to a warm imagination. Instead of judging of his spiritual estate by the improvement of his heart, he rests only on ecstasies, &c. He is very liable to err, as not considering things coolly and carefully. 406 ANSWER. To He is very difficult to be convinced by reason and argument, as he acts upon a supposed principle superior to it, the directions of God’s Spirit. Whoever opposes him is charged with resist ing the Spirit. His own dreams must be regarded as oracles. Whatever he does is to be accounted the work of God. Hence he talks in the style of inspired persons; and applies Scripture phrases to himself, without attending to their original mean ing, or once considering the difference of times and circum stances.” (Remarks, pp. 60, 61.) You have drawn, Sir, (in the main,) a true picture of an enthusiast. But it is no more like me, than I am like a centaur.

But it is no more like me, than I am like a centaur. Yet you say, “They are these very things which have been charged upon you, and which you could never yet disprove.” I will try for once; and, to that end, will go over these articles one by one. “Enthusiasm is a false persuasion of an extraordinary divine assistance, which leads men on to such conduct as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance.” Before this touches me, you are to prove, (which, I conceive, you have not done yet,) that my conduct is such as is only to be justified by the supposition of an extraordinary divine assistance. “An enthusiast is, then, sincere, but mistaken.” That I am mis taken, remains also to be proved. “His intentions are good; but his actions most abominable.” Sometimes they are; yet not always. For there may be innocent madmen. But, what actions of mine are most abominable? I wait to learn. “Instead of making the word of God the rule of his actions, he follows only his secret impulse.” In the whole compass of language, there is not a proposition which less belongs to me than this. I have declared again and again, that I make the word of God the rule of all my actions; and that I no more follow any secret impulse instead thereof, than I follow Mahomet or Confucius. Not even a word or look Do I approve or own, But by the model of thy book, Thy sacred book alone. “Instead of judging of his spiritual estate by the improve ment of his heart, he rests only on ecstasies.” Neither is this my case. I rest not on them at all. Nor did I ever experience any. I do judge of my spiritual estate by the improvement of my heart and the tenor of my life conjointly. “He is very liable Thi E REV. M.R. CHURCH. 407 to err.” So indeed I am. I find it every day more and more. But I do not yet find, that this is owing to my want of “considering things coolly and carefully.” Perhaps you do not know many persons (excuse my simplicity in speaking it) who more carefully consider every step they take. Yet I know I am not cool or careful enough. May God supply this and all my wants!

You have no authority, from any sentence or word of mine, for putting such a construction upon it; no more than you have for that strange intimation, (how remote both from jus tice and charity 1) that “I parallel these cases with those of Amanias and Sapphira, or of Elymas the sorcerer !” 10. You proceed to what you account a fifth instance of enthusiasm: “With regard to people’s falling in fits, it is plain, you look upon both the disorders and removals of them to be supernatural.” (Remarks, pp. 68, 69.) It is not quite plain. I look upon some of these cases as wholly natural; on the rest as mixed, both the disorder and the removal being partly natural and partly not. Six of these you pick out from, it may be, two hundred; and add, “From all which, you leave no room to doubt, that you would have these cases considered as those of the demoniacs in the New Testament; in order, I suppose, to parallel your supposed cures of them with the highest miracles of Christ and his disciples.” I should once have wondered at your making such a supposition; but I now wonder at nothing of this kind. Only be pleased to remember, till this supposition is made good, it is no confirmation at all of my enthusiasm. You then attempt to account for those fits by “obstructions or irregularities of the blood and spirits, hysterical disorder, watchings, fastings, closeness of rooms, great crowds, violent heat.” And, lastly, by “terrors, perplexities, and doubts, in weak and well-meaning men;” which, you think, in many of the cases before us, have “quite overset their understandings.” As to each of the rest, let it go as far as it can go. But I require proof of the last way whereby you would account for these disorders. Why, “The instances,” you say, “of religious madness have much increased since you began to disturb the world.” (Remarks, pp. 68, 69.) I doubt the fact. Although, if these instances had increased lately, it is easy to account for them another way. “Most have heard of, or known, several of the Methodists thus driven to distraction.” You may have heard of five hundred; but how many have you known? Be pleased to name eight or ten of them.

“I was not then,” in September, 1738, “assured that the facts were as I supposed.” Therefore, “I did not” then “dare to determine anything.” Be pleased to add the immediately following words: “But from November 1,” 1739, “I saw more and more things which I could not reconcile with the Gospel.”- If you had not omitted these words, you could have had no colour to remark, on my saying, “I did not dare to determine anything:” “No! Not when by conversing among them you saw these things?” No, I did not “dare to determine,” in Sep tember, 1738, from what I saw in November, 1739. “But the facts are of such a nature, that you could not but be assured of them, if they were true.” I cannot think so. “Is not the Count all in all among you? Do not you magnify your own Church too much? Do you not use guile and dissimulation in many cases?” These facts are by no means of such a nature, as that whoever converses (even intimately) among the Mo ravians cannot but be assured of them. “Nor do the questions in your Letter really imply any doubt of their truth.” No! Are not my very words prefixed to those questions?--“Of some other things I stand in doubt. And I wish that, in order to remove those doubts, you would plainly answer, whether the fact be as I suppose.” “But ’’ these questions “are so many appeals to their consciences.” True. “And equivalent to strong assertions.” Utterly false. “If you had not been assured, if you did not dare to determine anything concerning what you saw,” (fifteen months after,) “your writing bare suspicions to a body of men, in such a manner, was inexcu sable.” They were strong presumptions then; which yet I did not write to a body of men, whom I so highly esteemed; no, not even in the tenderest manner, till I was assured they were not groundless. 8. “In a note at the bottom of page 8, you observe, ‘The Band-Society in London began May 1, some time before I set out for Germany.’ Would you insinuate here, that you did not set it up in imitation of the Moravians?” Sir, I will tell you the naked truth.

“In a note at the bottom of page 8, you observe, ‘The Band-Society in London began May 1, some time before I set out for Germany.’ Would you insinuate here, that you did not set it up in imitation of the Moravians?” Sir, I will tell you the naked truth. You had remarked thus: “You took the trouble of a journey to Germany to them; and were so much in love with their methods, that at your return hither, you set up their Bands among your disciples.” (Page 17.) This was an entire mistake; for that society was set up, not only before I returned, but before I set out. And I designed that note to in sinuate this toyou, without telling your mistake to all the world. “I imagined, that, supposing your account of the Moravians true, it would be impossible for any serious Christian to doubt of their being very wicked people.” I know many serious Chris tians who suppose it true, and yet believe they are, in the main, good men. “A much worse character, take the whole body together, cannot be given of a body of men.” Let us try : “Here is a body of men who have not one spark either of justice, mercy, or truth among them; who are lost to all sense of right and wrong; who have neither sobriety, temperance, nor chastity; who are, in general, liars, drunkards, gluttons, thieves, adulterers, murderers.” I cannot but think, that this is a much worse character than that of the Moravians, take it how you will. “Let the reader judge how far you are now able to defend them.” Just as far as I did at first. Still I dare not condemn what is good among them; and I will not excuse what is evil. 9. “The Moravians excel in sweetness of behaviour.” What, though they use guile and dissimulation ?” Yes. “Where is their multitude of errors?’ In your own Journal. I have taken the pains to place them in one view in my Remarks ; the just ness of which, with all your art, you cannot disprove.” You have taken the pains to transcribe many words; all which together amount to this, that they, generally, hold universal salvation, and are partly Antinomians, (in opinion,) partly Quietists. The justness of some of your remarks, if I mistake not, has been pretty fully disproved.

I desire leave to cite part of that passage again, that we may come as near each other as possible. I would just subjoin a few words on each head, which I hope may remove more difficulties out of the way:-- “That justification, whereof our Articles and Homilie speak, means present pardon, and acceptance with God; who therein ‘declares his righteousness, or mercy, “by” or ‘for the remission of sins that are past.’” I say, past : For I cannot find anything in the Bible of the remission of sins, past, present, and to come. “I believe the condition of this is faith; I mean, not only that without faith we cannot be justified, but also, that, as soon as any one has true faith, in that moment he is justified.” You take the word condition in the former sense only, as that without which we cannot be justified. In this sense of the word, I think we may allow, that there are several conditions of justification. “Good works follow this faith, but cannot go before it. Much less can sanctification; which implies a continued course of good works, springing from holiness of heart.” Yet such a course is, without doubt, absolutely necessary to our continuance in a state of justification. “It is allowed, that repentance and “fruits meet for repent ance’ go before faith. Repentance absolutely must go before faith; fruits meet for it, if there be opportunity. By repentance I mean conviction of sin, producing real desires and sincere resolutions of amendment; and by “fruits meet for repentance,’ forgiving our brother, ceasing from evil, doing good, using the ordinances of God, and, in general, obeying him according to the measureof grace which we have received. But these I cannot as yet term good works, because they do not spring from faith and the love of God.” Although the same works are then good, when they are performed by “those who have believed.” “Faith, in general, is a divine supernatural exeyxos (evidence or conviction) of things not seen, not discoverable by our bodily senses, as being either past, future, or spiritual. Justifying faith implies not only a divine exeyxos, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, but a sure trust and confidence that Christ died for my sins, that he loved me, and gave himself for me.

This was free in him, because undeserved by us; undeserved, because we had trans gressed his law, and could not, nor even can now, perfectly fulfil it. “(2.) We cannot, therefore, be justified by our works; be cause this would be, to be justified by some merit of our own. Much less can we be justified by an external show of religion, or by any superstitious observances. “(3.) The life and death of our Lord is the sole merito rious cause of this mercy, which must be firmly believed and trusted in by us. Our faith therefore in him, though not more meritorious than any other of our actions, yet has a nearer relation to the promises of pardon through him, and is the mean and instrument whereby we embrace and receive them. “(4.) True faith must be lively and productive of good works, which are its proper fruits, the marks whereby it is known. “(5.) Works really good are such as are commanded by God, (springing from faith,) done by the aid of his Holy. Spirit, with good designs, and to good ends. These may be considered as internal or external. “(6.) The inward ones, such as hope, trust, fear, and love of God and our neighbour, (which may be more properly termed good dispositions, and [are branches of] sanctification,) must always be joined with faith, and consequently be condi tions present in justification, though they are not the means or instruments of receiving it. “(7.) The outward,” (which are more properly termed good works,) “though there be no immediate opportunity of prac tising them, and therefore a sincere desire and resolution to perform them be sufficient for the present; yet must follow after as soon as occasion offers, and will then be necessary conditions of preserving our justification. “(8.) There is a justification conveyed to us in our baptism, or, properly, this state is then begun. But, should we fall into sins, we cannot regain it without true faith and repent ance, which implies (as its fruits) a forsaking of our sins, and amendment of our whole life.” I have only one circumstance farther to add, namely, that I am not newly convinced of these things. For this is the doc trine which I have continually taught for eight or nine years last past; only, I abstained from the word condition, perhaps more scrupulously than was needful. 4.

Simpson were induced to leave it by reasons of quite another kind. You add, “We cannot wonder that some Methodists have withdrawn from her, while they have been used to hear doc trines which they must have been sensible have no place in her Articles and Service.” So far from it, that all I know of them are deeply sensible, the “doctrines they have been used to hear” daily, are no other than the genuine doctrines of the Church, as expressed both in her Articles and Service. 2. But our present question turns not on doctrine but dis cipline. “My first business,” you say, “is to consider some very lax notions of Church communion which I find in your last Journal. Vol.I. p.262, you say, “Our Twentieth Article defines a true Church, a congregation of faithful people, wherein the true word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly admi nistered.” (Page 3.) The use I would willingly make of this definition, (which, observe, is not mine, be it good or bad,) is to stop the boasting of ungodly men, by cutting off their pre tence to call themselves of the Church. But you think they may call themselves so still. Then let them. I will not con tend about it. But you cannot infer from hence, that my notions of Church communion are either lax or otherwise. The definition which I occasionally cite shows nothing of my sentiments on that head. And for anything which occurs in this page, they may be strict or loose, right or wrong. You add, “It will be requisite, in order to approve yourself a Minister of our Church, that you follow her rules and orders; that you constantly conform to the method of worship she has prescribed, and study to promote her peace.” (Page 5.) All this is good and fit to be done. But it properly belongs to the following question: “What led you into such very loose notions of Church com munion, I imagine, might be, your being conscious to yourself, that, according to the strict, just, account of the Church of England, you could not, with any grace, maintain your pre tensions to belong still to her.” Sir, I have never told you yet what my notions of Church communion are. They may be wrong, or they may be right, for all you know.

Whoever is a Minister at all is a Minister of some particular Church. Neither can he cease to be a Minister of that Church, till he is cast out of it by a judicial sentence. Till, therefore, I am so cast out, (which I trust will never be,) I must style myself a Minister of the Church of England. 6. Your next objection is, “You not only erect Bands, which, after the Moravians, you call the United Society, but also give out tickets to those that continue therein.” These Bands, you think, “have had very bad consequences, as was to be expected, when weak people are made leaders of their brethren, and are set upon expounding Scripture.” (Ibid.) You are in some mistakes here. For, (1.) The Bands are not called the United Society.(2.) The United Society was originally so called, not after the Moravians, but because it consisted of several smaller societies united together. (3.) Neither the Bands nor the leaders of them, as such, are “set upon expounding Scripture.” (4.) The good consequences of their meeting together in Bands, I know; but the very bad consequences, I know not. When any members of these, or of the United Society, are proved to live in known sin, we then mark and avoid them; we separate ourselves from every one that walks disorderly. Some times, if the case be judged infectious, (though rarely,) this is openly declared. And this you style “excommunication;” and say, “Does not every one see a separate ecclesiastical society or communion?” (Page 13.) No. This society does not sepa rate from the communion of the rest of the Church of England. They continue steadfastly with them, both “in the apostolical doctrine, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.” (Which neither Mr. St-- nor Mr. Simpson does, nor the gentleman who writes to you in favour of the Moravians, who also writes pressingly to me to separate myself from the Church.) A society “over which you had appointed yourself a governor.” No: so far as I governed them, it was at their own entreaty. “And took upon you all the spiritual authority which the very highest Church Governor could claim.” What! at Kings wood, in February, 1740-1? Not so. I took upon me no other authority (then and there at least) than any Steward of a society exerts by the consent of the other members.

I took upon me no other authority (then and there at least) than any Steward of a society exerts by the consent of the other members. I did neither more nor less than declare, that they who had broken our rules were no longer of our society. “Can you pretend that you received this authority from our Church?” Not by ordination; for I did not exert it as a Priest; but as one whom that society had voluntarily chosen to be at the head of them. “Or that you exercised it in sub jection or subordination to her lawful Governors?” I think so; I am sure I did not exercise it in any designed opposition to them. “Did you ever think proper to consult or advise with them, about fixing the terms of your communion?” If you mean, about fixing the rules of admitting or excluding from our society, I never did think it either needful or proper. Nor do I at this day. “How then will you vindicate all these powers?” All these are, “declaring those are no longer of our society.” “Here is a manifest congregation. Either it belonged to the Church of England, or not. If it did not, you set up a separate commu nion against her. And how then are you injured, in being thought to have withdrawn from her?” I have nothing to do with this. The antecedent is false: Therefore the consequent falls of course. “If it did belong to the Church, show where the Church gave you such authority of controlling and regulating it?” Authority of putting disorderly members out of that society? The society itself gave me that autho rity. “What private Clergyman can plead her commission to be thus a Judge and Ordinary, even in his own parish?” Any Clergyman or layman, without pleading her commis sion, may be thus a Judge and Ordinary. “Are not these powers inherent in her Governors, and committed to the higher order of her Clergy?” No; not the power of ex cluding members from a private society, -unless on supposi tion of some such rule as ours is, viz., “That if any man sepa rate from the Church, he is no longer a member of our society.” 7. But you have more proof yet: “The Grand Jury in Georgia found, that you had called yourself Ordinary of Savan nah.

pp. 163, 165,) it is particularly mentioned, that “I was troubled;” and that, by the seasonable application of those scriptures, that trouble was entirely removed. The same bless ing I received (so I must term it still) from the words set down in page 231; and in a yet higher degree, from that exceeding apposite scripture mentioned in Vol. I. page 307. I observe, (3.) That at the times to which your other cita tions refer, I was utterly uncertain how to act in points of great importance, and such as required a speedy determination; and that, by this means, my uncertainty was removed, and I went on my way rejoicing. (Vol. I. pp. 163, 165, 264.) My own experience, therefore, which you think should dis courage me for the future from anything of this kind, does, on the contrary, greatly encourage me herein; since I have found much benefit, and no inconvenience; unless, perhaps, this be one, that you “cannot acquit me of enthusiasm;” add, if you please, and presumption. But you ask, “Has God ever commanded us to do thus?” I believe he has neither commanded nor forbidden it in Scripture. But then remember, “that Scripture” (to use the words which you cite from “our learned and judicious Hooker”) “is not the only rule of all things, which, in this life, may be done by men.” All I affirm concerning this is, that it may be done; and that I have, in fact, received assistance and direction thereby. 4. I give the same answer to your assertion, that we are not ordered in Scripture to decide any points in question by lots. (Remarks, p. 123.) You allow, indeed, there are instances of this in Scripture; but affirm, “These were miraculous; nor can we, without presumption,” (a species of enthusiasm,) “apply this method.” I want proof of this: Bring one plain text of Scrip ture, and I am satisfied. “This, I apprehend, you learned from the Moravians.” I did; though, it is true, Mr. White field thought I went too far therein. “Instances of the same occur in your Journals. I will mention only one. It being debated, when you should go to Bristol, you say, ‘We at length all agreed to decide it by lot. And by this it was determined I should go.” (Vol. I. p.

Did he not work “real and undoubted miracles?” And what was the effect? Still, when “he came to his own, his own received him not.” Still “he was despised and rejected of men.” Still it was a challenge not to be answered: “Have any of the rulers or of the Phari sees believed on him?” After this, how can you imagine, that whoever works miracles must convince “all men of the truth of his pretences?” I would just remind you of only one instance more: “There sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked. The same heard Paul speak; who steadfastly beholding him, and perceiv ing that he had faith to be healed, said, with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.” Here was so undoubted a miracle, that the people “lifted up their voices, saying, The Gods are come down in the likeness of men.” But how long were even these convinced of the truth of his pretences? Only till “there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium;’ and then they stoned him (as they supposed) to death ! (Acts xiv. 8, &c.) So certain it is, that no miracles whatever, which were ever yet wrought in the world, were effectual to prove the most glaring truth, to those that hardened their hearts against it. 4. And it will equally hold in every age and nation. “If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be’” con vinced of what they desire not to believe, “though one rose from the dead.” Without a miracle, without one rising from the dead, eav tis 6exy to 6exmua avtov Troueuv, “if any man be willing to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God.” But if he is not willing to do his will, he will never want an excuse, a plausible reason, for rejecting it. Yea, though ever so many miracles were wrought to confirm it.

8. To sum up this: No truly wise or sober man can possibly desire or expect miracles to prove either, (1.) That these doc trines are true;--this must be decided by Scripture and reason; or, (2.) That these facts are true;--this can only be proved by testimony; or, (3.) That to change sinners from darkness to light, is the work of God alone; only using what instruments he pleases;-- this is glaringly self-evident; or, (4.) That such a change wrought in so many notorious sinners, within so short a time, is a great and extraordinary work of God: this also carries its own evidence. What then is it which remains to be proved by miracles? Perhaps you will say, It is this: “That God hath called or sent you to do this.” Nay, this is implied in the third of the foregoing propositions. If God has actually used us therein, if his work hath in fact prospered in our hands, then he hath called or sent us to do this. I entreat reasonable men to weigh this thoroughly, whether the fact does not plainly prove the call; whether He who enables us thus to save souls alive, does not commission us so to do; whether, by giving us power to pluck these brands out of the burning, He does not authorize us to exert it? O that it were possible for you to consider calmly, whether the success of the gospel of Jesus Christ, even as it is preached by us, the least of his servants, be not itself a miracle, never to be forgotten one which cannot be denied, as being visible at this day, not in one, but a hundred places; one which cannot be accounted for by the ordinary course of any natural cause whatsoever; one which cannot be ascribed, with any colour of reason, to diabolical agency; and, lastly, one which will bear the infallible test,-the trial of the written word. VI. 1. But here I am aware of abundance of objections. You object, That to speak anything of myself, of what I have done, or am doing now, is mere boasting and vanity. This charge you frequently repeat. So, p. 102: “The following page is full of boasting.” “You boast very much of the numbers you have converted;” (p.

I expressly specify whom I design: “Ye who tell the mourners in Zion, Much religion hath made you mad.” You say, (5) (with a N. B.,) “All the Clergy who differ from you, you style so, page 225; in which, and the foregoing page, you causelessly slander them as speaking of their own holiness as that for the sake of which, on account of which, we are justi fied before God.”- Let any serious person read over those pages. I therein slander no man: I speak what I know; what I have both heard and read. The men are alive, and the books are extant. And the same conclusion I now defend, touching that part of the Clergy who preach or write thus; viz., if they preach the truth as it is in Jesus, I am found a false witness before God. But if I preach the way of God in truth, then they are blind leaders of the blind. (6.) You quote those words, “Nor can I be said to intrude into the labours of those who do not labour at all, but suffer thousands of those for whom Christ died to perish for lack of knowledge.” (Vol. I. p. 214.) I wrote that letter near Kingswood. I would to God the observation were not terribly true! (7.) The first passage you cite from the “Earn est Appeal,” (pages 25, 26) evidently relates to a few only among the Clergy; and if the charge be true but of one in five hundred, it abundantly supports my reasoning. (8.) In the next, (Ibid. page 30,) I address all those, and those only, who affirm that I preach for gain. You conclude: “The reader has now before him the manner in which you have been pleased to treat the Clergy; and your late sermon is too fresh an instance of the like usage of the Universities.” (Second Letter, p. 107.) It is an instance of speaking the truth in love. So I desire all mankind may use me. Nor could I have said less either to the University or the Clergy without sinning against God and my own soul. 11. But I must explain myself a little on that practice which you so often term “abusing the Clergy.” I have many times great sorrow and heaviness in my heart on account of these my brethren.

He saves those sinners from their sins whom the man of learning and education cannot save. A peasant being brought before the College of Physicians, at Paris, a learned Doctor accosted him, “What, friend, do you pretend to prescribe to people that have agues? Dost thou know what an ague is?” He replied, “Yes, Sir; an ague is what I can cure, and you cannot.” 10. Will you object, “But he is no Minister, nor has any authority to save souls?” I must beg leave to dissent from you in this. I think he is a true, evangelical Minister, 8vakovos, “servant” of Christ and his Church, who ovro Buakovet, “ so ministers,” as to save souls from death, to reclaim sinners from their sins; and that every Christian, if he is able to do it, has authority to save a dying soul. But if you only mean, “He has no authority to take tithes,” I grant it. He takes none: As he has freely received, so he freely gives. 11. But, to carry the matter a little farther: I am afraidi wi: hold, on the other hand, with regard to the soul as well as the LETTER. To A CLERGYMAN. 499 body, Medicus non est qui non medetur.” I am afraid, reasonable men will be much inclined to think, he that saves no souls is no Minister of Christ. 12. “O, but he is ordained, and therefore has authority.” Authority to do what? “To save all the souls that will put themselves under his care.” True; but (to wave the case of them that will not; and would you desire that even those should perish?) he does not, in fact, save them that are under his care: Therefore, what end does his authority serve? IIe that was a drunkard is a drunkard still. The same is true of the Sabbath-breaker, the thief, the common swearer. This is the best of the case; for many have died in their iniquity, and their blood will God require at the watchman’s hand. 13. For surely he has no authority to murder souls, either by his neglect, by his smooth, if not false, doctrine, or by 'hindering another from plucking them out of the fire, and bringing them to life everlasting. 14.

With his Lordship, therefore, I have no present concern; my business now is with you only: And seeing you are “now ready,” as you express it, “to run a tilt,” I must make what defence I can. Only you must excuse me from meeting you on the same ground, or fighting you with the same * In “A Letter to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London.” weapons: My weapons are only truth and love. May the God of truth and love strengthen my weakness | 4. I wave what relates to Mr. V ’s personal character, which is too well known to need my defence of it; as like wise the occurrence (real or imaginary I cannot tell) which gave birth to your performance. All that I concern myself with is your five vehement assertions with regard to the peo ple called Methodists. These I shall consider in their order, and prove to be totally false and groundless. 5. The first is this: “Their whole ministry is an open and avowed opposition to one of the fundamental articles of our areligion.” (Page 4.) How so? Why, “the Twentieth Article declares, we may not so expound one scripture, that it be repugnant to another. And yet it is notorious, that the Methodists do ever explain the word ‘faith’ as it stands in some of St. Paul’s writings, so as to make his doctrine a direct and flat contradiction to that of St. James.” (Page 5.) This stale objection has been answered an hundred times, so that I really thought we should have heard no more of it. But since it is required, I repeat the answer once more: By faith we mean “the evidence of things not seen; ” by justi fying faith, a divine evidence or conviction, that “Christ loved me, and gave himself for me.” St. Paul affirms, that a man is justified by this faith; which St. James never denies, but only asserts, that a man cannot be justified by a dead faith: And this St. Paul never affirms. “But St. James declares, ‘Faith without works is dead.” Therefore it is clearly St. James's meaning, that a faith which is without virtue and morality cannot produce salva tion. Yet the Methodists so explain St. Paul, as to affirm that faith without virtue or morality will produce salvation.” (Page 6.) Where? in which of their writings?

For you had before you, while you wrote, the very tract wherein I corrected Mr. Bedford’s mistake, and explicitly declared, “The assurance whereof I speak is not an assurance of salva tion.” And the very passages you cite from me prove the same; every one of which (as you yourself know in your own conscience) relates wholly and solely to present pardon, not to future salvation. Of Christian perfection (page 45) I shall not say anything to you, till you have learned a little heathen honesty. 22. That this is a lesson you have not yet learned, appears, also, from your following section; wherein you roundly affirm, “Whatever they think, say, or do,” (that is, the Methodists, according to their own account,) “is from God. And whatever opposeth is from the devil.” I doubt not but Mr. Church believed this to be true when he asserted it. But this is no plea for you; who, having read the answer to Mr. Church, still assert what you know to be false. “Here we have,” say you, “the true spirit and very essence of enthusiasm, which sets men above carnal reason ing, and all conviction of plain Scripture.” (Page 49.) It may, or may not; that is nothing to me. I am not above either reason or Scripture. To either of these I am ready to submit. But I cannot receive scurrilous invective, instead of Scripture; nor pay the same regard to low buffoonery, as to clear and cogent reasons. 23. With your two following pages I have nothing to do. But in the fifty-second I read as follows: “‘A Methodist,’ says Mr. Wesley, ‘went to receive the sacrament; when God was pleased to let him see a crucified Saviour.” Very well; and what is this brought to prove? Why, (1.) That I am an enthusiast: (2.) That I “encourage the notion of the real, corporal presence, in the sacrifice of the mass.” How so? Why, “this is as good an argument for transubstantiation as several produced by Bellarmine.” (Page 57.) Very likely it may; and as good as several produced by you for the enthusiasm of the Methodists. 24. In that “seraphic rhapsody of divine love,” as you term it, which you condemn in the lump, as rant and mad Aness, there are several scriptural expressions, both from the Old and New Testament.

In the Second Lesson, (Luke xviii.,) was our Lord’s prediction of the treat ment which he himself, and consequently his followers, were to meet with from the world. “Yet notwithstanding these plain declarations of our Lord, notwithstanding my own repeated experience, notwithstanding the experience of all the sincere followers of Christ, whom I ever talked with, read or heard of, may, and the reason of the thing, evincing to a demonstration, that all who love not the light must hate him who is continually labouring to pour it in upon them; I do here bear witness against myself, that, when I saw the number of people crowding into the church, the deep attention with which they received the word, and the seriousness that afterwards sat on all their faces; I could * This quotation from Horace is thus translated by Francis: “It breathes the spirit of the tragic scene.”-EDIT. scarce refrain from giving the lie to experience, and reason, and Scripture, all together. I could hardly believe that the greater, the far greater, part of this attentive, serious people, would hereafter trample under foot that word, and say all manner of evil falsely of him that spoke it.” (Vol. I. p. 27.) Sir, does this prove me guilty of scepticism or infidelity; of doubting or denying the truth of Revelation? Did I speak this, “upon the people using me ill, and saying all manner of evil against me?” Or am I here describing “any emotion raised in me hereby?” Blush, blush, Sir, if you can blush. You had here no possible room for mistake. You grossly and wilfully falsify the whole passage, to support a groundless, shameless accusation. 24. The second passage (written January 24, 1737-8) is this: “In a storm, I think, What if the gospel be not true? Then thou art of all men most foolish P For what hast thou given thy goods, thy ease, thy friends, thy reputation, thy country, thy life? For what art thou wandering over the face of the earth? A dream; a cunningly devised fable.” (Vol. I. p. 74.) I am here describing the thoughts which passed through my mind when I was confessedly an unbeliever. But even this implies no scepticism, much less Atheism; no “denial of the truth of Revelation;” but barely such transient doubts as, I presume, may assault any thinking man that knows not God.

Whitefield charges Mr. Wesley with hold ing universal redemption, and I charge him with holding parti cular redemption. This is the standing charge on either side. And now, Sir, “what are we to think?” Why, that you have not proved one point of this charge against the Methodists. However, you stumble on: “Are these things so? Are they true, or are they not true? If not true, they are grievous calumniators; if true, they are detestable sectarists. Whether true or false, the allegation stands good of their fierce and rancorous quarrels, and mutual heinous accusations.” Sir, has your passion quite extinguished your reason? Have fierceness and rancour left you no understanding? Otherwise, how is it possible you should run on at this senseless, shameless rate? These things are true which Mr. Whitefield and Wes ley object to each other. He holds the decrees; I do not: Yet this does not prove us “detestable sectarists.” And whether these things are true or false, your allegation of our “fierce and rancorous quarrels, and mutual heinous accusations,” cannot stand good, without better proof than you have yet produced. 34. Yet, with the utmost confidence, quasi re bene gesta,” you proceed, “And how stands the matter among their dis ciples? They are all together by the ears, embroiled and broken with unchristian quarrels and confusions.” * As though you had accomplished some mighty affair.-EDIT. How do you prove this? Why thus: “Mr. Wesley's Fourth Journal is mostly taken up in enumerating their wrath, dissensions, and apostasies.” No, Sir, not a tenth part of it; although it gives a full and explicit account of the greatest dissensions which ever were among them. But to come to particulars: You First cite these words, “At Oxford, but a few who had not forsaken them.” My words are, “Monday, October 1, 1738. I rode to Oxford, and found a few who had not yet forsaken the assembling themselves together.” This is your First proof that “the Methodists are all together by the ears.” Your Second is its very twin-brother. “Tuesday, 2. I went to many who once heard the word with joy; but ‘when the sun arose they withered away.’” (Vol. I. p. 227.) Your Third is this: “Many were induced (by the Moravians) to deny the gift of God, and affirm they never had any faith at all.” (Ibid. p.

I have at length gone through your whole performance, weighed whatever you cite from my writings, and shown at large how far those passages are from proving all, or any part, of your charge. So that all you attempt to build on them, of the pride and vanity of the Methodists; of their shuffling and prevaricating; of their affectation of prophesying; laying claim to the miraculous favours of Heaven; unsteadiness of temper; unsteadiness in sentiment and practice; art and cunning; giving up inspiration and extraordinary calls; scepticism, in fidelity, Atheism; uncharitableness to their opponents; con tempt of order and authority; and fierce, rancorous quarrels with each other; of the tendency of Methodism to undermine morality and good works; and to carry on the good work of Popery:--All this fabricfalls to the ground at once, unless you can find some better foundation to support it. (Sections iii. vi.; ix., xi.--xv.; xviii.-xxi.) 50. These things being so, what must all unprejudiced men think of you and your whole performance? You have ad Vanced a charge, not against one or two persons only, but indis criminately against a whole body of people, of His Majesty’s subjects, Englishmen, Protestants, members, I suppose, of your own Church: a charge containing abundance of articles, and most of them of the highest and blackest nature. You have prosecuted this with unparalleled bitterness of spirit and acri mony of language; using sometimes the most coarse, rude, scurrilous terms, sometimes the keenest sarcasms you could devise. The point you have steadily pursued in thus prose cuting this charge, is, First, to expose the whole people to the hatred and scorn of all mankind; and, next, to stir up the civil powers against them. And when this charge comes to be fairly weighed, there is not a single article of it true ! The passages you cite to make it good are one and all such as prove nothing less than the points in question; most of them such as you have palpably maimed, corrupted, and strained to a sense never thought of by the writer; many of them such as are flat against you, and overthrow the very point they are brought to support.

He never offered any rudeness to any maid of mine. I never saw or knew any harm of him: But a man told me once, (who I was told was a Methodist Preacher,) that I should be damned if I did not know my sins were forgiven.’” Your Lordship replies, “I neither sent word that I would dine at their house, nor did I send for Mrs. Morgan; every word that passed between us was at her own house at Mitchel.” (Page 7.) I believe it; and consequently, that the want of exactness in this point rests on Mrs. Morgan, not on your Lordship. Your Lordship adds, “The following attestations will suffi ciently clear me from any imputation, or even suspicion, of having published a falsehood.” I apprehend otherwise; to wave what is past, if the facts now published by your Lordship, or any part of them, be not true, then certainly your Lordship will lie under more than a “suspicion of having published a falsehood.” The attestations your Lordship produces are, First, those of your Lordship's Chancellor and Archdeacon: Secondly, those of Mr. Bennet. The former attests, that in June or July, 1748, Mrs. Mor gan did say those things to your Lordship. (Page 8.) I believe she did, and therefore acquit your Lordship of being the in ventor of those falsehoods. Mr. Bennet avers, that, in January last, Mrs. Morgan re peated to him what she had before said to your Lordship. (Page 11.) Probably she might; having said those things once, I do not wonder if she said them again. Nevertheless, before Mr. Trembath and Mr. Haime she denied every word of it. To get over this difficulty, your Lordship publishes a Second Letter from Mr. Bennet, wherein he says, “On March 4th, last, Mrs. Morgan said, ‘I was told by my ser vant, that I was wanted above stairs; where, when I came, the chamber door being open, I found them” (Mr. Wesley and others) ‘round the table on their knees.’” He adds, “That Mrs. Morgan owned one circumstance in it was true; but as to the other parts of Mr. Wesley's letter to the Bishop, she declares it is all false.” I believe Mrs. Morgan did say this to Mr.

But you might now suppose I was at a convenient distance. However, I will not plead this as an excuse for taking no notice of your last favour; although, to say the truth, I scarce know how to answer it, as you write in a language I am not accustomed to. Both Dr. Tucker, Dr. Church, and all the other gentlemen who have wrote to me in public for some years, have wrote as gentlemen, having some regard to their own, whatever my character was. But as you fight in the dark, you regard not what weapons you * The Letter thus subscribed was published at Cork, on May 30th last. use. We are not, therefore, on even terms; I cannot answer you in kind; I am constrained to leave this to your good allies of Blackpool and Fair-Lane.* I shall first state the facts on which the present controversy turns; and then consider the most material parts of your performance. First. I am to state the facts. But here I am under a great disadvantage, having few of my papers by me. Excuse me therefore if I do not give so full an account now, as I may possibly do hereafter; if I only give you for the present the extracts of some papers which were lately put into my hands. 1. “THoMAs Jones, of Cork, merchant, deposes, “That on May 3, 1749, Nicholas Butler, ballad-singer, came before the house of this deponent, and assembled a large mob : That this deponent went to Daniel Crone, Esq., then Mayor of Cork, and desired that he would put a stop to those riots; asking, at the same time, whether he gave the said Butler leave to go about in this manner: That Mr. Mayor said, he neither gave him leave, neither did he hinder him : That in the evening Butler gathered a larger mob than before, and went to the house where the people called Methodists were assembled to hear the word of God, and, as they came out, threw dirt and hurt several of them.

Mayor said, he neither gave him leave, neither did he hinder him : That in the evening Butler gathered a larger mob than before, and went to the house where the people called Methodists were assembled to hear the word of God, and, as they came out, threw dirt and hurt several of them. “That on May 4, this deponent, with some others, went to the Mayor and told what had been done, adding, “If your Wor ship pleases only to speak three words to Butler, it will all be over:” That the Mayor gave his word and honour there should be no more of it, he would put an entire stop to it: That, not withstanding, a larger mob than ever came to the house the same evening: That they threw much dirt and many stones at the people, both while they were in the house, and when they came out: That the mob then fell upon them, both on men and women, with clubs, hangers, and swords; so that many of them were much wounded, and lost a considerable quantity of blood. “That on May 5, this deponent informed the Mayor of all, and also that Butler had openly declared there should be a greater mob than ever there was that night: That the Mayor promised he would prevent it: That in the evening Butler did bring a greater mob than ever: That this deponent, hearing the * Celebrated parts of Cork. ThE REV. M.R. BAILY. 67 Mayor designed to go out of the way, set two men to watch him, and, when the riot was begun, went to the ale-house, and inquired for him : That the woman of the house denying he was there, this deponent insisted he was, declared he would not go till he had seen him, and began searching the house: That Mr.

67 Mayor designed to go out of the way, set two men to watch him, and, when the riot was begun, went to the ale-house, and inquired for him : That the woman of the house denying he was there, this deponent insisted he was, declared he would not go till he had seen him, and began searching the house: That Mr. Mayor then appearing, he demanded his assistance to suppress a riotous mob: That when the Mayor came in sight of them, he beckoned to Butler, who immediately came down from the place where he stood: That the Mayor then went with this deponent, and looked on many of the people covered with dirt and blood: That some of them still remained in the house, fearing their lives, till James Chatterton and John Reilly, Esqrs., Sheriffs of Cork, and Hugh Millard, junior, Esq., Alderman, turned them out to the mob, and nailed up the doors. 2. “ELIZABETH HollBRAN, of Cork, deposes, “That on May 3, as she was going down to Castle-Street, she saw Nicholas Butler on a table, with ballads in one hand, and a Bible in the other: That she expressed some concern thereat; on which Sheriff Reilly ordered his bailiff to carry her to Bridewell: That afterward the bailiff came and said, his master ordered she should be carried to gaol: And that she continued in gaol from May 3, about eight in the evening, till between ten and twelve on May 5. 3. “John StockDALE, of Cork, tallow-chandler, deposes, “That on May 5, while he and others were assembled to hear the word of God, Nicholas Butler came down to the house where they were, with a very numerous mob: That when this deponent came out, they threw all manner of dirt and abun dance of stones at him: That they then beat, bruised, and cut him in several places: That seeing his wife on the ground, and the mob abusing her still, he called out and besought them not to kill his wife: That on this one of them struck him with a large stick, as did also many others, so that he was hurt in several parts, and his face in a gore of blood. 4.

2. If by “righteousness” be meant “the con duct of the whole to particulars,” then it cannot consist in the gentleness of Church authority; unless Church Govern ors are the whole Church, or the Parliament the whole nation. 3. If by “truth” be meant “the conduct of the whole, and of particulars to one another,” then it cannot possibly con sist in orthodoxy or right opinion. For opinion, right or wrong, is not conduct: They differ toto genere. If, then, it be orthodoxy, it is not “the conduct of the governors and governed toward each other.” If it be their conduct toward each other, it is not orthodoxy. Although, therefore, it be allowed that right opinions are a great help, and wrong opinions a great hinderance, to reli gion, yet, till stronger proof be brought against it, that pro position remains unshaken, “Right opinions are a slender part of religion, if any part of it at all.” (Page 160.) “(As to the affair of Abbé Paris, whoever will read over with calmness and impartiality but one volume of Monsieur Mont geron, will then be a competent judge. Meantime I would just observe, that if these miracles were real, they strike at the root of the whole Papal authority; as having been wrought in direct opposition to the famous Bull Unigenitus.)” (Page 161.) Yet I do not say, “Errors in faith have little to do with religion; ” or that they are “no let or impediment to the Holy Spirit.” (Page 162.) But still it is true, that “God, generally speaking, begins his work at the heart.” (Ibid.) Men usually feel desires to please God, before they know how to please him. Their heart says, “What must I do to be saved?” before they understand the way of salvation. But see “the character he gives his own saints ‘The more I converse with this people, the more I am amazed. That God hath wrought a great work is manifest, by saving many sinners from their sins. And yet the main of them are not able to give a rational account of the plainest principles of religion.’” They were not able then, as there had not been time to instruct them. But the case is far different now. Again: Did I “give this character,” even then, of the people called Methodists, in general?

We wrestled with God in his behalf; and our labour was not in vain. His soul was comforted; and a few hours after he quietly fell asleep.” A strange proof this likewise, either of inexorableness, or of “dooming men to per dition 1’’ Therefore this charge too stands totally unsupported. Here is no proof of my unmercifulness yet. “Good fruits come next to be considered, which Mr. Wesley's idea of true religion does not promise. He saith,” (I will repeat the words a little at large, that their true sense may more clearly appear,) “‘In explaining those words, The kingdom of God, or true religion, is not meats and drinks, I was led to show, that religion does not properly consist in harmlessness, using the means of grace, and doing good, that is, helping our neighbours, chiefly by giving alms; but that a man might both be harmless, use the means of grace, and do muchgood, and yet have no truereligion at all.’” (Tract, p. 203.) He may so. Yet whoever has true religion, must be “zealous of good works.” And zeal for all good works is, according to my idea, an essential ingredient of true religion. “Spiritual cures are all the good fruits he pretends to.” (Pages 204, 205.) Not quite all, says William Kirkman, with some others. “A few of his spiritual cures we will set in a fair light: ‘The first time I preached at Swalwell,” (chiefly to col liers, and workers in the iron work,) “‘none seemed to be con vinced, only stunned.’” I mean amazed at what they heard, though they were the first principles of religion. “But he brings them to their senses with a vengeance.” No, not them. These were different persons. Are they lumped together, in order to set things in a fair light? The whole paragraph runs thus: “I carefully examined those who had lately cried out in the congregation. Some of these, I found, could give no account at all, how or wherefore they had done so; only that of a sud den they dropped down, they knew not how; and what they afterward said or did they knew not. Others could just remem ber, they were in fear, but could not tell what they were in fear of Several said they were afraid of the devil; and this was all they knew.

Nor did I insinuate anything more than I expressed in as plain a manner as I could. A little digression follows: “A friend of his advises, not to establish the power of working miracles, as the great cri terion of a divine mission; seeing the agreement of doctrines with Scripture is the only infallible rule.” (Page 230.) “But Christ himself establishes the power of working mira cles, as the great criterion of a divine mission.” (Page 231.) True, of a mission to be the Saviour of the world; to put a period to the Jewish, and introduce the Christian, dispensa tion. And whoever pretends to such a mission will stand in need of such credentials. (2) “He shifts and doubles no less” (neither less nor more) “as to the ecstasies of his saints. Sometimes they are of God, sometimes of the devil; but he is constant in this,-- that natural causes have no hand in them.” This is not true: In what are here termed ecstasies, strong joy or grief, attended with various bodily symptoms, I have openly affirmed, again and again, that natural causes have a part: Nor did I ever shift or double on the head. I have steadily and uniformly maintained, that, if the mind be affected to such a degree, the body must be affected by the laws of the vital union. The mind I believe was, in many of those cases, affected by the Spirit of God, in others by the devil, and in some by both; and, in consequence of this, the body was affected also. (3) “Mr. W. says, “I fear we have grieved the Spirit of the jealous God by questioning his work, and by blaspheming it, by imputing it to nature, or even to the devil.’” (Pages 232,233.) True; by imputing the conviction and conversion of sinners, which is the work of God alone, (because of these unusual circumstances attending it,) either to nature or to the devil. This is flat and plain. No prevari cation yet. Let us attend to the next proof of it: “Innume rable cautions were given me, not to regard visions or dreams, or to fancy people had remission of sins because of their cries, or tears, or outward professions. The sum of my answer was, You deny that God does now work these effects; at least that he works them in this manner.

“The other gifts of the Spirit St. Paul reckons up thus: “To one is given the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge; to another the gifts of healing; to another working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another the discerning of spirits.’” (Page 23.) But why are the other three left out?-- Faith, diverskinds of tongues, and the interpretation of tongues. I believe the “word of wisdom” means, light to explain the manifold wisdom of God in the grand scheme of gospel salvation; the “word of knowledge,” a power of explaining the Old Testa ment types and prophecies. “Faith” may mean an extraordi mary trust in God, under the most difficult and dangerous cir cumstances; “the gifts of healing,” a miraculous power of curing diseases; “the discerning of spirits,” a supernatural dis cernment, whether men were upright or not; whether they were qualified for offices in the Church; and whether they who professed to speak by inspiration, really did so or not. But “the richest of the fruits of the Spirit is the inspiration of Scripture.” (Page 30.) Herein the promise, that “the Com forter” should “abide with us for ever,” is eminently fulfilled. For though his ordinary influence occasionally assists the faith ful of all ages, yet his constant abode and supreme illumination is in the Scriptures of the New Testament. I mean, “he is there only as the Illuminator of the understanding.” (Page 39.) But does this agree with the following words?--“Nature is not able to keep a mean: But grace is able; for ‘the Spirit helpeth our infirmities. We must apply to the Guide of truth, to prevent our being ‘carried about with divers and strange doctrines.’” (Page 340.) Is he not, then, everywhere, to illu minate the understanding, as well as to rectify the will? And indeed, do we not need the one as continually as the other? “But how did he inspire the Scripture? He so directed the writers, that no considerable error should fall from them.” (Page 45.) Nay, will not the allowing there is any error in Scripture, shake the authority of the whole? Again: What is the difference between the immediate and the virtual influence of the Holy Spirit? I know, Milton speaks of “virtual or immediate touch.” But most incline to think, virtual touch is no touch at all.

I think, Medicus est qui medetur; ‘he is a Physician who heals;” and that every man has authority to save the life of a dying man. “But if you only mean, he has no authority to take fees, I contend not : For he takes none at all. “11. Nay, and I am afraid it will hold, on the other hand, Medicus non est qui non medetur; I am afraid, if we use propriety of speech, “he is no Physician who works no cure.’ “12. ‘O, but he has taken his degree of Doctor of Physic, and therefore has authority.’ “Authority to do what? “Why, to heal all the sick that will employ him. But (to wave the case of those who will not employ him; and would you have eventheir lives thrown away?) he does not heal those that do employ him. He that was sick before, is sick still; or else he is gone hence, and is no more seen. “Therefore his authority is not worth a rush; for it serves not the end for which it was given. “13. And surely he has not authority to kill them, by hindering another from saving their lives! “14. If he either attempts or desires to hinder him, if he condemns or dislikes him for it, it is plain to all thinking men, he regards his own fees more than the lives of his patients. “II. Now to apply. 1. Seeing life everlasting, and holi mess or health of soul, are things of so great importance, it is highly expedient that Ministers, being Physicians of the soul, should have all advantage of education and learning. “2. That full trial should be made of them in all respects, and that by the most competent judges, before they enter on the public exercise of their office, the saving souls from death: “3. That, after such trial, they be authorized to exercise that office by those who are empowered to convey that authority. (I believe Bishops are empowered to do this, and have been so from the apostolic age.) “4. And that those whose souls they save ought, meantime, to provide them what is needful for the body. “5. But suppose a gentleman bred at the University of Dublin, with all the advantages of education, after he has undergone the usual trials, and been regularly authorized to save souls from death: “6.

But suppose a gentleman bred at the University of Dublin, with all the advantages of education, after he has undergone the usual trials, and been regularly authorized to save souls from death: “6. Suppose, I say, this Minister settles at -for some years, and yet saves no souls at all; saves no sinners from their sins; but after he has preached all this time to five or six hundred persons, cannot show that he has converted one from the error of his ways; many of his parishioners dying as they lived, and the rest remaining just as they were before he came : “7. Will you condemn a man who, having compassion on dying souls, and some knowledge of the gospel of Christ, without any temporal reward, saves many from their sins whom the Minister could not save? .“8. At least, did not : Nor ever was likely to do it; for he did not go to them, and they would not come to him. “9. Will you condemn such a Preacher, because he has not learning, or has not had an University education? “What then? He saves those sinners from their sins whom the man of learning and education cannot save. “A peasant being brought before the College of Physicians at Paris, a learned Doctor accosted him, ‘What, friend, do you pretend to prescribe to people that have agues? Dost thou know what an ague is?’ “He replied, ‘Yes, Sir. An ague is, what I can cure and you cannot.’ “10. Will you object, “But he is no Minister, nor has any authority to save souls?’ “I must beg leave to dissent from you in this. I think he is a true evangelical Minister, Atakovos, servant of Christ and his Church, who ovro Buakovet, “so ministers’ as to save souls from death, to reclaim sinners from their sins; and that every Chris tian, if he is able to do it, has authority to save a dying soul. “But if you only mean, he has no authority to take tithes, I grant it. He takes none. As he has freely received, so he freely gives. “11. But, to carry the matter a little farther, I am afraid it will hold, on the other hand, with regard to the soul as well as the body, Medicus non est qui non medetur.

But, to carry the matter a little farther, I am afraid it will hold, on the other hand, with regard to the soul as well as the body, Medicus non est qui non medetur. I am afraid reasonable men will be inclined to think, “he that saves no souls is no Minister of Christ.’ “12. ‘O but he is ordained, and therefore has authority.’ “Authority to do what? “To save all the souls that will put themselves under his care.’ True; but (to wave the case of them that will not; and would you desire that even those should perish 7) he does not, in fact, save them that are under his care: Therefore, what end does his authority serve? He that was a drunkard, is a drunkard still. The same is true of the Sabbath-breaker, the thief, the common swearer. This is the best of the case; for many have died in their iniquity, and their blood will God require at the watchman’s hand. “13. For surely he has no authority to murder souls; either by his neglect, by his smooth, if not false, doctrine, or by hindering another from plucking them out of the fire and bringing them to life everlasting. “14. If he either attempts or desires to hinder him, if he condemns or is displeased with him for it, how great reason is there to fear, that he regards his own profit more than the salvation of souls l’’ 11. “But why do you not prove your mission by miracles?” This likewise you repeat over and over. But I have not leisure to answer the same stale objection an hundred times. I there fore give this also the same answer which I gave many years ago : 12. “What is it you would have us prove by miracles? that the doctrines we preach are true? This is not the way to prove that: We prove the doctrines we preach by Scripture and reason. Is it, (1.) That A. B. was for many years without God in the world, a common swearer, a Sabbath-breaker, a drunkard? Or, (2.) That he is not so now? Or, (3.) That he continued so till he heard us preach, and from that time was another man? Not so; the proper way to prove these facts, is by the testimony of competent witnesses.

But since none else will,” I cannot but speak, though lying under many peculiar disad vantages. I dare not be silent any longer: Necessity is laid upon me to provide those who desire to know the truth with some antidote against that deadly poison which has been diffusing itself for several years through our nation, our Church, and even our Universities. Nay, one (I hope, only one) Father of the Church has declared that he knows no book more proper than this to settle the principles of a young Clergyman. Is it not time, then, for “the very stones to cry out P” 3. For this is not a point of small importance; a question that may safely be determined either way. On the contrary, it may be doubted whether the scheme before us be not far more dangerous than open Deism itself. It does not shock us like bare faced infidelity: We feel no pain, and suspect no evil, while it steals like “water into our bowels,” like “oil into our bones.” One who would be upon his guard in reading the works of Dr. Middleton, or Lord Bolingbroke, is quite open and unguarded in reading the smooth, decent writings of Dr. Taylor; one who does not oppose, (far be it from him !) but only explain, the Scripture; who does not raise any difficulties or objections against the Christian Reve lation, but only removes those with which it had been unhappily encumbered for so many centuries ! 4. I said, than open Deism : For I cannot look on this scheme as any other than old Deism in a new * Since the writing of this, I have seen several Tracts, which I shall have occasion to take notice of hereafter. There are likewise many excellent remarks on this subject in Mr. Hervey's Dialogues. dress; seeing it saps the very foundation of all revealed religion, whether Jewish or Christian.

The first you mention is Genesis ii. 17: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” On this you observe: “Death was to be the consequence of his disobedience. And the death here threatened can be opposed only to that life God gave Adam when he created him.” (Page 7.) True; but how are you assured that God, when he created him, did not give him spiritual as well as animal life? Now, spiritual death is opposed to spiritual life. And this is more than the death of the body. “But this is pure conjecture, without a solid foundation; for no other life is spoken of before.” Yes, there is; “the image of God” is spoken of before. This is not, therefore, pure conjecture; but is grounded upon a solid foundation, upon the plain word of God. Allowing then that “Adam could understand it of no other life than that which he had newly received;” yet would he naturally understand it of the life of God in his soul, as well as of the life of his body. “In this light, therefore, the sense of the threatening will stand thus: ‘Thou shalt surely die; as if he had said, I have “formed thee of the dust of the ground, and breathed into thy nostrils the breath of lives;’” (Third Edition, p. 8;) both of * Dr. Taylor’s “Doctrine of Original Sin,” Part I., to whom I address myself in what follows. What is quoted 'rom him, generally in his own words, is inclosed in cummas. animal life, and of spiritual life; and in both respects thou “art become a living soul.” “But if thou eatest of the for bidden tree, thou shalt cease to be a living soul. For I will take from thee” the lives I have given, and thou shalt die spiritually, temporally, eternally. But “here is not one word relating to Adam's posterity. Though it be true, if he had died immediately upon his trans. gression, all hisposterity must have been extinct with him.” It is true; yet “not one word” of it is expressed. There fore, other consequences of his sin may be equally implied, though they are no more expressed than this. 4. The second scripture you cite is Gen.

In like manner he calls the Ephesians, $voet Tekva, ‘genuine children of wrath; not to signify they were related to wrath by their natural birth, but by their sin and disobedience.” (Page 113.) This is simply begging the question, without so much as a shadow of proof; for the Greek word in one text is not the same, nor anyway related to that in the other. Nor is there the least resemblance between the Apostle's calling Timothy his “own son in the faith,” and his affirming that even those who are now “saved by grace,” were “by nature children of wrath.” To add, therefore, “Not as they came under condemnation by the offence of Adam,” is only begging the question once more; though, it is true, they had afterwards inflamed their account by “their own trespasses and sins.” You conclude: “‘By nature, therefore, may be a meta phorical expression, and consequently is not intended” (may be in the premises, is not in the conclusion 1 A way of arguing you frequently use) “to signify nature in the proper sense of the word; but to mean, they were really and truly children of wrath.” (Page 114.) But where is the proof? Till this is produced, I must still believe, with the Christian Church in all ages, that all men are “children of wrath by nature,” in the plain, proper sense of the word. 7. The next proof is Rom. v. 6: “While we were yet with out strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.” You answer, (1.) “The Apostle is here speaking, not of mankind in general, but of the Gentiles only; as appears by the whole thread of his discourse, from the beginning of the Epistle.” (Page 115.) From the beginning of the Epistle to the 6th verse of the 5th chapter is the Apostle speaking of the Gentiles only ? Otherwise it cannot appear, “by the whole thread of his discourse from the beginning of the Epistle.” “But it appears especially from chap. iii.9: ‘What then? Are we, Jews, ‘better than they, Gentiles?” (Page 116, &c.) Nay, from that very verse he speaks chiefly of the Jews.

-a word of the very same import. It is therefore here very properly rendered “shapen; ” nor can it be more exactly translated. But “the word "nor" properly signifies, warmed me.” You should say, literally signifies. But it signifies conceived me, nevertheless. And so it is taken, Gen. xxx. 38,39,41, &c.; xxxi. 10. “Nay, it signifies there the act of copulation. So several translators render it.” (Page 132, 133.) And several render it otherwise: So this does not determine the point either way. It must therefore be determined by the sense. Now, for what end did Jacob put the “pilled rods before the cattle P” That the lambs might be marked as the rods were. And when is it that females of any kind mark their young? Not in that act; but some time after, when the foetus is either forming or actually formed. Throw a plum or a pear at a woman before conception, and it will not mark the foetus at all; but it will, if thrown while she is conceiving, or after she has conceived; as we see in a thousand instances. This observation justifies our translators in rendering the word by conceiving in all those places. And indeed you own, “David could not apply that word to his mother, in the sense wherein you would apply it to the cattle.” Youtherefore affirm, “It means here, to nurse.” (Page 134.) You may as well say it means to roast. You have as much authority from the Bible for one interpretation as for the other. Produce, if you can, one single text, in which tri signifies to nurse, or anything like it. You stride on : (1) “The verse means, “In sin did my mother nurse me: ’ (2.) That is, ‘ I am a sinner from the womb: (3.) That is, ‘I am a great sinner:* (4.) That is, ‘I have contracted strong habits of sin.’” By this art you make the most expressive texts mean just anything or nothing. So Psalm lviii. 3: “‘The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, telling lies.’ That is, My unjust persecutors in Saul’s court are exceedingly wicked.” If this was all David meant, what need of "1, “are alienated?” and that from the “bowels” of their mother? Nay, but he means as he speaks.

Nay, but he means as he speaks. They “are alienated from the life of God,” from the time of their coming into the world. From the time of their birth, they “knew not the way of truth; ” neither can, unless they are “born of God.” You cite as a parallel text, “‘Thou wast called a transgressor from the womb; that is, set to iniquity by prevailing habits and customs.” Nay, the plain meaning is, The Israelites in general had never kept God’s law since they came into the world. Perhaps the phrase, “from the womb,” is once used figura tively, namely, Job xxxi. 18. But it is manifest, that it is to be literally taken, Isaiah xlix. 1 : “The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.” For, (1.) This whole passage relates to Christ; these expressions in particular. (2.) This was lite rally fulfilled, when the angel was sent while he was yet in the womb, to order that his “name * should be “called Jesus.” This is not therefore barely “an hyperbolical form of aggravating sin; ” but a humble confession of a deep and weighty truth, whereof we cannot be too sensible. “But you have no manner of ground to conclude, that it relates to Adam’s sin.” (Page 136.) Whether it relates to Adam’s personal sin or no, it relates to a corrupt nature. This is the present question; and your pulling in Adam’s sin only tends to puzzle the reader. But how do you prove (since you will drag this in) that it does not relate to Adam’s sin? Thus: “(1.) In the whole Psalm there is not one word about Adam, or the effects of his sin upon us.” Here, as usual, you blend the two questions together; the ready way to confound an unwary reader. But first, to the first: “In the whole Psalm there is not one word about Adam; therefore it relateth not to him.” Just as well you may argue, “In the whole Psalm there is not oneword about Uriah; there fore it relatethnot to him.” The second assertion, “There is not one word of the effects of his sin,” is a fair begging the question. “(2.) The Psalmist is here charging himself with his own sin.” He is; and tracing it up to the fountain.

Can we ever imagine the great and good God would have appointed men to be propagated in such a way as would necessarily give such exquisite pain and anguish to the mothers that produce them, if they had been all accounted in his eyes a race of holy and sinless beings?” (Page 31.) I answer, It is not true, “that too great stress,” or any stress at all, is “here laid on mere supposition and imagina tion.” Your catching at those two words, suppose and imagine, will by no means prove it; for the meaning of them is plain. “Can we suppose the blessed God would do this?” is manifestly the same with, “How can we reconcile it with his essential attributes?” In like manner, “Can we ever imagine?” is plainly equivalent with, “Can we possibly conceive?” So that the occasional use of these words does not infer his laying any stress on supposition and imagination. When, therefore, you add, “Our suppositions and imagi nations are not a just standard by which to measure the divine dispensations,” (page 32,) what you say is absolutely true, but absolutely foreign to the point. Some of the questions which you yourself ask, to expose his it is not so easy to answer: “Would innocent creatures have been thrust into the world in so contemptible circumstances, and have been doomed to grow up so slowly to maturity and the use of reason? Would they, when grown up, have been constrained to spend so much time in low and servile labour? Would millions have been obliged to spend all their days, from early morn until evening, in hewing stone, sawing wood, heaving, rubbing, or beating the limb of an oak, or a bar of iron?” (Page 33.) I really think they would not. I believe all this toil, as well as the pain and anguish of women in child-birth, is an evidence of the fall of man, of the sin of our first parents, and part of the punishment denounced and executed, first on them, and then on all their posterity. You add: “He doth not consider this world as a state of trial, but as if it ought to have been a seat of happiness.” (Pages 34, 35.) There is no contrariety between these: It might be a state of trial and of happiness too.

What stupendous cliffs and promontories rise,--high and hideous to behold ! What dreadful precipices,--which make us giddy to look down, are ready to betray us into destruction | What immense extents are there in many countries of waste and barren ground ! What vast and almost impassable deserts | What broad and faithless morasses, which are made at once deaths and graves to unwary travellers ! What huge ruinous caverns, deep and wide, big enough to bury whole cities !” (Page 14.) “What resistless deluges of water, in a season of great rains, come rolling down the hills, bear all things before them, and spread spacious desolation | What roaring and tremendous waterfalls in several parts of the globe I What burning mountains, in whose caverns are lakes of liquid fire ready to burst upon the lower lands ! or they are a mere shell of earth, covering prodigious cavities of smoke, and furnaces of flame; and seem to wait a divine command, to break inward, and bury towns and provinces in fiery ruin.” (Page 15.) “What active treasures of wind are pent up in the bowels of the earth, ready to break out into wide and surprising mischief! What huge torrents of water rush and roar through the hollows of the globe we tread | What dreadful sounds and threatening appearances from the reign of meteors in the air! What clouds charged with flame, ready to burst on the earth, and discompose and terrify all nature ! “When I survey such scenes as these, I cannot but say within myself, ‘Surely this earth, in these rude and broken appearances, this unsettled and dangerous state, was designed as a dwelling for some unhappy inhabitants, who did or would transgress the laws of their Maker, and merit desolation from 358 ThE DOCTRINE or his hand. And he hath here stored up his magazines of divine artillery against the day of punishment.’” (Page 16.) “How often have the terrible occurrences of nature in the air, earth, and sea, and the calamitous incidents in several countries, given a strong confirmation of this sentiment 1 “What destructive storms have we and our father seen even in this temperate island of Great Britain | What floods of water and violent explosions of fire do we read of in the his tories of the world !

So St. Paul desires Philemon to impute any wrong he had received from Onesimus to himself; that is, not the evil action, but the damage he had sustained. “Indeed, when sin or righteousness are said to be imputed to any man, on account of what himself hath done, the words usually denote both the good or evil actions themselves, and the legal result of them. But when the sin or righteousness of one person is said to be imputed to another, then, generally, those words mean only the result thereof; that is, a liableness to punishment on the one hand, and to reward on the other. “But let us say what we will to confine the sense of the imputation of sin and righteousness to the legal result, --the reward or punishment of good or evil actions; let us ever so explicitly deny the imputation of the actions themselves to others; still Dr. Taylor will level almost all his arguments against the imputation of the actions themselves, and then triumph in having demolished what we never built, and refuting what we never asserted.” (Page 444.) “3. The Scripture does not, that I remember, anywhere say, in express words, that the sin of Adam is imputed to his children; or, that the sins of believers are imputed to Christ; or, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers: But the true meaning of all these expressions is sufficiently found in several places of Scripture.” (Page 446.) “Yet since these express words and phrases, of the imputa tion of Adam’s sin to us, of our sins to Christ, and of Christ's righteousness to us, are not plainly written in Scripture, we should not impose it on every Christian, to use these very expressions. Let every one take his liberty, either of con fining himself to strictly scriptural language, or of manifest ing his sense of these plain scriptural doctrines, in words and phrases of his own.” (Page 447.) “But if the words were expressly written in the Bible, they could not reasonably be interpreted in any other sense, than this which I have explained by so many examples, both in Scripture, history, and in common life.

“IN the preceding verse Solomon had declared, how few wise and good persons he had found in the whole course of his life; but, lest any should blame the providence of God for this, he here observes, that these were not what God made man at first; and that their being what they were not was the effect of a wretched apostasy from God. The original words stand thus: Only see thou, I have found.” (Page 3.) “Only: This word sets a mark on what it is prefixed to, as a truth of great certainty and importance. See, observe, thou. He invites every hearer and reader, in particular, to consider what he was about to offer. I have found: I have discovered this certain truth, and assert it on the fullest evidence, ‘that God made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.’” (Page 4.) “The Hebrew word "ws which we render upright, is pro perly opposed to crooked, irregular, perverse. It is applied to things, to signify their being straight, or agreeable to rule; but it is likewise applied both to God and man, with the words and works of both. As applied to God, the ways of God, the word of God, it is joined with good; (Psalm xxv. 8;) with righteous; (Psalm crix. 137;) with true and good; (Neh. ix. 13;) where mention is made of ‘right judgments, true laws, good statutes. The uprightness with which God is said to minister judgment to the people, answers to righteousness: In a word,--God’s uprightness is the moral rectitude of his nature, infinitely wise, good, just, and perfect. The upright ness of man, is his conformity, of heart and life, to the rule he is under; which is the law or will of God. Accordingly, we read of uprightness of heart; (Psalm xxxvi. 10; Job xxxiii. 33) and uprightness of way, or conversation; (Psalm xxxvii. 14;) and often elsewhere. ‘The upright man,’ throughout the Scripture, is a truly good man; a man of integrity, a holy person. In Job i. 1, 8; ii. 3, upright is the same with perfect, (as in Psalm xxxvii. 37, and many other places,) and is explained by, one “who feareth God and escheweth evil. In Job viii. 6, it is joined and is the same with pure.

“The Septuagint translate the text, “Who shall be clean from filth? Not one; even though his life on earth be a single day.’ And this rendering, though not according to the Hebrew, is followed by all the Fathers; and shows what was the general belief of the Jews before Christ came into the world.” “‘But since the heavens and stars are represented as not clean, compared to God, may not man also be here termed unclean, only as compared with him?” I answer, (1.) The heavens are manifestly compared with God; but man is not in either of these texts. He is here described, not as he is in comparison of God, but as he is absolutely in himself. (2.) When ‘the heavens’ and man’ are mentioned in the same text, and man is set forth as ‘unclean,’ his ‘uncleanness’ is expressed by his being ‘unrighteous;’ and that always means guilty or sinful. Nor, indeed, is the innocent frailty of man kind ever in Scripture termed ‘uncleanness.’” (Pages 45,46.) “‘Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Psalm li. 5.) The Psalmist here con fesses, bewails, and condemns himself for his natural corrup tion, as that which principally gave birth to the horrid sins with which he had been overtaken. ‘Behold !” He prefixes this to render his confession the more remarkable, and to 424 ThE DOCTRINE of show the importance of the truth here declared : ‘I was shapen; this passive verb denotes somewhat in which neither David nor his parents had any active concern: “In or with ‘iniquity, and in or with ‘sin did my mother conceive me.’ The word which we render ‘conceive, signifies properly, to warm, or to cherish by warmth. It does not, therefore, so directly refer to the act of conceiving as to the cherishing what is conceived till the time of its birth. But either way the proof is equally strong for the corruption of mankind from their first existence.” (Pages 47, 48.) “‘The wicked are estranged from the womb : They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.’ ‘They are estranged from the womb;’ (Psalm lviii. 3, 4;) strangers and averse to true, practical religion, from the birth. ‘They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.

“Fourthly. There is in the carnal mind an opposition to spiritual truths, and an aversion to the receiving them. God has revealed to sinners the way of salvation; he has given his word. But do natural men believe it? Indeed they do not. They believe not the promises of the word; for they who receive them are thereby made ‘partakers of the divine nature.” They believe not the threatenings of the word; otherwise they could not live as they do. I doubt not but most, if not all, of you, who are in a state of nature, will here plead, Not Guilty. But the very difficulty you find in assent ing to this truth, proves the unbelief with which I charge you. Has it not proceeded so far with some, that it has steeled their foreheads openly to reject all revealed religion? And though ye set not your mouths as they do against the heavens, yet the same bitter root of unbelief is in you, and reigns and will reign in you, till overcoming grace captivate your minds to the belief of the truth. To convince you of this,-- “Consider, 1. How have you learned those truths which you think you believe? Is it not merely by the benefit of your education, and of external revelation? You are strangers to the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness with the word in your hearts; and therefore ye are still unbe lievers. ‘It is written in the Prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every one therefore that hath heard and learned of the Father,’ saith our Lord, ‘cometh unto me.’ But ye have not come to Christ; therefore ye have not been “taught of God.” Ye have not been so taught, and therefore ye have not come; ye believe not. “Consider, 2. The utter inconsistency of most men’s lives with the principles which they profess. They profess to believe the Scripture; but how little are they concerned about what is revealed therein . How unconcerned are ye even about that weighty point, whether ye be born again, or not! Many live as they were born, and are like to die as they live, and yet live in peace. Do such believe the sinfulness of a natural state? Do they believe they are ‘children of wrath? Do they believe there . is no salvation without regeneration?

“Now, the knowledge of the Spirit of God in yourself is as perceptible as covetousness.” Perhaps so; for this is as difficultly perceptible as any temper of the human soul. “And liable to no more delusion.” Indeed it need not ; for this is liable to ten thousand delusions. You add: “His spirit is more distinguishable from all other spirits, than any of your natural affections are from one another.” (Page 199.) Suppose joy and grief: Is it more distinguishable from all other spirits, than these are from one another? Did any man ever mistake grief for joy? No, not from the beginning of the world. But did none ever mistake nature for grace? Who will be so hardy as to affirm this? But you set your pupil as much above the being taught by books, as being taught by men. “Seek,” say you, “for help no other way, neither from men, nor books; but wholly leave yourself to God.” (Spirit of Love, Part II., p. 225.) But how can a man “leave himself wholly to God,” in the total neglect of his ordinances? The old Bible way is, to “leave ourselves wholly to God,” in the constant use of all the means he hath ordained. And I cannot yet think the new is better, though you are fully persuaded it is. “There are two ways,” you say, “ of attaining goodness and virtue; the one by books or the ministry of men, the other by an inward birth. The former is only in order to the latter.” This is most true, that all the externals of religion are in order to the renewal of our soul in righteousness and true holiness. But it is not true, that the external way is one, and the internal way another. There is but one scriptural way, wherein we receive inward grace, through the outward means which God hath appointed. Some might think that when you advised, “not to seek help from books,” you did not include the Bible. But you clear up this, where you answer the objection, of your not esteeming the Bible enough. You say, “How could you more magnify John the Baptist, than by going from his teaching, to be taught by that Christ to whom he directed you? Now, the Bible can have no other office or power, than to direct you to Christ.

Now, the Bible can have no other office or power, than to direct you to Christ. How then can you more magnify the Bible than by going from its teaching, to be taught by Christ?” So you set Christ and the Bible in flat opposition to each other l And is this the way we are to learn of him? Nay, but we are taught of him, not by going from the Bible, but by keeping close to it. Both by the Bible and by experience we know, that his word and his Spirit act in connexion with each other. And thus it is, that by Christ continually teaching and strengthening him through the Scripture, “the man of God is made perfect, and throughly furnished for every good word and work.” According to your veneration for the Bible, is your regard for public worship and for the Lord’s supper. “Christ,” you say, “is the Church or temple of God within thee. There the supper of the Lamb is kept. When thou art well grounded in this inward worship, thou wilt have learned to live unto God above time and place. For every day will be Sunday to thee; and wherever thou goest, thou wilt have a Priest, a church, and an altar along with thee.” (Spirit of Prayer, Part I., p. 73.) The plain inference is, Thou wilt not need to make any difference between Sunday and other days. Thou wilt need no other church than that which thou hast always along with thee; no other supper, worship, Priest, or altar. Be well grounded in this inward worship, and it supersedes all the rest. This is right pleasing to flesh and blood; and I could most easily believe it, if I did not believe the Bible. But that teaches me inwardly to worship God, as at all times and in all places, so particularly on his own day, in the congregation of his people, at his altar, and by the ministry of those his servants whom he hath given for this very thing, “for the perfecting of the saints,” and with whom he will be to the end of the world. Extremely dangerous therefore is this other gospel, which leads quite wide of the gospel of Christ.