Wesley Corpus

He "runs the way of God's commandments," now he hath set his heart at liberty. It is his glory so to do; it is his daily crown of rejoicing, "to do the will of God on earth, as it is done in heaven;" knowing it is the highest privilege of "the angels of God, of those that excel in strength, to fulfill his commandments, and hearken to the voice of his word." Methodists count God's commandments as their guide for life. Question: How do God's commands (expectations) compare with those offered by our society? What conflicts do you sense between them? Which commandments do you find the easiest to obey? Why do you think these are the easiest for you? 13. All the commandments of God he accordingly keeps, and that with all his might. For his obedience is in proportion to his love, the source from whence it flows. And therefore, loving God with all his heart, he serves him with all his strength. He continually presents his soul and body a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God; entirely and without reserve devoting himself, all he has, and all he is, to his glory. All the talents he has received, he constantly employs according to his Master's will; every power and faculty of his soul, every member of his body. Once he "yielded" them "unto sin" and the devil, "as instruments of unrighteousness;" but now, "being alive from the dead, he yields" them all "as instruments of righteousness unto God." Jesus makes the connection between loving God and obeying him explicit in John 14:21 & 23. We don't obey God to earn his favor. We don't obey God because we're afraid we'll be in trouble if we don't. The Methodist obeys God out of love for God. This loving obedience to God is a complete devotion to God. Question: Are you fully devoted to God? If so, what does it look like in your life? What reasons might a church person give for not being fully devoted to God? What can you do to lead them into greater love? 14. By consequence, whatsoever he doeth, it is all to the glory of God. In all his employments of every kind, he not only aims at this, (which is implied in having a single eye,) but actually attains it.

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-

10. May it not be one of the consequences of this, that so many of you are a generation of triflers; triflers with God, with one another, and with your own souls? For, how few of you spend, from one week to another, a single hour in private prayer! How few have any thought of God in the general tenor of your conversation! Who of you is in any degree acquainted with the work of his Spirit, his supernatural work in the souls of men? Can you bear, unless now and then in a church, any talk of the Holy Ghost? Would you not take it for granted, if one began such a conversation, that it was either hypocrisy or enthusiasm? In the name of the Lord God Almighty, I ask, what religion are you of? Even the talk of Christianity, ye cannot, will not bear. O my brethren, what a Christian city is this! "It is time for Thee, Lord, to lay to Thine hand!"

3. Another reason why many deceive themselves, is, because they do not consider how far a man may go, and yet be in a natural, or, at best, a legal state. A man may be of a compassionate and a benevolent temper; he may be affable, courteous, generous, friendly; he may have some degree of meekness, patience, temperance, and of many other moral virtues. He may feel many desires of shaking off all vice, and of attaining higher degrees of virtue. He may abstain from much evil; perhaps from all that is grossly contrary to justice, mercy, or truth. He may do much good, may feed the hungry, clothe the naked, relieve the widow and fatherless. He may attend public worship, use prayer in private, read many books of devotion; and yet, for all this, he may be a mere natural man, knowing neither himself nor God; equally a stranger to the spirit of fear and to that of love; having neither repented, nor believed the gospel. But suppose there were added to all this a deep conviction of sin, with much fear of the wrath of God; vehement desires to cast off every sin, and to fulfill all righteousness; frequent rejoicing in hope, and touches of love often glancing upon the soul; yet neither do these prove a man to be under grace; to have true, living, Christian faith, unless the Spirit of adoption abide in his heart, unless he can continually cry, "Abba, Father!"

5. But how does it appear, that we have these marks This is a question which still remains. How does it appear, that we do love God and our neighbour, and that we keep his commandments Observe, that the meaning of the question is, How does it appear to ourselves, not to others I would ask him, then, that proposes this question, How does it appear to you that you are alive, and that you are now in ease, and not in pain Are you not immediately conscious of it By the same immediate consciousness, you will know if your soul is alive to God; if you are saved from the pain of proud wrath, and have the ease of a meek and quiet spirit. By the same means you cannot but perceive if you love, rejoice, and delight in God. By the same you must be directly assured, if you love your neighbour as yourself; if you are kindly affectioned to all mankind, and full of gentleness and longsuffering. And with regard to the outward mark of the children of God, which is, according to St. John, the keeping his commandments, you undoubtedly know in your own breast, if, by the grace of God, it belongs to you. Your conscience informs you from day to day, if you do not take the name of God within your lips unless with seriousness and devotion, with reverence and godly fear; if you remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy; if you honour your father and mother; if you do to all as you would they should do unto you; if you possess your body in sanctification and honour; and if, whether you eat or drink, you are temperate therein, and do all to the glory of God.

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.

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.

14. Again: How many sins of omission are they chargeable with! We know the words of the Apostle: "To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." But do they not know a thousand instances, wherein they might have done good, to enemies, to strangers, to their brethren, either with regard to their bodies or their souls, and they did it not How many omissions have they been guilty of, in their duty toward God! How many opportunities of communicating, of hearing his word, of public or private prayer, have they neglected! So great reason had even that holy man, Archbishop Usher, after all his labours for God, to cry out, almost with his dying breath, "Lord, forgive me my sins of omission!" 15. But besides these outward omissions, may they not find in themselves inward defects without number defects of every kind: they have not the love, the fear, the confidence they ought to have, toward God. They have not the love which is due to their neighbour, to every child of man; no, nor even that which is due to their brethren, to every child of God, whether those that are at a distance from them, or those with whom they are immediately connected. They have no holy temper in the degree they ought; they are defective in everything, -- in a deep consciousness of which they are ready to cry out, with M. De Renty, "I am a ground all overrun with thorns;" or, with Job, "I am vile: I abhor myself, and repent as in dust and ashes."

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."

"Though he will not give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth." How could our blessed Lord more plainly declare that we may receive of God, by this means--by importunately asking--what otherwise we should not receive at all? 4. "He spake also another parable, to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint," till through this means they should receive of God whatsoever petition they asked: "There was in a city a judge which feared not God, neither regarded man. And there was a widow in that city, and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of my adversary. And he would not for a while; but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man, yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest, by her continual coming, she weary me." (Luke 18:1-5.) Our Lord Himself applied this: "Hear what the unjust judge saith! Because she continues to ask, because she will take no denial, therefore I will avenge her. And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him? I tell you he will avenge them speedily," if they pray and faint not. 5. A direction equally full and express, to wait for God's blessings in private prayer, with a positive promise that by this means we shall obtain our lips' request, is given in these well-known words: "Enter into thy closet, and, when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly." (Matt. 6:6.) 6. If any direction could be more clear, it's that God gave us through the Apostle, regarding prayer of every kind, public or private, and the blessing annexed: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally," (if they ask; otherwise "ye have not, because ye ask not," (James 4:2,)) "and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." (James 1:5).

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

V. The Proper Use of Means of Grace 1. But this being allowed, that all who desire God's grace are to wait for it in the means He hath ordained; it may still be inquired, how those means should be used, both as to the order and the manner of using them.

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."

9. "And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca;" -- whosoever shall give way to anger, so as to utter any contemptuous word. It is observed by commentators, that Raca is a Syriac word, which properly signifies, empty, vain, foolish; so that it is as inoffensive an expression as can well be used, toward one at whom we are displeased. And yet, whosoever shall use this, as our Lord assures us, "shall be in danger of the council;" rather, shall be obnoxious thereto: He shall be liable to a severer sentence from the Judge of all the earth. "But whosoever shall say, Thou fool;" -- whosoever shall so give place to the devil, as to break out into reviling, into designedly reproachful and contumelious language, "shall be obnoxious to hell-fire;" shall, in that instant, be liable to the highest condemnation. It should be observed, that our Lord describes all these as obnoxious to capital punishment. The first, to strangling, usually inflicted on those who were condemned in one of the inferior courts; the second, to stoning, which was frequently inflicted on those who were condemned by the great Council at Jerusalem; the third, to burning alive, inflicted only on the highest offenders, in the "valley of the sons of Hinnom;" Gh Ennwn, from which that word is evidently taken which we translate "hell." 10. And whereas men naturally imagine, that God will excuse their defect in some duties, for their exactness in others; our Lord next takes care to cut off that vain, though common imagination. He shows, that it is impossible for any sinner to commute with God; who will not accept one duty for another, nor take a part of obedience for the whole. He warns us, that the performing our duty to God will not excuse us from our duty to our neighbour; that works of piety, as they are called, will be so far from commending us to God, if we are wanting in charity, that, on the contrary, that want of charity will make all those works an abomination to the Lord.

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.

3. Be this your one ultimate end in all things. With this view, be plain, open, undisguised. Let your love be without dissimulation: Why should you hide fair, disinterested love Let there be no guile found in your mouth: Let your words be the genuine picture of your heart. Let there be no darkness or reservedness in your conversation, no disguise in your behaviour. Leave this to those who have other designs in view; designs which will not bear the light. Be ye artless and simple to all mankind; that all may see the grace of God which is in you. And although some will harden their hearts, yet others will take knowledge that ye have been with Jesus, and, by returning themselves `to the great Bishop of their souls, "glorify your Father which is in heaven." 4. With this one design, that men may glorify God in you, go on in his name, and in the power of his might. Be not ashamed even to stand alone, so it be in the ways of God. Let the light which is in your heart shine in all good works both works of piety and works of mercy. And in order to enlarge your ability of doing good, renounce all superfluities. Cut off all unnecessary expense in food, in furniture, in apparel. Be a good steward of every gift of God, even of these his lowest gifts. Cut off all unnecessary expense of time, all needless or useless employments; and "whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might." In a word, be thou full of faith and love; do good; suffer evil. And herein be thou "steadfast, unmovable;" yea, "always abounding in the work of the Lord; forasmuch as thou knowest that thy labour is not in vain in the Lord."

"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.

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."

1. In the preceding chapter our Lord has described inward religion in its various branches. He has laid before us those dispositions of soul which constitute real Christianity; the inward tempers contained in that "holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord;" the affections which, when flowing from their proper fountain, from a living faith in God through Christ Jesus, are intrinsically and essentially good, and acceptable to God. He proceeds to show, in this chapter, how all our actions likewise, even those that are indifferent in their own nature, may be made holy, and good and acceptable to God, by a pure and holy intention. Whatever is done without this, he largely declares, is of no value before God. Whereas whatever outward works are thus consecrated to God, they are, in his sight, of great price. 2. The necessity of this purity of intention, he shows, First, with regard to those which are usually accounted religious actions, and indeed are such when performed with a right intention. Some of these are commonly termed works of piety; the rest, works of charity or mercy. Of the latter sort, he particularly names almsgiving; of the former, prayer and fasting. But the directions given for these are equally to be applied to every work, whether of charity or mercy. I. 1. And, First, with regard to works of mercy. "Take heed," saith he,"that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: Otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven." "That ye do not your alms:" -- Although this only is named, yet is every work of charity included, every thing which we give, or speak, or do, whereby our neighbour may be profited; whereby another man may receive any advantage, either in his body or soul. The feeding the hungry, the clothing the naked, the entertaining or assisting the stranger, the visiting those that are sick or in prison, the comforting the afflicted, the instructing the ignorant, the reproving the wicked, the exhorting and encouraging the well-doer; and if there be any other work of mercy, it is equally included in this direction.

3. "Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do, in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have praise of men." -- The word synagogue does not here mean a place of worship, but any place of public resort, such as the market-place, or exchange. It was a common thing among the Jews, who were men of large fortunes, particularly among the Pharisees, to cause a trumpet to be sounded before them in the most public parts of the city, when they were about to give any considerable alms. The pretended reason for this was, to call the poor together to receive it; but the real design, that they might have praise of men. But be not thou like unto them. Do not thou cause a trumpet to be sounded before thee. Use no ostentation in doing good. Aim at the honour which cometh of God only. They who seek the praise of men have their reward: They shall have no praise of God. 4. "But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth." -- This is a proverbial expression, the meaning of which is, -- Do it in as secret a manner as is possible; as secret as is consistent with the doing it at all, (for it must not be left undone; omit no opportunity of doing good, whether secretly or openly,) and with the doing it in the most effectual manner. For here is also an exception to be made: When you are fully persuaded in your own mind, that by your not concealing the good which is done, either you will yourself be enabled, or others excited, to do the more good, then you may not conceal it: Then let your light appear, and "shine to all that are in the house." But, unless where the glory of God and the good of mankind oblige you to the contrary, act in as private and unobserved a manner as the nature of the thing will admit; -- "that thy alms may be in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret, he shall reward thee openly;" perhaps in the present world, -- many instances of this stand recorded in all ages; but infallibly in the world to come, before the general assembly of men and angels.

II. 1. From works of charity or mercy our Lord proceeds to those which are termed works of piety. "And when thou prayest," saith he, "thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are; for they love to pray standing in the synagogues, and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men." -- "Thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are." Hypocrisy, then, or insincerity, is the first thing we are to guard against in prayer. Beware not to speak what thou dost not mean. Prayer is the lifting up of the heart to God: All words of prayer, without this, are mere hypocrisy. Whenever therefore thou attemptest to pray, see that it be thy one design to commune with God, to lift up thy heart to him, to pour out thy soul before him; not as the hypocrites, who love, or are wont, "to pray standing in the synagogues," the exchange, or market-places, "and in the corners of the streets," wherever the most people are, "that they may be seen of men:" This was the sole design, the motive, and end, of the prayers which they there repeated. "Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." -- They are to expect none from your Father which is in heaven. 2. But it is not only the having an eye to the praise of men, which cuts us off from any reward in heaven; which leaves us no room to expect the blessing of God upon our works, whether of piety or mercy. Purity of intention is equally destroyed by a view to any temporal reward whatever. If we repeat our prayers, if we attend the public worship of God, if we relieve the poor, with a view to gain or interest, it is not a whit more acceptable to God, than if it were done with a view to praise. Any temporal view, any motive whatever on this side eternity, any design but that of promoting the glory of God, and the happiness of men for God's sake, makes every action, however fair it may appear to men, an abomination unto the Lord.

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.

I. 1. I shall endeavour to show, First, what is the nature of fasting, and what the several sorts and degrees thereof. As to the nature of it, all the inspired writers, both in the Old Testament and the New, take the word to fast in one single sense, for not to eat, to abstain from food. This is so clear, that it would be labour lost to quote the words of David, Nehemiah, Isaiah, and the Prophets which followed, or of our Lord and his Apostles; all agreeing in this, that to fast, is, not to eat for a time prescribed. 2. To this, other circumstances were usually joined by them of old, which had no necessary connexion with it. Such were the neglect of their apparel; the laying aside those ornaments which they were accustomed to wear; the putting on mourning; the strewing ashes upon their head; or wearing sackcloth next their skin. But we find little mention made in the New Testament of any of these indifferent circumstances. Nor does it appear, that any stress was laid upon them by the Christians of the purer ages; however some penitents might voluntarily use them, as outward signs of inward humiliation. Much less did the Apostles, or the Christians contemporary with them, beat or tear their own flesh: Such discipline as this was not unbecoming the priests or worshippers of Baal. The gods of the Heathens were but devils; and it was doubtless acceptable to their devil-god, when his priests (1 Kings 18:28) "cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner, till the blood gushed out upon them:" But it cannot be pleasing to Him, nor become His followers, who "came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them."

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.

And, in like manner, particular persons, who take heed unto their ways, and desire to walk humbly and closely with God, will find frequent occasion for private seasons of thus afflicting their souls before their Father which is in secret. And it is to this kind of fasting that the directions here given do chiefly and primarily refer. II. 1. I proceed to show, in the Second place, what are the grounds, the reasons, and ends of fasting. And, First, men who are under strong emotions of mind, who are affected with any vehement passion, such as sorrow or fear, are often swallowed up therein, and even forget to eat their bread. At such seasons they have little regard for food, not even what is needful to sustain nature, much less for any delicacy or variety; being taken up with quite different thoughts. Thus when Saul said, "I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me;" it is recorded, "He had eaten no bread all the day, nor all the night." (1 Sam. 28:15, 20.) Thus those who were in the ship with St. Paul, "when no small tempest lay upon them, and all hope that they should be saved was taken away," "continued fasting, having taken nothing," no regular meal, for fourteen days together. (Acts 27:33.) And thus David, and all the men that were with him, when they heard that the people were fled from the battle, and that many of the people were fallen and dead, and Saul and Jonathan his son were dead also, "mourned, and wept, and fasted until even, for Saul and Jonathan, and for the house of Israel." (2 Sam. 1:12.) Nay, many times they whose minds are deeply engaged are impatient of any interruption, and even loathe their needful food, as diverting their thoughts from what they desire should engross their whole attention: Even as Saul, when, on the occasion mentioned before, he had "fallen all along upon the earth, and there was no strength in him," yet said, "I will not eat," till "his servants, together with the woman, compelled him."

2. Here, then, is the natural ground of fasting. One who is under deep affliction, overwhelmed with sorrow for sin, and a strong apprehension of the wrath of God, would, without any rule, without knowing or considering whether it were a command of God or not, "forget to eat his bread," abstain not only from pleasant but even from needful food; -- like St. Paul, who, after he was led into Damascus, "was three days without sight, and did neither eat nor drink." (Acts 9:9.) Yea, when the storm rose high; "when an horrible dread overwhelmed" one who had been without God in the world, his soul would "loathe all manner of meat;" it would be unpleasing and irksome to him; he would be impatient of anything that should interrupt his ceaseless cry, "Lord, save or I perish." How strongly is this expressed by our Church in the first part of the Homily on Fasting! -- "When men feel in themselves the heavy burden of sin, see damnation to be the reward of it, and behold, with the eye of their mind, the horror of hell, they tremble, they quake, and are inwardly touched with sorrowfulness of heart, and cannot but accuse themselves, and open their grief unto Almighty God, and call unto him for mercy. This being done seriously, their mind is so occupied, [taken up,] partly with sorrow and heaviness, partly with an earnest desire to be delivered from this danger of hell and damnation, that all desire of meat and drink is laid apart, and loathsomeness [or loathing] of all worldly things and pleasure cometh in place. So that nothing then liketh them more than to weep, to lament, to mourn, and both with words and behaviour of body to show themselves weary of life."

3. Another reason or ground of fasting is this: Many of those who now fear God are deeply sensible how often they have sinned against him, by the abuse of these lawful things. They know how much they have sinned by excess of food; how long they have transgressed the holy law of God, with regard to temperance, if not sobriety too; how they have indulged their sensual appetites, perhaps to the impairing even their bodily health, -- certainly to the no small hurt of their soul For hereby they continually fed and increased that sprightly folly, that airiness of mind, that levity of temper, that gay inattention to things of the deepest concern, that giddiness and carelessness of spirit, which were no other than drunkenness of soul, which stupefied all their noblest faculties, no less than excess of wine or strong drink. To remove, therefore, the effect, they remove the cause. They keep at a distance from all excess. They abstain, as far as is possible, from what had well nigh plunged them in everlasting perdition. They often wholly refrain; always take care to be sparing and temperate in all things. 4. They likewise well remember how fulness of bread increased not only carelessness and levity of spirit, but also foolish and unholy desires, yea, unclean and vile affections. And this experience puts beyond all doubt. Even a genteel, regular sensuality is continually sensualizing the soul, and sinking it into a level with the beasts that perish. It cannot be expressed what an effect variety and delicacy of food have on the mind as well as the body; making it just ripe for every pleasure of sense, as soon as opportunity shall invite. Therefore, on this ground also, every wise man will refrain his soul, and keep it low; will wean it more and more from all those indulgences of the inferior appetites, which naturally tend to chain it down to earth, and to pollute as well as debase it Here is another perpetual reason for fasting; to remove the food of lust and sensuality, to withdraw the incentives of foolish and hurtful desires, of vile and vain affections.

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.

How powerful a means this is to avert the wrath of God, we may learn from the remarkable instance of Ahab. "There was none like him who did sell himself" -- wholly give himself up, like a slave bought with money -- "to work wickedness." Yet when he "rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted, and went softly, the word of the Lord came to Elijah, saying, Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me Because he humbleth himself before me, I will not bring the evil in his days." It was for this end, to avert the wrath of God, that Daniel sought God "with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes." This appears from the whole tenor of his prayer, particularly from the solemn conclusion of it: "O Lord, according to all thy righteousness," or mercies, "let thy anger be turned away from thy holy mountain. -- Hear the prayer of thy servant, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate. -- O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do, for thine own sake." (Dan. 9:3, 16, &c.)

8. But it is not only from the people of God that we learn, when his anger is moved, to seek him by fasting and prayer; but even from the Heathens. When Jonah had declared, "Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown," the people of Nineveh proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them unto the least. "For the King of Nineveh arose from his throne, and laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything: Let them not feed, nor drink water:" (Not that the beast had sinned, or could repent; but that, by their example, man might be admonished, considering that, for his sin, the anger of God was hanging over all creatures:) "Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not" And their labour was not in vain. The fierce anger of God was turned away from them. "God saw their works;" (the fruits of that repentance and faith which he had wrought in them by his Prophet;) "and God repented of the evil that he had said he would do unto them; and he did it not." (Jonah 3:4, &c.)

9. And it is a means not only of turning away the wrath of God, but also of obtaining whatever blessings we stand in need of. So, when the other tribes were smitten before the Benjamites, "all the children of Israel went up unto the house of God, and wept, and fasted that day until even;" and then the Lord said, "Go up" again; "for to-morrow I will deliver them into thine hand." (Judges 20:26, &c.) So Samuel gathered all Israel together, when they were in bondage to the Philistines, "and they fasted on that day" before the Lord: And when "the Philistines drew near to battle against Israel, the Lord thundered" upon them "with a great thunder, and discomfited them; and they were smitten before Israel." (1 Sam. 7:6.) So Ezra: "I proclaimed a fast at the river Ahava, that we might afflict ourselves before our God, to seek of him a right way for us, and for our little ones; and he was entreated of us." (Ezra 8:21.) So Nehemiah: I fasted and prayed before the God of heaven, and said, Prosper, I pray thee, thy servant this day, and grant him mercy in the sight of this man:" And God granted him mercy in the sight of the king. (Neh. 1:4-11) 10. In like manner, the apostles always joined fasting with prayer when they desired the blessing of God on any important undertaking. Thus we read, (Acts 13.,) "There were in the church that was at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers: As they ministered to the Lord and fasted," doubtless for direction in this very affair, "the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had" a second time "fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." (Acts 13:1-3.) Thus also Paul and Barnabas themselves, as we read in the following chapter, when they "returned again to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, confirming the souls of the disciples, and when they had ordained them Elders in every Church, and had prayed with fasting, commended them to the Lord." (Acts 14:23.)

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.)

Nor are they only temporal blessings which God directs his people to expect in the use of these means. For, at the same time that he promised to those who should seek him with fasting, and weeping, and mourning, "I will restore you the years which locust hath eaten, the canker-worm, and the caterpillar, and the palmer-worm, my great army;" he subjoins, "So shall ye eat and be satisfied, and praise the name of the Lord your God. -- Ye shall also know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord your God." And then immediately follows the great gospel promise: "I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my Spirit." [Joel 2:28-29] 12. Now whatsoever reasons there were to quicken those of old, in the zealous and constant discharge of this duty, they are of equal force still to quicken us. But above all these, we have a peculiar reason for being "in fastings often;" namely, the command of Him by whose name we are called. He does not, indeed, in this place expressly enjoin either fasting, giving of alms, or prayer; but his directions how to fast, to give alms, and to pray, are of the same force with such injunctions. For the commanding us to do anything thus, is an unquestionable command to do that thing; seeing it is impossible to perform it thus, if it be not performed at all. Consequently, the saying, "Give alms, pray, fast" in such a manner, is a clear command to perform all those duties; as well as to perform them in that manner which shall in nowise lose its reward. And this is a still farther motive and encouragement to the performance of this duty; even the promise which our Lord has graciously annexed to the due discharge of it: "Thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." Such are the plain grounds, reasons, and ends of fasting; such our encouragement to persevere therein, notwithstanding abundance of objections which men, wiser than their Lord, have been continually raising against it.

3. "But we do not find it so in fact:" (This is a Third objection:) "We have fasted much and often; but what did it avail We were not a whit better; we found no blessing therein. Nay, we have found it an hinderance rather than an help. Instead of preventing anger, for instance, or fretfulness, it has been a means of increasing them to such a height, that we could neither bear others nor ourselves." This may very possibly be the case. It is possible either to fast or pray in such a manner as to make you much worse than before; more unhappy, and more unholy. Yet the fault does not lie in the means itself, but in the manner of using it. Use it still, but use it in a different manner. Do what God commands as he commands it; and then, doubtless, his promise shall not fail: His blessings shall be withheld no longer; but, when thou fastest in secret, "He that seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." 4. "But is it not mere superstition," (so it has been, Fourthly, objected,) "to imagine that God regards such little things as these" If you say it is, you condemn all the generations of God's children. But will you say, These were all weak, superstitious men Can you be so hardy as to affirm this, both of Moses and Joshua, of Samuel and David, of Jehosaphat, Ezra, Nehemiah, and all the prophets yea, of a greater than all, -- the Son of God himself It is certain, both our Master, and all these his servants, did imagine that fasting is not a little thing, and that He who is higher than the highest doth regard it. Of the same judgment, it is plain, were all his Apostles, after they were "filled with the Holy Ghost, and with wisdom." When they had the "unction of the Holy One, teaching them all things," they still approved themselves the Ministers of God, "by fastings," as well as "by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left." After "the bridegroom was taken from them, then did they fast in those days." Nor would they attempt anything (as we have seen above) wherein the glory of God was nearly concerned, such as the sending forth labourers into the harvest, without solemn fasting as well as prayer.

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.

7. Again, had you been at Nineveh when it was proclaimed throughout the city, "Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything: Let them not feed or drink water, but let them cry mightily unto God;" -- would your continual fast have been any reason for not bearing part in that general humiliation Doubtless it would not. You would have been as much concerned as any other not to taste food on that day. No more would abstinence, or the observing a continual fast, have excused any of the children of Israel from fasting on the tenth day of the seventh month, that shall not be afflicted," shall not fast, "in that day, he shall be cut off from among his people." Lastly. Had you been with the brethren in Antioch, at the time when they fasted and prayed, before the sending forth of Barnabas and Saul, can you possibly imagine that your temperance or abstinence would have been a sufficient cause for not joining therein Without doubt, if you had not, you would soon have been cut off from the Christian community. You would have deservedly been cast out from among them ,as bringing confusion into the Church of God. IV. 1. I am, in the Last place, to show in what manner we are to fast, that it may be an acceptable service unto the Lord. And, First, let it be done unto the Lord, with our eye singly fixed on Him. Let our intention herein be this, and this alone, to glorify our Father which is in heaven; to express our sorrow and shame for our manifold transgressions of his holy law; to wait for an increase of purifying grace, drawing our affections to things above; to add seriousness and earnestness to our prayers; to avert the wrath of God, and to obtain all the great and precious promises which he hath made to us in Jesus Christ.

Let us beware of mocking God, of turning our fast, as well as our prayers, into an abomination unto the Lord, by the mixture of any temporal view, particularly by seeking the praise of men. Against this our blessed Lord more peculiarly guards us in the words of the text. "Moreover when ye fast, be ye not as the hypocrites:" -- Such were too many who were called the people of God; "of a sad countenance;" sour, affectedly sad, putting their looks into a peculiar form. "For they disfigure their faces," not only by unnatural distortions, but also by covering them with dust and ashes; "that they may appear unto men to fast;" this is their chief, if not only design. "Verily, I say unto you, They have their reward;" even the admiration and praise of men. "But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy head, and wash thy face:" Do as thou art accustomed to do at other times; "that thou appear not unto men to fast;" -- let this be no part of thy intention; if they know it without any desire of thine, it matters not, thou art neither the better nor the worse; -- "but unto thy Father which is in secret: And thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly." 2. But, if we desire this reward, let us beware, Secondly of fancying we merit anything of God by our fasting. We cannot be too often warned of this; inasmuch as a desire to "establish our own righteousness," to procure salvation of debt and not of grace, is so deeply rooted in all our hearts. Fasting is only a way which God hath ordained, wherein we wait for his unmerited mercy; and wherein, without any desert of ours, he hath promised freely to give us his blessing.

5. But let us take care to afflict our souls as well as our bodies. Let every season, either of public or private fasting, be a season of exercising all those holy affections which are implied in a broken and contrite heart. Let it be a season of devout mourning, of godly sorrow for sin; such a sorrow as that of the Corinthians, concerning which the Apostle saith, "I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance. For ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow" -- h kata qeon luph, -- the sorrow which is according to God, which is a precious gift of his Spirit, lifting the soul to God from whom it flows -- "worketh repentance to salvation, not to be repented of." Yea, and let our sorrowing after a godly sort work in us the same inward and outward repentance; the same entire change of heart, renewed after the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness; and the same change of life, till we are holy as He is holy, in all manner of conversation. Let it work in us the same carefulness to be found in him, without spot and blameless; the same clearing of ourselves, by our lives rather than words, by our abstaining from all appearance of evil; the same indignation, vehement abhorrence of every sin; the same fear of our own deceitful hearts; the same desire to be in all things conformed to the holy and acceptable will of God; the same zeal for whatever may be a means of his glory, and of our growth in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ; and the same revenge against Satan and all his works, against all filthiness both of flesh and Spirit. (2 Cor. 7:9, &c.)

6. And with fasting let us always join fervent prayer, pouring out our whole souls before God, confessing our sins with all their aggravations, humbling ourselves under his mighty hand, laying open before him all our wants, all our guiltiness and helplessness. This is a season for enlarging our prayers, both in behalf of ourselves and of our brethren. Let us now bewail the sins of our people; and cry aloud for the city of our God, that the Lord may build up Zion, and cause his face to shine on her desolations. Thus, we may observe, the men of God, in ancient times always joined prayer and fasting together; thus the Apostles, in all the instances cited above; and thus our Lord joins them in the discourse before us.

7. It remains only, in order to our observing such a fast as is acceptable to the Lord, that we add alms thereto; works of mercy, after our power, both to the bodies and souls of men: "With such sacrifices" also "God is well pleased." Thus the angel declares to Cornelius, fasting and praying in his house, "Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God." (Acts 10:4, &c.) And this God himself expressly and largely declares: "Is not this the fast that I have chosen to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thy own flesh Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily; and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the Lord shall be thy reward. Then shalt thou call, and the Lord shall answer: Thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. -- If, "when thou fastest, "thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noon-day. And the Lord shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: And thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not." (Isa. 58:6, &c.)

Upon Our Lord's Sermon On The Mount: Discourse Eight "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal; For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. 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. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" Matt. 6:19-23. 1. From those which are commonly termed religious actions, and which are real branches of true religion where they spring from a pure and holy intention and are performed in a manner suitable thereto, -- our Lord proceeds to the actions of common life, and shows that the same purity of intention is as indispensably required in our ordinary business as in giving alms, or fasting, or prayer. And without question the same purity of intention "which makes our alms and devotions acceptable must also make our labour or employment a proper offering to God. If a man pursues his business that he may raise himself to a state of honour and riches in the world, he is no longer serving God in his employment, and has no more title to a reward from God than he who gives alms that he may be seen, or prays that he may be heard of men. For vain and earthly designs are no more allowable in our employments than in our alms and devotions. They are not only evil when they mix with our good works," with our religious actions, "but they have the same evil nature when they enter into the common business of our employments. If it were allowable to pursue them in our worldly employments, it would be allowable to pursue them in our devotions. But as our alms and devotions are not an acceptable service but when they proceed frond a pure intention, so our common employment cannot be reckoned a service to him but when it is performed with the same piety of heart."

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.

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.

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. 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!

IV. 1. If we willingly fail in any of these points, if we either directly or indirectly forbid him, "because he followeth not us," then we are bigots. This is the inference I draw from what has been said. But the term "bigotry," I fear, as frequently as it is used, is almost as little understood as "enthusiasm." It is too strong an attachment to, or fondness for, our own party. opinion, church, and religion. Therefore he is a bigot who is so fond of any of these, so strongly attached to them, as to forbid any who casts out devils because he differs from himself in any or all these particulars. 2. Do you beware of this. Take care (1) That you do not convict yourself of bigotry, by your unreadiness to believe that any man does cast out devils, who differs from you. And if you are clear thus far, if you acknowledge the fact, then examine yourself, (2) Am I not convicted of bigotry in this, in forbidding him directly or indirectly Do I not directly forbid him on this ground, because he is not of my party, because he does not fall in with my opinions, or because he does not worship God according to that scheme of religion which I have received from my fathers 3. Examine yourself, Do I not indirectly at least forbid him, on any of these grounds Am I not sorry that God should thus own and bless a man that holds such erroneous opinions Do I not discourage him, because he is not of my Church, by disputing with him concerning it, by raising objections, and by perplexing his mind with distant consequences Do I show no anger, contempt, or unkindness of any sort, either in my words or actions Do I not mention behind his back, his (real or supposed) faults --his defects or infirmities Do not I hinder sinners from hearing his word If you do any of these things, you are a bigot to this day.

Sermon 39: Catholic Spirit Text: "And when he was departed thence, he lighted on Jehonadab the son of Rechab coming to meet him, and he saluted him, and said to him, Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart And Jehonadab answered: It is. If it be, give me thine hand." 2 Kings 10:15. Introduction 1. It is allowed even by those who do not pay this great debt, that love is due to all mankind, the royal law, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," carrying its own evidence to all that hear it: and that, not according to the miserable construction put upon it by the zealots of old times, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour," thy relation, acquaintance, friend, "and hate thine enemy;" not so; "I say unto you," said our Lord, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children," may appear so to all mankind, "of your Father which is in heaven; who maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

3. Hence we may, thirdly, learn, that a catholic spirit is not indifference to all congregations. This is another sort of latitudinarianism, no less absurd and unscriptural than the former. But it is far from a man of a truly catholic spirit. He is fixed in his congregation as well as his principles. He is united to one, not only in spirit, but by all the outward ties of Christian fellowship. There he partakes of all the ordinances of God. There he receives the supper of the Lord. There he pours out his soul in public prayer, and joins in public praise and thanksgiving. There he rejoices to hear the word of reconciliation, the gospel of the grace of God. With these his nearest, his best-beloved brethren, on solemn occasions, he seeks God by fasting. These particularly he watches over in love, as they do over his soul; admonishing, exhorting, comforting, reproving, and every way building up each other in the faith. These he regards as his own household; and therefore, according to the ability God has given him, naturally cares for them, and provides that they may have all the things that are needful for life and godliness. 4. But while he is steadily fixed in his religious principles in what he believes to be the truth as it is in Jesus; while he firmly adheres to that worship of God which he judges to be most acceptable in his sight; and while he is united by the tenderest and closest ties to one particular congregation, --his heart is enlarged toward all mankind, those he knows and those he does not; he embraces with strong and cordial affection neighbours and strangers, friends and enemies. This is catholic or universal love. And he that has this is of a catholic spirit. For love alone gives the title to this character: catholic love is a catholic spirit.

1. And it is easy to observe, that the occasion of the former sort of thoughts, which oppose or wander from God, are, in general, sinful tempers. For instance: Why is not God in all the thoughts, in any of the thoughts of a natural man For a plain reason: Be he rich or poor, learned or unlearned, he is an Atheist; (though not vulgarly so called;) he neither knows nor loves God. Why are his thoughts continually wandering after the world Because he is an idolater. He does not indeed worship an image, or bow down to the stock of a tree; yet is he sunk into equally damnable idolatry: He loves, that is worships, the world. He seeks happiness in the things that are seen, in the pleasures that perish in the using. Why is it that his thoughts are perpetually wandering from the very end of his being, the knowledge of God in Christ Because he is an unbeliever; because he has no faith; or at least, no more than a devil. So all these wandering thoughts easily and naturally spring from that evil root of unbelief. 2. The case is the same in other instances: Pride, anger, revenge, vanity, lust, covetousness, every one of them occasions thoughts suitable to its own nature. And so does every sinful temper of which the human mind is capable. The particulars it is hardly possible, nor is it needful, to enumerate: It suffices to observe, that as many evil tempers as find a place in any soul, so many ways that soul will depart from God, by the worst kind of wandering thoughts. 3. The occasions of the latter kind of wandering thoughts are exceeding various. Multitudes of them are occasioned by the natural union between the soul and body. How immediately and how deeply is the understanding affected by a diseased body! Let but the blood move irregularly in the brain, and all regular thinking is at an end. Raging madness ensues; and then farewell to all evenness of thought. Yea, let only the spirits be hurried or agitated to a certain degree, and a temporary madness, a delirium, prevents all settled thought. And is not the same irregularity of thought, in a measure, occasioned by every nervous disorder So does the "corruptible body press down the soul, and cause it to muse about many things."

8. These occasions of wandering thoughts lie within, are wrought into our very nature. But they will likewise naturally and necessarily arise from the various impulse of outward objects. Whatever strikes upon the organ of sense, the eye or ear, will raise a perception in the mind. And, accordingly, whatever we see or hear will break in upon our former train of thought. Every man, therefore, that does anything in our sight, or speaks anything in our hearing, occasions our mind to wander, more or less, from the point it was thinking of before. 9. And there is no question but those evil spirits who are continually seeking whom they may devour make use of all the foregoing occasions to hurry and distract our minds. Sometimes by one, sometimes by another, of these means, they will harass and perplex us, and, so far as God permits, interrupt our thoughts, particularly when they are engaged on the best subjects. Nor is this at all strange: They will understand the very springs of thought; and know on which of the bodily organs the imagination, the understanding, and every other faculty of the mind more immediately depends. And hereby they know how, by affecting those organs, to affect the operations dependent on them. Add to this, that they can inject a thousand thoughts, without any of the preceding means; it being as natural for spirit to act upon spirit, as for matter to act upon matter. These things being considered, we cannot admire that our thought so often wanders from any point which we have in view.

III. 1. What kind of wandering thoughts are sinful, and what not, is the Third thing to be inquired into. And, First, all those thoughts which wander from God, which leave him no room in our minds, are undoubtedly sinful. For all these imply practical Atheism; and by these we are without God in the world. And so much more are all those which are contrary to God, which imply opposition or enmity to him. Such are all murmuring, discontented thoughts, which say, in effect, "We will not have thee to rule over us;" -- all unbelieving thoughts, whether with regard to his being, his attributes, or his providence. I mean, his particular providence over all things, as well as all persons, in the universe; that without which "not a sparrow falls to the ground," by which "the hairs of our head are all numbered;" for as to a general providence, (vulgarly so called,) contradistinguished from a particular, it is only a decent, well-sounding word, which means just nothing. 2. Again: All thoughts which spring from sinful tempers, are undoubtedly sinful. Such, for instance, are those that spring from a revengeful temper, from pride, or lust, or vanity. "An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit:" Therefore if the tree be evil, so must the fruit be also. 3. And so must those be which either produce or feed any sinful temper; those which either give rise to pride or vanity, to anger or love of the world, or confirm and increase these or any other unholy temper, passion, or affection. For not only whatever flows from evil is evil; but also whatever leads to it; whatever tends to alienate the soul from God, and to make or keep it earthly, sensual, and devilish.

4. Hence, even those thoughts which are occasioned by weakness or disease, by the natural mechanism of the body, or by the laws of vital union, however innocent they may be in themselves, do nevertheless become sinful, when they either produce or cherish and increase in us any sinful temper; suppose the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eye, or the pride of life. In like manner, the wandering thoughts which are occasioned by the words or actions of other men, if they cause or feed any wrong disposition, then commence sinful. And the same we may observe of those which are suggested or injected by the devil. When they minister to any earthly or devilish temper, (which they do, whenever we give place to them, and thereby make them our own,) then they are equally sinful with the tempers to which they minister. 5. But, abstracting from these cases, wandering thoughts, in the latter sense of the word, that is, thoughts wherein our understanding wanders from the point it has in view, are no more sinful than the motion of the blood in our veins, or of the spirits in our brain. If they arise from an infirm constitution, or from some accidental weakness or distemper, they are as innocent as it is to have a weak constitution or a distempered body. And surely no one doubts but a bad state of nerves, a fever of any kind, and either a transient or a lasting delirium, may consist with perfect innocence. And if they should arise in a soul which is united to a healthful body, either from the natural union between the body and soul, or from any of ten thousand changes which may occur in those organs of the body that minister to thought; -- in any of these cases they are as perfectly innocent as the causes from which they spring. And so they are when they spring from the casual, involuntary associations of our ideas.

4. Will not the case be the same with regard to those thoughts that necessarily arise from violent pain They will more or less continue, while that pain continues, by the inviolable order of nature. This order, likewise, will obtain, where the thoughts are disturbed, broken, or interrupted, by any defect of the apprehension, judgement, or imagination, flowing from the natural constitution of the body. And how many interruptions may spring from the unaccountable and involuntary association of our ideas! Now, all these are directly or indirectly caused by the corruptible body pressing down the mind. Nor, therefore, can we expect them to be removed till "this corruptible shall put on incorruption." 5. And then only, when we lie down in the dust, shall we be delivered from those wandering thoughts which are occasioned by what we see and hear, among those by whom we are now surrounded. To avoid these, we must go out of the world: For as long as we remain therein, as long as there are men and women round about us, and we have eyes to see and ears to hear, the things which we daily see and hear will certainly affect our mind, and will more or less break in upon and interrupt our preceding thoughts. 6. And as long as evil spirits roam to and fro in a miserable, disordered world, so long they will assault (whether they can prevail or no) every inhabitant of flesh and blood. They will trouble even those whom they cannot destroy: They will attack, if they cannot conquer. And from these attacks of our restless, unwearied enemies, we must not look for an entire deliverance, till we are lodged "where the wicked cease from troubling, and where the weary are at rest."

5. I do allow all this, and continually maintain it as the truth of God. I allow there is a repentance consequent upon, as well as a repentance previous to, justification. It is incumbent on all that are justified to be zealous of good works. And there are so necessary, that if a man willingly neglect them, he cannot reasonably expect that he shall ever be sanctified; he cannot grow in grace, in the image of God, the mind which was in Christ Jesus; nay, he cannot retain the grace he has received; he cannot continue in faith, or in the favour of God. What is the inference we mist draw herefrom Why, that both repentance, rightly understood, and the practice of all good works, --works of piety, as well as works of mercy (now properly so called, since they spring from faith), are, in some sense, necessary to sanctification. 6. I say, "repentance rightly understood"; for this must not be confounded with the former repentance. The repentance consequent upon justification is widely different from that which is antecedent to it. This implies no guilt, no sense of condemnation, no consciousness of the wrath of God. It does not suppose any doubt of the favour of God, or any "fear that hath torment." It is properly a conviction, wrought by the Holy Ghost, of the sin which still remains in our heart; of the jronhma sarkos, the carnal mind, which "does still remain" (as our Church speaks) "even in them that are regenerate"; although it does no longer reign; it has not now dominion over them. It is a conviction of our proneness to evil, of an heart bent to backsliding, of the still continuing tendency of the flesh to lust against the spirit. Sometimes, unless we continually watch and pray, it lusteth to pride, sometimes to anger, sometimes to love of the world, love of ease, love of honour, or love of pleasure more than of God. It is a conviction of the tendency of our heart to self-will, to Atheism, or idolatry; and above all, to unbelief; whereby, in a thousand ways, and under a thousand pretenses, we are ever departing, more or less, from the living God.

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.

4. Perhaps no sin of omission more frequently occasions this than the neglect of private prayer; the want whereof cannot be supplied by any other ordinance whatever. Nothing can be more plain, than that the life of God in the soul does not continue, much less increase, unless we use all opportunities of communing with God, and pouring out our hearts before him. If therefore we are negligent of this, if we suffer business, company, or any avocation whatever, to prevent these secret exercises of the soul, (or, which comes to the same thing, to make us hurry them over in a slight and careless manner,) that life will surely decay. And if we long or frequently intermit them, it will gradually die away. 5. Another sin of omission, which frequently brings the soul of a believer into darkness, is the neglect of what was so strongly enjoined, even under the Jewish dispensation: "Thou shalt, in anywise, rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him: Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart." Now, if we do hate our brother in our heart, if we do not rebuke him when we see him in a fault, but suffer sin upon him, this will soon bring leanness to our own soul; seeing hereby we are partakers of his sin. By neglecting to reprove our neighbour, we make his sin our own: We become accountable for it to God: We saw his danger, and gave him no warning: So, "if he perish in his iniquity," God may justly require "his blood at our hands." No wonder then, if by thus grieving the Spirit, we lose the light of his countenance.

3. If, upon the closest search, you can find no sin of commission which causes the cloud upon your soul, inquire next, if there be not some sin of omission which separates between God and you. Do you "not suffer sin upon your brother" Do you reprove them that sin in your sight Do you walk in all the ordinances of God in public, family, private prayer If not, if you habitually neglect any one of these known duties, how can you expect that the light of his countenance should continue to shine upon you Make haste to "strengthen the things that remain;" then your soul shall live. "Today, if ye will hear his voice," by his grace supply what is lacking. When you hear a voice behind you saying, "This is the way, walk thou in it," harden not your heart; be no more "disobedient to the heavenly calling." Till the sin, whether of omission or commission, be removed, all comfort is false and deceitful. It is only skinning the wound over, which still festers and rankles beneath. Look for no peace within, till you are at peace with God; which cannot be without "fruits meet for repentance."

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.

4. They then printed and dispersed, at their own expense, several thousand books of instruction to Constables and other Parish Officers, explaining and enforcing their several duties: And to prevent, as far as possible, the necessity of proceeding to an actual execution of the laws, they likewise printed and dispersed in all parts of the town dissuasives from Sabbath-breaking, extract from Acts of Parliament against it, and notices to the offenders. 5. The way being paved by these precautions, it was in the beginning of the year 1758, that, after notices delivered again and again, which were as often set at naught, actual informations were made to Magistrates against persons profaning the Lord's day. By this means they first cleared the streets and fields of those notorious offenders who, without any regard either to God or the king, were selling their wares from morning to night. They proceeded to a more difficult attempt, the preventing tippling on the Lord's day, spending the time in alehouses, which ought to be spent in the more immediate worship of God. Herein they were exposed to abundance of reproach, to insult and abuse of every kind; having not only the tipplers, and those who entertained them, the alehouse keepers, to contend with, but rich and honourable men, partly the landlords of those alehouse keepers, partly those who furnished them with drink, and, in general, all who gained by their sins. Some of these were not only men of substance, but men in authority; nay, in more instances than one, they were the very persons before whom the delinquents were brought. And the treatment they gave those who laid the informations naturally encouraged "the beasts of the people" to follow their example, and to use them as fellows not fit to live upon the earth. Hence they made no scruple, not only to treat them with the basest language, not only to throw at them mud or stones, or whatever came to hand, but many times to beat them without mercy, and to drag them over the stones, or through the kennels. And that they did not murder them was not for want of will; but the bridle was in their teeth.

II. 1. These are the steps which have been hitherto taken in prosecution of this design. I am, in the Second place, to show the excellent thereof, notwithstanding the objections which have been raised against it. Now this may appear from several considerations. And, First, from hence, -- that the making an open stand against all the ungodliness and unrighteousness which overspread our land as a flood is one of the noblest ways of confessing Christ in the face of his enemies. It is giving glory to God, and showing mankind that even in these dregs of time, There are, who faith prefer Though few, and piety to God. And what more excellent than to render to God the honour due unto his name To declare by a stronger proof than words, even by suffering, and running all hazards, "Verily there is a reward for the righteous; doubtless there is a God that judgeth the earth." 2. How excellent is the design to prevent in any degree the dishonour done to his glorious name, the contempt which is poured on his authority, and the scandal brought upon our holy religion by the gross, flagrant wickedness of those who are still called by the name of Christ! To stem in any degree the torrent of vice, to repress the floods of ungodliness, to remove in an leisure those occasions of blaspheming the worthy name hereby we are called, is one of the noblest designs it can possibly enter into the heart of man to conceive.

Say not, "But I cannot endure the reproach, the odious name of an informer." And did any man ever save his soul, that was not a by-word, and a proverb of reproach Neither canst thou ever save thine, unless thou art willing that men should say all manner of evil of thee. Say not, "But if I am active in this work, I shall lose not only my reputation, but my friends, my customers, my business, my livelihood; so that I shall be brought to poverty." Thou shalt not; thou canst not: It is absolutely impossible, unless God himself chooseth it; for his "kingdom ruleth over all," and "the very hairs of thy head are all numbered." But if the wise, the gracious God choose it for thee, wilt thou murmur or complain Wilt thou not rather say, "The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it If you "suffer for Christ, happy are you; the Spirit of glory and of God" shall "rest upon you." Say not, "I would suffer all things, but my wife will not consent to it; and, certainly, a man ought to leave father and mother and all, and cleave to his wife." True; all but God; all but Christ: But he ought not to leave him for his wife! He is not to leave any duty undone, for the dearest relative. Our Lord himself hath said in this very sense, "If any man loveth father, or mother, or wife, or children, more than me, he is not worthy of me!" Say not, "Well, I would forsake all for Christ; but one duty must not hinder another; and this would frequently hinder my attending public worship." Sometimes it probably would. "Go, then, and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice." And whatever is lost by showing this mercy, God will repay seven-fold into thy bosom. Say not, "But I shall hurt my own soul. I am a young man; and by taking up loose women I should expose myself to temptation." Yes, if you did this in your own strength, or for your own pleasure. But that is not the case. You trust in God; and you aim at pleasing him only.

2. By them he was convinced that we "must be born again," or outward religion will profit us nothing. He joined with them in fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays; in visiting the sick and the prisoners; and in gathering up the very fragments of time, that no moment might be lost: and he changed the course of his studies; reading chiefly such books as entered into the heart of religion, and led directly to an experimental knowledge of Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3. He was soon tried as with fire. Not only his reputation was lost, and some of his dearest friends forsook him; but he was exercised with inward trials, and those of the severest kind. Many nights he lay sleepless upon his bed; many days, prostrate on the ground. But after he had groaned several months under "the spirit of bondage," God was pleased to remove the heavy load, by giving him "the Spirit of adoption;" enabling him through a living faith, to lay hold on "the Son of His Love." 4. However, it was thought needful, for the recovery of his health, which was much impaired, that he should go into the country. He accordingly went to Gloucester, where God enabled him to awaken several young persons. These soon formed themselves into a little society, and were some of the first-fruits of his labor. Shortly after, he began to read, twice or thrice a week, to some poor people in the town; and every day to read to and pray with the prisoners in the county jail. 5. Being now about twenty-one years of age, he was solicited to enter into holy orders. Of this he was greatly afraid, being deeply sensible of his own insufficiency. But the Bishop himself sending for him, and telling him, "Though I had purposed to ordain none under three-and-twenty, yet I will ordain you whenever you come" -- and several other providential circumstances concurring -- he submitted, and was ordained on Trinity Sunday, 1736. The next Sunday he preached to a crowded auditory, in the church wherein he was baptized. The week following he returned to Oxford, and took his Bachelor's degree: and he was now fully employed; the care of the prisoners and the poor lying chiefly on him.

"In his public labors he has, for many years, astonished the world with his eloquence and devotion. With what divine pathos did he persuade the impenitent sinner to embrace the practice of piety and virtue! [Filled with the spirit of grace, he] spoke from the heart, and, with a fervency of zeal perhaps unequalled since the day of the Apostles, [adorned the truths he delivered with the most graceful charms of rhetoric and oratory.] From the pulpit he was unrivalled in the command of an ever-crowded auditory. Nor was he less agreeable and instructive in his private conversation; happy in a remarkable ease of address, willing to communicate, studious to edify. May the rising generation catch a spark of that flame which shone, with such distinguished luster, in the spirit and practice of this faithful servant of the most high God!" 2. A more particular, and equally just, character of him has appeared in one of the English papers. It may not be disagreeable to you to add the substance of this likewise: --

9. Nevertheless it is certain, that the gates of hell did never totally prevail against it. God always reserved a seed for himself; a few that worshipped him in spirit and in truth. I have often doubted, whether these were not the very persons whom the rich and honourable Christians, who will always have number as well as power on their side, did not stigmatize, from time to time, with the title of heretics. Perhaps it was chiefly by this artifice of the devil and his children, that, the good which was in them being evil spoken of, they were prevented from being so extensively useful as otherwise they might have been. Nay, I have doubted whether that arch-heretic, Montanus, was not one of the holiest men in the second century. Yea, I would not affirm, that the arch-heretic of the fifth century, (as plentifully as he has been bespattered for many ages,) was not one of the holiest men of that age, not excepting St. Augustine himself. (A wonderful saint! As full of pride, passion, bitterness, censoriousness, and as foul-mouthed to all that contradicted him, as George Fox himself.) I verily believe, the real heresy of Pelagius was neither more nor less than this: The holding that Christians may, by the grace of God, (not without it; that I take to be a mere slander,) "go on to perfection;" or, in other words, "fulfil the law of Christ." "But St. Augustine says:" -- When Augustine's passions were heated, his word is not worth a rush. And here is the secret: St. Augustine was angry at Pelagius: Hence he slandered and abused him, (as his manner was,) without either fear or shame. And St. Augustine was then in the Christian world, what Aristotle was afterwards: There needed no other proof of any assertion, than Ipse dixit :"St. Augustine said it."

18. But all rich men are under a continual temptation to acquaintance and conversation with worldly men. They are likewise under a continual temptation to pride, to think more highly of themselves than they ought to think. They are strongly tempted to revenge, when they are ever so little affronted: And, having the means in their own hands, how few are there that resist the temptation! They are continually tempted to sloth, indolence, love of ease, softness, delicacy; to hatred of self-denial, and taking up the cross, even that of fasting and rising early, without which it is impossible to grow in grace. If you are increased in goods, do not you know that these things are so Do you contract no intimacy with worldly men Do not you converse with them more than duty requires Are you in no danger of pride of thinking yourself better than your poor, dirty neighbours Do you never resent, yea, and revenge an affront Do you never render evil for evil Do not you give way to indolence or love of ease Do you deny yourself, and take up your cross daily Do you constantly rise as early as you did once Why not Is not your soul as precious now as it was then How often do you fast Is not this a duty to you, as much as to a day-labourer But if you are wanting in this, or any other respect, who will tell you of it Who dares tell you the plain truth, but those who neither hope nor fear any thing from you And if any venture to deal plainly with you, how hard is it for you to bear it! Are not you far less reprovable, far less advisable, than when you were poor It is well if you can bear reproof even from me: And in a few days you will see me no more. Once more, therefore, I say, having gained and saved all you can, do you give all you can else your money will eat your flesh as fire, and will sink you to the nethermost hell! O beware of "laying up treasures upon earth!" Is it not treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath

3. May they not minister also to us, with respect to our bodies, in a thousand ways which we do not now understand They may prevent our falling into many dangers, which we are not sensible of; and may deliver us out of many others, though we know not whence our deliverance comes. How many times have we been strangely and unaccountably preserved, in sudden and dangerous falls! And it is well if we did not impute that preservation to chance, or to our own wisdom or strength. Not so: It was God gave his angels charge over us, and in their hands they bore us up. Indeed, men of the world will always impute such deliverances to accident or second causes. To these, possibly, some of them might have imputed Daniel's preservation in the lion's den. But himself ascribes it to the true cause: "My God hath sent his angel, and shut the lions' mouths." (Dan. 6:22.) 4. When a violent disease, supposed to be incurable, is totally and suddenly removed, it is by no means improbable that this is effected by the ministry of an angel. And perhaps it is owing to the same cause, that a remedy is unaccountably suggested either to the sick person, or some attending upon him, by which he is entirely cured. 5. It seems, what are usually called divine dreams may be frequently ascribed to angels. We have a remarkable instance of this kind related by one that will hardly be thought an enthusiast; for he was a Heathen, a Philosopher, and an Emperor: I mean Marcus Antoninus. "In his Meditations, he solemnly thanks God for revealing to him, when he was at Cajeta, in a dream, what totally cured the bloody flux; which none of his physicians were able to heal." And why may we not suppose, that God gave him this notice by the ministry of an angel

11. We may easily hurt our own souls, by sliding into a close attachment to any of them that know not God. This is the friendship which is "enmity with God:" We cannot be too jealous over ourselves, lest we fall into this deadly snare; lest we contract, or ever we are aware, a love of complacence or delight in them. Then only do we tread upon sure ground, when we can say with the Psalmist, "All my delight is in the saints that are upon earth, and in such as excel in virtue." We should have no needless conversations with them. It is our duty and our wisdom to be no oftener and no longer with them than is strictly necessary. And during the whole time we have need to remember and follow the example of him that said, "I kept my mouth as it were with a bridle while the ungodly was in my sight." We should enter into no sort of connexion with them, farther than is absolutely necessary. When Jehoshaphat forgot this, and formed a connexion with Ahab, what was the consequence He first lost his substance: "The ships" they sent out "were broken at Ezion-geber." And when he was not content with this warning, as well as that of the prophet Micaiah, but would go up with him to Ramoth-Gilead, he was on the point of losing his life.

14. It is a sin of the most heinous nature, as not only implying ignorance of God, and forgetfulness of him, or inattention to him, but positive "enmity against God." It is openly, palpably such. "Know ye not," says the Apostle, can ye possibly be ignorant of this, so plain, so undeniable a truth, "that the friendship of the world is enmity against God" Nay, and how terrible is the inference which he draws from hence! "Therefore, whosoever will be a friend of the world," -- (the words, properly rendered, are, Whosoever desireth to be a friend of the world,) of men who know not God, whether he attain it or not, -- is, ipso facto, constituted an enemy of God. This very desire, whether successful or not, gives him a right to that appellation. 15. And as it is a sin, a very heinous sin, in itself, so it is attended with the most dreadful consequences. It frequently entangles men again in the commission of those sins from which "they were clean escaped." It generally makes them "partakers of other men's sins," even those which they do not commit themselves. It gradually abates their abhorrence and dread of sin in general, and thereby prepares them for falling an easy prey to any strong temptation. It lays them open to all those sins of omission whereof their worldly acquaintance are guilty. It insensibly lessens their exactness in private prayer, in family duty, in fasting, in attending public service, and partaking of the Lord's Supper. The indifference of those that are near them, with respect to all these, will gradually influence them: Even if they say not one word (which is hardly to be supposed) to recommend their own practice, yet their example speaks, and is many times of more force than any other language. By this example, they are unavoidably betrayed, and almost continually, into unprofitable, yea, and uncharitable, conversation; till they no longer "set a watch before their mouth, and keep the door of their lips;" till they can join in backbiting, tale-bearing, and evil-speaking without any check of conscience; having so frequently grieved the Holy Spirit of God, that he no longer reproves them for it: Insomuch that their discourse is not now, as formerly, "seasoned with salt, and meet to minister grace to the hearers."

2. What is religion then It is easy to answer, if we consult the oracles of God. According to these it lies in one single point; it is neither more nor less than love; it is love which "is the fulfilling of the law, the end of the commandment." Religion is the love of God and our neighbour; that is, every man under heaven. This love ruling the whole life, animating all our tempers and passions, directing all our thoughts, words, and actions, is "pure religion and undefiled." 3. Now, will anyone be so hardy as to say, that love is misery Is it misery to love God to give Him my heart who alone is worthy of it Nay, it is the truest happiness; indeed, the only true happiness which is to be found under the sun. So does all experience prove the justness of that reflection which was made long ago, "Thou hast made us for thyself; and our heart cannot rest, until it resteth in thee." Or does anyone imagine, the love of our neighbour is misery; even the loving every man as our own soul So far from it that, next to the love of God, this affords the greatest happiness of which we are capable. Therefore, Let not the Stoic boast his mind unmoved, The brute-philosopher, who never has proved The joy of loving, or of being loved. 4. So much every reasonable man must allow. But he may object: "There is more than this implied in religion. It implies not only the love of God and man; (against which I have no objection;) but also a great deal of doing and suffering. And how can this be consistent with happiness" There is certainly some truth in this objection. Religion does imply both doing and suffering. Let us then calmly consider, whether this impairs or heightens our happiness. Religion implies, First, the doing many things. For the love of God will naturally lead us, at all opportunities, to converse with Him we love; to speak to him in public or private prayer; and to hear the words of his mouth, which "are dearer to us than thousands of gold and silver." It will incline us to lose no opportunity of receiving The dear memorials of our dying Lord;

to continue instant in thanksgiving; at morning, evening, and noon-day to praise him. But suppose we do all this, will it lessen our happiness Just the reverse. It is plain, all these fruits of love are means of increasing the love from which they spring; and of consequence they increase our happiness in the same proportion. Who then would not join in that wish Rising to sing my Saviour's praise, Thee may I publish all day long, And let thy precious word of grace Flow from my heart, and fill my tongue; Fill all my life with purest love, And join me to thy church above! 5. It must also be allowed, that as the love of God naturally leads to works of piety, so the love of our neighbour naturally leads all that feel it to works of mercy. It inclines us to feed the hungry; to clothe the naked; to visit them that are sick or in prison; to be as eyes to the blind, and feet to the lame; an husband to the widow, a father to the fatherless. But can you suppose, that the doing this will prevent or lessen your happiness yea, though you did so much, as to be like a guardian angel to all that are round about you On the contrary, it is an infallible truth, that All worldly joys are less Than that one joy of doing kindnesses. A man of pleasure was asked some years ago, "Captain, what was the greatest pleasure you ever had" After a little pause, he replied, "When we were upon our march in Ireland, in a very hot day, I called at a cabin on the road, and desired a little water. The woman brought me a cup of milk. I gave her a piece of silver; and the joy that poor creature expressed gave me the greatest pleasure I ever had in my life." Now, if the doing good gave so much pleasure to one who acted merely from natural generosity, how much more must it give to one who does it on a nobler principle, -- the joint love of God and his neighbour! It remains, that the doing all which religion requires will not lessen, but immensely increase, our happiness.

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]

II. The generality of Christians, as soon as they rise, are accustomed to use some kind of prayer; and probably to use the same form still which they learned when they were eight or ten years old. Now I do not condemn those who proceed thus (though many do,) as mocking God; though they have used the same form, without any variation, for twenty or thirty years together. But surely there is "a more excellent way" of ordering our private devotions. What if you were to follow the advice given by that great and good man, Mr. Law, on this subject Consider both your outward and inward state, and vary your prayers accordingly. For instance: Suppose your outward state is prosperous; suppose you are in a state of health, ease, and plenty, having your lot cast among kind relations, good neighbours, and agreeable friends, that love you and you them; then your outward state manifestly calls for praise and thanksgiving to God. On the other hand, if you are in a state of adversity; if God has laid trouble upon your loins; if you are in poverty, in want, in outward distress; if you are in any imminent danger; if you are in pain and sickness; then you are clearly called to pour out your soul before God in such prayer as is suited to your circumstances. In like manner you may suit your devotions to your inward state, the present state of your mind. Is your soul in heaviness, either from a sense of sin, or through manifold temptations Then let your prayer consist of such confessions, petitions, and supplications, as are agreeable to your distressed situation of mind. On the contrary, is your soul in peace Are you rejoicing in God Are his consolations not small with you Then say, with the Psalmist: "Thou art my God, and I will love thee: Thou art my God, and I will praise thee." You may, likewise, when you have time, add to your other devotions a little reading and meditation, and perhaps a psalm of praise, -- the natural effusion of a thankful heart. You must certainly see that this is "a more excellent way" than the poor dry form which you used before.

3. But men of deeper reflection are apt to say, "I lay no stress upon any other knowledge, but the knowledge of God by faith. Faith is the only knowledge, which, in the sight of God, is of great price. `We are saved by faith;' by faith alone: This is the one thing needful. He that believeth, and he alone, shall be saved everlastingly." There is much truth in this: It is unquestionably true, that "we are saved by faith:" Consequently, that "he that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned." 4. But some men will say, with the Apostle James, "Show me thy faith without thy works;" (if thou canst, but indeed it is impossible;) "and I will show thee my faith by my works." And many are induced to think that good works, works of piety and mercy, are of far more consequence than faith itself, and will supply the want of every other qualification for heaven. Indeed this seems to be the general sentiment, not only of the members of the Church of Rome, but of Protestants also; not of the giddy and thoughtless, but the serious members of our own Church. 5. And this cannot be denied, our Lord himself hath said, "Ye shall know them by their fruits:" By their works ye know them that believe, and them that believe not. But yet it may be doubted, whether there is not a surer proof of the sincerity of our faith than even our works, that is, our willingly suffering for righteousness' sake: Especially if, after suffering reproach, and pain, and loss of friends and substance, a man gives up life itself; yea, by a shameful and painful death, by giving his body to be burned, rather than he would give up faith and a good conscience by neglecting his known duty.

In a Christian believer love sits upon the throne which is erected in the inmost soul; namely, love of God and man, which fills the whole heart, and reigns without a rival. In a circle near the throne are all holy tempers; - longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, fidelity, temperance; and if any other were comprised in "the mind which was in Christ Jesus." In an exterior circle are all the works of mercy, whether to the souls or bodies of men. By these we exercise all holy tempers- by these we continually improve them, so that all these are real means of grace, although this is not commonly adverted to. Next to these are those that are usually termed works of piety - reading and hearing the word, public, family, private prayer, receiving the Lord's supper, fasting or abstinence. Lastly, that his followers may the more effectually provoke one another to love, holy tempers, and good works, our blessed Lord has united them together in one body, the church, dispersed all over the earth- a little emblem of which, of the church universal, we have in every particular Christian congregation. 6. This is that religion which our Lord has established upon earth, ever since the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. This is the entire, connected system of Christianity: and thus the several parts of it rise one above another, from that lowest point, the assembling ourselves together, to the highest, - love enthroned in the heart. And hence it is easy to learn the comparative value of every branch of religion. Hence also we learn a Fifth property of true zeal. That as it is always exercised en kalv, in that which is good, so it is always proportioned to that good, to the degree of goodness that is in its object. 7. For example. Every Christian ought, undoubtedly, to be zealous for the church, bearing a strong affection to it, and earnestly desiring its prosperity and increase. He ought to be thus zealous, as for the church universal, praying for it continually, so especially for that particular church or Christian society whereof he himself is a member. For this he ought to wrestle with God in prayer; meantime using every means in his power to enlarge its borders, and to strengthen his brethren, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour.

8. But he should be more zealous for the ordinances of Christ than for the church itself; for prayer in public and private; for the Lord's supper, for reading, hearing, and meditating on his word; and for the much-neglected duty of fasting. These he should earnestly recommend; first, by his example; and then by advice, by argument, persuasion, and exhortation, as often as occasion offers. 9. Thus should he show his zeal for works of piety; but much more for works of mercy; seeing "God will have mercy and not sacrifice," that is, rather than sacrifice. Whenever, therefore, one interferes with the other, works of mercy are to be preferred. Even reading, hearing, prayer are to be omitted, or to be postponed, "at charity's almighty call;" when we are called to relieve the distress of our neighbour, whether in body or soul. 10. But as zealous as we are for all good works, we should still be more zealous for holy tempers; for planting and promoting, both in our own souls, and in all we have any intercourse with, lowliness of mind, meekness. gentleness, longsuffering, contentedness, resignation unto the will of God, deadness to the world and the things of the world, as the only means of being truly alive to God. For these proofs and fruits of living faith we cannot be too zealous. We should "talk of them as we sit in our house," and "when we walk by the way," and "when we lie down," and "when we rise up." We should make them continual matter of prayer; as being far more excellent than any outward works whatever: seeing those will fail when the body drops off; but these will accompany us into eternity.

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.

9. Those, indeed, who are still dead in trespasses and sins have neither part nor lot in this matter; nor those that live in any open sin, such as drunkenness, Sabbath-breaking, or profane swearing. These have nothing to do with zeal; they have no business at all even to take the word in their mouth. It is utter folly and impertinence for any to talk of zeal for God, while he is doing the works of the devil. But if you have renounced the devil and all his works, and have settled it in your heart, I will "worship the Lord my God, and him only will I serve," then beware of being neither cold nor hot; then be zealous for God. You may begin at the lowest step. Be zealous for the Church, more especially for that particular branch thereof wherein your lot is cast. Study the welfare of this, and carefully observe all the rules of it, for conscience' sake. But, in the mean time, take heed that you do not neglect any of the ordinances of God; for the sake of which, in a great measure, the church itself was constituted: so that it would be highly absurd to talk of zeal for the church, if you were not more zealous for them. But are you more zealous for works of mercy, than even for works of piety Do you follow the example of your Lord, and prefer mercy even before sacrifice Do you use all diligence in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting them that are sick and in prison And, above all, do you use every means in your power to save souls from death If, as you have time, "you do good unto all men," though "especially to them that are of the household of faith," your zeal for the church is pleasing to God: but if not, if you are not "careful to maintain good works," what have you to do with the church If you have not "compassion on your fellow-servants," neither will your Lord have pity on you. "Bring no more vain oblations." All your service is "an abomination to the Lord."

10. Are you better instructed than to put asunder what God has joined than to separate works of piety from works of mercy Are you uniformly zealous of both So far you walk acceptably to God; that is, if you continually bear in mind, that God "searcheth the heart and reins;" that "he is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth;" that, consequently, no outward works are acceptable to him, unless they spring from holy tempers, without which no man can have a place in the kingdom of Christ and God. 11. But of all holy tempers, and above all others, see that you be most zealous for love. Count all things loss in comparison of this, - the love of God and all mankind. It is most sure, that if you give all your goods to feed the poor, yea, and your body to be burned, and have not humble, gentle, patient love, it profiteth you nothing. O let this be deep engraved upon your heart: "All is nothing without love!"

"We conceive an abhorrence of a man that is in bed when he should be at his labour. We cannot think good of him, who is such a slave to drowsiness as to neglect his business for it. "Let this, therefore, teach us to conceive how odious we must appear to God, if we are in bed, shut up in sleep, when we should be praising God; and are such slaves to drowsiness as to neglect our devotions for it. "Sleep is such a dull, stupid state of existence, that, even among mere animals, we despise them most which are most drowsy. He, therefore, that chooses to enlarge the slothful indolence of sleep, rather than be early at his devotions, chooses the dullest refreshment of the body, before the noblest enjoyments of the soul. He chooses that state which is a reproach to mere animals, before that exercise which is the glory of angels. 10. "Besides, he that cannot deny himself this drowsy indulgence, is no more prepared for prayer when he is up, than he is prepared for fasting or any other act of self-denial. He may indeed more easily read over a form of prayer, than he can perform these duties; but he is no more disposed for the spirit of prayer, than he is disposed for fasting. For sleep thus indulged gives a softness to all our tempers, and makes us unable to relish any thing but what suits an idle state of mind, as sleep does. So that a person who is a slave to this idleness is in the same temper when he is up. Every thing that is idle or sensual pleases him. And every thing that requires trouble or self-denial, is hateful to him, for the same reason that he hates to rise. 11. "It is not possible for an epicure to be truly devout. He must renounce his sensuality, before he can relish the happiness of devotion. Now, he that turns sleep into an idle indulgence, does as much to corrupt his soul, to make it a slave to bodily appetites, as an epicure does. It does not disorder his life, as notorious acts of intemperance do; but, like any more moderate course of indulgence, it silently, and by smaller degrees, wears away the spirit of religion, and sinks the soul into dullness and sensuality.

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.)

4. I purpose, at present, to confine my discourse to one article of these, -- visiting the sick: A plain duty, which all that are in health may practise in a higher or lower degree; and which, nevertheless, is almost universally neglected, even by those that profess to love God. And touching this I would inquire, I. What is implied in visiting the sick II. How is it to be performed -- And, III. By whom I. First, I would inquire, What is the nature of this duty What is implied in "visiting the sick" 1. By the sick, I do not mean only those that keep their bed, or that are sick in the strictest sense. Rather I would include all such as are in a state of affliction, whether of mind or body; and that whether they are good or bad, whether they fear God or not. 2. "But is there need of visiting them in person May we not relieve them at a distance Does it not answer the same purpose if we send them help as if we carry it ourselves" Many are so circumstanced that they cannot attend the sick in person; and where this is the real case it is undoubtedly sufficient for them to send help, being the only expedient they can use. But this is not properly visiting the sick; it is another thing. The word which we render visit, in its literal acceptation, means to look upon. And this, you well know, cannot be done unless you are present with them. To send them assistance is, therefore, entirely a different thing from visiting them. The former, then, ought to be done, but the latter not left undone.

women particularly appointed for this work. Indeed there was one or more such in every Christian congregation under heaven. They were then termed Deaconesses, that is, servants; servants of the Church, and of its great Master. Such was Phebe, (mentioned by St. Paul, Rom. 16:1,) "a Deaconess of the Church of Cenchrea." It is true, most of these were women in years, and well experienced in the work of God. But were the young wholly excluded from that service No: Neither need they be, provided they know in whom they have believed; and show that they are holy of heart, by being holy in all manner of conversation. Such a Deaconess, if she answered her picture, was Mr. Law's Miranda. Would anyone object to her visiting and relieving the sick and poor, because she was a woman; nay, and a young one too Do any of you that are young desire to tread in her steps Have you a pleasing form, an agreeable address So much the better, if you are wholly devoted to God. He will use these, if your eye be single, to make your words strike the deeper. And while you minister to others, how many blessings may redound into your own bosom! Hereby your natural levity may be destroyed; your fondness for trifles cured; your wrong tempers corrected; your evil habits weakened, until they are rooted out; and you will be prepared to adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in every future scene of life. Only be very wary, if you visit or converse with those of the other sex, lest your affections be entangled, on one side or the other, and so you find a curse instead of a blessing.

7. The _Mandingos_, says Mons. _Brue_, are right _Mahometans_, drinking neither wine nor brandy. They are industrious and laborious, keeping their ground well cultivated, and breeding a good stock of cattle. Every town has a Governor, and he appoints the labour of the people. The men work the ground designed for corn; the women and girls, the rice-ground. He afterwards divides the corn and rice, among them: and decides all quarrels, if any arise. All the Mahometan Negroes constantly go to public prayers thrice a day: there being a Priest in every village, who regularly calls them together: and it is surprising to see the modesty, attention and reverence which they observe during their worship--These three nations practise several trades; they have Smiths, Sadlers, Potters and Weavers. And they are very ingenious at their several occupations. Their Smiths not only make all the instruments of iron, which they have occasion to use, but likewise work many things neatly in gold and silver. It is chiefly the women and children who weave fine cotton cloth, which they dye blue and black. 8. It was of these parts of _Guinea_, that Mons. _Adanson_, Correspondent of the Royal Academy of Sciences at _Paris_, from 1749, to 1753, gives the following account, both as to the country and people, “Which way soever I turned my eyes, I beheld a perfect image of pure nature: an agreeable solitude, bounded on every side by a charming landscape; the rural situation of cottages, in the midst of trees; the ease and quietness of the Negroes, reclined under the shade of the spreading foliage, with the simplicity of their dress and manners: the whole revived in my mind the idea of our first parents, and I seemed to contemplate the world in its primitive state. They are, generally speaking, very good natured, sociable and obliging. I was not a little pleased with my first reception, and it fully convinced me, that there ought to be a considerable abatement made, in the accounts we have of the savage character of the _Africans_.” He adds, “It is amazing that an illiterate people should reason so pertinently concerning the heavenly bodies. There is no doubt, but that with proper instruments, they would become excellent astronomers.”

7. And here I beg- leave to mention a thought which has been long upon my mind, and which T should long ago have inserted in the public papers, had I not been unwilling to stir up a nest of hornets. Many gentlemen have done my brother and me (though without naming us) the honour to reprint many of our hymns. Now they are perfectly welcome so to do, provided they print them just as they are. But I desire, they would not attempt to mend them : for they really are not able. None of them is able to mend either the sense or the verse. Therefore, I must beg of them one of these two favours : either to let them stand just as they are, to take them for better for worse; or to add the true reading in the margin, or at the bottom of the page ; that we may no longer be accountable either for the nonsense or for the doggerel of other men. 8. But to return. That which is of infinitely more moment than the spirit of poetry, is the spirit of piety. And I trust, all persons of real judgment will find this breathing through the whole Collection. It is in this view chiefly, that I would -ecommend it to every truly pious reader, as a means of raising or quickening the spirit of devotion ; of confirmino" his faith ; of enlivening his hope ; and of kindling and increasing his love to God and man. When Poetry thus keeps its place, as the handmaid of Piety, it shall attain, not a poor perishable wreath, but a crown that fadeth not away. London, Oct. 20, 1779. JOHN WESLEY. N. B. The Additional Hymns at the end of this book, and a few others distinguished by the prefix of an asterisk, which are inserted in this edition, were not in the editions published during the life of Mr. Wesley. SECTION I. Exhorting Sinners to return to God II. Describing, 1. The Pleasantness of Religion 2. The Goodness of God 3. Death 4. Judgment 5. Heaven 6. Hell . 111. Praying for a Blessing SECTION I. Describing Formal Religion . II. Inward Religion . SECTION I. Praying for Repentance II. For Mourners convinced of Sin III. For Persons convinced of Backsliding IV. For Backsliders recovered

To ask thy pardoning grace. 2 Entering into my closet, I The busy world exclude ; In secret prayer for mercy cry, And groan to be renew' d. 3 Far from the paths of men, to thee I solemnly retire ; See, thou who dost in secret see, And grant my heart's desire. 4 Thy grace I languish to receive, The Spirit of love and power ; Blameless before thy face to live, To live and sin no more. 5 Fain would I all thy goodness feel, And know my sins forgiven ; And do on earth thy perfect will As angels do in heaven. Convinced of Sin 119 6 O Father, glorify thy Son, And grant what 1 require : For Jesu's sake the gift send down, And answer me by fire. 7 Kindle the flame of love within, Which may to heaven ascend ; And now the work of grace begin, Which shall in glory end. * HYMN 120. 6-8' s. 1 /^OMFORT, ye ministers of grace, ^-^ Comfort my people, saith your God ! Ye soon shall see his smiling face, His golden sceptre, not his rod ; And own, when now the cloud's removed, He only chasten'd whom he loved. 2 Who sow in tears, in joy shall reap ; The Lord shall comfort all that mourn ; Who now go on their way and weep, With joy they doubtless shall return, And bring their sheaves with vast increase, And have their fruit to holiness. HYMN 121. 6-8'j. 1 T^XPAND thy wings, celestial Dove, *-J And, brooding o'er my nature's night, Call forth the ray of heavenly Love ; Let there in my dark soul be light ; And fill the' illustrated abyss With glorious beams of endless bliss. 2 " Let there be light,'' again command, And light there in our hearts shall be ; We then through faith shall understand Thy great mysterious Majesty ; And, by the shining of thy grace, Behold in Christ thy glorious face. ±20 For Mourners 3 Father of everlasting grace, Be mindful of thy changeless word ; We worship toward that Holy Place, In which thou dost thy name record, Dost make thy gracious nature known, That living Temple of thy Son. 4 Thou dost with sweet complacence see The temple fill'd with light divine ; And art thou not well pleased with me,

' * Who load us with reproach and shame ; As servants of the Lord Most High, As zealous for his glorious name, We ought in all his paths to move, With holy fear and humble love. 2 That wisdom, Lord, on us bestow, From every evil to depart ; To stop the mouth of every foe, While, upright both in life and heart, The proofs of godly fear we give, And show them how the Christians live. For Believers Working . «307 HYMN 320. 8's&6's. BE it my only wisdom here, To serve the Lord with filial fear, With loving gratitude ; Superior sense may I display, By shunning every evil way, And walking in the good. 2 O may I still from sin depart ! A wise and understanding heart, Jesus, to me be given ; And let me through thy Spirit know, To glorify my God below, And find my way to heaven. For Believers Working. HYMN 321. cm. SUMMON'D my labour to renew, And glad to act my part, Lord, in thy name my work I do, And with a single heart. End of my every action thou, In all things thee I see : Accept my hallow' d labour now ; I do it unto thee. Whate'er the Father views as thine, He views with gracious eyes ; Jesus, this mean oblation join To thy great Sacrifice. o\)o For Believers Working. s 4 Stamp'd with an infinite desert, My work he then shall own ; Well pleased with me, when mine thou art, And I his favour' d son. HYMN 322. c. m. 1 SERVANT of all, to toil for man ^ Thou didst not, Lord, refuse ; Thy majesty did not disdain To be employ 'd for us ! 2 Thy bright example I pursue, To thee in all things rise ; And all I think, or speak, or do, Is one great sacrifice. 3 Careless through outward cares I go, From all distraction free ; My hands are but engaged below, My heart is still with thee. HYMN 323. s. i\i. J /^ OD of almighty love, ^^ By whose sufficient grace I lift my heart to things above, And humbly seek thy face : Through Jesus Christ the Just, My faint desires receive ; And let me in thy goodness trust, And to thy glory live. 2 Whate'er I say or do,

Thy glory be my aim ; My offerings all be offer' d through The ever-blessed Name ! Jesus, my single eye Be fix'd on thee alone : Thy name be praised on earth, on high ; Thy will by all be done ! For Believers Working. <J09 s Spirit of faith, inspire, My consecrated heart ; Fill me with pure, celestial fire, With all thou hast, and art : My feeble mind transform, And, perfectly renew'd, Into a saint exalt a worm, A worm exalt to God ! HYMN 324. l. m. 1 T^ORTH in thy name, O Lord, I go, ■*- My daily labour to pursue ; Thee, only thee, resolved to know, In all I think, or speak, or do. 2 The task thy wisdom hath assign'd, O let me cheerfully fulfil ! In all my works thy presence find, And prove thy acceptable will. 3 Thee may I set at my right hand, Whose eyes my inmost substance see ; And labour on at thy command, And offer all my works to thee. 4 Give me to bear thy easy yoke, And every moment watch and pray ; And still to things eternal look, And hasten to thy glorious day. 5 For thee delightfully employ Whate'er thy bounteous grace hath given ; And run my course with even joy, And closelv walk with thee to heaven. <3JU For Believers fVorking. HYMN 325. 7's 8f6's. LO ! I come with joy to do The Master's blessed will ; Him in outward works pursue, And serve his pleasure still. Faithful to my Lord's commands, I still would choose the better part ; Serve with careful Martha s hands, And loving Mary's heart. 2 Careful without care I am, Nor feel my happy toil* Kept in peace by Jesu's name, Supported by his smile : Joyful thus my faith to show, I find his service my reward ; Every work I do below, I do it to the Lord. 3 Thou, O Lord, in tender love, Dost all my burdens bear ! Lift my heart to things above, And fix it ever there ! Calm on tumult's wheel I sit, 'Midst busy multitudes alone, Sweetly waiting at thy feet, Till all thy will be done. 4 Thou, O Lord, my portion art, Before I hence remove ! Now my treasure and my heart

Still hear and do thy sovereign will : To thee may all our thoughts arise, Ceaseless, accepted sacrifice. 5 In thee we move : -- all things of thee Are full, thou Source and Life of all ; For the Society giving Thanks. 463 Thou vast unfathomable Sea ! (Fall prostrate, lost in wonder, fall, Ye sons of men, for God is man !) All may we lose, so thee we gain. 6 As flowers their op'ning leaves display, And glad drink in the solar fire, So may we catch thy every ray, So may thy influence us inspire ; Thou Beam of the eternal Beam, Thou purging Fire, thou quick' ning Flame. HYMN 495. 5'sSrll's. 1 /^OME, let us arise, And press to the skies ; ^-/ The summons obey, My friends, my beloved, and hasten away. 2 The Master of all For our service doth call, And deigns to approve, With smiles of acceptance, our labour of love. 3 His burden who bear, We alone can declare How easy his yoke, While to love and good works we each other provoke ; -- 4 By word and by deed, The bodies in need, The souls to relieve, And freely as Jesus hath given to give. 5 Then let us attend Our heavenly Friend, In his members distrest, By want, or affliction, or sickness opprest : 6 The pris'ner relieve, The stranger receive ; Supply all their wants, And spend and be spent in assisting His saints. 7 Thus while we bestow Our moments below, Ourselves we forsake, And refuge in Jesus's righteousness take : 4b4 For the Society giving Thanks. 8 His passion alone The foundation we own ; And pardon we claim, And eternal redemption, in Jesus's name. 1 rT^HE earth is the Lord's, And all it contains ; A The truth of his words For ever remains ; The saints have a mountain Of blessings in him ; His grace is the fountain, His peace is the stream. 2 To him our request We now have made known, Who sees what is best For each of his own : Our heathenish care, We cast it aside ; He heareth the prayer, And he will provide.

4 No rude alarms of raging foes ; No cares to break the long repose ; No midnight shade, no clouded sun, But sacred, high, eternal noon. 5 O long-expected day, begin ; Dawn on these realms of woe and sin : Fain would we leave this weary road, And sleep in death, to rest with God. 542 Hymns of Adoration. HYMN 583. l. m. The same Subject. 1 A GAIN our weekly labours end, -*""*- And we the Sabbath's call attend ; Improve, our souls, the sacred rest, And seek to be for ever bless'd. 2 This day let our devotions rise To heaven, a grateful sacrifice ; And God that peace divine bestow, Which none but they who feel it know. 3 This holy calm within the breast Prepares for that eternal rest, Which for the sons of God remains ; The end of cares, the end of pains. 4 In holy duties, let the day, In holy pleasures, pass away : How sweet the Sabbath thus to spend, In hope of that which ne'er shall end! HYMN 584. l. m. " His mercy endureth for ever." 1 r\ RENDER thanks to God above, ^^ The fountain of eternal love, Whose mercy firm through ages past Hath stood, and shall for ever last. 2 Who can his mighty deeds express, Not only vast but numberless ? What mortal eloquence can raise His tribute of immortal praise ? 3 Extend to me that favour, Lord, Thou to thy chosen dost afford ; When thou return'st to set them free Let thy salvation visit me. 4 O may I worthy prove to see, Thy saints in full prosperity ; Hymns of Adoration. 543 That I the joyful choir may join, And count thy people's triumph mine. 5 Let Israel's God be ever bless'd, His name eternally confess'd ; Let all his saints with full accord In solemn hymns proclaim their Lord. The Goodness of God acknowledged. 1 T^AR as creation's bounds extend, -*- Thy mercies, heavenly Lord, descend ; One chorus of perpetual praise, To Thee thy various works shall raise ; Thy saints to Thee in hymns impart The transports of a grateful heart.

3 And shall we then for ever live At this poor dying rate ? Our love so faint, so cold to Thee, And thine to us so great ! 4 Come, Holy Spirit, heavenly Dove, With all thy quick'ning powers ; Come, shed abroad the Saviour's love, And that shall kindle ours. HYMN 653. l. m. The Day of Pentecost. 1 /^OME, Holy Spirit, raise our songs, ^-^ To reach the wonders of the day, When with thy fiery cloven tongues Thou didst those glorious scenes display k2 O 'twas a most auspicious hour, Season of grace and sweet delight, When thou didst come with mighty power, And light of truth divinely bright. 3 By this the blest disciples knew Their risen Head had enter'd heaven ; Had now obtain'd the promise due, Fully by God the Father given. 4 Lord, we believe to us and ours The apostolic promise given ; We wait the Pentecostal powers, The Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. 5 Ah ! leave us not to mourn below. Or long for thy return to pine ; / The Holy Spirit. 597 Now, Lord, the Comforter bestow, And fix in us the Guest divine. 6 Assembled here with one accord, Calmly we wait the promised grace, The purchase of our dying Lord : Come, Holy Ghost, and fill the place. 7 If every one that asks may find, If still thou dost on sinners fall, Come as a mighty rushing wind ; Great grace be now upon us all. 8 Behold, to thee our souls aspire, And languish thy descent to meet ■ Kindle in each the living fire, And fix in every heart thy seat. Veni, Creator. 1 /CREATOR, Spirit, by whose aid ^^ The world's foundations first were laid, Come visit every waiting mind, Come pour thy joys on human kind ; From sin and sorrow set us free, And make thy temples worthy thee. 2 O source of uncreated heat, The Father's promised Paraclete ! Thrice holy Fount, immortal Fire, Our hearts with heavenly love inspire : Come, and thy sacred unction bring, To sanctify us while we sing. 3 Plenteous of grace, descend from high, Rich in thy sevenfold energy ! Thou strength of His almighty hand, Whose power does heaven and earth command, OJo Hymns on Refine and purge our earthly parts, And stamp thine image on our hearts.

1 TNFINITE Power, eternal Lord, A How sovereign is thy hand ! All nature rose to' obey thy word, And moves at thy command. 2 With steady course the shining sun Keeps his appointed way ; And all the hours obedient run The circle of the day. 3 But, ah ! how wide my spirit flies, And wanders from her God ! My soul forgets the heavenly prize And treads the downward road. 606 Penitential Hymns. 4 The raging fire and stormy sea Perform thy awful will ; And every beast and every tree Thy great design fulfil. 5 Shall creatures of a meaner frame Pay all their dues to thee ? Creatures that never knew thy name, That ne'er were loved like me ? 6 Great God ! create my soul anew, Conform my heart to thine ; Melt down my will, and let it flow, And take the mould divine. 7 Seize my whole frame into thy hand ; Here all my powers I bring ; Manage the wheels by thy command, And govern every spring. 8 Then shall my feet no more depart, Nor my affections rove ; Devotion shall be all my heart, And all my passions, love. HYMN 665. c. m. Prayer J br Quickening Grace. 1 ONG have I sat beneath the sound -L' Of thy salvation, Lord ; But still how weak my faith is found. And knowledge of thy word ! 2 My gracious Saviour and my God, How little art thou known By all the judgments of thy rod, Or blessings of thy throne ! 3 How cold and feeble is my love ! How negligent my fear ! How low my hope of joys above ! How few affections there ! Penitential Hymns. 607 4 Great God ! thy sovereign aid impart, To give thy word success ; Write thy salvation on my heart, And make me learn thy grace. 5 Show my forgetful feet the way That leads to joys on high, Where knowledge grows without decay, And love shall never die. HYMN 666. c. m. A Prayer for Faith. 1 T^ATHER, I stretch my hands to thee, *- No other help I know ; If thou withdraw thyself from me, Ah ! whither shall I go ? 2 What did thy only Son endure

for the enjoyment of forgiveness, 97, 123-125 for the success of the Gospel, 84 necessity of perseverance in, 295, 297, 299, 301, 303 private, 1 19 prevalence of, 140, 144, 298 the Spirit of, desired, 294, 296, 299 Preacher, concerned to save sinners, 279, Preachers, blessing on, 747 faithfulness of, 30, 279, 439, 410 infirm and aged, 356 in general, 33, 34, 89, 231, 424, 439, Preparation for meeting God, the business of life, 55, 59, 65,512 Presence of God in his church, 493, 520 Preserving grace, 210 Preservation from spiritual enemies, 200, Priesthood of Christ, 193, 211, 627 Priests, clothed with salvation, 446 Priests and Kings, 423 Primitive Christianity, 16, 17 Prince, Christ a, 101, 105, 107 Prisoner of hope, 123, 129, 144, 150, 380, Private prayer, 119 Prodigal's return, 9, 178, 191 Prophet, Christ a, 193, 211, 212, 641-6 43 Prosperity of the church, 687 Protection, 272, 276, 292, 305, 335, 348, 407, 556 Providence, 224, 225, 227, 229, 231, 233, 236, 238, 239, 241, 243, 245, 289, 496, 570, 584, 585, 589, 592, 673-675 mystery of, 559 trusting in, 673-675 Publican, prayer of the, 101 Public worship, 541, 573-575, 577, 579, Purity desired, 284, 304, 361, 391, 410, 414, 417, 512, 688 Quickening, Spirit and Word, 136, 360, 362, 366, 419 Race, Christian, 46, 71, 311, 312, 495, 498, Ransom, Christ a, 190, 330, 444, 445 Ransomed, 386, 497 Reconciliation, 11, 123, 252, 400 Redemption, 565, 595, 601, 613, 625, 661 ; general, 25, 33-35, 39, 90, 129, 149, 190, 378, 444, 445 found, 189-191, 197-202, 206, 217 Refuge, 143, 175, 290, 292, 331, 407, 678 Regeneration, 83, 109, 110, 158, 159,303, 340, 351 Rejoicing of believers, 19, 198, 199, 539. See Happiness of. Reliance on Christ, 92, 131, 132, 142, 143, 163, 217, 312, 335, 436, 508 Religion, internal, 95, 96, 364 Renewal in holiness, desired, 18 Repentance, 9, 99-106 the gift of God, 99-107, 710 Resignation, 335. See Patience. Rest in Christ, 116, 296, 337, 388, 403, Restoration, 98, 109, 110, 169, 256, 402 Resurrection of Christ, 420, 553, 628, 629 Resurrection, of believers, joyful, 58, 60, 65 of the body, 718-721, 726 spiritual, 290, 360 Returning to Christ, 178, 182, 186, 191 Reverence, 307, 316, 353, 358, 369, 425, 494 Revival of religion, 40, 82, 203, 493

3 Hail the heaven-born Prince of Peace! Hail the Sun of Righteousness! Light and life to all he brings, risen with healing in his wings. Mild he lays his glory by, born that we no more may die, born to raise us from the earth, born to give us second birth. [Refrain]

On Obedience To Parents "Children, obey your parents in all things." Col. 3:20 1. It has been a subject of controversy for many years, whether there are any innate principles in the mind of man. But it is allowed on all hands, if there be any practical principles naturally Unplanted in the soul, that "we ought to honour our parents," will claim this character almost before any other. It is enumerated among those universal principles by the most ancient authors and is undoubtedly found even among savages in the most barbarous nations. We may trace it through all the extent of Europe and Asia, through the wilds of Africa, and the forests of America. And it is not less, but more observable in the most civilized nations. So it was first in the eastern parts of the world, which were for so many ages the seat of empire, of learning and politeness, as well as of religion. So it was afterwards in all the Grecian states, and throughout the whole Roman Empire. In this respect, it is plain, they that "have not the" written "law, are a law unto themselves," showing "the work," the substance, "of the law" to be "written in their hearts." 2. And wherever God has revealed his will to man, this law has been a part of that revelation. It has been herein opened afresh, considerably enlarged, and enforced in the strongest manner. In the Jewish revelation, the notorious breakers thereof were punishable with death. And this was one of the laws which our blessed Lord did not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Accordingly he severely reproved the Scribes and Pharisees for making it void through their traditions; clearly showing that the obligation thereof extended to all ages. It is the substance of this which St. Paul delivers to the Ephesians: (Eph. 6:1:) "Children, obey your parents in the Lord;" and again in those words to the Colossians, "Children, obey your parents in all things." [Col. 3:20]

3. It is observable, that the Apostle enforces this duty by a threefold encouragement: First. To the Ephesians he adds, "For this is right:" It is an instance of justice as well as mercy. It is no more than their due: it is what we owe to them for the very being which we have received from them. Secondly. "This is acceptable to the Lord;" it is peculiarly pleasing to the great Father of men and angels that we should pay honour and obedience to the fathers of our flesh. Thirdly. It is "the first commandment with promise;" the first to the performance whereof a peculiar promise is annexed: "that it may be well with thee, and that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." This promise has been generally understood to include health and temporal blessings, as well as long life. And we have seen innumerable proofs, that it belongs to the Christian as well as the Jewish dispensation: Many remarkable instances of its accomplishment occur even at this day. But what is the meaning of these words, "Children, obey your parents in all things" I will endeavour, by the assistance of God, First, to explain, and, Then to apply them. I. 1. First. I will endeavour to explain these words; and the rather, because so few people seem to understand them. Look round into the world, not the heathen but the Christian world, nay, the Reformed part of it; look among those that have the Scriptures in their own tongue; and who is there that appears even to have heard of this Here and there a child obeys the parent out of fear, or perhaps out of natural affection. But how many children can you find that obey their fathers and mothers out of a sense of duty to God And how many parents can you find that duly inculcate this duty upon their children I doubt, a vast majority both of parents and children are totally ignorant of the whole affair. For the sake of these I will make it as plain as I can: But still I am thoroughly sensible, those that are not willing to be convinced will no more understand what I say than if I was talking Greek or Hebrew.

2. You will easily observe, that by parents the Apostle means both fathers and mothers, as he refers us to the Fifth Commandment, which names both the one and the other. And, however human laws may vary herein, the law of God makes no difference; but lays us under the same obligation of obeying both the one and the other. 3. But before we consider how we are to obey our parents, it may be inquired, how long we are to obey them. Are children to obey only till they run alone, till they go to school, till they can read and write, or till they are as tall as their parents, or, attain to years of discretion Nay, if they obey only [because they cannot help it, only] because they fear to be beaten, or because otherwise they cannot procure food and raiment, what avails such obedience Those only who obey their parents when they can live without them, and when they neither hope nor fear anything from them, shall have praise from God. 4. "But is a man that is at age, or a woman that is married, under any farther obligation to obey their parents" With regard to marriage, although it is true that a man is to leave father and mother, and cleave unto his wife; and, by parity of reason, she is to leave father and mother, and cleave unto her husband; (in consequence of which there may be some particular cases wherein conjugal duty must take [the] place" of filial;) yet I cannot learn, either from Scripture or reason, that marriage either cancels or lessens the general obligation of filial duty. Much less does it appear that it is either cancelled or lessened by our having lived one-and-twenty years. I never understood it so in my own case. When I had lived upwards of thirty years, I looked upon myself to stand just in the same relation to my father as I did when I was ten years old. And when I was between forty and fifty, I judged myself full as much obliged to obey my mother in everything lawful, as I did when I was in my leading-strings [or hanging-sleeve coat].

5. But what is implied in, "Children, obey your parents in all things" Certainly the First point of obedience is to do nothing which your father or mother forbids, whether it be great or small. Nothing is more plain than that the prohibition of a parent binds every conscientious child; that is, except the thing prohibited is clearly enjoined of God. Nor indeed is this all; the matter may be carried a little farther still: A tender parent may totally disapprove what he does not care flatly to forbid. What is the duty of a child in this case How far is that disapprobation to be regarded Whether it be equivalent to a prohibition or not, a person who would have a conscience void of offence should undoubtedly keep on the safe side, and avoid what may perhaps be evil. It is surely the more excellent way, to do nothing which you know your parents disapprove. To act otherwise seems to imply a degree of disobedience, which one of a tender conscience would wish to avoid. 6. The Second thing implied in this direction is, Do every thing which your father or mother bids, be it great or small, provided it be not contrary to any command of God. Herein God has given a power to parents, which even sovereign princes have not. The King of England, for instance, is a sovereign prince; yet he has not power to bid me do the least thing, unless the law of the land requires me so to do; for he has no power but to execute the law. The will of the king is no law to the subject. But the will of the parent is a law to the child, who is bound in conscience to submit thereto unless it be contrary to the law of God.

II. 1. This may suffice for the explication of the text: I proceed to the application of it. And permit me, First, to apply to you that are parents, and, as such concerned to teach your children. Do you know these things yourselves Are you thoroughly convinced of these important truths Have you laid them to heart and have you put them in practice, with regard to your own children Have you inured them to discipline, before they were capable of instruction Have you broken their wills from their earliest infancy; and do you still continue so to do, in opposition both to nature and custom Did you explain to them, as soon as their understanding began to open, the reasons of your proceeding thus Did you point out to them the will of God as the sole law of every intelligent creature; and show them it is the will of God that they should obey you in all things Do you inculcate this over and over again till they perfectly comprehend it O never be weary of this labour of love! and your labour will not always be in vain.

4. I have one word more to say to parents; to mothers in particular. If, in spite of all the Apostle can say, you encourage your children by your example to "adorn" themselves "with gold, or pearls, or costly apparel," you and they must drop into the pit together. But if they do it, though you set them a better example, still it is yours, as well as their fault; for if you did not put any ornament on your little child that you would not wear yourself, (which would be utter distraction, and far more inexcusable than putting it on your own arms or head), yet you did not inure them to obey you from their infancy, and teach them the duty of it, from at least two years old. Otherwise, they would not have dared to do anything, great or small, contrary to your will. Whenever, therefore, I see the fine-dressed daughter of a plain-dressed mother, I see at once the mother is defective either in knowledge or religion. Either she is ignorant of her own or her child's duty, or she has not practised what she knows.

8. But as for you who are little concerned about this matter, who do not make it a point of conscience to obey your parents in all things, but sometimes obey them, as it happens, and sometimes not; who frequently do what they forbid or disapprove, and neglect what they bid you do; suppose you awake out of sleep, that you begin to feel yourself a sinner, and begin to cry to God for mercy, is it any wonder that you find no answer, while you are under the guilt of unrepented sin How can you expect mercy from God till you obey your parents But suppose you have, by an uncommon miracle of mercy, tasted of the pardoning love of God, can it be expected, although you hunger and thirst after righteousness, after the perfect love of God, that you should ever attain it, ever be satisfied therewith, while you live in outward sin, in the wilful transgression of a known law of God, in disobedience to your parents Is it not rather a wonder, that he has not withdrawn his Holy Spirit from you that he still continues to strive with you, though you continually grieve his Spirit O grieve him no more! By the grace of God, obey them in all things from this moment! As soon as you come home, as soon as you set foot within the door, begin an entirely new course! Look upon your father and mother with new eyes; see them as representing your Father which is in heaven: Endeavour, study, rejoice to please, to help, to obey them in all things: Behave not barely as their child, but as their servant for Christ's sake. O how will you then love one another! In a manner unknown before. God will bless you to them, and them to you: All around will feel that God is with you of a truth. Many shall see it and praise God; and the fruit of it will remain when both you and they are lodged in Abraham's bosom.

II. 1. We, Secondly, to consider who those are whom the Apostle directs to obey them that have the rule over them. And in order to determine this with certainty and clearness, we shall not appeal to human institutions, but simply (as in answering the preceding question) appeal to that decision of it which we find in the oracles of God. Indeed we have hardly occasion to go one step farther than the text itself. Only it may be proper, first, to remove out of the way some popular opinions which have been almost everywhere taken for granted, but can in no wise be proved. 2. It is usually supposed, First, that the Apostle is here directing parishioners to obey and submit themselves to the Minister of their parish. But can anyone bring the least shadow of proof for this from the Holy Scripture Where is it written that we are bound to obey any Minister because we live in what is called his parish "Yes," you say, "we are bound to obey every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake." True, in all things indifferent; but this is not so; it is exceeding far from it. It is far from being a thing indifferent to me who is the guide of my soul. I dare not receive one as my guide to heaven that is himself on the high road to hell. I dare not take a wolf for my shepherd, that has not so much as sheep's clothing; that is a common swearer, an open drunkard, a notorious sabbath-breaker. And such (the more is the shame, and the more the pity!) are many parochial Ministers at this day. 3. "But are you not properly members of that congregation to which your parents belong" I do not apprehend that I am; I know no Scripture that obliges me to this. I owe all deference to the commands of my parents, and willingly obey them in all things lawful But it is not lawful to call them Rabbi; that is, to believe or obey them implicitly. Everyone must give an account of himself to God. Therefore every man must judge for himself; especially in a point of so deep importance as this is, -- the choice of a guide for his soul.

6. It may be of use yet again to consider, In what instances is it the duty of Christians to obey and submit themselves to those that watch over their souls Now the things which they enjoin must be either enjoined of God, or forbidden by him, or indifferent. In things forbidden of God we dare not obey them; for we are to obey God rather than man. In things enjoined of God we do not properly obey them, but our common Father. Therefore, if we are to obey them at all, it must be in things indifferent. The sum is, it is the duty of every private Christian to obey his spiritual Pastor, by either doing or leaving undone anything of an indifferent nature; anything that is in no way determined in the word of God. 7. But how little is this understood in the Protestant world! at least in England and Ireland! Who is there, even among those that are supposed to be good Christians, who dreams there is such a duty as this And yet there is not a more express command either in the Old or New Testament. No words can be more clear and plain; no command more direct and positive. Therefore, certainly none who receive the Scripture as the word of God, can live in the habitual breach of this and plead innocence. Such an instance of willful, or at least careless disobedience, must grieve the Holy Spirit of God. It cannot but hinder the grace of God from having its full effect upon the heart. It is not improbable that this very disobedience may be one cause of the deadness of many souls; one reason of their not receiving those blessings which they seek with some degree of sincerity. 8. It remains only to make a short application of what has now been delivered.

On Pleasing All Men "Let every man please his neighbour for his good to edification." Rom. 15:2. 1. Undoubtedly the duty here prescribed is incumbent on all mankind; at least on every one of those to whom are entrusted the oracles of God. For it is here enjoined to everyone without exception that names the name of Christ. And the person whom everyone is commanded to please, is his neighbour; that is, every child of man. Only we are to remember here what the same Apostle speaks upon a similar occasion. "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." In like manner we are to please all men, if it be possible, as much as lieth in us. But strictly speaking it is not possible; it is what no man ever did, nor ever will perform. But suppose we use our utmost diligence, be the event as it may, we fulfill our duty. 2. We may farther observe in how admirable a manner the Apostle limits this direction; otherwise, were it pursued without any limitation, it might produce the most mischievous consequences. We are directed to please them for their good; not barely for the sake of pleasing them, or pleasing ourselves; much less of pleasing them to their hurt; which is so frequently done, indeed continually done, by those who do not love their neighbour as themselves. Nor is it only their temporal good, which we are to aim at in pleasing our neighbour; but what is of infinitely greater consequence, we are to do it for their edification; in such a manner as may conduce to their spiritual and eternal good. We are so to please them, that the pleasure may not perish in the using, but may redound to their lasting advantage; may make them wiser and better, holier and happier, both in time and in eternity.

4. And this great truth, that we are obliged to keep every command as far as we can, is clearly proved from the absurdity of the contrary opinion; for were we to allow that we are not obliged to obey every commandment of God as often as we can, we have no argument left to prove that any man is bound to obey any command at any time. For instance: Should I ask a man why he does not obey one of the plainest commands of God, why, for instance, he does not help his parents, he might answer, "I will not do it now, but I will at another time." When that time comes, put him in mind of God's command again; and he will say, "I will obey it some time or other." Nor is it possible ever to prove that he ought to do it now, unless by proving that he ought to do it as often as he can; and therefore he ought to do it now, because he can if he will. 5. Consider the Lord's Supper, Secondly, as a mercy from God to man. As God, whose mercy is over all his works, and particularly over the children of men, knew there was but one way for man to be happy like himself; namely, by being like him in holiness; as he knew we could do nothing toward this of ourselves, he has given us certain means of obtaining his help. One of these is the Lord's Supper, which, of his infinite mercy, he hath given for this very end; that through this means we may be assisted to attain those blessings which he hath prepared for us; that we may obtain holiness on earth, and everlasting glory in heaven. I ask, then, Why do you not accept of his mercy as often as ever you can God now offers you his blessing; -- why do you refuse it You have now an opportunity of receiving his mercy; -- why do you not receive it You are weak: -- why do not you seize every opportunity of increasing your strength In a word: Considering this as a command of God, he that does not communicate as often as he can has no piety; considering it as a mercy, he that does not communicate as often as he can has no wisdom.

8. But suppose this were no mercy to us; (to suppose which is indeed giving God the lie; saying, that is not good for man which he purposely ordered for his good;) still I ask, Why do not you obey God's command He says, "Do this." Why do you not You answer, "I am unworthy to do it." What! Unworthy to obey God Unworthy to do what God bids you do Unworthy to obey God's command What do you mean by this that those who are unworthy to obey God ought not to obey him Who told you so If he were even "an angel from heaven, let him be accursed." If you think God himself has told you so by St. Paul, let us hear his words. They are these: "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself." Why, this is quite another thing. Here is not a word said of being unworthy to eat and drink. Indeed he does speak of eating and drinking unworthily; but that is quite a different thing; so he has told us himself. In this very chapter we are told that by eating and drinking unworthily is meant, taking the holy sacrament in such a rude and disorderly way, that one was "hungry and another drunken." But what is that to you Is there any danger of your doing so,-- of your eating and drinking thus unworthily However unworthy you are to communicate, there is no fear of your communicating thus. Therefore, whatever the punishment is, of doing it thus unworthily, it does not concern you. You have no more reason from this text to disobey God, than if there was no such text in the Bible. If you speak of "eating and drinking unworthily" in the sense St. Paul uses the words, you may as well say, "I dare not communicate, for fear the church should fall," as "for fear I should eat and drink unworthily."

11. Others there are who, to excuse their disobedience plead that they are unworthy in another sense, that they "cannot live up to it; they cannot pretend to lead so holy a life as constantly communicating would oblige them to do." Put this into plain words. I ask, Why do not you accept the mercy which God commands you to accept You answer, "Because I cannot live up to the profession I must make when I receive it." Then it is plain you ought never to receive it at all. For it is no more lawful to promise once what you know you cannot perform, than to promise it a thousand times. You know too, that it is one and the same promise, whether you make it every year or every day. You promise to do just as much, whether you promise ever so often or ever so seldom. If, therefore, you cannot live up to the profession they make who communicate once a week, neither can you come up to the profession you make who communicate once a year. But cannot you, indeed Then it had been good for you that you had never been born. For all that you profess at the Lord's table, you must both profess and keep, or you cannot be saved. For you profess nothing there but this,-- that you will diligently keep his commandments. And cannot you keep up to this profession Then you cannot enter into life. 12. Think then what you say, before you say you cannot live up to what is required of constant communicants. This is no more than is required of any communicants; yea, of everyone that has a soul to be saved. So that to say, you cannot live up to this, is neither better nor worse than renouncing Christianity. It is, in effect, renouncing your baptism, wherein you solemnly promised to keep all his commandments. You now fly from that profession. You wilfully break one of his commandments, and, to excuse yourself, say, you cannot keep his commandments: Then you cannot expect to receive the promises, which are made only to those that keep them.

15. No business, therefore, can hinder any man from having that preparation which alone is necessary, unless it be such as unprepares him for heaven, as puts him out of a state of salvation. Indeed every prudent man will, when he has time, examine himself before he receives the Lord's Supper. whether he repents him truly of his former sins; whether he believes the promises of God; whether he fully designs to walk in His ways, and be in charity with all men. In this, and in private prayer, he will doubtless spend all the time he conveniently can. But what is this to you who have not time What excuse is this for not obeying God He commands you to come, and prepare yourself by prayer, if you have time; if you have not, however, come. Make not reverence to God's command a pretence for breaking it. Do not rebel against him for fear of offending him. Whatever you do or leave undone besides, be sure to do what God bids you do. Examining yourself, and using private prayer, especially before the Lord's Supper, is good; But behold! "to obey is better than" self-examination; "and to hearken," than the prayer of an angel. 16. A Third objection against constant communion is, that it abates our reverence for the sacrament. Suppose it did What then Will you thence conclude that you are not to receive it constantly This does not follow. God commands you, "Do this." You may do it now, but will not, and, to excuse yourself say, "If I do it so often, it will abate the reverence with which I do it now." Suppose it did; has God ever told you, that when the obeying his command abates your reverence to it, then you may disobey it If he has, you are guiltless; if not, what you say is just nothing to the purpose. The law is clear. Either show that the lawgiver makes this exception, or you are guilty before him.

17. And all this being allowed, what lack they yet Can anything be laid to their charge I wish calmly and candidly to consider this point, in the fear and in the presence of God. I am far from desiring to aggravate the defects of my brethren, or to paint them in the strongest colours. Far be it from me to treat others as I have been treated myself; to return evil for evil, or railing for railing. But, to speak the naked truth, (not with anger or contempt, as too many have done,) I acknowledge that many, if not most, of those that were appointed to minister in holy things, with whom it has been my lot to converse in almost every part of England or Ireland, for forty of fifty years last past, have not been eminent either for knowledge or piety. It has been loudly affirmed, that most of those persons now in connexion with me, who believe it their duty to call sinners to repentance, having been taken immediately from low trades, -- tailors, shoemakers, and the like, -- are a set of poor, stupid, illiterate men, that scarce know their right hand from their left: Yet I cannot but say, that I would sooner cut off my right hand, than suffer one of them to speak a word in any of our chapels, if I had not reasonable proof that he had more knowledge in the Holy Scriptures, more knowledge of himself, more knowledge of God and of the things of God, than nine in ten of the Clergymen I have conversed with, either at the Universities or elsewhere.

18. In the meantime, I gladly allow that this charge does not concern the whole body of the Clergy. Undoubtedly there are many Clergymen in these kingdoms, that are not only free from outward sin, but men of eminent learning; and, what is infinitely more, deeply acquainted with God. But still I am constrained to confess, that the far greater part of those Ministers I have conversed with for above half a century, have not been holy men, not devoted to God, not deeply acquainted either with God or themselves. It could not be said that they set their "affections on things above, not on things of the earth;" or that their desire, and the business of their lives, was, to save their own souls and those that heard them. 19. I have taken this unpleasing view of a melancholy scene, -- of the character of those who have been appointed of God to be shepherds of souls for so many ages, -- in order to determine this question: "Ought the children of God to refrain from his ordinances because they that administer them are unholy men" a question with which many serious persons have been exceedingly perplexed. "Ought we not," say they, "to refrain from the ministrations of ungodly men For is it possible that we should receive any good from the hands of those that know not God Can we suppose, that the grace of God was ever conveyed to men by the servants of the devil"

31. Another consequence would follow from the supposition that no grace is conveyed by wicked Ministers; namely, that a conscientious person cannot be a member of any national Church in the world. For wherever he is, it is great odds, whether a holy Minister he stationed there; and if there be not, it is mere lost labour to worship in that congregation. But, blessed be God, this is not the case; we know by our own happy experience, and by the experience of thousands, that the word of the Lord is not bound, though uttered by an unholy minister; and the sacraments are not dry breasts, whether he that administers be holy or unholy. 32. Consider one more consequence of this supposition, should it ever be generally received. Were all men to separate from those Churches where the Minister was an unholy man, (as they ought to do, if the grace of God never did nor could attend his ministry,) what confusion, what tumults, what commotions would this occasion throughout Christendom! What evil-surmisings, heart-burnings, jealousies, envyings, must everywhere arise! What censuring, tale-bearing, strife, contention! Neither would it stop here; but from evil words the contending parties would soon proceed to evil deeds; and rivers of blood would soon be shed, to the utter scandal of Mahometans and Heathens.

8. Professor Hutcheson, late of Glasgow, places conscience in a different light. In his Essay on the Passions," he observes, that we have several senses, or natural avenues of pleasure and pain, besides the five external senses. One of these he terms the public sense; whereby we are naturally pained at the misery of a fellow-creature, and pleased at his deliverance from it. And every man, says he, has a moral sense; whereby he approves of benevolence and disapproves of cruelty. Yea, he is uneasy when he himself has done a cruel action, and pleased when he has done a generous one. 9. All this is, in some sense, undoubtedly true. But it is not true, that either the public or the moral sense (both of which are included in the term conscience) is now natural to man. Whatever may have been the case at first, while man was in a state of innocence, both the one and the other is now a branch of that supernatural gift of God which we usually style, preventing grace. But the Professor does not at all agree with this. He sets God wholly out of the question. God has nothing to do with his scheme of virtue, from the beginning to the end. So that, to say the truth, his scheme of virtue is Atheism all over. This is refinement indeed! Many have excluded God out of the World: He excludes him even out of religion! 10. But do we not mistake him Do we take his meaning right That it may be plain enough, that no man may mistake him, he proposes this question: "What, if a man in doing a virtuous, that is, a generous action, in helping a fellow-creature, has an eye to God, either as commanding, of as promising to reward it Then," says he, "so far as he has an eye to God, the virtue of the action is lost. Whatever actions spring from an eye to the recompense of reward have no virtue, no moral goodness, in them." Alas! was this man called a Christian How unjustly was he slandered with that assertion! Even Dr. Taylor, though he does not allow Christ to be God, yet does not scruple to term him, "A person of consummate virtue." But the Professor cannot allow him any virtue at all!

7. "Consult duty, not events. We have nothing to do but to mind our duty. All speculations that tend not to holiness are among your superfluities; but forebodings of what may befall you in doing your duty may be reckoned among your sins; and to venture upon sin to avoid danger is to sink the ship for fear of pirates. O how quiet, as well as holy, would our lives be, had we learned that single lesson, -- to be careful for nothing, but to do our duty, and leave all consequences to God! What madness for silly dust to prescribe to infinite wisdom! to let go our work, and meddle with God's! He hath managed the concerns of the world, and of every individual person in it, without giving cause of complaint to any, for above these five thousand years. And does he now need your counsel Nay, it is your business to mind your own duty. 8. "What advice you would give another, take yourself: The worst of men are apt enough to lay burdens on others, which if they would take on themselves they would be rare Christians. 9. "Do nothing on which you cannot pray for a blessing. Every action of a Christian that is good, is sanctified by the word and prayer. It becomes not a Christian to do anything so trivial, that he cannot pray over it. And if he would but bestow a serious ejaculation on every occurrent action , such a prayer would cut off all things sinful, and encourage all things lawful.

10. "Think, and speak, and do what you are persuaded Christ himself would do in your case, were he on earth. It becomes a Christian, rather to be an example to all, who was, and is, and ever will be, our absolute pattern. O Christians, how did Christ pray, and redeem time for prayer! How did Christ preach, out of whose mouth proceeded no other but gracious words What time did Christ spend in impertinent discourse How did Christ go up and down, doing good to men, and what was pleasing to God Beloved, I commend to you these four memorials: (1.) Mind duty: (2.) What is the duty of another in your case, is your own: (3.) Do not meddle with anything, if you cannot say, The blessing of the Lord be upon it: (4.) Above all, sooner forget your Christian name, than forget to eye Christ! Whatever treatment you meet with from the world, remember him and follow his steps, 'who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who when he was reviled, reviled not again; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.'"

III. 1. Such are the spiritual helps which God has bestowed on this his vineyard with no sparing hand. Discipline might be inserted among these; but we may as well speak of it under a separate head. It is certain that, in this respect, the Methodists are a highly favoured people. Nothing can be more simple, nothing more rational, than the Methodist discipline: It is entirely founded on common sense, particularly applying the general rules of Scripture. Any person determined to save his soul may be united (this is the only condition required) with them. But this desire must be evidenced by three marks: Avoiding all known sin; doing good after his power; and, attending all the ordinances of God. He is then placed in such a class as is convenient for him, where he spends about an hour in a week. And, the next quarter, if nothing is objected to him, he is admitted into the society: And therein he may continue as long as he continues to meet his brethren, and walks according to his profession. 2. Their public service is at five in the morning, and six or seven in the evening, that their temporal business may not be hindered. Only on Sunday it begins between nine and ten, and concludes with the Lord's Supper. On Sunday evening the society meets; but care is taken to dismiss them early, that all the heads of families may have time to instruct their several households. Once a quarter, the principal Preacher in every circuit examines every member of the societies therein. By this means, if the behaviour of anyone is blameable, which is frequently to be expected in so numerous a body of people, it is easily discovered, and either the offence or the offender removed in time. 3. Whenever it is needful to exclude any disorderly member out of the society, it is done in the most quiet and inoffensive manner; only by not renewing his ticket at the quarterly visitation. But in some cases, where the offence is great, and there is danger of public scandal, it is judged necessary to declare, when all the members are present, "A. B. is no longer a member of our society." Now, what can be more rational or more scriptural than this simple discipline; attended, from the beginning to the end, with no trouble, expense, or delay

1. There are exceeding few texts of Holy Scripture which have been more frequently urged than this against laymen, that are neither Priests nor Deacons, and yet take upon them to preach. Many have asked, "How dare any `take this honour to himself, unless he be called of God, as was Aaron'" And a pious and sensible clergyman some years ago published a sermon on these words, wherein he endeavours to show that it is not enough to be inwardly called of God to preach, as many imagine themselves to be, unless they are outwardly called by men sent of God for that purpose, as Aaron was called of God by Moses. 2. But there is one grievous flaw in this argument, as often as it has been urged. "Called of God, as was Aaron!" But Aaron did not preach at all: He was not called to it either by God or man. Aaron was called to minister in holy things; -- to offer up prayers and sacrifices; to execute the office of a Priest. But he was never called to be a Preacher. 3. In ancient times the office of a Priest and that of a Preacher were known to be entirely distinct. And so everyone will be convinced that impartially traces the matter from the beginning. From Adam to Noah it is allowed by all that the first-born in every family was of course the priest in that family, by virtue of his primogeniture. But this gave him no right to be a Preacher, or (in the scriptural language) a Prophet. This office not unfrequently belonged to the youngest branch of the family. For in this respect God always asserted his right to send by whom he would send. 4. From the time of Noah to that of Moses the same observation may be made. The eldest of the family was the Priest, but any other might be the Prophet. This, the office of Priest, we find Esau inherited by virtue of his birth-right, till he profanely sold it to Jacob for a mess of pottage. And this it was which he could never recover, "though he sought it carefully with tears."

7. However, in some parts, both of England and Ireland, scriptural Christianity is well known; especially in London, Bristol, Dublin, and almost all the large and populous cities and towns of both kingdoms. In these, every branch of Christianity is openly and largely declared; and thousands upon thousands continually hear and receive "the truth as it is in Jesus." Why is it then, that even in these parts Christianity has had so little effect Why are the generality of the people, in all these places, Heathens still no better than the Heathens of Africa or America, either in their tempers or in their lives Now, how is this to be accounted for I conceive, thus: It was a common saying among the Christians in the primitive Church, "The soul and the body make a man; the spirit and discipline make a Christian;" implying, that none could be real Christians, without the help of Christian discipline. But if this be so, is it any wonder that we find so few Christians; for where is Christian discipline In what part of England (to go no farther) is Christian discipline added to Christian doctrine Now, whatever doctrine is preached, where there is not discipline, it cannot have its full effect upon the hearers.

15. But can any one deny that the members of the Church of Scotland fast constantly; particularly on their sacramental occasions In some parishes they return only once a year; but in others, suppose in large cities, they occur twice, or even thrice, a year. Now, it is well known there is always a fast-day in the week preceding the administration of the Lord's Supper. But, occasionally looking into a book of accounts in one of their vestries, I observed so much set down for the dinners of the Ministers on the fast-day; and I am informed there is the same article in them all. And is there any doubt but the people fast just as their Ministers do But what a farce is this! What a miserable burlesque upon a plain Christian duty! O that the General Assembly would have regard to the honour of their nation! Let them roll away from it this shameful reproach, by either enforcing the duty, or removing that article from their books. Let it never appear there any more! Let it vanish away for ever 16. But why is self-denial in general so little practised at present among the Methodists Why is so exceedingly little of it to be found even in the oldest and largest societies The more I observe and consider things, the more clearly it appears what is the cause of this in London, in Bristol, in Birmingham, in Manchester, in Leeds, in Dublin, in Cork. The Methodists grow more and more self-indulgent, because they grow rich. Although many of them are still deplorably poor; ("tell it not in Gath; publish it not in the streets of Askelon!") yet many others, in the space of twenty, thirty, or forty years, are twenty, thirty, yea, a hundred times richer than they were when they first entered the society. And it is an observation which admits of few exceptions, that nine in ten of these decreased in grace, in the same proportion as they increased in wealth. Indeed, according to the natural tendency of riches, we cannot expect it to be otherwise.

10. Do we not frequently use this unscriptural expression, of our blessed Lord in private conversation also And are we not then especially apt to speak of him as a mere man Particularly when we are describing his sufferings, how easily do we slide into this! We do well to be cautious in this matter. Here is not room for indulging a warm imagination. I have sometimes almost scrupled singing (even in the midst of my brother's excellent hymn,) "That dear, disfigured face," or that glowing expression, "Drop thy warm blood upon my heart," lest it should seem to imply the forgetting I am speaking of "the Man that is my Fellow, saith the Lord of Hosts." Although he so "humbled himself as to take upon him the form of a servant, to be found in fashion as a man;" yea, though he was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross;" yet let it ever be remembered that he "thought it no robbery to be equal with God." And let our hearts still cry out, "Thou art exceeding glorious; thou art clothed with majesty and honour." 11. Perhaps some may be afraid lest the refraining from these warm expressions, or even gently checking them, should check the fervour of our devotion. It is very possible it may check, or even prevent, some kind of fervour which has passed for devotion. Possibly it may prevent loud shouting, horrid, unnatural screaming, repeating the same words twenty or thirty times, jumping two or three feet high, and throwing about the arms or legs, both of men and women, in a manner shocking not only to religion, but to common decency. But it never will check, much less prevent, true scriptural devotion. It will rather enliven the prayer that is properly addressed to him who, though he was very man, yet was very God; who, though he was born of a woman, to redeem man, yet was "God from everlasting and world without end."

On A Single Eye "If 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. Therefore, if the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" Matt. 6:22, 23. 1. "Simplicity and purity," says a devout man, "are the two wings that lift the soul up to heaven: Simplicity, which is in the intention; and purity, which is in the affections." The former of these, that great and good man, Bishop Taylor, recommends with much earnestness, in the beginning of his excellent book, "Rules of Holy Living and Dying." He sets out with insisting upon this, as the very first point in true religion, and warns us, that, without this, all our endeavours after it will be vain and ineffectual. The same truth, that strong and elegant writer, Mr. Law, earnestly presses in his "Serious Call to a Devout Life" -- a treatise which will hardly be excelled, if it be equalled, in the English tongue, either for beauty of expression, or for justness and depth of thought. And who can censure any follower of Christ, for laying ever so great stress on this point, that considers the manner wherein our Master recommends it, in the words above recited 2. Let us attentively consider this whole passage, as it may be literally translated. "The eye is the lamp of the body:" And what the eye is to the body, the intention is to the soul. We may observe, with what exact propriety our Lord places simplicity of intention between worldly desires and worldly cares; either of which directly tend to destroy it. It follows, "If thine eye be single," singly fixed upon God, "thy whole body," that is, all thy soul, "shall be full of light," -- shall be filled with holiness and happiness. "But if thine eye be evil," -- not single, aiming at any other object, seeking anything beneath the sun, -- "thy whole body shall be full of darkness. And if the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" how remote, not only from all real knowledge, but from all real holiness and happiness!

8. How strange must not only the manner of existence appear, and the place wherein you are (if it may be called place; though who can define or describe the place of spirits) but the inhabitants of that unknown region! whether they are of the number of those unhappy spirits that "kept not their first estate," or of those holy ones that still "minister to the heirs of salvation." How strange are the employments of those spirits with which you are now surrounded! How bitter are they to the taste of those that are still dreaming upon earth! "I have no relish," said one of these, (a much-applauded wit, who has lately left the body,) "for sitting upon a cloud all day long, and singing praise to God." We may easily believe him; and there is no danger of his being put to that trouble. Nevertheless, this is no trouble to them who cease not day and night, but continually sing, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Sabaoth!"

5. There then "the weary be at rest." The blood of the Lamb hath healed all their sickness, hath washed them throughly from their wickedness, and cleansed them from their sin. The disease of their nature is cured; they are at length made whole; they are restored to perfect soundness. They no longer mourn the "flesh lusting against the Spirit;" the "law in their members" is now at an end, and no longer "wars against the law of their mind, and brings them into captivity to the law of sin." There is no root of bitterness left; no remains even of that sin which did "so easily beset them;" no forgetfulness of "Him in whom they live, move, and have their being;" no ingratitude to their gracious Redeemer, who poured out his soul unto the death for them; no unfaithfulness to that blessed Spirit who so long bore with their infirmities. In a word, no pride, no self-will is there; so that they who are thus "delivered from the bondage of corruption" may indeed say one to another, and that in an emphatical sense, "Beloved, now we are the children of God; and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

5. Within a few years he made several more voyages to America, and took several more journeys through the provinces. And in every journey he found fresh reason to bless God, who still prospered the work of his hands; there being more and more, in all the provinces, who found his word to be "the power of God unto salvation." 6. But the last journey he made, he acknowledged to some of his friends, that he had much sorrow and heaviness in his heart, on account of multitudes who for a time ran well, but afterwards "drew back unto perdition." Indeed, in a few years, the far greater part of those who had once "received the word with joy," yea, had "escaped the corruption that is in the world," were "entangled again and overcome." Some were like those who received the seed on stony ground, which "in time of temptation withered away." Others were like those who "received it among thorns: "the thorns" soon "sprang up, and choked it." Insomuch that he found exceeding few who "brought forth fruit to perfection." A vast majority had entirely "turned back from the holy commandment delivered to them." 7. And what wonder! for it was a true saying, which was common in the ancient Church, "The soul and the body make a man; and the spirit and discipline make a Christian." But those who were more or less affected by Mr. Whitefield's preaching had no discipline at all. They had no shadow of discipline; nothing of the kind. They were formed into no societies: They had no Christian connection with each other, nor were ever taught to watch over each other's souls. So that if any fell into lukewarmness, or even into sin, he had none to lift him up: He might fall lower and lower, yea, into hell, if he would, for who regarded it 8. Things were in this state when about eleven years ago I received several letters from America, giving a melancholy account of the state of religion in most of the colonies, and earnestly entreating that some of our Preachers would come over and help them. It was believed they might confirm many that were weak or wavering, and lift up many that were fallen; nay, and that they would see more fruit of their labours in America than they had done either in England or Ireland.

6. But after some time he was prevailed upon by the Countess of Huntingdon to leave his beloved retreat, and remove into Wales, in order to superintend her school at Trevecka. This he did with all his power, instructing the young men both in learning and philosophy; till he received a letter from the Countess, together with the circular letter signed by Mr. Shirley, summoning all that feared God in England to meet together at Bristol at the time of the Methodist Conference, "in order to bear testimony against the "dreadful heresy" contained in the Minutes of the preceding Conference." Her Ladyship declared, that all who did not absolutely renounce those eight propositions which were contained in the Minutes of that Conference must immediately leave her house. Mr. Fletcher was exceedingly surprised at this peremptory declaration. He spent the next day in fasting and prayer, and in the evening wrote to her Ladyship that he not only could not utterly renounce, but must entirely approve of, all those eight propositions; and therefore had obeyed her order, by leaving her house and returning to his own at Madeley.

There is little need of adding any farther character of this man of God to the foregoing account, given by one who wrote out of the fullness of her heart. I would only observe,that for many years I despaired of finding any inhabitant of Great Britain, that could stand in any degree of comparison with Gregory Lopez or Monsieur de Renty. But let any impartial person judge, if Mr. Fletcher was at all inferior to them. Did he not experience as deep communion with God, and as high a measure of inward holiness, as was experienced either by one or the other of those burning and shining lights And it is certain his outward holiness shone before men with full as bright a lustre as theirs. But if any should attempt to draw a parallel between them, there are two circumstances that deserve consideration. One is, we are not assured that the writers of their lives did not extenuate, if not suppress, what was amiss in them; and some things amiss we are assured there were, viz., many touches of superstition, and some of idolatry, in worshipping saints, the Virgin Mary in particular: But I have not suppressed or extenuated anything in Mr. Fletcher's character; for, indeed, I knew nothing that was amiss, -- nothing that needed to be extenuated, much less suppressed. A second circumstance is, that the writers of their lives could not have so full a knowledge of them, as both Mrs. Fletcher and I had of Mr. Fletcher; being eye and ear witnesses of his whole conduct. Consequently, we know that his life was not sullied with any mixture of either idolatry or superstition. I was intimately acquainted with him for above thirty years; I conversed with him morning, noon, and night, without the least reserve, during a journey of many hundred miles. And in all that time I never heard him speak one improper word nor saw him do an improper action. -- To conclude: Many exemplary men have I known, holy in heart and life, within fourscore years, but one equal to him I have not known, -- one so inwardly and outwardly devoted to God. So unblamable a character in every respect I have not found either in Europe or America; and I scarce expect to find another such on this side of eternity.

Having introduced some other things, he adds, "Besides faith, there is no one but may see that repentance is required as necessary to justification. Now, repentance is not one work alone, but is, as it were, a collection of many others: For in its compass the following works are comprehended: -- (1.) Sorrow on account of sin: (2.) Humiliation under the hand of God: (3.) Hatred to sin: (4.) Confession of sin: (5.) Ardent supplication of the divine mercy: (6.) The love of God: (7.) Ceasing from sin: (8.) Firm purpose of new obedience: (9.) Restitution of ill-gotten goods: (10.) Forgiving our neighbour his transgressions against us: (11.) Works of beneficence, or alms-giving. How much these things avail to procure remission of sins from God is sufficiently evident from Dan. 4:27; where the Prophet gives this wholesome advice to Nebuchadnezzar, who was at that time cleaving to his sins: `Redeem [The Bishop translates PRQ -- peruk, with the Vulgate, redeem, or buy off but the proper and literal meaning is, break off. A.C.] your sins by alms-giving, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor.'" -- Ibid., p. 10. 7. To instance in one point more: All the Liturgy of the Church is full of petitions for that holiness without which, the Scripture everywhere declares, no man shall see the Lord. And these are all summed up in those comprehensive words which we are supposed to be so frequently repeating: "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." It is evident that in the last clause of this petition, all outward holiness is contained: Neither can it be carried to a greater height, or expressed in stronger terms. And those words, "Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts," contain the negative branch of inward holiness; the height and depth of which is purity of heart, by the inspiration of God's Holy Spirit. The remaining words, "that we may perfectly love thee," contain the positive part of holiness; seeing this love, which is the fulfilling of the law, implies the whole mind that was in Christ.

This, indeed, is an end that is visibly served in those ill-timed commendations; of what other use they are, it is hard to say. It is of no service to the dead to celebrate his actions; since he has the applause of God and his holy angels, and also that of his own conscience. And it is of very little use to the living; since he who desires a pattern may find enough proposed as such in the sacred writings. What! must one be raised from the dead to instruct him, whilst Moses, the Prophets, and the blessed Jesus are still presented to his view in those everlasting tables Certain it is, that he who will not imitate these, would not be converted, though one literally rose from the dead. Let it suffice to have paid my last duty to him, (whether he is now hovering over these lower regions, or retired already to the mansions of eternal glory,) by saying, in a few plain words, such as were his own, and were always agreeable to him, that he was to his parents an affectionate, dutiful son; to his acquaintance, an ingenuous, cheerful, good-natured companion; and to me, a well-tried, sincere friend. At such a loss, if considered without the alleviating circumstances, who can blame him that drops a tear The tender meltings of a heart dissolved with fondness, when it reflects on the several agreeable moments which have now taken their flight never to return, give an authority to some degree of sorrow. Nor will human frailty permit an ordinary acquaintance to take his last leave of them without it. Who then can conceive, much less describe, the strong emotion, the secret workings of soul which a parent feels on such an occasion None, surely, but those who are parents themselves; unless those few who have experienced the power of friendship; than which human nature, on this side of the grave, knows no closer, no softer, no stronger tie!

On Grieving The Holy Spirit "Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." Eph. 4:30. There can be no point of greater importance to him who knows that it is the Holy Spirit which leads us into all truth and into all holiness, than to consider with what temper of soul we are to entertain his divine presence; so as not either to drive him from us, or to disappoint him of the gracious ends for which his abode with us is designed; which is not the amusement of our understanding, but the conversion and entire sanctification of our hearts and lives. These words of the Apostle contain a most serious and affectionate exhortation to this purpose. "Grieve. not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." The title "holy," applied to the Spirit of God, does not only denote that he is holy in his own nature, but that he makes us so; that he is the great fountain of holiness to his church; the Spirit from whence flows all the grace and virtue, by which the stains of guilt are cleansed, and we are renewed in all holy dispositions, and again bear the image of our Creator. Great reason, therefore, there was for the Apostle to give this solemn charge concerning it, and the highest obligation lies upon us all to consider it with the deepest attention; which that we may the more effectually do, I shall inquire, I. In what sense the Spirit of God is said to be grieved at the sins of men: II. By what kind of sin he is more especially grieved. III. I shall endeavour to show the force of the Apostle's argument against grieving the Holy Spirit, -- "By whom we are sealed to the day of redemption."

And the more frequently we offend him, the more we weaken his influences in our souls. For frequent breaches will necessarily occasion estrangement between us; and it is impossible that our intercourse with him can be cordial, when it is disturbed by repeated interruptions. So a man will forgive his friend a great many imprudences, and some wilful transgresions; but to find him frequently affronting him, all his kindness will wear off by degrees; and the warmth of his affection, even towards him who had the greatest share of it, will die away; as he cannot but think that such a one does not any longer either desire or deserve to maintain a friendship with him. II. I come now to consider by what kinds of sin the Holy Spirit is more especially grieved. These sins are, in genera], such as either at first wholly disappoint his grace of its due effect upon our souls, or are afterwards directly contrary to his gracious and merciful assistances. Of the former sort, I shall only mention, at present, inconsiderateness; of the latter, sins of presumption.

There are many persons who, in the main of their lives, are regular in their conversation, and observe the means of improvement, and attend upon the holy sacrament with exactness; who yet, in the intervals of their duties, give too great liberty to their thoughts, affections, and discourse: They seem to adjourn the great business of salvation to the next hour of devotion. If these professors lose so much in their spiritual estate for want of adjusting and balancing their accounts, what then must we think of those who scarce ever bestow a serious thought upon their eternal welfare Surely there is not any temper of mind less a friend to the spirit of religion, than a thoughtless and inconsiderate one, that, by a natural succession of strong and vain affections shuts out everything useful from their souls, till, at length, they are overtaken by a fatal lethargy; they lose sight of all danger, and become insensible of divine convictions; and, in consequence, quite disappoint all the blessed means of restoration. If, therefore, we measure the Holy Spirit's concern at the sins of men by the degrees of his disappointment, we may conclude, that there is no state of mind that grieves him more, unless that of actual wickedness. Presumptuous sins are, indeed, in the highest manner offensive to the Holy Spirit of God. They are instances of open enmity against him, and have all the guilt of open rebellion. The wilful sinner is not ignorant or surprised, but knowingly fights against God's express commandment, and the lively, full, and present conviction of his own mind and conscience; so that this is the very standard of iniquity. And all other kinds of sins are more or less heinous, as they are nearer or farther off from sins of this dreadful nature; inasmuch as these imply the greatest opposition to God's will, contempt of his mercy, and defiance of his justice. This, if any thing can, doubtless, must so grieve him as to make him wholly withdraw his gracious presence. III. I come now to show the force of the Apostle's argument against grieving the Holy Spirit, -- Because we "are sealed to the day of redemption."

III. I proceed now to the Third thing proposed, viz., to inquire into the nature and operations of the Holy Spirit, as bestowed upon Christians. And here I shall pass by the particular extraordinary gifts vouchsafed to the first ages for the edification of the Church and only consider what the Holy Spirit is to every believer, for his personal sanctification and salvation. It is not granted to every one to raise the dead, and heal the sick. What is most necessary is, to be sure, as to ourselves, that we are "passed from death unto life;" to keep our bodies pure and undefiled, and let them reap that health which flows from a magnanimous patience, and the serene joys of devotion. The Holy Spirit has enabled men to speak with tongues, and to prophesy; but the light that most necessarily attends it is a light to discern the fallacies of flesh and blood, to reject the irreligious maxims of the world, and to practice those degrees of trust in God and love to men, whose foundation is not so much in the present appearances of things, as in some that are yet to come. The object which this light brings us most immediately to know is ourselves; and by virtue of this, one that is born of God, and has a lively hope may indeed see far into the ways of Providence, and farther yet into the holy Scriptures; for the holy Scriptures, excepting some accidental and less necessary parts, are only a history of that new man which he himself is; and Providence is only a wise disposal of events for the awakening of particular persons, and ripening the world in general for the coming of Christ's kingdom. But I think the true notion of the Spirit is, that it is some portion of, as well as preparation for, a life in God, which we are to enjoy hereafter. The gift of the Holy Spirit looks full to the resurrection; for then is the life of God completed in us.

But this is not all. We take care that our books be not *only inoffensive, but useful too; that they contain as much strong, sterling sense, and as much genuine morality, as possible; yea, and Christian morality. For what good reason can be assigned why we should leave this out of the account? Why should not even children be taught, so far as they are capable, the oracles of God? 15. Another point which has been carefully considered is, the order in which the books are read. The harder are never learned before the easier : we begin with the plainest of all; next read such as are a little more difficult; and gradually rise to those that are hardest of all, that is, of all those which are read in the classes that belong to the • This quotation from Juvenal is thus translated by Gifford :- "Swift from the roof where youth, Fuscinus, dwell, Immodest sights, immodest sounds, expel; The place is sacred."--EDIT. school. The most difficult are reserved for those who have gone through the school, and are employed in academical exercises.

In one practice for which you blamed your son, I am only concerned as a friend, not as a partner. That, therefore, I shall consider first. _ Your own account of it was in effect this :--“ He frequently went into poor people’s houses, in the villages about Holt, called their children together, and instructed them in their duty to God, their neighbour, and themselves. He likewise explained to them the necessity of private as well as public prayer, and provided them with such forms as were best suited to their several capacities: and being well apprized how much the success of his endeavours depended on their good will toward him, to win upon their affections, he sometimes distributed among them a little of that money which he had saved from gaming, and the other fashionable expenses of the place.” This is the first charge against him; upon which all that I shall observe is, that 1 will refer it to your own judgment, whether it be fitter to have a place in the catalogue of his faults, or of those virtues for which he is now “numbered among the sons of God.” If all the persons concerned in ‘that ridiculous society, whose follies yor1 have so often heard repeated,” could but give such a proot of their deserving the glorious title* which was once bestowed upon them, they would be contented that their “lives” too should be “counted madness, and their end” thought to be “without honour.” But the truth is their title to holiness stands upon much less stable founda- * The Holy Club. tions ; as you will easily perceive when you know the ground of this wonderful outcry, which it seems England is not wide enough to contain.

Ill. Whether, upon the considerations above mentioned, we may not try to do good to those that are hungry, naked, or sick? In particular, whether, if we know any necessitous family, we may not give them a little food, clothes, or physic, as they want ? Whether we may not give them, if they can read, a Bible, Common-Prayer Book, or Whole Duty of Man. Whether we may not, now and then, inquire how they have used them; explain what they do not understand, and enforce what they do? Whether we may not enforce upon them, more especially, the necessity of private prayer, and of frequenting the church and sacrament ? ether we may not contribute, what little we are able, toward having their children clothed and taught to read 2 Whether we may not take care that they be taught their catechism and short prayers for morning and evening ? IV. Lastly, Whether, upon the considerations above mentioned, we may not try todo good to those that are in prison? In particular, Whether we may not release such well-disposed persons as remain in prison for small sums ? Whether we may not lend smaller sums to those that are of any trade, that they may procure themselves tools and materials to work with? Whether we may not give to them who appear to want it most, a little money, or clothes, or physic ? Whether we may not supply as many as are serious enough to read, with a Bible, and Whole Duty of Man ? Whether we may not, as we have opportunity, explain and enforce these upon them, especially with respect to public and private prayer and the blessed sacrament ? I do not remember that we met with any person who answered any of these questions in the negative ; or who even doubted, whether it were not lawful to apply to this use that time and money which we should else have spent in other diversions. But several we met with who increased our little stock of money for the prisoners and the poor, by subscribing something quarterly to it; so that the more persons we proposed our designs to, the more we were confirmed in the belief of their innocency, and the more determined to pursue them, in spite of the ridicule, which increased fast upon us during the winter. How-

Tues. 21.--We sailed from Gravesend. When we were past about half the Goodwin Sands, the wind suddenly failed. Had the calm continued till ebb, the ship had probably been lost. But the gale sprung up again in an hour, and carried us into the Downs. We now began to be a little regular. Our common way of living was this :--From four in the morning till five, each of us used private prayer. From five to seven we read the Bible together, carefully comparing it (that we might not lean to our own understandings) with the writings of the earliest ages. At seven we breakfasted. At eight were the public prayers. From nine to twelve I usually learned German, and Mr. Delamotte, Greek. My brother writ sermons, and Mr. Ingham instructed the children. At twelve we met to give an account to one another what we had done since our last meeting, and what we designed to do before our next. About one we dined. The time from dinner to four, we spent in reading to those whom each of us had taken in charge, or in speaking to them severally, as need required. At four were the Evening Prayers ; when either the Second Lesson was explained, (as it always wasinthe morning,) or the children were catechised, and instructed before the congregation. From five Dec 1735.] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 15 t¢ six we again used private prayer. From six to seven I read in our cabin to two or three of the passengers, (of whom there were about eighty English on board,) and each of my brethren to a few more in theirs. At seven I joined with the Germans in their public service ; while Mr. Ingham was reading between the decks, to as many as desired to hear. At eight we met again, to exhort and instruct one another. Between nine and ten we went to bed, where neither the roaring of the sea, nor the motion of the ship, could take away -he refreshing sleep which God gave us.

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.”

Sun. April 3, and every day in this great and holy week, we had a sermon and the holy communion. Mon. 4.--I began learning Spanish, in order to converse with my Jewish parishioners ; some of whom seem nearer the mind that was in Christ than many of those who call him Lord. Tues. 12.--Being determined, if possible, to put a stop to the proceedings of one in Carolina, who had married several of my parishioners without either banns or license, and declared, he would do so still, I set out in a sloop for Charlestown. I landed there on Thursday, and related the case to Mr. Garden, the bishop of London’s commissary, who assured me, he would take care no such irregularity should ve committed for the future. Sun. 17.--Mr. Garden (to whom I must ever acknowledge myself 36 E REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [April, 1'737.. indebted for many kind and generous offices) desiring me to preach, | did so, on these words of the epistle for the day: “ Whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the world.” To that plain account of the Christian state which these words naturally led me to give, a man of edu cation and character seriously objected, (what is indeed a great truth, _ “ Why, if this be Christianity, a Christian must have more courage than Alexander the Great.” Tues. 19.--We left Charlestown ; but meeting with stormy and con. trary winds, after losing our anchor, and beating out at sea all night, on Thursday, the 21st, we with some difficulty got back into Charlestown harbour. Fri. 22.--It being the time of their annual visitation, I had the pleasure of meeting with the clergy of South Carolina; among whom, iw the afternoon, there was such a conversation for several hours on ‘Christ our Righteousness,” as J had not heard at any visitation in England, or hardly on any other occasion.

But first, I sent Mr. Causton the following note :-- “S1r,--To this hour you have shown yourself my friend: I ever have and ever shall acknowledge it. And it is my earnest desire, that He who hath hitherto given me this blessing, would continue it still. “But this cannot be, unless you will allow me one request, which is not so easy a one as it appears: do not condemn me for doing, in the execution of my office, what I think it my duty to do. “If you can prevail upon yourself to allow me this, even when I act without respect to persons, I am persuaded there will never be, at least not long, any misunderstanding between us. For even those who seek it, shall, I trust, find no occasion against me, ‘ except it be concerning the law of my God.’ Iam, &c. “ July 5, 1737.” Wed. 6--Mr. Causton came to my house, with Mr. Bailiff Parker, and Mr. Recorder, and warmly asked, ‘ How could you possibly think I should condemn you for executing any part of your office?” I said short, “ Sir, what if I should think it the duty of my office to repel one of your family from the holy communion ?”” He replied, “If you Suly, 1737. REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 33 repel me or my wife, I shall require a legalreason. But I snall trouble myself about none else. Let them look to themselves.” Sat. 9.--Meeting with a Frenchman of New Orleans on the Mississippi, who had lived several months among the Chicasaws, he gave us a full and particular account of many things which had been variously related. And hence we could not but remark, what is the religion of © nature, properly so called; or, that religion which flows from natural reason, unassisted by Revelation: and that even in those who have the knowledge of many truths ; and who converse with their beloved ones day and night. But too plainly does it appear by the fruits, “ that the gods of these Heathens too are but devils.”

On Thursday or Friday was delivered out a list of twenty-six men, who were to meet, as a grand jury, on Monday the 22d. But this list was called in the next day, and twenty-four names added to it. Ot this grand jury, (forty-four of whom only met,) one was a Frenchman, who did not understand English, one a Papist, one a professed infidel, three Baptists, sixteen or seventeen others, Dissenters; and several others who had personal quarrels against me, and had openly vowed revenge. To this grand jury, on Monday, the 22d, Mr. Causton gave a long and earnest charge, “to beware of spiritual tyranny, and to oppose the new, illegal authority which was usurped over their consciences.” Then Mrs. Williamson’s affidavit was read: after which, Mr. Causton delivered to the grand jury a paper, entitled,-- ‘A list of grievances, presented by the Grand Jury for Savannah this * day of August, 1737.” This the majority of the grand jury altered in some particulars, and on Thursday, September 1, delivered it again to the court, under the form of two presentments, containing ten bills, which were then read to the people. Herein they asserted, upon oath “'That John Wesley, clerk, had broken the laws of the realm, contrary to the peace of our sovereign lord the king, his crown and dignity. “1. By speaking and writing to Mrs. Williamson, against her husband’s consent. “2. By repelling her from the holy communion. “3. By not declaring his adherence to the Church of England. “4, By dividing the Morning service on Sundays. “5. By refusing to baptize Mr. Parker’s child, otherwise than by dipping, except the parents would certify it was weak, and not able to bear it. “6. By repelling William Gough from the holy communion. “7. By refusing to read the Burial service over the body of Nathaniel Polhill. “8. By calling himself Ordinary of Savannah. “9. By refusing to receive William Aglionby as a godfather, only because he was not a communicant. Sept. 1737. | REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 43 “10. By refusing Jacob Matthews for the same reason: and baptizing an Indian trader’s child with only two sponsors.” (This I own, was wrong; for I ought, at all hazards, to have refused baptizing it till he had procured a third.)

Fri. Sep. 2.--Was the third court at which I appeared since my being carried before Mr. P. and the recorder. I now moved for an immediate hearing on the first bill, being the only one of a civil nature : but it was refused. I made the same motion .n the afternoon; but was put off till the next court day. On the next court day I appeared again; as also at the two courts tollowing: but could not be heard, because (the judge said) Mr. Williamson was gone out of town. The sense of the minority of the grand jurors themselves (tor they were by no means unanimous) concerning these presentments, may appear from the following paper, which they transmitted to the Trustees :-- “ To the Honourable the Trustees for Georgia. “Whereas two presentments have been made, the one of August 23, the other of August 31, by the grand jury for the town and county of Savannah, in Georgia, against John Wesley, clerk. “ We, whose names are underwritten, being members of the said grand jury, do humbly beg leave to signify our dislike of the said presentments ; being, by many and divers circumstances, thoroughly persuaded in ourselves, that the whole charge against Mr. Wesley, is an artifice of Mr. Causton’s, designed rather to blacken the character of Mr. Wesley, than to free the colony from religious tyranny, as he was pleased, in his charge to us, to term it. But as these circumstances will be too tedious to trouble your honours with, we shall only beg leave to give the reasons of our dissent from the particular bills. : “ With regard to the first bill, we,do not apprehend that Mr. Wesley acted against any law, by writing or speaking to Mrs. Williamson, since it does not appear to us, that the said Mr. Wesley has either spoke in private, or wrote to the said Mrs. Williamson, since March 12, (the day of her marriage,) except one letter of July the 5th, which he wrote at the request of her uncle, asa pastor, to exhort and reprove her.

“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.

Sat. 15.--Being at Highgate, a village five miles from Savannah, consisting of (all but one) French families, who, I found, knew but little of the English tongue, I offered to read prayers there in Frenck every Saturday in the afternoon. They embraced the offer gladly. On Saturday, the 22d, I read prayers in German likewise, to the German villagers of Hampstead ; and so continued to do, once a week. We began the service (both at Highgate and Hampstead) with singing a psalm. Then I read and explained a chapter in the French or German Testament, and concluded with prayers and another psalm. Sat. 29.--Some of the French of Savannah were present at the prayers at Highgate. The next day I received a message from them Dec. 1737. ] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 45 all, “ That as I read prayers to the French of Highgate, who were but few, they hoped I would do the same to those of Savannah, where there was a large number, who did not understand English.” Sunday, the 30th, I began so to do; and now I had full employment for that holy day. The first English prayers lasted from five till half an hour past six. The Italian (which I read to a few Vaudois) began at nine. The second service for the English (including the sermon and the holy communion) continued from half an hour past ten, till about half an hour past twelve. ‘The French service began at one. At two I catechised the children. About three began the English service. After this was ended, I had the happiness of joining with as many as my largest room would hold, in reading, prayer, and singing praise. And about six, the service of the Moravians, so called, began: at which I was glad to be present, not as a teacher, but a learner.

Are they read in philosophy? So was I. In ancient or modern tongues? So was I also. Are they versed in the science of divinity ? [ too have studied it many years. Can they talk fluently upon spiritual things? The very same could I do. Are they plenteous in alms? Behold, I gave all my goods to feed the poor. Do they give of their labour as well as of their substance? I have laboured more abundantly than they all. Are they willing to suffer for their brethren? I have thrown up my friends, reputation, ease, country ; I have put my life in my hand, wandering into strange lands; I have given my body to be devoured by the deep, parched up with heat, consumed by toil and weariness, or whatsoever God should please to bring upon me. But does all this (be it more or less, it matters not) make me acceptable to God? Does all I ever did or can know, say, give, do, or suffer, justify me in his sight? Yea, or the constant use of all the means of grace ! (which, nevertheless, is meet, right, and our bounden duty.) Or that I know nothing of myself; that I am, as touching outward, moral righteousness, blameless? Or (to come closer yet) the having a rational conviction of all the truths of Christianity? Does all this give me a claim to the holy, heavenly, divine character of a Christian? By no means. If the Oracles of God are true, if we are still to abide by “ the law and ' the testimony ;” all these things, though, when ennobled by faith in Christ,* they are holy and just and good, yet without it are “ dung and dross,” meet only to be purged away by “ the fire that never shall be quenched.”

An hour after, we were overtook by an elderly gentleman, who said he was going to enter his son at Oxford. We asked, “ At what college?” He said he did not know: having no acquaintance there on whose recommendation he could depend. After some conversation, he expressed a deep sense of the good providence of God; and told us, he knew God had cast us in his way, in answer to his prayer. In the evening we reached Oxford, rejoicing in our having received so many fresh instances of that great truth, “In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths.” Thur. 23.--I met Peter Bohler again, who now amazed me more and more, by the account he gave of the fruits of living faith,--the hoiiness and happiness which he affirmed to attend it. The next morning I began the Greek Testament again, resolving to abide by .“ the law and the testimony ;” and being confident, that God would hereby show me, whether this doctrine was of God. Sun. 26.--]J preached at Whitam, on “ the new creature,” and went m the evening to a society in Oxford, where, (as my manne then was April, 1738. ] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 65 at all societies,) after using a collect or two and the Lord’s Prayer, I expounded a chapter in the New Testament, and concluded with three or four more collects and a psalm. Mon. 27.--Mr. Kinchin went with me to the Castle, where, after reading prayers, and preaching on, “ It is appointed unto men once to die,” we prayed with the condemned man, first in several forms of prayer, and then in such words as were given us in that hour. He kneeled down in much heaviness and confusion, having “ no rest in” his “ bones, by reason of” his “sins.” After a space he rose up, and eagerly said, “‘ 1 am now ready to die. I know Christ has taken away my sins ; oad there is no more condemnation for me.” The same composed cheerfulness he showed, when he was carried to execution: and in his last moments he was the same, enjoying a perfect pee in cove fidence that he was “accepted in the Beloved.”

Sat. April 1.--Being at Mr. Fox’s society, my heart was so full that I could not confine myself to the forms ef prayer which we were accustomed to usé there. Neither do I purpose to be confined to them any more ; but to pray indifferently, with a form or without, as I may find suitable to particular occasions. Sun. 2.--Being Easter day, I preached in our college chapel, on, «The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.” I preached in the afternoon, first at the Castle, and then at Carfax, on the same words. I see the promise ; but it is afar off. Believing it would be better for me to wait for the accomplishment of it in silence and retirement, on Monday, 3, I complied with Mr. Kinchin’s desire, and went to him at Dummer, in Hampshire. But I was not suffered to stay here long; being earnestly pressed to come up to London, if it were only for a few days. Thither, therefore, I returned, on Tuesday, 18th.

“But this is not to be wondered at. For all religious people have such a quantity of righteousness, acquired by much painful exercise, and formed at last into current habits; which is their wealth, both for this world and the next. Now all other schemes of religion are either so complaisant as to tell them they are very rich, and have enough to triumph in; or else only a little rough, but friendly in the main, by telling them their riches are not yet sufficient, but by such arts of self denial and men tal refinement they may enlarge the stock. But the doctrine of faith is a downright robber. It takes away all this wealth, and only tells us it is deposited for us with somebody else, upon whose bounty we must live like mere beggars. Indeed, they that are truly beggars, vile and filthy sinners till very lately, may stoop to live in this dependent condition: it suits them well enough. But they who have long distinguished themselves from the herd of vicious wretches, or have even gone beyond moral men; for them to be told that they are either not so well, or but the same needy, impotent, insignificant vessels of mercy with the others : this is more shocking to reason than transubstantiation. For reason had rather resign its pretensions to judge what is bread or flesh than have this honour wrested from it--to be the architect of virtue and righteousness.--But where am I running? My design was only to give you warning, that wherever you go, this ‘ foolishness of preaching’ will alienate hearts from you, and open mouths against you.” Fri. 19.--My brother had a second return of his pleurisy. A few of us spent Saturday night in prayer. The next day, being Whitsunday, after hearing Dr. Heylyn preach a truly Christian sermon, (on, “They were all filled with the Holy Ghost:” “And so,” said he, “ may all you be, if it is not your own fault,”) and assisting him at the holy communion, (his curate being taken ill in the church,) I received the surprising news that my brother had found rest to his soul. His bodily strength returned also from that hour. “ Who is so great a God as our God?”

May, 1738. ] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 71 both in public and in private, and read, with the Scriptures, several other books of religion, especially comments on the New Testament. Yet I had not all this while so much as a notion of inward holiness; nay, went on habitually and, for the most part, very contentedly, in some or other known sin: indeed, with some intermission and short struggles, especially before and after the holy communion, which I was obliged to receive thrice a year. I cannot well tell what I hoped to be saved by now, when I was continually sinning against that little light I had ; unless by those transient fits of what many divines taught me to call repentance. 4, When I was about twenty-two, my father pressed me to enter into holy orders. At the same time, the providence of God directing me to Kempis’s “Christian Pattern,” I began to see, that true religion was seated in the heart, and that God’s Law extended to all our thoughts as well as words and actions. I was, however, very angry at Kempis, for being too strict ; though I read him only in Dean Stanhope’s translation. Yet I had frequently much sensible comfort in reading him, such as | was an utter stranger to before: and meeting likewise with a religious friend, which I never had till now, I began to alter the whole form of my conversation, and to set in earnest upon a new life. I set apart an hour or two a day for religious retirement. I communicated every week. I watched.against all sin, whether in word or deed. I began to aim at, and pray for, inward holiness. So that now, ‘ doing so much, and living so good a life,” I doubted not but I was a good Christian.

5. Removing soon after to another college, I executed a resolution which I was before convinced was of the utmost importance,--shaking off at once all my trifling acquaintance. I began to see more and more the value of time. I applied myself closer to study. I watched more carefully against actual sins ; I advised others to be religious, according to that scheme of religion by which I modelled my own life. But meeting now with Mr. Law’s “ Christian Perfection” and “ Serious Call,” although I was much offended at many parts of both, yet they convinced me more than ever of the exceeding height and breadth and depth of the Law of God. The light flowed in so mightily upon my soul, that every thing appeared in a new view. I cried to God for help, and resolved not to prolong the time of obeying him as I had never done before. And by my continued endeavour to keep his whole Law, inward and outward, to the utmost of my power, I was persuaded that I should be accepted of him, and that I was even then in a state of salvation. 6. In 1730 I began visiting the prisons ; assisting the poor and sick in town ; and doing what other good I could, by my presence, or my little fortune, to the bodies and souls of all men. To this end I abridged myself of all superfluities, and many that are called necessaries of life. I soon became a by-word for so doing, and I rejoiced that my name was cast out as evil. The next spring I began observing the Wednesday and Friday fasts, commonly observed in the ancient Church ; tasting no food till three in the afternoon. And now I knew not how to go any further. I diligently strove against all sin. I omitted no sort of selt denial which I thought lawful: I carefully used, both in public and in private, all the means of grace at all opportunities. I omitted no occasion of doing good: I for that reason suffered evil. And all this I knew to i F2 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. | May, 1735

be nothing, unless as it was directed toward inward holiness. Accordingly this, the image of God, was what I aimed at in all, by doing his Wi, not my own. Yet when, after continuing some years in this course, I apprehended myself to be near death, I could not find that all this gave me any comfort, or any assurance of acceptance with God. At this I was then not a little surprised; not imagining I had been all this time building on the sand, nor considering that “ other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid” by God, “ even Christ Jesus.” 7. Soon after, a contemplative man convinced me still more than J was convinced before, that outward works are nothing, being alone ; and in several conversations instructed me, how to pursue inward holiness, or a union of the soul with God. But even of his instructions (though I then recéived them as the words of God) I cannot but now observe, 1. That he spoke so incautiously against trusting in outward works, that he discouraged me from doing them at all. 2. That he recommended (as it were, to supply what was wanting in them) mental prayer, and the like exercises, as the most effectual means of purifying the soul, and uniting it with God. Now these were, in truth, as much my own works as visiting the sick or clothing the naked ; and the union with God thus pursued, was as really my own righteousness, as any I had before pursued under another name. 8. In this refined way of trusting to my own works and my own righteousness, (so zealously inculcated by the mystic writers,) I dragged on heavily, finding no comfort or help therein, till the time of my leaving | England. On shipboard, however, I was again active in outward works ; where it pleased God of his free mercy to give me twenty-six of the Moravian brethren for companions, who endeavoured to show me “a more excellent way.” But I understood it not at first. I was too learned and too wise. So that it seemed foolishness unto me. And I continued preaching, and following after, and trusting in, that righteousness whereby no flesh can be justified.

9. All the time I was at Savannah I was thus beating the air. Being ignorant of the righteousness of Christ, which, by a living faith in him, bringeth salvation “ to every one that believeth,” I sought to establish my own righteousness ; and so laboured in the fire all my days. I was now properly “ under the Law ;” I knew that “ the Law” of God was ‘‘ spiritual ; I consented to it, that it was good.” Yea, “I delighted in it, after the inner man.” Yet was I “carnal, sold under sin.” Every day was I constrained to cry out, “ What I do, I allow not: for what I would, I do not ; but what I hate that I do. To will is” indeed “ present with me ; but how to perform that which is good, I find not. For the good which I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that J do. I find a law, that when I would do good, evil is present with me :” Even “the law in my members, warring against the law of my mind,” and still * bringing me into captivity to the law of sin.” 10. In this vile, abject state of bondage to sin, I was indeed fighting continually, but not conquering. Before, I had willingly served sin; now it was unwillingly ; but still I served it. I fell, and rose, and fell again. Sometimes I was overcome, and in heaviness: sometimes I overcame, and was in joy. For as in the former state I had some foretastes of the terrors of the Law, so had I in this, of the comforts of bs om nae _ May, 1738.] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 73

The minister had on a sort of pudding sleeve gown, which covered him all round. At nine began a long voluntary on the organ, closed with a hymn, which was sung by all the people sitting ; in which posture, as is the German custom, they sung all that followed. Then the minister walked up to the altar, bowed, sung these Latin words, “ Gloria in excelsis Deo ;” bowed again, and went away. This was followed by another hymn, sung, as before, to the organ, by all the people. Then the minister went to the altar again, bowed, sung a prayer, read the epistle, and went away. After a third hymn was sung, he went a third time to the altar, sung a versicle, (to which all the people sung a response,) read the third chapter to the Romans, and went away. The people having then sung the creed in rhyme, he came and read the Gospel, ail standing. Another hymn followed, which being ended, the minister in the pulpit used a long extemporary prayer, and afterward preached an hour and a quarter on a verse of the Gospel. Then he read a long intercession and general thanksgiving, which before twelve concluded the service. After the Evening service at Hernhuth was ended, all the unmarried men (as is their custom) walked quite round the town, singing praise with instruments of music; and then on a small hill, at a little distance from it, casting themselves into a ring, joined in prayer. Thence they returned into the great Square, and a little after eleven, commended each other to God. : Tues. 8.--A child was buried. The burying ground (called by them Gottes Acker, that is, God’s ground) hes a few hurdred yards out of the town, under the side of a little wood. There are distinct squares in it for married men and unmarried; for married and unmarried women; for male and female children, and for widows. The corpse 84 : REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [Aug. 1738.

“ Observe again, this is not the foundation. It is not this by which you are justified. This is not the righteousness, this is no part of the righteousness, by which you are reconciled unto God. You grieve for your sins. You are deeply humble. Your heart is broken. Well; but all this is nothing to your justification. #The remission of your sins is not owing to this cause, either in whole or in part. Your humiliation and contrition have no influence on that. Nay, observe further, that it may hinder your justification; that is, if you build any thing upon it; if you think, ‘I must be so or so contrite. I must grieve more, before I can be justified. Understand this well. To think you must be more contrite, more humble, more grieved, more sensible of the weight of sin, before you can be justified, is to lay your contrition, your grief, your humiliation, for the foundation of your being justified; at least, for a part of the found ation. Therefore it hinders your justification; and a hinderance it is which must be removed before you can lay the right foundation. ‘The right foundation is, not your contrition, (though that is not your own,) not your righteousness, nothing of your own; nothing that is wrought in you by the Holy Ghost; but it is something without you, viz. the righteousness and the blood of Christ. “For this is the word, ‘To him that believeth on God that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.’ See ye not, that the foundation is nothing in us? There isno connection between God and the ungodly. There is no tie to unite them. They are altogether separate from each other. They have nothingincommon. ‘There is nothing less or more in the ungodly, to join them to God. Works, righteousness, contrition? No; ungodliness only. This then do, if you will lay a right foundation. Go straight to Christ with all your ungodliness. Tell him, ‘Thou, whose eyes are as a flame of fire searching my heart, seest that lam ungodly. I plead nothing else. I do not say, lam humble or contrite; but Iam ungodly. Therefore bring me to him that justifieth the ungodly. Let thy blood be the propitiation for me. For there is nothing in me but ungodliness.’

“¢ 1. None can be ignorant of the religion of our ancestors, who have read the history of John Huss. Some of his followers endeavoured to repel force by force. The rest, having better learned Christ, obtained leave of George Podibrad, king of Bohemia, to retire and live apart. Retiring, accordingly, in the year 1453, to a place on the borders of Silesia and Moravia, they lived in peace, till the time of Luther and Calvin, with both of whom, as with their followers, they maintained a friendly intercourse; especially when, by the providence of God, they were placed among those of either opinion. «¢2. In the year 1699, David Ernest Jablonsky, grandson to Amos Comenius, the last bishop of the Moravians, was consecrated bishop of the United Brethren in Moravia, Bohemia, and Poland, in a synod regularly assembled. To him Count Zinzendorf signified, that several of the Moravian brethren, having escaped from the tyranny of the Papists, were so joined to the Lutherans, whose doctrine they approved, as nevertheless to retain their ancient discipline. His entire approbation of this, Bishop Jablonsky testified to the Count in several letters. «3. It must be acknowledged that many of our ancestors, about the beginning of the Reformation, from fear of man, did not openly confess the truth: and hence it was that the Romish pastors bore with them; being little concerned what their private opinions were. But hence it also was, that continually using dissimulation, and not walking in simplicity, they were no longer fervent in spirit, as of old time, neither could they find any peace to their souls.

“T was awakened,” said Hantz Nrusser, “by my grandfather, when a child, and by him carefully instructed in the New Testament. I married young ; and being from that time weak and sickly, was the more earnest to work out my salvation; and nineteen or twenty years ago, I had a strong confidence in our Saviour, and was continually warning others against trusting in themselves, in their own righteousness or good works. Yet I was not free from it myself. I did not trust in him only for acceptance with God. And hence it was, that not building on the right foundation, the blood and righteousness of Christ alone, I could not gain a full victory over my sins, but sometimes conquered them, and sometimes was conquered by them. And therefore I had nota full or constant peace, though I was commonly easy, and hoping for mercy. Sixteen years ago (on Saturday next) I came to my brother Augustine at Hernhuth. There was then only one little house here. Here I continued eight years in much the same state, thinking I trusted in Christ alone; but indeed trusting partly in his, and partly in my own righteousness. I was walking one day in this little wood, when God discovered my heart to me. I saw I had till that hour trusted in my own righteousness, and, at the same time, that I had no righteousness at ails; being altogether corrupt and abominable, and fit only for the fire of hell. At this sight I fell into bitter grief, and a horrible dread overwhelmed me; expecting nothing (as I saw I deserved nothing else) but to be swallowed up in a moment. In that moment I beheld the Lamb of God, taking away my sins. And from that time I have had redemption through his blood, and full assurance of it. Ihave that peace in him which never fails, and which admits of no doubt or fear. Indeed I am but a little one in Christ; therefore I can receive as yet but little of him. But from his fulness I have enough; and I praise him, and am satisfied.” In the three or four following days, 1 had an opportunity of talking with Zacharias Neusser, (cousin to Hantz,) David Schneider, Chris- _ Aug. 1738.] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 95

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.

In the Orphan house, the larger children rise at five. (The smaller, between five and six.) After a little private prayer they work till seven. Then they are at school till eight, the hour of prayer; at nine, those who are capable of it learn Latin; at ten, French; at eleven, they all walk; at twelve, they dine all together, and walk till one ; at one, they work or learn writing ; at three, arithmetic ; at four, history ; at five, they work; at six, sup and work; at seven, after a time spent in prayer, walk ; at eight the smaller children go to bed, the larger to the public service. When this is ended, they work again till at ten they go to bed. IV. Every morning, at eight, is singing and exposition of Scripture ; and commonly short prayer. At eight in the evening, there is commonly only mental prayer,* joined with the singing and expounding. The faithful afterward spend a quarter of an hour in prayer, and conclude with the kiss of peace. * This is unscriptural. 100° REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [ Aug. 1738. On Sunday morning the service begins at six; at nine, the public service at Bertholdsdorf; at one, the eldest gives separate exhortations to all the members of the Church, divided into fourteen little classes for that purpose, spending about a quarter of an hour with each class ; at four begins the Evening service at Bertholdsdorf, closed by a conference in the church ; at eight, is the usual service; after which the young men, singing praises round the town, conclude the day. On the first Saturday in the month, the Lord’s Supper is administered. From ten in the morning till two, the eldest speaks with each communicant in private, concerning the state of his soul; at two, they dine, then wash one another’s feet; after which they sing and pray ; about ten, they receive in silence without any ceremony, and, continue in silence till they part at twelve. On the second Saturday is the solemn prayer day for the children : the third is the day of general intercession and thanksgiving; and on the fourth is the great monthly conference of all the superiors of the Church. For the satisfaction of those who desire a more full account I have added

“17, At eight in the morning, and in the evening, we meet to pray to and praise God, and to read and hear the Holy Scriptures. The time we usually spend in sleep, is from eleven at night till four in the morning. So that allowing three hours a day for taking the food both of our bodies and souls, there remain sixteen for work. And this space those who are * in health spend therein, with all diligence and faithfulness. “18. Two men keep watch every night in the street ; as do two women. in the women’s apartment; that they may pour out their souls for those that sleep; and by their hymns raise the hearts of any who are awake to God. Aug. 1738. | REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 103 19. For the further stirring up the gift which is in us, sometimes we have public, sometimes private, love-feasts: at which we take moderate refreshment, with gladness and singleness of heart, and the voice of praise and thanksgiving. 20. If any man among us, having been often admonished, and long forborne, persists in walking unworthy of his holy calling, he is no longer admitted to the Lord’s Supper. If he still continues in his fault, hating to be reformed, the last step is, publicly, and often in the midst of many prayers and tears, to cast him out of our congregation. But great is our joy if he then see the error of his ways, so that we may receive him among us again. " “21. Most of our brethren and sisters have, in some part of their life, experienced holy mourning and sorrow of heart; and have efterward been assured, that there was no more “condemnation for them, being passed from death unto life.” ‘They are, therefore, far from fearing to die, or desiring to live on earth; knowing that to them “to die is gain,” and being confident that they are the care of Him whose are the “issues of life and death.” Wherefore they depart as out of one chamber into another. And after the soul has left its habitation, their remains are deposited in the earth, appointed for that purpose. And the survivors are ee and rejoice over them with a “joy the world knoweth not o

About the year 1704, Mr. Stoltius, a student at Jena, began to speak of faith in Christ ; which he continued to do, till he took his Master’s degree, and read public lectures About twelve or fifteen students were awakened and joined with him in prayer, and building up one another. At this (after various calumnies spread abroad, and divers persecutions occasioned thereby) the consistory was offended, and issued out a commission to examine him. In consequence of the report made to the consistory by these commissioners, he was forbid to read any public lectures, or to hold any meetings with his friends. Not long after an order was given, by which he was excluded from the holy communion. He was also to have been expelled the university: but this he prevented by a voluntary retirement. Yet one of the commissioners, who had been sent by the duke of Weimar, (one of the lords of Jena,) informed the duke, that according to his judgment Stoltius was an innocent and holy man. On this the duke sent for him to Weimar, and fixed him in a living there. There likewise he awakened many, and met with them to pray and read the Scriptures together. But it was not long that the city could bearhim. For he boldly rebuked all vice, and that in all persons, neither sparing the courtiers, nor the duke himself. Consequently, his enemies every where increased, and many persecutions followed. In fine, he was forbid to have any private meetings, and was to have been deposed from the ministry; when God calling him to himself, took him away from the evil to come.

Wed. 30.--In the afternoon we came io Mentz, and agreed for our passage to Célen, by water, for a florin per head ; which was but half what we gave before, though, it seems, twice as much as we ought to have given. Thur. 31.--We spent half an hour in the great church,-- a huge heap of irregular building ; full of altars, adorned (or loaded rather) with abundance of gold and silver. In going out we observed a paper on the door, which was of so extraordinary a nature, that I ' thought it would not be labour lost to transcribe it. The words were as follow :-- Vollkommener Ablass fur die arme Seelen im Feg-feur. Seine Pabliche Heiligkeit, Clemens der XIIte, haben in diesem jahr 1738, den 7 Augusti, die pfarr kirche des Sanctt Christophori in Mentz gnddigsten privilegirt, dass ein jeder Priester, so wohl secular als regularischen stands, der am aller seelen-tag, wie auch an einem jedem tag in derselben octaw; so dann am zwiein vom ordinario tdgen einer jeden woch das jahr hindurch, fur die seel eine Christglaubigen verstorbenen an zum altar mess lessen wird, jedesmahl eine seel aus dem fegfeur erlosen konne. “A full Release for the poor Souls in Purgatory. “‘ His Papal Holiness, Clement the XIIth, hath this year, 1738, on the 7th of August, most graciously privileged the cathedral church of St. Christopher, in Mentz; so that every priest, as well secular as regular. who will read mass at an altar for the soul of a Christian ete ----* <= “Sept. 1738. ] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 109 departed, on any holiday, or on any day within the octave thereof, or on two extraordinary days, to be appointed by the ordinary, of any week in the year, may each time deliver a soul out of the fire of Purgatory.”

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 ?

Fifthly: His Actions arenew. The tenor of his life singly points at the glory of God. All his substance and time are devoted thereto. Whether he eats or drinks, or whatever he does, it either springs from, or leads to, the love of God and man. Such, by the grace of God in Christ, is the tenor of my life. Therefore, in this respect, I am a new creature. But St. Paul tells us elsewhere, that “the fruit of the Spirit is love, peace, joy, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, temperance.” Now although, by the grace of God in Christ, I find a measure of some of these in myself; namely, of peace, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, temperance; yet others I find not. I cannot find in myself the love of God, or of Christ. Hence my deadness and wanderings in public prayer: hence it is, that even in the holy communion I have frequently no more than a cold attention. Again: [have not that joy in the Holy Ghost; no settled, lasting joy. Nor have I such a peace as excludes the possibility either of fear or doubt. When holy men have told me I had no faith, I have often doubted whether I had or no. And*those doubts have made me very uneasy, till I was relieved by prayer and the Holy Scriptures. Yet, upon the whole, although I have not yet that joy in the Holy Ghost, nor the full assurance of faith, much less am I, in the full sense of the words, “in Christ a new creature.” I nevertheless trust that Ihave a measure of faith, and am “accepted in the Beloved:” I trust, “the hand-writing that was against me is blotted out;” and that I am “reconciled to God” through his Son. .

“This was not all. But whenever I retired to prayer, I had a violent pain in my head. This only seized me when I began to pray earnestly, or to ery out aloud to Christ. But when I cried to him against this also, he gave me ease. Well, I found God did love me, and did draw me to Christ. I hungered and thirsted after him; but I was still afraid to go boldly to Christ, and to claim him as my Saviour. “July 3.--My dear sister came down to see me. She had received the atonement on St. Peter’s day. I told her, I thought Christ died for me; but as to the assurance she mentioned, [ could say nothing.

Wed. 15.--I endeavoured to guard those who were in their first love, from falling into inordinate affection, by explaining those strange words at Baptist Mills, “« Henceforth know we no man after the flesh.” Fri. 17.--Many of our society met, as we had appoirted, at one in the afternoon ; and agreed that all the members of our society should obey the Church to which we belong, by observing, all Fridays in the year, as days of fasting or abstinence. We likewise agreed that as many as had opportunity should then meet, to spend an hour together in prayer. Mon. 20.--I preached on those words, to a much larger congregation than usual, ‘“* Oughtest not thou to have compassion on thy fellow servant, as I had pity on thee?” Wed. 22.--I was with many that were in heaviness ; two of whom were soon filled with peace and joy. In the afternoon, I endeavoured to guard the weak against what too often occasions heaviness,--levity of temper or behaviour,--from “T said of laughter, It is mad; and of mirth, What doeth it ?” Mon. 27.--For two hours I took up my cross, in arguing with a zealous man, and labouring to convince him that I was not an enemy to the Church of England. He allowed, I taught no other doctrines than those of the Church; but could not forgive my teaching them out of the church walls. He allowed, too, (which none indeed can deny, who has either any regard to truth, or sense of shame,) that “ by this teaching, many souls who, till that time, were ‘perishing for lack of knowledge,’ have been, and are brought, ‘from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God:’” But he added, “ No one cau tell what may be hereafter ; and therefore I say these things ought not to be suffered.” Indeed the report now current in Bristol was, that I was a Papist, if not a Jesuit. Some added, that I was born and bred at Rome; which many cordially believed. O ye fools, when will ye understand that the preaching of justification by faith alone ; the allowing no meritorious \ wise of justification, but the death and righteousness of Christ ; and 150 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [Aug. 1739.

Tues. 28.--My mouth was opened, and my heart enlarged, strongly to declare to above two thousand people at Bradford, that “ the kingdom of God’ within us “is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” At Bath I once more offered Christ to justify the ungodly. In the evening I met my brother, just come from London. ‘The Lord hath” indeed “ done great things for us” already. ‘“ Not unto us, but unto tny name be the praise.” Wed. 29.--I rode with my brother to Wells, and preached on, “* What must I do to be saved?” In the evening I summed up at the new room, what I had said, at many times, from the beginning, of faith, holiness, and good works, as. the root, the tree, and the fruit, which God had joined, and man ought not to put asunder. * To bow down before any one, in token of honouring him. _ t Thatis, the proper use of images is, to honour them, by bowing down before them, 152 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [Sept. 1739. |

Thur. 20.--Mrs. C , being in deep heaviness, had desired me to meet her this afternoon. She had long earnestly desired to receive the holy communion, having an unaccountably strong persuasion, that God would manifest himself to her therein, and give rest to her soul. But her heaviness being now greatly increased, Mr. D e gave her that fatal advice,--not to communicate till she had living faith. This still added to her perplexity. _Yet at length she resolved to obey God rather than man. And “he was made known unto” her “in breaking of bread.” In that moment she felt her load removed, she knew she was accepted in the Beloved; and all the time I was expounding at Mr. B ’s, was full of that peace which cannot be uttered. Fri. 21.--Another of Dr. Monro’s patients came to desire my advice. I found no reason to believe she had been any otherwise mad than every one is, who is deeply convinced of sin. And I cannot doubt, but if she will trust in the living God, he will give “ medicine to heal her sickness.” Sun. 23.--I declared to about ten thousand, in Moorfields, with great enlargement of spirit, “ The kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” At Kennington I enforced to about twenty thousand, that great truth, ‘“‘ One thing is needful.” Thence I went to Lambeth, and showed (to the amazement, it seemed, of many who were present) how “he that is born of God doth not commit sin.” Mon. 24.--I preached once more at Plaistow, and took my leave of the people of that place. In my return, a person galloping swiftly, rode full against me, and overthrew both man and horse ; but without any hurt to either. Glory be to Him who saves both man and beast! Tues. 25.--After dining with one of our brethren who was married this day, I went, as usual, to the society at St. James’s, weary and weak in body. But God strengthened me for his own work; as he did, at six, at Mr. B ’s; and, at eight, in Winchester Yard, where it was believed were present eleven or twelve hundred persons; to whom I declared, if “they had nothing to pay,” God would * frankly forgive them all.”

Thur. 2'77.--I went in the afternoon to a society at Deptford, and thence, at six, came to Turner’s Hall; which holds (by computation) two thousand persons. The press both within and without was very great. In the beginning of the expounding, there being a large vault beneath, the main beam which supported the floor broke. The floor immediately sunk, which occasioned much noise and confusion among the people. But, two or three days before, a man had filled the vault with hogsheads of tobacco. So that the floor, after sinking a foot or two, rested upon them, and I went on without interruption. 156 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [Oct. 1739. Fri. 28.--I met with a fresh proof, that “‘ whatsoever ye ask, believing, ye shall receive.” A middle-aged woman desired me to return thanks for her to God, who, as many witnesses then present testified, was a day or two before really distracted, and as such tied down in her bed. But upon prayer made for her, she was instantly relieved, and restored to a sound mind. Mon. Oct. 1.--I rode to Oxford ; and found a few who had not yet forsaken the assembling themselves together: to whom I explained that “ holiness without which no man shall see the Lord.” Tues. 2.--I went to many, who once heard the word with joy; but “‘ when the sun arose, the seed withered away.” Yet some still desired to follow their Lord. But the world stood fawning or threatening between them. In the evening, I showed them the tender mercies of God, and his readiness still to receive them. The tears ran down many of their cheeks. O thou lover of souls, seek and save that which is lost !

Wed. 3.--I had a little leisure to take a view of the shattered condition of things here. The poor prisoners, both in the Castle and in the city prison, had now none that cared for their souls ; none to instruct, advise, comfort, and build them up in the knowledge and love of the Lord Jesus. None was left to visit the workhouses, where, also, we used to meet with the most moving objects of compassion. Our little school, where about twenty poor children, at a time, had been taught for many years, was on the point of being broke up; there being none now, either to support, or to attend it: and most of those in the town, who were once knit together, and strengthened one another’s hands in God, were torn asunder and scattered abroad. ‘It is time for thee, Lord, to lay to thy hand !” At eleven, a little company of us met to intreat God for “ the remnant that” was “left.” He immediately gave us a token for good. One who had been long in the gall of bitterness, full of wrath, strife, and envy, particularly against one whom she had once tenderly loved, rose up and showed the change God had wrought in her soul, by falling upon her neck, and, with many tears, kissing her. The same spirit we found reviving in others also; so that we left them not without hope, that the seed which had been sown even here, “ shall take root downward, and bear fruit upward.” About six in the evening, I came to Burford ; and at seven, preached to, it was judged, twelve or fifteen hundred people ; on, ‘ Christ--made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” Finding many approved of what they had heard, that they might not rest in that approbation, I explained, an hour or two after, the holiness of a Christian; aud, in the morning, I showed the way to this holiness, by giving both the false and the true answer to that important question, “What must I do to be saved ?”

Come just now. Take me away.” We interrupted her by calling again upon God: on which she sunk down as before: and another young woman began to roar out as loud as she had done. My brother now came in, it being about nine o’clock. We continued in prayer till past eleven ; when God in a moment spoke peace into the soul, first of the first tormented, and then of the other. And they both joined in singing praise to Him, who had *stilled the enemy and the avenger.” Wed. 24.--I preached at Baptist Mills on those words of St. Paul, speaking in the person of one “ under the Law,” (that is, still “ carnal, and sold under sin,” though groaning for deliverance,) “ I know that in me dwelleth no good thing.” A pocr woman told me afterward, “I does hope as my husband wont hinder me any more. For I minded ne did shiver every bone of him, and the tears rar down his cheeks like the rain.” I warned our little society in the evening, to beware of } 162 REY. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. ’ [Oct. 1739. levity, slackness in good works, and despising little things ; which had caused many to fall again into bondage. Thur. 25.--I was sent for to one in Bristol, who was taken ill the evening before. (This fact too I will simply relate, so far as I was an ear or eye witness of it.) She lay on the ground furiously gnashing her teeth, and after a while roared aloud. It was not easy for three er four persons to hold her, especially when the name of Jesus was named. We prayed ; the violence of her symptoms ceased, though without a complete deliverance.

Tues. Dec. 4.--I was violently attacked by some who were exceeding angry at those who cried out so; “being sure,” they said, “ it was all a cheat, and that any one might help crying out, if he would.” _J. Bl. was one of those who were sure of this. About eight the next morning, while he was alone in his chamber, at private prayer, so horrible a dread overwhelmed him, that he began crying out with all his might. All the family was alarmed. Several of them came running up into his chamber ; but he cried out so much the more, till his breath was utterly spent. God then rebuked the adversary ; and he is now less wise in his own conceit. Thur. 6.--I left Bristol, and (after preaching at Malmsbury and Burford in the way) on Saturday, 8, came into my old room at Oxford, from which I went to Georgia. Here, musing on the things that were past, and reflecting, how many that came after me were preferred before me, I opened my Testament on ‘those words, (O may I never let them slip !) “ What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore ? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law.” Sun. 9 --I expounded in the evening to a small, but deeply serious company, * There is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus ;” and exhorted them earnestly, to go straight to him, with all their miseries, follies, and sins. wes. 11.--I visited Mrs. - Plat; one who, having long sought death in the error of her life, was brought back to the great Shepherd of her soul, the first time my brother preached faith in Oxford. In the midst of sickness and pain, and the deepest want, she was calmly rejoicing in God. By this faith may I be thus saved! so as in the midst of heaviness, through manifold temptations, without raiment, or food, or health, or friends, to “ rejoice with joy unspeakable.”

Sat. March 1.--Many that were in heaviness being met together, we cried to God to comfort their souls. One of these soon found that God heareth the prayer. She had before been under the physician’s hands; her relations taking it for granted she was “ beside herself.” But the Great Physician alone knew how to heal her sickness. Mon. 3. --I rode by Windsor to Reading, where I had left two or three full ot peace and love. But I now found some from London had been here, grievously troubling these souls also; labouring to persuade them, 1. That they had no faith at all, because they sometimes felt doubt or fear. And, 2. That they ought to be still; not to go to church, not to communicate, not to search the Scriptures : “ Because,” say they, ‘you cannot do any of these things without trusting in them.” After confirming their souls we left Reading, and on Wednesday, 5, came to Bristol. It was easy to observe here, in how different a manner God works now, from what he did last spring. He then poured along like 8 rapid flood, overwhelming all before him. Whereas now, He deigns his influence to infuse, Secret, refreshing as the silent dews. wins ci i a ar March, 1740. j REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 179 - Convictions sink deeper and deeper. Love and joy are more calm, even, and steady. And God, in many, is laying the axe to the root of the tree, who can have no rest in their spirits till they are fully renewed in the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness.

** How gross, palpable a contradiction is this, to the whole tenor of the New Testament! every part of which is full of commandments, from St. Matthew to the Revelation! But it is enough to observe, 1. That this bold affirmation is shamelessly contrary to our Lord’s own words, ‘ Whosoever sha... break one of the least of these commandments, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven:’ for nothing can be more evident, than that he here speaks of more than one, of several commandments, which every soul, believer or not, is obliged to keep as commanded. 2. That this whole scheme is overturned from top to bottom, by that other sentence of our Lord, ‘ When ye have done all that is commanded you, say, We have done no more than it was our duty to do.’ 3. That although to do what God commands us is a believer’s privilege, that does not affect the question. He does it nevertheless, as his bounden duty, and as a command of God. 4. That this is the surest evidence of his believing, according to our Lord’s own words, ‘If ye love me, (which cannot be unless ye believe,) keep my commandments.’ 5. That to desire to do what God commands, but not as a command, is to affect, not freedom, but independency. Such independency as St. Paul had not; for though the Son had made him free, yet was he not without law to God, but under the law to Christ: Such as the holy angels have not; for they fulfil his commandments, and hearken to the voice of his words: Yea, such as Christ himself had not; for ‘as the Father’ had given him ‘commandment,’ so he ‘spake.’ ” Tues. 24.--The substance of my exposition in the morning, on “‘ Why yet are ye subject to ordinances?” was, “From hence it has been inferred, that Christians are not subject to the ordinances of Christ; that believers need not, and unbelievers may not, use them; that these are not obliged, and those are not permitted, so to do; that these do not sin when they abstain from them; but those do sin when they do not abstain. But with how little reason this has been inferred, will sufficiently appear to all who consider,

In the evening was our love-feast in Bristol: in the conclusion of which, there being mention made that many of our brethren at Kingswood had formed themselves into a separate society, I related to them at large the effects of the separations which had been made from time to time in London; and likewise the occasion of this, namely, Mr. C ’s preaching other doctrine than that they had before received ‘ \ Feb. 1741.] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 203 The natural consequence was, that when my brother and I preached the same which we had done from the beginning, many censured and spoke against us both; whence arose endless strife and confusion. T B replied, why, we preached false doctrine ; we preached that there is righteousness in man. I said, “So there is, after the righteousness of Christ is imputed to him through faith. But who told you that what we preached was false doctrine?) Whom would you have believed this from, but Mr. C CES Men, answered, “You do preach righteousness in man. I did say this: and I say it still. However, we are willing to join with you; but we will also meet apart from you: for we meet to confirm one another in those truths ° which you speak against.” I replied, “ You should have told me this before, and not have supplanted me in my own house, stealing the hearts of the people, and, by private accusations, separating very friends.” He said, “I have never privately accused you.” I said, “ My brethren, judge ;” and read as follows :-- To the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield. Jan. 1'7, 1741. ‘My pear Broruer,--That you might come quickly, I have written a second time.

_ lately, to be crowded within and without. 2. That not one person who came in used any prayer at all; but every one immediately sat down, and began either talking to his neighbour, or looking about to see who was there. 3. That when I began to pray, there appeared a general surprise, none once offering to kneel down, and those who- stood, choosing the most easy, indolent posture which they conveniently could. I afterward looked for one of our hymnbooks upon the desk ; (which I knew Mr. Howe had brought from London ;) but both that and the Bible were vanished away ; and in the room lay the Moravian hymns and the Count’s sermons. I expounded, (but with a heavy heart,) * Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved ;” and the next morning described (if haply some of the secure ones might awake from the sleep of death) the fruits of true faith, “ righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy host.” In the evening we came to Markfield again, where the church was quite full, while I explained, “ All we like sheep have ao June, 1741.] REV. J. WESLEY'S JOURNAL. 213 gone astray; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Sat. 13.--In the morning I preached on those words, “'To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness.” We then set out for Melbourn, where, finding the house too small to contain those who were come together, I stood under a large tree, and declared Him whom God hath exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance unto Israel, and remission of sins.” Thence I went to Hemmington, where also, the house not being large enough to contain the people, they _ stood about the door, and at both the windows, while I showed “ what’

Mon. 15.--I set out for London, and read over in the way, that celebrated book, Martin Luther’s “* Comment on the Epistle to the Galatians.” I was utterly ashamed. How have I esteemed this book, only because I heard it so commended by others; or, at best, because I had read some excellent sentences occasionally quoted from it! But what shall I say, now I judge for myself? Now 1 see with my own eyes? Why, not only that the author makes nothing out, clears up not one considerable difficulty ; that he is quite shallow in his remarks on many passages, and muddy and confused almost on all; but that he is deeply tinctured with Mysticism throughout, and hence often dangerously wrong. ‘To instance only in one or two points :--How does he (almost in the words of Tauler) decry reason, right or wrong, as an irreconcilable enemy to the gospel of Christ! Whereas, what is reason (the faculty so called) but the power of apprehending, judging, and discoursing? Which power is no more to be condemned in the grose than seeing, hearing, or feeling. Again, how blasphemously does he: speak of good works and of the law of God ; constantly coupling che law ies. 914 REV. J, WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [June, 1741. with sin, death, hell, or the devil ; and teaching, that Christ delivers us from them all alike. Whereas, it can no more be proved by Scripture that Christ delivers us from the law of God, than that he delivers us from holiness or from heaven. Here (1 apprehend) is the real spring of the grand error of the Moravians. They follow Luther for better for worse. Hence their “ No works; no law; no commandments.” But who art thou that “ speakest evil of the law, and judgest the law?”

W. I feared that there was error in their doctrine,--1!. Concerning the end of our faith in this life, to wit, Christian perfection. 2. Concerning the means of grace, so called by our Church. Z. I acknowledge no inherent perfection in this life. This is the error of errors. I pursue it through the world with fire and sword ;--I trample it under foot ;--I exterminate it. Christ is our only perfection. Whoever follows after inherent perfection, denies Christ. W. But I believe, that the Spirit of Christ works perfection in true Christians. Z. Not at all. All our perfection is in Christ. All Christian perfection is, faith in the blood of Christ. The whole of Christian perfection is imputed, not inherent. We are perfect in Christ ;--in ourselves, never. W. We contend, I think, about words. Is not every true believer holy 2 Z. Certainly. Bur. he is holy in Christ, not in himself. W. But does he not live holily ? Z. Yes, he lives holily in all things. W. Has he not also a holy heart ? Z. Most certainly. W. Is he not, consequently, holy in himself? Z. No, no. In Christ only. He is not holy in himself. In himself he has no holiness at all. W. Has he not the love of God and his neighbour in his heart? Yea, eve: .he whole image of God ? Z. He has. But these constitute legal, not evangelical holiness. Evangelical holiness is,--faith. W. The dispute is altogether about words. You grant taat the whole heart and the whole life of a believer, are holy: that he loves God with all his heart, and serves him with all his strength. I ask nothing more. I mean nothing else by Christian perfection or holiness, Z. But this is not his holiness. He is not more holy, if he loves more; nor less holy, if he loves less. Journal I.--15 (? ee Saat aC oe 8/4 222 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [Sept. 1741. whatsoever you are, I beseech you to weigh the following words; if haply God, “ who sendeth by whom he will send,” may give you light thereby: although “‘the mist of darkness,” (as one ‘of you affirms) should be reserved for me for ever.

2. My design is, freely and plainly to speak whatsvever I have seen or heard among you, in any part of your Church, which seems not agreeable to the Gospel of Christ. And my hope is, that the God whom you serve will give you throughly to weigh what is spoken; and if in any thing “ve have been otherwise minded” than the truth is, “ will reveal even this unto you.” 3. And First, with regard to Christian salvation, even the present salvation which is through faith, I have heard some of you affirm, 1. That it does not imply the proper taking away our sins, the cleansing our souls from all sin, but only the tearing the system of sin in pieces. 2. That it does not imply liberty from sinful thoughts. 4. [have heard some of you affirm, on the other hand, 1. That it does imply liberty from the commandments of God, so that one who is saved through faith, is not obliged or bound:to obey them, does not do any thing as a commandment, or asa duty. To support which they have affirmed, that there is* no command in the New Testament Lut to believe ; that there is no duty required therein, but that of believing; and that to W. What? Does not a believer, while he increases in love, increase equally in holiness ? Z. By no means. The moment he is justified, he is sanctified wholly. From that time, even unto death, he is neither more nor less holy. W. Is not then a father in Christ more holy than a new-born-babe [in Christ] 2 Z. No. Entire sanctification and justification are in the same instant ; and neither is increased or diminished. W. But does not a believer grow daily in the love of God? Is he perfect in love as soon as he is justified ? Z. He is. He never increases in the love of God. He loves entirely in that moment, as he is entirely sanctified. W. What then does the apostle Paul mean by, “ We are renewed day by day ?” Z. I will tell you. Lead, if it be changed into gold, is gold the first day, and the second, and the third. And so it is renewed day by day. “But it is never more gold than on the first day.

13. In conformity to the Mystics, you likewise greatly check joy in the Holy Ghost, by such cautions against sensible comforts, as have no tittle of Scripture to support them. Hence also your brethren here damp the zeal of babes in Christ, talking much of false zeal, forbidding them to declare what God hath done for their souls, even when their hearts burn within them to declare it, and comparing those to uncorked bottles, who simply and artlessly speak of the ability which God giveth. 14. Hence, Lastly, it is, that you undervalue good works, (especially works of outward mercy,) never publicly insisting on the necessity of them, nor declaring their weight and excellency. Hence, when some of your brethren have spoken of them, they put them on a wrong foot; viz. “If you find yourself moved, if your heart is free to it, then reprove, exhort, relieve.” By this means, you wholly avoid the taking up your cross, in order to do good; and also substitute an uncertain, precarious inward motion, in the place of the plain written word. Nay, one of your members has said of good works in general, (whether works of piety or of charity,) “ A believer is no more obliged to do these works of the Law, than a subject of the king of England is obliged to obey the laws of the king of France.” 15. My brethren, whether ye will hear, or whether ye will forbear, I have now delivered my own soul. And this I have chosen to do in an artless manner, that if any thing should come heme to your hearts, the effect might evidently flow, not from the wisdom of man, but from the power of God. August 8, 1740.

Sat. 10.--His journey being deferred till Monday, H. Harris came to me at the new room. He said, as to the decree of reprobation, he renounced and utterly abhorred it. And as to the not falling from grace, 1. He believed that it ought not to be mentioned to the unjustified, or to any that were slack and careless, much less that lived in sin; but only to the earnest and disconsolate mourners. 2. He did himself believe it was possible for one to fall away who had been “ enlightened” with some knowledge of God, who had “tasted of the heavenly gift, and been made partaker of the Holy Ghost ;” and wished we could all agree to keep close, in the controverted points, to the very words of Holy Writ. 3. That he accounted no man so justified as not to fall, till he had a thorough, abiding hatred to all sin, and a continual hunger and thirst after all righteousness. Blessed be thou of the Lord, thou man of peace! Still follow after peace and holiness. Thur. 15.--I was preparing for another journey to Wales, which I had designed to begin on Friday; when I received a message from H. Harris, desiring me to set out immediately, and meet him near the New Passage. I accordingly set out at noon; but, being obliged to wait at the water side, did not reach Will Creek (the place he had appointed for our meeting) till an hour or two after night. But this was soon enough; for he had not been there; nor could we hear any thing of him: so we went back to Mather, and thence in the morning to Lanmarton, a village two miles off, where we heard Mr. Daniel Rowlands was to be, and whom accordingly we found there. Evil sur- ea \ He's) i 232 ; REY. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [ Oct. 1741.

and prayer. About twelve my fever began to rage. At two I dozed a little, and suddenly awaked in such a disorder (only more violent) as that on Monday. The silver cord appeared to be just then loosing, and the wheel breaking at the cistern. The blood whirled to and fro, as if it would immediately force its way through all its vessels, especially in the breast : and excessive burning heat parched up my whole body, both within and without. About three, in a moment the commotion ceased, the heat was over, and the pain gone. Soon after, it made another attack; but not near so violent as the former. This lasted till half past four, and then vanished away at once. I grew better and better till nine: then I-fell asleep, and scarce awaked at all till morning. “ Thur. 5.--The noisy joy of the people in the streets did not agree with me very well; though I am afraid it disordered their poor souls much more than it did my body. About five in the evening my cough returned, and soon after, the heat and other symptoms; but with this remarkable circumstance, that for fourteen or fifteen hours following, I had more or less sleep in every hour. This was one cause why I was never light-headed at all, but had the use of my understanding, from the first hour of my illness to the last, as fully as when in perfect health.

Wed. 10.--I was with a gentlewoman whose distemper has puzzled the most eminent physicians, for many years; it being such as they could neither give any rational account of, nor find any remedy for. The plain case is, she is tormented by an evil spirit, following her day and night. Yea, try all your drugs over and over; but at length it will plainly appear, that “this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” Fri. 12.--I read part of Dr. Cheyne’s “ Natural Method of curing Diseases ;” of which I cannot but observe, it is one of the most ingenious books which I ever saw. But what epicure will ever regard it? for “the man talks against good eating and drinking !” Our Lord was gloriously present with us at the watch-night ; so that my voice was lost in the cries of the people. After midnight, about a hundred of us walked home together, singing, and rejoicing, and praising God.

May 3, 1742. - “ Brotuer,--I have now much communion with thee, and desire to have more: but till now I found a great gulf between us, so that we - could not one pass to the other. Therefore thy letters were very death to me, and thou wast to me as a branch broke off and thrown by to wither. Yet I waited, if the Lord should please to let us into the same union we had before. So the Lord hath given it. And in the same I write; desiring it may continue until death. “TI wrote before to thee and John Harrison, ‘ Be not afraid to be found sinners,’ hoping you would not separate the law from the Spirit, until the flesh was found dead. For I think our hearts are discovered by the law, yea, every tittle, and condemned by the same. Then are we quickened in the Spirit. Justice cannot be separated from mercy ; neither can they be one greater than the other. ‘ Keep the commandments;’ ‘and I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter.’ Mark that! ‘Thy sins be forgiven thee; arise, take up thy bed and walk.’ Here is work before mercy, and mercy before work.--So then, through the law by faith our heart is pure. Beware, therefore, of them who, while they promise you liberty, are themselves the servants of corruption. O dead faith, that cannot always live pure! Treacherous Judas, that thus betrayest thy Master!

“Let the law arraign you, till Jesus Christ bring forth judgment in your hearts unto victory. Yea, let your hearts be open wide, receiving both, that the one may confirm the other. So thou livest so much in the Son’s righteousness, that the law saith, ‘I have nought against thee.’ This is faith that thus conquers the old man, in putting hin: off, and putting on Christ. Purify your hearts by faith: so shall the temple of God be holy, and the altar therein; that spiritual sacrifices mav be offered, acceptable to the Lord. Now, if any man be otherwise minded, let him be ashamed. For if there lives any of our self in us, that one branch of nature, that one member, shall cause the whole man to burn everlastingly. Let as many as know not this perfection, which is by Jesus Christ, press forward by faith till they come to the experimental knowledge of it. But how many souls have I seen washed, and turned again to the wallowing in their sins! O that Lamb! How is he put to an open shame again, who had once reconciled them to the Father !

fe So [held Christ without, and the devil within. This is a mystery, that I should feel myself safe and pure, and yet the devil to be in me Judge who gave me this purity, and taught me to be thus perfect in Christ! But ere long that began to break forth in action, which I had conceived in my heart. But it was the Lord’s will I should not go far, before I was again brought under tne law. Then did I stand stripped and naked of that knowledge. I wish all who are so deceived as I was, were brought under the law, that they might learn what it is to come to Jesus Christ. And I wish them not to pass from under the law, till they clearly see the end of the law come into their hearts. “The law being mixed with faith, makes it quick and powerful. For as the law will not leave one hair of our heads uncondemned, so faith will not leave one unreconciled. And blessed is he who lives in the same reconciliation, and turns not as a dog to his vomit. Then shall he be called a child of God ; who cannot sin, because his seed remaineth in him. Thou writest, Jesus makes it manifest to thee, that thou art a great sinner. That is well; and if more, it would be better for thee. Again thou sayest, since thou first receivedst a full and free pardon for all thy sins, thou hast received so many fresh pardons, that they are quite out of count. And this, thou sayest, is spoken to thy own shame and thy Saviour’s praise. Come, my brother, let us both be more ashamed. Let us see where we are, and what we are doing to the Lamb. We are not glorifying him: (let us not mistake ourselves thus:) we are crucifying him afresh. We are putting him to an open shame, and bringing swift , damnation on our own heads. “Again, thou sayest, though thy sins be great and many, yet thy Saviour’s grace is greater. Thou sayest right; or else, how should we have been cleansed? But his great cleansing power does not design that we should become fowl again; lest he call us away in our uncleanness, and we perish for ever. For it will not profit us, that we were once

Tues. June 1.--As we were riding through Knaresborough, not intending to stop there, a young man stopped me in the street, and earnestly desired me to go to his house. I did so. He told me, our talking with a man as we went through the town before, had set many in a flame; and that the sermon we gave him, had travelled from one end of the town to the other. While I was with him, a woman came and desired to speak with me. I went to her house, whither five or six of her friends came ; one of whom had been long under deep conviction. We spent an hour in prayer, and all our spirits were refreshed. About one we came to Mr. More’s, at Beeston, near Leeds. His son rode with me after dinner, to Birstal ; where (a multitude of people being gathered from all parts) I explained to them the spirit of bondage and adoption. I began about seven, but could not conclude till halt an hour past nine. Wed. 2.--I was invited to Mrs. Holmes’s near Halifax; where I preached at noon, on, “ Ask, and ye shall receive.” Thence I rode to Dr. L ’s, the vicar of Halifax; a candid inquirer after truth. I called again upon Mrs. Holmes, in my return; when her sister a little surprised me, by asking, “ Ought not a minister of Christ to do three things: First, To preach his Law, in order to convince of sin: Then, To offer free pardon, through faith in his blood, to all convinced sinners : And, in the Third place, To preach his Law again, as a rule for those that believe? I think, if any one does otherwise, he is no true minister of Christ. He divides what God has joined, and cannot be said to preach the whole Gospel.”

those who desired, but were not able to come to me. At six I preached at Overthorp, near Haxey, (a little village about two miles from Epworth,) on that comfortable scripture, “ When they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both.” I preached at Epworth about eight, on Ezekiel’s vision of the resurrection of the dry bones. And great indeed was the shaking among them; lamentation and great mourning were heard; God bowing their hearts, so that on every side, as with one accord, they lift up their voice and wept aloud. Surely He who sent his Spirit to breathe upon them, will hear their cry and will help them. Sat. 12.--I preached on the righteousness of the law and the righteousness of faith. While I was speaking, several dropped down as dead; and among the rest, such a cry was heard, of sinners groaning for the righteousness of faith, as almost drowned my voice. But many of these soon lifted up their heads with joy, and broke out into thanksgiving ; being assured they now had the desire of their soul,--the forgiveness of their sins. I observed a gentleman there, who was remarkable for not pretending to be of any religion at all. I was informed he had not been at public worship of any kind for upward of thirty years. Seeing him stand as motionless as a statue, | asked him abruptly, “ Sir, are you a sinner ?”” He replied, with a deep and broken voice, ‘ Sinner enough ;” and continued staring upward till his wife and a servant or two, who were all in tears, put him into his chaise and carried him home. Sun. 13.--At seven I preached at Haxey, on, ** What must I do to be saved??? Thence I went to Wroote, of which, (as well as Epworth,) my father was rector for several years. Mr. Whitelamb offering me the church, I preached in the morning, on, “ Ask, and it shall be given you.” In the afternoon, on the difference between the righteousness of the law and the righteousness of faith. But the church could not contain the people, many of whom came from far: and, I trust, not in vain.

Tues. 22.---I had a long conversation with Mr. Simpson. And of this I am fully persuaded, that whatever he does, is in the uprightness of his heart. But he is led into a thousand mistakes by one wrong principle, (the same which many either ignorantly or wickedly ascribe to the body of the people called Mcthodists,) the making inward impressions his rule of action, and not the written word. About eight I left Donnington Park, and before noon came to Markfield. We lay at Coventry, and the next day, Wednesday, 23, in the afternoon, came to Evesham. Ateight I preached. There were many who came with a design to disturb the rest ; but they opened not their mouth. Thur. 24.--I spent great part of the day in speaking with the mem aoe ee & June, 1742.] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 259. bers of the society ; whom in the evening I earnestly besought, no more to tear each other to pieces by disputing; but to “ follow after holiness,” and ‘ provoke one another to love and to good works.” = Fri. 25 --TI rode to Painswick ; where, in the evening, I declared to all those who had been fighting and troubling one another, from the beginning hitherto, about rites and ceremonies, and modes of worship, and opinions, “ The kingdom of God is not meat and drink ; but nghteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” Sat. 26.--I was desired to call upon Mr. Walker, “the pillar of the Church” in these parts. As soon as I came in, he fell upon me with might and main, for saying, “ People might know their sins were forgiven,” and brought a great book to confute me at once. I asked, if it was the Bible; and upon his answering, “ No,” inquired no further, but laid it quietly down. This made him warmer still: upon which I held it best to shake him by the hand and take my leave.

1 cannot but further observe, that even she (as well as her father, and grandfather, her husband, and her three sons) had been, in her measure and degree, a preacher of righteousness. This I learned from a letter, wrote long since to my father ; part of which I have here subjoined :-- “ February 6, 1711--12. «____ As Tam a woman, sol am also mistress of a large family. And though the superior charge of the souls contained in it, lies upon you; yet, in your absence, I cannot but look upon every soul you leave under my care, as a talent committed to me under a trust, by the great Lord of all the families, both of heaven and earth. And if I am unfaithful to him or you, in neglecting to improve these talents, how shall I answer unto him, when he shall command me to render an account of my stewardship? ** As these, and other such like thoughts, made me at first take a more than ordinary care of the souls of my children and servants, so.--knowing our religion requires a strict observation of the Lord’s day, and not thinking that we fully answered the end of the institution by going to church, unless we filled up the intermediate spaces of time by other acts of piety and devotion,--I thought it my duty to spend some part of the day, in reading to and instructing my family: and such time I esteemed spent in a way more acceptable to God, than if I had retired to my own private devotions. This was the beginniug of my present practice. Other people’s coming and joining with us was merely accidental. Our lad told his parents: they first desired to be admitted; then others that heard of it, begged leave also: so our company increased to about thirty; and it seldom exceeded forty last winter.

“T believe myself indispensably obliged, openly to declare before God and the worid, that the motives whereby I was induced to sign that paper were, partly a sinful fear of man; partly an improper deference to the judgment of those whom I accounted wiser than myself; and, lastly, a resolution that ifmy own judgment should at any time be better informed, I would then openly retiact, in the presence of God and man, whatever I should be convinced I had said or done amiss. Accordingly, having now had (besides a strong conviction immediately consequent thereon) many opportunities of informing my judgment better, and being fully convinced of my fault, I do hereby declare my sincere repentance, for my wicked compliance with those oppressive men, who, without any colour of law, divine or human, imposed such a condition of receiving a testimonial upon me. . “JT do further declare, that I know no principles of the Methodists (so called) which are contrary to the word of God; nor any practices of them but what are agreeable both to Scripture and to the laws of the Church of England: that I believe, in particular, their preaching the Gospel in the fields, (being first forbid so to do in churches, although ‘a dispensation of the Gospel is committed to them, and wo is unto them if they preach not the Gospel,’) or in private houses, or in any part of His dominion who filleth heaven and earth, can never be proved to be contrary to any written law either of God or man: that Iam not apprized of their preaching any where in an irregular, disorderly manner; neither of their pretending to any extraordinary inspiration, or extraordinary feelings of the Holy Spirit; but to those ordinary ones only, which, if aman have not, he is ‘ without hope and without God in the world.’

Wed. November 3.---Two of those who are called prophets, desired speak with me. They told me, they were sent from God with a ° 272 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [ Nov. 1742. . message to me; which was, that very shortly I should be born’d again. One of them added, they would stay in the house till it was done, unless I turned them out. I answered, gravely, “I will not turn you out,” and showed them down iuto the society-room. It was tolerably cold; and they had neither meat nor drink : however, there they sat from morning to evening. They then went quietly away, and I have heard nothing from them since. Sun. '7.--I concluded the Epistle to the Hebrews, that strong barrier against the too prevailing imagination,--that the privileges of Christian believers are to be measured by those of the Jews. Not so: that Christians are under a better covenant, established upon better promises ; that although “ the Law made nothing perfect,” made none perfect either in holiness or happiness, yet ‘the bringing in of a better hope” did, “ by which we” now “ draw nigh unto God ;” this is the great truth continually inculcated herein, and running through this whole epistle. Mon. 8.--I set out at four, reached Northampton that night, and the next evening, Donnington Park. Wednesday, 10.--I rode on to Rusworth inn, and, on Saturday, 13, reached Newcastle. My brother had been here for some weeks before, and was but just returned to London. At eight I met the wild, staring, loving society ; but not them alone, as I had designed. For we could not persuade the strangers to leave us. So that we only spent about an hour in prayer.

Wed. 8.--I ended my course of visiting ; throughout which I found great cause to bless God ; so very few having drawn back to perdition out of nineteen hundred and fifty souls. Sat. 18.--I received a full account of the terrible riots which had been in Staffordshire. I was not surprised at all: neither should I have wondered if, after the advices they had so often received from the pulpit, as well as from the episcopal] chair, the zealous high churchmen had rose, and cut all that were Methodists in pieces. Mon. 20.--Resolving to assist them as far as I could, I set out early inthe morning ; and after preaching at Wycomb about noon, in the evening came to Oxford. Tuesday, 21.--We rode to Birmingham ; and in the morning, Wednesday, 22, to Francis Ward’s, at Wednesbury. Although I knew all that had been done here was as contrary to law as it was to justice and mercy, yet I knew not how to advise the poor sufferers, or to procure them any redress. I was then little acquaintea with the English course of law, having long had scruples concerning it But, as many of these were now removed, I thought it best to inquire whether there could be any help from the laws of the land. I therefore rode over to Counsellor Littleton, at Tamworth, who assured us, we might have an easy remedy, if we resolutely prosecuted, in the manner he law directed, those rebels against God and the king. Thur. 23.--I left Wednesbury, and in the evening preached at Mel- pe os ait al July, 1743. ] REV. J, WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 287 bourn, in Derbyshire. I preached at Nottingham (where I met my brother coming from the north) on Friday, and on Saturday and Sunday at Epworth. Von. 27.--I preached at Awkborough, on the Trent side, to a stupidly-attentive congregation. We then crossed over, ana rode to Sykehouse; on Tuesday to Smeton, and on Wednesday to Newcastle. Thur. 30.--I immediately inquired into the state of those whom I left here striving for the mastery ; and some of them, I founc, were grown faint in their minds: others had turned back “as a dog to the vomit ;” but about six hundred still continued striving together fou the hope of the Gospel. Monday, July 4, and the following days, I had time to finish the

Tues. 20.--I concluded my preaching here, by exhorting all who had “escaped the corruption that is in the world,” to “add to” their “faith, courage, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and charity.” At eleven I spent some time with our brethren in prayer, and commended them to the grace of God. At Trezuthan Downs I preached to two or three thousand people, on the “ highway” of the Lord, the way of holiness. We reached Gwennap a little before six, and found the plain covered from end to end. It was supposed there were ten thousand people; to whom I preached Christ our ‘“‘ wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption.” I could not conclude till it was so dark we could scarce see one another. And there was on all sides the deepest attention; none speaking, stirring, or scarce looking aside. Surely here, though in a temple not made with hands, was God worshipped in “ the beauty of holiness.” One of those who were present was Mr. P. , once a violent adversary. Before sermon began, he whispered one of his acquaintance, “¢ Captain, stand by me; don’t stir from me.” He soon burst out into a flood of tears, and quickly after sunk down. His friend caught him, and prevented his falling to the ground. O may the Friend of sinners lift him up!

“Wed. February 1.--Mr. Charles Wesley came to Birmingham, and the next day preached at Wednesbury. The whole congregation was quiet and attentive, nor had we any noise or interruption. Mon. 6.--I accompanied him part of his way, and in the afternoon came back to Wednesbury. I found the society met together, and commending themselves to God in prayer, having been informed that many, both at Darlaston and other places, had bound themselves by an oath, to come on Shrove a ee Feb. 1744.] REV. J. WESLEY’s JOURNAL. 307 Tuesday, (the next day,) and plunder all the Methodists in Wednesbury. We continued in prayer till the evening. I desired as many as could, to meet me again at eight in the morning. But I had scarce hegun to speak, when one came running with all speed, and told us, a large mob was coming into the town, and had broke into some houses already. I immediately retired to my father’s house; but he did not dare to receive me. Nor did any one else; till at length Henry Parks took me in; whence, early in the morning, I went to Birmingham. “The mob had been gathering all Monday night, and on Tuesday morning they began their work. They assaulted, one after another, all the houses of those who were called Methodists. They first broke all their windows, suffering neither glass, lead, nor frames to remain therein. ‘Then they made their way in; and all the tables, chairs, chests of drawers, with whatever was not easily removable, they dashed in pieces, particularly shop goods, and furniture of every kind. What they could not well break, as feather beds, they cut in pieces, and strewed about the room. William Sitch’s wife was lying-in: but that was all one; they pulled away her bed too, and cut it in pieces.” (Had the French come in that place, would they have done more ?) “ All this time none offered to resist them. Indeed most part, both men and women, fled for their lives; only the children stayed, not knowing whither to go.

Sun. 19.--Mr. Viney came to me from Yorkshire, and told me :-- “ About a year ago, being then Vor-steher (a kind of president) in the Church of the Brethren, I proposed some scruples I had concerning our discipline, with the reasons on which they were grounded, to Mr. Span- _ genberg ; and begged, that till these were removed, I might have liberty to remain, not a governor, but a private member of the Church. “ With this, Mr. Spangenberg would not comply. So at his instance I continued in my office, and the thing slept till May, 1743, when in a meeting of the labourers (so they term their church officers) I was ordered | to withdraw, and the following questions were proposed: 1. Whether Richard Viney were not of Satan, and an enemy to the Church. And, 2, Whether his objections to the discipline of the brethren did not spring from anger, and self, and pride. After a debate of four hours I was called in, and asked if I was convinced those objections were wrong. I said I was not, and desired they would cast lots; which, after a little debate, they did. The lot came, ‘The objections are just.’ So for a time the thing slept again. “ But in November following, they considered the point again; the result was, that they sent one to tell me I was of Satan ; had raised objections against the brethren from anger, and self, and pride; and therefore I was cut off from the Church, and delivered over to Satan. I was greatly surprised, but not disturbed: God gave me perfect peace. After much March, 1744. ] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 309 4 . . prayer I wrote to you, to know whereI might meet you. I know it was the will of God I should come, and that I should give myself up to your direction ; and therefore I have spoke without any disguise or reserve.” I told him, “If you go back you are welcome to go; if you stay with me, you are welcome to stay: only, whatever you do, do it with a clear conscience ; and I shall be satisfied either way.” After a few days he went back to Yorkshire to talk with his wife. The brethren saw him again, and I saw him no more.

“2. We do not desire that any one who thinks that we are heretics or schismatics, and that it is his duty to preach or print against us, as such, should refrain therefrom, so long as he thinks it is his duty. (Although in this case, the breach can never be healed.) But we desire that none will pass such a sentence, till he has calmly considered both sides of the question ; that he would not condemn us unheard; but first read what we have written, and pray earnestly that God may direct him in the right way. . «3. We do not desire any favour, if either Popery, sedition, or immorality be proved against us. But we desire you will not credit, without proof, any of those senseless tales that pass current with the vulgar: That if you do not credit them yourselves, you will not relate them to others ; (which we have known done ;) yea, that you will confute them, so far as ye have opportunity, and discountenance those who still retail them abroad. “4, We do not desire any preferment, favour, or recommendation, from those that are in authority, either in Church or State: but we desire,-- (1.) That if any thing material be laid to our charge, we may be permitted to answer for ourselves. (2.) That you would hinder your dependents from stirring up the rabble against us: who are certainly not the proper judges of these matters. And, (3.) That you would effectually suppress, and throughly discountenance, all riots and popular insurrections, which evidently strike at the foundation of all government, whether of Church or State. Now these things you certainly can do, and that with a safe conscience. Therefore, till these things are done, the continuance of the breach is chargeable on you, and you only.”

fet it alone. If I go into any company, and there be an opportunity to reprove or exhort, and I come away without using it, I am as much condemned in my own conscience, as if I had robbed them. Pray for me, _ that J may have patience to endure the contradiction of sinners; and that | may always remember, ‘The wrath of man worketh not the right- eousness of God.’ “Sunday, August 4, we met asusual. As soon as we had begun prayer, there came the curate, with alawyer. He stayed tili we had done prayer, and then asked, ‘ What is the intent of your meeting” JI answered, ‘To build each other up in our most holy faith.’ He said,‘ But what method do youuse? Lanswered, ‘ This is the third Sunday that I have met these my brethren. he first Sunday we read the fifth chapter of St. Matthew, and exhorted one another to follow after the holiness and happiness there described. Last Sunday we considered the sixth. And now, if we are not hindered, we shall go on to the seventh.’ He bade us go on, and he would stay a little, and hear us. By the desire of the rest, { read the chapter; which I had scarce done, when the lawyer began a long ha rangue, concerning the danger we were in of running mad. I answered, ‘Sir, as I perceive you have no design to help us, if you will not hinder us, we shall take it as a favour.” He went out directly, and left the curate with us; who began to exhort us not to be over anxious about our salvation, but to divert ourseives a little. I told him, ‘ Sir, we desire whatever we do, to do all to the glory of God.’ ‘What, said he, ‘do you deny all diversions? I said,‘ All which do not agree with that rule.’ He hurried away, and said, as he went, ‘I wish you do not fall into some error.

Sun. 27.--I received a message from Mr. Ridley, that he would communicate my proposal to the general, and return me his answer as soon as possible. Mon. 28.--I rode to Biddick, where the first are become last. I preached on, “ Will ye also go away ?”” Many appeared to be cut to the heart; but it is well if these convictions, also, do not pass away as the morning cloud. Nov. 1745. ] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 355 Tues. 29.--A young gentleman called upon me, whose father is an eminent minister in Scotland, and was in union with Mr. Glass, till Mr. Glass renounced him, because they did not agree as to the eating of blood. (Although I wonder any should disagree about this, who have read the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, and considered, that no Christian in the universe did eat it till the Pope repealed the law which had remained at least ever since Noah’s flood.) Are not these things in Scotland also for our instruction? How often are we warned, not to fall out by the way! O that we may never make any thing, more on less, the term of union with us, but the having the mind which was in Christ, and the walking as he walked! Thur. 31.--At ten I preached on the Town Moor, at a small distance from the English camp, (the Germans lying by themselves,) on, “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters!” None attempted to make the least disturbance, from the beginning to the end. Yet I could not reach their hearts. ‘The words of a scholar did not affect them, like those of a dragoon or a grenadier.

has fulfilled the Law for you. .You are no longer subject to ordinances. You are now to be still, and wait upon God.’ So I did not go to the sacrament for two months. Neither did I kneel down to pray, or use any other ordinance, unless I was moved to it. At first God strove with me; but the devil told me, it was the spirit of bondage, and I must resist it; for I was free from the Law. In a little time he left off striving, and I grew quite easy and satisfied ; but withal quite dead and cold. I could now hear idle talking without any pain; nay, and my heart began to join with it, Then I awoke, as one out of sleep, and looked for the Lord; but he was departed from me. Just then the Brethren at Fetter-lane began to preach stillness. I cried out, ‘ This doctrine is not right; for by yielding to this, I have lost all my peace and love.’ I was now in great distress. The devil told me, it was impossible to renew me again to repentance ; so that I fell into utter despair, and all my friends believed me to be quite distracted.

* You think, secondly, that we ourselves give up some things as indefensible, which are defended by the same law and authority that establishes the things above mentioned; such as are many of the laws, customs, and practices of the ecclesiastical courts. ‘““We allow, 1. That those laws, customs, and practices, are really indefensible. 2. That there are acts of parliament in defence of them; and also of the threefold order. “ But will you show us how it follows, either, (1.) That those things and these stand or fall together? Or, (2.) That we cannot sincerely plead for the one, though we give up the other? Do you not here quite overlook one circumstance, which might be a key to our whole behaviour ? namely, that we no more look upon these filthy abuses which adhere to our Church as part of the building, than we look upon any filth which may adhere to the walls of Westminster Abbey as a part of that structure. “You think, thirdly, That there are other things which we defend and practise, in open contradiction to the orders of the Church of England. And this you judge to be a just exception against the sincerity of our professions to adhere to it. “Compare what we profess with what we practise, and you will possibiy be of another judgment. We profess, 1. That we will obey all the laws of that Church, (such we allow the rubrics to be, but not the customs of the ecclesiastical courts,) so far as we can with a safe conscience 2. That we will obey, with the same restriction, the bishops. as executors Jan. 1746.] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 363 of those laws. But their bare will, distinct from those laws, we do not profess to obey at all.

“Now point out, What is there in our practice which is an open contradiction to these professions? Is field preaching? Not at all. It is contrary to no law which we profess to obey. The allowing lay preachers 2 We aie not clear that this is contrary to any such law. But if it is, this is one of the exempt cases; one wherein we cannot obey with a safe conscience. Therefore be it right or wrong on other accounts, it is however no just exception against our sincerity. The rules and directions given to our societies? which, you say, is a discipline utterly forbidden by the bishops. When and where did any bishop forbid this? And if any did, by what law? We know not either the man who ever did forbid, or the law by which he could forbid it. The allowing persons (for we require none to communicate at the chapel) in contradiction (you think) to all those rubrics which require all to attend always on their own parish church and pastor, and to receive only at his table? Which rubrics are those? We cannot find them. And till these are produced, all that is so frequently said of parochial unity, &c, is merely a gratis dictum. Consequently, neither is this any just exception against the sincerity of any of our professions. * Dec. 30, 1745. ea Vece Wednesday, January 1, 1746.--I preached at four in the morning, on, “I am the Almighty God: walk before me, and be thou perfect.” We dined with poor John Webb, now throughly poisoned by Robert Barclay’s “ Apology,” which he was sure would do him no hurt, till all his love to his brethren was swallowed up in dotage about questions and strife of words. Wed. 8.--I waited on Mr. B e, rector of ; who had sent to me, as soon as he had read the “ Farther Appeal.” He said, “ Sir, all this is sad truth: but what can we do to help it?” I went afterward to another clergyman, who had likewise sent and desired to speak with me. How is this? I thought the publication of this tract would have enraged the world above measure: and, on the contrary, it seems nothing ever was published which softened them so much!

and of money, if the poorer people of our society could be persuaded to leave off drinking of tea. We resolved ourselves to begin and set the example. I expected some difficulty in breaking off a custom of six and twenty years’ standing. And, accordingly, the three first days, my head ached, more or less, all day long, and I was half asleep from morning to night. The third day, on Wednesday, in the afternoon, my memory failed, almost entirely. In the evening I sought my remedy in prayer. On Thursday morning my headache was gone. My memory was as strong as ever. And I have found no inconvenience, but a sensible benefit in several respects, from that very day to this. Thur. 1'7.--I finished the little collection which I had made among my friends for a lending stock: it did not amount to thirty pounds ; which a few persons afterward made up fifty. And by this inconsiderable sum, above two hundred and fifty persons were relieved in one year. Mon. 20.--I set out for Salisbury, where, to my utter amazement, on Wednesday, 22, Mr. Hall desired me to preach. Was his motive only, to grace his own cause? Or rather, was this the last gasp of expiring love? I did not reach Bristol till Friday, 25. On Sunday, 27, I preached at Baptist Mills, to the largest congregation I had seen at that place, since I was there with Mr. Whitefield. About this time I received a melancholy letter from abroad; part of which I have subjoined :-- “ Meerkerk, in Holland, July 29, 1746.

Sat. 11.--I had the pleasure of spending an hour with Mr. P. He said, “I rejoiced greatly when the Count came over, hoping now I should understand the truth of the matter; and I went to hear him, full of expectation. His text was, ‘ Neither do I condemn thee.’ He began, ‘ The Saviour says, I came not to destroy the law: but the fact is contrary; for he does destroy it. It is plain, the law condemned this woman, but the Saviour does not condemn her. Again, the law commands to keep the Sabbath holy ; but the Saviour did not keep it holy. Nay, God hiruself does not keep the law. For the law says, Put away all lying. But God said, Nineveh shall be destroyed; yet Nineveh was not destroyed.’ The whole sermon was of the same thread. I understood him well, and do not desire to hear him any more.” Sat. 26.--I buried the body of George Adams, a child about twelve years old. He is the first of the children brought up at our school, whom God has called to himself. From the time God manifested his love to him, he was eminently of a meek and quiet spirit. And as he lived, so he died in sweet peace. Sat. November ¥.--I dined at J E ’s. Is not this a brand plucked out of the burning? Has there been one in our memory that so signalized himself as an enemy to all serious, inward religion? But itis past. He was going out on pleasure as usual; his foot slipped, and, as he was falling, a thought came, “ What if, instead of falling to the earth, thou hadst now died and fallen into hell?”? He heard and acknowledged the voice of God, and began to seek his face. Wed. 12.--In the evening, at the chapel, my teeth pained me much. In coming home, Mr. Spear gave me an account of the rupture he had had for some years, which, after the most eminent physicians had declared it incurable, was perfectly cured ina moment. I prayed with submission to the will of God. My pain ceased, and returned no more.

Tues. 17.--I spoke strong and plain words again, both in the morning and evening ; and should not have regretted my being detained, had it been only for the blessings of this day. Wed. 18.--We took ship. The wind was small in the afternoon, but exceeding high toward night. About eight I laid me down on the quarter deck. I was soon wet from head to foot, but I took no cold at all. About four in the morning we landed at Holyhead, and in the evening reached Carnarvon. Fri. 20.--I rode with Mr. C. Perronet to Machynlleth, and the next day, Saturday, 21, to Builth. I had no desire to go further, as it rained hard; but Mr. Philips pressed us to go on to Garth. We came thither just as they were singing before family prayer; so I took the book and preached on those words, “ Behold, to fear the Lord, that is wisdom ; and to depart from evil, that is understanding.” Sun. 22.--At eight I preached at Garth, afterward in Maesmennys church, and at Builth in the afternoon. We proposed going this evening to John Price’s at Mertha; but fearing he might be at the society, (two miles from his house,) we went round that way, and came while the exhorter was in the midst of his sermon. I preached when he had done. About eight we came to Mertha, and slept in peace. Mon. 23.--We were on horseback at four o’clock ; and at four in the afternoon came to Cardiff. The rain obliged me to preach in the Room. Tuesday, 14.--I breakfasted at Fonmon, dined at Wenvo, and preached at Cardiff in the evening. Wednesday, 25.--We set out after preaching, and in the afternoon came to Bristol.

“ The other quiet, harmless people, who followed me at a distance, to see what the end would be, they treated still worse; not only by the connivance, but by the express order of your deputy. They made them run for their lives, amidst showers of dirt and stones, without any regard to age or sex. Some of them they trampled in the mire, and dragged by the hair, particularly Mr. Mackford, who came with me from Newcastle. Many they beat with their clubs without mercy. One they forced to leap down (or they would have thrown him headlong) from a rock, ten or twelve feet high, into the river. And when he crawled out, wet and bruised, they swore they would throw him in again, which they were hardly persuaded not to do., All this time you sat well pleased close to the place, not attempting in the least to hinder them. “ And all this time you was talking of justice and law! Alas, sir, suppose we were Dissenters, (which I deny,) suppose we were Jews or Turks, are we not to have the benefit of the laws of our country? Pro ceed against us by the law, if you can or dare; but not by lawless violence; not by making a drunken, cursing, swearing, riotous mob, both judge, jury, and executioner. This is flat rebellion against God and the king, as you may possibly find to your cost.” Between four ana five we set out from Roughlee. But observing several parties of men upon the hills, and suspecting their design, we put on and passed the lane they were making for before they came. One of our brothers, not riding so fast, was intercepted by them. They immediately knocked him down, and how it was that he got from amongst them he knew not. Before seven we reached Widdop. The news of what had passed at Barrowford made us all friends. The person in whose house Mr. B. preached, sent and begged I would preach there; which I did at eight, to such a congregation as none could have expected on so short a warning. He invited us also to lodge at his house, and all jealousies vanished away. 436 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. | Aug. 1748.

Perceiving this was an acceptable time, I laid aside my design of meeting the society, and continued in prayer wth the whole congregation ; all our hearts being as the heart of one man. When I had at length pronounced the blessing, no man stirred, but each stayed in his place till I walked through them. I was soon called back by one crying out, “ My God! my God! thou hast forgotten me.” Having spoken this, she sunk to the earth. We called upon God in her behalf. The cries both of her and of several others, mourning after God, redoubled. But we continued wrestling with God in prayer, till he gave us an answer of peace. Sun. 18.--I preached at five, and about two on the Connaught side of the river; thence I hastened to Aghrim, and endeavoured to awaken a serious but sleepy congregation. Mon. 19.--I rode over to Ahaskra, and thence to Mr. Mahon’s, at Castle Garth. I had much conversation with Mrs. M , and was much in doubt, from the account she gave of her own experience, whether she had not been justified many years, though she knew it not by that name. I preached at Ahaskra at six, both in the evening and in the morning; on Tuesday evening at Athlone. 1 then met the society, where one, and another, and another cried aloud for mercy. We called upon God, till several of them found mercy, and praised him with a good courage. I think more found peace with God in these four days, than in sixteen months before. Wed. 21.--I rode to Tyrrel’s Pass; but did not find that fervour of spirit in the congregation which was among them the last year: yet a few there were who were still pressing on to the mark. Thur. 22.--I preached at noon at a village three miles from Tyrrel’s Pass ; in the evening at Tullamore, and on Friday morning and evening. Sat 24.--I rode to Mount Mellick, and dined with Joseph Fry, late a Quaker. Abundance of people were at the preaching in the evening, and ail seemed to give earnest attention. Sun. 25.--I preached at eight to a still increasing congregation; and i tes ate a a July, 1749.] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 455

Tues. 25.--I rode over to Kingswood, and inquired particularly into the state of our school there. I was concerned to find that several of the Rules had been habitually neglected : I judged it necessary, therefore, to lessen the family ; suffermg none to remain therein, who were not clearly satisfied with them, and determined to observe them all. Thur. 27.--I read Mr. Law “ On the Spirit of Prayer.” There are many masterly strokes therein, and the whole is lively and entertaining , but it-is another Gospel. For if God was never angry, (as this Tract asserts,) he could never be reconciled ; and, consequently, the whole Christian doctrine of reconciliation by Christ falls to the ground at once. An excellent method of converting Deists, by giving up the very essence of Christianity ! Sun. 30.--Mr. Grimshaw and Mr. B assisted my brother aad me at Kingswood. How many there are that run well for a season! But “he that endureth to the end shall be saved.” I received a letter about this time from Ireland, a part of which follows :-- “ Tyrrel’s Pass, July 24, 1749. “ Dear Sir,--Many have found a sense of the pardoning love of God at Athlone since you left it; and the society in general are on the stretch Aug. 1749.] REV. J. WESLEY'S JOURNAL. 461

Wed. 277.--I took horse at half an hour past three. There was no moon, or stars, but a thick mist; so that I could see neither read, nor any thing else ; but I went as right as if it had been noon-day. When { drew nigh Penruddock Moor, the mist vanished, the stars appeared, and the morning dawned: so I imagined all the danger was past ;_ but when I was on the middle of the moor, the mist fell again on every side, and I quickly lost my way. I lifted up my heart. Immediately it cleared up, and I soon recovered the high road. On Alstone Moor, I missed my way again; and what, I believe, no stranger has done lately, rode through all the bogs, without any stop, till I came to the vale, and thence to Hinely Hill. A large congregation met in the evening. I expounded part of the twentieth chapter of the Revelation. But O what a time was this! It was as though we were already standing before the “great white throne.” God was no less present with us in prayer; when one just by me cried with a loud and bitter cry. Ibesought God to give us a token that all things should work together for good. He did so: he wrote pardon upon her heart ; and we all rejoiced unto him with reverence. Thursday, 28, we set apart for fasting and prayer: John Brown and Mr. Hopper were with me. It was a day that ought not to be forgotten. We had all free access to the throne of grace; and a firm, undoubting confidence, that he in whom we believed would do all things well.

Fri. 29.--I set out again for Whitehaven. ‘The storm was exceeding high, and drove full in my face, so that it was not without difficulty I could sit my horse ; particularly as I rode over the broad, bare backs of those enormous mountains which lay in my way. However, I kept on as I could, till I came to the brow of Hatside. So thick a fog then fell, that I was quickly out of all road, and knew not which way to turn. But I knew where help was to be found, in either great difficulties or small. The fog vanished in a moment, and I saw Gamblesby at a distance: (the town to which I was going.) I set cut early on Saturday, the 30th, and in the afternoon reached Whitehaven. About this time I was refreshed with a friendly letter from an excellent man, whom I had not heard from for several years: part of it was as follows :--- “ Ebenezer, in Georgia, July 25, 1749. “Rev. anp Dear Srr,--The sincere love to your worthy person and faithful performance of your holy office, which the Lord kindled in my heart, during your presence at Savannah, hath not been abated, but rather increased, since the providence of God called you from us, and showed you another field for the labour of your ministry. “ You are pleased, in your last letter to Mr. Brown, of Savannah, to remember Ebenezer kindly ; and desired to know what is the present state of our settlement. Though we have felt greatly the inconveniences of ee) oe ee 466 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [ Oct. 1749

“ ‘When we were set down to dinner I desired him to eat. He said, ‘I _have no appetite ; but to please you I will. He then eat two little bits; and, as soon as thanks were given, went to his chamber. He continued there in prayer about an hour, and then came out, and said, with a cheerful voice and countenance, ‘ I never knew the Holy Ghost until now: now I am illuminated with him. Blessed be my great Creator!’ He returned to prayer, and continued therein till he came to family duty. In this he joined with an audible voice; and, commending us to God, retired to his room: yet he did not sleep, but continued in prayer all night and all the next day. : “Tuesday, 10.--About three in the morning he put off all his clothes, even his shirt, and laid them in order on the bed, and his prayerbook in the window; then, having opened two doors, he came to the outward door. I called, ‘Where are you going?’ He said, ‘I am going out of doors.’ I said, ‘ You need not go at this time of night.’ He replied, ‘I must go. I said, ‘Then make haste in again.’ To which he gave no answer; but unlocking the door, and pulling it leisurely after him, said, ‘My dear father, farewell for ever.’

Mon. 23.--The wind shifting to the south, and blowing hard, in the afternoon the captain seemed under some concern. There was all reason to expect a stormy night; and he despaired of getting into the Bristol Channel ; and knew the danger of beating about, when it was pitch dark, among these rocks and sands. It was much on my mind, ‘They cried unto the Lord in their trouble, and he delivered them out of their distress.” I knew not why we should not cry to him as well as they. Immediately the wind came fair, and blew so fresh, that in less than two hours we came into the Bristol Channel. But the danger was not over, About eleven I was waked by a huge, confused noise, and found we were in a vehement squall of wind, thunder, and rain, which brought the sailors to their wit’s end; they could not see across the ship, only just while the lightning was glaring in their eyes. This made them fear running foul, either of the Welsh sands on the one hand, or the rocky shore of Lundy on the other. So they took in the sails, and let us drive. The motion then was wonderful. It blew a storm; and, the wind being contrary to the tide, the sea ran mountain high. The ship had no goods, and little ballast on board; so that it rolled as if it would overset every moment. It was intensely dark, and neither the captain nor any man else knew where we were ; only that we were tossing in a bad, narrow channel, full of shoals, and rocks, aud sands. But does not God hear the prayer? Mr. Hopper and I believed it our duty to make the trial again; and in a very few moments the wind was small, the sea fell, and the clouds dispersed ; so Aug. 1750.] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 495 we put up a little sail, and went on quietly and slowly till the morning dawned. About nine in the evening we reached the Pill, where I took horse, and rode on to Bristol. :

About noon I preached at Breage; in the evening in Crowan. Op this and the following days I read over, with all the impartiality I could the “* Free and Candid Disquisitions.” It is, doubtless, an exceedgly well wrote book ; yet something in it I cannot commend. The author (for the representing himself as many, and so speaking all along in the plural number, I take to be enly a pious fraud, used to make himself appear more considerable) is far too great a flatterer for me, dealing in panegyric beyond all measure. But, in truth, he is not much guilty of this with regard to the Common Prayer. About one objection in ten appears to have weight, and one in five has plausibility. But surely the bulk of his satire, though keen, is by no means just: and even allowing all the blemishes to be real, which he has so carefully and skilfully collected and recited, what ground have we to hope, that if we gave up this, we should profit by the exchange? Who would supply us with a Liturgy less exceptionable than that which we had before ? Aug. 1750. | REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 497 Fr. 17.--I preached at Ludgvan, at noon, and at Newlyn in the - evening. Through all Cornwall I find the societies have suffered great loss from want of discipline. Wisely said the ancients, “The soul and body make a man; the Spirit and discipline make a Christian.” Sat. 18.--I rode to St. Just, where there is still the largest society in Cornwall: and so great a proportion of believers I have not found in all the nation beside. Five-and-forty persons I have observed, as they came in turn, and every one walking in the light of God’s countenance. Sun. 19.--I preached at eight to a great multitude: such another _we had in Morva at one; and again at Zennor after the evening ser- vice ; whence we rode to St. Ives, and concluded the day with thanksgiving. Wed. 22.--We had a quarterly meeting; at which were present the stewards of all the Cornish societies. We had now the first watch-night which had been in Cornwall: and “ great was the Holy One of Israel in the midst of us.”

“¢ But why should they not call themselves the Moravian Church ” Because they are not the Moravian Church; no more (at the utmost) than a part is the whole; than the Romish Church is the Church of Christ. A congregation assembled in St. Paul’s might, with greater propriety, style themselves the Church of England. Yea, with far greater: 1. Because these are all Englishmen born; 2. Because they have been baptized as members of the Church of England; and, 3. Because, as far as they know, they adhere both to her doctrine and discipline. Whereas, 1. Not a tenth part of Count Zinzendorf’s Brethren are so much as Mora-: vian born; not two thousand out of twenty thousand: quere, if two hundred adults? if fifty men? 2. Not one tenth of them were baptized as members of the Moravian Church, (perhaps not one, till they left Mora via,) but as members of the Romish Church. 3. They do not adhere either to the doctrines or discipline of the Moravian Church. They have many doctrines which that Church never held, and an entirely new scheme of discipline. 4. The true Moravian Church, of which this is a very small part, if it be any part at all, is still subsisting; not in England or Germany, but in Polish Prussia. Therefore I cannot admire their assuming this name to themselves: I cannot reconcile it, either with modesty or sincerity. : “Tf you say, ‘ But the parliament has allowed it;’ I answer, Iam sorry for it. The putting so palpable a cheat upon so august an assembly, with regard to a notorious matter of fact, I conceive does not redound to their own, any more than to the honour of our nation. If you add, ‘ But you yourself once styled them thus :---I grant I did; but I did it in ignorance. I took it on their words; and I now freely and openly testify my mistake. “Secondly. I do not admire their doctrine in the particulars that follow :-- “1. That we are to do nothing in order to salvation, but barely to believe. 2. That there is but one duty now, but one command,--to believe in Christ. 3. That Christ has taken away all other commands and duties, having wholly abolished the Law.

“(The sermon Count Zinzendorf preached at Fetter-lane, on John viii 11, places this in a strong light. He roundly began, ‘ Christ says, I came not to destroy the Law ; but he did destroy the Law. The Law condemned this woman to death: but he did not condemn her. And God himself does not keep the Law. The Law forbids lying: but God said, Forty days and Nineveh shall be destroyed ; yet Nineveh was not destroyed.’) “4, That there is no such thing as degrees in faith, or weak faith; since he has no faith who has any doubt or fear. (How to reconcile this, with what I heard the Count assert at large, ‘ that a man may have justifying faith, and not know it,’ I cannot tell.) 5. That we are sanctified wholly, the moment we are justified; and are neither more nor less holy, to the day of our death. 6. That a believer has no holiness in himself at all; all his holiness being imputed, not inherent. 7 That aman may feel a peace that passeth all understanding, may rejoice with joy full of glory, Nov. 1750. ] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 503 and have the love of God, and of all mankind, with dominion over all sin; and yet all this may be only nature, animal spirits, or the force of imagination. 8. That ifa man regards prayer, or searching the Scriptures, or communicating, as matter of duty; if he judges himself obliged to do these things, or is troubled when he neglects them; he is in bondage, he is under the Law, he has no faith; but is still seeking salvation by works. 9. That therefore, till we believe, we ought to be still; that is, not to pray, search the Scriptures, or communicate. 10. That their Church cannot err, and of consequence ought to be implicitly believed and obeyed. “Thirdly. I approve many things in their practice; yet even this I cannot admire in the following instances :-- “1. I do not admire their conforming to the world, by useless, trifling conversation: by suffering sin upon their brother, without reproving even that which is gross and open: by levity in the general tenor of their behaviour; not walking as under the eye of the great God: and, lastly, by joining in the mos: trifling diversions, in order to do good.

by the sowers of strange doctrines. At one I preached at Tipton Green, where the Baptists also have been making havoc of the flock ; which constrained me, in speaking on those words, “ Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins,” to spend near ten minutes in controversy ; which is more than I had done in public for many months (perhaps years) before. Thur. 4.--We took horse about four. The snow fell without intermission, which the north wind drove full in our faces. After resting a while at Bilbrook, Newport, and Whitchurch, and riding some miles out of our way, we overtook some people going to the preaching at Alpraham, who guided us straight to the house. William Hitchens had not begun; so I took his place, and felt no weakness or weariness while I declared “ Jesus Christ the same yes terday, and to-day, and for ever.” April 5.--(Being Good Friday.) I preached at eight, and then walked to Bunbury church. I preached again at one, and in the evening at Poole, near Nantwich, to another deeply serious congregation. ‘The next evening we reached Manchester. April 7.--(Being Easter Day.) After preaching, I went to the new church, and found an uncommon blessing, at a time when f least of all expected it; namely, while the organist was playing a voluntary! We hada happy hour in the evening ; many hearts being melted down in one flame of holy love.

Thur. 12.--We rode to Penryn. Here I light upon the works of that odd writer, William Dell. From his whole manner, one may learn, that he was not very patient of reproof or contradiction: so that it is no wonder there is generally so much error mixed with the great truths which he delivers. Fri. 13.--I preached at St. Mewan; Saturday, 14, at St. Lawrence, near Bodmin; a little, ugly, dirty village, eminent for nothing but a hospital for lepers, founded and endowed by Queen Anne. But I found God was there, even before I opened my mouth to a small, loving congregation, one of whom had been sensible of his acceptance with God for above six-and-fifty years. I preached at St. Clear in the afternoon, about two miles from Liskeard; and the next morning a mile nearer the town. Hence I went on to Plymouth Dock ; where I preached in the evening, to a large congregation: and on Monday evening to a much larger, with great plainness of speech. Tues. 1'7.--Being greatly importuned to spend a few more days in Cornwall, I rode back to Launceston. After preaching there about noon; in the evening at St. Gennis; and the next morning at Cubert ; we went on, and reached St. Ives in the afternoon, on Thursday, 19. Fri. 20.--I read, with great prejudice in their favour, some of Mr. Erskine’s sermons; particularly those which I had heard much commended, entitled, ‘‘ Law-death, Gospel-life.” But how was 1 disappointed! I not only found many things odd and unscriptural, but some ‘hat were dangerously false ; and the leaven of Antinomianism spread Oct. 1751.] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 523 from end to end. On Saturday and Sunday I preached at St. Just, Morva, and Zennor. Monday, 23.--We had a general meeting of the stewards, and a solemn watch-night. After the service was over, I rode to Camborne; and in the evening, Tuesday, 24, reached St. Clear. ‘The house would not contain one half of the people; so I stood in the porch, that all, both within and without, might hear. Many from Liskeard were present; and a solemn awe was upon the whole assembly.

Tues. 8.--I rode to Robinhood’s Bay, near Whitby. The town is very remarkably situated: it stands close to the sea, and is in great part built on craggy and steep rocks, some of which rise perpendicular from the water. And yet the land, both on the north, south, and west, is fruitful, and well cultivated. I stood on a little rising near the quay, in a warm, still evening, and exhorted a multitude of people, from all parts, to “*seek the Lord, while he may be found.” They were all attention; and most of them met me again at half an hour after four in the morning. I could gladly have spent some days here ; but my stages were fixed: so, on Wednesday, 9, 1 rode on to York. We had a rough salute, as I went to preach, from a company of poor creatures in the way. But they were tolerably quiet during the preaching. The greatest inconvenience arose from the number of people; by reason of which the room (though unusually high) felt as hot as an oven. Fri. 11.--I rode over to Rufforth, and preached at one to an earnest congregation. A young man, remarkably serious and well behaved, and rejoicing in his first love, who set out but a few minutes before me, was thrown by his horse, and (as it is termed) broke his neck. Just at the instant, a person going by, who understood the case, took hold of him, and pulled it into its place. O mystery of Providence! Why did not this man die, when he was full of humble, holy love?’ Why did he live, to “turn from the holy commandment” which was then written in his heart? Sat. 12.--I observed a remarkable change in the behaviour of almost all I met. The very rabble,were grown civil, scarce any one now speaking a rude or an angry word.

Sun. 29.--I preached at eight to a still larger congregation ; and in Morva at one, to near the same number. Many backsliders were among them; to whom I cried, “ How shall I give thee up, Ephraim?” Few of the congregation were unmoved; and when we wrestled with God in prayer, we had a strong hope he would not cast them off for ever. About five I began preaching at Newlyn, on part of the Gospel for the day, “‘ Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdo.n of heaven.” In the morning I waked between two and three. I had had a looseness for several days. On Sunday it increased every hour; but I was resolved, with God’s help, to preach where I had appointed. I had now, with the flux, a continual headache, violent vomitings, and several times in an hour, the cramp in my feet or legs ; sometimes in both legs and both thighs together. But God enabled me to be throughly content, and thankfully resigned to him. I desired one to preach in my place in Ludgvan at noon, and at Helstone in the evening ; and another on Tuesday noon, at Porkellis ; promising, if I was able, to meet them in the evening. Tues. 31.--After living a day and a half on claret and water, I found myself so easy, that I thought I could ride to Crowan. I found no inconvenience the first hour; but in the second my disorder returned. However, I rode on, being unwilling to disappoint the congregation, and preached on, * Be careful for nothing.” I then rode straight, as fast as I conveniently could, to Mr. Harris’s, in Camborne.

Tues. 3.--We rode easily to Taunton. After we had rested a while, one desired me to step to his father, who was dying of a consumption. He had been always a very honest, moral man; but now found, this was not the one thing needful, and appeared earnestly desirous of knowing Christ, and the power of his resurrection. A little before twelve we set out from Taunton. The sun shone exceeding hot, so that I was almost worn out when we called at the house of a friend on Maiden Down. But after a little rest, my strength returned; and I went on, not much tired, to Tiverton. Wed. 4.--We took horse early, and rode to Oakhampton. Our landlord here informed us, he was upwards of ninety ; yet had not lost either his sight, hearing, or teeth. Nor had he found that for which he was born. Indeed, he did not seem to have any more thought about it, than a child of six years old. We could not but observe, that although the sky appeared continually between the clouds, which drove to and fro, yet the sun scarce shone upon us for six minutes together, from six in the morning to six in the evening. Soon after six I preached at Launceston, and met the society. Thur. 5.--At noon I preached at the Town Hall, to a very wild, yet civil congregation. At two, the stewards, not only from the upper part of Cornwall, but several from the western societies, met. At six I] preached in the Town Hall again; and for the sake of this hour only, Oct. 1754. ] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. t 571 (had no other end been answered,) I should have thought all the labour of my journey well bestowed. Fri. 6.--I rode to Plymouth Dock, and preached in the room lately built. But though it was three or four times as large as the old, it would not contain the congregation. Is the time come, when even this barren soil shall bring forth “ fruits of righteousness?” Sat. '7.--I set out at three, reached Collumpton by six in the evening, and, after half an hour’s rest, was enabled to preach in the little meadow, without any faintness or weariness.

Wed. October 2.--I walked to Old Sarum, which, in spite of common sense without house or inhabitant, still sends two members to the parliament. It is a large, round hill, encompassed with a broad ditch, which, it seems, has been of a considerable depth. At the top of it is a corn field; in the midst of which is another round hill, about two hundred yards in diameter, encompassed with a wall, and a deep ditch. Probably before the invention of cannon, this city was impregnable. Troy was; but now it is vanished away, and nothing left but “ the stones of emptiness.”’ Thur. 3.--I rode to Reading, and preached in the evening. Observing a warm man near the door, (who was once of the society,) I purposely bowed to him; but he made no return. During the first ee Tiana A ams * oP eee on é 572 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [Oct. 1754 prayer he stood, but sat while we sung. In the sermon his countenance changed, and in a little while he turned his face to the wall. He stood at the second hymn, and then kneeled down. As I came out he catched me by the hand, and dismissed me with a hearty blessing. Fri. 4.--I came to London. On Monday, 7, I retired to a little place near Hackney, formerly a seat of Bishop Bonner’s, (how are the times changed !) and still bearing his name. Here I was as ina college. Twice a day we joined in prayer. The rest of the day, (allowing about an hour for meals, and another for walking before dinner and supper,) [ spent quietly in my study. Sat. 12.--I administered the sacrament to R . Some years ago he found peace with God, and was freed at once, without any human means, from a distemper naturally incurable. But after three years, on his falling back into the world, it returned more violent than ever; and will probably now be cured no more but by the universal remedy,--death. ,

Sun. 20.--I explained, after the evening preaching, the rules of the society, and strongly exhorted the members to adorn their profession by all holiness of conversation. Mon. 21.--I rode to Bolton. Being now among those who were no “ strangers to the covenant of promise,” I had no need to lay the foundation again, but exhorted them to “rejoice evermore.” Their number is a little reduced since I was here before: and no wonder; while the sons of strife are on every side, some for Mr. Bennet, some for Mr. Wh The little flock, notwithstanding, hold on their way, looking straight to the prize of their high calling. Thur. 24.--We rode in less than four hours the eight miles (so called) to Newell Hay. Just as I began to preach, the sun broke out, and shone exceeding hot on the side of my head. | found, if it continued, I should not be able to speak long, and lifted up my heart to God. Ina minute or two it was covered with clouds, which continued till the service was over. Let any who please, call this chance: I call it an answer to prayer. rz. 25.--About ten I preached near Todmorden. The pecple stood, row above row, on the side of the mountain. They were rough enough in outward appearance; but their hearts were as melting wax. One can hardly conceive any thing more delightful than the vale through which we rode from hence. The river ran through the green meadows on the right. The fruitful hills and woods rose on either hand: yet here and there a rock hung over, the little holes of which put me in mind of those beautiful lines,-- Te, Domine, intonsi montes, te saxa loauentur Sunvma Deum, dum montis amat juga pendulus hircus, Saxorumque colit latebrosa cuniculus antra ! | Thee, Lord, shall the unshorn mountains, Thee shall the lofty rocks,--as long as the pendulous "goat delights in the mountain peaks, and the coney burrows in the dark holes of the rocks,--proclaim Gop !] At three in the afternoon I preached at Heptonstall, on the brow of the mountain. The rain began almost as soon as I began to speak. I prayed that, if God saw best, it might be stayed, till I had delivered his word. It was so, and then began again. But we had only a short stage to Ewood.

Sun. 7.--Last year, a strange letter, written at Penzance, was inserted in the public papers. To-day 1 spoke to the two persons who occasioned that letter. They are of St. Just parish, sensible men, and no Methodists. The name of one is James Tregeer, of the other, Thomas Sackerly. I received the account from James, two or three hours before Thomas came: but there-was no material difference. In July was twelvemonth, they both said, as they were walking from St. Just church town toward Sancreet, Thomas, happening to look up, cried out, “James, look, look! What is that in the sky?” The first appearance, as J ames expressed it, was, three large columns of horse- ' 588 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. ; | Sept. Wises men, swiftly pressing on, as ina fight, from south-west to north-east ; a broad streak of sky being between each column. Sometimes they seemed to run thick together ; then to thin their ranks. Afterward they saw a large fleet of three-mast ships, in full sail toward the Lizard Point. This continued above a quarter of an hour: then, all disappearing, they went on their way. The meaning of this, if it was real, (which I do not affirm,) time only can show. I preached at eight in the morning and five in the afternoon, and then - hastened to St. Ives; but we did not reach it till between nine and ten; so I delayed visiting Mr. K. till the morning. He is a young attorney, who for some time past has frequently attended the preaching. On Saturday morning he fell raving mad. I never saw him till this morn ing. He sung, and swore, and screamed, and cursed, and blasphemed, as if possessed by legion. But as soon as I came in, he called me by my name, and began to speak. I sat down on the bed, and he was still. Soon after he fell into tears and prayer. We prayed with him, and left him calm for the present.

Tues. 9.--I desired as many of our brethren as could, to observe Wednesday, the 10th, as a day of fasting and prayer. Just as we were praying for him, (we were afterward informed,) he left off raving, and broke out, “* Lord, how long? Wilt thou hide thy face for ever? All my bones are broken. ‘Thy wrath lieth heavy upon me: I am in the lowest darkness, and in the deep. But the Lord will hear: he will rebuke thee, thou unclean spirit: he will deliver me out of thy hands.” Many such expressions he uttered for about half an hour, and then raved again. Thur. 11.--He was more outrageous than ever. But while we were praying for him in the evening, he sunk down into a sound sleep, which continued for ten hours; nor was he furious any more, although the time of deliverance was not come. Sat. 13.--I preached once more at St. Just, on the first stone of their new society house. In the evening, as we rode to Camborne, John Pearce, of Redruth, was mentioning a remarkable incident :--While he lived at Helstone, as their class was meeting one evening, one of them cried, with an uncommon tone, ‘“ We will not stay here : we will go to” such a house, which was in a quite different part of the town. They all rose immediately, and went; though neither they nor she knew why. Presently after they were gone, a spark fell into a barrel of gunpowder, which was in the next room, and blew up the house. So did God preserve those who trusted in him, and prevent the blasphemy of the multitude.

Mon. 27.--We set out for Leigh, in Essex: but, being hindered a little in the morning, the night came on, without either moon or stars, when we were about two miles short of Raleigh. The ruts were so deep and uneven, that the horses could scarce stand, and the chaise was continually in danger of overturning; so that my companions thought it best to walk to the town, though the road was both wet and dirty. Leaving them at Raleigh, I took horse again. It was se thoroughly dark, that we could not see our horses’ heads: however, by the help of Him to whom the night shineth as the day, we hit every turning ; and, without going a quarter of a mile out of our way, before nine came to Leigh. Wed. 29.--I returned to London. In my scraps of time, on this and two or three other days, I read over (what I had often heard much commended) Lord Anson’s Voyage. What pity he had not a better historian! One who had eyes to see, and courage to own the hand of God. Thur. November 5.--Mr. Whitefield called upon me ;--disputings are now no more: we love one another, and join hand in hand to promote the cause of our common Master. In the afternoon I buried the remains of Samuel Larwood, who died of a fever on Sunday morning : deeply convinced of his unfaithfulness, and yet hoping to find mercy. He had lately taken and repaired a building in Southwark, called, by the venerable men who built it, Zoar. His executor offering it to me Dec. 1755.) REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 594 on the evening of Friday, 6, that solemn day, which we observed with fasting and prayer for our king and country, I preached there to a large and quiet congregation ; but most of them appeared wild enough: and such were we, till grace made the difference.

About five, even the larger court house being too small to contain the congregation, I the more readily complied with the desire of the prisoners, to preach in the street, near the prison door. I spoke as plain and as home as ever in my life, on, “Ye must be born again.” Poor James was now resolved to speak, and got on a little eminence on purpose. And what could hinder him? Why Vou faucibus hesit. [His words stuck in his throat.] He cawed and cawed, but could utter nothing, hardly three words together. This also hath God wrought: he hath stopped the mouth of the gainsayer, and preserved the weak from being offended. Mon, 26.--Mr. Walsh met me at Belfast, and informed me, that the 614 REV. J. WESLEY'S JOURNAL. [ Aug. 1756 day before he was at Newtown, intending to preach: but while he was at prayer, Mr. M r came with a drunken mob, seized him by the throat, and dragged him along, till a stout man seized him, and constrained him to quit his hold. Mr. W., having refreshed himself at a friend’s house, began a second time. But in a quarter of an hour, Mr. M., having rallied his mob, came again: on which Mr. W. gave him ' the ground, and walked away over the fields. In the evening I spoke very plain at Lisburn, both to the great vulgar, and the small. But between Seceders, old self-conceited Presbyterians, New-Light men, Moravians, Cameronians, and formal Church men, it is a miracle of miracles, if any here bring forth fruit to perfection. The country between Lisburn and Moira is much like Berkshire, having fruitful vales on each side of the road, and well-wooded hills running even with them, at a small distance. At seven I preached in the market house at Lurgan. Many of the gentry were met at the room over it, it being the time of the assembly. The violins were just tuning ; but they ceased till I had done ; and the novelty at least drew and fixed the attention of the whole company.

I read over Mr. Fry’s “Case of Marriage between Near Relations, Considered.” It is the best tract I ever read upon the subject: I suppose the best that is extant. And two points, I think, he has fully proved: 1. That many marriages, commonly supposed to be unlawful, are neither contrary to the law of nature, nor the revealed Law of God, nor the law of the land: 2. That ecclesiastical courts have no right to meddle with any case of this kind. Thur. 16.--I walked over to Bishop Bonner’s, and preached to a large and serious congregation. I found some faintness, the sun being extremely hot ; but more in walking from thence to Westminster, where I preached at seven. In the night my old disorder returned, and gradually increased, in spite of all medicines. However, on Sunday and Monday it was so far suspended, that I abated nothing of my usual employment. Wed. 22.--I was considering, I had not yet asked help of the Great Physician; and I resolved to delay no longer. In that hour I felt a change. I slept sound that night, and was well the next day. Sun. October 3.--My disorder returned as violent as ever: but I ‘regarded it not while I was performing the service at Snowsfields in the morning, or afterward at Spitalfields ; till 1 went to the Lord’s table in order to administer. A thought then came into my mind, “ Why do I not apply to God in the beginning, rather than the end, of an illness ?”’ ‘I did so, and found immediate relief; so that I needed no further medi- cines. Tues. 5.--I wrote a second letter to the authors of the “ Monthly Review ;”--ingenious men, but no friends to the Godhead of Christ. Yet, upon further consideration, I judged it best to drop the controversy. it is enough that I have delivered my own soul: if they scorn, they alone shall bear it. Sun. 10.--I preached to a huge multitude in Moorfields, on, ‘‘ Why will ye die, O house of Israel?” It is field preaching which does the execution still: for usefulness there is none comparable to it.

On Sunday, 13, I buried Elizabeth Langdon, who, after severe inward trials, was for several days in great pain, but in great peace. On Sunday, 20, I buried Hannah Lee, a pattern of industry, meekness, and patience. And on Sunday, 27, I buried Mary Naylor, who for several years was 2 most eminent pattern of truly Christian courage, plainness of speech, and plainness of apparel. A week before, I had an opportunity of telling her all that was in my heart concerning her change (not for the better) in all these particulars. In the beginning of her illness, she was in great darkness and distress of soul; but while prayer was made for her, her bodily pain ceased, and her soul received comfort; and on Monday, 21, just at midnight, she quietly fell asleep. Wed. 30.--I rode to a gentleman’s near Beaconsfield, and preached at six in the evening, in a large, convenient place filled with serious hearers, several of whom had come five or six miles. Thur. 31.--I was earnestly importuned to go over to High Wycomb. K went and preached there at noon, on the parable of the sower. Perhaps some of the seed which has been sown here for many years will at length bring forth fruit. At six it seemed as if the whole town of Beaconsfield was assembled together. And I bear them witness, they gave earnest heed, high and low, to the things which were spoken. A large number of them were present in the morning, on Friday, April 1. Fair beginnings these! But “he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.” In returning to London, I read a tract on “'The Law of Nature,” wrote by a counsellor of Geneva. I am sorry to find Dr. Taylor’s poison spread to the Alps also! And even printed and published at Geneva, without any hinderance or animadversion ! Sun. 3.--I paid one more visit to Thomas Singleton, an amiable young man, called away at five-and-twenty, in the dawn of a flourishing rt ee) -- 624 REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. | [ April, 1757,

“They hastened to put what was left of him into the coffin, leaving some to watch by it. But after it was nailed up, a noise of burning and crackling was heard therein. None was permitted to look into it, till it was carried to Abchester church yard. It was buried near the steeple. As soon as it was brought to the grave, the steeple was observed to shake. The people hastened away; and it was well they did, for presently part of the steeple fell: so that had they stayed two minutes longer, they must have been crushed in pieces. All these circumstances were related to me and my wife by those who were eye and ear witnesses.” I preached in a ground adjoining to the house. Toward the conclusion of my sermon, the person with whom I lodged was much offended at one who sunk down and cried aloud for mercy. Herself dropped down next, and cried as loud as she; so did several others quickly after. When prayer was made for them, one was presently filled with peace and joy in believing. In the morning I left the rest refusing to be comforted, till Christ should be revealed in their hearts. Wed. 20.--I preached at Ferry in my way, and in Epworth market place about seven. The rain began just as I began speaking. But God aeard the prayer, and it was stayed. Sat. 23.--I preached at Westwood side, where the breach of fifteen years is now healed: all the wanderers being returned to the fold, with him who led them astray. Sun. 24.--As we rode over Haxey Car toward Misterton, one was relating a surprising thing that happened lately :--** A woman, of Stockwith told her sister who lived with her, ‘I do not think to go to market to-day, for I dreamed that I was drowned in riding across one of the ¢ July, 1757. ] REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 639 drains on Haxey Car.’ But she was soon laughed out of it, and went. She rode over the Car with many ‘other market folks, and in crossing one of the drains, where the water was scarce a yard deep, slipped off her horse. Several looked on, but none once thought of pulling her out till she was past recovery.”

Tues. 18.--I preached to a very different congregation at Bradford, well dressed, and well bred: and yet of the very same spirit, hungering and thirsting after righteousness. Wed. 19.--After preaching at Freshford, I rode on to Kingswood. Fri. 21.--Being at dinner, in a moment I felt as if a small bone had stuck in the palate of my mouth. Nothing was to be seen; but the 646 REY. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. [ Nov. 1757. swelling and inflammation increased till toward evening, (notwithstanding all means that could be used,) and then spread to both the tonsils. In the morning I was rather worse than better, till about half an hour after eight. Then, as the disorder came in a moment, it went in a moment, and I was as well as ever. Mon. 24.--I preached about noon at Bath, and in the evening at Escot, near Lavington.

Fri. March 3.--I returned to London. Mon. 6.--I took horse about seven o’clock. The wind being east, I was pleasing myself that we should have it on our back: but in a quarter of an hour it shifted to the north-west, and blew the rain full in our face: and both increased, so that when we came to Finchley Common, it was hard work to sit our horses. The rain continued all the way to Dunstable, where we exchanged the main road for the fields ; which, having been just ploughed, were deep enough. However, before threé we came to Sundon. Hence, on Thursday, 9, I rode to Bedford, and found the sermon was not to be preached till Friday. Had I known this in time, I should never have thought of preaching it; having engaged to be at Epworth on Saturday. Mr. came to me in the evening, and said he could not remain as he was any longer ; that he had no rest in his spirit while he was thus halting between two; and therefore desired to go with me without delay. I answered, if he was so resolved, he was welcome to set out with me for Epworth the next day. He said he would. We spent some time in prayer, and parted for the present. Fri. 10.--The congregation at St. 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. ‘The north-east wind was piercing cold, and, blowing exactly in our face, soon brought a heavy shower of snow, then of sleet, and afterward of hail. However, we reached Stilton at seven, about thirty miles from Bedford.

Considering the shortness of the warning, we had a large congregation in the evening ; but a very small one in the morning, Aprill. At this I did not wonder when I was informed, that the preaching at five had been discontinued for near a year and a half. At eight likewise, Sunday, 2, the congregation was small. I took knowledge that the people of Dublin had neither seen nor heard much of self denial, since T. Walsh left the kingdom. All the evenings of the following week we had numerous congregations. Nothing is wanting here but rigorous discipline, which is more needful in this than in any other nation ; the people in general being so soft and delicate, that the least slackness utterly destroys them. Thur. 6.--We walked round the college, and saw what was accounted most worthy of observation. The new front is exceeding grand ; and the whole square (about as large as Peckwater in Christ church) would be beautiful, were not the windows too small, as every one will see when the present fashion is out of date. rz. 7.--I preached in the evening on Reuben’s character, “ unstable as water,” so applicable to most of this nation. Some were deeply convinced, and resolved not to rest till they were established in grace. Sun. 9.--I exhorted the society to follow the example of their English brethren, by jointly renewing their covenant with God. On Tuesday evening I read the letters ; by one of which a poor backslider, who had been wandering near eleven years, was cut to the heart, and determined to return to Him from whom he had so deeply revolted. Thur. 13.--I explained at large the nature and manner of entering into covenant with God, and desired all who were purposed so to do, to set Friday apart for solemn fasting and prayer. Many did so, and met both at five in the morning, at noon, and in the evening.

Therefore with Angels Source: Hymns and Sacred Poems (1739), Part II Author: Charles Wesley (attributed) --- 1 Lord and God of heav’nly pow’rs, Theirs--yet Oh! Benignly ours, Glorious King, let earth proclaim, Worms attempt to chant thy name. 2 Thee to laud in songs divine Angels and archangels join; We with them our voices raise, Echoing thy eternal praise: 3 “Holy, holy, holy Lord, Live by heav’n and earth ador’d!” Full of thee, they ever cry “Glory be to God most high!”

1 Hear, holy, holy, holy, Lord, Father of all mankind, Spirit of love, eternal word, In mystick union join'd.

9 A power to chuse, a will to obey, Freely his grace restores; We all may find the living way, And call the Saviour ours.

19 Ho! Every one that thirsteth come! Chuse life; obey the word; Open your hearts to make him room, And banquet with your Lord.

1 By faith the holy men of old Obtain'd a never-dying name, The sacred leaves their praise unfold, And God himself records their fame.

2 Thro' faith we know the worlds were made, By his great word to being brought: He spake: the earth and heaven obey'd; The universe sprang forth from nought.

2 Witness divine he thus obtain'd, The gift of righteousness receiv'd; And now he wears the crown he gain'd, And sees the Christ he once believ'd.

3 Still by his faith he speaks tho' dead, He calls us to the living way: We hear; and in his footsteps tread: We first believe, and then obey.

1 Divinely warn'd of judgments near, Noah believ'd a threatning God, With humble faith, and holy fear He built the ark, and 'scap'd the flood.

2 He (while the world that disbeliev'd, The careless world of sinners died,) The righteousness of faith receiv'd: Noah by faith was justified.

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.

6 And shall not we the call obey, And haste where God commands, to go? Despise these tenements of clay, These dreams of happiness below?

10 By faith he slew the typick lamb, And kept the Passover of God: He knew from whom its virtue came, The saving power of sprinkled blood.

5 The battles of the Lord they fought Thro' faith, and mighty states subdu'd, And works of righteousness they wrought, And prov'd the faithfulness of God.

2 Of whom the world unworthy was, Whom only God their Maker knew, The world they punish'd with their loss, The holy anchorites withdrew.

2 A better gift he us provides, On whom the gospel-times are come; And lo! The Holy Ghost abides In us, and makes our hearts his home.

In Temptation Source: Hymns and Sacred Poems (1740), Part I Author: Charles Wesley (attributed) --- In Temptation. Jesu, lover of my soul, Let me to thy bosom fly, While the nearer waters roll, While the tempest still is high: Hide me, O my Saviour, hide, Till the storm of life is past: Safe into the haven guide; O receive my soul at last. Other refuge have I none, Hangs my helpless soul on thee: Leave, ah! Leave me not alone, Still support, and comfort me. All my trust on thee is stay’d; All my help from thee I bring; Cover my defenceless head, With the shadow of thy wing. Wilt thou not regard my call? Wilt thou not accept my prayer? Lo! I sink, I faint, I fall-- Lo! On thee I cast my care: Reach me out thy gracious hand! While I of thy strength receive, Hoping against hope I stand, Dying, and behold I live!

“It is very meet, right, and our bounden duty...” Source: Hymns and Sacred Poems (1740), Part I Author: Charles Wesley (attributed) --- Come thou, my dear Redeemer, come, Let me my life resign, O take thy ransom’d servant home, And make me wholly thine. Fully redeem’d I fain would rise In soul and body free, And mount to meet thee in the skies, And ever reign with thee. “It is very meet, right, and our bounden duty, that we should at all times, and in all places, give thanks unto thee, O Lord, Holy Father, almighty, everlasting God.”42 Meet and right it is to sing Glory to our God and King, Meet in every time, and place, Right to shew forth all thy praise. Sing we now in duty bound, Echo the triumphant sound, Publish it thro’ earth abroad, Praise the everlasting God. Praises here to thee we give, Here our open thanks receive, Holy Father, sovereign Lord, Always, every where ador’d. 42The quote is from the Eucharistic liturgy in the BCP. Hymn appeared first in George Whitefield, Divine Melody; or, a Help to Devotion (London: W. Rayner, 1739), 13-14, ascribed to Charles Wesley; and in The Conduct and Doctrine of the Reverend Mr. Whitefield Vidicated (London: A. Dodd, 1739), 35.

Job 23:8, 9, 10 Source: Hymns and Sacred Poems (1740), Part I Author: Charles Wesley (attributed) --- Tho’ I groan beneath thy frown, Hence I will not cannot fly; Tho’ thy justice cast me down, At thy mercy-seat I ly; Let me here my sentence meet, Let me perish at thy feet! Job xxiii. 8, 9, 10. Forward I now in duties go, But O! My Saviour is not there! Heavy he makes me drive, and slow, Without the chariot-wheels of prayer. I look to former times, and strain The footsteps of my God to trace; Backward I go (but still in vain) To find the tokens of his grace. Surrounded by his power I stand, His work on other souls I see, He deals his gifts on either hand, But still he hides himself from me. Groaning I languish at his stay, But he regards my every groan; Dark and disconsolate my way; But still my way to him is known.

A Prayer for the Light of Life Source: Collection of Psalms and Hymns (1741) Author: Charles Wesley (attributed) --- O Sun of righteousness, arise, With healing in thy wing! To my diseas’d, my fainting soul, Life and salvation bring. These clouds of pride and sin dispel By thy all-piercing beam; Lighten mine eyes with faith, my heart With holy hope inflame. My mind by thy all-quickning power From low desires set free: Unite my scatter’d thoughts, and fix My love entire on thee. Father, thy long-lost son receive! Saviour, thy purchase own! Blest Comforter, with peace and joy Thy new-made creature crown! Eternal undivided Lord, Co-equal One and Three, On thee all faith, all hope be plac’d, All love be paid to thee.

To his Mother Date: OXON, July 29, 1725 Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1725) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR MOTHER, -- I must in the first place beg you to excuse my writing so small, since I shall not otherwise have time to make an end before the post goes out; as I am not sure I shall, whether I make haste or no. The King of Poland has promised what satisfaction shall be thought requisite in the affair of Thorn [In 1724 a riot occurred at Thorn in Poland between Jesuit students and Protestants who were accused of sacrilege. The aged President of the City Council and several leading citizens were executed in December. The Protestant Powers of Europe were indignant, and the Poles especially annoyed by the speech of the English minister at Ratisbon. See Morfill's Poland, p. 2o3; and letter of Nov.]; so that all Europe seemed now disposed for peace as well as England, though the Spaniards daily plunder our merchantmen as fast as they can catch them in the West Indies. [Spain was hoping to regain her lost possessions across the Atlantic, and sought to monopolize the commerce of the most important part of the New World, and the rigid exercise of the right of search on the high seas gave rise to many acts of violence and barbarity (Lecky's England. in the Eighteenth Century, i. 449). In 1727 she besieged Gibraltar.] You have much obliged me by your thoughts on Dr. Taylor, [See letter of Feb. 28, 1730.] especially with respect to humility, which is a point he does not seem to me sufficiently to dear. As to absolute humility (if I may venture to make a distinction, which I don't remember to have seen in any author), consisting in a mean opinion of ourselves, considered simply, or with respect to God alone, I can readily join with his opinion. But I am more uncertain as to comparative, if I may so term it; and think some, plausible reasons may be alleged to show it is not in our power, and consequently not a virtue, to think ourselves the worst in every company.

Ah I what avails his fame declared Thou blam'st, alas I the just decree Whence Virtue meets its just reward. Though sweeter sounds adorned thy tongue Than Thracian Orpheus whilom played, When list'ning to the morning song Each tree bowed down its leafy head, Never I ah, never from the gloom Of unrelenting Pluto's sway Could the thin shade again resume Its ancient tenement of clay. Indulgent Patience! heav'n-born guest! Thy healing wings around display: Thou gently calm'st the stormy breast And driv'st the tyrant Grief away. Corroding Care and eating Pain By just degrees thy influence own; And lovely lasting Peace again Resumes her long-deserted throne.

Two days ago I was reading a dispute between those celebrated masters of controversy, Bishop Atterbury and Bishop Hoadly [Atterbury preached a funeral sermon (on Thomas Bennet the bookseller) from 1 Cor. xv. 19, 'If in this life only . . .' He argued that, were there no life after this, men would be more miserable than beasts, and the best men often the most miserable. Hoadly disputed the interpretation of the text. Atterbury replied: Hoadly retorted. Atterbury preached another sermon on Charity (I Pet. iv. 8). Again Hoadly criticized at length. A concise account of the controversies may be read in the latest life of Atterbury by Canon Beeching, 1909, PP. 44-5. A fuller account is given in Hunt's Religious Thought in England, iii. 78-9. 'Coming from a High Churchman, at a time when most divines were eloquent on the natural rewards of virtue and religion, Atterbury's doctrine was startling.' For Wesley's interpretation, see his Notes upon the New Testament. See also previous letter.]; but must own I was so injudicious as to break off in the middle. I could not conceive that the dignity of the end was at all proportioned to the difficulty of attaining it. And I thought the labor of twenty or thirty hours, if I was sure of succeeding, which I was not, would be but ill rewarded by that important piece of knowledge whether Bishop Hoadly had misunderstood Bishop Atterbury or no.

Dear mother, I speak what I know: my being little and weak, whereas had it not been for a strange concurrence of accidents (so called in the language of men) I should very probably have been just the reverse, I can easily account for; 'I can readily trace the wisdom and mercy of Providence in allotting me these imperfections. (Though what if I could not since, while I look through a glass, I can only expect to see darkly.) But here the difficulty was likely to lie: Why would Infinite Goodness permit me to contract an habit of sin, even before I knew it to be sinful, which has been a thorn in my side almost ever since ‘How can I skill of these Thy ways' so well, that I am verily persuaded, had it not been for that sinful habit, I had scarce ever acquired any degree of any virtuous one ['How can I skill of these Thy ways ' is adapted from George Herbert's The Temple, ' Justice.' See Wesley's edition, 1773, P. 19. The poem begins: ‘I cannot skill of these Thy ways,’ and ends ‘I cannot skill of these my ways.’] Is not this the finger of God Surely none else could have extracted so much good from evil! surely it was mercy not to hear my prayer!

I ought doubtless not to grieve because one who deserves so well of me is taken from me to God. Surely if you were called first mine ought not to overflow because all tears were wiped from your eyes. That even in this a regard for your happiness ought to take the place of my regard for my own is most certain; but whether I could do what I ought I have great reason to question. I much doubt whether self-love in so trying a circumstance would not be found too strong for a friendship which I even now find to be less disinterested than I hitherto imagined. I used to flatter myself that I had at least the desire to be some way serviceable to Aspasia and Selima, and that this, unmixed with any meaner motive, was the sole principle of many of my actions; but even with this I perceive another principle is interwoven, a desire of recommending myself to their esteem. And if this be a fault, I am much to blame: it is a fault deeply rooted in my nature. But is it a fault to desire to recommend myself to those who so strongly recommend virtue to me ardently to desire their esteem who are so able and willing to make me in some degree worthy of it Tell me, Aspasia; tell me, Selima, if it be a fault that my heart burns within me when I reflect on the many marks of regard you have already shown Your ever obliged and ever faithful CYRUS.

To Mrs. Pendarves Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1731) Author: John Wesley --- April 5 [1731]. Aspasia will hardly imagine how often, since I had the pleasure of returning my thanks for her last favor, I have been angry at this ill-natured business which has so long kept me from repeating them. Many a time have I sighed and said to myself: ' No, nothing ought to keep me from it. I ought not on any account to lose the only way I now have of enjoying such conversation. This is the voice of reason, not prejudice. Is there a more improving (as well as pleasing) employment When thy heart burns within thee at her words, is it not the warmth of life, of virtue Do they not inspire some degree of the purity and softness of that heart from which they come' Yet one consideration there is that as often checks my complaints and bids my soul be still: 'Should I neglect the work to which Providence so plainly calls me, even in hope of such a good, by thus striving to be more like I should be still more unlike Aspasia.' The more I observe the dispositions of those poor creatures that make up the bulk of mankind, the more do I desire to shelter myself from them under the protection of Varanese and Aspasia and Selima. The stronger distaste I conceive at those, the more amiable light these appear in. And this doubtless is one of the uses which God makes even of the children of this generation. As they give us a stronger dislike to vice, which, though it appear hateful to abstracted reason, yet Thus speaking and thus acting grows tenfold More horrid and deform [Paradise Lost, ii. 705-6: ‘So speaking and so threatening, grew tenfold More dreadful and deform.’]; so they inspire us with a livelier approbation of virtue, which never appears more awful and glorious than when it appears, like the great Author of it, ' with clouds and darkness round about it.' Then it is, when I am tired with the melancholy prospect of them whose eyes the god of this world hath blinded, whose hearts he hath so bowed down to earth that their admiration soars not so high as The riches of heaven's pavement, [Mammon in Paradise Lost, i. 682.]

O Aspasia, am I not already betraying myself, needlessly showing my imperfections, to give way to one thought of losing your friendship while I have such an evidence of its sincerity before me I greatly wish I may be able to give a full answer to the question you so obligingly propose; but a direct one I can't give, unless such an one may be deduced from any of the following considerations. To judge whether any action be lawful on the Sabbath [On Sunday observance in the eighteenth century, see Abbey and Overton's The English Church in the Eighteenth Century, ii. 513--19.] or no, we are to consider whether it advances the end for which that was ordained. Now, the end for which the Sabbath was ordained is the attainment of holiness. Whatever therefore tends to advance this end is lawful on this day: whatever does not tend to advance this end is not lawful on this day. Two things we may infer hence: (1) That works of mercy are lawful on this day; for they directly tend to advance this end,' to make us holy as God is holy. (2) That works of necessity are lawful on this day; of which there are two sorts: first, works which we ought to do but cannot do on another day; secondly, works that or works the neglect of which would obstruct this end, for whatever can't be omitted without hindering it do indirectly tend to advance it. One of these, to those who can't perform the offices of religion so well without it, is giving themselves some diversion from it. But of this we may observe that, it being therefore allowed because it tends to advance the end of the day, it is allowable so far and no farther as it does tend to it, to our advance in holiness. It is not enough to say this or that diversion does not obstruct this end; for what does so is allowable on no day: but unless it promotes this particular end, it is not allowable on this day.

To his Mother Date: June 11, 1731. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1731) Author: John Wesley --- The motion and sun together, in our last hundred-and-fifty miles' walk, so thoroughly carried off ail our superfluous humors, that we continue perfectly in health, though it is here a very sickly season. And Mr. Kirkham [When at Stanton on May 22.] assures us, on the word of a priest and a physician, that if we will but take the same medicine once or twice a year we shall never need any other to keep us from the gout. When we were with him, we touched two or three times upon a nice subject, but did not come to any full conclusion. The point debated was, What is the meaning of being ' righteous over much,' or by the more common phrase of being 'too strict in religion' and what danger there was of any of us falling into that extreme [See letter of July 19.] All the ways of being too righteous or too strict which we could think of were these: either the carrying some one particular virtue to so great an height as to make it clash with some others; or the laying too much stress on the instituted' means of grace, to the neglect of the weightier matters of the law; or the multiplying prudential means upon ourselves so far, and binding ourselves to the observance of them so strictly, as to obstruct the end we aimed at by them, either by hindering our advance in heavenly affections in general or by retarding our progress in some particular virtue. Our opponents seemed to think my brother and I in some danger of being too strict in this last sense of laying burdens on ourselves too heavy to be borne, and consequently too heavy to be of any use to us.

That sometimes even a good man falls a prey to the cunning craftiness of these deceivers I can easily believe, having known one (otherwise) strictly virtuous person who was under that infatuation several years. That such an one has nothing to hope for from the terms of the gospel is likewise exceeding plain: seeing exactly equivalent to the words of the Church of England (who did not rashly adopt them in her Liturgy), ' This faith except every man keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly,' are those of the very person they thus outrage, ' He that believeth not shall be damned.' Not that we have authority to apply this general sentence to any one particular offender; because, all sin being a voluntary breach of a known law, none but He who seeth the heart, and consequently how far this breach of His law is voluntary in each particular person, can possibly know which infidel shall perish and which be received to mercy. Whenever you recommend to that all-sufficient mercy any of those that have erred and are deceived, then especially, dear Aspasia, do not forget Your ever obliged CYRUS. The best wishes of Araspe's are yours. Adieu.

To Mrs. Pendarves Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1731) Author: John Wesley --- July 19 [1731]. Is it utterly impossible that I should hear a little oftener from dear Aspasia I can't be entirely satisfied till you assure me it is; that you have too many employments of a noble kind, and too many more useful and pleasing entertainments, to allow you a vacant hour to throw away upon me, so often as once a month. So soon as I am assured of this I shall cease to importune you about it; but while I have any hope of success I can't give up a cause the gaining of which would so much add to my happiness. I can't help being more desirous now than even at other times of hearing from you, because of an imputation that has lately been thrown upon me, which I would fain, if it were possible, remove. I have been charged with being too strict, with carrying things too far in religion, and laying burdens on myself, if not on others, which were neither necessary nor possible to be borne. [See letters of June 11 (to his mother) and Nov. 17.] A heavy charge indeed! To be too strict! That is to blaspheme the law of God as not strict enough. To carry duties too far! Why, what is this but to change holiness itself into extravagance To impose unnecessary burdens! Then am I an hinderer as well as slanderer of the religion I live to recommend; then have I added to the words of God's Book, and He shall add to me all the plagues that are written in it. Do not therefore blame me, Aspasia, for using every means to find whether I am thus guilty or no; and particularly for appealing to the judgment of one who in this is not likely to be prejudiced in my favor. Those among whom chiefly your lot is cast are not accused of too much strictness. Whatever other ill weeds may flourish there, a Court is not a fit soil for this. Give me leave, then, to lay freely before you what my sentiments in this point are, and to conjure you to tell me with the same freedom which of them you disapprove of.

When 'gainst his head her sacred arms she bent Strict watch, and fast severe, and prayer omnipotent. [The Battle of the Sexes, xxxvi., by Samuel Wesley, jun.] Still he pursues her prayer; still he wounds her doubts and scruples of various sorts, so as to make the very ways of pleasantness uneasy and the path of life like that which leads to destruction. And is there no help Yes. If Selima can believe, all things are possible to her that believeth. The shield of faith will yet repel all darts, if she can be taught to use it skillfully; if the eyes of her understanding can be enlightened to see what is the hope of her calling: to know that our hope is sincerity, not perfection; not to do well, but to do our best. If God were to mark all that is done amiss, who could abide it Not the great Apostle himself, who, even when he had finished his course on earth and was ripe for paradise, yet mentions himself as not having already attained that height, not being already perfect. Perfect, indeed, he was from sin, strictly speaking, which is a voluntary breach of a known law; at least from habits of such sin: as to single acts, he knew whom he had believed. He knew who had promised to forgive these, not seven times but seventy times seven. Nay, a thousand times a thousand, if they sincerely desire it, shall all sins be forgiven unto the sons of men. We need except none; no, not the sin against the Holy Ghost, for in truth this phrase is nowhere in the whole sacred book. 'The sin against the Holy Ghost' is a term invented by the devil to perplex those whom he cannot destroy. The term used by God is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, a phrase that instantly shuts out all thoughts and accusations, for blasphemy must be a speech; and what speech it is Christ has expressly told us in Mark iii. 22, 29, 30: ' He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth He out devils.'

To Richard Morgan Date: OXON, October 18, 1732 Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1732) Author: John Wesley --- SIR, -- The occasion of my giving you this trouble is of a very extraordinary nature. On Sunday last I was informed (as no doubt you will be ere long) that my brother and I had killed your son; that the rigorous fasting which he had imposed upon himself by our advice had increased his illness and hastened his death. Now, though, considering it in itself, ' it is a very small thing with me to be judged by man's judgment'; yet, as the being thought guilty of so mischievous an imprudence might make me less able to do the work I came into the world for, I am obliged to clear myself of it by observing to you, as I have done to others, that your son left off fasting about a year and an half since; and that it is not yet half a year since I began to practice it. I must not let slip this occasion of doing my part towards giving you a juster notion of some other particulars, relating both to him and myself, which have been industriously misrepresented to you. In March last he received a letter from you, which, being then not able to read, he desired me to read to him; several of the expressions whereof I perfectly remember, and shall do till I too am called hence. I then determined that, if God was pleased to take away your son before me, I would justify him and myself; which I now do with all plainness and simplicity, as both my character and cause require.

In one practice for which you blamed your son, I am only concerned as a friend, not as a partner. That, therefore, I shall consider first. Your own account of it was in effect this: 'He frequently went into poor people's houses in the villages about Holt, called their children together, and instructed them in their duty to God, their neighbor, and themselves. He likewise explained to them the necessity of private as well as public prayer, and provided them with such forms as were best suited to their several capacities. And being well apprised how much the success of his endeavors depended on their goodwill towards him, to win upon their affections he sometimes distributed among them a little of that money which he had saved from gaming and the other fashionable expenses of the place.' This is the first charge against him; upon which all that I shall observe is, that I will refer it to your own judgment whether it be fitter to have a place in the catalogue of his faults or of those virtues for which he is 'now numbered among the sons of God.' If all the persons concerned in 'that ridiculous Society, whose follies you have so often heard repeated,' could but give such a proof of their deserving the glorious title [The Holy Club.] which was once bestowed upon them, they would be well contented that their ' lives ' too ' should be counted madness, and their end thought to be without honor.' But the truth is, their title to holiness. stands upon much less stable foundations; as you will easily perceive when you know the ground of this wonderful outcry, which it seems England is not wide enough to contain.

III. Whether, upon the considerations above-mentioned, we may not try to do good to those that are hungry, naked, or sick In particular, whether, if we know any necessitous family, we may not give them a little food, clothes, or physic, as they want Whether we may not give them, if they can read, a Bible, Common Prayer Book, or Whole Duty of Man Whether we may not now and then inquire how they have used them; explain what they don't understand, and enforce what they do Whether we may not enforce upon them more especially the necessity of private prayer and of frequenting the church and sacrament Whether we may not contribute what little we are able toward having their children clothed and taught to read Whether we may not take care that they be taught their Catechism and short prayers for morning and evening IV. Lastly: Whether, upon the considerations above-mentioned, we may not try to do good to those that are in prison In particular, Whether we may not release such well-disposed persons as remain in prison for small sums Whether we may not lend smaller sums to those that are of any trade, that they may procure themselves tools and materials to work with Whether we may not give to them who appear to want it most a little money, or clothes, or physic Whether we may not supply as many as are serious enough to read them with a Bible and Whole Duty of Man Whether we may not, as we have opportunity, explain and enforce these upon them, especially with respect to public and private prayer and the blessed sacrament

To his Mother Date: August 17, 1753, Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1733) Author: John Wesley --- The thing that gives offence here is the being singular with regard to time, expense, and company. This is evident beyond exception, from the case of Mr. Smith, [William Smith, Fellow of Lincoln, and apparently one of the Oxford Methodists. On Aug. L x732, Clayton wrote to Wesley (who was then in London, where he was elected a member of the S.P.C.K., and visited William Law at Puthey) that since he had left Oxford no one had attacked Smith and himself. ' I have gone every day to Lincoln, big with expectations to hear of some mighty attack made upon Mr. Smith; but, I thank God, I have always been disappointed: for not one of the Fellows has once so much as tried to shake him or to convert him from the right way, &c.' After his return from Georgia, at Oxford on Feb. 11, 1737, Charles Wesley (see his Journal, i. 68) exhorts 'poor languid Smith' to resume all his rules of holy living.] one of our Fellows, who no sooner began to husband his time, to retrench unnecessary expenses, and to avoid his irreligious acquaintance, but he was set upon, by not only all those acquaintance, but many others too, as if he had entered into a conspiracy to cut all their throats; though to this day he has not advised any single person, unless in a word or two and by accident, to act as he did in any of those instances.

It is true, indeed, that 'the devil hates offensive war most '; and that whoever tries to rescue more than his own soul from his hands, will have more enemies and meet with greater opposition than if he was content with 'having his own life for a prey.' That I try to do this is likewise certain; but I cannot say whether I 'rigorously impose any observances on others ' till I know what that phrase means. What I do is this: when I am entrusted with a person who is first to understand and practice, and then to teach, the law of Christ, I endeavor, by an intermixture of reading and conversation, to show him what that law is--that is, to renounce all insubordinate love of the world, and to love and obey God with all his strength. When he appears seriously sensible of this, I propose to him the means God hath commanded him to use in order to that end; and, a week, or a month, or a year after, as the state of his soul seems to require it, the several prudential means recommended by wise and good men. As to the times, order, measure, and manner wherein these are to be proposed, I depend upon the Holy Spirit to direct me, in and by my own experience and reflection, joined to the advices of my religious friends here and elsewhere. Only two rules it is my principle to observe in all cases: first, to begin, continue, and end all my advices in the spirit of meekness, as knowing that' the wrath ' or severity' of man worketh not the righteousness of God '; and, secondly, to add to meekness longsuffering, in pursuance of a rule which I fixed long since--never to give up any one till I have tried him at least ten years. How long hath God had pity on thee

Now, the gospel we have received does in no wise allow him to be a follower of Christ, to do his duty to God and man, who is constant in public and private prayer and avoids sins of commission. It supposes there are such things as sins of omission too. Nay, it is notoriously evident that in our Lord's account of His own proceedings at the Great Day there is no mention of any other. It is for what they have not done that the unprofitable servants are condemned to utter darkness. O sir, what would it avail in that day could you confront our Lord with five thousand of His own ambassadors protesting with one voice against His sentence, and declaring to those on the left hand that He had never said any such thing: that He condemned them for omitting what He had nowhere required them to do; that they were faithful because they were only unprofitable servants; that they ought to be ranked in the class of good Christians because they had only broken all the positive laws of Christ; that they had done their duty both to God and man, for they had prayed to God and done neither good nor harm to their neighbor. For God's sake, sir, consider, how would this plea sound Would it really be received in arrest of judgment or would the Judge reply, ' Out of thy own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked and slothful servant! Did I require nothing to be done, as well as to be avoided Was an eternal reward promised to no-work Were My positive laws no laws at all Was the pattern I set thee negative only But thou hast done thy duty to God at least, for thou hast prayed to Him!

Did I require nothing to be done, as well as to be avoided Was an eternal reward promised to no-work Were My positive laws no laws at all Was the pattern I set thee negative only But thou hast done thy duty to God at least, for thou hast prayed to Him! What didst thou pray for For My Spirit to help thy infirmities For strength to tread in My steps For power, not only to avoid all sin, but to fulfill all righteousness Didst thou pray that thy righteousness might exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees -- might not rest in externals, but be an inward vital principle Didst thou pray for a clean heart for the renewal of thy mind for a right spirit duly conformed to My image Didst thou pray for a soul continually ardent to do My will on earth as it is done in heaven If thou prayedst for anything short of this, or if praying for this thy heart went not along with thy lips, thou prayedst as a fool or an heathen prayed; and thy prayer itself was the greatest of thy abominations. If thou didst pray for this power which I had promised not to any particular order but to every one of My disciples earnestly desiring it, why went not thy endeavor along with thy prayer Because great men, the chief priests and eiders, said it need not Whom, then, oughtest thou to have believed, Me or them Behold, I had told thee before: obey God rather than men. Thy blood be on thy own head.'

To William Law Date: LINCOLN COLLEGE, OXON, June 16, 1754. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1734) Author: John Wesley --- REVEREND SIR, -- I must earnestly beg your immediate advice in a case of the greatest importance. Above two years since, I was entrusted with a young gentleman of good sense, an even generous temper, and pretty good learning. [See letter of June 11, 1731, to his father. Wesley's anxiety about this student and also concerning Richard Morgan shows how faithfully he watched over them. At the end of July Charles Wesley tells his brother Samuel that John had spent the last week 'at London, chiefly in consulting Mr. Law about one of his pupils; but he found time, notwithstanding, to dispatch three sheets of Job while there, and still goes on with much more expedition than my father did while upon the spot.' This letter to Law evidently led to a personal consultation.] Religion he had heard little of; but Mr. Jackson's Practice of Devotion, [Lawrence Jackson (1691-1772), Fellow of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, 1716; Prebendary of Lincoln 1747.] your two treatises, and Thomas Kempis, by the blessing of God, awakened him by degrees to a true notion and serious practice of it. In this he continued sensibly improving till last Lent; at the beginning of which I advised him to do as he had done the year before--viz. to obey the order of the Church, by using such a sort and measure of abstinence as his health permitted and his spiritual wants required. He said ' he did not think his health would permit to use that abstinence which he did the year before.' And, notwithstanding my reply, ' that his athletic habit could be in no danger by only abstaining from flesh and using moderately some less pleasing food,' he persisted in his resolution of not altering his food at all. A little before Easter, perceiving he had much contracted the time he had till then set apart for religious reading, I asked him whether he was not himself convinced that he spent too much time in reading secular authors. He answered he was convinced any time was too much, and that he should be a better Christian if he never read them at all. I then pressed him earnestly to pray for strength, according to that conviction; and he resolved to try for a week.

4. That course of life tends most to the glory of God wherein we can most promote holiness in ourselves and others. I say in ourselves and others, as being fully persuaded that these can never be put asunder. For how is it possible that the good God should make our interest inconsistent with our neighbor's that He should make our being in one state best for ourselves, and our being in another best for the Church This would be making a strange schism in His body; such as surely never was from the beginning of the world. And if not, then whatever state is best on either of these accounts is so on the other likewise. If it be best for others, then it is so for us; if for us, then for them. 5. However, when two ways of life are proposed, I should choose to begin with that part of the question, Which of these have I rational ground to believe will conduce most to my own improvement And that not only because it is every physician's concern to heal himself first, but because it seems we may judge with more ease, and perhaps certainty too, in which state we can most promote holiness in ourselves than in which we can most promote it in others. 6. By holiness I mean not fasting (as you seem to suppose), or bodily austerity, or any other external means of improvement, but the inward temper, to which all these are subservient, a renewal of the soul in the image of God. I mean a complex habit of lowliness, meekness, purity, faith, hope, and the love of God and man. And I therefore believe that, in the state wherein I am, I can most promote this holiness in myself, because I now enjoy several advantages which are almost peculiar to it.

11. To quicken me in making a thankful and diligent use of all the other advantages of this place, I have the opportunity of public prayer twice a day and of weekly communicating. It would be easy to mention many more, and likewise to show many disadvantages, which a person of greater courage and skill than me could scarce separate from a country life. But whatever one of experience and resolution might do, I am very sensible I should not be able to turn aside one of the thousand temptations that would immediately rush upon me. I could not stand my ground, no, not for one month, against intemperance in sleeping, eating, and drinking; against irregularity in study, against a general lukewarmness in my affections and remissness in my actions; against softness and self-indulgence, directly opposite to that discipline and hardship which become a soldier of Jesus Christ. And then, when my spirit was thus dissolved, I should be an easy prey to whatever impertinent company came in my way. Then would the cares of the world and the desire of other things roll back with a full tide upon me. It would be no wonder if, while I preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. I cannot, therefore, but observe that the question does not relate barely to degrees of perfection, but to the very essence and being of it. Agitur de vita et sanguine Turni. [Virgil's Aeneid, xii. 765 (Turni de vita et sanguine certant): ‘They contend about the life and blood of Turnus.'] The point is, whether I shall or shall not work out my salvation, whether I shall serve Christ or Belial.

My brother Harper, [John Wesley married his sister Emilia to Robert Harper, an apothecary of Epworth, shortly before he sailed for Georgia. It was an unfortunate marriage. His business was not a success, and absorbed a large part of what his wife made by her boarding- school at Gainsborough. See letter of June 18, 1725.] too, has a constant place in our prayers. May the good God give him the same zeal for holiness which He has given to a young gentleman at Rotterdam, who was with me last night.[ He had a long, close interview with Mr. Appee, a young Dutchman, in the house and in the garden. Appee proved to be unscrupulous and irreligious. See Journal, i. 180-1d; C. Wesley's Journal, i. 36-41.] Pray for us, and especially for, dear mother, Your dutiful and affectionate Son.

To Archibald Hutchinson Date: SAVANNAH, July 23, 1736. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1736) Author: John Wesley --- By what I have seen during my short stay here, I am convinced that I have long been under a great mistake in thinking no circumstances could make it the duty of a Christian priest to do anything else but preach the gospel. On the contrary, I am now satisfied that there is a possible case wherein a part of his time ought to be employed in what less directly conduces to the glory of God and peace and goodwill among men. And such a case, I believe, is that which now occurs; there being several things which cannot so effectually be done without me; and which, though not directly belonging to my ministry, yet are by consequence of the highest concern to the success of it. It is from this conviction that I have taken some pains to inquire into the great controversy now subsisting between Carolina and Georgia, and in examining and weighing the letters wrote and the arguments urged on both sides of the question. And I cannot but think that' the whole affair might be clearly stated in few words. A Charter was passed a few years since, establishing the bounds of this province, and empowering the Trustees therein named to prepare laws which, when ratified by the King in Council, should be of force within those bounds. The Trustees have prepared a law, which has been so ratified, for the regulation of the Indian trade, requiring that none should trade with the Indians who are within this province till he is licensed as therein specified. Notwithstanding this law, the governing part of Carolina have asserted, both in conversation, in writing, and in the public newspapers, that it is lawful for any one not so licensed to trade with the Creek, Cherokee, or Chicasaw Indians. [See next letter. The Journal (i. 248-50) shows that some Chicasaw Indians were in Savannah for several days, and Wesley had a conference with them.] They have passed an ordinance, not only asserting the same, but enacting that men and money shall be raised to support such traders; and, in fact, they have themselves licensed and sent up such traders, both to the Creek and Chicasaw Indians.

Do you seek means of building up yourselves in the knowledge and love of God I know of no place under heaven where there are more, or perhaps so many, as in this place. Does your heart burn within you to turn many others to righteousness Behold the whole land, thousands of thousands are before you! I will resign to any of you all or any part of my charge. Choose what seemeth good in your own eyes. Here are within these walls children of all ages and dispositions. Who will bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, till they are meet to be preachers of righteousness Here are adults from the farthest parts of Europe and Asia and the inmost kingdoms of Africa; add to these the known and unknown nations of this vast continent, and you will indeed have a great multitude which no man can number.

'Observe, farther, when the end is attained, the means cease. Now, all the other things enjoined are means to love; and love is attained by them who are in the inferior way, who are utterly divested of free will, of self-love, and self-activity, and are entered into the passive state. These deified men, in whom the superior will has extinguished the inferior, enjoy such a contemplation as is not only above faith, but above sight, such as is entirely free from images, thoughts, and discourse, and never interrupted by sins of infirmity or voluntary distractions. They have absolutely renounced their reason and understanding, else they could not be guided by a divine light. They seek no clear or particular knowledge of anything; but only an obscure, general knowledge, which is far better. They know it is mercenary to look for a reward from God, and inconsistent with perfect love. 'Having thus attained the end, the means must cease. Hope is swallowed up in love. Sight, or something more than sight, takes place of faith. All particular virtues they possess in the essence, being wholly given up to the divine will, and therefore need not the distinct exercise of them. They work likewise all good works essentially, not accidentally, and use all outward means only as they are moved thereto; and then to obey superiors or to avoid giving offense, but not as necessary or helpful to them. 'Public prayer, or any forms, they need not; for they pray without ceasing. Sensible devotion in any prayer they despise, it being a great hindrance to perfection. The Scripture they need not read; for it is only His letter with whom they converse face to face. And if they do read it now and then, as for expounders, living or dead, reason, philosophy (which only puffs' up, and vainly tries to bind God by logical definitions and divisions), as for knowledge of tongues, or ancient customs, they need none of them, any more than the Apostles did, for they have the same Spirit. Neither do they need the Lord's supper, for they never cease to remember Christ in the most acceptable manner, any more than fasting, since, by constant temperance, they can keep a continual fast.

'You that are to advise them that have not yet attained perfection, press them to nothing, not to self-denial, constant private prayer, reading the Scriptures, fasting, communicating. If they love heathen poets, let them take their full swing in them. Speak but little to them in the meantime of eternity. If they are affected at any time with what you say, say no more; let them apply it, not you. You may advise them to some religious books, but stop there; let them use them as they please, and form their own reflections upon them without your intermeddling. If one who was religious falls off, let him alone. Either a man is converted to God or not: if he is not, his own will must guide him, in spite of all you can do; if he is, he is so guided by the Spirit of God as not to need your direction. 'You that are yourselves imperfect, know love is your end, All things else are but means. Choose such means as lead you most to love; those alone are necessary for you. The means that others need are nothing to you: different men are led in different ways. And be sure be not wedded to any means. When anything helps you no longer, lay it aside; for you can never attain your end by cleaving obstinately to the same means: you must be changing them continually. Conversation, meditation, forms of prayer, prudential rules, fixed return of public or private prayer, are helps to some; but you must judge for yourself. Perhaps fasting may help you for a time, and perhaps the holy communion. But you will be taught by the Holy Spirit and by experience how soon, how often, and how long it is good for you to take it. Perhaps, too, you may need the Holy Scripture. But if you can renounce yourself without reading, it is better than all the reading in the world. And whenever you do read it, trouble yourself about no helps; the Holy Ghost will lead you into all truth.

To Sophia Christiana Hopkey Date: February 6, 1737. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1737) Author: John Wesley --- I find, Miss Sophy, I can't take fire into my bosom, and not be burnt. I am therefore retiring for a while to desire the direction of God. Join with me, my friend, in fervent prayer that He would show me what is best to be done.

To Thomas Causton, Chief Magistrate of Savannah Date: SAVANNAH, July 5, 1737. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1737) Author: John Wesley --- SIR,--To this hour you have shown yourself my friend; I ever have and ever shall acknowledge it. And it is my earnest desire that He who hath hitherto given me this blessing would continue it still. But this cannot be, unless you will allow me one request, which is not so easy an one as it appears. Do not condemn me for doing in the execution of my office what I think it my duty to do. If you can prevail upon yourself to allow me this, even when I act without respect of persons, I am persuaded there will never be, at least not long, any misunderstanding between us. For even those who seek it shall, I trust, find no occasion against me, except it be concerning the law of my God.

To William Law Date: LONDON, May 14, 1738. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1738) Author: John Wesley --- REVEREND SIR, -- It is in obedience to what I think to be the call of God that I, who have the sentence of death in my own soul, take upon me to write to you, of whom I have often desired to learn the first elements of the gospel of Christ. If you are born of God, you will approve of the design, though it may be but weakly executed... If not, I shall grieve for you, not for myself. For as I seek not the praise of men, so neither regard I the contempt either of you or of any other. For two years (more especially) I have been preaching after the model of your two practical treatises; and all that heard have allowed that the law is great, wonderful, and holy. But no sooner did they attempt to fulfill it but they found that it is too high for man, and that by doing ' the works of the law shall no flesh living be justified.' To remedy this, I exhorted them, and stirred up myself, to pray earnestly for the grace of God, and to use all the other means of obtaining that grace which the all-wise God hath appointed. But still, both they and I were more and more convinced that this is a law by which a man cannot live; the law in our members continually warring against it, and bringing us into deeper captivity to the law of sin. Under this heavy yoke I might have groaned till death, had not an holy man, [Peter Bhler. See Law's reply in Journal, viii. 320-3.] to whom God lately directed me, upon my complaining thereof, answered at once: ‘Believe, and thou shalt be saved. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with all thy heart, and nothing shall be impossible to thee. This faith, indeed, as well as the salvation it brings, is the free gift of God. But seek, and thou shalt find. Strip thyself naked of thy own works and thy own righteousness, and fly to Him. For whosoever cometh unto Him, He will in no wise cast out.’

We are here compassed about with a cloud of witnesses that the Ancient of Days waxeth not old; that His arm is not shortened, but still worketh mightily in and for those that believe. All of these are living proofs that Christianity, as its Author, is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever; that the same gifts are still given unto men, the same holiness and happiness, the same freedom from sin, the same peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. These likewise bear witness with one accord that there is but one way under heaven given to men of attaining to a fellowship in these great and precious promises--namely, faith in Him who loved us and gave Himself for us, and bare our sins in His own body upon the tree; and also that ‘whosoever seeketh this findeth,’ so he seek it humbly, earnestly, and perseveringly, absolutely renouncing all his own righteousness as well as his own works, and coming to Christ as poor, miserable, and naked! My dear friends, be lowly, be serious, be watchful. Let not any pretence to mental make you slack in vocal prayer. Be good stewards of the manifold grace of God. And the God of peace and love be with you even unto the end! Be not forgetful of praying much for Your weak brother in Christ.

To Dr. Koker Date: OXON, October 14, 1738. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1738) Author: John Wesley --- I have delayed writing till now, in hopes I might have had an opportunity of transcribing the papers [Papers brought from Herrnhut. See letter of Nov. 22, p. 268.] you desired before I wrote. But I find I cannot have time for this yet, it having pleased God to give me full employment of another nature. His blessed Spirit has wrought so powerfully, both in London and Oxford, that there is a general awakening, and multitudes are crying out, ‘What must we do to be saved’ So that, till our gracious Master sendeth more laborers into His harvest, all my time is much too little for them. May our blessed Lord repay sevenfold into your bosom the kindness showed to us for His name's sake! That you may be found in Him, not having your own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith, is the earnest prayer of, dear sir, Your unworthy brother in Christ.

On Monday, Mrs. Cleminger being in pain and fear, we prayed, and our Lord gave her peace. About noon we spent an hour or two in conference and prayer with Miss Molly; and then set out in a glorious storm, but even I had a calm within. We had appointed the little Society at Reading to meet us in the evening; but the enemy was too vigilant. Almost as soon as we went out of town the minister sent or went to each of the members, and, being arguing and threatening, utterly confounded them, so that they were all scattered abroad. Mr. Cennick's own sister did not dare to see us, but was gone out on purpose to avoid it. I trust, however, our God will gather them together again, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. About one in the afternoon on Tuesday I came to Oxford again, and from Mr. Fox's (where all were in peace) I went to Mrs. Compton's. I-found the minister of the parish had been there before me, to whom she had plainly declared the thing as it was - ‘that she never had a true faith in Christ till two in the afternoon on the Tuesday preceding.’ After some other warm and sharp expressions, ‘he told her upon that word he must repel her from the Holy Communion.’ Finding she was not convinced of her error even by that argument, he left her calmly rejoicing in God her Savior. At six in the evening we were at Mr. Fox's Society; about seven at Mrs. Compton's: the power of our Lord was present at both, and all our hearts were knit together in love. The next day we had an opportunity to confirm most, if not all, the souls which had been shaken. In the afternoon I preached at the Castle. We afterwards joined together in prayer, having now Charles Graves added to us, who is rooted and grounded in the faith. We then went to Mr. Gibs's room, where were Mr. Washington and Watson. Here an hour was spent in conference and prayer, but without any disputing. At four in the morning I left Oxford. God hath indeed planted and watered. Oh may He give the increase ! -- I am, &c.

To James Hutton Date: BRISTOL, April 16, 1739. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1739) Author: John Wesley --- 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: Esther Deschamps, J. Panou, M. Page, Eliz. Davis (then proposed and admitted), and Eliz. Grevil. At five in the evening, Anne Williams, Mary Reynolds, Eliz. Ryan, Esther Highham, Frances Wilds, and Rachel England met together and agreed to meet every Sunday; Anne Williams was chose their leader.

The Assizes prevented my preaching at Newgate this week, except only on Monday and Tuesday. On Monday at four I preached to three or four thousand people at the Brickyard on ‘I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’ On Tuesday about one, having sent our brethren Easy and Purdy before, I set out for Bath. Soon after I came in, the person who rented the ground, where many people were met, sent me word ‘I should not preach on his ground. If I did, he would arrest me.’ Presently after, a good woman sent to tell me I was welcome to preach on hers. Thither we went at five. It is a meadow on the side of the hill, close to the town, so that they could see us from Lady Cox's [See letter of March 7, 1738.] in the square plainly. Here I offered God's free grace to about two thousand souls. At eight in the evening I preached remission of sins to many casual hearers, from some steps at the end of an house in Gracious Street. Griffith Jones [Griffith Jones, Rector of Llandowror, instituted the circulating Welsh Free Schools, to teach the poor to read Welsh and to give religious instruction. He maintained these schools by subscriptions for twenty-four years, and when he died in 1761 they numbered more than 3,000, and had 158,000 scholars, some of whom were sixty years old. See Tyerman's Whitefield, i. 189-90n.] was one of them, who afterwards refreshed us with his company about an hour at our inn. On Wednesday morning Mr. Chapman [See heading to letter of March 29, 1737.] stayed with us a while, to whom we spake the truth in love. At ten I preached in the meadow again, to, I judge, about two thousand five hundred. At four I offered Jesus Christ as our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption to above three thousand. At seven all the women in band met together, and, having received Mary Cutler into fellowship with them, spent the evening in conference and prayer. At eight the bands of men met at the Society room in Baldwin Street, and received into fellowship with them William Lewis, James Robins, Kenelm Chandler, Anthony Williams, and Thomas Robins. The remainder of the evening was spent in singing, conference, and prayer.

PS.--Having a desire to receive an holy woman of deep experience into the female bands, we doubted what to do because she is a Dissenter. The answer we received from Scripture was Galatians iii. 8. This seemed clear. However, having determined to cast lots, we did so, and our direction was, ‘Refer it to the bands (at London), to be decided by lot.’

To James Hutton Date: BRISTOL, May 14, 1739. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1739) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BRETHREN, -- On Monday, the 7th instant, about twelve of us met at six in the morning at our room in Baldwin Street. Others came after; some of whom were employed until six in the evening in intercession, prayer, and thanksgiving. About eight I was preparing to go to Pensford (the minister having sent me word I was welcome to preach in either of his churches), when a messenger brought me the following note: SIR,--Our minister, being informed you are beside yourself, does not care you should preach in any of his churches. We found, however, a very convenient place on Priest-down, near Publow, half a mile from Pensford, where was an attentive, serious congregation. But many of them appeared not a little amazed at hearing that strange doctrine that. ‘Christ is made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.’ About four thousand were afterwards at the Brickyard, whom I exhorted ‘to become as little children.’ After preaching at Newgate the next morning, I set out for Bath. We were turned out of the ground where I used to preach. But God opened the heart of a Quaker (one Richard Merchant) to offer me his ground, where I preached ‘Christ our wisdom’ to a thousand or fifteen hundred people. Afterwards he called me aside and said, ‘My friend, deal freely with me. I have much money, and it may be thou hast little. Tell me what thou wilt have.’ I accepted his love, after expounding at Mr. Dibble's window to many in the house and many out of it. O pray ye for the soul of Richard Merchant!

Thursday, 21st, I talked an hour or two with a young man of Gloucester, who was deeply prejudiced against my dear brother Whitefield and me. He went away of another mind. In the afternoon I preached at Publow as usual, without any disturbance, on Isaiah xlv. 22. In the evening I was at the schoolroom, and had a large and attentive audience, though it was uncovered and it rained hard. Afterward I met with Molly Deacon's band, whose openness and childlike simplicity pleased me much; where also I spoke with a young man who was fully determined ‘naked to follow a naked Master,’ [The ideal of Francis of Assisi: Nudes nudum Christum sequens. Jerome used the expression (Epistles, No. 125), and also St. Bernard of Clairvaux (Coulton's Five Centuries of Religion, ii. 108). See Journal, i. 179.] having been turned out of doors by his friends the night before for coming to the Societies. Friday, 22nd, I writ to a Society just begun at Wells, which I hope to visit when God permits. At nine I called on Mr. Whitehead, [Thomas Whitehead, ‘a professed Quaker about sixty years of age,’ was baptized by Whitefield on April 17, 1739 (see his Journal). He was afterwards led astray by the French prophets. See Journal, ii. 226; and letter of Feb. 10, 1748.] whom G. Whitefield baptized at Gloucester. ‘Ye did run well; who hath bewitched you’ ‘Woe unto the prophets, saith the Lord, which prophesy in My name, and I have not sent them.' At Weavers' Hall I endeavored to point them out, and exhorted all to cleave to the law and the testimony.

After expounding to some hundreds in the Back Lane, I went as usual to the schoolroom, where the pains of hell came about three persons, who soon after saw the light of heaven. At Baptist Mills on Wednesday I explained to two thousand or two thousand five hundred, ‘All things are lawful for me; but all things edify not.’ At seven the women bands met, and agreed to defer admitting any new members till the next month and to wait a little longer before they excluded those who had for some time excluded themselves, if haply they might return. At Baldwin Street William Farnell and Richard Hereford were excluded the Society, as being not only unwilling to attend it, but utterly incapable (as yet) of improving by it. I was afterward much enlarged in prayer for Mrs. Grevil. Oh that she could again feel herself a lost sinner! I went on Thursday in the afternoon to preach on the south edge of Kingswood, near a sort of a village called the Cupolas; but the people not having notice, but few came: so that, having used some prayer with them, I promised to come again the next day, and then preached on ‘Believe, and thou shalt be saved.’ Saturday, 30th, Anne Williams (Ant. Williams's wife) was the thirteenth time tapped for the dropsy. She desires to be dissolved and to be with Christ; but gives herself up to Him for life or for death. To about twelve hundred in the Bowling Green I showed many lawful things edify not. At Weavers’ Hall Kitty Deschamps (about fourteen), Prudence Woodward, and five more roared for the very disquietness of their heart, and all, upon prayer, were relieved and sang praise unto our God and unto the Lamb that liveth for ever and ever. Yours in Christ. [Wesley wrote to the Rev. John Oulton (Baptist pastor of Leominster) on July 9 and 28; but these letters have not been preserved. See Journal, ii. 240d, 247d; W.H.S. xi. 118-19. Mr. Oulton's reply to the first letter is given in the Supplement to the Arrninian Magazine, 1797, PP. 25-6.]

To his Brother Charles Date: ISLINOTON, September 21, 1739. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1739) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- A Scotch gentleman who was present here [Diary: ‘4.45 Islington, within to man.’ ‘Sat. 22--7.3o at Exall's, tea.’ He evidently finished the letter there.] gave us a plain account of Mr. Erskine and his associates, the substance of which was this :- Some years since, Mr. Ebenezer Erskine, preaching before the Assembly, reproved them for several faults with all simplicity. This was so resented by many that in a following Assembly he was required to make an open recantation; and, persisting in the charge, the Assembly determined that he, with three other ministers who spoke in his behalf, should be deprived and their livings declared vacant. Four messengers were sent for this purpose; but they returned re infecta, fearing the people lest they should stone them. In another Assembly directions were given to the neighbouring ministers to procure informations concerning the doctrine and behavior of Mr. Erskines [Ebenezer and Ralph] and their adherents, Out of these informations an indictment was formed, to which they were summoned to answer in the next Assembly. Here it was debated whether they should be suffered to come in, and carried by a small majority that they should. The Moderator then spoke to this effect: ‘My reverend brethren, ye are summoned to answer an indictment charging you with erroneous doctrine and irregular practices; but if ye will submit to the Kirk and testify your amendment, we will receive you with open arms.’ Mr. Erskine answered for himself and brethren (they were now increased to eight) to this purpose: ‘Moderator, both you and those that are with you have erred from the faith, and your practices are irregular too; and you have no discipline: therefore you are no Kirk. We are the Kirk, and we alone, who continue in her faith and discipline. And if ye will submit to us and testify your amendment, we will receive ye with open arms.’ None answered a word; so after a short time they withdrew. The Moderator then asked, ‘My reverend brethren, what shall we do’ One replied, ‘Moderator, I must answer you in our proverb --“You have put the cat into the kirn (i.e. churn), and ye must get her out again how you can.”’

To James Huton Date: BRISTOL, March 21, 1740. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1740) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JEMMY, -- Where are the books I desired you to send -- Mr. Newman's If they are not sent, I wish you would send with them twenty of the Collection of Prayers [A Collection of Forms of Prayer for Every Day in the Week, 1733. Wesley says: 'In the same year I printed (the first time I ventured to print anything) for the use of my pupils A Collection of forms of Prayer.’ See letter of May 14, 1765.] and twenty (if printed) of the Count's Sermons. [Sixteen Discourses on the Redemption of Man by the Death of Christ. Translated from the High Dutch, 1740.] After my hearing of what Brother Tltschig [Wesley knew John Tltschig intimately in Savannah, and consulted him as to Miss Hopkey. He went with him to Herrnhut. See Journal, i. 478-9n.] said, I had no time to see him before I left London. Therefore I writ it as soon as I thought of it; so that may pass. What you say in your last concerning justification I have no exception to. But what plots you speak of I don't understand. When we can no longer speak freely to one another, I verily think we should not speak at all. But I hope that time will never come.

4. I have heard some of you affirm, on the other hand: (1) That it does imply liberty from the commandments of God, so that one who is saved through faith is not obliged or bound to obey them, does not do anything as a commandment or as a duty. (To support which they have affirmed that there is [ In the answer to this letter, which I received some weeks after, this is explained as follows: ‘All things which are a commandment to the natural man are a promise to all that have been justified. The thing itself is not lost, but the notion which people are wont to have of commandments, duties, &c.’ I reply: 1. If this be all you mean, why do you not say so explicitly to all men 2. Whether this be all, let any reasonable man judge, when he has read what is here subjoined.]* no command in the New Testament but to believe; that there is no duty required therein but that of believing; and that to a believer there is no commandment at all.) (2) That it does imply liberty to conform to the world, [The Brethren answer to this, ‘We believe it much better to discourse out of the newspapers than to chatter about holy things to no purpose.’ Perhaps so. But what is this to the point I believe both the one and the other to be useless, and therefore an abomination to the Lord. This objection, then, stands in full force, the fact alleged being rather defended than denied. The joining in worldly diversions in order to do good (another charge which cannot be denied), I think, would admit of the same defense -- viz. ‘that there are other things as bad.’]* by talking on useless if not trifling subjects; by joining in worldly diversions in order to do good; by putting on of gold and costly apparel, [‘We wear,’ say the Brethren, neither gold nor silver.’ You forget. I have seen it with my eyes. ‘But we judge nobody that does.’ How! Then you must judge both St. Peter and Paul false witnesses before God.

15. In conformity to the Mystics, you likewise greatly check joy in the Holy Ghost by such cautions against sensible comforts as have no title of Scripture to support them. Hence also your brethren here damp the zeal of babes in Christ, talking much of false zeal, and forbidding them to declare what God hath done for their souls, even when their hearts burn within them to declare it, and compared those to uncorked bottles who simply and artlessly speak as of the ability which God giveth. 16. Hence, lastly, it is that you undervalue good works (especially works of outward mercy), never publicly insisting on the necessity of them, nor declaring their weight and excellency. Hence, when some of your brethren have spoken of them, they put them on a wrong foot -- viz. If you find yourself moved, if your heart is free to it, then reprove, exhort, relieve. By this means you wholly avoid the taking up your cross in order to do good; and also substitute an uncertain, precarious inward motion in the place of the plain written Word. Nay, one of your members has said of good works in general (whether works of piety or of charity), ‘A believer is no more obliged to do these works of the law than a subject of the King of England is obliged to obey the laws of the King of France.’ 17. My brethren, whether ye will hear, or whether ye will forbear, I have now delivered my own soul. And this I have chosen to do in an artless manner, that if anything should come home to your hearts the effect might evidently flow, not from the wisdom of man, but from the power of God.

To his Brother Charles Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1742) Author: John Wesley --- LONDON, Saturday, July 31, 1742. Yesterday, about three in the afternoon, as soon as Intercession was ended, I went up to my mother. I found her pulse almost gone and her fingers dead; so that it was easy to see her spirit was on the wing for eternity. After using the Commendatory Prayer, I sat down on her bedside, and with three or four of our sisters sung a requiem to her parting soul. She continued in just the same way as my father was, struggling and gasping for life, though (as I could judge by several signs) perfectly sensible, till near four o'clock. I was then going to drink a dish o’ tea, being faint and weary, when one called me again to the bedside. It was just four o’clock. She opened her eyes wide and fixed them upwards for a moment. Then the lids dropped, and the soul was set at liberty without one struggle or groan or sigh. My heart does not, and I am absolutely assured [God does not condemn me for any want of duty toward] her in any kind, except only [that I have not reproved her so plainly and fully as I should have done]. Absurdum, iniquum, injustum, supra omnem modum mihi videtur, quod quis isto modo me lacessat. [‘Absurd, unfair, unjust beyond all measure it seems to me, that any one should attack me in that way.’] Now, I would have you send me word immediately whom I shall take into the house, to keep the Accounts, &c. &c. &c., in the room of T. Meyrick, and what [woman as hired girl or a lady in place of Betty Brown]. I wait your answer. I will carry the books to Evesham, [He was at Evesham on Aug. 17. The books were probably Charles Wesley’s Hymns and Sacred Poems, published that year.] if I do not send before. The day of my setting out hence (if I have life and health) is Monday fortnight, and on Thursday fortnight I hope to be at Bristol.

To the Countess of Huntingdon Date: OXFORD, August 1744. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1744) Author: John Wesley --- MADAM, -- It has been a common remark for many years that poetry, which might answer the noblest purposes, has been prostituted to the vilest, even to confound the distinctions between virtue and vice, good and evil; and that to such a degree that, among the numerous poems now extant in our language, there is an exceeding small proportion which does not more or less fall under this heavy censure. So that a great difficulty lies on those who are not willing, on the one hand, to be deprived of an elegant amusement; nor, on the other, to purchase it at the hazard of innocence or virtue. Hence it is that many have placed a chaste collection of English poems among the chief desiderata of this age. Your mentioning this a year or two ago, and expressing a desire to see such a collection, determined me not to delay the design I had long had of attempting something in this kind. I therefore revised all the English poems I knew, and selected what appeared most valuable in them. Only Spenser’s Works I was constrained to omit, because scarce intelligible to the generality of modern readers. I shall rejoice if the want of which you complained be in some measure supplied by the following collection; of which this at least may be affirmed, --there is nothing therein contrary to virtue, nothing that can any way offend the chastest ear, or give pain to the tenderest heart. And perhaps whatever is really essential to the most sublime divinity, as well as the purest and most refined morality, will be found therein. Nor is it a small circumstance that the most just and important sentiments are here represented with the utmost advantage, with all the ornaments both of wit and language, and in the clearest, fullest strongest light.

I inscribe these poems to you, not only because you was the occasion of their thus appearing in the world, but also because it may be an inducement to many to read them. Your name, indeed, cannot excuse a bad poem; but it may recommend good ones to those who would not otherwise consider whether they were good or bad. And I am persuaded they will not be unacceptable to you, were it only on this account --that many of them describe what a person of quality ought, and what I trust you desire, to be. My heart’s desire and prayer to God for you is that you may never rest short of this: That ‘whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are venerable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are honorable; if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, you may think on these things: and my God shall supply all your need, according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus.’ -- I am Your Ladyship’s obliged and obedient servant for Christ's sake.

‘They affirmed that there is no commandment in the New Testament but to believe; that no other duty lies upon us; and that, when a man does believe, he is not bound or obliged to do anything which is commanded there.’ (ii. 354-5.) ‘Mr. Stonehouse told me, “No one has any degree of faith till he is perfect as God is perfect.”’ (ii. 345.) ‘You believe there are no degrees in faith.’ (ii. 344.) ‘I have heard Mr. Molther affirm, that there is no justifying faith where there is ever any doubt.’ (ii. 492.) ‘The moment a man is justified, he is sanctified wholly. Thenceforth, till death, he is neither more nor less holy.’ (ii. 489.) ‘We are to grow in grace, but not in holiness.’ (ii. 490.)

7. Let us now weigh these assertions. ‘They’ (that is, ‘the charms oftheir sour behavior’) ‘must be in your eye veryextraordinary.’ -- Do not you stumble at the threshold TheMoravians excel in sweetness of behavior. ‘As they can besufficient to cover such a multitude of errors and crimes.’ Such amultitude of errors and crimes! I believe, as to errors, they holduniversal salvation, and are partly Antinomians, (in opinion,) andpartly Quietists; and for this cause I cannot join with them. Butwhere is the multitude of errors Whosoever knows two or threehundred more, let him please to mention them. Such a multitude ofcrimes too! That some of them have used guile, and are of a closereserved behavior, I know. And I excuse them not. But to thismultitude of crimes I am an utter stranger. Let him prove thischarge upon them who can. For me, I declare I cannot. ‘To keep up the same regard and affection.’ -- Not so. I say, myaffection was not lessened, till after September, 1739, till I hadproof of what I had feared before. But I had not the same degree ofregard for them when I saw the dark as well as the bright side oftheir character. ‘I doubt your regard for them was not lessened tillthey began to interfere with what you thought your province.’ Ifthis were only a doubt, it were not much amiss; but it presentlyshoots up into an assertion, equally groundless: For my regard forthem 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 wasinfluenced herein by a fear of losing my own authority; not by ajust resentment to see the honor of religion and virtue so scandalously trampled upon’ -- Trampled upon!By whom Not by the Moravians: I never sawany such thing among them. But what do you mean by ‘a just resentment’ I hope you do notmean what is commonly called zeal; a flame which often ‘sets onfire 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!

10. ‘But I must observe,’ you say, ‘that you fall not only into inconsistencies, but into direct contradictions. You commend them for “loving one another in a manner the world knoweth not of;” and yet you charge them with being “in the utmost confusion, biting and devouring one another.” You say, “They caution us against natural love of one another; and had well-nigh destroyed brotherly love from among us.”’ ‘You praise them for “using no diversions, but such as become saints;” and for “not regarding outward adorning:” Yet you say they “conform to the world in wearing gold and costly apparel; and by joining in worldly diversions, in order to do good.”’ ‘You call their discipline, “in most respects, truly excellent.” I wish you had more fully explained yourself. I am sure it is no sign of good discipline, to permit such abominations. And you tell themyourself, “I can show you such a subordination as answers all Christian purposes, and yet is as distant from that among you as the heavens are from the earth.”’ ‘You mention it as a good effect of their discipline, that “every one knows and keeps his proper rank.” Soon after; as if it were with a design to confute yourself, you say, “Our brethren have neither wisdom enough to guide, nor prudence enough to let it alone.”’ ‘And now, Sir, how can you reconcile these opposite descriptions’ (pages 21-3). Just as easily as those before, by simplydeclaring the thing as it is. ‘You commend them’(the Moravians) ‘for loving one another [See letter of June 24, 1744.]; and yet charge them with biting and devouring one another’ (Journal, ii. 310, 328) ‘Them’! Whom Not the Moravians; but the English brethren of Fetter-Lane, before their union with the Moravians. Here, then, is no shadow ofcontradiction. For the two sentences do not relate to the same persons. ‘You say, “They had well-nigh destroyed brotherly love fromamong us;” partly by “cautions against natural love.”’ (ii. 494)It is a melancholy truth; so they had. But we had then no connection with them. Neither, therefore, does this contradict their ‘loving one another in a manner the world knoweth not of.’

‘You praise them for using no diversions but such as become saints;’ (ii. 310) ‘and yet say,’ (I recite the whole sentence,) ‘I have heard some of you affirm, that “Christian salvationimplies liberty to conform to the world, by joining in worldly diversions in order to do good”’ (ii. 491). And both these aretrue. The Moravians, in general, ‘use no diversions but such as become saints;’ and yet I have heard some of them affirm, incontradiction to their own practice, that ‘one then mentioned did well, when he joined in playing at tennis in order to do good.’ 11. ‘You praise them for not “regarding outward adorning”’ (ii. 310). So I do, the bulk of the congregation. ‘And yet you say,’ (I again recite the whole sentence,) ‘I have heard some of you affirm,that “Christian salvation implies liberty to conform to the world,by putting on of gold and costly apparel.”’ (ii. 491). I have so.And I blame them the more, because they are condemned by thegeneral practice of their own Church. ‘You call their discipline “in most respects truly excellent” (ii. 310). I could wish you had more fully explained yourself.’ I have,in the Second Journal (ii. 19-56.) ‘It is no sign of good discipline to permit such abominations;’ that is, error in opinion, and guile in practice. True, it is not; nor is it any demonstrationagainst it. For there may be good discipline even in a College ofJesuits. Another fault is, too great a deference to the Count. Andyet, ‘in most respects, their discipline is truly excellent.’ ‘You mention it as a good effect of their discipline, that “every oneknows and keeps his proper rank” (ii. 310). Soon after, as itwere with a design to confute yourself, you say, “Our brethrenhave neither wisdom enough to guide, nor prudence enough to letit alone”’ (ii. 327). Pardon me, Sir. I have no design either toconfute or to contradict myself in these words. The former sentence is spoken of the Moravian brethren; the latter, of the Englishbrethren of Fetter-Lane.

3. ‘Many of those who are perhaps as zealous of good works asyou, think I have allowed you too much. Nay, my brethren, buthow can we help allowing it, if we allow the Scriptures to be fromGod For is it not written, and do not you yourselves believe, “Without holiness no man shall see the Lord” And how then,without fighting about words, can we deny, that holiness is acondition of final acceptance And as to the first acceptance orpardon, does not all experience as well as Scripture prove, that noman ever yet truly believed the gospel who did not first repent Repentance therefore we cannot deny to be necessarily previous tofaith. Is it not equally undeniable, that the running back into willful,known sin (suppose it were drunkenness or uncleanness) stifles thatrepentance or conviction And can that repentance come to anygood issue in his soul, who resolves not to forgive his brother orwho obstinately refrains from what God convinces him is right, whether it be prayer or hearing his word Would you scrupleyourself to tell one of these, “Unto him that hath shall be given; but from him that hath not,” that is, uses it not, “shall be taken eventhat which he hath” Would you scruple to say this But in sayingthis, you allow all which I have said, viz., that previous tojustifying faith, there must be repentance, and, if opportunitypermit, “fruits meet for repentance.” ‘And yet I allow you this, that although both repentance and thefruits thereof are in some sense necessary before justification, yetneither the one nor the other is necessary 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 theword,) he is justified, his sins are blotted out, “his faith is countedto him for righteousness.” But it is not so, at whatever moment herepents, or brings forth any or all the fruits of repentance. Faithalone therefore justifies; which repentance alone does not; muchless any outward work. And consequently, none of these arenecessary to justification, in the same degree with faith.

‘No in the same sense. For none of these has so direct, immediate arelation to justification as faith. This is proximately necessarythereto; repentance remotely, as it is necessary (to faith. And the fruits of repentance still more remotely, as they are necessary [These words (omitted through a printer’s error) are restored by Wesley in his second letter to Mr. Church. See page 255.]) to the increase or continuance of repentance. 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, that faith alone is the proximate condition of justification.’ 4. This is what I hold concerning justification. I am next briefly toobserve what you object. ‘If faith,’ say you, ‘is the sole condition of justification, then it is our sole duty.’ (Remarks, p. 25.) I deny theconsequence. Faith may be, in the sense above described, the sole condition of justification; and yet not only repentance be our dutybefore, but all obedience after, we believe. You go on: ‘If good works are not conditions of ourjustification, they are not conditions of our (final) salvation’ (ibid.). I deny the consequence again. Good works, properly so called, cannot be the conditions of justification; because it is impossible to do any good work before we are justified. And yet, notwithstanding, good works may be, and are, conditions of finalsalvation. For who will say it is impossible to do any good workbefore we are finally saved You proceed: ‘Can we be saved in the contemptuous neglect of repentance, prayer,’ &c. (Page 26.) No, nor justified neither; but while they are previous to faith, these are not allowed to be goodworks. You afterwards argue from my own concessions, thus: ‘Yournotion of true stillness is, “a patient waiting upon God, by lowliness, meekness, and resignation, in all the ways of his holy law, and the works of his commandments.” But how is it possible toreconcile to this, the position, that these duties are not conditions ofour justification If we are justified without them, we may be savedwithout them. This consequence cannot be too often repeated.’ (Ibid.)

‘Was not irreligion and vice already prevailing enough,’ (whether I have increased them, we will consider by and by,) ‘but we must throw snares in people’s way’ God forbid! My whole life is employed in taking those snares out of people's way, which the world and the devil had thrown there. ‘And root out the remains of piety and devotion in the weak and well-meaning’ Of whom speaketh the Prophet this of himself, or of some other man ‘Your own confessions put this beyond all doubt.’ What! that ‘I root out the remains of piety and devotion’ Not so. The sum of them all recited above amounts to this and no more: ‘That while my brother and I were absent from London, many weak men were tainted with wrong opinions, most of whom we recovered at our return; but even those who continued therein did, notwithstanding, continue to live a holier life than ever they did before they heard us preach.’ ‘And you even now hold the principles from which these dangerous consequences do plainly and directly follow.’ But I know not where to find these consequences, unless it be in your title-page. There indeed I read of the very fatal tendency of justification by faith only: ‘The divisions and perplexities of the Methodists, and the many errors relating both to faith and practice, which,’ as you conceive, ‘have already arisen among these deluded people.’ However, you ‘charitably believe, I was not aware of these consequences at first.’ (page 4). No, nor am I yet; though it is strange I should not, if they so naturally succeed that doctrine. I will go a step farther. I do not know, neither believe, that they ever did succeed that doctrine, unless perhaps accidentally, as they might have succeeded any doctrine whatsoever. And till the contrary is proved, those consequences cannot show that these principles are not true.

13. Another consequence which you charge on my preaching justification by faith, is, the introducing the errors of the Moravians. ‘Had the people,’ say you, ‘gone on in a quiet and regular practice of their duty, as most of them did before you deluded them, it would have been impossible for the Moravian tenets to have prevailed among them. But when they had been long and often used to hear good works undervalued, I cannot wonder that they should plunge into new errors, and wax worse and worse.’ (Page 12.) This is one string of mistakes. ‘Had the people gone on in a quiet and regular practice of their duty, as most of them did before you deluded them.’ Deluded them! Into what Into the love of God and all mankind, and a zealous care to keep his commandments. I would to God this delusion (if such it is accounted) may spread to the four corners of the earth! But how did most of them go on before they were thus deluded Four in five, by a moderate computation, even as other baptized Heathens, in the works of the devil, in all the ‘wretchlessness of most unclean living.’ ‘In a quiet and regular practice of their duty!’ What duty the duty of cursing and swearing; the duty of gluttony and drunkenness; the duty of whoredom and adultery; or of beating one another, and any that came in their way In this (not very ‘quiet or regular’) practice did most of those go on before they heard us, who have now ‘put off the old man with his deeds,’ and are ‘holy in all manner of conversation.’ Have these, think you, ‘been long and often used to hear good works undervalued’ Or are they prepared for receiving the Moravian errors, by the knowledge and love of God O Sir, the Moravians know, if you do not, that there is no such barrier under heaven against their tenets as those very people whom you suppose just prepared for receiving them.

8. ‘At the time of the first preaching of the gospel’ (as you justly observe) ‘both Jews and Gentiles were very negligent of internal holiness, but laid great stress on external rites and certain actions, which, if they performed according to the due forms of their respective religions, they doubted not but those works would render them acceptable to God. The Apostles therefore thought they could not express themselves too warmly against so wicked a persuasion, and often declare that we cannot be made righteous by works (that is, not by such outward works as were intended to commute for inward holiness), but “by faith in Christ” (that is, by becoming Christians both in principle and practice).’ 9. I have often thought the same thing; namely, that the Apostles used the expression ‘salvation by faith’ (importing inward holiness by the knowledge of God) in direct opposition to the then common persuasion of salvation by works -- that is, going to heaven by outward works, without any inward holiness at all. 10. And is not this persuasion as common now as it was in the time of the Apostles We must needs go out of the world, or we cannot doubt it. Does not every one of our Churches (to speak a sad truth) afford us abundant instances of those who are as negligent of internal holiness as either the Jews or ancient Gentiles were And do not these at this day lay so great a stress on certain external rites, that, if they perform them according to the due forms of their respective communities, they doubt not but those works will render them acceptable to God You and I therefore cannot express ourselves too warmly against so wicked a persuasion; nor can we express ourselves against it in more proper terms than those the Apostles used to that very end. It cannot be denied that this apostolical language is also the language of our own Church. But I waive this. What is scriptural in any Church, I hold fast; for the rest, I let it go. III. 11. But the main point remains: you think the doctrines I hold are not founded on Holy Writ. Before we inquire into this, I would just touch on some parts of that abstract of them which you have given.

You think, secondly, ‘that we ourselves give up some things as indefensible, which are defended by the same law and authority that establishes the things above mentioned; such as are many of the laws, customs, and practices of the Ecclesiastical Courts.’ We allow (1) that those laws, customs, and practices are really indefensible; (2) that there are Acts of Parliament in defense of them, and also of the threefold order. But will you show us how it follows, either (1) that those things and these stand or fall together or (2) that we cannot sincerely plead for the one, though we give up the other Do you not here quite overlook one circumstance, which might be a key to our whole behavior -- namely, that we no more look upon these filthy abuses which adhere to our Church as part of the building than we look upon any filth which may adhere to the walls of Westminster Abbey as a part of that structure You think, thirdly, ‘that there are other things which we defend and practice, in open contradiction to the orders of the Church of England.’ And this you judge to be a just exception against the sincerity of our professions to adhere to it. Compare what we profess with what we practice, and you will possibly be of another judgment. We profess (1) that we will obey all the laws of that Church (such we allow the Rubrics to be, but not the customs of the Ecclesiastical Courts) so far as we can with a safe conscience: (2) that we will obey, with the same restriction, the bishops as executors of those laws; but their bare will, distinct from those laws, we do not profess to obey at all. Now point out what is there in our practice which is an open contradiction to these professions Is field-preaching Not at all. It is contrary to no law which we profess to obey. The allowing lay preachers We are not clear that this is contrary to any such law. But if it is, this is one of the exempt cases; one wherein we cannot obey with a safe conscience. Therefore, be it right or wrong on other accounts, it is, however, no just exception against our sincerity. The rules and directions given to our Societies which, you say, is a discipline utterly forbidden by the bishops.

6. However, you think there is no occasion now for the expressions used in ancient times, since the persuasions which were common then are now scarcely to be found. For ‘does any Church of England man,’ you ask, ‘maintain anything like this -- that men may commute external works instead of internal holiness’ Most surely: I doubt whether every Church of England man in the nation, yea, every Protestant (as well as Papist) in Europe, who is not deeply sensible that he did so once, does not do so to this day. I am one who for twenty years used outward works, not only as ‘acts of goodness,’ but as commutations (though I did not indeed profess this), instead of inward holiness. I knew I was not holy. But I quieted my conscience by doing such-and-such outward works; and therefore I hoped I should go to heaven, even without inward holiness. Nor did I ever speak close to one who had the form of godliness without the power but I found he had split on the same rock. Abundance of people I have likewise known, and many I do know at this day, who ‘are so grossly superstitious as to think devotion may be put upon God instead of honesty’; as to fancy, going to church and sacrament will bring them to heaven, though they practice neither justice nor mercy. These are the men who make Christianity vile, who, above all others, ‘contribute to the growth of infidelity.’ On the contrary, the speaking of faith working by love, of uniform outward religion springing from inward, has already been the means of converting several Deists and one Atheist (if not more) into real Christians.

17. We are at length come to the real state of the question between the Methodists (so called) and their opponents. ‘Is there perceptible inspiration, or is there not Is there such a thing (if we divide the question into its parts) as faith producing peace, and joy, and love, and inward (as well as outward) holiness Is that faith which is productive of these fruits wrought in us by the Holy Ghost, or not And is he in whom they are wrought necessarily conscious of them, or is he not’ These are the points on which I am ready to join issue with any serious and candid man. Such I believe you to be. If, therefore, I knew on which of those you desired my thoughts, I would give you them freely, such as they are; or (if you desire it) on any collateral question. The best light I have I am ready to impart; and am ready to receive farther light from you. My time, indeed, is so short that I cannot answer your letters so particularly or so correctly as I would. But I am persuaded you will excuse many defects where you believe the design is good. I want to know what, as yet, I know not. May God teach it me by you, or by whom He pleaseth! ‘Search me, O Lord, and prove me! Try out my reins and my heart! Look well if there be error or wickedness in me; and lead me in the way everlasting!’

3. But I may not dismiss this passage yet. It is now my turn to complain of unfair usage; of the exceeding lame, broken, imperfect manner wherein you cite my words. For instance, your citation runs thus: you ‘never knew but one of the Moravian Church affirm that a believer does not grow in holiness.’ Whereas my words are these: ‘I never knew one of the Moravian Church but that single person affirm that a believer does not grow in holiness; and perhaps he would not affirm it on reflection.’ Now, why was the former part of the sentence changed and the latter quite left out Had the whole stood in your tract just as it does in mine, it must have appeared I do not here charge the Moravian Church. I complain also of your manner of replying to the first article of this very paragraph. For you do not cite so much as one line of that answer to which you profess to reply. My words are, ‘You ought not to charge the Moravian Church with the first of these’ errors; ‘since, in the very page from which you quote those words, “There is no justifying faith where there ever is any doubt,” that note occurs (namely, Journal, ii. 492): “In the Preface to the Second Journal the Moravian Church is cleared from this mistake.”’ If you had cited these words, could you possibly have subjoined, ‘I have not charged the Moravian Church with anything, but only repeat after you’ 4. I have now considered one page of your reply in the manner you seem to require. But sure you cannot expect I should follow you thus step by step through an hundred and forty pages! If you should then think it worth while to make a second reply, and to follow me in the same manner, we might write indeed, but who would read I return, therefore, to what I proposed at first -- namely, to touch only on what seems of the most importance, and leave the rest just as it lies.

(4) ‘You praise them for not “regarding outward adorning.”’ So I do, the bulk of the congregation. ‘And yet you say’ (I again recite the whole sentence), ‘“I have heard some of you affirm that Christian salvation implies liberty to conform to the world, by putting on of gold and costly apparel.”’ I have so. And I blame them the more, because ‘they are condemned by the general practice of their own Church.’ To this also you reply not. So I must count this the fourth contradiction which you have charged upon me, but have not proved. (5) ‘You call their discipline “in most respects truly excellent.” I could wish you had more fully explained yourself.’ I have in the Second Journal (Journal, ii. 19-56). ‘It is no sign of good discipline to permit such abominations’ -- that is, error in opinion and guile in practice. True, it is not; nor is it any demonstration against it: for there may be good discipline even in a College of Jesuits. Another fault is too great a deference to the Count. And yet ‘in most respects their discipline is truly excellent.’ You reply, ‘Such excellent discipline, for all that I know, they may have’ (that is, as the Jesuits); ‘but I cannot agree that this is scarce inferior to that of the apostolical age.’ It may be, for anything you advance to the contrary. ‘Here I cited some words of yours, condemning their subordination (page 88), which you prudently take no notice of.’ Yes; I had just before taken notice of their too great deference to the Count. But the contradiction! Where is the contradiction (6) ‘You mention it as a good effect of their discipline that “every one knows and keeps his proper rank.” Soon after, as it were with a design to confute yourself, you say, “Our brethren have neither wisdom enough to guide nor prudence enough to let it alone.”’ I answered, ‘Pardon me, sir. I have no design either to confute or contradict myself in these words. The former sentence is spoken of the Moravian Brethren; the latter, of the English brethren of Fetter Lane, not then united with the Moravians, neither acting by their direction.’ To this likewise you do not reply. Here is, then, a sixth contradiction alleged against me, but not proved.

3. How far I have acted agreeably to the rules and orders of our Church is a farther question. You think I have acted contrary thereto, first, by using extemporary prayer in public. ‘The Church,’ you say, ‘has strongly declared her mind on this point by appointing her excellent Liturgy, which you have solemnly promised to use, and no other.’ I know not when or where. ‘And whoever does not worship God in the manner she prescribes must be supposed to slight and contemn her offices and rules; and therefore can be no more worthy to be called her minister.’ (Page 7.) I do not ‘slight or contemn the offices’ of the Church: I esteem them very highly. And yet I do not at all times worship God even in public in the very terms of those offices. Nor yet do I knowingly ‘slight or contemn her rules’; for it is not clear to my apprehension that she has any rule which forbids using extemporary prayer, suppose, between the Morning and Evening Service. And if I am ‘not worthy to be called her minister’ (which I dare by no means affirm myself to be), yet her minister I am, and must always be, unless I should be judicially deposed from my ministry. Your second argument is this: ‘If you suppose the Scripture enjoins you to use extemporary prayer, then you must suppose our Liturgy to be inconsistent with Scripture, and consequently unlawful to be used.’ That does not follow, unless I supposed the Scripture to enjoin to use extemporary prayer and no other. Then it would follow that a form of prayer was inconsistent with Scripture. But this I never did suppose. Your third argument is to this effect: ‘You act contrary to the rule of the Church. Allow she is in the wrong; yet, while you break her rule, how do you act as her minister’ It ought to be expressed, ‘How are you her minister’ for the conclusion to be proved is that I am not her minister. I answer: (1) I am not convinced, as I observed before, that I do hereby break her rule; (2) if I did, yet should I not cease to be her minister, unless I were formally deprived; (3) I now actually do continue in her communion, and hope that I always shall.

4. You object, farther, that I ‘disobey the governors of the Church.’ I answer, I both do and will obey them in all things where I do not apprehend there is some particular law of God to the contrary. ‘Here,’ you say, ‘you confess that in some things you do not and cannot obey your governors’ (page 8). Did I confess this Then I spoke rashly and foolishly; for I granted more than I can make good. I do certainly apprehend that the law of God requires me both to preach and sometimes to pray extempore. Yet I do not know that I disobey the governors of the Church herein; for I do not know that they have forbidden me to do either. But your ‘behavior and method of teaching is irregular. Have you any warrant from Scripture for preaching’ up and down thus I think I have; I think God hath called me to this work ‘by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery,’ which directs me how to obey that general command, ‘While we have time, let us do good unto all men.’ ‘But we ought to do this agreeably to our respective situations, and not break in upon each other's provinces. Every private man may take upon himself the office of a magistrate, and quote this text as justly as you have done.’ (Page 9.) No; the private man is not called to the office of a magistrate, but I am to the office of a preacher. ‘You was, indeed, authorized to preach the gospel; but it was in the congregation to which you should be lawfully appointed. Whereas you have many years preached in places whereunto you was not lawfully appointed; nay, which were entrusted to others, who neither wanted nor desired your assistance.’ Many of them wanted it enough, whether they desired it or no. But I shall not now debate that point. I rather follow you to the First Part of the Farther Appeal, where this objection is considered.[Works, viii. 117.] 5. ‘Our Church,’ it was said, ‘has provided against this preaching up and down, in the ordination of a priest, by expressly limiting the exercise of the powers then conferred upon him to the congregation where he shall be lawfully appointed thereunto.’

I answered: (1) ‘Your argument proves too much. If it be allowed just as you propose it, it proves that no priest has authority either to preach or administer the sacrament in any other than his own congregation.’ You reply, ‘Is there no difference between a thing’s being done occasionally and its being done for years together’ Yes, a great one; and more inconveniences may arise from the latter than from the former. But this is all wide; it does not touch the point. ‘Still, if our Church does expressly limit the exercise of the sacerdotal powers to that congregation whereunto each priest shall be appointed, this precludes him from exercising those powers at all in any other than that congregation.’ I answered: (2) ‘Had the powers conferred been so limited when I was ordained priest, my ordination would have signified just nothing. For I was not appointed to any congregation at all, but was ordained as a member of that “College of Divines” (so our Statutes express it) “founded to overturn all heresies and defend the catholic faith.”’[Bishop Fleming's object in founding Lincoln College.] You reply, ‘I presume it was expected you should either continue at your college or enter upon some regular cure.’ Perhaps so; but I must still insist that, if my sacerdotal powers had been then expressly limited to that congregation whereunto I should be appointed, my ordination would have signified nothing. I mean, I could never, in virtue of that ordination, have exercised those powers at all; seeing I never was appointed to any single congregation--at least, not till I went to Georgia. I answered: (3) ‘For many years after I was ordained priest this limitation was never heard of. I heard not one syllable of it, by way of objection to my preaching up and down in Oxford or London, or the parts adjacent, in Gloucestershire or Worcestershire, in Lancashire, Yorkshire, or Lincolnshire. Nor did the strictest disciplinarian scruple suffering me to exercise those powers wherever I came.’

You reply, ‘There is great difference between preaching occasionally with the leave of the incumbents, and doing it constantly without their leave.’ I grant there is; and there are objections to the latter which do not reach the former case. But they do not belong to this head. They do not in the least affect this consequence -- ‘If every priest, when ordained, is expressly limited, touching the exercise of the power then received, to that congregation to which he shall be appointed, then is he precluded by this express limitation from preaching, with or without the incumbent's leave, in any other congregation whatever.’ I answered: (4) ‘Is it not, in fact, universally allowed that every priest as such has a power, in virtue of his ordination, to preach in any congregation where the curate desires his assistance’ You reply to this by what you judge a parallel case. But it does not touch the restriction in question. Either this does or does not expressly limit the exercise of the powers conferred upon a priest in his ordination to that congregation whereunto he shall be appointed. If it does not, I am not condemned by this, however faulty I may be on a thousand other accounts. If it does, then is every priest condemned who ever preaches out of the congregation to which he is appointed. Your parallel case is this: ‘Because a man does not offend against the law of the land when I prevail upon him to teach my children,’ therefore ‘he is empowered to seize’ (read, he does not offend against the law of the land in seizing) ‘an apartment in my house, and against my will and approbation to continue therein and to direct and dictate to my family!’ (page II).

An exact parallel indeed! When, therefore, I came to live in St. Luke’s parish, was it just the same thing as if I had seized an apartment in Dr. Buckley's house [This is Dr. Benjamin Bulkeley, whose name was pronounced ‘Buckley.’ He took his degree at Oxford in 1709, and became D.D. in 1731; Assistant Preacher at St. Luke's, Old Street, 1733; Rector of Chingford 1741; Canon of St. Paul's 1742-57. William Nichols, Vicar of St. Giles's, Cripplegate (1732-74), and President of Magdalene College, Cambridge, was also Rector of St. Luke’s, where he evidently had Dr. Bulkeley as his resident helper. See Foster’s Alumni Oxonienses; and letters of March 25, sect. 12, and June 11, sect. 20, 1747.] And was the continuing therein against his will and approbation (supposing it were so) precisely the same as if I had continued in his house, whether he would or no Is the one exactly the same offence against the law of the land as the other Once more. Is the warning sinners in Moorfields to flee from the wrath to come the very same with directing the doctor's family under his own roof I should not have answered this; but that I was afraid you would conclude it was unanswerable. I answered the former objector: (5) ‘Before those words which you suppose to imply such a restraint, were those spoken without any restraint or limitation at all, which I apprehend to convey an indelible character, “Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands.”’ You reply, ‘The question is not whether you are in Orders or not’ (page 12). I am glad to hear it. I really thought it was. ‘But whether you have acted suitably to the directions or rules of the Church of England.’ Not suitably to that rule, if it were strictly to be interpreted of preaching only in a single congregation. But I have given my reasons why I think it cannot be so interpreted. And those reasons I do not see that you have invalidated.

9. Use ever so many exaggerations, still the whole of this matter is: (1) I often use extemporary prayer; (2) wherever I can, I preach the gospel; (3) those who desire to live the gospel, I advise how to watch over each other and to put from them such as walk disorderly. Now, whether these things are, on other considerations, right or wrong, this single point I must still insist on: ‘All this does not prove either that I am no member or that I am no minister of the Church of England.’ Nay, nothing can prove I am no member of the Church, till I either am excommunicated or renounce her communion, and no longer join in her doctrine and in the breaking of bread and in prayer. Nor can anything prove I am no minister of the Church, till I either am deposed from my ministry or voluntarily renounce her, and wholly cease to teach her doctrines, use her offices, and obey her rubrics for conscience’ sake. However, I grant that whatsoever is ‘urged on this head deserves my most serious consideration.’ And whensoever I am convinced that, by taking any methods, more or less different from those I now take, I may better ‘consult the honor of religion, and be able to do more good in the world,’ by the grace of God I shall not persist in these one hour, but instantly choose the more excellent way. IV. 1. What you urge on the head of enthusiasm also, I think, ‘deserves my most serious consideration.’ You may add, ‘and presumption.’ I let it drop once more; because I do not love tautology; and because I look upon presumption to be essential to enthusiasm, and consequently contained therein. I will therefore weigh what you advance concerning it, and explain myself something more at large.

I presume you will allow there is one kind of miracles (loosely speaking) which are not ceased -- namely, tata fed, ‘lying wonders,’ diabolical miracles, or works beyond the virtue of natural causes, wrought by the power of evil spirits. Nor can you easily conceive that these will cease as long as the father of lies is the prince of this world. And why should you think that the God of truth is less active than him, or that He will not have His miracles also -- only, not as man wills, neither when he wills, but according to His own excellent wisdom and greatness 6. But even if it were supposed that God does now work beyond the operation of merely natural causes, yet what impression would this make upon you in the disposition your mind is now in Suppose the trial were repeated, were made again to-morrow. One informs you the next day, ‘While a clergyman was preaching yesterday where I was, a man came who had been long ill of an incurable distemper. Prayer was made for him, and he was restored to perfect health.’

Now, these being removed, where are the Christians, from whom we may properly term England a Christian country the men who have the mind which was in Christ, and who walk as He also walked, whose inmost soul is renewed after the image of God, and who are outwardly holy, as He who hath called them is holy There are doubtless a few such to be found. To deny this would be want of candor. But how few! how thinly scattered up and down! And as for a Christian visible Church, or a body of Christians visibly united together, where is this to be seen Ye different sects, who all declare Lo, here is Christ! or, Christ is there! Your stronger proofs divinely give, And show me where the Christians live! [Published in 1743 at the end of An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion. See Works, viii. 43; Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, v. 480-1.]

You reply: (1) ‘One instance of your misrepresenting and injuring a preacher of our Church I mentioned’ (Second Letter, p. 105). ‘Mentioned’! Well, but did you prove it was an injury or misrepresentation I know not that you once attempted it. (2) You next quote part of a letter [See letter of Dec. 10, 1734, sect24.] from the Third Journal (Journal, ii. 165), wherein, according to your account, the ‘most considerable of our clergy are abused, and at once accused in a very gross manner’ (Second Letter, p. 106). Set down the whole paragraph, and I will prove that this also is naked truth, and no abuse at all. You say (3) ‘You approved of Whitefield’s railing against the clergy’: that is, I say, ‘Mr. Whitefield preached concerning the “Holy Ghost, which all who believe are to receive”; not without a just, though severe, censure of those who preach as if there were no Holy Ghost’ (ii. 238-9). Nor is this railing, but melancholy truth. I have myself heard several preach in this manner. (4) You cite my words: ‘Woe unto you, ye blind leaders of the blind! How long will you pervert the right ways of the Lord’ and add, ‘I appeal to yourself, whether you did not design this reflection against the clergy in general who differ from you.’ No more than I did against Moses and Aaron. 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 justified before God.’ [Works, viii. 224 -5.]

8. 'In whom this holy birth is fully brought forth, the body of sin and death is crucified, and their hearts are subjected to the truth, so as not to obey any suggestion of the evil one; but to be free from actual sinning and transgressing of the law of God, and in that respect perfect.' 9. 'They in whom His grace hath wrought in part to purify and sanctify them may yet by disobedience fall from it and make shipwreck of the faith.' In these propositions there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. The uncommon expression 'This holy birth brought forth' is taken from Jacob Behmen. [See Wesley's Thoughts upon Jacob Behmen (1575-1624) in Works, ix. 509-18.] 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 minister 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 anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.' (I Cor. xiv.34-5.) 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.

If this is not lawful, then some law of God forbids it. Can you show me that law If you cannot, then the scrupling this is another plain instance of superstition, not Christianity. 'It is not lawful for a Christian to use superfluities in apparel; as neither to use such games, sports, and plays, under the notion of recreations, as are not consistent with gravity and godly fear.' As to both these propositions, there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. Only observe, touching the former, that the sin of superfluous apparel lies chiefly in the superfluous expense. To make it, therefore, a point of conscience to differ from others as to the shape or colour of your apparel is mere superstition: let the difference lie in the price, that you may have the more wherewith to clothe them that have none. 'It is not lawful for Christians to swear before a magistrate, nor to fight in any case.' Whatever becomes of the latter proposition, the former is no part of Christianity; for Christ Himself answered upon oath before a magistrate. Yea, He would not answer till He was put to His oath, till the high-priest said unto Him, 'I adjure thee by the living God.' Friend, you have an honest heart, but a weak head; you have a zeal, but not according to knowledge. You was zealous once for the love of God and man, for holiness of heart and holiness of life: you are now zealous for particular forms of speaking, for a set of phrases and opinions. Once your zeal was against ungodliness and unrighteousness, against evil tempers and evil works: now it is against forms of prayer, against singing psalms or hymns, against appointing times of praying or preaching; against saying 'you' to a single person, uncovering your head, or having too many buttons upon your coat. Oh what a fall is here! What poor trifles are these, that now wellnigh engross your thoughts! Come back, come back to the weightier matters of the law, to spiritual, rational, scriptural religion. No longer waste your time and strength in beating the air, in vain controversies and strife of words; but bend your whole soul to the growing in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the continually advancing in that holiness without which you cannot see the Lord.

To Mrs. Jones, of Fonmon Castle Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1748) Author: John Wesley --- [3] BRISTOL, February 12, 1748. At my return from Ireland, if not before, I believe the school in Kingswood will be opened. If your son comes there, you will probably hear complaints [See letter of Nov. 7, 1749.]; for the discipline will be exact: it being our view not so much to teach Greek and Latin as to train up soldiers for Jesus Christ. I am obliged now to go the shortest way to Holyhead, my brother being almost impatient for my arrival. I am sorry to hear that Mr. Thomas thinks of leaving Mr. Hodges: I doubt their separation will not be for the furtherance of the gospel. My love and service attend all your family.--I am Your affectionate friend and servant. I have sent a few copies for Miss Molly.[Mrs. Jones's eldest daughter, Mary, who married William Thomas, of Llanbradach, in Glamorganshire.]

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.]

8. But to argue on your own supposition: you say, 'It only shows that novelty, which has a natural tendency to awakening, may, when God pleases, have an efficacious tendency to amending.' Well, then, if the novelty of an indifferent circumstance, such as place, has a natural tendency to awakening, surely we may use it according to its natural tendency, in order to awaken those that sleep in sin I And if God has, in fact, been pleased to use it beyond its natural tendency, to make it efficacious for amending as well as awakening, ought we not to acquiesce, yea, and rejoice therein 9. But are sinners amended Are they saved from their sins Are they truly converted to God Here is, what always must be, the main question. That many are in some sort converted is owned. But to what are they converted 'to the belief of such proofless, incredible stuff as transubstantiation or to the Popish severities of flesh-fasting, celibacies, and other monkeries' Not so. If they are converted at all, they are converted from all manner of wickedness 'to a sober, righteous, and godly life.' Such an uniform practice is true outward holiness. And, wherever this is undeniably found, we ought to believe there is holiness of heart, seeing the tree is known by its fruits. 10. That 'the conversion of sinners to this holiness is no miracle at all' is new doctrine indeed! So new to me that I never heard it before, either among Protestants or Papists. I think a miracle is a work of omnipotence wrought by the supernatural power of God. Now, if the conversion of sinners to holiness is not such a work, I cannot tell what is. I apprehend our Lord accounts it a greater work than giving sight to the blind, yea, or raising the dead; for it was after He had raised Lazarus from the dead that He told His Apostles, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also. And greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto My Father.' Greater outward works they could not do. It remains, therefore, that we understand those solemn words of converting souls to God; which is, indeed, a greater work than any that can be wrought on the body.

While you and I went out at one door, Mr. Grimshaw and Mr. Colbeck went out at the other. The mob immediately closed them in, and tossed them to and fro with the utmost violence, threw Mr. Grimshaw down, and loaded them both with dirt and mire; not one of your friends offering to assist them or call off the blood-hounds from the pursuit. The other quiet, harmless people which followed me at a distance to see what the end would be they treated still worse, not only by your connivance, but by the express order of your deputy. They made them flee for their lives amidst showers of dirt and stones, without any regard to age or sex. Some of them they trampled in the mire, and dragged by the hair, particularly a young man who came with me from Newcastle.[This was William Mackford, a highly respected trustee of the Orphan House at Newcastle. He had come with Wesley from Newcastle, and under his preaching was 'set at liberty' the day this letter was written. See Journal, iii. 372; Stamp's Orphan House, p. 115.] Many they beat with their clubs without mercy. One they forced to leap down (or they would have cast him headlong) from a rock ten or twelve foot high into the river; and even when he crawled out, wet and bruised, they swore they would throw him in again, and he hardly escaped out of their hands. At this time you sat well pleased close to the scene of action, not attempting in the least to hinder them; and all this time you was talking of justice and law. Alas! Suppose we were Dissenters (which I utterly deny, consequently laws against Dissenting conventicles are nothing at all to us); suppose we were Turks or Jews;--still, are we not to have the benefit of the law of our country Proceed against us by law, if you can or dare; but not by lawless violence--not by making a drunken, cursing, swearing, riotous mob both judge, jury, and executioner. This is flat rebellion both against God and the King, as you may possibly find to your cost.

But, before I take any farther step herein, I think myself obliged to make you a fair proposal. If you will promise me under your hand to suppress all mobs at Roughlee and the parts adjacent (as your duty both to God and the King require you to do, even at the hazard of your life); if you will promise to proceed only by law against those you apprehend to act contrary to law (which, indeed, I absolutely deny you to do), nor can it be supposed that none of the lawyers in Leeds, Newcastle, Bristol, or London should find it out (if it were so), but only the Solomons in Pendle Forest;--if I accordingly find a letter from you to this effect when I come to London, directed to the Foundery, near Moorfields, I shall be satisfied and proceed no farther. If not, I shall try another course. Only one piece of advice permit me to give. Do not consult herein with some petty attorney (who will certainly say your cause is good), but with some able barrister-at-law. This is the course I take. The counsel to whom I applied on this very Act of Parliament before I left London were Counsellor Glanville, a barrister of Gray's Inn, [See the next two letters.] and Sir Dudley Rider, the King's Attorney-General.--I am Your real friend.

‘But why should they not call themselves the Moravian Church’ Because they are not the Moravian Church; no more (at the utmost) than a part is the whole, than the Romish Church is the Church of Christ. A congregation assembled in St. Paul's might with greater propriety style themselves the Church of England -- yea, with far greater: (1) because these are all Englishmen born; (2) because they have been baptized as members of the Church of England; and (3) because as far as they know, they adhere both to her doctrine and discipline. Whereas (1) Not a tenth part of Count Zinzendorf's Brethren are so much as Moravian born; not two thousand out of twenty thousand (quaere, if two hundred adults if fifty men). (2) Not one-tenth of them were baptized as members of the Moravian Church (perhaps not one till they left Moravia), but as members of the Romish Church. (3) They do not adhere either to the doctrines or discipline of the Moravian Church. They have many doctrines which the Church never held and an entirely new scheme and discipline. (4) The true Moravian Church, of which this is a very small part, if it be any part at all, is still subsisting not in Endand or Germany, but in Polish Prussia.’ Therefore I cannot admire their assuming the name to themselves; I cannot reconcile it either with modesty or sincerity. If you say, ‘But the Parliament has allowed it,’ I answer, I am sorry for it. The putting so palpable a cheat upon so august an assembly, with regard to a notorios matter of fact, I conceive does not redound to their own any more than to the honor of our nation. If you add, ‘But you yourself once styled them thus,’ I grant I did; but I did it in ignorance. I took it on their word; and I now freely and openly testify my mistake. Secondly. I do not admire their doctrine in the particulars that follow: 1. That we are to do nothing in order to salvation, but barely to believe. 2. That there is but one duty now, but one command--to believe in Christ. 3. That Christ has taken away all other commands and duties, having wholly abolished the law.

(The sermon Count Zinzendorf preached at Fetter Lane on John viii. 11 places this in a strong light. He roundly began: ‘Christ says, I came not to destroy the law. But He did destroy the law. The law condemned this woman to death; but He did not condemn her. And God Himself does not keep the law. The law forbids lying; but God said, Forty days and Nineveh shall be destroyed; yet Nineveh was not destroyed.’) 4. That there is no such thing as degrees in faith or weak faith; since he has no faith who has any doubt or fear. (How to reconcile this with whith what I heard the Count assert at large, ‘that a man may have justifying faith and not know it,’ I cannot tell.) 5. That we are sanctified wholly the moment we are justified, and are neither more nor less holy to the day of our death. 6. That a believer has no holiness in himself at all; all his holiness being imputed, not inherent. 7. That a man may feel a peace that passeth all understanding may rejoice with joy fun of glory, and have the love of God and of all mankind, with dominion over all sin; and yet all this may be only nature, animal spirits, or the force of imagination. 8. That if a man regards prayer, or searching the Scriptures, or communicating as matter of duty; if he judges himself obliged to do these things, or is troubled when he neglects them, -- he is in bondage, he is under the law, he has no faith, but is still seeking salvation by works. 9. That, therefore, till we believe, we ought to be still - that is, not to pray, search the Scriptures, or communicate. 10. That their Church cannot err, and of consequence ought to be implicitly believed and obeyed. Thirdly. I approve many things in their practice; yet even this I cannot admire in the following instances: 1. I do not admire their conforming to the word by useless, trifling conversation; by suffering sin upon their brother, without reproving even that which is gross and open; by levity in the general tenor of their behavior, not walking as under the eye of the great God; and, lastly, by joining in the most trifling diversions in order to do good.

If you still have a desire to make your will, Brother Briggs [William Briggs, of the Customs House had been for some time a Methodist preacher. He was a leader at the Foundry in 1745. See heading to letter of Feb. 25, 1769.] can write it for you. It requires no form of law -- no, nor even stamp paper. But if you apprehend any difficulty, Mr. I'Anson [Wesley’s legal friend and advisor. See W.H.S. v. 230-7.] will rejoice to advise you, either for my sake or your own. My dear, forward the business with Mr. Blisson [Mr. Wesleys trustee. See the next three letters.] and the stating the accounts by Mr. Crook [Mr. Crook was evidently making some account of Mrs. Wesley's affairs. See next letter.] as much as possible. But O let no business of any kind hinder the intercourse between God and your soul! Neither let anything prevent your spending at least one hour a day in private reading, prayer, and meditation. To hear you do this constantly will give a particular satisfaction to him who blesses God that he is Ever Yours. If any letter comes to you directed to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, [See address at end of next letter.] open it: it is for yourself. Dear Love, adieu!

July 20. -- The Societies both must and shall maintain the preachers we send among them, or I will preach among them no more. The least that I can say to any of these preachers is, ‘Give yourself wholly to the work, and you shall have food to eat and raiment to put on.' And I cannot see that any preacher is called to any people who will not thus maintain him. Almost everything depends on you and me: let nothing damp or hinder us: only let us be alive, and put forth all our strength. July 24. -- As to the preachers, my counsel is, not to check the young ones without strong necessity. If we lay some aside, we must have a supply; and of the two I prefer grace before gifts. [Charles Wesley asks:] Are not both indispensably necessary Has not the cause suffered, in Ireland especially, through the insufficiency of the preachers Should we not first regulate, reform, and bring into discipline the preachers we have before we look for more Should we not also watch and labor, to prevent the mischief which the discarded preachers may occasion July 27. -- What is it that has eaten out the heart of half our preachers, particularly those in Ireland Absolutely idleness; their not bring constantly employed. I see it plainer and plainer. Therefore I beg you will inquire of each, ‘How do you spend your time from morning to evening’ And give him his choice, ‘Either follow your trade, or resolve before God to spend the same hours in reading, &c., [Wesley did his utmost to rouse and help his preachers to cultivate their minds. In Lent 1749 he met seventeen of them at Kingswood, and read lectures to them as he used to do to his pupils at Oxford.] which you used to spend in working.’

To John Dowries Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1751) Author: John Wesley --- LONDON, November, 7, 1751. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I think you write to me as ff you did not care to write. I am glad you went to Alnwick. [See previous letter.] The method you took of talking with each person in the Society apart, I hear, has been greatly blessed to them. I do not see how you could have dealt more favorably with Thomas Grumble [See W.H.S. vii. 65.] than you did. If he will leave the Society, he must leave it. But if he does, you are clear. I know not what to do more for poor Jenny Keith. [Jenny Keith was a Scotswoman who came to the Orphan House Newcastle, to escape persecution, and was there known as ‘Holy Mary.’ She married James Bowmaker, a master builder at Alnwick, and died in 1752. She kept her religious life to the end. See Tyerman's Wesley, i. 542.] Alas, from what a height is she fallen! What a burning and shining light was she six or seven years ago! But thus it ever was. Many of the first shall be last, and many of the last first. How are you employed from five in the morning till nine at night For I suppose you want eight hours’ sleep. What becomes of logic and Latin Is your soul alive and more athirst for God -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

After more and more persons are convinced of sin, we may mix more and more of the gospel, in order to beget faith, to raise into spiritual life those whom the law hath rain; but this is not to be done too hastily neither. Therefore it is not expedient wholly to omit the law; not only because we may web suppose that many of our hearers are still unconvinced, but because otherwise there is danger that many who are convinced will heal their own wounds slightly: therefore it is only in private converse with a thoroughly convinced sinner that we should preach nothing but the gospel. If, indeed, we could suppose an whole congregation to be thus convinced, we should need to preach only the gospel; and the same we might do if our whole congregation were supposed to be newly justified. But when these grow in grace and in the knowledge of Christ, a wise builder would preach the law to them again; only taking particular care to place every part of it in a gospel light, as not only a command but a privilege also, as a branch of the glorious liberty of the sons of God. He would take equal care to remind them that this is not the cause but the fruit of their acceptance with God; that other cause, ‘other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, even Jesus Christ’; that we are still forgiven and accepted, only for the sake of what He hath done and suffered for us; and that all true obedience springs from love to Him, grounded on His first loving us. He would labor, therefore, in preaching any part of the law, to keep the love of Christ continually before their eyes; that thence they might draw fresh life, vigor and strength to run the way of His commandments. Thus would he preach the law even to those who were pressing on to the mark. But to those who were careless or drawing back he would preach it in another manner, nearly as he did before they were convinced of sin. To those meanwhile who were earnest but feeble-minded he would preach the gospel chiefly yet variously intermixing more or less of the law, according to their various necessities.

And all this, I conceive, is clearly declared in one single passage of Scripture: ‘The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. More to he desired am they than gold, yea, than much fine gold ; sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.’ They are both food and medicine; they both refresh, strengthen, and nourish the soul. Not that I would advise to preach the law without the gospel, any more than the gospel without the law. Undoubtedly both should be preached in their turn; yea, both at once, or both in one. All the conditional promises are instances of this. They are law and gospel mixed together. According to this model, I should advise every preacher continually to preach the law -- the law grafted upon, tempered by, and animated with the spirit of the gospel. I advise him to declare explain, and enforce every command of God. But meantime to declare in every sermon (and the more explicitly the better) that the flint and great command to a Christian is, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ’: that Christ is all in all, our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption; that all life, love, strength are from Him alone, and all freely given to us through faith. And it will ever be found that the law thus preached both enlightens and strengthens the soul; that it both nourishes and teaches; that it is the guide, ‘ food, medicine, and stay’ of the believing soul.

The next words which you cite, ‘thrown into great perplexities,’ I cannot find in the page you refer to; neither those that follow. The sum of them is that ‘at that time I did not feel the love of God, but found deadness and wanderings in public prayer, and coldness even at the Holy Communion.’ Well, sir, and have you never found in yourself any such coldness, deadness, and wanderings I am persuaded you have. And yet surely your brain is always cool and temperate! never ‘intoxicated with the heated fumes of spirituous particles’! 13. If you quote not incoherent scraps (by which you may make anything out of anything), but entire connected sentences, it will appear that the rest of your quotations make no more for your purpose than the foregoing. Thus -- although I allow that on May 24 ‘I was much buffeted with temptations; but I cried to God, and they fled away; that they returned again and again; I as often lifted up my eyes, and He sent me help from His holy place’ (Journal, i. 476-7) -- it will only prove the very observation I make myself: ‘I was fighting both under the law and under grace. But then I was sometimes, if not often, conquered; now I was always conqueror.’ That some time after, I ‘was strongly assaulted again, and after recovering peace and joy was thrown into perplexity afresh by a letter, asserting that no doubt or fear could consist with true faith, that my weak mind could not then bear to be thus sawn asunder,’ will not appear strange to any who are not utter novices in experimental religion. No more than that, one night the next year, ‘I had no life or spirit in me, and was much in doubt whether God would not lay me aside and send other laborers into His harvest.’ 14. You add: ‘He owns his frequent relapses into sin for near twice ten years. Such is the case of a person who tells us that he carefully considered every step he took, one of intimate communication with the Deity!’ Sir, I did not tell you that; though, according to custom, you mark the words as mine. It is well for you that forging quotations is not felony.

24. The second passage (written January 24, 1738) is this: ‘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.’ (i. 418.) I am here describing the thoughts which passed through my mind when I was confessedly an unbeliever. But even this implies no skepticism, 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. The third passage (which you tack to the former as if they were one and the same) runs thus: ‘I have not such a peace as excludes the possibility either of doubt or fear. When holy men have told me I had no faith, I have often doubted whether I had or no. And those doubts have made me very uneasy, till I was relieved by prayer and the Holy Scriptures.’ (if. 91.) Speak frankly, sir: does this prove me guilty of skepticism, infidelity, or Atheism What else does it prove Just nothing at all, but the ‘pertinacious confidence’ of him that cites it. 25. You recite more at large one passage more. The whole paragraph stands thus: ‘St. Paul tells us the “fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, temperance.” Now, although by the grace of God in Christ I find a measure of some of these in myself--namely, of peace, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, temperance; yet others I find not. I cannot find in myself the love of God or of Christ. Hence my deadness and wanderings in public prayer. Hence it is that even in the Holy Communion I have rarely any more than a cold attention. Hence, when I hear of the highest instance of God's love, my heart is still senseless and unaffected. Yea, at this moment (October 14, 1738) I feel no more love to Him than one I had never heard of.’ [See letters of Nov. 22, 1758 (to Isaac Lelong), and June 27, 1766.] (ii. 91.)

Upon this you descant: ‘The legislature has at several times made Acts for pressing men. But no matter for this; touch but a Methodist, and all may perish rather than a soldier be pressed. He who had before bound himself not to speak a title of worldly things is now bawling for liberty and property.’ Very lively this! But I hope, sir, you do not offer it by way of argument. You are not so unlearned in the law as not to know that the legislature is out of the question. The legislature six years ago did not appoint press-gangs but legal officers to press men. Consequently this is no proof {and find another if you can) of our undutiful behavior to the civil powers. 32. ‘Another natural consequence,’ you say, ‘of Methodism is their mutual jealousies and envyings, their manifold divisions, fierce and rancorous quarrels, and accusations of one another.’ I shall carefully attend whatever you produce on this head; and if you prove this, I will grant you all the rest. You first cite those words: ‘Musing on the things that were past, and reflecting how many that came after me were preferred before me, I opened my Testament on those words: “The Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness; but Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness”’ (ii. 324). And how does this prove the manifold divisions and rancorous quarrels of the Methodists Your second argument is: ‘Mr. Whitefield told me he and I preached two different gospels'’(his meaning was that he preached particular and I universal redemption); ‘and therefore he would not join with me, but publicly preach against me’ (sect. xix. p. 341, &c.). Well, sir, here was doubtless a division for a time; but no fierce and rancorous quarrel yet. You say, thirdly: ‘They write and publish against each other.’ True; but without any degree either of fierceness or rancor. You assert, fourthly: ‘Mr. Wesley in his sermon on Free Grace opposes the other for the horrible blasphemies of his horrible doctrine.’ Sir, away with your flourishes, and write plain English: I opposed the doctrine of Predestination, which he held; but without any degree either of rancor or fierceness. Still, therefore, you miss the mark.

Who those other ‘forty were that,’ you say, ‘left them’ I know not. Perhaps you may inform me. Upon the whole, all these quotations prove only this: That about eleven years ago Mr. Cennick, falling into predestination, set the Society in Kingswood a-disputing with each other, and occasioned much confusion for some months. But still you have not gone one step toward proving (which is the one point in question) that the Methodists in general were even then ‘all together by the ears,’ and much less that they have been so ever since and that they are so now. However, you fail not to triumph (like Louis le Grand after his victory at Blenheim): ‘What shall we say now Are these the fruits of Methodism’ No, sir. They are the fruits of opposing it. They are the tares sown among the wheat. You may hear of instances of the same kind both in earlier and later ages. You add: ‘This. is bad enough; but it is not the worst. For consider what becomes of those that leave them’ Why, sir, what if ‘their last end be worse than their first’ Will you charge this upon me By the same rule you must have charged upon the Apostles themselves whatever befell those who, having ‘known the way of righteousness,’ afterwards ‘turned back from the holy commandment once delivered to them.’ 36. You conclude this section: ‘Mr. Wesley will probably say, “Must I be answerable for the Moravians, against whom I have preached and written” True, since he and the Moravians quarreled. But who gives them a box on the ear with the one hand and embraces them with the other Who first brought over this wicked generation Who made a Moravian his spiritual guide who fanaticized his own followers and deprived them of their senses whose Societies (by his own confession) run over in shoals to Moravianism forty or fifty at a time Would they have split upon this rock, if they had not been first Methodists Lastly: where is the spawn of Moravianism so strongly working as in the children of Methodism’

37. Your next charge is that 'Methodism has a tendency to undermine morality and good works' (sect. xx. p. I46, &c.). To prove this-- You assert, first: ‘That the Methodists are trained up to wait in quietness for sudden conversion; whence they are naturally led to neglect the means of salvation.’ This is a mistake all over. For neither are they taught to wait in quietness (if you mean any more than patience by that term) for either sudden or gradual conversion; neither do they, in fact, neglect the means. So far from it, that they are eminently exact in the use of them. You assert, secondly: ‘The doctrine of assurance of pardon and salvation, present and future, causes a false security, to the neglect of future endeavors.’ Blunder upon blunder again. That all Christians have an assurance of future salvation is no Methodist doctrine; and an assurance of present pardon is so far from causing negligence, that it is of all others the strongest motive to vigorous endeavors after universal holiness. You assert, thirdly: ‘Impulses and impressions, being made the rule of duty, will lead into dangerous errors.’ Very true; but .the Methodists do not make impulses and impressions the rule of duty. They totally disclaim any other rule of duty than the written Word. You assert, fourthly: ‘A claim of unsinning perfection’ (I mean by perfection the loving God with all our heart) ‘drives some into frenzies, others into despair.’ Sir, I doubt the fact. You assert, fifthly: ‘The Moravian Methodists trample down morality, and multitudes of the Wesleyans have been infected.’ ‘The Moravian Methodists’! You may as well say the Presbyterian Papists. The Moravians have no connection with the Methodists. Therefore, whatever they do (though you slander them too), they and not we are to answer for. The Methodists at present, blessed be God, are as little infected with this plague (of condemning or neglecting good works) as any body of people in England or Ireland. 38. From these loose assertions you proceed to quotations from my writings, every one of which I shall consider, to show that, not in one or two, but in every one, you are a willful prevaricator and false accuser of your neighbor.

49. 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 your 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 favors of Heaven; unsteadiness of temper; unsteadiness in sentiment and practice; art and cunning; giving up inspiration and extraordinary calls; skepticism, infidelity, Atheism; uncharitableness to their opponents; contempt 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 fabric falls to the ground at once, unless you can find some better foundation to support it. (Sects. iii.-vi.; ix., xi.-xv.; xviii.-xxi.)

To Thomas Capiter Date: LONDON February 6, 1753. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1753) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER -- It is a constant rule with us that no preacher should preach above twice a day, unless on Sunday or on some extraordinary time; and then he may preach three times. We know nature cannot long bear the preaching oftener than this, and therefore to do it is a degree of self-murder. Those of our preachers who would not follow this advice have all repented when it was too late. I likewise advise all our preachers not to preach above an hour at a time, prayer and all; and not to speak louder either in preaching or prayer than the number of hearers requires. You will show this to all our preachers; and any that desire it may take a copy of it. --I am Your affectionate brother.

If your soul is now as much alive to God, if your thirst after pardon and holiness is as strong, if you are as dead to the desire of the eye and the pride of life as you was six or seven years ago, I rejoice; if not, I pray God you may. And then you will know how to value a real friend. With regard to myself, you do well to warn me against ‘popularity, a thirst of power and of applause, against envy producing a seeming contempt for the conveniences or grandeur of this life, against an affected humility, against sparing from myself to give to others from no other motive than ostentation.’ I am not conscious to myself that this is my case. However, the warning is always friendly, and it is always seasonable, considering how deceitful my heart is and how many the enemies that surround me. What follows I do not understand. ‘Your beholding me in the ditch wherein you helped (though involuntarily) to cast me, and with a Levitical pity passing by on the other side’; ‘He (who) and you, sir, have not any merit; though Providence should permit all these sufferings to work together for my good.’ I do not comprehend one fine of this, and therefore cannot plead either guilty or not guilty. I presume they are some that are dependent on me, who (you say) ‘keep not the commandments of God; who show a repugnance to serve and obey; who are as full of pride and arrogance as of filth and of nastiness; who do not pay lawful debts, nor comply with civil obligations; who make the waiting on the offices of religion a plea for sloth and idleness; who, after I had strongly recommended them, did not perform their moral duty, but increased the number of those encumbrances, which they forced on you against your will.’ To this I can only say (1) I know not whom you mean. I am not certain that I can so much as guess one of them. (2) Whoever they are, had they followed my instructions they would have acted in a quite different manner. (3) If you will tell me them by name who have acted thus, I will renounce all fellow-ship with them. [See letters of May 16 and 28 to him.]

To Samuel Furly Date: LONDON, December 7, 1754. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1754) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- For the present it does not appear to be necessary for you to enter into any dispute with your instructor. [See letter of Feb. 19, 1755.] But perhaps he would read a short tract; suppose, The Nature and Design of Christianity. [Wesley’s abridgement of the first chapter of William Law’s Practical Treatise upon Christian Perfection (1740, 19 pp.). See Green’s Bibliography, No. 17.] If at any time he should be touched by what he reads, it would then be a seasonable time to speak. I should not advise you by any means to enter upon anything like teaching or exhorting a company of people. If any poor townsman who is sick desires your assistance, you need not scruple to visit him. But farther than this it seems you are not called to go at present. The main point is now to improve your time in private, to keep dose to God in prayer, and to fix your eye on Him in whatever you do. Then the unction of the Holy One will teach you of all things. --I am Your affectionate brother.

To Samuel Furly Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1755) Author: John Wesley --- LONDON March, 20 1755. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Of those things which are lawful in themselves, such only are lawful to me as are sfta, conducive either directly or indirectly to my holiness or usefulness. Many things not conducive directly to either, yet may be so remotely, as the learning of languages or arithmetic. And of this kind are most academical exercises. They remotely (a Hough not directly) conduce to our usefulness in the world; by enabling us to take degrees, or to do other things which are (in the present state of things) necessary as means to higher ends. I wish Mr. Hallifax [Spelt with one l by Wesley.] had a little tract of Bishop Bull’s [Wesley deals more fully with this little tract (which he says ‘was of much service to me’) in the letter of May 13, 1764. For his reference to Bishop Bull see Journal, ii. 470, 473-7d; Works, vii. 455; and letter of Aug. 22, 1744.] entitled A Companion for the Candidates for Holy Orders. I dreamed an odd dream last night, that five-and-twenty persons of Peterhouse in Cambridge were deeply awakened. Fight your way through! -- I am Your affectionate brother.

To Paul Greenwood Date: BRISTOL October 8, 1755. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1755) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- In a multitude of counselors there is safety. This is a general rule. But your case is an exception. You must not consult with many persons. It would only puzzle and confound you. If you advise with another beside me, it should be he that is as myself, that is Thomas Walsh. [See letter of June 28 to Charles Wesley.] Unless there should be a very particular call you should not act publicly till you are ordained. [See W.H.S. vii. 20-1; and letter of June 16 about ordination.] Give yourself to reading, meditation, prayer; and do all the good you can in a private manner. Pride and impetuosity of temper will be apt to lead you out of the way. But what is faith, if it will not destroy the one and regulate the other --I am Your affectionate brother.

To Thomas Adam Date: LONDON October 31, 1755, Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1755) Author: John Wesley --- REVERAND SIR, -- One good effect at least has arisen already from the moving of the present question. It has been the occasion of my having some little acquaintance with Mr. Walker and you; which I doubt not would be enlarged, were it not for what you probably think to be Christian I think to be worldly prudence. You have much obliged me by your clear and friendly answer, with the main of which I fully agree. For I am still in my former sentiment, -- ‘We will not go out: if we are thrust out, well.’ And of the same judgment are, I believe, at least nineteen of twenty of our preachers and an equal majority of the people. We are fully convinced that to separate from an Established Church is never lawful but when it is absolutely necessary; and we do not see any such necessity yet. Therefore we have at present no thoughts of separation. With regard to the steps we have hitherto taken, we have used all the caution which was possible. We have done nothing rashly, nothing without deep and long consideration, hearing and weighing all objection, and much prayer. Nor have we taken one deliberate step of which we as yet see reason to repent. It is true in some things we vary from the rules of our Church; but no father than we apprehend is our bounden duty. It is upon a full conviction of this that we preach abroad, use extemporary prayer, form those who appear to be awakened into Societies, and permit laymen whom we believe God has called to preach.

To William Law Date: LONDON, January 6, 1756. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1756) Author: John Wesley --- REVEREND SIR, -- In matters of religion I regard no writings but the inspired. Tauler, Behmen, and an whole army of Mystic authors are with me nothing to St. Paul. In every point I appeal 'to the law and the testimony,' and value no authority but this. At a time when I was in great danger of not valuing this authority enough you made that important observation: ‘I see where your mistake lies. You would have a philosophical religion; but there can be no such thing. Religion is the most plain, simple thing in the world. It is only, “We love Him because He first loved us.” So far as you add philosophy to religion, just so far you spoil it. ‘This remark I have never forgotten since; and I trust in God I never shall.’ But have not you Permit me, sir, to speak plainly. Have you ever thought of it since Is there a writer in England who so continually blends philosophy with religion even in tracts on The Spirit of Prayer and The Spirit of Love, wherein from the titles of them one would expect to find no more of philosophy than in the Epistles of St. John. Concerning which, give me leave to observe in general: (1) That the whole of it is utterly superfluous: a man may be full both of prayer and love, and not know a word of this hypothesis. (2) The whole of this hypothesis is unproved; it is all precarious, all uncertain. (3) The whole hypothesis has a dangerous tendency; it naturally leads men off from plain, practical religion, and fills them with the ‘knowledge’ that ‘puffeth up’ instead of the ‘love’ that ‘edifieth.’ And (4) It is often flatly contrary to Scripture, to reason, and to itself. But over and above this superfluous, uncertain, dangerous, irrational, and unscriptural philosophy, have not you lately grieved many who are not strangers to the spirit of prayer or love, by advancing tenets in religion, some of which they think are unsupported by Scripture, some even repugnant to it Allow me, sir, first to touch upon your philosophy, and then to speak freely concerning these.

(5) To this might be added the numerous figures that occur in the fives of the old patriarchs, prophets, and kings. But it may suffice to add to the preceding only two testimonies more of the manner of our redemption by a proper sacrifice: the one that of St. Paul - ‘Christ hath delivered us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; as it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree’ (Gal. iii. 13); the other of St. Peter - ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ (1 Pet. ii. 24). From all this abundantly appears the substitution of the Messiah in the place of His people, thereby atoning for their sins and restoring them to the favor of God. These are the points which are so vehemently opposed by Socinus and his followers, who rob Christ of the principal part of His priestly office, and leave Him only that of interceding for us by prayer; as if any intercession were worthy of Christ which had not His full satisfaction and propitiatory sacrifice for its foundation. Indeed, these cannot be put asunder, as sufficiently appears from the words cited before - ‘He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors’; where the Holy Ghost closely joins His intercession with His satisfaction made by sacrifice. These and a thousand other solid arguments that might be advanced in proof of this fundamental doctrine overturn all the cavils that flow from corrupt reason, which indeed are weak and thin as a spider’s web.

To Samuel Furly Date: LONDON, February 3, 1756. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1756) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SAMMY, -- The Serious Thoughts [Serious Thoughts occasioned by the late Earthquake at Lisbon, published in 1755, reached a sixth edition. See Journal, iv. 141.] will be sent as soon as they are reprinted. I sha;; make an addition of eight or ten pages, consisting chiefly of a correct and regular account of the earthquakes at Lisbon and other places. Now is the time to arise and shake yourself from the dust. Now assert your liberty. When you are on the field, you can’t make head against the enemy. But now you may secure armor of proof. You may be stronger every day than the other. Only be instant in prayer. I have an extremely pretty letter from Mr. Dodd. [Wesley’s answer to William Dodd was written two days later, also that to ‘P. V.’ (Richard Tompson).] It is wonderfully civil and peremptory. I purpose to answer him this week, and perhaps P. V. too. -- I am Your affectionate brother.

As to heresy and schism, I cannot find one text in Scripture where they are taken in the modern sense. I remember no one scripture where heresy signifies error in opinion, whether fundamental or not; nor any where schism signifies separation from the Church, either with or without cause. I wish, sir, you would reconsider this point, and review the scriptures where these terms occur. Yet I would take some pains to recover a man from error and reconcile him to our Church: I mean the Church of England; from which I do not separate yet, and probably never shall. The little church, in the vulgar sense, which I occasionally mentioned at Holymount is that wherein I read prayers, preach, and administer the sacrament every Sunday when I am in London. [West Street.] But I would take much more pains to recover a man from sin. A man who lives and dies in error or in dissent from our Church may yet be saved; but a man who lives and dies in sin must perish. O sir, let us bend our main force against this, against all sin, both in ourselves and those that hear us! I would to God we could a~ agree in opinion and outward worship. But if that cannot be, may we not agree in holiness May we not all agree in being holy, as He that has called us is holy in heart and conversation This h the great desire of, reverend sir, Yours &c. PS.--Perhaps I have not spoke distinctly enough on one point. Orthodoxy, I say, or right opinion, is but a slender part of religion at best, and sometimes no part at all. I mean, if a man be a child of God, holy in heart and life, his right opinions are but the small part of his religion: if a man be a child of the devil, his right opinions are no part of religion, they cannot be; for he that does the works of the devil has no religion at all. [This postscript and the lines in brackets on page 181 were not given in the Arminian Magazine, 1779, 598-601. See letter of Sept. 18, sect. 7.]

To Mrs. Hall Date: LONDON, September 15, 1756. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1756) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SISTER, -- In what path it is best for us to tread God knows better than man. And we are well assured He orders all things for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. Probably He withheld you from prosperity to save you from pride; certainly to rescue you from your own will, and from that legion of foolish and hurtful desires which so naturally attend abundance. Be good and do good to the utmost of your present power, and then happy are you. I have ordered Betty Duchesne [Wesley buried Elizabeth Duchesne on Dec. 22, 1776. In the Journal, vi. 135, he describes her as ‘a person eminently upright of heart, yet for many years a child of labor and sorrow. For near forty years she was zealous of good works, and at length shortened her days by laboring for the poor beyond her strength.’ Charles Wesley break-fasted with her on Feb. 15, 1759: see his Journal, ii. 259; and letter of Oct. 27, 1758.] to get the things you spoke of, which probably by this time she has done. Therefore you need not delay your return to London. I purposed to have come through Salisbury, but I was so ill [‘For a few days,’ says Wesley (Journal, iv. 186, ‘I was laid up with a flux; but on Sunday, Sept. 5, I crept out again, and preached at Kingswood in the morning and Stokes Croft in the afternoon. Monday, 6, I set out in the machine, and on Tuesday evening came to London.’] that it was judged not safe for me to ride. O make the best of a few days. -- I am Your affectionate friend and Brother.

To James Clark Date: LONDON, September 18, 1756. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1756) Author: John Wesley --- REVEREND SIR, -- Yesterday I received your favor of July 9. As you therein speak freely and openly, I will endeavor to do the same, at which I am persuaded you will not be displeased. 1. Of the words imputed to Mr. Langston I said nothing because he denied the charge, and I had not the opportunity of having the accuser and the accused face to face. 2. That there are enthusiasts among the Methodists I doubt not, and among most other people under heaven; but that they are made such by our doctrine and discipline still remains to be proved. If they are in such spite of our doctrine and discipline, their madness will not be laid to our charge. I know nothing of the anonymous pamphlet on Inspiration. [In his second letter Clark refers to ‘a pamphlet wrote by an anonymous author of your Society, wherein he made a collection all the texts of The New Testament where there is any mention of the Spirit or its influences.] How does it appear to be wrote by one of my disciples Be it good bad or indifferent, I am not concerned or any way accountable for it. 3. I believe several who are not episcopally ordained are nevertheless called of God to preach the gospel. Yet I have no exception to the Twenty-third Article, though I judge there are exempt cases. That the seven deacons were outwardly ordained even to that low office cannot be denied; but when Paul and Barnabas were separated from the work to which they were called, this was not ordaining them. St. Paul was ordained long before, and that was not by man or men. It was inducting him into the providence for which our Lord had appointed him from the beginning. For this end the prophets and teachers fasted and prayed and laid their hand upon them - a rite which was used, not in ordination only, but in blessing many other occasions.

To James Hervey Date: October 15, 1756. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1756) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, -- A considerable time since, I sent you a few hasty thoughts which occurred to me on reading the Dialogues between Theton and Aspasio. I have not been favored with any answer. Yet upon another and a more careful perusal of them, I could not but set down some obvious reflections, which I would rather have communicated before these Dialogues were published. In the First Dialogue there are several just and strong observations, which may be of use to every serious reader. In the Second, is not the description often too labored, the language too stiff and affected Yet the reflections on the creation, in the thirty-first and following pages, make abundant amends for this. (I cite the pages according to the Dublin edition, having wrote the rough draught of what follows in Ireland.) Is justification more or less than God's pardoning and accepting a sinner through the merits of Christ That God herein ‘reckons the righteousness and obedience which Christ performed as our own’ (page 39) I allow; if by that ambiguous expression you mean only, as you here explain it yourself, ‘They are as effectual for obtaining our salvation as if they were our own personal qualifications’ (page 41). ‘We are not solicitous as to any particular set of phrases. Only let men be humbled, as repenting criminals at Christ's feet, let them rely as devoted pensioners on His merits, and they are undoubtedly in the way to a blissful immortality’ (page 43). Then, for Christ's sake, and for the sake of the immortal 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. I have had abundant proof that the frequent use of this unnecessary phrase, instead of ‘furthering men's progress in vital holiness,’ has made them satisfied without any holiness at all--yea, and encouraged them to work all uncleanness with greediness.

‘“In the Lord shah all the house of Israel be justified”’ (page 149). It ought unquestionably to be rendered ‘By or through the Lord’: this argument therefore proves nothing. ‘Ye are complete in Him.’ The words literally rendered are ‘Ye are filled with Him’; and the whole passage (as any unprejudiced reader may observe) relates to sanctification, not justification. ‘They are accepted for Christ’s sake; this is justification through imputed righteousness’ (page 150). That remains to be proved. Many allow the former who cannot allow the latter. ‘The righteousness which justifies us is already wrought out’ (page 151). A crude, unscriptural expression! ‘It was set on foot, carried on, completed.’ Oh vain philosophy! The plain truth is, Christ lived and ‘tasted death for every man’; and through the merits of His life and death every believer is justified. ‘Whoever perverts so glorious a doctrine shows he never believed’ (page 152). Not so. They who ‘turn back as a dog to the vomit’ had once ‘escaped the pollutions of the world by the knowledge of Christ.’ ‘The goodness of God leadeth to repentance’ (page 153). This is unquestionably true; but the nice, metaphysical doctrine of Imputed Righteousness leads not to repentance but to licentiousness. ‘The believer cannot but add to his faith works of righteousness’ (page 154). During his first love this is often true; but it is not true afterwards, as we know and feel by melancholy experience. ‘We no longer obey in order to lay the foundation of our final acceptance’ (page 155). No; that foundation is already laid in the merits of Christ. Yet we obey in order to our final acceptance through His merits; and in this sense by obeying we ‘lay a good foundation that we may attain eternal life.’ ‘“We establish the law”; we provide for its honor by the perfect obedience of Christ’ (page 156). Can you possibly think St. Paul meant this that such a thought ever entered into his mind The plain meaning is, We establish both the true sense and the effectual practice of it; we provide for its being both understood and practiced in its full extent.

‘On those who reject the atonement, just severity’ (page 157). Was it ever possible for them not to reject it If not, how is .it just to cast them into a lake of fire for not doing what it was impossible they should do Would it be just (make it your own case) to cast you into hell for not touching heaven with your hand ‘Justification is complete the first moment we believe, and is incapable of augmentation’ (page 159). Not so: there may be as many degrees in the favor as in the image of God. ‘St. Paul often mentions a righteousness imputed.’ Not a righteousness, never once; but simply, righteousness. ‘What can this be but the righteousness of Christ’ (Page 190.) He tells you himself - ‘To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, faith is imputed for righteousness’ (Rom iv. 5). ‘Why is Christ styled Jehovah our Righteousness’ Because we are both justified and sanctified through Him. ‘My death, the cause of their forgiveness; My righteousness, the ground of their acceptance’ (page 190). How does this agree with page 45 - ‘To ascribe pardon to Christ's passive, eternal life to His active, righteousness, is fanciful rather than judicious.’ ‘He commends such kinds of beneficence only as were exercised to a disciple as such’ (page 195). Is not this a slip of the pen Will not our Lord then commend, and reward eternally, all kinds of beneficence, provided they flowed from a principle of loving faith -- yea, that which was exercised to a Samaritan, a Jew, a Turk, or an heathen Even these I would not term ‘transient bubbles,’ though they do not procure our justification. ‘How must our righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees Not only in being sincere, but in possessing a complete righteousness, even that of Christ.’ (Page 197.) Did our Lord mean this Nothing less. He specifies in the following parts of His sermon the very instances wherein the righteousness of a Christian exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees.

‘There is not a just man upon earth that sinneth not.’ Solomon might truly say so before Christ came. And St. John might, after He ca, me, say as truly, ‘Whosoever is born of God sinneth not’ (page 261). But ‘in many things we offend all.’ That St. James does not speak this of himself or of real Christians will clearly appear to all who impartially consider the context. The Ninth Dialogue proves excellently well that we cannot be justified by our works. But have you thoroughly considered the words which occur in the 270th page -- ‘O children of Adam, you are no longer obliged to love God with all your strength, nor your neighbor as yourselves. Once, indeed, I insisted on absolute purity of heart; now I can dispense with some degrees of evil desire. Since Christ has fulfilled the law for you, you need not fulfill it. I will connive at, yea accommodate my demands to, your weakness.’ I agree with you that ‘this doctrine makes the Holy One of God a minister of sin.’ And is it not your own Is not this the very doctrine which you espouse throughout your book I cannot but except to several passages also in the Tenth Dialogue. I ask, first, ‘Does the righteousness of God ever mean,’ as you affirm, ‘the merits of Christ’ (Page 291.) I believe not once in all the Scripture. It often means, and particularly in the Epistle to the Romans, God’s method of justifying sinners. When, therefore, you say, ‘The righteousness of God means such a righteousness as may justly challenge His acceptance’ (page 292), I cannot allow it at all; and this capital mistake must needs lead you into many others. But I follow you step by step. ‘In order to entitle us to a reward, there must be an imputation of righteousness’ (ibid.). There must be an interest in Christ, and then 'every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor.’

‘It will endear the blood and intercession of Christ’ (page 49). Nay; these can never be so dear to any as to those who experience their full virtue, who are ‘filled with the fullness’ of God. Nor can any ‘feel their continual need’ of Christ or ‘rely on Him’ in the manner which these do. ‘The claims of the law are all answered’ (Dialogue 14, p. 57). If so, Count Zinzendorf is absolutely in the right: neither God nor man can claim my obedience to it. Is not this Antinomianism without a mask ‘Your sins are expiated through the death of Christ, and a righteousness given you by which you have free access to God’ (page 59). This is not scriptural language. I would simply say, ‘By Him we have access to the Father.’ There are many other expressions in this Dialogue to which I have the same objection -- namely (1) that they are unscriptural; (2) that they directly lead to Antinomianism. The First Letter contains some very useful heads of self-examination. In the Second I read, ‘There is a righteousness which supplies all that the creature needs. To prove this momentous point is the design of the following sheets.’ (Page 91.) I have seen such terrible effects of this unscriptural way of speaking, even on those ‘who had once clean escaped from the pollutions of the world,’ that I cannot but earnestly wish you would speak no otherwise than do the oracles of God. Certainly this mode of expression is not momentous. It is always dangerous, often fatal. ‘Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound; that as sin had reigned unto death, so might grace,’ the free love of God, ‘reign through righteousness,’ through our justification and sanctification, ‘unto eternal life’ (Rom. v. 20-1). This is the plain, natural meaning of the words. It does not appear that one word is spoken here about imputed righteousness; neither in the passages cited in the next page from the Common Prayer and the Articles. In the Homily likewise that phrase is not found at all, and the main stress is laid on Christ's shedding His blood. Nor is the phrase (concerning the thing there is no question) found in any part of the Homilies. (Letter 3, P. 93.)

‘If the Fathers are not explicit with regard to the imputation of active righteousness, they abound in passages which evince the substitution of Christ in our stead -- passages which disclaim all dependence on any duties of our own and fix our hopes wholly on the merits of our Savor. When this is the case, I am very little solicitous about any particular forms of expression’ (page 101.) O lay aside, then, those questionable, dangerous forms, and keep closely to the scriptural! ‘The authority of our Church and of those eminent divines’ (Letter 4, p. 105) does not touch those ‘particular forms of expression’; neither do any of the texts which you afterwards cite. As to the doctrine we are agreed. ‘The righteousness of God signifies the righteousness which God-Man wrought out’ (ibid.). No; it signifies God's method of justifying sinners. ‘The victims figured the expiation by Christ’s death; the clothing with skins, the imputation of His righteousness’ (page 107). That does not appear. Did not the one rather figure our justification, the other our sanctification Almost every text quoted in this and the following letter in. support of that particular form of expression is distorted above measure from the plain, obvious meaning which is pointed out by the context. I shall instance in a few, and just set down their true meaning without any farther remarks. (Page 109.) To ‘show unto man His uprightness,’ to convince him of God's justice in so punishing him. ‘He shall receive the blessing,’ pardon, ‘from the Lord, and righteousness,’ holiness, ‘from the God of his salvation’; the God who saveth him both from the guilt and from the power of sin (page 110). I will ‘make mention of Thy righteousness only.’ Of Thy mercy; so the word frequently means in the Old Testament. So it unquestionably means in that text, ‘In’ or by ‘Thy righteousness shall they be exalted’ (page 11). ‘Sion shall be redeemed with judgment,’ after severe punishment, ‘and her converts with righteousness,’ with the tender mercy of God following that punishment (page 112). ‘In,’ or through, ‘the Lord I have righteousness and strength,’ justification and sanctification; ‘He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation,’ saved me from the guilt and power of sin: both of which are again expressed by, ‘He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness’ (page 113).

‘My righteousness,’ My mercy, ‘shall not be abolished’ (page 114). ‘To make reconciliation for iniquity,’ to atone for all our sins, ‘and to bring in everlasting righteousness,’ spotless holiness into our souls. And this righteousness is not human, but divine. It is the gift and the work of God. (Page 116.) ‘The Lord our Righteousness,’ the author both of our justification and sanctification (page 117). ‘What righteousness shall give us peace at the last day, inherent or imputed’ (Page 127.) Both. Christ died for us and lives in us, ‘that we may have boldness in the day of judgment.’ ‘That have obtained like precious faith through the righteousness,’ the mercy, ‘of our Lord.’ ‘Seek ye the kingdom Of God and His righteousness,’ the holiness which springs from God reigning in you. (Letter 5, p, 131.) ‘Therein is revealed the righteousness of God,’ God's method of justifying sinners (page 132). ‘We establish the law, as we expect no salvation without a perfect conformity to it -- namely, by Christ’ (page 135). Is not this a mere quibble and a quibble which, after all the labored evasions of Witsius [Hermann Witsius (1636-1705), Professor at Utrecht and then at Leyden. His principal work, De Oeconomia Foederurn Dei cum Hominibus, 1677, sought unsuccessfully to mediate between the Orthodox and the Federalists.] and a thousand more, does totally ‘make void the law’ But not so does St. Paul teach. According to him, ‘without holiness,’ personal holiness, ‘no man shall see the Lord’; none who is not himself conformed to the law of God here ‘shall see the Lord’ in glory. This is the grand, palpable objection to that whole scheme. It directly ‘makes void the law.’ It makes thousands content to live and die ‘transgressors of the law,’ because Christ fulfilled it ‘for them.’ Therefore, though I believe He hath lived and died for me, yet I would speak very tenderly and sparingly of the former (and never separately from the latter), even as sparingly as do the Scriptures, for fear of this dreadful consequence. ‘“The gift of righteousness” must signify a righteousness not their own’ (page 138). Yes; it signifies the righteousness or holiness which God gives to and works in them.

‘“The obedience of one” is Christ’s actual performance of the whole law’ (page 139). So here His passion is fairly left out! Whereas His ‘becoming obedient unto death’ -- that is, dying for man --is certainly the chief part, if not the whole, which is meant by that expression. ‘“That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled” in us -- that is, by our representative in our nature’ (ibid.). Amazing! But this, you say, ‘agrees with the tenor of the Apostle’s arguing. For he is demonstrating we cannot be justified by our own conformity to the law.’ No; not here. He is not speaking here of the cause of our justification, but the fruits of it. Therefore that unnatural sense of his words does not at all ‘agree with the tenor of his arguing.’ I totally deny the criticism on das and daa, and cannot conceive on what authority it is founded. Oh how deep an aversion to inward holiness does this scheme naturally create! (Page 140.) ‘The righteousness they attained could not be any personal righteousness’ (page 142). Certainly it was: it was implanted as well as imputed. ‘For “instruction in righteousness,” in the righteousness of Christ’ (page 145). Was there ever such a comment before The plain meaning is, ‘for training up in holiness’ of heart and of life. ‘He shall convince the world of righteousness.’; that I am not a sinner, but innocent and holy (page 146). “That we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” Not intrinsically, but imputatively.’ (Page 148.) Both the one and the other. God through Him first accounts and then makes us righteous. Accordingly ‘“the righteousness which is of God by faith” is both imputed and inherent’ (page 152). ‘My faith fixes on both the meritorious life and atoning death of Christ’ (page 153). Here we clearly agree. Hold, then, to this, and never talk of the former without the latter. If you do, you cannot say, ‘Here we are exposed to no hazard.’ Yes, you are to an exceeding great one, even the hazard of living and dying without holiness. And then we are lost for ever. The Sixth Letter contains an admirable account of the earth and atmosphere, and comprises abundance of sense in a narrow compass, expressed in beautiful language.

Gems have ‘a seat on the virtuous fair one’s breast’ (page 177). I cannot reconcile this with St. Paul. He says, ‘Not with pearls’; by a parity of reason, not with diamonds. But in all things I perceive you are too favorable, both to ‘the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eye.’ You are a gentle casuist as to every self-indulgence which a plentiful fortune can furnish. ‘Our Savior’s obedience’ (page 182). Oh say, with the good old Puritans, ‘Our Savior's death or merits’ I We swarm with Antinomians on every side. Why are you at such pains to increase their number ‘My mouth shall show forth Thy righteousness and Thy salvation’; Thy mercy, which brings my salvation (page 194). The Eighth Letter is an excellent description of the supreme greatness of Christ. I do not observe one sentence in it which I cannot cheerfully subscribe to. The Ninth Letter, containing a description of the sea, with various inferences deduced therefrom, is likewise a masterpiece for justness of sentiment as well as beauty of language. But I doubt whether ‘mere shrimps’ (page 241) be not too low an expression; and whether you might not as well have said nothing of ‘cod, the standing repast of Lent,’ or concerning ‘the exquisite relish of turbot or the deliciousness of sturgeon.’ Are not such observations beneath the dignity of a minister of Christ I have the same doubt concerning what is said of ‘delicately flavored tea, finely scented coffee, the friendly bowl, the pyramid of Italian figs, and the pastacia nut of Aleppo’ (page 264). Beside that, the mentioning these in such a manner is a strong encouragement of luxury and sensuality. And does the world need this The English in particular! Si non insaniunt satis sua sponte, insriga. [Terence's Andria, IV. ii. 9: ‘If they do not rave enough of their own accord, stir them up.’] ‘Those treasures which spring from the imputation of Christ's righteousness’ (Letter 10, p. 271). Not a word of His atoning blood! Why do so many men love to speak of His righteousness rather than His atonement I fear because it affords a fairer excuse for their own unrighteousness. To cut off this, is it not better to mention both together -- at least, never to name the former without the latter

Health you shall have if health be best. And He that gives it will give a blessing with it -- an increase of spiritual as well as of bodily strength, but it is strength to labor not to sit still. And this strength will either increase or decrease in the same proportion with your sense of His love. You may lose this sense either (1) by committing sin; or (2) by omitting duty; or (3) by giving way to pride, anger or any other inward sin; or (4) by not watching unto prayer, by yielding to indolence or spiritual sloth. But it is no more necessary that we should ever lose it than it is necessary we should omit duty or commit sin. Mr. Law, therefore, speaking on this head, betrays deep ignorance both of the Scripture and the inward work of God. You are more liable to receive hurt from his late writings than from any others which I know. I shall write to Sammy [Her brother at Cambridge.] in the morning: it would not have been amiss if you had spoken freely to me concerning him. Why should not you, now you have in some measure broke that natural shyness, speak all that is in your heart to, dear Miss Furly, Your truly affectionate friend and brother.

To John Glass () Date: BRISTOL, November 1, 1757. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1757) Author: John Wesley --- SIR, -- It is not very material who you are. If Mr. Glass is still alive, I suppose you are he. If not, you are at least one of his humble admirers, and probably not very old; so your youth may in some measure plead your excuse for such a peculiar pertness, insolence, and self-sufficiency, with such an utter contempt of all mankind, as no other writer of the present age has shown. As you use no ceremony toward any man, so neither shall I use any toward you, but bluntly propose a few objections to your late performance, which stare a man in the face as soon as he looks in it. I object, first, that you are a gross, willful slanderer. For (1) you say of Mr. Hervey: ‘He shuts up our access to the divine righteousness by holding forth a preliminary human one as necessary to our enjoying the benefit of it’ (page 4). Again: ‘You set men to work to do something, in order to make their peace with God’ (page 9). This is an absolute slander founded on that poor pretense that he supposes those who repent and believe, and none but those, to ‘enjoy the benefit of Christ’s righteousness.’ And has he not the warrant of Christ Himself for so doing, -- ‘Repent ye, and believe the gospel’ If this is ‘teaching man to acquire a righteousness of his own,’ the charge falls on our Lord Himself. You say (2): ‘As to that strange something which you call faith, after all you have told us about it, we are at as great a loss to tell distinctly what it is as when you began’ (ibid.). This is another slander. You are at no loss (as will presently appear) to tell what Mr. Hervey means by faith. Whether it be right or wrong, his account of it is as clear and distinct as any that ever was given. You say (3): ‘The popular preachers’ (so you term Archbishop Tillotson, Dr. Lucas, Crisp, Doddridge, Watts, Gill; Mr. Guthrie, Boron, Erskine, Willison [John Willison (1680-1750), minister of South Church, Dundee, 1716.]; Mr. Flavel, Marshall; Mr. Griffith Jones, Hervey, Romaine, Whitefield, Wesley) ‘never tell us what they mean by faith but by some labored circumlocutions’ (page 282).

‘However, He alone has authority to fix the terms of communion for His followers, or Church’ (ibid.). ‘And the terms He has fixed no men on earth have authority to set aside or alter.’ This I allow (although it is another question), none has authority to exclude from the Church of Christ those who comply with the terms which Christ has fixed. But not to admit into the society called the Church of England or not to administer the Lord’s Supper to them is not the same thing with ‘excluding men from the Church of Christ’; unless this society be the whole Church of Christ, which neither you nor I will affirm. This society, therefore, may scruple to receive those as members who do not observe her rules in things indifferent, without pretending ‘to set aside or alter the terms which Christ has fixed’ for admission into the Christian Church; and yet without ‘lording it over God’s heritage or usurping Christ's throne.’ Nor does all ‘the allegiance we owe Him’ at all hinder our ‘obeying them that have the rule over us’ in things of a purely indifferent nature. Rather our allegiance to Him requires our obedience to them. In being ‘their servants,’ thus far we are ‘Christ's servants.’ We obey His general command by obeying our governors in particular instances. Hitherto you have produced no express command of Christ to the contrary. Nor do you attempt to show any such, but strike off from the question for the twelve or fourteen pages following. But after these you say, ‘The subjects of Christ are expressly commanded to receive nothing as parts of religion which are only “commandments of men” (Matt. xv. 9)’ (page 26). We grant it; but this is no command at all not to 'obey those who have the rule over us.’ And we must obey them in things indifferent, or not at all. For in things which God hath forbidden, should such be enjoined, we dare not obey. Nor need they enjoin what God hath commanded.

To his Wife Editor's Introductory Notes: 1760 Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1760) Author: John Wesley --- [6] LIVERPOOL, March 23, 1760. Poor Molly! Could you not hold out a little longer! not one month not twenty days Have you found out a presence already for talking in the old strain A thin one indeed: but, such as it is, it may serve the turn for want of a better. 'You have taken a bed to pieces. And you want to put it in my study. And I do not tell you whether you may or no'! Truly I cannot look upon this whole affair as any other than a presence. For what need had you to take the bed in pieces at all and what need was there (if it was taken in pieces) that it should lie in the one little room which I have when you have four rooms to yourself Alas, that to this hour you should neither know your duty nor be willing to learn it! Indeed, if you was a wise, whether a good woman or not, you would long since have given me a carte blanche: you would have said, 'Tell me what to do, and I will do it; tell me what to avoid, and I will avoid it. I promised to obey you, and I will keep my word. Bid me do anything, everything. In whatever is not sinful, I obey. You direct, I will follow the direction.' This it had been your wisdom to have done long ago, instead of squabbling for almost these ten years. This it is both your wisdom and your duty to do now; and certainly better late than never. This must be your indispensable duty, till (1) I am an adulterer; (2) you can prove it. Till then I have the same right to claim obedience from you as you have to claim it from Noah Vazeille. [Her son.] Consequently every act of disobedience is an act of rebellion against God and the King, as well as against Your affectionate Husband.

To Samuel Furly Editor's Introductory Notes: 1760 Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1760) Author: John Wesley --- [10] MOUNTMELLICK, June, 19, 1760. DEAR SAMMY,--Certainly you cannot remove without giving Mr. Crook a quarter's warning. If you do remove, you need be under no concern about repaying, nor about those you leave behind. Our preachers, when it is needful, must allow them a little more time. [He had been helping the Methodists in the neighbourhood of his curacy. See letters of Nov. 21, 1759, and June 23, 1760. ] How easy it is to puzzle a cause, and to make a thousand plausible objections to any proposition that can be advanced. This makes me quite out of conceit with human understanding and human language. So confused is the clearest apprehension! So ambiguous the most determinate expressions! Lay aside the terms 'Adamic law, 'gospel law,' or any law. The thing is beyond dispute, and you may as well demand a scriptural proof that two and two make four. Adam in Paradise was able to apprehend all things distinctly, and to judge truly concerning them; therefore it was his duty so to do. But no man living is now able to do this; therefore neither is it the duty of any man now living. Neither is there any man now in the body who does or can walk in this instance by that rule which was bound upon Adam. Can anything be more plain than this--that Adam could, that I cannot avoid mistaking Can anything be plainer than this--If he could avoid it, he ought or than this--If I cannot, I ought not I mean it is not my duty: for the clear reason that no one can do the impossible. Nothing in the Sermon or the Law contradicts this. If anything does, it is wrong. Oh what a work might be done in this kingdom if we had six zealous, active, punctual men in it! Be you one.--I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother.

To the Editor of the 'London Chronicle' Editor's Introductory Notes: 1760 Date: LONDON, September 17, 1760. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1760) Author: John Wesley --- SIR,--As you sometimes insert things of a religious nature in your paper, I shall count it a favour if you will insert this. Some years ago I published A Letter to Mr. Law, and about the same time An Address to the Clergy. Of the former Mr. Law gives the following account in his Collection of Letters lately published: To answer Mr. Wesley's letter seems to be quite needless, because there is nothing substantial or properly argumentative in it. I was once a kind of oracle to Mr. Wesley. I judged him to be much under the power of his own spirit. To this was owing the false censure which he published against the Mystics as enemies to good works. (Pages 128, 130.) His letter is such a juvenile composition of emptiness and pertness as is below the character of any man who had been serious in religion for half a month. It was not ability but necessity that put his pen into his hand. He had preached much against my books, and forbid his people the use of them; and for a cover of all this he promised from time to time to write against them; therefore an answer was to be made at all adventures. He and the Pope conceive the same reasons for condemning the mystery revealed by Jacob Behmen. (Page 190.) Of the latter he gives this account:

Finding all other means ineffectual, on Monday the 2nd instant I opened my wife's bureau and took what I found of my own. (No notes, bills, or papers of hers: in saying this, she only does as she uses to do.) Some hours after, she talked like an Empress Queen; on which I told her plainly, 'While you are in this mind I will neither bed nor board with you.' On .... following I found her of a better mind; so on Saturday and Sunday [He was then in London. ] we were together as usual. But if we should live to meet again, and she behaves as she did on that day, I should think it my bounden duty to do as I did then. I judge her case to be proper lunacy; but it is a preternatural, a diabolical lunacy, and therefore at those times (I know what I say) I do not think my life is safe with her. And yet I feel just as much resentment toward her as I do to Sall. Roqt. Peace be with you and yours.

To Dr. Green Date: LONDON, April 2, 1761. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1761) Author: John Wesley --- REVEREND SIR, --I have no desire to dispute, least of all with one whom I believe to fear God and work righteousness. And I have no time to spare. Yet I think it my duty to write a few lines with regard to those you sent to Mr. Bennet. You therein say: 'If you sent me the books to inform me of an error which I had publicly advanced, pardon me if I say I know numbers who call themselves Methodists assert their assurance of salvation at the very time they wallow in sins of the deepest dye.' Permit me, sir, to speak freely. I do not doubt the fact. But (1) Those who are connected with me do not call themselves Methodists. Others call them by that nickname, and they cannot help it; but I continually warn them not to pin it upon themselves. (2) We rarely use that ambiguous expression of 'Christ's righteousness imputed to us.' (3) We believe a man may be a real Christian without being 'assured of his salvation.' (4) We know no man can be assured of salvation while he lives in any sin whatever. (5) The wretches who talk in that manner are neither Methodists nor Moravians, but followers of William Cudworth, James Relly, and their associates, who abhor us as much as they do the Pope, and ten times more than they do the devil. If you oppose these, so do I; and have done privately and publicly for these twenty years.

To the Earl of Dartmouth (?) Date: LIVERPOOL, April 10, 1761. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1761) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, --1. In order to answer the question more clearly which Mr. [Downing [See previous letter.']] has proposed to you, it may be well look a little backward. Some years since, two or three clergymen of the Church of England, who were above measure zealous for all her rules and orders, were convinced that religion is not an external thing, but 'righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost,' and that this righteousness and peace and joy are given only to those who are justified by faith. As soon as they were convinced of these great truths, they preached them; and multitudes flocked to hear. For these reasons, and no others, real or pretended (for as yet they were strictly regular), because they preached such doctrine, and because such multitudes followed them, they were forbid to preach in the churches. Not daring to be silent, they preached elsewhere, in a school, by a river-side, or upon a mountain; and more and more sinners forsook their sins and were filled with peace and joy in believing. 2. But at the same time huge offence was taken at their 'gathering congregations' in so irregular a manner; and it was asked, -- (1) 'Do you judge that the Church with the authority of the State has power to enact laws for her own government?' I answer: If a dispensation of the gospel is committed to me, no Church has power to enjoin me silence. Neither has the State; though it may abuse its power and enact laws whereby I suffer for preaching the gospel. (2) 'Do you judge it your duty to submit to the laws of the Church and State as far as they are consistent with a good conscience?' I do. But 'woe is me if I preach not the gospel': this is not consistent with a good conscience. (3) 'Is it a law of the Church and State that none of her ministers shall gather congregations but by the appointment of the bishop? If any do, does not she forbid her people to attend them? Are they not subversive of the good order of the Church? Do you judge there is anything sinful in such a law?'

I answer: (I) If there is a law that a minister of Christ who is not suffered to preach the gospel in the church should not preach it elsewhere, I do judge that law to be absolutely sinful. (ii) If that law forbids Christian people to hear the gospel of Christ out of their parish church when they cannot hear it therein, I judge it would be sinful for them to obey it. (iii) This preaching is not subversive of any good order whatever. It is only subversive of that vile abuse of the good order of our Church whereby men who neither preach nor live the gospel are suffered publicly to overturn it from the foundation, and in the room of it to palm upon their congregations a wretched mixture of dead form and maimed morality. (4) 'If these premises be allowed.' They cannot be allowed. So, from nothing, nothing follows. 3. It was objected farther, -- (1) 'In every nation there must be some settled order of government, ecclesiastical and civil.' There must; but put civil out of the question. It only tends to puzzle the cause. (2) 'The Scriptures likewise enjoin this.' They do, that all things in the church be done in order. (3) 'There is an ecclesiastical order established in England, and it is a lawful one.' I believe it is in general not only lawful but highly commendable. (4) 'But Mr. [Downing] tells you: " You are born under this Establishment. Your ancestors supported it, and were ennobled on that account." These points, I think, are not very material; but that which follows is. " You have by deliberate and repeated acts of your own engaged yourself to defend it. Your very rank and station constitute you a formal and eminent guardian of it."'

A guardian of what? What is it that you have 'deliberately engaged yourself to defend'? The constitution of the Church of England. And is not her doctrine a main part of this constitution? a far more essential part thereof than any rule of external order? Of this, then, you are a formal guardian; and you have deliberately engaged yourself to defend it. But have you deliberately engaged to defend her orders to the destruction of her doctrine? Are you a guardian of this external circumstance when it tends to destroy the substance of her constitution? And if you are engaged, at all events, to defend her order, are you also to defend the abuse of it? Surely no. Your rank, your station, your honour, your conscience, all engage you to oppose this. (5) 'But how 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, and that in their genuine issue' (or natural tendency) 'are totally subversive of it?' Are the principles of those clergymen a direct renunciation of the established constitution? Are their practices so? Are either the one or the other 'totally subversive of it'? Not so: their fundamental principles are the very principles of the Established Church. So is their practice too; save in a very few points, wherein they are constrained to deviate. Therefore it is no ways inconsistent with your duty to encourage, countenance, and support them; especially seeing they have no alternative. They must either be thus far irregular or destroy their own souls, and let thousands of their brethren perish for lack of knowledge. (6) Nay, but their 'principles and practices are of this character. For (I) They gather congregations and exercise their ministerial office therein in every part of this kingdom, directly contrary to the restraint laid on them at their ordination and to the design of that parochial distribution of duty settled throughout this nation. (ii) They maintain it lawful for men to preach who are not episcopally ordained, and thereby contradict the Twenty-third Article. (iii) They disclaim all right in the bishops to control them in any of these matters, and say that, rather than be so controlled, they would renounce all communion with this Church. (iv) These principles they industriously propagate among their followers.'

To Thomas Olivers Date: WHITEHAVEN, April 25, 1761. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1761) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--I have a desire to ask you some questions on two or three heads, which you may answer as particularly as you please. (1) Have you read over The Doctrine of Original Sin? I mean the book wrote in answer to Dr. Taylor? Have you read it with attention and prayer? Do you understand it? Have you seriously considered it? Is there anything in it which you think wrong? or does it express your own judgement? (2) Have you read over the sermons in the first and fourth volumes on Justification and the New Birth? Do you think you throughly understand them? Is there anything in them which you cannot agree to? (3) Have you read over the Thoughts upon Perfection in the fourth volume? Did you read them with humility and prayer? with calmness and deliberation? Have you considered them again and again, crying to God for help? Is there anything in them which you do not understand, or which you think is not right? On all these heads you may speak freely to, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. Direct to Newcastle.

To John Hosmer Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1761) Author: John Wesley --- NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 7, 1761. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I apprehend, if you will give another careful reading to those four pages, 244-7, [Thoughts on Christian Perfection. See letter of June 23, 1760.] you will find all your objections anticipated or answered. However, I do not think much of answering them over again. Your words are: 'You say, "A mistake is not a sin, if love is the sole principle of action; yet it is a transgression of the perfect law"; therefore perfect love is not the perfect law'! Most sure; for by 'the perfect law' I mean that given to Adam at his creation. But the loving God with all his heart was not the whole of that law: it implied abundantly more; even thinking, speaking, and acting right in every instance, which he was then able, and therefore obliged, to do. But none of his descendants are able to do this; therefore love is the fulfilling of their law. Perhaps you had not adverted to this. The law of love, which is the whole law given to us, is only one branch of that perfect law which was given to Adam in the beginning. His law was far wider than ours, as his faculties were more extensive. Consequently many things might be transgressions of the latter which were not of the former. 'But if ignorance be a transgression of the perfect law.' Whoever said or thought so? Ignorance is not, but mistake is. And this Adam was able to avoid; that kind of ignorance which was in him not constraining him to mistake, as ours frequently does. 'But is "a voluntary transgression of a known law" a proper definition of sin?' I think it is of all such sin as is imputed to our condemnation. And it is a definition which has passed uncensured in the Church for at least fifteen hundred years. To propose any objections that naturally arise is right; but beware you do not seek objections. If you once begin this, you will never have done. Indeed, this whole affair is a strife of words. The thing is plain. All in the body are liable to mistakes, practical as well as speculative. Shall we call them sins or no? I answer again and again, Call them just what you please.

To Matthew Lowes LONDON, January 25, 1762. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1762) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR MATTHEW,--I ordered Mr. Franks [His Book Steward. See letter of Nov. 6, 1773.] to pay the &pound;8 bill to-day, which is &pound;4 more than I had in my hands. What we shall do for money till the next Conference I do not know. But the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. You do well to be exact in discipline. Disorderly walkers will give us neither credit nor strength. Let us have just as many members as walk by one rule. I will beg or borrow from William Newall [See letters of Oct. 30, 1761, and Feb.13, 1762.]--anything but steal. My wife joins in love to you and yours.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Henry Brooke Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1762) Author: John Wesley --- [3] LONDON, March 1, 1762. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I rejoice to hear that you continue in the good way. Never leave off a duty because you are tempted in it. You may be more tempted than usual on fasting days; and yet you may receive a blessing thereby. I expect to be either in Dublin or Cork about the end of this month. I have not, since I have been in London, heard anything of Tommy Bethel. [The Diary for Oct. 15, 1785, has: '1 dinner, conversed, prayer, Mr. Bethell.'] I believe the letters are safely delivered.--I am Your affectionate brother.

4. You go on: 'Thirdly, if we consider the nature of faith, it will appear impossible that a man should be justified by that alone. Faith is either an assent to the gospel truths or a reliance on the gospel promises. I know of no other notion of faith.' (Sermon, p. 15.) I do;--an elegcos of things not seen; which is far more than a bare assent, and yet toto genere different from a reliance. Therefore, if you prove that neither an assent nor a reliance justifies, nor both of them together, still you do not prove that we are not justified by faith, even by faith alone. But how do you prove that we cannot be justified by faith as a reliance on the promises Thus: 'Such a reliance must be founded on a consciousness of having performed the conditions. And a reliance so founded is the result of works wrought through faith.' No: of works wrought without faith; else the argument implies a contradiction. For it runs thus (on the supposition that faith and reliance were synonymous terms): Such a reliance is the result of works wrought through such a reliance. 5. Your fourth argument against justification by faith alone is drawn from the nature of justification. This, you observe, 'implies a prisoner at the bar, and a law by which he is to be tried; and this is not the law of Moses, but that of Christ, requiring repentance and faith, with their proper fruits' (page 16); which now through the blood of Christ are accepted and 'counted for righteousness.' St. Paul affirms this concerning faith, in the 4th chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. But where does he say that either repentance or its fruits are counted for righteousness Nevertheless I allow that the law of Christ requires such repentance and faith before justification as, if there be opportunity, will bring forth the 'fruits of righteousness.' But if there be not, he that repents and believes is justified notwithstanding. Consequently these alone are necessary, indispensably necessary, conditions of our justification.

10. If in speaking on this important point (such at least it appears to me) I have said anything offensive, any that implies the least degree of anger or disrespect, it was entirely foreign to my intention; nor, indeed, have I any provocation: I have no room to be angry at your maintaining what you believe to be the truth of the gospel; even though I might wish you had omitted a few expressions, Quas aut incuria fudit, Aut humana parum cavit natura. [Horace's Ars Poetica, 11. 352-3: 'Such as escaped my notice, or such as may be placed to the account of human infirmity.'] In the general, from all I have heard concerning you, I cannot but very highly esteem you in love. And that God may give you both 'a right judgement in all things, and evermore to rejoice in His holy comfort,' is the prayer of, reverend sir, Your affectionate brother and servant.

I dislike your appointing such meetings as hinder others from attending either the public preaching or their class or band, or any other meeting which the Rules of the Society or their office requires them to attend. I dislike your spending so much time in several meetings, as many that attend can ill spare from the other duties of their calling, unless they omit either the preaching or their class or band. This naturally tends to dissolve our Society by cutting the sinews of it. As to your more public meetings, I like the praying fervently and largely for all the blessings of God; and I know much good has been done hereby, and hope much more will be done. But I dislike several things therein,--(1) The singing or speaking or praying of several at once: (2) the praying to the Son of God only, or more than to the Father: (3) the using improper expressions in prayer; sometimes too bold, if not irreverent; sometimes too pompous and magnificent, extolling yourselves rather than God, and telling Him what you are, not what you want: (4) using poor, flat, bald hymns: (5) the never kneeling at prayer: (6) your using postures or gestures highly indecent: (7) your screaming, even so as to make the words unintelligible: (8) your affirming people will be justified or sanctified just now: (9) the affirming they are when they are not: (10) the bidding them say, 'I believe': (11) the bitterly condemning any that oppose, calling them wolves, &c.; and pronouncing them hypocrites, or not justified. Read this calmly and impartially before the Lord in prayer. So shall the evil cease and the good remain, and you will then be more than ever united to Your affectionate brother.

When Mr. Conyers was objecting the impossibility of ever effecting such an union, I went upstairs, and after a little prayer opened Kempis on these words: Expecta Dominum: Viriliter age: Noli diffidere: Noli discedere; sed corpus et animam expone constanter pro gloria Dei. [Imitation, 111. xxxv. 3: 'Wait for the Lord. Quit thyself like a man. Yield not to distrust. Be unwilling to depart (desert); but constantly expose body and soul for the glory of God.'] -- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant.

To the Countess of Huntingdon Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1764) Author: John Wesley --- [6] WHITBY, April 20, 1764. MY LADY,--Since I had the pleasure of seeing your Ladyship, I have had many thoughts upon the subject of our conversation; the result I here send to your Ladyship, which I have as yet communicated to none but my Lord Dartmouth. Who knows but it may please God to make your Ladyship an instrument in this glorious work in effecting an union among the labourers in His vineyard That He may direct and bless you in all your steps is the prayer of, my Lady, Your Ladyship's affectionate and obedient servant.

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. But the main point between you and me is Perfection. 'This,' you say, 'has no prevalence in these parts; otherwise I should think it my duty to oppose it with my whole strength-- not as an opinion, but as a dangerous mistake, which appears to be subversive of the very foundations of Christian experience, and which has, in fact, given occasion to the most grievous offences.' Just so my brother and I reasoned thirty years ago. 'We think it our duty to oppose Predestination with our whole strength--not as an opinion, but as a dangerous mistake, which appears to be subversive of the very foundations of Christian experience, and which has, in fact, given occasion, to the most grievous offences.' That it has given occasion to such offences I know; I can name time, place, and persons. But still another fact stares me in the face. Mr. Haweis and Mr. Newton hold this, and yet I believe these have real Christian experience. But if so, this is only an opinion; it is not subversive (here is clear proof to the contrary) 'of the very foundations of Christian experience.' It is 'compatible with a love to Christ and a genuine work of grace.' Yea, many hold it at whose feet I desire to be found in the day of the Lord Jesus. If, then, I 'oppose this with my whole strength,' I am a mere bigot still. I leave you in your calm and retired moments to make the application.

I am not afraid of your being satisfied with less than this; but I am afraid of your seeking it the wrong way. Here is the danger, that you should seek it, not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. See how exactly the Apostle speaks: you do not seek it directly, but as it were by works. I fear lest this should be your case, which might retard your receiving the blessing. Christ has died for you; He has bought pardon for you. Why should not you receive it now while you have this paper in your hand Because you have not done thus or thus See your own works. Because you are not thus and thus more contrite more earnest more sincere See your own righteousness. O let it all go! None but Christ! None but Christ! And if He alone is sufficient, if what He has suffered and done, if His blood and righteousness are enough, they are nigh thee! in thy mouth, and in thy heart! See, all things are ready! Do not wait for this or that preparation! for something to bring to God! Bring Christ! Rather, let Him bring you, bring you home to God! Lord Jesus, take her! Take her and all her sins! Take her as she is! Take her now! Arise, why tarriest thou Wash away her sins! Sprinkle her with Thy blood! Let her sink down into the arms of Thy love and cry out, 'My Lord and my God!' Let me hear from you as soon as you can. You do not know how great a satisfaction this is to, my dear Lady, Your ever affectionate servant. Be pleased to direct to the New Room in Dublin.

To Peggy Dale Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1766) Author: John Wesley --- [3] February 8, 1766. MY DEAR SISTER,--Away with those doubts! They did not come from Him that calleth you. O let nothing induce you to cast away that confidence which hath great recompense of reward! Beware, my dear friend, of the Reasoning Devil, whose way is first to tempt, and then to accuse. There is a right temper, a sorrow for our little improvements, which exceedingly resembles envy. But the anointing of the Holy One will teach you to distinguish one from the other. You are saved of the Lord. Distrust Him not. Much less deny what He has done for you and in you. If you did, how could [you] be thankful for it Look unto Jesus and stand fast!-- I am, my dear Peggy, Your affectionate brother.

6. You proceed to give as punctual an account of us tanquam intus et in cute nosses [Persius' Satires, iii. 30 (adapted): 'As if you had the most intimate knowledge of us.']: 'They outstripped, if possible, even Montanus for external sanctity and severity of discipline' (page 22). 'They condemned all regard for temporal concerns; they encouraged their devotees to take no thought for any one thing upon earth, the consequence of which was a total neglect of their affairs and an impoverishment of their families' (page 23). Blunder all over! We had no room for any discipline, severe or not, five-and-twenty years ago, unless college discipline; my brother then residing at Christ Church and I at Lincoln College. And as to our 'sanctity' (were it more or less), how do you know it was only external Was you intimately acquainted with us I do not remember where I had the honour of conversing with you. Or could you (as the legend says of St. Pachomius [Pachomius founded seven monasteries in the Theban desert.]) 'smell an heretic ten miles' off And how came you to dream, again, that we 'condemned all regard for temporal concerns, and encouraged men to take no thought for any one thing upon earth' Vain dream! We, on the contrary, severely condemn all who neglect their temporal concerns and who do not take care of everything on earth wherewith God hath entrusted them. The consequence of this is that the Methodists (so called) do not 'neglect their affairs and impoverish their families,' but by diligence in business 'provide things honest in the sight of all men': insomuch that multitudes of them, who in time past had scarce food to eat or raiment to put on, have now 'all things needful for life and godliness,' and that for their families as well as themselves. 7. Hitherto you have been giving an account of two wolflings only; but now they are grown into perfect wolves. Let us see what a picture you draw of them in this state, both as to their principles and practice.

After premising that it is our bounder duty to labour after a right judgement in all things, as a wrong judgement naturally leads to wrong practice, I say again, Right opinion is at best but a very slender part of religion (which properly and directly consists in right tempers, words, and actions), and frequently it is no part of religion: for it may be where there is no religion at all; in men of the most abandoned lives; yea, in the devil himself. And yet this does not prove that I 'separate reason from grace,' that I 'discard reason from the service of religion.' I do continually 'employ it to distinguish between right and wrong opinions.' I never affirmed 'this distinction to be of little consequence,' or denied 'the gospel to be a reasonable service' (page 158). But 'the Apostle Paul considered right opinions as a full third part at least of religion: for he says, " The fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth." By goodness is meant the conduct of particulars to the whole, and consists in habits of social virtue; and this refers to Christian practice. By righteousness is meant the conduct of the whole to particulars, and consists in the gentle use of Church authority, and this refers to Christian discipline. By truth is meant the conduct of the whole, and of particulars to one another, and consists in orthodoxy or right opinion; and this refers to Christian doctrine.' (Page 159.) My objections to this account are, first, it contradicts St. Paul; secondly, it contradicts itself. First. It contradicts St. Paul. It fixes a meaning upon his words foreign both to the text and context. The plain sense of the text, taken in connexion with the context, is no other than this: (Eph. v. 9) 'The fruit of the Spirit' (rather 'of the light,' which Bengelius proves to be the true reading--opposite to 'the unfruitful works of darkness' mentioned verse 11) 'is,' consists, 'in all goodness, kindness, tenderheartedness' (iv. 32)--opposite to 'bitterness, wrath, anger, clamour, evil-speaking' (verse 31); 'in all righteousness,' rendering unto all their dues--opposite to 'stealing' (verse 28); 'and in all truth,' veracity, sincerity--opposite to 'lying' (verse 25).

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.

Yet I must touch upon one or two parts of it. 'An enthusiast thinks he is dispensed with in breaking, nay that he is authorized to break, the common laws of morality.' Does every enthusiast Then I am none; for I never thought any such thing. I believe no man living is authorized to break, or dispensed with in breaking, any law of morality. I know whoever (habitually) breaks one of the least of these 'shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.' 'Can any but an enthusiast believe that he may use guile to promote the glory of God' Yes, ten thousand that are no enthusiasts firmly believe thus. How few do we find that do not believe it! that do not plead for officious lies! How few will subscribe to St. Augustine's declaration (to which I assent with my whole heart), 'I would not tell a wilful lie to save the souls of the whole world!' But to return: "'The wisdom from above is without partiality and without hypocrisy." Partiality consists in dispensing an unequal measure in our transactions with others; hypocrisy, in attempting to cover that unequal measure by prevarication and false presences.' The former of these definitions is not clear; the latter neither clear nor adequate to the defined. But let this pass. My partiality is now the point. What are the proofs of it (1) 'His followers are always the children of God, his opposers the children of the devil' (page 220). Neither so, nor so. I never affirmed either one or the other universally. That some of the former are children of God and some of the latter children of the devil I believe. But what will this prove

This is the fact; let any judge of it as they please. And that such a change was then wrought appears, not from their shedding tears only, or falling into fits, or crying out (these are not the fruits, as you seem to suppose, whereby I judge), but from the whole tenor of their life, till then many ways wicked, from that time holy and just and good.' 'Nay, he is so convinced of its being the work of God, that the horrid blasphemies which ensued he ascribes to the abundance of joy which God had given to a poor mad woman' (page 234). Do I ascribe those blasphemies to her joy in God No; but to her pride. My words are: 'I met with one who, having been lifted up with the abundance of joy which God had given her, had fallen into such blasphemies and vain imaginations as are not common to men. In the afternoon I found another instance, nearly, I fear, of the same kind-- one who set her private revelations (so called) on the selfsame foot with the written Word.' (Page 235.)

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.

'Having now established the fact' (wonderfully established!), 'we may inquire into the fitness of it. There were two causes of the extraordinary operations of the Holy Spirit--one to manifest His mission (and this was done once for all), the other to comfort and instruct the Church.' (Page 110.) 'At His first descent on the Apostles, He found their minds rude and uninformed, strangers to all heavenly knowledge, and utterly averse to the gospel. He illuminated their minds with all necessary truth. For, a rule of faith not being yet composed' (No! Had they not 'the Law and the Prophets') 'some extraordinary infusion of His virtue was still necessary. But when this rule was perfected, part of this office was transferred upon the Sacred Canon; and His enlightening grace was not to be expected in such abundant measure as to make the recipients infallible guides.' (Page 112.) Certainly it was not. If this is all that is intended, no one will gainsay. 'Yet modern fanatics pretend to as high a degree of divine communications as if no such rule were in being' (I do not); 'or, at least, as if that rule needed the farther assistance of the Holy Spirit to explain His own meaning.' This is quite another thing. I do firmly believe (and what serious man does not) omnis scriptura legi debet eo Spiritu quo scripta est: 'We need the same Spirit to understand the Scripture which enabled the holy men of old to write it.' 'Again, the whole strength of human prejudices was then set in opposition to the gospel, to overcome the obstinacy and violence of which nothing less than the power of the Holy One was sufficient. At present, whatever prejudices may remain, it draws the other way.' (Page 113.) What, toward holiness toward temperance and chastity toward justice, mercy, and truth Quite the reverse. And to overcome the obstinacy and violence of the heart-prejudices which still lie against these, the power of the Holy One is as necessary now as ever it was from the beginning of the world. 'A farther reason for the ceasing of miracles is the peace and security of the Church. The profession of the Christian faith is now attended with ease and honour.' 'The profession,' true; but not the thing itself, as 'all that will live godly in Christ Jesus' experience.

Her Collects are full of petitions to the same effect. 'Grant that we may daily be renewed by Thy Holy Spirit' (Collect for Christmas Day). 'Grant that in all our sufferings here, for the testimony of Thy truth, we may by faith behold the glory that shall be revealed, and, being filled with the Holy Ghost, may love and bless our persecutors' (St. Stephen's Day). 'Send Thy Holy Ghost, and pour into our hearts that most excellent gift of charity' (Quinquagesima Sunday). 'O Lord, from whom all good things do come, grant to us Thy humble servants that by Thy holy inspiration we may think those things that are good, and by Thy merciful guidance may perform the same' (Fifth Sunday after Easter). 'We beseech Thee, leave us not comfortless, but send to us the Holy Ghost to comfort us' (Sunday after Ascension Day). 'Grant us by the same Spirit to have a right judgement in all things, and evermore to rejoice in His holy comfort' (Whit Sunday). 'Grant us, Lord, we beseech Thee, the Spirit to think and do always such things as be rightful' (Ninth Sunday after Trinity). 'O God, forasmuch as without Thee we are not able to please Thee, mercifully grant that Thy Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts' (Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity). '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' (Communion Office). 'Give Thy Holy Spirit to this infant (or this person), that he may be born again. Give Thy Holy Spirit to these persons' (N.B. already baptized), 'that they may continue Thy servants.' 'Almighty God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these persons by water and the Holy Ghost, strengthen them with the Holy Ghost the Comforter, and daily increase in them the manifold gifts of Thy grace' (Office of Confirmation). From these passages it may sufficiently appear for what purposes every Christian, according to the doctrine of the Church of England, does now receive the Holy Ghost. But this will be still more clear from those that follow; wherein we may likewise observe a plain, rational sense of God's 'revealing' Himself to us, of the 'inspiration' of the Holy Ghost, and of a believer's 'feeling' in himself the 'mighty working' of the Spirit of Christ:--

'It is the office of the Holy Ghost to sanctify; which the more it is hid from our understanding' (that is, the particular manner of His working), 'the more it ought to move all men to wonder at the secret and mighty workings of God's Holy Spirit, which is within us. For it is the Holy Ghost that doth quicken the minds of men, stirring up godly motions in their hearts. Neither does He think it sufficient inwardly to work the new birth of men, unless He does also dwell and abide in them. "Know ye not," saith St. Paul, "that ye are the temples of God, and that His Spirit dwelleth in you Know ye not that your bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost, which is within you" Again he saith, "Ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit." For why "The Spirit of God dwelleth in you." To this agreeth St. John: "The anointing which ye have received" (he meaneth the Holy Ghost) "abideth in you" (I John ii. 27). And St. Peter saith the same: "The Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you." Oh what comfort is this to the heart of a true Christian, to think that the Holy Ghost dwelleth in him! "If God be with us," as the Apostle saith, "who can be against us" He giveth patience and joyfulness of heart in temptation and affliction, and is therefore worthily called "the Comforter" (John xiv. 16). He doth instruct the hearts of the simple in the knowledge of God and His Word; therefore He is justly termed "the Spirit of truth" (John xvi. 13). And (N.B.) where the Holy Ghost doth instruct and teach, there is no delay at all in learning.' (Ibid.) From this passage I learn (1) that every true Christian now 'receives the Holy Ghost' as the Paraclete or Comforter promised by our Lord (John xiv. 16); (2) that every Christian receives Him as 'the Spirit of all truth' (promised John xvi. 13) to 'teach him all things'; and (3) that the anointing mentioned in the First Epistle of St. John 'abides in every Christian.' 'In reading of God's Word, he profiteth most who is most inspired with the Holy Ghost' (Homily on Reading the Scripture, Part I.).

To George Merryweather Date: LONDON, January 29, 1767. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1767) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--To suppose a combination, does not avail; to prove it, would cast them at once. You are in the right to lose no time; what is to be done should be done as soon as possible. Delays are never more dangerous than in law proceedings.[See letters of Dec. 20, 1766, and Oct. 6, 1767.] I have no knowledge of Mr. Dunning [John Dunning (1731-83), first Baron Ashburton 1782; Solicitor-General 1768-70. Sir Fletcher Norton (1716-89); Attorney-General 1763, Speaker of the House of Commons 1770, Baron Grantley of Markenfield 1782. Attacked by Junius in Letter 39.] or Sir Fletcher Norton. Only I have lately retained Sir Fletcher in the behalf of Miss Lewen's executors. Peace be with your spirit!--I am Your affectionate brother.

'But Mr. Wesley says the other Methodists have.' I say no such thing. What I say, after having given a scriptural account of a perfect Christian, is this: 'By these marks the Methodists desire to be distinguished from other men; by these we labour to distinguish ourselves.' And do not you yourself desire and labour after the very same thing But you insist, 'Mr. Wesley affirms the Methodists' (i.e. all Methodists) 'to be perfectly holy and righteous.' Where do I affirm this Not in the tract before us. In the front of this I affirm just the contrary; and that I affirm it anywhere else is more than I know. Be pleased, sir, to point out the place. Till this is done all you add (bitterly enough) is mere brutum fulmen; and the Methodists (so called) may still declare (without any impeachment of their sincerity) that they do not come to the Holy Table 'trusting in their own righteousness, but in God's manifold and great mercies.'-- I am, sir, Yours, &c.

To his Brother Charles Date: ATHLONE, June 21, 1767 Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1767) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BROTHER,--For some time I have had many thoughts concerning the work of God in these kingdoms. I have been surprised that it has spread so far, and that it has spread no farther. And what hindered Surely the design of God was to 'bow a nation to His sway': instead of which, there is still only a Christian here and there, and the rest are yet in the shadow of death; although those who would profit by us have need to make haste, as we are not likely to serve them long. What, indeed, has hindered I want to consider this. And must we not first say, Nos consules ['We who are the chiefs.'] If we were more holy in heart and life, and more throughly devoted to God, would not all the preachers catch our spirit and carry it with them throughout the land Is not the next hindrance the littleness of grace (rather than of gifts) in a considerable part of our preachers They have not the whole mind which was in Christ; they do not steadily walk as He walked. And therefore the hand of the Lord is stayed; though not altogether; though He does work still, but not in such a degree as He surely would were they holy as He that hath sent them is holy. Is not the third hindrance the littleness of grace in the generality of the people Therefore they pray little and with little fervency for a general blessing; and therefore their prayer has little power with God. It does not, as once, shut and open heaven. Add to this, that as there is much of the spirit of the world in their hearts, so there is much conformity to the world in their lives. They ought to be both burning and shining lights; but they neither burn nor shine. They are not true to the rules they profess to observe; they are not holy in all manner of conversation. Nay, many of them are salt that has lost its savour, the little savour they once had. Wherewith, then, shall the rest of the land be seasoned What wonder that their neighbours are as unholy as ever

To George Merryweather Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1767) Author: John Wesley --- BRISTOL, October, 6, 1767. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I rejoice at the behaviour of Mr. Whitefield. [Whitefield had visited Yarm on Sept. 23.] At length he meets me half way. I have no objection to Mr. Oddie's changing places with Matthew Lowes [Oddie was at Newcastle, and Lowes at Yarm.] for a round or two. If they will be quiet, be you quiet too. [The law suit See letter of Jan. 29.] Get out of the fire as soon as you can. I have carried many suits in the King's Bench, but never was reimbursed in one.-- I am Your affectionate brother.

To Ann Foard Date: NORWICH, December 2, 1767. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1767) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--In the way of life you are entering upon you will have need of great resolution and steadiness. It will be your wisdom to set out with two rules, and invariably adhere to them: (1) 'I will do everything I can to oblige you, except what I cannot do with a clear conscience'; (2) 'I will refrain from everything I can that would displease you, except what I cannot refrain from with a clear conscience.' Keep to this on both sides from the hour you meet, and your meeting will be a blessing. You will do well likewise constantly to pray with as well as for one another. Now, Nancy, put on by the grace of God the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left! Beware of foolish desires! Beware of inordinate affections! Beware of worldly cares! But, above all, I think you should beware of wasting time in what is called innocent trifling. And watch against unprofitable conversation, particularly between yourselves. Then your union may be (as it ought) a type of the union between Christ and His Church; and you may in the end present each other before Him holy and unblameable at His coming. [See letter of Oct. 14, 1767. ] I am Your affectionate brother.

And how can we expect it to be otherwise For do we not naturally catch their spirit with whom we converse And what spirit can we expect them to be of, considering the preaching they sit under Some happy exceptions I allow; but, in general, do men gather grapes of thorns Do they gather constant, universal self-denial, the patience of hope, the labour of love, inward and outward self-devotion, from the doctrine of Absolute Decrees, of Irresistible Grace, of Infallible Perseverance Do they gather these fruits from Antinomian doctrine or from any that borders upon it Do they gather them from that amorous way of praying to Christ or that way of preaching His righteousness I never found it so. On the contrary, I have found that even the precious doctrine of Salvation by Faith has need to be guarded with the utmost care, or those who hear it will slight both inward and outward holiness. I will go a step farther: I seldom find it profitable for me to converse with any who are not athirst for perfection and who are not big with earnest expectation of receiving it every moment. Now, you find none of these among those we are speaking of, but many, on the contrary, who are in various ways directly or indirectly opposing the whole work of God; that work, I mean, which God is carrying on throughout the kingdom by andres agraumatoi kai idiwtai.[ Acts iv. 13: 'unlearned and ignorant men.'] In consequence of which His influence must in some measure be withdrawn from them. Again, you have for some time conversed a good deal with the genteel Methodists. Now, it matters not a straw what doctrine they hear, whether they frequent the Lock or West Street. They are (almost all) salt that has lost its savour, if ever they had any. They are throughly conformed to the maxims, the spirit, the fashions, and customs of the world. Certainly, then, Nunquam ad eos homines ibis quin minor homo redebis. [A Kempis's Imitation, i. 20: 'One said, As oft as I have gone among men, I returned home less a man.']

To Peggy Dale Date: LIVERPOOL, April 7, 1768. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1768) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR PEGGY,--I do not well understand what letter you mean. I have answered (if I do not forget) every letter which I have received. And I commonly answer either of you [Herself or Miss Molly Dale.] within a day or two. In this respect I do not love to remain in your debt. In others I must always be so; for I can never pay you the affection I owe. Accept of what little I have to give. Mr. Law does well to insist on those sister graces, lowliness, meekness, and resignation. [A Serious Call to a Holy Life, xvi.- xxii.] These one would most importunately ask of God. And, indeed, without them love is only a name. Let your faith thus work by love, and it will make you fruitful in every good temper and word and work. I hope to be at Glasgow on Wednesday the 19th instant; at Aberdeen the 28th; at Edinburgh May 5; at Newcastle on Friday, May 20. Peace be with your spirit!--I am, my dear Peggy, Your affectionate brother.

To Miss March Date: July 5, 1768. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1768) Author: John Wesley --- I am more inclined to congratulate you than to condole with you upon your present situation. Many circumstances concurred to expose you to the greatest of all dangers-- that of being generally commended. It is therefore a peculiarly gracious providence whereby this danger is turned aside, and that without any particular fault or even imprudence on your part. You may now experience the truth of that fine reflection, 'Nothing is more profitable for us than to suffer reproach for a good action done with a single eye.' Nevertheless you cannot be excused from speaking plain to Sarah Crosby and A[nn Foard]; and the sooner this is done the better, lest their want of judgement should produce more ill effects. Certainly you should labour to convince them that they were altogether in a fault. In any wise they should have spoke to you first; then, if you had not satisfied them, they might have gone farther. But what can be done for the poor young woman I am afraid lest she should be turned out of the way. You will hardly need that tract for a time, as you have Mr. Brainerd's Life. There is a pattern of self-devotion and deadness to the world! But how much of his sorrow and pain had been prevented, if he had understood the doctrine of Christian Perfection! How many tears did he shed because it was impossible to be freed from sin! As you have not the same outward trials which many have, it is highly needful you should have some inward ones; although they need not be either many or long. If you walk closely with God, He is able to give any degree of holiness, either by pleasure or pain. S[ally] [Sarah Ryan died on Aug. 17.] continues with you a little longer to quicken you in the way. Why should not a living Christian be exactly of the same spirit with a dying Christian, seeing the difference between her life and ours is nothing when compared to eternity

I suppose a copy of the strange account of Eliz. Hobson [For the account of Elizabeth Hobson's apparitions, see letter of Sept. 12, 1782, to a Quaker.] was sent you from Newcastle from my papers. Not long after, the former half of these papers, eight pages out of sixteen, was taken away, none can tell how to this day. What I could remember, I wrote down again. But I question whether my memory served me as to every circumstance, and must therefore ask of you a copy of what was lost. If you please, Mr. Thompson [William Thompson was at this time Wesley's Assistant in Edinburgh.] can transcribe it for me. The thing is now brought, I hope, to a final issue. She has met him at Boyldon Hill, when he took his leave with, 'I shall see you no more, in time or eternity.' How much happiness is it for us that we hope to see each other both in time and in eternity! 'Nor shorter space true love can satisfy.' That you may be daily more athirst both for holiness and glory is the prayer of, my dear Lady, Your affectionate servant. I am now setting my face toward Bristol.

To Jane Hilton Date: BRISTOL, October 8, 1768. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1768) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--You need never be afraid of 'wearying my patience,' unless it be by your silence. There is no danger of your writing too often or too much; whatever comes from you is welcome. I can easily believe the description you give is just; therefore there are only two particulars remaining: First, Have you both the consent of your parents Without this there is seldom a blessing. Secondly, Is he able to keep you I mean in such a manner as you have lived hitherto. Otherwise, remember I When poverty comes in at the door, love flies out at the window. Do you find as much as ever of the spirit of prayer and of continual watchfulness Are you always sensible of the presence of God in the greatest hurry of business Have you power over wandering thoughts And do you find as much union of spirit as ever with, my dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother.

To George Cussons Date: LONDON, November 18, 1768. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1768) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--When you seek God with fasting added to prayer, you cannot seek His face in vain. This has been exceedingly blessed in various parts, and the revival of God's work has begun at the very time. You would do well to have several meetings of this kind as well as frequent meetings for prayer. Undoubtedly the visits paid you by Dr. Conyers, by Mr. Venn, and Mr. King [John King, Rector of Pertonhall, Beds (1752-1800), Cowper's schoolfellow. See Journal, v. 61, 63n.] were so many answers to prayer; and He will not withhold from you any manner of thing that is good. It is by patient continuance in well doing, in using all the grace which is already given you, that you are to seek the whole gift of God, the entire renewal of your soul, the full deliverance from sin. And do not think it far off: this is the voice of unbelief. He is nigh that sanctifieth: only believe, and feel Him near. This is what you should continually insist on, the nearness of the promise. And, indeed, if it is to be received by naked faith, by consequence it may be received now.-- I am, dear George, Your affectionate brother.

To Christopher Hopper Date: LONDON, December 3, 1768. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1768) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--Regard not custom, but reason.[Hopper was the preacher in the Birstall Circuit.] I wish you would (1) Nowhere begin preaching later than seven in the evening; (2) Preach nowhere unless they can and will procure you a tolerable lodging; (3) Change the stewards as soon as may be, whoever is pleased or displeased; (4) Execute our discipline in every point without fear or favour; (5) Expect no thanks from Richard Taylor nor any man else for doing him good.--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Mrs. Crosby Date: CHESTER, March 18, 1769. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1769) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--The westerly winds detain me here, I care not how long: good is the will of the Lord. When I am in Ireland, you have only to direct to Dublin and the letter will find me. I advise you, as I did Grace Walton [See letter of Sept. 8, 1761, to her.] formerly, (1) Pray in private or public as much as you can. (2) Even in public you may properly enough intermix short exhortations with prayer; but keep as far from what is called preaching as you can: therefore never take a text; never speak in a continued discourse without some break, about four or five minutes. Tell the people, 'We shall have another prayer-meeting at such a time and place.' If Hannah Harrison [See letters of Nov. 26, 1768, and March 31, 1781 (to Lancelot Harrison).] had followed these few directions, she might have been as useful now as ever. As soon as you have time, write more particularly and circumstantially; and let Sister Bosanquet do the same. There is now no hindrance in the way; nothing to hinder your speaking as freely as you please [His wife was not near to open his letters.] to, dear Sally, Your affectionate brother.

'I. To devote ourselves entirely to God; denying ourselves, taking up our cross daily, steadily aiming at one thing--to save our own souls and them that hear us. 'II. To preach the old Methodist doctrines, and no other, contained in the Minutes of the Conferences. 'III. To observe and enforce the whole Methodist discipline laid down in the said Minutes.'

To Joseph Benson Date: NORWICH, November 5, 1769. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1769) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JOSEPH,--I heard that tale, and answered pointblank, 'It is mere invention.' However, I wrote to inquire at the school, so you did well to send a real account both to me and to Ireland. [See letter of Jan. 2.] 'This gives any one enough of Kingswood School.' [Benson had used these words in his letter to Wesley.] 'Ah! simple Master Shallow!' as Shakespeare has it, should not I then have enough of it long ago You put me in mind of Sir John Phillips's [Sir John was a devout Christian who attended the Religious Societies in London. He was a benefactor of the Holy Club and one of the Georgia Trustees. See Journal, i. 186, 297; viii. 278-82, 301.] exclamation when a puff of smoke came out of the chimney, 'Oh, Mr. Wesley, these are the trials which I meet with every day.'--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother.

To Ann Bolton Date: BRISTOL, August 12, 1770. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1770) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--'He that feareth God,' says the Apostle, 'and worketh righteousness,' though but in a low degree, is accepted of Him; more especially when such an one trusts not in his own righteousness but in the atoning blood. I cannot doubt at all but this is your case; though you have not that joy in the Holy Ghost to which you are called, because your faith is weak and only as a grain of mustard seed. Yet the Lord has done great things for you already: He has preserved you even in the dangerous season, even In freshest pride of life and bloom of years, from ten thousand snares to which a young woman of a pleasing form and behaviour and not an ill temper would naturally be exposed, and to which your own heart would surely have yielded had you not been preserved by His gracious power. He has given you resignation in pain and sickness. He has made you more than conqueror, even a gainer thereby. And have not you abundant reason to praise Him, to put your whole trust in Him, and firmly to expect all His great and precious promises? The spirit of your last letter engages me much. I dearly love seriousness and sweetness mixed together. Go on, my dear Nancy, in the same path, and you will be nearer and nearer to Your affectionate brother.

To Richard Locke Date: BRISTOL, September 14, 1770. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1770) Author: John Wesley --- Milton justly supposes that if ever angelic minds reasoned on 'freewill entire, foreknowledge absolute,' they would 'find no end, in wandering mazes lost.' [Paradise Lost, ii. 560-1.] How much less can an human mind reconcile them! Men have no line to fathom such a depth. We may, however, rest in this: Yet my foreknowledge causes not their fault, Which had no less been certain unforeknown. [Ibid., iii. 118-19: 'Foreknowledge had no influence on their fault, Which had no less proved certain unforeknown.'] I believe you will find some light on the head by reading that little tract Predestination Calmly Considered. [Published by Wesley in 1752. See Works, x. 204-59.] The illustrators, Mr. Harwood, [Edward Harwood, D.D. (1729-94), Presbyterian minister at Bristol 1765. His Introduction to New Testament Studies gained him his degree in 1768.] Leibnitz, Clark, Montesquieu, and above all that wretched man Voltaire, would only unhinge and perplex your mind. Hall, Scot, Sharp, Whitby, [Daniel Whitby, D.D. (1638-1726), Prebendary of Salisbury; a voluminous theological writer.] and Fleetwood are good writers; so are Locke, Hooper, and Mosheim in their several ways, but far less useful than Baxter and Law. Dr. South, Knight, and Taylor are some of the finest writers in the English tongue--if you mean Dr. James Knight of St. Sepulchre's. But I believe the best way for you would be to read only a few select authors. Then (mixing reading with prayer) you would not only find good desires, but they would be brought to good effect.--I am Your servant for Christ's sake.

To Joseph Thompson Date: BRISTOL, September 23, 1770. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1770) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JOSEPH,--You are in the right. The most proper time for making the division is in the Quarter Day. I can confide in your prudence as well as impartiality in greater things than these. Be diligent in the books everywhere and exact in every point of discipline.--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Christopher Hopper Date: LONDON, October 13, 1770. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1770) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--You are quite right. If a man preach like an angel, he will do little good without exact discipline. I am glad honest William Hodgson has been of use; and hope you have made him and his brother friends. I will trust you for letting any place be six or eight weeks without preaching. Let this evil be removed, and the congregations will increase on Wednesdays as well as Sundays. Pray warn your young man continually (and yourself), 'Not too long or too loud!' I am right glad honest R. Roberts has preached at the Cross. 'Go thou and do likewise.' I leave both the vicar and the curate in your hands. I have no concern with them. I let them drop. Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might!--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Walter Churchey Date: LONDON, November 29, 1770. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1770) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--You have done well in showing your respect to the memory of that blessed man. His works shall follow him, and his name will be had in remembrance unto many generations, were it only for that excellent institution the Orphan House in Georgia. I understand from our common friend, Mr. Bold, [See letter of May 6, 1774, to Charles Wesley.] that your situation is critical indeed. But what have Mr. Thomas and you to do but to continue instant in prayer? Then, suppose that your eye is single, that you simply pursue the glory of God in the good of souls, He will from time to time clear up all difficulties and make plain the way before your face.--I am Your affectionate brother.

I find no such sin as legality in the Bible: the very use of the term speaks an Antinomian. I defy all liberty but liberty to love and serve God, and fear no bondage but bondage to sin. Sift that text to the bottom, and it will do the business of poor H--and all his disciples: 'God sent His own Son in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.' Justitia legis, justitia legalis! ['The righteousness of the law is legal righteousness.'] Here is legality indeed! I am glad you come a little nearer the good old Emperor's advice, Thn twn bibliwn diyan ripte. [Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, II. sect. 3: 'Throw away that thirst for books.' See letter of March 14, 1756] That thirst is the symptom of an evil disease; and crescit indulgens sibi dirus hydrops. [Horace's Odes, II. ii. 13; 'His own indulgence makes the dreadful dropsy grow.'] What is the real value of a thing but the price it will bear in eternity? Let no study swallow up or entrench upon the hours of private prayer. Nil tanti. ['Nothing is of so much importance.'] Simplify both religion and every part of learning as much as possible. Be all alive to God, and you will be useful to men!--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother.

To Philothea Briggs Date: LONDON, January 25, 1771. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1771) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR PHILLY,--As you desire a few directions with regard to the improvement of your mind, I will set down just what occur to me at present. Only, as my business is great and my time is short, I cannot stay to explain them at large. All the knowledge you want is comprised in one book--the Bible. When you understand this, you will know enough. I advise you, therefore, to begin every day (before or after private prayer) with reading a portion more or less of the Old or New Testament, or of both if you have time, together with the Notes, which may lead you by the hand into suitable meditation. After breakfast you may read in order the volumes of Sermons and the other practical books which we have published, more or less at a time (as other business permits) with meditation and prayer. Young, Milton, and the Moral and Sacred Poems you may read chiefly in the afternoons. Whatever you write, you should write in the forenoons. But learn to write sloping, not leaning upon your breast. Take care never to read or write too long a time. That is not conducive either to bodily or spiritual health. If I can be of use to you in anything else, tell me; you know you may speak freely to, my dear Philly, Yours affectionately.

14. You proceed: They pretend to be as free from sin as Jesus Christ' (page 6). You bring three proofs of this: (1) Mr. Wesley, in his answer to a divine of our Church, says, "Jesus Christ stands as our regeneration, to help us to the same holy, undefiled nature which He Himself had; and if this very life and identical nature is not propagated and derived on us, He is not our Saviour"' (page 7). When I heard you read these words, I listened and studied, and could not imagine where you got them. I knew they were not mine: I use no such queer language; but did not then recollect that they are Mr. Law's words in his Answer to Dr. Trapp, an extract from which I have published. [Joseph Trapp, D.D., preached four sermons, mainly against Law's Serious Call, in 1739. Wesley published an extract from Law's Answer in 1748. See Green's Bibliography, No. 118.] But be they whose they will, they by no means imply that we are to be as righteous as Christ was,' but that we are to be (which St. Peter likewise affirms) partakers of the divine nature.' (2) A preacher of yours declared he was as free from sin as Christ ever was.' I did not hear him declare it: pray did you If not, how do you know he declared it at all, Nay, but another declared he believed it was impossible for one whom he named to sin, for the Spirit of God dwelt in him bodily' (page 8). Pray, sir, did you hear this yourself Else the testimony is nothing worth. Hearsay evidence will not be admitted by any court in the kingdom. What you say of that good man Mr. Whitefield, now with God, I leave with Mr. H-- 's remark: I admire your prudence, though not your generosity; for it is much safer to cudgel a dead man than a living one.'

They who feel less, certainly suffer less; but the more we suffer, the more we may improve; the more obedience, the more holiness, we may learn by the things we suffer. So that, upon the whole, I do not know if the insensible ones have the advantage over us. 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 Miss March Date: CASTLEBAR, May 31, 1771. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1771) Author: John Wesley --- The dealings of God with man are infinitely varied, and cannot be confined to any general rule; both in justification and sanctification He often acts in a manner we cannot account for. There cannot be a more proper phrase than that you used, and I well understand your meaning; yet it is sure you are a transgressor still--namely, of the perfect, Adamic law. But though it be true all sin is a transgression of this law, yet it is by no means true on the other hand (though we have so often taken it for granted) that all transgressions of this law are sin: no, not at all--only all voluntary transgressions of it; none else are sins against the gospel law. Although we have 'faith's abiding impression, realizing things to come'; yet as long as we are in the body we have but an imperfect, shadowy knowledge of the things of eternity. For now we only see them in a glass, a mirror, which gives us no more than a shadow of them; therefore we see them darkly, or in a riddle, as St. Paul speaks. The whole invisible world is as yet a riddle to us; and it seems to be in this sense that some writers speak so much of the night or darkness of faith--namely, when opposed to sight; that is, to the view of things which we shall have when the veil of flesh and blood is removed. Those reasonings concerning the measure of holiness (a curious, not useful question) are not inconsistent with pure love, but they tend to damp it; and were you to pursue them far, they would lead you into unbelief.

To Mary Bosanquet Date: LONDONDERRY, June 13, 1771. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1771) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--I think the strength of the cause rests there--on your having an extraordinary call. So I am persuaded has every one of our lay preachers; otherwise I could not countenance his preaching at all. It is plain to me that the whole work of God termed Methodism is an extraordinary dispensation of His providence. Therefore I do not wonder if several things occur therein which do not fall under the ordinary rules of discipline. St. Paul's ordinary rule was, 'I permit not a woman to speak in the congregation.' Yet in extraordinary cases he made a few exceptions; at Corinth in particular.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

To Isaac Twycross Date: RYE, October 29, 1771. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1771) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR ISAAC,--Nothing is fixed as yet. But whatever God calls you to He will fit you for. Not, indeed, without a good measure of reproach; but so much the better. Reproach for doing our duty is an unspeakable blessing.--I am Your affectionate brother.

To John Valton Date: NORWICH, November 12, 1771. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1771) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--Many of our brethren have begun to assist their neighbours on the principles of the Primitive Physick. At first they prescribed only simple things, and God gave a blessing to their labours. But they seldom continued as they began; they grew more and more complex in their prescriptions. Beware of this; keep to the simple scheme. One thing will almost always do better than two. I think there is a small tract of the kind you mention among those given away by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. If so, I can easily abridge it into a penny pamphlet. Dr. Tissot wrote for Swiss constitutions: we must make allowance for English, which are generally less robust. In every place there is a remarkable blessing attending the meetings for prayer. A revival of the work of God is generally the consequence of them. The most prevailing fault among the Methodists is to be too outward in religion. We are continually forgetting that the kingdom of God is within us, and that our fundamental principle is, We are saved by faith, producing all inward holiness, not by works, by any externals whatever.--I am Your affectionate brother.

To Mary Stokes Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1772) Author: John Wesley --- [About January 1772.] MY DEAR SISTER,--In order to speak for God, you must not confer with flesh and blood, or you will never begin. You should vehemently resist the reasoning devil, who will never want arguments for your silence. Indeed, naturally all the passions justify themselves: so do fear and shame in particular. In this case, therefore, the simple, child-like boldness of faith is peculiarly necessary. And when you have broke through and made the beginning, then prudence has its office--that is, Christian (not worldly) prudence, springing from the unction of the Holy One, and teaching you how far and in what manner to speak, according to a thousand various circumstances. You do not yet see the day dawn with regard to those who are near and dear to you. But you must not hence infer that it never will. The prayer that goeth not out of feigned lips will not fall to the ground; but 'though it seem to tarry long, true and faithful is His word.' I am glad Miss Williams comes a little nearer to us. Do the same good office to Molly Jones. [See letter of Dec. 26, 1771, to Miss Stokes.] She professes to love you; if she really does, press on, and you will prevail. Does not Tommy Janes hurt her He is lively and good-natured, but has no liking either to the doctrine or discipline of the Methodists. Such a person is just calculated for weakening all that is right and strengthening all that is wrong in her. If you speak to Mr. Pawson concerning the preaching at the Hall on Sunday evening, I believe it may be continued. Only it could not be by the travelling preachers; they are otherwise engaged. Yours affectionately.

To Lady Maxwell Date: LONDON, February 8, 1772. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1772) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR LADY,--I commend you for meddling with points of controversy as little as possible. It is abundantly easier to lose our love in that rough field than to find truth. This consideration has made me exceedingly thankful to God for giving me a respite from polemical labours. I am glad He has given to others both the power and the will to answer them that trouble me; so that I may not always be forced to hold my weapons in one hand while I am building with the other. I rejoice likewise not only in the abilities but in the temper of Mr. Fletcher. He writes as he lives. I cannot say that I know such another clergyman in England or Ireland. He is all fire; but it is the fire of love. His writings, like his constant conversation, breathe nothing else to those who read him with an impartial eye. And although Mr. Shirley scruples not to charge him with using subtilty and metaphysical distinctions, yet he abundantly clears himself of this charge in the Second Check to Antinomianism. ['A Second Check to Antinomianism; occasioned by a Late Narrative, in three letters to the Hon. and Rev. Author (Walter Shirley), was published at the end of 1771.] Such the last letters are styled, and with great propriety; for such they have really been. They have given a considerable check to those who were everywhere making void the law through faith; setting 'the righteousness of Christ' in opposition to the law of Christ, and teaching that 'without holiness any man may see the Lord.' Notwithstanding both outward and inward trials, I trust you are still on the borders of perfect love. For the Lord is nigh! See the Lord thy Keeper stand Omnipotently near! Lo I He holds thee by thy hand, And banishes thy fear! You have no need of fear. Hope unto the end! Are not all things possible to him that believeth Dare to believe! Seize a blessing now! The Lord increase your faith! In this prayer I know you join with, my dear Lady, Your ever affectionate servant.

To Philothea Briggs Date: LIVERPOOL, March 23, 1772. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1772) Author: John Wesley --- If useless words or thoughts spring from evil tempers, they are properly evil, otherwise not; but still they are contrary to the Adamic law: yet not to the law of love; therefore there is no condemnation for them, but they are matter of humiliation before God. So are those (seemingly) unbelieving thoughts; although they are not your own, and you may boldly say, 'Go, go, thou unclean spirit; thou shalt answer for these, and not I.'

To Mrs. Bennis Date: LIVERPOOL, March 31, 1772. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1772) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--You did well to break through and converse with Mrs. Dawson. There is no doubt but she has living faith; but, not having opportunity to converse with believers, she cannot express herself with that clearness that our friends do: cultivate the acquaintance. Now, lay before her by way of promise the whole Christian salvation; she will quickly see the desirableness of it. You may then lend her the Plain Account of Christian Perfection. She will not be frightened but rather encouraged at hearing it is possible to attain what her heart longs for. While you are thus feeding God's lambs, He will lead you into rich pastures. I do not wonder you should meet with trials: it is by these your faith is made perfect. You will find many things both in your heart and in your life contrary to the perfection of the Adamic law; but it does not follow that they are contrary to the law of love. Let this fill your heart, and it is enough. Still continue active for God. Remember, a talent is entrusted to you; see that you improve it. He does not like a slothful steward. Your affectionate brother.

To Philothea Briggs Date: WHITEHAVEN, April 12, 1772. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1772) Author: John Wesley --- Your affections were apt to be too impetuous, and sometimes uneven too; but nature yields to healing grace, which I trust has made you both more calm and more steady. [See letter of Sept. 13, 1771.] And what will it not make you if you persevere All that is amiable, holy and happy! Already He that loves you gives you a taste of what He has prepared for you. Let patience have its perfect work, and you shall be perfect and entire, lacking nothing. See that you make the best of life! The time is short!

To Mrs. Bennis Date: YARM, June 16, 1772. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1772) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--As often as you can I hope you will converse with Mrs. Dawson, as her heart is much united to you; and when you are at a distance from each other, you may converse by letters. And I believe you are particularly called to be useful to those whom the riches or the grandeur of this world keep at a distance from the pure word of God. When you are at Waterford, see that you be not idle there. You should gather up and meet a band immediately. If you would meet a class too, it would be so much the better: you know, the more labour the more blessing. You did well to send me the last enclosure; it is absolutely needful that I should be acquainted with all such matters; the contrary would be false delicacy. Mr. Goodwin is a valuable young man; he has much grace and a good understanding. I have wrote to Mr. Glassbrook and the leaders, if James Deaves should come to Limerick in the same spirit wherein he has been for some time, to take care that he do no mischief. If he should proceed in that impetuous manner, we shall be obliged to take harsher measures. This I should be sorry for; one would not cut off a limb while there is any hope of recovering it. I expect John Christian will be an useful labourer; he has a zeal according to knowledge. Nothing is sin, strictly speaking, but a voluntary transgression of a known law of God. Therefore every voluntary breach of the law of love is sin; and nothing else, if we speak properly. To strain the matter farther is only to make way for Calvinism. There may be ten thousand wandering thoughts and forgetful intervals without any breach of love, though not without transgressing the Adamic law. But Calvinists would fain confound these together. Let love fill your heart, and it is enough!--I am, dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

To Mary Stokes Date: SHEFFIELD, August 10, 1772. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1772) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--Having finished for the present my business at Leeds, [Where the Conference met on the 4th.] I am come thus far on my journey to Bristol. But I must take Haverfordwest in the way thither; so that I do not expect to be there till the 30th instant. How many blessings may you receive in the meantime, provided you seek them in the good old way wherein you received the Lord Jesus Christ! So walk in Him still. Beware of striking into new paths! of being wise above that is written! Perhaps we may find sweetness in the beginning; but it would be bitterness in the latter end. O my sister, my friend, I am afraid for you! I doubt you are stepping out of the way. When you enter into your closet and shut the door and pray to your Father who seeth in secret, then is the time to groan to Him who reads the heart the unutterable prayer. But to be silent in the congregation of His people is wholly new, and therefore wholly wrong. A silent meeting was never heard of in the Church of Christ for sixteen hundred years. I entreat you to read over with much prayer that little tract A Letter to a Quaker. [See letters of Feb. 10, 1748, and March 17, 1771 (to her).] I fear you are on the brink of a precipice, and you know it not. The enemy has put on his angel's face, and you take him for a friend. Retire immediately! Go not near the tents of those dead, formal men called Quakers! Keep close to your class, to your band, to your old teachers; they have the words of eternal life! Have any of them offended you Has any stumbling-block been laid in your way Hide nothing from, my dear Molly, Yours in true affection. Ten days hence I expect to be at Haverfordwest.

To Him your every want Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1772) Author: John Wesley --- In instant prayer display; Pray always, pray and never faint, Pray, without ceasing pray! See, help while yet you ask is given!--I am, dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

To Philothea Briggs Date: BRISTOL, August 31, 1772. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1772) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR PHILLY,--None are or can be saved but those who are by faith made inwardly and outwardly holy. But this holy faith is the gift of God; and He is never straitened for time. He can as easily give this faith in a moment as in a thousand years. He frequently does give it on a death-bed, in answer to the prayer of believers, but rarely if ever to those who had continued unholy upon the presumption that He would save them at last. But if He did, what unspeakable losers must they be! Could grief be in heaven, they would grieve to eternity! seeing every one there must receive his own reward according to his own labour.

To Miss Bolton, In Witney, Oxfordshire. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1772) Author: John Wesley --- Francis Asbury says in his Journal on October 10, 1772: 'I received a letter from Mr. Wesley, in which he required a strict attention to discipline; and appointed me to act as Assistant.' The letter is not known.

To Philothea Briggs Date: October 19, 1772. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1772) Author: John Wesley --- The difference between temptation and sin is generally plain enough to all that are simple of heart; but in some exempt cases it is not plain: there we want the unction of the Holy One. Voluntary humility, calling every defect a sin, is not well-pleasing to God. Sin, properly speaking, is neither more nor less than 'a voluntary transgression of a known law of God.'

To John Murray Date: LONDON, January 15, 1773. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1773) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--Now that you labor in Dublin, the conversation and advice of Mr. Jaco may be of great service to you. And it will be your wisdom to pick out the most serious and solid persons in the Society for your acquaintance. Now give yourself to prayer and reading and meditation, that your profiting may appear to all men.--I am Your affectionate brother.

To Mrs. Barton, Beverley Date: LEWISHAM, January 21, 1773. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1773) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--Consult with some experienced and sensible person upon every step you take. Concerning removing to Hull, you would do well to consult Thomas Snowden, or someone that lives there. It would be expedient, too, to take good advice before you enter upon any new business. Everything now is full of uncertainty and danger, during the amazing dearness of provisions. Hence most people have just money to buy food, and have nothing more to lay out. Yet the promise stands sure, ‘ Seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and these things shall be added unto you.’ Yea, surely the Lord will sooner make windows in heaven than suffer His truth to fail. Peace be with your spirits!--I am, my dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother.

To Ann Boron Date: CORK, May 2, 1773. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1773) Author: John Wesley --- I have, indeed, often grieved on your account, but it was for your sufferings. And yet I constantly saw the wise end of your sufferings, that you might be more largely a partaker of His holiness. Indeed, you have reason to be satisfied with our Lord’s disposal of you, and to praise Him for all His dispensations. Even those circumstances which are not joyous but grievous yet work together for good. At first this does not always appear; but in a little while light springs out of darkness. It is no wonder you should many times be at a loss how to express what you feel. The language of men is too weak to describe the deep things of God. But sometimes one word may express much. One of our preachers that sometime since labored in this town, though full of faith and love, could find no utterance till he just said ‘Peace! Peace!’ and died [This may have been John Dillon, who labored at Cork in 1786 and died in 1770]. You make me amends for not answering me before on that head by doing it so distinctly now. That is the danger, lest on such an occasion we should not be so fully recollected. But in this and all things His grace is sufficient for us--sufficient to make us more than conquerors, especially when we give ourselves to prayer for this very thing before the trial comes. In most parts of this kingdom there is such a thirst after holiness as I scarce ever knew before. Several here in particular who enjoy it themselves are continually encouraging others to press after it. And two of our traveling preachers who for some years disbelieved it are now happy witnesses of if. I hope you do not forget poor Ally Eden. She has need of comfort; so we will not reprove her. Yours most affectionately.

To Ann Bolton Date: LONDON, July 18, 1773. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1773) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--Your late conversation was exceeding pleasant to me. I had sometimes been almost inclined to think that your affection was lessened; but now I believe it is not. I trust your love is not grown cold. This gave me much satisfaction, though I could not but be concerned at seeing you so encumbered with worldly business. Surely it will not be so always. But God's time is best! Two or three of those little things I have sent you :-- With peaceful mind thy race of duty run: God nothing does, or suffers to be done, But what thou wouldst thyself, if thou couldst see Through all events of things as well as He. Let thy repentance be without delay: If thou defer it to another day, Thou must repent for a day more of sin, While a day less remains to do it in. Nor steel nor flint alone produces fire, Nor spark arises till they both conspire: Nor faith alone, nor works without it right; Salvation rises when they both unite. If gold be offered thee, thou does not say, ‘To-morrow I will take it, not to-day’: Salvation offered, why art thou so cool To let thyself become to-morrows fool Prayer and thanksgiving is the vital breath That keeps the spirit of a man from death: For prayer attracts into the living soul The life that fills the universal whole; And giving thanks is breathing forth again The praise of Him who is the life of men. Two different painters, artists in their way, Have drawn religion in her full display. To both she sat: one gazed at her all o’er; The other fixed upon her features more. Hervey has figured her with every grace That dress could give; but Law has hit her face. The specious sermons of a learned man Are little else than flashes in the pan. The mere haranguing upon what they call Morality is powder without ball: But he who preaches with a Christian grace Fires at your vices and the shot takes place. Faith, Hope, and Love were questioned what they thought Of future glory, which Religion taught. Now Faith believed it firmly to be true, And Hope expected so to find it too: Love answered, smiling with a conscious glow,

To Mrs. Bennis Date: BRISTOL, September 10, 1773. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1773) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--When two or three agree to seek God by fasting and prayer, it cannot be that their labor should be in vain; especially if they add their endeavors to their prayers for the increase of the work of God. I hope you will encourage every preacher to visit the whole Society in order from house to house: dinner or drinking tea does not answer the same intention. This may and ought to be done over and above. I thought you had been in more danger of being hurt by worldly abundance than worldly care. But we cannot stand under either one or the other unless we be endued with power from on high, and that continually from hour to hour, or rather from moment to moment. Yet distress is not sin; we may be grieved, and still resigned. And this is acceptable with God. In all these cases you should remember that observation never to be let slip,-- With even mind thy course of duty ran: God nothing does, or surfers to be done, But thou wouldst do thyself, if thou couldst see The end of all events as well as He! [See letter of July 18]. --My dear sister, adieu. Your affectionate brother.

To Hannah Ball Date: LONDON, November 18, 1773. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1773) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--You never did anything to disoblige me yet, nor anything (that I remember) which I wished undone. At all hazards you should prevent any misunderstanding between Mr. Saunderson and Brother Westrup. The best way is for them to talk calmly and freely together and reason the matter over. Then I think both of them will agree to what shall appear best upon the whole. Those fears are not from Him that calleth you. Give no place to them any farther than as they stir you up to prayer. A trying time there may be, and yet a growing time: this we frequently find. You should in any wise speak freely to Mr. Saunderson and tell him whatever you think or fear. Discipline must be kept up; only I would make an exception with regard to that gentlewoman you mention. Be more and more zealous and active for God!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

To Thomas Rankin Date: LONDON, December 4, 1773. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1773) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY,--Captain Webb does not willfully tell lies, but he speaks incautiously; so that we must make large allowance for this whenever he speaks, otherwise we shall be deceived. But where is he now, and what is he doing I fear his wife will have need of patience. If you suffer any one to remain a leader who does not stay at the Society, that will be your fault. Improper leaders are not to be suffered upon any account whatever. You must likewise deal honestly with the Societies, whether they will hear or whether they will forbear. Only do not tell them continually 'You are dead,' for that will surely make them so. Endeavor to quicken their hope by speaking strongly and at the same time cheerfully. Exhort them to look for better days--yea, such as they have never seen yet. I judge George Shadford will do good at New York. So would Robert Williams for a little time. You have hurt yourself by giving way to reasoning, and if you don’t take care you will hurt others. There has been good, much good done in America, and would have been abundantly more had Brother Boardman and Pilmoor continued genuine Methodists both in doctrine and discipline. It is your part to supply what was wanting in them. Therefore are you sent. Let Brother Shadford, Asbury, and you go on hand in hand, and who can stand against you Why, you are enough, trusting in Him that loves you, to overturn America. Go on in His name and in the power of His might, and all your enemies shall be found liars. Read David Brainerd again, and see your pattern! He was a good soldier of Jesus. Ah! but he first suffered, and then saw the fruit of his labor. Go and do likewise! I have written to Robert Williams and given him leave to print the Notes on my account; nothing on his own. I never knew he did till afterward. Be of good courage! Strengthen yourself in the Lord, and you will see good days, and will send better news to, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Thomas Carlill Date: LONDON, December 17, 1773. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1773) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY,--I was a good deal out of order when I was at Bristol [In September. See Journal, vi. 3], both with a sore throat and with the rheumatism; but am now, by the blessing of God, just as well as I was before. Put an end to smuggling at all hazards. You should eat a small crust of bread every morning, fasting, and I think it will cure you of your gravel.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate brother.

Let every one, then, speak as he finds; as for me, I cannot admire either the wisdom or virtue or happiness of mankind. Wherever I have been, I have found the bulk of mankind, Christian as well as heathen, deplorably ignorant, vicious, and miserable. I am sure they are so in London and Westminster. Sin and pain are on every side. And who can account for this but on the supposition that we are in a fallen state I have proved at large it can no otherwise be accounted for. Yet none need perish; for we have an almighty Saviour, one who is able and willing to save to the uttermost all that come unto God through Him.--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant.

To Mrs. Bennis Date: LONDON, March 1, 1774. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1774) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER.--Elizabeth Harper was frequently in clouds too; and in that case it is the best way to stand still: you can do nothing but simply tell all your wants to Him that is both able and willing to supply them. I enclose James Perfect's letter, on purpose that you may talk with him. He has both an honest heart and a good understanding; but you entirely mistake his doctrine. He preaches salvation by faith in the same manner that my brother and I have done, and as Mr. Fletcher (one of the finest writers of the age) has beautifully explained it. None of us talk of being accepted for our works; that is the Calvinist slander. But we all maintain we are not saved without works, that works are a condition (though not the meritorious cause) of final salvation. It is by faith in the righteousness and blood of Christ that we are enabled to do all good works; and it is for the sake of these that all who fear God and work righteousness are accepted of Him. It is far better for our people not to hear Mr. Hawksworth. Calvinism will do them no good. As to the rest, I refer to my enclosure to Mr. M'Donald, with whom I wish you to have some conversation. Be not discouraged: I really believe God will visit poor Waterford in love. Do you go on. Bear up the hands that hang down; by faith and prayer support the tottering knee; reprove, encourage. Have you appointed any days of fasting and prayer Storm the throne of grace, and persevere therein, and mercy will come down.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

To his Brother Charles Date: WHITEHAVEN, May 6, 1774. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1774) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BROTHER,--With or without Mr. Southcote, he need not print nonsense, which he has done in an hundred places. I will give nothing and spend nothing out of it--not a shilling; and what is paid can but be repaid. Nothing is hereby embezzled. Duty is all I consider. Trouble and reproach I value not. And I am by no means clear that I can with a good conscience throw away what I think the providence of God has put into my hands. Were it not for the Chancery suit, I should not hesitate a moment. My complaint increases by slow degrees, much the same as before. It seems I am likely to need a surgeon every nine or ten weeks. Mr. Hey, of Leeds, vehemently advises me never to attempt what they call a radical cure. You did tell me Mr. D[avies] had accepted of your mare. But surely there are more mares in the kingdom! I never said a word of 'publishing it after my death.' I judged it my duty to publish it now; and I have as good a fight to believe one way as any man has to believe another. I was glad of an opportunity of declaring myself on the head. I beg Hugh Bold to let me think as well as himself, and to believe my judgement will go as far as his. I have no doubt of the substance both of Glanvill's and Cotton Mather’s narratives. Therefore in this point you that are otherwise-minded bear with me. Veniam petimusque damusque vicissim. Remember, I am, upon full consideration and seventy years’ experience, just as obstinate in my opinion as you in yours. Don't you think the disturbances in my father’s house were a Cock Lane story Peace be with you and yours!

To Walter Churchey Date: GLASGOW, May 15, 1774. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1774) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--I cannot but agree with you entirely in respect of John Prickard. Unless he has a clearer call than I apprehend, he ought not to go to America. The reason is plain: there is a greater call for him in Wales than in the Province of New York or Pennsylvania. And there is no call at all in the Northern or Southern Provinces. To go thither is stark, staring madness. But if John has a mind, he may come to the Conference at Bristol and talk with me about it. T. Judson, at No. 11, in Carey Court, Gray's Inn, is a Christian attorney. I ordered the third epistle to be sent to your sister, and I suppose it was. Your friend Joseph Benson sits at my elbow and is much at your service.--I am, with love to Sister Churchey, Your affectionate brother. PS.--I have seen an exceeding well-wrote book, an Introduction to the Study of the Law, published eleven or twelve years ago, I think, by one Simpson. It is a thin octavo. You should have it if you have it not already. The Conference begins the second week in August. Immediately after it I hope to see you in Brecon.

To Ann Bolton Date: LEEDS, July 13, 1774. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1774) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--At all hazards get an electric machine. It is your bounden duty. You are no more at liberty to throw away your health than to throw away your life. If you disperse the small tracts among the poor people round Finstock, it will continue and deepen their awakening. Your removal from Witney was sufficient to cause slackness among the people. I hope Brother Taylor will recover, if he be plainly and yet tenderly dealt with. You try me when you delay to write; it makes me almost fear your love is grown cold. It is on Monday, August 1, I have appointed to be at Worcester, on Tuesday at Broadmarston, on Thursday at Cheltenham, on Friday at Stroud, on Saturday at Bristol; and I know not how I can see you, unless at one of these places. My love to Neddy.--I am, my dear Nancy, Yours affectionately.

To Mr. ------- Date: TAUNTON, August 29, 1774. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1774) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--Very probably Mr. Bentley is gone abroad. If so, we shall hear of him among our Societies in America. His sister should take good care of his effects till she hears of him again. To Mrs. Pim you should speak strong words of consolation. Don't try to reason with her; but tell her flatly, 'The devil is a liar. God loves you. Christ loves you. He will help you. Look up, and He will help you now.' Then wrestle with Him in prayer for her. Faith will prevail. [There] is the same remedy and no other for the [person] you speak of. But this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. It is best for you to spend some time with me, Eternal Providence, exceeding thought, When none appears can make itself a way. Sometimes that drowsiness is not natural but diabolical; in that case it is commonly taken away in a moment. When it is natural, cold bathing is of use.--I am Your affectionate brother.

Bishop Browne thought Arianism and Socinianism were the flood which the dragon is in this age pouring out of his mouth to swallow up the woman. Perhaps it may; especially with Dr. Taylor's emendation. But still the main flood in England seems to be Antinomianism. This has been a greater hindrance to the work of God than any or all others put together. But God has already lifted up His standard, and He will maintain His own cause. In the present dispensation He is undoubtedly aiming at that point, to spread holiness over the land. It is our wisdom to have this always in view, inward and outward holiness. A thousand things will be presented by men and devils to divert us from our point. These we are to watch against continually, as they will be continually changing their shape. But let your eye be single; aim still at one thing --holy, loving faith, giving God the whole heart. And incite all to this: one love, one present and eternal heaven.

To Hannah Ball Date: LONDON, December 19, 1774. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1774) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--I do not see any valid objection against inoculation either from prudence or religion. But I wonder to hear you talk of preparation. It is now quite out of use. Experience has shown in ten thousand instances that all preparation is needless, if not hurtful. Only the preparation of the heart, prayer, and self-devotion, this is now peculiarity needful. I commend you and your dear nieces (whom I love for your sake and for their own) to Him that is able to save both their souls and bodies; and am, my dear sister. Your very affectionate brother.

To Alexander Hume Date: BRISTOL, September 22, 1775. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1775) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--I rejoice to hear that God has made Mr. Crook's labor of love profitable to some of you, and cannot blame you for desiring to have him with you a little longer.' I will write to Mr. Mason, the Assistant at Whitehaven, that Mr. Crook is coming to be a third preacher in that circuit. The three preachers may then visit the Isle month by month; so that you will have Mr. Crook one month in three. They will all teach you that religion is holy tempers and holy lives, and that the sum of all is love.--I am Your affectionate brother.

To John Fletcher Date: LONDON, October 6, 1775. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1775) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR,--I came hither a quarter of an hour ago. Your answer to Mr. Shirley will, I trust, do great good. I cannot but hope it will be of service to himself; for, to say the truth, he does not seem to be sensible that he has done anything amiss. He does not appear to have the least conception of having injured me. I was going to print an edition of your letters here; but I will wait till your Sixth Letter comes, to which I think it will be exceeding proper to annex that you wrote to me. I shall now be here and hereabouts for some months. The Lord give you a right judgement in all things, and evermore to rejoice in His holy comfort--I am, dear sir, Yours most affectionately.

To John Mason Date: LONDON, November 1, 1775. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1775) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--T. Wride aimed at discipline exceeding well for a raw beginner. But he could not have so much weight as an experienced preacher. You will therefore supply what was wanting in his, and Brother Linnell will more than supply the place of honest, dull David Evans. So that I expect there will be no inconsiderable increase in the Societies this year, particularly at Whitehaven and Carlisle. Everywhere fail not to declare to them the whole counsel of God, and that in the plainest manner you can devise; but, above all, visit from house to house.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Christopher Hopper Date: LONDON, November 11, 1775. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1775) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--There was something very awful in that storm which I suppose reached all over England and Ireland; although it seems not to have been altogether so violent in London as in most other places. I am sorry for Captain Davis and his widow. The judgements of God are abroad. The prayer-meetings may be of great use not only to individuals but to the whole nation. I see nothing besides prayer that can avail. For the one question is, ' Have we a right to tax or no ' If we have, they are rebels, and accountable to God and man for all the blood that is shed. If we have not, they are innocent, and the blood lies at our door. Will they allow this right or can we give it up--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother.

either bodily health, or spiritual life, with this exercise ? And if he is but half alive, what will the people be ? Just so it is at Greenock too. Wed. 18.-I went to Edinburgh, and on Thursday to Perth . Here likewise the morning preaching had been given up : Con- sequently the people were few, dead, and cold. These things must be remedied, or we must quit the ground. In the way to Perth, I read that ingenious tract, Dr. Gre- gory's " Advice to his Daughters." Although I cannot agree with him in all things ; (particularly as todancing, decent pride, and both a reserve and a delicacy which I think are quite unnatural ; ) yet I allow there are many fine strokes therein,. and abundance of common sense : And if a young woman followed this plan in little things, in such things as daily occur, and in great things copied after Miranda, she would form an accomplished character. Fri. 20.-1 rode over to Mr. Fraser's, at Monedie, whose mother-in-law was to be buried that day. O what a difference is there between the English and the Scotch method of burial ! The English does honour to human nature; and even to the poor remains, that were once a temple of the Holy Ghost ! But when I see in Scotland a coffin put into the earth, and covered up without a word spoken, it reminds me of what was spoken concerning Jehoiakim, " He shall be buried with the burial of anass !" Sat. 21. I returned to Perth, and preached in the evening to a large congregation. But I could not find the way to their hearts. The generality of the people here are so wise that they need no more knowledge, and so good that they need no more religion ! Who can warn them that are brimful of wisdom and goodness, to flee from the wrath to come ? Sun. 22. I endeavoured to stir up this drowsy people, by speaking as strongly as I could, at five, on, "Awake, thou that sleepest ; " at seven, on, " Where theirworm dieth not ;" and in May,1774.1 the evening, on, " I saw the dead,small and great, stand before God." In the afternoon ayoung gentleman, in the west kirk, preached such a close, practical sermon, on, " Enoch walked with

night, being weak and faint, he fell asleep, anddreamed that his wife, who had been some time dead, came to him, and greatly comforted him. In the morning, a gentleman going a hunting, Aug. 1774.] anhare started up just before the hounds, ran straight to the mouth ofthe pit, andwas gone ; no man could tell how. The hunters searched all round the pit, till they heard a voice from the bottom. They quickly procured proper help, and drew up the man unhurt. Mon. AUGUST 1.-I preached at Bewdley, in an open place at the head of the town ; and in the evening at Worcester, which still continues one of the liveliest places in England. Here I talked with some who believe God has lately delivered them from the root of sin. Their account was simple, clear, and scriptural ; so that I saw no reason to doubt of their testimony. Tues. 2.-I preached at ten in the Town-Hall, at Evesham, and rode on to Broadmarston. Thursday, 4. I crossed over to Tewkesbury, and preached at noon in a meadow near the town, under a tall oak. I went thence to Cheltenham. As it was the high season for drinking the waters, the town was full ofGentry : So I preached near the market-place in the evening, to the largest congregation thatwas ever seen there. Some of the footmen at first made a little disturbance ; but I turned to them, and they stood reproved. Sat. 6.-I walked from Newport to Berkeley-Castle. It is a beautiful, though very ancient, building ; and every part of it kept in good repair, except the lumber-room and the chapel ; the latter of which, having been of no use for many years, is now dirty enough. I particularly admired the fine situation, and the garden on the top of the house. In one corner of the castle is the room where poor Richard II. was murdered. His effigy is still preserved, said to be taken before his death. If hewas like this, he had an open, manly countenance, though with a cast of melancholy. In the afternoon we went on to Bristol. The Conference, begun and ended in love, fully employed me on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday ; and we observed Friday, 12, as aday of fasting and prayer for the success of theGospel.

Thur. 14. I returned to Canterbury, and had a long con- versation with that extraordinary man, Charles Perronet. What a mystery of Providence ! Why is such asaint as this buried alive by continual sickness ? In the evening we had a larger congregation than before. I never saw the House thoroughly filled till now : And I am sure the people had now a call from God, whether they will hear or whether they will forbear. Fri. 15. In the evening I preached at Chatham, and on Saturday returned to London. In the evening Ipreached akind of funeral sermon at Snowsfields, for that upright woman, Jane Binknell. Formany years she was a pattern of all holiness ; and, for the latter part of her life, of patience. Yet as she laboured under an incurable and painful disorder, which allowed her little rest, day or night, the corruptible body pressed down the soul, and frequently occasioned much heaviness. But,before she went, the clouds dispersed, and she died in sweet peace; but not in 64 REV. J. WESLEY'S JOURNAL. [Jan. 1776. such triumphant joy as did Ann Davis, two or three weeks before. She died of the same disorder ; but had withal, for some years, racking pains in herhead day and night, which in a while rendered her stone-blind. Add to this, that she had a kind husband; whowas continually reproaching her for living so long, and cursing her for not dying out of the way. Yet in all this she did not " charge God foolishly ;" but meekly waited till her change should come. To-day I read Dr. Beattie's Poems ; certainly one of the best Poets of the age. He wants only the ease and simplicity of Mr. Pope. I know one, and only one, that has it. Mon. 18.-I took another little journey, and in the evening preached at Bedford. Tuesday, 19. I dragged on, through miserable roads, to St. Neot's, and preached in a large room to a numerous congregation. Understanding that almost all the Methodists, by the advice of Mr.-, had left the church, I earnestly exhorted them to return to it. In the evening I preached at Godmanchester. Wed. 20. I preached at Luton ; the next evening, at Hert- ford ; and on Friday morning, returned to London. This day we observed as a day of fasting and prayer, and

After preaching in the evening, I went on board about eight o'clock, and before eight in the morning landed at Douglas, in the Isle of Man. Douglas exceedingly resembles Newlyn in Cornwall ; both in its situation, form, and buildings ; only it is much larger, and has a few houses equal to most in Penzance. As soon as we landed, I was challengedby Mr. Booth, who had seen me in Ireland, and whose brother has been for many years a member of the society in Coolylough. A chaise was provided to carry me to Castletown. I was greatly surprised at the country. Alltheway from Douglas to Castletown it is as pleasant and as well cultivated as most parts ofEngland, withmany gentlemen's seats. Castletown a good deal resembles Galway ; only it is not so large. At six I preached near the Castle, I believe, to all the inhabitants of the town. Two or three gay youngwomen showed they knew nothing about religion ; all the rest were deeply serious. Afterwards I spent an hour very agreeably [June, 1777. at Mrs. Wood's, the widow of the late Governor. I was much pressed to stay a little longer at Castletown; butmytimewasfixed. Sun. JUNE 1.-At six I preached in ourown Room ; and, to my surprise, saw all the gentlewomen there. Young as well as old were now deeply affected, and would fain have had me stayed, were it but an hour or two ; but I was forced to hasten away, in order to be at Peeltown before the Service began. Mr. Corbett said, he would glady have asked me to preach, but that the Bishop had forbidden him ; who had also forbidden all his Clergy to admit any Methodist Preacher to the Lord's Supper. But is any Clergyman obliged, either in law or con- science, to obey such a prohibition? By no means. Thewill even of the King does not bind any English subject, unless it be seconded by an express law. How much less the will of a Bishop ? " But did not you take an oath to obeyhim ?" No, nor any Clergyman in the three kingdoms. This is a mere vulgar error. Shame that it should prevail almost universally. As it rained, I retired after Service into a large malt-house. Most of the congregation followed, and devoured the word.

life ; for presently man and beast were covered with a sheet of Aug. 1777.] 107 lightning; but as he was thoroughly wet, it did him no harm. In the evening I preached in Oldcastle church, near Bridge- End. Thur. 24. I preached to a large and serious congregation , in the Town-Hall as Cowbridge. Friday, 25. About eleven I read Prayers, and preached in Lantwyt church, to a very numerous congregation. I have not seen either so large or so handsome a church since I left England. It was sixty yards long ; but one end of it is now in ruins. I suppose it has been abundantly the most beautiful, as well as the most spacious, church in Wales. In the evening I preached at Mrs. Jones's house in Fonte- gary. For the present, even the genteel hearers seemed affected ; and God is able to continue the impression. Sat. 26. I breakfasted at Fonmon Castle, and found a melancholy pleasure in the remembrance of past times. About noon I preached at Penmark, and in the evening in that memo- rable old Castle at Cardiff. Sun. 27-. I preached in the Town-Hall ; and again in the afternoon, to a crowded audience, after preaching in a little church at Caerphilly. In the evening I preached in Mr. M's hall at Llandaff; andGod applied his word (I think) to every heart. Monday, 28. I preached at Newport, and in the evening reached Bristol. Wed. 30.-I spent an hour or two with Mr. Fletcher, restored to life in answer to manyprayers. How many providential ends have been answered by his illness ! And perhaps still greater will be answered by his recovery. Fri. AUGUST 1.-I desired asmany as could tojoin together in fasting and prayer, that God would restore the spirit of love and of a sound mind, to the poor deluded rebels in America. In the evening we had awatch-night at Kingswood ; and I was agreeably surprised to observe that hardly any one went away till the whole service was concluded. Tues. 5. Our yearly Conference began. I now particu- larly inquired (as that report had been spread far and wide) of every Assistant, " Haveyou reason to believe, from your own observation, that the Methodists are a fallen people ? Is there a decay or an increase in the work ofGod where you havebeen ?

houses; so that Armagh is at length rising out of its ruins into a large and populous city. So much good may any man of a large fortune do, if he lays it out to the best advantage ! Tues. 23.-I went on to Tanderagee, one of the pleasantest towns in Ireland. As itwas afair, calm evening, I had designed to preach in the avenue to the Castle ; but being desired to preach in the court-yard, I took my place under a tall spread- ing tree, in the midst of a numerous congregation, who were still as night. There could not be devised a more pleasing scene : The clear sky, the setting sun, the surrounding woods, the plain, unaffected people, were just suitable to the subject, "My yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Wed. 24. For exactly two months, we have had only two days without rain. In the evening I preached in the same lovely place. I dined, supped, and lodged at Dr. Lesley's, the Rector ; a well-bred, sensible, and I believe a pious man. We had family prayers before supper, which he read with admirable propriety and devotion; and I know not that I have spent a more agreeable evening since I came into the kingdom. Thur. 25. I walked round Dr. Lesley's domain : A plea- santer spot I never saw. It lies on the top of a fruitful hill, at a small distance from the town ; and commands the whole view of a lovely country, east, west, north, and south ; and it is laid out with the finest taste imaginable. The ground I took for a park I found was an orchard, tufted with fruit-trees, and flowering-shrubs ; and surrounded with a close, shady walk. I spent another hour with the amiable family this morning; and it was an hour I shall not soon forget : But it will never return ! For one, if not more, ofthat lovely company, are since removed to Abraham's bosom. In the evening I preached to a large congregation at Newry ; and on Saturday morning returned to Dublin. I had now just finished Xenophon's Κυρε Παιδεια ; some parts of which I think are exceeding dull, particularly his numerous speeches, and above all the tedious dialogue between Cyrus and Cambyses. Butwhat a beautiful picture does he

place the next day. On Saturday the Conference ended. Sun. 9. I preached at eight in the market-place at Dews- bury, to somethousands of serious people ; as Mr. Pawleywould not permit me to preach in the church, because it would give offence! After visiting Bradford and Halifax, I struck across to Man- chester and Stockport ; and went on by moderate journeys to London. Having soon finished my business there, on Monday, 17, Dr. Coke, my brother, and I, took coach for Bristol ; and early on Thursday, 20, I set out for Cornwall. I preached at Taunton that evening ; Friday, 21, at Exon ; and on Saturday reached the Dock. Sun. 23. At seven I preached in ourRoom, and at one on the quay, at Plymouth. The common people behaved well ; [Aug. 1778. but I was shocked at the stupidity and ill-breeding of several Officers, who kept walking and talking together all the time with themost perfect unconcern. We had no such Gallios in the evening at theDock, though the congregation was four times as large. Surely this is an understanding people : May their love be equal to their knowledge ! Mon. 24. In the way to Medros, Mr. Furz gave me a strange relation, which was afterwards confirmed by eye and ear witnesses :-In July, 1748, Martin Hoskins, of Sithney, being in a violent passion, was struck raving mad, and obliged to be chained down to the floor. Charles Sk went to see him. He cried out, " Who art thou ? Hast thou faith ? No; thou art afraid." Charles felt an inexpressible shock, and was raving mad himself. He continued so for several days, till some agreed to keep a day of fasting and prayer. His lunacy then ended as suddenly asitbegan. But whatwas peculiarly remark- able was, whilehewas ill, Martin was quite well : As soon as he was well, Martin was as ill as ever. Thence I went on to Redruth, Helstone, and Penzance. On Thursday, 27, in the evening I preached in the market-place, at St. Just. Very few ofour old society are now left : The far greater part of them are in Abraham's bosom. But the new generation are of the same spirit ; serious, earnest, devotedtoGod; and particularly remarkable for simplicity and Christian sincerity. Fri. 28. The Stewards of the societies met at St. Ives,-а

the day I observed, wherever I was, one circumstance that sur- prised me :-In England we generally hear the birds singing, morning and evening ; but here thrushes, and various other kinds of birds, were singing allday long. Theydid not inter- mit, even during the noon-day heat, where they had a few trees to shade them. JUNE 4.-(Being Whit-Sunday.) I preached inthe market- place again about nine, to a still larger congregation than before, on, " I am not ashamed ofthe Gospel ofChrist." How few of the genteel hearers could say so ! About four in the afternoon, I preached at Barewle, on the mountains, to a larger congrega- tion than that in the morning. The rain began soon after I began preaching ; but ceased in a few minutes. I preached on, " They were all filled with the Holy Ghost ; " and showed in what sense this belongs to us and to our children. Between six and seven I preached on the sea-shore at Peel, to the largest congregation I have seen in the island : Even the society nearly filled the House. I soon found what spirit they were of. Hardly in England (unless perhaps at Bolton) have I found so plain, so earnest, so simple a people. Mon. 5.-We hadsuch acongregation at five, asmight have been expected on a Sunday evening . We then rode through and over the mountains to Beergarrow ; where I enforced, on 206 REV. J. WESLEY'S June, 1781. an artless, loving congregation, " If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink." A few miles from thence,we came to Bishop's Court, where good Bishop Wilson resided near threescore years. There is something venerable, though not magnificent, in the ancient palace; and it is undoubtedly situ- ated in one of the pleasantest spots of the whole island. At six in the evening I preached at Balleugh ; but the preaching-house would not contain one half of the congrega- tion ; of which the Vicar, Mr. Gilling, with his wife, sister, and daughter, were a part. He invited me to take a breakfast with him in the morning, Tuesday, 5 ; which I willingly did. He read family-prayers before breakfast, in a very serious manner. After spending a little time very agreeably, I went on toKirk- Andrews.

noon at his chapel. Prejudice seems now dying away: God grant it may never revive ! Tuesday, 11, I buried the remains of Sarah Clay, many years a mother in Israel; the last ofthose holy women, who, being filled with love, forty years ago devoted themselves wholly to God, to spend and be spent in his service Feb. 1783.1 JOURNAL. 243 Herdeath was like her life, calm and easy. She was dressing herselfwhen she dropped down and fell asleep. Mon. 17.-I had an opportunity of attending the Lecture of that excellent man, Dr. Conyers. He was quite an original ; his matter was very good, his manner very bad; but it is enough that God owned him, both in the conviction and con- version of sinners . Thur. 20. I went to Dorking ; and in the afternoon took a walk through the lovely gardens of Lord Grimstone. His father-in-law, who laidthem out, is some time since numbered with the dead ; and his son-in-law, living elsewhere, has not so much as the beholding them with his eyes ! Fri. 21. At ouryearly meeting for that purpose, we exam- ined our yearly accounts, and found the money received (just answering the expense)was upwards of three thousand pounds a year ; but that is nothing to me : What I receive of it yearly, is neither more nor less than thirty pounds. To-day Charles Greenwood went to rest. He had been a melancholy man all his days, full ofdoubts and fears, and con- tinually writing bitter things against himself. When he was first taken ill, he said he should die, andwas miserable through fear ofdeath ; but two days before he died, the clouds dispersed, and he was unspeakably happy, telling his friends, " God has revealed to me things which it is impossible for man to utter." Just when he died, such glory filled the room, that it seemed to be a little heaven ; none could grieve or shed a tear, but all present appeared to be partakers of his joy. Mon. 24. I buried the remains of Captain Cheesement, one who, some years since, from a plentiful fortune, was by a train of losses utterly ruined ; but two or three friends enabling him to begin trade again, the tide turned ; he prospered greatly, and riches flowed in on every side. A few years agohe married one

And cease at once to work and live. Sun. 29.-At ten I began the Service in theEnglish church in Utrecht. I believe all the English in the city were present, and forty or fifty Hollanders. I preached on 1 Cor. xiii.; I think, as scarchingly as ever in my life. Afterwards a merchant invited me to dinner : For six years he had been at death's door by an asthma, andwas extremely ill last night ; but this morning, without any visible cause, he was well, and walked across the city to the church. He seemed to be deeply acquainted with religion, and made me promise, if I came to Utrecht again, to make his house my home. In the evening a large companyofus met atMiss L.'s, where I was desired to repeat the substance of my morning sermon. I did so : Mr. Toydemea (the Professor of Law in the Uni- versity) interpreting it sentence by sentence. They then sung a Dutch hymn; and we an English one. Afterwards Mr. Regulet, a venerable old man, spent some time in prayer, for the establishment of peace and love between the two nations. Utrecht hasmuch the look of an English town. The streets are broad, and have many noble houses. In quietness and stillness it much resembles Oxford. The country all round is like agarden: And the people I conversed with are not only civil and hospi- table, but friendly and affectionate, even as those atAmsterdam. July, 1783.] 257 Mon. 30. We hired acoach for Rotterdam, at half-a-crown per head. We dined at Gouda, at M. Van Flooten's, Minister ofthe town, who received us with all possible kindness. Before dinnerwe went into the church, famous for its paintedwindows ; butwe had not time to survey a tenth part ofthem : We could only observe, in general, that the colours were exceeding lively, and the figures exactlyproportioned. In the evening we reached once more the hospitable house ofMr. Loyal, at Rotterdam. Tues. JULY 1.-I called on asmany as I couldofmy friends, andwe partedwith much affection. We then hired a yacht, which brought us to Helvoetsluys, about eleven the next day. At two we went on board ; but the wind turning against us, we did not reach Harwich till about nine on Friday morning. After a little rest we procured a carriage, and reached London about eleven at night.

could scarce keep above water. However, our great Pilot brought us safe to land between one and two in the morning. Saturday, 27. About three we came to the New Inn, and rested till between six and seven. Thence, going gently on to King- horn, we had a pleasant passage to Leith. After preaching, I walked to my lovely lodging at Coates, and found restwas sweet. Sun. 28. I preached first at our own House, and atnoonon the Castle-Hill. I never saw such a congregation there before. But the chair was placedjust opposite to the sun : But I soon forgot it, while I expounded those words, " I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God." In the evening the whole audience seemed to feel, " Without holiness no man shall see the Lord." Tues. 30.-I had the happiness of conversing with the Earl ofH and his Lady, at Dunbar. I could not but observe both the easiness of his behaviour, (such as we find in all the Scottish Nobility,) and the fineness of his appearance, greatly set off by a milk-white head of hair. Wednesday, 31. I took a view of the stupendous bridge, about ten miles from Dunbar ; which is thrown over the deep glen that runs between the two mountains, commonly called the Peas. I doubt whether Louis the Fourteenth ever raised such a bridge as this. In the evening I preached at Berwick-upon-Tweed ; Thurs- day, JUNE 1, at Alnwick. Friday, 3. I was desired to lay the first stone of the preaching-house there. Avery large congre- gation attending, we spent some time on the spot, in solemn prayer, and singing praise to God. About noon I preached in the Town-Hall at Morpeth ; in the evening, at Newcastle. How different is the spirit of this congregation to that of most of those I have seen lately ! June, 1786.] JUNE 4.-(Being Whitsunday.) I preached at eight to an amazing congregation, at the Ballast-Hills ; but it was doubled by that at the Fell in the afternoon. But it was supposed that at the Garth-Heads, in the evening, was as large as both together. On Monday and Tuesday the congregationwas larger than I ever remember. Wednesday, 7. Atfivewe had asolemn parting. About noon I preached at North-Shields, in a tent erected near the town, to a very numerous congregation. In the evening I

commodious. An hundredand inety-two poor are now lodged therein ; and the Master (a pious man, and a member of our society) watches over them, reads with them, and prays with them, as if they were his own children. Sun. 13. We had a very comfortable opportunity at eight in Cork. At three Mr. Broadbent preached on the parade. At five (as we removed the benches, and stowedthe people close together) the Room contained most of the people; and I tooka solemn leave of them, after closely applying our Lord's question, " Do ye now believe ? " Mon. 14. We went to Kilfinan, about twenty Irish miles (so I compute) from Mallow. I preached in the Court-House, about seven, to a large and serious audience ; and again at five in the morning, Tuesday, 15. We then went on, through a delightful country, to Limerick. Herewere always an affectionIt ate people ; but I never found them so much so as now. May, 1787. ] JOURNAL. 375 was too cold in the evening to stand abroad ; so we squeezed as many as possible into the preaching-house. I preached on, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart." Many here once experienced this ; but few, ifany, retain it now ! Wed. 16. The congregation at five filled the House almost as well as it was filled in the evening. Finding a remarkable deadness, I inquired what were the reasons of it ; and found, 1 . There had been, for several months, a deep misunderstanding between the Preachers and the chief of the society. Hence, on the one hand, the Preachers had little life or spirit to preach ; and, on the other, the congregation dwindled away. 2. Many had left off meeting their Bands, and many others seldom met their classes. 3. Prayer-meetings were entirely given up. What wonder if all the people were grown dead as stones ? In the evening I endeavoured to re-awaken those that were settling upon their lees, by strongly applying those solemn words, " The first shall be last, and the last first; for many are called, but few are chosen." Inthe morning, Thursday, 17, I endeavoured to stir them up once more to hunger and thirst after righteousness, after the whole image ofGod, without which they will still remain Cold, languid,weary,heartless, dead.

as I could. Saturday, 19. I spent an hour in Chesterfield- Street, with my widowed sister and her children. They all seemed inclined to make the right use of the late providential dispensation. Sun. 20. Both in the morning and evening I preached at the new chapel, crowded sufficiently, on Heb. v. 12 : " Ye have need that one teach you again which be the first prin- ciples of the oracles of God." Monday, 21. I retired to Highbury-Place, and spent the residue of the week in answering letters, revising papers, and preparing for the Conference. Sun. 27. In the morning I preached at West-Street ; and in the afternoon in Bethnal-Green church, on part oftheGospel for the day ; our Lord's lamentation over Jerusalem. I believe the word did not fall to the ground. I preached at the new chapel every evening during the Conference, which continued nine days, beginning on Tuesday, JULY 29, and ending on Wednesday, AUGUST 6 : And we found the time little enough; being obliged to pass over many things very briefly, which deserved a fuller consideration. Sun. 3.-I preached at the new chapel, so filled as it scarce ever was before, both morning and evening. Monday, 4. At five we had a good evening congregation ; and I believe many felt the power of the word; or, rather, ofGod, speaking therein. One of the most important points considered at this Confer- ence, was that of leaving the Church. The sum of along conver- sation was, 1. That, in a course of fifty years, we hadneither pre- meditately nor willingly varied from it in one article either of doctrine or discipline. 2. That we were not yet conscious of varying from it in any point ofdoctrine. 3. Thatwe have in a Aug. 1788.] course of years, out of necessity, not choice, slowly and warily varied insome points of discipline, by preaching in the fields, by extemporary prayer, by employing Lay Preachers, by form- ing and regulating societies, and by holding yearly Conferences. But we did none of these things till wewere convinced we could no longer omit them, but at the peril of our souls. Wed. 6. Our Conference ended, as it began, ingreat peace. Wekept this day as a fast, meeting at five, nine, and one, for prayer; and concluding the day with a solemn watch-night.

the said Trust Deeds, and to declare what persons are mem- bers of the said Conference, and how the succession and iden- tity thereof is to be continued :- Now therefore these presents witness, that, for accomplishing the aforesaid purposes, the said John Wesleydoth hereby declare, that the Conference of the people called Methodists, in Lon- don, Bristol, or Leeds, ever since there hath been any yearly Conference of the said people called Methodists in any ofthe said places, hath always heretofore consisted of the Preachers and Expounders of God's Holy Word, commonly called Methodist Preachers in connexion with, and under the care of, the said John Wesley, whom he hath thought expedient year after year to summons to meet him, in one or other of the said places, of London, Bristol, or Leeds, to advise with them for the promotion of the Gospel of Christ, to appoint the said persons so summoned, and the other Preachers and Expounders of God's Holy Word, also in connexion with, and under the care of, the said John Wesley, not summoned to the said yearly Conference, to the use and enjoyment of the said chapels and premises so given and conveyed upon trust for the said John Wesley, and such other person and persons as he should appoint during his life as aforesaid, and for the expulsion of unworthy and admission of new persons under his care, and into his connexion, to be Preachers and Expounders as aforesaid, and also of other persons upon trial for the like purposes ; the names of all which persons so sum- moned by the said John Wesley, the persons appointed, with the chapels and premises to which they were so appointed, together with the duration of such appointments, and of those expelled or admitted into connexion or upon trial, with all other matters transacted and done at the said yearly Confer- ence, have, year by year, been printed and published under the title of " Minutes of Conference. " And these presents further witness, and the saidJohnWesleydoth hereby avouch and further declare, that the several persons herein-after named, to wit, the said John Wesley and Charles Wesley ; Thomas Coke, of the city of London, Doctor of Civil Law ; James Creighton, of the same place, Clerk ; Tho- mas Tennant, of the same place ; Thomas Rankin, of the

Never let your expenses exceed your income. To servants I would give full as much as others give for the same service, and not more. It is impossible to lay down any general rules, as to ' saving all we can' and ' giving all we can.' In this, it seems, we must needs be directed from time to time by the unction of the Holy One. Evil spirits have undoubtedly abundance of work to do in an evil world; frequently in concurrence with wicked men, and frequently without them.

No, my dear friend, no! it is no selfishness to be pleased when you give pleasure. It proves that your mind was antecedently in a right state; and then God' answers you in the joy of your heart.' So be more and more athirst for that holiness; and thereby give more and more pleasure to Yours affectionately.

To Samuel Bradburn Date: NEAR COLNE, April 29, 1776. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1776) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SAMMY,--Keep to the whole Methodist discipline, whoever is pleased or displeased. 'But what shah I do,' says one, 'with regard to L. Thomas, who is continually proposing new schemes' 'Why, let him talk on, and go you on your old way just as if there were no such upon earth. Never dispute with them. But do the thing which you judge is for the glory of God.' When you can get another preaching-room, you may do a little more; till then you must be content. I hope Jenny Smeton is in the Society at Pembroke, and that you are not strange with her. Her sister Lawrie at Greenock, after violent agonies of conviction, at last rejoiced in God for ten days and died in peace. See that your own soul be all alive, and then exhort the believers to expect full salvation.--I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Hester Ann Roe Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1776) Author: John Wesley --- NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 2, 1776. MY DEAR HETTY,--It is not uncommon for a person to be thoroughly convinced of his duty to call sinners to repentance several years before he has an opportunity of doing it. This has been the case with several of our preachers. Probably it may be the case with Mr. Roe; God may show him now what he is to do hereafter. It seems his present duty is to wait the openings of Divine Providence. It gives me pleasure to know that you have seen Miss Yates and that you have heard from my dear Betsy Ritchie. I expect she will meet me again in two or three weeks and accompany me for a few days. What an happiness to us both would it be to have Hetty Roe sitting between us! If I durst, I should earnestly desire that you might continue with us a little longer. I could almost say it is hard that I should just see you once and no more. But it is a comfort that to die is not to be lost. Our union will be more full and perfect hereafter. Surely our disembodied souls shall join, Surely my friendly shade shall mix with thine: To earth-born pain superior, light shall rise Through the wide waves of unopposing skies; Together swift ascend heaven's high abode, Converse with angels, and rejoice with God. Tell me, my dear Hetty, do you experience something similar to what Mr. De Renty expresses in those strong words: 'I bear about with me an experimental verity, and a plenitude of the presence of the ever-blessed Trinity' Do you commune with God in the night season Does He bid you even in sleep, Go on And does He 'make your very dreams devout' That He may fill you with all His fullness is the constant wish of, my dear Hetty, Yours affectionately.

To James Barry Date: WHITBY, June 24, 1776. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1776) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JAMES,--The writer (I forget his name) does not say the local preachers talked blasphemy, but that several of them talk nonsense and that some of them speak against perfection. This must not be suffered. Fix a regular plan for the local preachers, and see that they keep it. You cannot be too exact in this and every other part of discipline.' This, however, I expect. You will see the fruit of your labor.--I am, with love to Sister Barry, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To John Crook Date: LONDON, August 10, 1776. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1776) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--By all means stay in the island till the storm be ended; in your patience possess your soul. Beware of despising your opponents! Beware of anger and resentment! Return not evil for evil or railing for railing. I advise you to keep with a few serious people a day of fasting and prayer. God has the hearts of all men in His hands. Neither Dr. Moor nor the Bishop himself is out of His reach. Be fervent in prayer that God would arise and maintain His own cause. Assuredly He will not suffer you to be tempted above what you are able to bear. Violent methods of redress are not to be used till all other methods fail. I know pretty well the mind of Lord Mansfield and of one that is greater than he; but if I appealed to them, it would bring much expense and inconvenience on Dr. Moor and others. I would not willingly do this; I love my neighbor as myself. Possibly they may think better, and allow that liberty of conscience which belongs to every partaker of human nature, and more especially to every one of His Majesty’s subjects in his British dominions. To live peaceably with all men is the earnest desire of Your affectionate brother.

To Mrs. Bennis Date: LONDON, December 21, 1776. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1776) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER,--You are a great deal less happy than you would be if you did not reason too much. This frequently gives that subtle adversary an advantage against you. You have need to be continually as a little child, simply looking up for whatever you want. It is devoutly to be wished for that we may rejoice evermore; and it is certain the inward kingdom of God implies not only righteousness and peace but joy in the Holy Ghost. You have therefore reason to ask for and expect the whole gospel blessing. Yet it cannot be denied that many times joy is withheld even from them that walk uprightly. The great point of all is an heart and a life entirely devoted to God. Keep only this, and let all the rest go; give Him your heart, and it sufficeth. I am, my dear sister, Your ever affectionate brother.

To Robert Costerdine Date: LONDON, February 18, 1777. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1777) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--Mr. Wesley bids me tell you that there is to be but one subscription and collection this year (except for Kingswood School), out of which must be taken a sufficient sum for contingent expenses. He expects, therefore, that the Assistants and preachers will exert their whole strength and influence. The Natural Philosophy, now printing, includes the substance of the three former volumes, but with great variations and improvements and in a new mode, most of the notes of the former impression being grafted into the text and new notes added. The letter is quite new and the paper exceeding good. He seems determined to spare no pains to render it complete. It is likely to have a great run among the clergy and gentry. As the new building will go forwards as soon as we can lay the foundation, Mr. Wesley will be obliged to spend most of the summer in London, and only take occasional journeys to some of the more important places. He is exceeding well; I think I never saw him better in my life. Mr. Fletcher is exceeding weak; I think he will not recover. Excuse haste; we are in the midst of the visitation of the classes. That God may abundantly bless and prosper your soul and labors is the prayer of Your affectionate friend and brother, PETER JACO [Jaco was Assistant in London.]

To Samuel Bradburn Date: LONDON, February 22, 1777. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1777) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SAMMY,--If George Brown is likely to be an useful preacher, it is no wonder he should be so tempted. If he will forsake the work, there is a young man at Cork, John Howe, who may take his place; so I have wrote to John Watson. I do not remember, I have had a line from John Hampson since Christmas. It will be a difficult thing to keep Mr. Smyth [Wesley met Mr. And Mrs. Smyth in the Isle of Man in June. See Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 241-2 and letters of May 27, 1776 and June 1 1778.] from running into extremes. He surely will be prosecuted if he publishes anything which the law can lay hold on. And it is easier to prevent the evil than to redress it.

To Alexander Knox Date: BRISTOL, March 19, 1777. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1777) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR,--If the returns of your disorder are more and more gentle, there is reason to hope it will be at length totally removed. Very probably, if you live to five- or six-and-twenty, your constitution will take a new turn. But it is certainly the design of Him that loves you to heal both body and soul; and possibly He delays the healing of the former that the cure of the latter may keep pace with it. As ' it is a great loss to lose an affliction,' He would not have you lose what you have suffered. I trust it will not be lost, but will be for your profit, that you may be partaker of His holiness. It is a blessing that He has given you that fear which is the beginning of wisdom; and it is a pledge of greater things to come. How soon? Perhaps to-day.... If I could spare time, I would gladly accept of your invitation; but I doubt whether I can get any farther than Dublin. [He spent Oct. 3-13 in Dublin.] Peace be with all your spirits!--I am, my dear Alleck, Yours most affectionately.

To George Robinson Date: BRISTOL, August 4, 1777. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1777) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,--You will have but one family this year; so that if the Societies increase you will soon be able to lift up your head, especially as I will desire our brethren to allow Brother Brown the seven pounds. Although the number of your children may incite you to it, yet I hope you will not be in haste to make a second choice. Let it be a matter of much prayer and deliberation. Many women will doubtless be offered. But let piety be your first consideration and fortune only the last.--I am Your affectionate brother.

It seems the best way to profit by that retirement which results from your present weakness is to divide your time between reading, meditation, and prayer, intermixed with serious conversation. And when your strength will permit, you must endeavor to do a little good; only take care at first not to go too far. Some years since, we had a little Society at Southampton; perhaps you may find some fragments of it remaining. May the God of all grace, after you have suffered awhile, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, and settle you!--I am, my dear sister, Your ever affectionate brother.

And now, instead of praising God for your great deliverance, you are [set] against Him, as [if] it were no deliverance at all! You are fretting and grieving yourself because the snare is broken, because your soul is taken out of the net! But must not this grieve the Holy Spirit of God? What deep unthankfulness! And it is well if here be not a little inordinate affection lying at the bottom of all; otherwise it is a mere device of Satan to hinder you soaring aloft upon the wings of love. My Nancy, arise and shake yourself from the dust! You have acted wisely and faithfully. God has heard your prayer. He is well pleased with the sacrifice you have made [Admit] no thought to the contrary; and if one should, give no place to it--no, not for a moment. And whenever you are troubled on this or any account, [Miss Bolton seems to have replied at once. See letters of April 24 and Sept. 27.] what human friend can you unbosom yourself to more freely than to, my dear, Nancy, Your tenderly affectionate.

To Joseph Benson Date: LONDON, December 8, 1777. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1777) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JOSEPH,--Undoubtedly Bishop Newton's book on the Prophecies is well written. [Thomas Newton, Bishop of Bristol 1761-82, Dean of St. Paul's 1768, See letter of March 10, 1763.] And he is certainly a man of sense and of considerable learning. This he has shown in what he writes on the Revelation. But with regard to the passage you mention I cannot agree with him at all. I believe the Romish antichrist is already so fallen that he will not again lift up his head in any considerable degree. The Bishop of Rome has little more power now than any other of the Italian Princes. I therefore concur with you in believing his tyranny is past never to return. But there is no comparison, either as to sense, learning, or piety, between Bishop Newton and Bengelius. The former is a mere child to the latter. I advise you to give another serious and careful reading .to that extract from his comment on the Revelation which concludes the Notes. There you have one uniform consistent [view] far beyond any I ever saw. And I verily believe the more deeply you consider it the more you will admire it. Does any one deny that a kite is bigger than a lark, or that Ogilvie has written a larger book than Virgil? And certainly there are larger magazines than ours; but it does not follow that they are better. Ours is reduced to half the price, and will contain forty-eight pages, which is the usual number for sixpence. We are called to propagate Bible religion through the land--that is, faith working by love, holy tempers and holy lives. Let us do it with our might!--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Mrs. Johnston, Annandde, Listeen. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, - I do not remember the receiving any letter from you, either at Dublin or since I left it. Neither have I received any fresh complaint concerning you. [See letter of Feb. 14 to her.] What I formerly heard I gave you an account of, to which you gave me a distinct answer, and I was fully satisfied. I am relieved to think someone talked of making a fresh complaint. But it is very probable his heart failed, and so the child was strangled in the birth. Indeed, I do not wonder if people are not forward to complain of you to me. Because they know I am a prejudicial person: they know the tender regard I have you and yours, and consequently how hard it is for me: to blame you in anything. That God may give you many happy is the prayer of, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

To Mary Bishop Date: LONDON, February 7, 1778. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, - It is no great matter whether those doubts arose in your mind by conversing with Mr. Hilton, [See letter of Nov. 16, 1777.] by reading (his oracle) Mr. Law's later works, or by your own reasoning. But certainly the subject is of the last importance, and deserves our most serious consideration. Indeed, nothing in the Christian system is of greater consequence than the doctrine of Atonement. It is properly the distinguishing point between Deism and Christianity. 'The scriptural scheme of morality,' said Lord Huntingdon, [Francis, Earl of Huntingdon, son of Lady Huntingdon, was a freethinker.] 'is what every one must admire; but the doctrine of Atonement I cannot comprehend.' Here, then, we divide. Give up the Atonement, and the Deists are agreed with us. This point, therefore, deserves to be more largely considered than my time will permit. But it is the less needful now because I have done it already in my letter to Mr. Law; to which I beg you will give a serious reading, whether you have read it before or no. It is in the nineteenth volume of the Works. [See letter of Jan. 6, 1756, sect. II. 2, 3, to William Law.] But it is true I can no more comprehend it than his lordship; perhaps I might say than the angels of God, than the highest created understanding. Our reason is here quickly bewildered. If we attempt to expatiate in this field, we 'find no end, in wandering mazes lost.' But the question is (the only question with me; I regard nothing else), What saith the Scripture It says, 'God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself'; that 'He made Him, who knew no sin, to be a sin-offering for us.' It says, 'He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities.' It says, 'We have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He is the atonement for our sins.'

To Thomas Wride Date: NEAR MARYBOROUGH, April 20, 1778. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY, - I do not remember J. Woodcock. But if the accout you give of her be just (and I have no reason to believe the contras), I cannot see any objection to your choosing her; although you do well not to depend upon her brother, for his humor may easily change. Whatever you do should be done with much prayer, as the matter is of no small importance. - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate brother. I hope the 'Sword-drawer' is not a preacher.

To Samuel Bradburn Date: LONDON, October 17, 1778. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SAMMY, - I think you judge exactly right. You are called to obey me as a son in the gospel. But who can prove that you are called so to obey any other person What I require, according to the twelfth Rule of an Helper, of John Hampson and you is that each of you in his turn spend four weeks, and no more, first at Cork and then at Bandon. When, therefore, you have been four weeks at Bandon, I desire you to return straight to Cork. And if John Hampson will not then go to Bandon, I will order one that will. Pray show this letter to Mr. Mackrill, [One of the Cork leaders and stewards.] whom I beg to assist you in this matter. The Friday following the full moon is the watch-night, the next Sunday but one the lovefeast. Pass smoothly over the perverseness of those you have to do with, and go straight forward. It's abundantly sufficient that you have the testimony of a good conscience toward God. - I am, with tender love to Betsy, dear Sammy, Yours affectionately.

To Mary Bishop Date: LONDON, October 18, 1778. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR MISS BISHOP, - I am not unwilling to write to i you even upon a tender subject, because you will weigh the matter fairly. And if you have a little prepossession (which who has not), yet you are willing to give it up to reason. The original Methodists were all of the Church of England; and the more awakened they were, the more zealously they adhered to it in every point, both of doctrine and discipline. Hence we inserted in the first Rules of our Society, 'They that leave the Church leave us.' And this we did, not as a point of prudence, but a point of conscience. We believe it utterly unlawful to separate from the Church unless sinful terms of communion were imposed; just as did Mr. Philip Henry, [The favorite pupil of Busby at Westminster School preached as a Nonconformist 1672-81. See letter of June 14, 1786.] and most of those holy men that were contemporary with them. 'But the ministers of it do not preach the gospel.' Neither do the Independent or Anabaptist ministers. Calvinism is not the gospel; nay, it is farther from it than most of the sermons I hear at church. These are very frequently un-evangelical; but those are anti-evangelical. They are (to say no more) equally wrong; and they are far more dangerously wrong. Few of the Methodists are now in danger from imbibing error from the Church ministers; but they are in great danger of imbibing the grand error - Calvinism from the Dissenting ministers. Perhaps thousands have done it already, most of whom have drawn back to perdition. I see more instances of this than any one else can do; and on this ground also exhort all who would keep to the Methodists, and from Calvinism, 'Go to the church, and not to the meeting.'

To Kitty Warren Date: LONDON, October 31, 1778. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1778) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR MISS WARREN, - You did well to write. You are a woman of candor and tolerably able to judge on critical occasions. I do not find that Mr. Broadbent [John Broadbent was then Assistant at Glamorgan. See letters of March 5, 1778, and April 4, 1782 (to John Atlay).] has been to blame or that he has done anything more than he believed it was his duty to do. It seems you are called to calm as far as possible the warm spirits on both sides. A soft answer turneth away wrath. Do all the good you can; and you will give more and more comfort to, my dear Kitty, Yours affectionately.

To Mr. -- Date: LONDON, January 4, 1779. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1779) Author: John Wesley --- SIR, - In September last a gentleman near Bristol showed me a letter which he had received from the Rev. Mr. Fletcher at Paris. I desired him to give a transcript of one part of it, which he immediately did. It was as follows: Mr. Voltaire sent for Mons. Tonchin, 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.' This is the man to whom a crowned head pays such a violent compliment! Nay, this is the man whose works are now publishing by a divine of our own Church; yea, a chaplain to His Majesty! Pity but the King should know it! I set my name at length on purpose; and if the publisher of that poor wretch's works writes a panegyric upon him or them, I shall think it my duty to go a little farther and show the real value of those writings. - I am, sir, Your humble servant.

To Charles Delamotte Date: LONDON, February 11, 1779. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1779) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, - I am agreeably surprised with a letter from my old friend, whom I long desired to see; and how I missed of seeing you when I was last at Barrow I cannot yet comprehend. It is very probable I shall have some more work to do with regard to that wretched infidel. For if Dr. Bealey, the publisher of his Works, prefixes to them a flaming panegyric, I shall think it my duty to deal exceeding plainly both with the author and the translator. I am now in my seventy-sixth year, and am by the wonderful mercy of God in at least as good health as I was in my twenty-sixth, and in some respects better. So when it pleases Him He bids the sun of life stand still And stops the panting soul. I am glad you speak a word to your brethren on behalf of our good Master. This is worth living for. - Believe me to be, as ever, dear Charles, Your affectionate brother.

To Samuel Bardsley Date: EDINBURGH, June 19, 1779. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1779) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SAMMY, - I suppose John Atlay has paid the money. He is cautious to an extreme. I hear what angry men say or write; but I do not often regard it. Lemonade will cure any disorder of the bowels (whether it be with or without purging) in a day or two. You do well to spread the prayer-meetings up and down. They seldom are in vain. Honest Andrew Dunlop [The Assistant at Limerick.] writes me word that the book money is stolen. Pray desire him to take care that the knave does not steal his teeth. - I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Samuel Bradburn Date: EDINBURGH, June 19, 1779. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1779) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SAMMY, - I hear what angry men say or write, but I do not often regard it. I think Sister Ward and Malenoir counsel you well. I love you the better for loving them. You do well to spread the prayer-meetings up and down. They seldom are in vain. - I am, with kind love to my dear Betsy, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Samuel Bradburn Date: EPWORTH, July 10, 1779. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1779) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SAMMY, - It is the judgment of many that, since the time of the Invincible Armada, Great Britain and Ireland were never in such danger from foreign enemies as they are at this day. Humanly speaking, we are not able to contend with them either by sea or land. They are watching over us as a leopard over his prey, just ready to spring upon us. They are mighty and rage horribly: but the Lord that dwelleth on high is mightier; and now is the time, at this awful crisis, for the inhabitants of the land to learn righteousness. I make no doubt but you improve the important opportunity and lift up your voice like a trumpet. Who knoweth but God may be entreated of us as He was for Nineveh Our brethren in various parts of England have set apart an hour in a week for prayer (namely, from eight till nine on Sunday evening) in behalf of our King and country. Should not the same thing be done in Ireland too particularly at Cork and Bandon. Those who have not opportunity of meeting at the time may pray part of the hour in private. Meantime there is a text for: you: 'I will not destroy it for ten's sake.' - I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To John Bredin Date: LONDON, July 24, 1779. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1779) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, - As you desire it, I will place you and Billy Myles (whose letter I have received) in the Londonderry Circuit. But it is a circuit of great importance. I hope you will both exert yourselves therein to the uttermost. It is a dangerous time, and you have need to give yourselves unto prayer.-I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To William Ferguson Date: BRISTOL, September 7, 1779. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1779) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, - The proposal you sent me from the Hague I like well. Pray talk with John Atlay about it; and if he and you are agreed, the sooner it is put in execution the better. Certainly all unsaleable books that are undamaged I will take again. But if any sermon be translated into Dutch, it should first be The Almost Christian. This is far more suitable to unawakened readers than The Lord our Righteousness. - I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate brother.

To Robert Cart Brackenbury Date: BRISTOL, September 27, 1779. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1779) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, - I hope your stay at -- will be of use to many. But do not hurt yourself in order to help others. Mr. S -- is an upright, valuable man. His wife is a jewel indeed. I wish we had many like her. Your being at -- during this critical time is a singular providence. Both parties have a regard for you, and will hear you when they will not hear each other. I am glad you think of spending the winter in town, and doubt not but it will be for the glory of God. Go to my house. What is mine is yours; you are my brother, my friend: let neither life nor death divide us! Your visit to N-- will, I am persuaded, be of considerable use, the more because you love and recommend discipline. But I must beg of you to spend a night or two at Y--. and at L--. The sooner you come the more welcome you will be. Wrap yourself up warm, particularly your head and breast. - I am Your very affectionate friend and brother.

To Zachariah Yewdall Date: LONDON, October 9, 1779. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1779) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR ZACHARY, - Wherever you are be ready to acknowledge what God has done for your soul, and earnestly exhort all the believers to expect full salvation. You would do well to read every morning a chapter in the New Testament with the Notes, and to spend the greatest part of the morning in reading, meditation, and prayer. In the afternoon you might visit the Society from house to house in the manner laid down in the Minutes of the Conference. The more labor the more blessing! - I am Your affectionate brother.

To Samuel Bradburn Date: LONDON, October 10, 1779. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1779) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SAMMY, - The alarm has been general in England as well as Ireland, particularly in the maritime parts. But it has done abundantly more good than harm to the work of God. The children of God have been greatly stirred up and have been more [instant] in prayer. And many men of the world have been greatly awakened, and continue so to this day. Most of those who have the fullest intercourse with God believe our enemies will never be permitted to land in England. And, indeed, God has already given abundant proof of His hearing prayer: first, in their not landing at Plymouth, where they stayed gaping and staring for eight-and-forty hours while they might with all ease have destroyed both the dock and the town; secondly, in the malignant fever which has broken out in their fleet, and already destroyed several thousands of men. Is there any truth in the report that John Humpson has converted you to Arianism 'If you think it best, I will name two or three new stewards now. - I am, with tender love to dear Betsy, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Thomas Rutherford Date: LONDON, November 9, 1779. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1779) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY, - I shall write to Henry Brown [Compare Feb. 22, 1777.] this post and tell him how to cure his leg. He writes that he will not marry till I come over; and I think it is a wise resolution. He is certainly a devoted young man; and it is a great pity that anything should hinder him. It is exceeding well that Brother Barber came in the place of Brother Blair. Let him also preach sometimes at Londonderry. God chooses the foolish things to confound the wise. I do not know but God may bless him there more than either you or me. You do well in holding the prayer-meetings and visiting the Poorhouse. But do not forget the children and visiting all the Society from house to house. - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Joseph Benson Date: LONDON, December 29, 1779. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1779) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JOSEPH, - There are few persons on whose judgment I can more confide than Sister Clapham, Sister Dowries, and Betsy Ritchie. I know little of Miss Thompson; but if they approve of her I shall have no objection. Take every step with much prayer; and I trust God will give you His blessing. - I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother.

To William Thom Date: NEAR BRISTOL, September 30, 1780. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1780) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BILLY,--I think your reasons are good. Therefore I would not have you go to the island [The Isle of Man. Thom was Wesley's Assistant in Whitehaven.]--at least, not till winter is over. Do all the good you can. Be exact in every point of discipline.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. Mr. William Thom, Whitehaven.

To Samuel Bradburn Date: LONDON, October 28, 1780. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1780) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SAMMY,--I am glad you are safe landed at Keighley, and trust you will there find a port of ease From the rough rage of stormy seas, There are many amiable and gracious souls in Cork and in Dublin; but there are few in the whole kingdom of Ireland to be named, either for depth of sense or of grace, with many, very many persons in Yorkshire, particularly in the West Riding. Go to Betsy Ritchie at Otley, and then point me out such a young woman as she in Ireland. I think lemonade would cure any child of the flux. Now be exact in every branch of discipline; and you will soon find what a people you are among.--I am, with tender love to Betsy, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Mrs. Barton Date: LONDON, December 9, 1780. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1780) Author: John Wesley --- My DEAR SISTER,-God knoweth the way wherein you go; and when you have been tried, you shall come forth as gold. I believe, if you drank nettle-tea (five or six leaves) instead of common tea, it would swiftly restore your strength. If a proper application be made to the magistrates, undoubtedly they will secure the peace. Persecution is more and more out of fashion since King George came to the throne [See letter of Dec. 20, 1777.]. But in the meantime let prayer be made continually.--I am Your affectionate brother.

To Edwal. Jackson, In Barnard Castle, Date: CITY ROAD, January 25, 1781. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1781) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, -- Yesterday, looking over the Monthly Review for last October, at page 307, I read the following words: Sir William's vindication [Lieut-General Sir William Howe had criticized Galloway’s Letters to a Nobleman, and cast serious reflections upon him. See Green’s Bibliography, No. 352; and letters of June 8, 1780, and Aug. 18, 1790.] (of his own conduct) is not a feeble attempt to rescue his reputation from the obloquy thrown upon it. Mr. Galloway’s book is here answered paragraph by paragraph, and several misrepresentations of important facts and circumstances proved. I cannot quite agree with this. I think (1) no unjust obloquy has been thrown upon it; (2) that his vindication is a very feeble attempt to justify his conduct; (3) that he has not answered in a satisfactory manner any one paragraph of Mr. Galloway’s book; and (4) that he has not proved any misrepresentation of any one important fact or circumstance. I think also that the account he gives of Mr. Galloway is a very feeble attempt to blacken his character; for a full confutation whereof I refer the candid reader to his own answer. As to the scurrility Sir William speaks of, I see not the least trace of it in anything Mr. G. has published. He is above it. He is no ‘venal instrument of calumny’; he abhors calumny as he does rebellion. But let him answer for himself; read only the tracts here referred to, and then condemn him if you can. -- I am, dear sir, Yours, &c. PS. -- I have been frequently attacked by the Monthly Reviewers, but did not answer because we were not on even ground; but that difficulty is now over: whatever they object in their Monthly Review I can answer in my monthly Magazine; and I shall think it my duty so to do when the objection is of any importance.

To Jeremiah Brettell Date: THIRSK, June 26, 1781. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1781) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JERRY, -- Direct your answer to London. I agreed with William Redstone to finish the work for threescore pounds. I thought I had sent fifty of it, and have some thirty-five to remain. Beside the hundred pounds which I shall procure from the Conference, I purpose giving another hundred out of my own pocket. I think they would ride a free horse to death. Speak plain to Brother Ward and Foster, [Henry Foster, admitted on trial in 1780, was the fourth preacher in Cornwall East. See letter of June 22, 1785; and for Nathaniel Ward, that of Oct. 12, 1780.] and tell them from me, ‘Unless you can and will leave off preaching long, I shall think it my duty to prevent your preaching at all among the Methodists.’ -- I am, dear Jerry, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Thomas Rutherford Date: LOUTH, July 4, 1781. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1781) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY, -- I got half-way again, as far as the Isle of Man; but I could get no farther. What He doth we know not now, but we shall know hereafter. I wish Isabella and you much happiness, which you cannot fail of if you have much holiness. Therefore the certain way to make each other happy is to strengthen each other's hands in God. Some time since, I desired Brother Moore [Henry Moore was his colleague at Lisburn, and their wives were sisters. He had just removed from Tanderagee. See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 345; and letter of Feb. 23, 1783.] to procure and send me as particular account as possible of that odd affair near Tanderagee; I mean with regard to the house which was so strangely disturbed. I wish he would do it without delay. -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Ann Loxdale Date: NOTTINGHAM, July 14, 1781. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1781) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR MISS LOXDALE, -- As it has pleased God to restore you in a measure to what you enjoyed once, I make no doubt but He will restore all which you then had, and will add to it what you never had yet. There is no end of His mercies. He will give ‘exceeding abundantly beyond all that you are able to ask or think.’ If that sickness you mention came (as is the case with some) only at the time of private prayer, I should incline to think it was preternatural, a messenger of Satan permitted to buffet you. But as you find it likewise at other times, when you feel any vehement emotion of mind, it seems to be (partly at least) a natural effect of What is called weakness of nerves. But even in this case the prayer of faith will not fail to the ground. You may ask with resignation; and if it be best, this cup will be removed from you. You have, indeed, reason to rejoice over your sister. Is she not given you in answer to prayer And have you not encouragement even from this very thing to expect that more of your family will be given you Those are true words, when in His own strength you wrestle with God, -- My powerful groans Thou canst not bear, Nor stand the violence of my prayer, My prayer omnipotent. You remind me of what occurred when my dear Hetty Roe first mentioned you to me. I almost wondered I should feel so much regard for one I had never seen! But I can taste your spirit, and rejoice to find that you are so near, my dear Miss Loxdale, to Yours in tender affection.

To John Bredin Date: LONDON, October 19, 1781. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1781) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Some time hence we may have room for Adam Clarke at Kingswood. At present the house is quite full. Meantime he should read a little Greek and Latin every day. You do well to meet the children constantly and to establish as many prayer-meetings as you can. Over and above the other advantages attending them, they are excellent nurseries for young preachers. You should without delay establish the Methodist discipline in all the country places. The spreading the books is always a means of increasing the awakening in any place. I do not know any remedy under heaven that is likely to do you so much good as the being constantly electrified. But it will not avail unless you persevere therein for some time. [See letters of Sept. 22, 1781, and July 9, 1782.] Would it not be of use for you and Brother Moore to change I am Yours affectionately.

To Thomas Carlill Date: NEAR M.ANCHESTER, April 3, 1782. DEAR TOMMY, -- Be of good courage. You have had a token for good at Lynn, where it was supposed the case was desperate; and I do not doubt but you will see good days in and about Fakenham, though the people yet do not know much of discipline--and no wonder, if they have never yet had the Rules of our Societies. First explain them at large, and afterwards enforce them, very mildly and very steadily. Molly Franklin and Sister Proudfoot are good women. Deal very gently with them, and lovingly labor to convince those whom it concerns of the evil of buying or selling on the Lord’s Day. -- I am, dear Tommy, Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Mrs. Nuttal Date: LEEDS, May 7, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR MRS. NUTTAL, -- When I was at Preston, [He had been there on May 24, 1781.] I was much pleased with your spirit, and found a tender concern for you. I saw you had real desire to be a Christian, and this endeared you much to me. I saw likewise a good deal of affection in your behavior, which united me to you the more. But as you are weak and inexperienced you have need of much prayer and much watchfulness. And you have great need that others who have more experience should watch over you in love. Therefore it is highly advisable for you to join the Society. Yet do not imagine that all in the Society are angels. They are weak, fallible creatures the same as yourself. But such as they may be helpful to you. -- My dear Mrs. Nuttal, Your affectionate servant.

To Mrs. Taylor Date: THORNE, May 14, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, -- I will certainly rather encourage than discourage the sale of Mr. Taylor’s Concordance. [A Concordance to the Holy Scriptures. Thomas Taylor was a diligent student of Greek and Hebrew and a busy writer. York was a quiet circuit then. See Wesley’s Veterans, vii. 64-5, 70.] And I have no objection to recommend it as far as I can upon a slight perusal; but I have by no means time to read it over. I hope to be at York about the middle of June, but I cannot fix the day yet. Peace be with you and yours! -- I am Your affectionate brother.

To Ann Loxdale Date: LONDON, July 24, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR MISS LOXDALE, -- Two or three years ago, when the Frenchmen expected to land, I made an offer to the Government. It was not accepted; so I thought of it no more. But some months since, Captain Webb renewed it to Colonel Barr I knew nothing of the matter. But I would not oppose it, as neither did I forward it. I barely gave him leave to inquire what number of the Methodists were willing to embark with him. But I suppose the whole is now at an end, as Colonel Barr is out of place. [See letters of May 25 (to Captain Webb) and Aug. 3 (to Joseph Benson).] I wish you to retain a close acquaintance with Mr. -----. He is an upright man. And I am in hopes we may now set his head right [See letters of July 12, 1782, and Nov. 21, 1783, to her.]; as he that confounded his interests is gone to another world. There is no danger of your taking any step that is materially wrong if you continue instant in prayer. But I know so little of the thing you refer to that I can say little about it. Only do not expect that any creature will increase your happiness any farther than it increases your knowledge and love of God. -- I am, my dear Nancy, Yours affectionately.

To John Bredin Date: LONDON. August 4, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- In your present state you must not attempt to travel. It is as much as your life is worth. [See letters of July 9 and Nov. 30 to him.] You may be a supernumerary in whatever place you judge most advisable; and the little salary, the 12, we will allow from hence. I do not understand what is the accusation against Hugh Moore. [Moore moved from Londonderry to Aberdeen, See letter of April 10.] Simply administering an oath is a folly; but I know not that it is contrary to any law. If he is afraid of staying at Coleraine (although I know not why), let him change with a Sligo or Castlebar preacher. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Francis Wolfe Date: LONDON. August 6, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Necessity has no law. Till your strength is restored do all the good you can as a local preacher. According to my last regulations pray inform the preachers and Captain Williams my plan is this, -- Taunton, Thursday, Aug. 15; Exeter, Friday, Aug. 16; Plymouth, Monday, Aug. 19; St. Austell, Wednesday, Aug. 21; Helstone, Thursday, Aug. 22; Penzance, Friday and Saturday, Aug. 23 and 24; St. Just, Sunday, Aug. 25: and in the West, -- St. Ives, Thursday, Aug. 29; Redruth, Saturday, Aug. 31; St. Anne's, Redruth, Gwennap, Sept. 1. -- I am Your affectionate brother.

To Joseph Taylor Date: BRISTOL, September 24, 1752. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JOSEPH, -- Joseph Andrew writes to me about his keeping the books still. I answer, ‘It was determined at the Conference that the books all over England should be kept by the Assistant in each circuit.’ [See letters of Sept. 9.] I believe he has discharged this office well; but I believe you will discharge it better. You do not expect to do your duty without giving offence Recommend the Magazines, Kempis, and the Primitive Physick in earnest. And take care of the bands and the children. -- I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Thomas Rutherford Date: LONDON, October 19, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY, -- I allow you to give any books you please to any preacher to the value of forty shillings. I have hope for T. Bethell. Watch over him, and he will reward your labor. [See letter of July 29.] I think you have determined fight concerning Waterford and concerning Brother Christie. Send me the substance of the quarterly plans. Cannot you find an easier circuit for John Crook We cannot receive John McBurney. I like your prayer-meetings well. If you judge it right, let there be one on Thursday too. But I hope you do not discontinue morning preaching. There is something very awful in the sudden removal of that good man Richard Boardman. But what can be done to supply his place Cork is of very great importance. Can anything better be done (at least for the present) than to cut off your own right hand, to send Andrew Blair thither, and to keep John Mayly in Dublin -- I am, with kind love to Sister Rutherford, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To John Valton Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- St. NEOTS, December 3, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You are thoroughly satisfied that there is nothing wherein conscience is not concerned which I would not do for your sake. But here conscience is very deeply concerned. What I do I do unto the Lord. The question is in the last resort, Methodism or no Methodism I A blow is struck at the very roots of our whole discipline, as appears by the short state of the ‘case’ which I have sent to Joseph Benson. And if this work is not obviated while I live, probably it never will be. None can stem the tide when I am gone; therefore I must now do what I can, God being my helper. And I know the fierceness of man shall turn to His praise. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Ellen Gretton Date: LONDON, December 31, 1782. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1782) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, -- You do not consider the slowness of the by-posts. A letter could not be wrote on the receipt of yours so as to reach Skillington by Wednesday, January the 1st. The thing seems to be altogether providential; it was no way of your own contriving. There is not only a fair prospect of a sufficient provision for yourself (which a Christian should not despise), but of being an instrument of good to others, which is highly desirable. One that fears God and is waiting for His salvation is not such an unbeliever as St. Paul there speaks of. Proceed with much prayer, and your way will be made plain. [See letter of Feb. 16, 1783.] -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

To John Cricket Date: LONDON, February 10, 1783. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1783) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Many years ago the Society at Barnard Castle, as large as that at Derry, was remarkably dead. When Samuel Meggot (now with God) came to them, he advised them to keep a day of fasting and prayer. A flame broke out and spread through all the circuit [In 1763. See his account in Journal, v. I7-19; and letter of July 30, 1775.]; nor is it extinguished to this day. I advise you to do the same at Derry. On Sunday morning reprove strongly their unfaithfulness and unfruitfulness, and desire all that fear God to humble themselves with fasting on the Friday following. I am much inclined to hope a flame will break out in Londonderry likewise. But you must immediately resume the form at least of a Methodist Society. I positively forbid you or any preacher to be a leader; rather put the most insignificant person in each class to be the leader of it. And try if you cannot persuade three men, if no more, and three women to meet in band. Hope to the end! You shall see better days. -- I am Yours affectionately. PS.--The plainer you speak the more good you will do. Derry will bear plain speaking. I am just as well as I was forty years ago.

To Mrs. Ferguson Date: HARWICH, June 12, 1783. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1783) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, -- Hitherto God has helped us. As the weather last night was exceeding rough, the captain did not think advisable to sail; for which I was not sorry. We expect to sail this morning, as it seems the storm is over; and probably we shall see Helvoetsluys to-morrow. Sally and my other companions are in perfect health, and are all in good spirits; knowing that they are under His protection whom the winds and the seas obey. -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

To Peter Garforth Date: BRISTOL, August 9, 1783. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1783) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I have borrowed the hand of a friend, not being able to write myself. You have great reason to praise God for the late remarkable instance of His goodness, which you mention. It really seems had it not been for the mighty power of prayer the boy would have been blind all his life, the more reason you have entirely to dedicate both him and yourself to His service. This is manifestly the sign of a gracious dispensation, and I trust it will be answered thereby. Watch and pray, and you will no more enter into temptation.-- I am Your affectionate brother.

To Elizabeth Padbury Date: LONDON, October 29, 1783. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1783) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BETSY, -- I love to see anything that comes from you, although it be upon a melancholy occasion. Nothing can be done in the Court of King's Bench till the latter end of next week at the soonest, and till then I am trying all milder means which may possibly avail. If nothing can be done this way, we can but fight at Sharp’s. But prayer and fasting are of excellent uses; for if God be for us, who can be against us Probably I may visit you this winter. -- I always am, dear Betsy, Yours most affectionately.

To Ann Loxdale Date: LONDON, December 9, 1783. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1783) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR NANCY, -- Because I loved you, and because I thought it my duty, I wrote freely to you on a tender point. But I have done. I do not know that I shall speak one word more concerning it. The regard which I have for you will not suffer me to give you any pain which answers no good purpose. So you may still think him as holy as Thomas Walsh; I will say nothing against it. Only beware of one snare of the devil. Do not tack things together which have no real connection with each other: I mean, your justification or sanctification and your marriage. God told you that you was sanctified. I do not say, ‘God told you you should be married to that man.’ Do not jumble these together; if you do, it may cost you your life. Profit by the friendly warning of, my dear Nancy, Yours affectionately.

To Alexander Knox Date: NEAR LONDON, February 5, 1784. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1784) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR ALLECK, - As to the love of praise, I do not doubt but you have much more of it than you want; and I am persuaded the Great Physician shows you the disease on purpose that He may cure it. But yet, I apprehend, you a little mistake. You blame yourself where no blame is. ' To be pleased with the approbation of our fellow creatures' is no part of corrupt nature. It belongs to our pure nature; and to cherish it in a degree is a duty, and not a sin.... Peace be with you and yours! - I am, my dear Alleck, Ever yours.

Therefore you and my dear Sarah have great need to weep over him. But have you not also need to weep for yourselves For have you given God your hearts Are you holy in heart Have you the kingdom of God within you righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost the only true religion under heaven O cry unto Him that is mighty to save for this one thing needful! Earnestly and diligently use all the means which God hath put plentifully into your hands! Otherwise I should not at all wonder if God permits you also to be given up to a strong delusion. But whether you were or were not, whether you are Protestant or Papist, neither you nor he can ever enter into glory, unless you are now cleansed from all pollution of flesh and spirit, and perfect holiness in the fear of God! - I am, dear Charles, Your affectionate Uncle.

To John Mason Date: NEAR LONDON, November 3, 1784. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1784) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, - You judge fight. If the people were more alive to God, they would be more liberal. There is money enough, and particularly in Somersetshire; but they are straitened in their own bowels. When I complied with the desire of many and divided the. circuit into two, we were not a jot better. [Mason was in Devon, from which Somerset seems to have been divided in 1777.] You have one thing to point at-the revival and increase of the work of God. Get as many as possible to meet in band. Be exact in every part of discipline, and give no ticket to any that does not meet his class weekly. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Adam Clarke Date: LONDON, February 12, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR ADAM, - I do not remember ever to have seen that letter from Norwich, else I should certainly have answered it. If you build at St. Austell, take care that you do not make the house too small. And pray let those directions be observed which are given in the Large Minutes of the Conference. It gives me pleasure to hear that the work of the Lord so prospers in your hands. It will do so as long as you do not shun to declare the whole counsel of God. There is one part of it which seems to be almost forgotten by the Methodists throughout the three kingdoms-that is, the Christian duty of fasting; and yet our Lord annexes a peculiar promise even to secret fasting: 'The Father that seeth in secret, He shall reward thee openly.' You might begin to recommend this by reading to every Society the sermon concerning fasting. [See Works, v. 344-60.] The blessing would soon follow. - I am, dear Adam, Yours affectionately.

To Zechariah Yewdell Date: LONDON, February 25, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, - I am glad to hear that the work of God goes on at Sheerness, [Sheerness appears in the Minutes for 1785 as one of the houses to be built that year. Compare letter of March 21, 1784.] and that there is such a noble spirit among the people with regard to building. But as we are yet early in the year, I do not advise you to begin till two hundred pounds are subscribed. Try first what you can do in Kent and at Norwich, after keeping a day of fasting and prayer.-I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To George Gibbon Date: HOLYHEAD, April 9, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR GEORGE, - What you said was exactly right, the work of God is undoubtedly instantaneous with regard to sanctification as well as justification, and it is no objection at all that the work is gradual also. Whatever others do, it is our duty strongly and explicitly to exhort the believers to go on to perfection, and encourage them to expect perfect love by simple faith, and consequently to expect it now. This is the preaching which God always has blessed, and which He always will bless to those that are upright of heart. With God's leave we shall set sail to-night. [For Dublin. See next letter.] - I am, dear George, Your affectionate brother.

To his Brother Charles Date: DUBLIN, April 11, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BROTHER, - I just write a line to let you know that we came to Holyhead on Saturday afternoon, and went on board about ten at night; but we had a dead calm till between ten and eleven in the morning, at which time I began the public service. After sermon I prayed that God would give us a moderate wind, with a safe, easy, and speedy passage. While I was speaking the wind sprung up, and carried us at an average five miles an hour; so that we sailed from Holy-well Bay to Dublin Bay in exactly twelve hours. [See Journal, vii. 66; and letter of Feb. 17.] The sea meantime was as smooth as a looking-glass; so that no creature in the ship was sick a moment. Does not God hear the prayer All is quiet here. Love to all. Adieu!

To Alexander Surer Date: LONDON, July 26, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, - I told you in Scotland that you might come to the Conference; but it is no great matter. Mr. Watkinson does not come; but Mr. Ingles and Rob. Johnson are come in his place. [Richard Watkinson was in Edinburgh, with Andrew Inglis as his Colleague, Robert Johnson at Inverness. Johnson was appointed to Edinburgh, McAllum to Dundee.] According to their own desire, I will station both Brothers McAllum and Johnson in the Dundee Circuit. 'Tis pity that Brother Sanderson should be buried alive in one town. God has qualified him for more extensive usefulness. Since this time twelvemonth what has he done in comparison of what he might have done! Perhaps slipped out for a month once or twice! Oh, why does he not rather choose to 'receive a full reward'! But why do you quarrel with poor Agnes Ramsey Is there no living at Dundee without quarrelling O follow peace with all men, and holiness! - I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Mrs. Christian Date: LONDON, July 17, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, - I sailed from Dublin Bay on Monday morning, came into Holyhead Bay about noon, and on Friday in the afternoon (stopping only a few hours at Chester) was brought safe to London. After the Conference (at which I should be glad to see Mr. Pugh or Mr. Dodwell, or both [Mrs. Christian was a friend of William Dodwell and John Pugh, for whom see letter of Aug. 14, 1782,]) I shall with God's help visit the West of England. The gravel may be easily prevented by eating a small crust of bread the size of a walnut every morning, fasting. But your nervous disorders will not be removed without-constant exercise. If you can have no other, you should daily ride a wooden horse, which is only a double plank nine or ten feet long, properly placed upon two tressels. This has removed many distempers and saved abundance of lives. [See letters of March 13, 1788 and Aug. 18, 1790.] I should advise you likewise to use nettle tea (six or eight leaves) instead of foreign tea for a month, and probably you will see a great change. No person will hereafter be present at any Conference but whom I invite by name to come and confer with me. So we will have no more contention there. [The contention seems to have been due to the omission of certain names from the Deed of Declaration. See letter of July 8 to Thomas Wride.] - I am, with love to Brother Christian, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. Our Conference begins on Tuesday the 26th instant; but the first two days only traveling preachers are present.

All those reasons against a separation from the Church in this sense I subscribe to still. What, then, are you frighted at I no more separate from it now than I did in the year 1758. I submit still (though sometimes with a doubting conscience) to 'mitred infidels.' I do, indeed, vary from them in some points of doctrine and in some points of discipline - by preaching abroad, for instance, by praying extempore, and by forming societies; but not an hair's breadth further than I believe to be meet, right, and my bounden duty. I walk still by the same rule I have done for between forty and fifty years. I do nothing rashly. It is not likely I should. The high-day of my blood is over. If you will go hand in hand with me, do. But do not hinder me if you will not help. [Charles was unconvinced. See letter of Sept. 13.] Perhaps, if you had kept dose to me, I might have done better. However, with or without help, I creep on. And as I have been hitherto, so I trust I shall always be, Your affectionate friend and Brother.

To Thomas Wride Date: LONDON, October 8, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY, - On Monday se'nnight, the 17th instant, I hope to be at Norwich (coming by the mail-coach); on Tuesday at Yarmouth; on Wednesday and Thursday at Lowestoft, preaching everywhere at half-hour past six in the evening. On Friday noon at Beecham, or where you please; in the evening at Loddon; and on Saturday evening at Norwich. The verses [See letters of Sept. 16 and Dec. 14.] must be effaced some way before I come down. Be as exact in discipline as you please. Luke Houlton [See letter Sept. 16.] was on the road; but one met him and told him he was not wanted. I always lodge in our own houses. I think those sermons may stop bottles. - I am, with love to Sister Wride, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Robert Carr Brackenbury Date: LONDON, November 24, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, - God will hearken to the prayer that goeth not out of feigned lips, especially when fasting is joined therewith. And, provided our brethren continue instant in prayer, the beasts of the people will not again lift up their head. [See letters of Sept. 24, 1785, and Jan. 18, 1786, to him.] The work of God still increases in Ireland, and in several parts of this kingdom. I commend you and all our brethren to Him who is able to preserve you from all evil and build you up in love; and am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To John McKersey and James Byron Date: LONDON, December 14, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1785) Author: John Wesley --- If you do not choose to obey me, you need not: I will let you go when you please and send other preachers in your place. If you do choose to stay with me, never sing more than twice, once before and once after sermon. I have given Mr. Wride directions concerning the singers; pray assist him in seeing these directions observed. You are young; I am in pain for you. Follow his advice. He is older and wiser than you. You would do well to meet the children and the select society, though it be a cross. I will thank you if you will do all you can to strengthen Mr. Wride's hands. Beware of strengthening any party against him. Let you three be one. Nothing will give greater satisfaction than this to Your affectionate brother.

To Adam Clarke Date: LONDON, February 3, 1786. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1786) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,-You do well in insisting upon full and present salvation, whether men will hear or forbear; as also in preaching abroad, when the weather permits, and recommending fasting, both by precept and example. But you need not wonder that all these are opposed not only by formalists but by half Methodists. [Clarke was second preacher at Plymouth.] You should not forget French [See letter of Feb. 21.] or anything you have learned. I do not know whether I have read the book you speak of; you may send your translation at your leisure. Be all in earnest, and you shall see greater things than these. - I am, my dear Adam, Your affectionate brother.

To Samuel Bradburn Date: CROWLE, June 20, 1786. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1786) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SAMMY, - As soon as I saw you and Sophy Cooke together at Gloucester it came into my mind at once, There is a wife for Bradburn (though I did not tell anybody). [See next letter.] I was therefore nothing surprised the other day when I received hers and your letters, and I am inclined to think London will be the best place both for you and her. It will be safer for you to visit Gloucester now and then than it would be to reside there. As to your children, two of them may be kept abroad, as they are now; and I imagine that, as our family is not very large, Sophy would very well supply the place of an housekeeper. But this should be a time of much prayer to you both. - I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Adam Clarke Date: SHEFFIELD, July 2, 1786. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1786) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR ADAM, - I really know not what to say. Many desire that you should be in Bradford Circuit next year; but I imagined it was your own desire, which, therefore, I intended to comply with. But if you think you could do more good in another place you may be in another. I commend you for staying in the Dock during the Conference. [That is, in his circuit at Plymouth Dock. John King was his colleague. Clarke was appointed to Jersey at Conference. He was in love with Mary Cooke, of Trowbridge. See letters of Sept. 14, 1785, and May 17, 1787.] Brother King may either come or stay with you, as you shah agree. Be much in prayer, and God will direct you right. - I am, dear Adam, Yours affectionately.

To the Mayor of Liverpool Date: BRISTOL, July 29, 1786. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1786) Author: John Wesley --- SIR, - Some preachers in connection with me have thought it their duty to call sinners to repentance even in the open air. If they have violated any law thereby, let them suffer the penalty of that law. But if not, whoever molests them on that account will be called to answer it in His Majesty's Court of King's Bench. I have had a suit already in that court, with a magistrate (Heap), and if I am forced to it am ready to commence another. - I am, sir, Your obedient servant.

To Thomas Warwick Date: NEAR LONDON, November 16, 1785. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1786) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR TOMMY, - Whoever is pleased or displeased (as some win certainly be), it is your duty to remove every leader whom you judge to be unprofitable to the people, or indeed less profitable than another that lives at a convenient distance. [Warwick was Assistant at Burslem.] Some will likewise be displeased if you diligently exhort the believers to go on to perfection. But you need only secure one point - to please God. - I am, with love to Sister Warwick, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Francis Wrigley Date: LONDON, November 26, 1786. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1786) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER,-Now is the very time wherein you should earnestly exhort the believers to go on to perfection. Those of them that hunger and thirst after righteousness will keep their ground; the others will lose what God has wrought. You may certainly give a note to the serious [house-keeper] tin you can do more. I look upon that very common custom to be neither better nor worse than murder. I would no more take a pillow from under the head of a dying person than I would put a pillow upon his mouth. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Adam Clarke Date: LONDON, November 21, 1787. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1787) Author: John Wesley --- My DEAR BROTHER, -- I answer Mr. De Jersey and you together. I am unwilling to discourage you in anything. But I really think it would be the most Christian and the most prudent way to conclude this matter amicably. I should advise you not to force the course of the river, but to let the Valle parish alone. Shake off the dust of your feet against them, and go where you are welcome. The main point seems to be to remove the prejudice of the Batlift. If possible, this should be done by fair means. Law is the last and the worst means, though it is sometimes necessary. But I should expect far more from prayer. I will order Mr. Atlay to-day to send the books. Peace be with your spirits ! -- I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Robert Carr Brackenbury Date: LONDON, December 17, 1787. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1787) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, -- Considering that the god of this world will not fail to fight when his kingdom is in danger, I do not wonder that persecution should come to Jersey and Guernsey. [See letter of Dec. 8.] I agree with you that the best method to be used in this exigence is fasting and prayer. It is plain your labors in those places have not been in vain. And I am in hopes Guernsey will overtake Jersey. Wishing you all every possible blessing, I am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Zachariah Yewdull Date: LONDON, December 27, 1787. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1787) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You are in the right. You can have nothing at all to do with the chapel upon those terms. [Yewdull was at Musselburgh. See letter of Nov. 1.] Nay, a dovecote above it would be an insufferable nuisance, as it would fill the whole place with fleas. ‘What is to be done then’ Why, continue instant in prayer, and God will show what you are to do. But he that believeth doth not make haste. I cannot advise you to set about building an house unless you could find one or two responsible men who would engage themselves to finish the building in such a manner for an hundred and fifty pounds. Otherwise I think you would be more bold than wise. -- I am, with kind love to Mrs. Yewdull, Your affectionate brother.

To William Simpson Date: LONDON, January 18, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR BILLY, -- You did exceeding well to enlarge the number of prayer-meetings and to fix them in various parts of those [places]. I do not know that any means of grace whatever has been more owned of God than this. It is not now but at the time of Conference that children are received into Kingswood School. I am glad Sister Moon [Mrs. Emma Moon, his old correspondent at Yarm, where Simpson was Assistant. See letter of Nov. 5, 1762; and for Mrs. Middleton, Feb. 22, 1786.] has not forgotten me. I hope Sister Middleton too thinks of me sometimes. You are welcome to the four volumes of Sermons.--I am, with kind love to Sister Simpson, dear Billy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Peard Dickinson Date: KEIGHLEY, April 29, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I really think it will be proper to publish something in the Magazine on that idle Popish conceit of 'Consecrated Ground.' The ground of Bunhill Fields is full as well consecrated as that of St. Luke's Churchyard. [See letter of April 8.] You should study every means of keeping up your acquaintance with Sammy Wesley. Both Charles and he stand in much need of serious acquaintance, whether men or women. You should introduce our Betsy to Sally Wesley. They are kindred souls, and I think would soon take acquaintance with each other. If I live till the Conference, I will give her another acquaintance that will be after her own heart. Sister Showell likewise will be a fit acquaintance for her. But let her beware of new acquaintances. I hope you have found a little house in our neighborhood. You have both need of much prayer -- Peace be with your spirits! -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To his Niece Sarah Wesley Date: BRISTOL, September 1, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SALLY, -- I received yours yesterday in the afternoon. As Ramsgate [See letters of Aug. 7 and Sept. 8.] is more private, I am not sorry that you are there, and that you have so suitable a companion. I think it would be expedient for you to bathe every day, unless you find yourself chilled when you come out. But I do not advise you to drink any sea water. I am persuaded it was never designed to enter any human body for any purpose but to drown it. The great comfort is that you have a good and wise physician always ready both to advise and to assist. Therefore you are assured health you shall have if health be best. That all things may work together for your good is the prayer of, my dear Sally, Your ever affectionate Uncle.

To Walter Churchey Date: BRISTOL, September 27, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- To-morrow evening I am to set out for London. So I still creep up and down, as I would fain do a little work before the night cometh wherein no man can work. I commend you much for not suffering your daughter to go you know not where. What would it profit her to gain a thousand pounds and then lose her soul which could scarce fail to be the consequence of placing her in an ungodly family. I do not know anything in Bristol that would suit; but very probably I may find something in London. I should be glad if I could have a conversation with Mr. Cowper. I verily think there would be no great difference between us. [See letters of July 22 and Dec. 6 to Churchey.] September 27, LONDON. I think it is a pity to burn the poems. There are many good lines in them. [See letter of Aug. 8 to him.] So there are in the Dedication, which I thought I had sent you with the rest. I will send two of the Prayer-Books by the first opportunity. Peace be with you and yours.--I am Your affectionate brother.

To Jasper Winscon Date: LONDON, September 30, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- The Conference cannot and will not bear the expense of that foolish law suit. I can conceive but one way to pay it. The hundred pounds which you borrowed of me you may pay to the attorney, and his receipt in full shall be your discharge. [See letters of Sept. 13, 1785, and June 17, 1786.] -- I am Your affectionate brother.

To the Rev. Mr. Heath Date: LONDON, October 20, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, -- I am of the same mind with you that it will be well for you to return to your native country. [See letters of Aug. 6, 1787, and Dec. 2, 1788.] If you was here, I think we would hardly part again as long as I lived. I have no doubt of finding you employment in England. All the difficulty is how to get over. Dr. Coke is not pleased with a letter sent to Mr. Asbury and transmitted to him wherein you are charged with neglect of the children; but you have an opportunity of answering for yourself. Perhaps you was so unhinged and discouraged by finding things otherwise than you expected that you had not the heart to apply yourself to anything as diligently as you was used to do. However that be, I should be right glad to see you well landed in England: and that God may bring you in the full blessing of the gospel of peace is the prayer of, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Peter Mill Date: LONDON, December 20, 1788. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1788) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It does not appear to me that you have taken any wrong step with regard to North Shields. I think (as you do) that our friend whom you mention is prejudiced in favor of those warm men. As to T. Gibson, you are a little prejudiced against him. He is not a turbulent man. But he sees blots, and would fain cure them if he could. I pray, talk with him alone. You do not know him. However, for the present, the General Stewards may stand as they are. But see that they do their duty.--I am, with love to Sister Mill, dear Peter, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Robert Dull Date: LONDON, January 28, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR ROBERT, -- I am thoroughly satisfied with your economy in the building of the house. It is exceeding cheap. But the grand difficulty is how to raise the money, or, at least, how to raise it as soon as it will be wanted. This is no time of year for making collections. It should be matter of much prayer. I see no way but, Who will lend I will be security for forty pounds more. Look up! -- I am, dear Robert, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Mr. Tegart Date: LONDON, February 28, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Henry Moore and I, after reading and considering both your letter and one from Richard Condy, are clearly of opinion that he cannot and ought not to leave Waterford till another Assistant comes to take his place. [Tegart was a merchant in Waterford. See letter of Aug. 2, 1788, to Mrs. Ward.] We do not conceive him to be in any fault in this matter. We think he did no more than it was his duty to do. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Harriet Lewis Date: DUBLIN, April 2, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, -- Considering how changeable human nature is, I shoed have thought you would have forgotten me before now. I was therefore agreeably surprised when I had the pleasure of seeing you at Dudley. [See letter of March 29, 1788.] You seemed to be just the same as you was the first time that I conversed with you at Mr. Moon's house, [John Moon, the third preacherin the Birmingham Circuit; he died in 1801.] to be as desirous now as you was then to be not almost but altogether a Christian. But if this be your determination, you must remember you cannot be warm alone; you must needs find one if not more with whom you can converse freely on the things of God. This you may properly make matter of prayer; and sooner or later your prayer will be heard, although some of those with whom you once conversed are groin cold. But God is able to provide you with others who will not be unstable as water. It is a great blessing that He has upheld your gongs in the way and enabled you still to press on to the mark. May He stablish, strengthen, and settle you! So prays Yours affectionately.

To Mrs. Cock Date: DUBLIN, April 7, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SISTER, -- I cannot but say that it was some concern to me when I first heard that you was married; because I was afraid that you would be less useful than you might have been in a single life. And, indeed, I hoped that if you married at all, it would be one of our preachers; then I could have stationed him in some circuit where I should have had frequent opportunities of conversing with you. I am glad, however, that you are still happy in God. If you had married an ungodly man, it would certainly have been a sin. But it was no sin to marry a child of God--yea, though he were but a babe in Christ. And surely, if you pray mightily for him, the Lord will hear your prayer, and supply whatever is yet wanting in his faith, till he is happy and holy and perfect in love. I hope there is no shyness between you and Mr. or Mrs. Clarke. And do you converse freely with the other preachers Do you meet in band I hope you are still acquainted with Miss Lempriere and (I think the name of her friend is) Mrs. Saumarez. [Adam Clarke wrote on Jan. 13: 'Jane Cock is still well and happy. Mrs. Saumarez gains ground. Miss Lempriere is very upright but very diffident.' See letter of Aug. 3 to Mrs. Cock.] I want you and them continually to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. O let us improve this span of life to the uttermost! Yours in tender affection.

To Samuel Bardsley Date: CARLOW, April 26, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SAMMY, -- I am glad to hear that the work of the Lord still prospers in your hands. But there needs great steadiness, or you will not be able to keep the good old Methodist discipline. Brother Rhodes is desirous to do this; and it will be right for you to strengthen his hands therein. [See letter of Jan. 7.] Let the preachers stand firm together, and then the people will be regular; but if any of you take their part against the preacher, all will be confusion. Since you desire it, you may come to the Conference. -- I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother.

To Jonathan Crowther Date: CORK, May 20, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- 'Sessions!' 'elders!' We Methodists have no such customs, neither any of the Churches of God that are under my care. I require you, Jonathan Crowther, immediately to disband that session (so called) at Glasgow. Discharge them from meeting any more. And if they will leave the Society, let them leave it. We acknowledge only preachers, stewards, and leaders among us, over whom the Assistant in each circuit presides. You ought to have kept to the Methodist plan from the first. Who had any authority to vary from it If the people of Glasgow or any other place are weary of us, we will leave them to themselves. But we are willing to continue their servants, for Christ's sake, according to our own discipline, but no other. -- I am, dear Jonathan, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Thomas Wride Date: SIDARE, May 28, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- Nay, Tommy, nay: you are more nice than wise. I have seen worse verses than these, even in print, in the very poems of William Darney. [For Darney (who published a Collection of Hymns in Four Parts in 1751) see letter of Feb. 9, 1750.] The rhymes are not bad. Why should you damp a rising genius If he and [you] were to set your wits together, you would surely produce something! Deal very gently with the young man. I am persuaded he will take advice. You did exceeding well with regard to the house proposed to be built at Brompton. We have fresh warning. Good Brother Coates and Todd have given our preaching-house at North Shields to John Atlay and William Eels. [See letter of April 11 to Peter Mill.] So you see what we have to trust to. But you must deal exceedingly tenderly with them. Not one harsh or passionate word, or they will make their advantage of it. Above all, you should make it a matter of prayer. -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To the Printer of the 'Dublin Chronicle' Date: LONDONDERRY, June 2, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- SIR, -- 1. As soon as I was gone from Dublin, the Observer came forth, only with his face covered. Afterwards he came out under another name, and made a silly defense for me, that he might have the honor of answering it. His words are smoother than oil, and flow (who can doubt it) from mere love both to me and the people. 2. But what does this smooth, candid writer endeavor to prove, with all the softness and good humor imaginable Only this point (to express it in plain English), that I am a double-tongued knave, an old crafty hypocrite, who have used religion merely for a cloak, and have worn a mask for these fifty years, saying one thing and meaning another. A bold charge this; only it happens that matter of fact contradicts it from the beginning to the end. 3. In my youth I was not only a member of the Church of England, but a bigot to it, believing none but the members of it to be in a state of salvation. I began to abate of this violence in 1729. But still I was as zealous as ever, observing every point of Church discipline, and teaching all my pupils so to do. When I was abroad, I observed every rule of the Church, even at the peril of my life. I knew not what might be the consequence of repelling the first magistrate's niece [See letters of July 5, 1737, to Thomas Causton and Mrs. Williamson (Sophia Hopkey).] from the sacrament, considering, on the one hand the power lodged in his hands, on the other the violence of his temper, shown by his declaration, 'I have drawn the sword, and I will never sheathe it till I have satisfaction.'

To James Bogie Date: LEEDS, August 1, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR JEMMY, -- Your division of Scotland into the three southern circuits is exceedingly well judged. [See letter of Oct. 11, 1788.] You will see by the Minutes of Conference that it is put into execution. I trust in a few months' time to see thorough Methodist discipline both in Glasgow, Ayr, and Dumfries. And pray do not forget Greenock. I have letters thence calling for help. Let not any poor soul perish for lack of knowledge if it be in our power to prevent it. -- I am, dear Jemmy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Dr. Coke Date: BRISTOL, September 5, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SIR, -- Upon serious reflection I doubt if it would not be more proper for you to go westward than northward. I surely believe it would be best for you to set out from London, so as to meet me here about Monday or Tuesday fortnight on your way to Cornwall. Then you may give Brother Dobson (to whom my love) a sermon at West Street for the poor children. [See letter of Feb. 21, 1786.] I wish you to obey 'the Powers that be' in America; but I wish you to understand them too. I firmly believe Brother Dunn will answer your expectation. The tyrants in that house sadly want one to overlook them; and he will do it both with wisdom and tenderness. The Society begins to lift up its head again. We had a remarkably good time. -- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To the Printer of the 'Bristol Gazette' Date: BRISTOL, September 25, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- SIR, -- I am obliged to your ingenious and candid correspondent for his late remarks. He justly observes that 'unfermented Malt drink is not fit for common beverage.' But it may be fermented without hops full as well as with them. The fermentation (to which I have no objection) is caused not by the hops but the yeast. I believe the other ingredients in porter correct the noxious quality of the hops, and make it very wholesome drink to those with whose constitution it agrees. The last paragraph of this gentleman's letter I heartily subscribe to, and wish it were inserted in every public paper throughout the three kingdoms: 'If good malt liquor could be made without hops' (nay, it is made; as good as any in England), 'the saving in this respect would be such as would very well enable the brewer to pay an additional duty on his beer equal to five times the annual revenue arising from hops; and the hop grounds might be converted into excellent corn land.' This is a stroke indeed! And deserves to be well considered by all lovers of their country. [See letters of Sept. 7 and Oct. 3.]

To Samuel Bardsley Date: NORTHAMPTON, November 25, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- DEAR SAMMY, -- Yours of the 21st instant was sent to me hither. You have done exceedingly well to take the upper room. If need be, we will help you out. Let us have no law if it be possible to avoid it: that is the last and the worst remedy. Try every other remedy first. It is a good providence that the Mayor at Bideford is a friendly man. Prayer will avail much in all cases. Encourage our poor people to be instant in prayer. Take care of poor Michael; and do not forget, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother.

To Ann Bolton Date: LONDON, December 20, 1789. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1789) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR NANCY, -- I rejoice to hear that you still stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and it is certain you never need lose anything which God has wrought till you attain the full reward. You already find the fruit of patient suffering in being a partaker of His holiness. Go on in His name and power of His might till He says, 'Come up hither.' You send me a pleasing account of my dear Miss Leake, who I hope will run and not tire. It is true A thousand snares her paths beset; but she has a strong Helper, and also that uncommon blessing, an experienced and faithful friend. The very first time I saw him after my return from Witney I spoke to Mr. Whitfield of her books; I am surprised [His Book Steward forgot sometimes. See letter of Dec. 13, 1790.] he has not sent them yet, and will immediately refresh his memory. Permit me, my dear friend, to caution you yet again. Be not too zealous in business, run no hazards. It is far easier to get into difficulties than to get out of them. Wishing you and our dear friend Miss Leake a continual growth in grace, my dear Nancy, Yours most affectionately.

To John Mason Date: NEAR LONDON, January 13, 1790. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1790) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- As long as I live the people shall have no share in choosing either stewards or leaders among the Methodists. We have not and never had any such custom. We are no republicans, and never intend to be. It would be better for those that are so minded to go quietly away. I have been uniform both in doctrine and discipline for above these fifty years; and it is a little too late for me to turn into a new path now I am gray-headed. Neither good old Brother Pascoe [Probably the grocer at St. John's, Cornwall, who entertained the preacher there. His brother's wife was the mother of Methodism in Sithney. See Journal, iii. 261n; Methodist Mag., 1801, p. 483.] (God bless him!) expects it from me, nor Brother Wood, [Richard Wood, of Port Isaac. See Journal, v. 283.] nor Brother Flamank. [See letter of June 9, 1789.] If you and I should be called hence this year, we may bless God that we have not lived in vain. Come, let us have a few more strokes at Satan's kingdom, and then we shall depart in peace! -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To William Black Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1790) Author: John Wesley --- March, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am glad to hear you have some increase of the work of God in Halifax. If you take care that the brethren fall not out by the way, and that there be no jealousies or coldness between the preachers, but you all go on in peace and harmony, there will be an increase of it in every place. I have great hopes that the days of coldness and darkness are now past, and that the Sun of Righteousness is rising on Nova Scotia likewise. O stir up the gift of God that is in you, and wrestle with God in mighty prayer. He is doing great things in many parts of Europe such as have not been seen for many generations [See letter of Feb. 4.]; and the children of God expect to see greater things than these. I do not know that England was ever before in so quiet a state as it is now. It is our part to wait the openings of Divine Providence, and follow the leadings of it. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Adam Clarke Date: MADELEY, March 25, 1790. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1790) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You have done exceeding well in making the friends to understand the case of that young woman. I wonder she would be so open; surely she was constrained to reveal her own secrets. It seems now as plain as plain can be that this animal magnetism [See letter of April 14.] is diabolical from the beginning to the end. At first I supposed it was only a cheat; but afterwards Satan struck in, and cheated the spectators, who had not skill to discern when the natural part ended and the preternatural began. Go on with faith and prayer to brave and detect all these depths of Satan. Peace be with your spirits! -- I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To the Printer Date: LIVERPOOL, April 8, 1790. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1790) Author: John Wesley --- SIR, -- It is a melancholy consideration that there is no country in Europe, or perhaps in the habitable world, where the horrid crime of self-murder is so common as it is in England! One reason of this may be that the English in general are more ungodly and more impatient than other nations. Indeed, we have laws against it, and officers with juries are appointed to inquire into every fact of the kind. And these are to give in their verdict upon oath whether the self-murderer was sane or insane. If he is brought in insane, he is excused, and the law does not affect him. By this means it is totally eluded; for the juries constantly bring him in insane. So the law is not of the least effect, though the farce of a trial still continues. This morning I asked a coroner, 'Sir, did you ever know a jury bring in the deceased felo-de-se' He answered, 'No, sir; and it is a pity they should.' What, then, is the law good for If all self-murderers are mad, what need of any trial concerning them But it is plain our ancestors did not think so, or those laws had never been made. It is true every self-murderer is mad in some sense, but not in that sense which the law intends. This fact does not prove him mad in the eye of the law. The question is, Was he mad in other respects If not, every juror is perjured who does not bring him infelo-de-se. But how can this vile abuse of the law be prevented and this execrable crime effectually discouraged By a very easy method. We read in ancient history that at a certain period many of the women in Sparta murdered themselves. This fury increasing, a law was made that the body of every woman that killed herself should be exposed naked in the streets. The fury ceased at once. Only let a law be made and rigorously executed that the body of every self-murderer, lord or peasant, shall be hanged in chains, and the English fury will cease at once. [The letter appeared in a London paper.]

To William Thom Date: MALTON, June 21, 1790. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1790) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I concur in the judgment of my brother that the using of the form of prayer will tend to unite our people to the Church [Charles Wesley's view. The fourth Sunday they were to take the Sacrament at Church.] rather than to separate them from it, especially if you earnestly insist on their going to church every fourth Sunday. I am very indifferent concerning the preaching-house, and shall not concern myself about it any more. I have lost 10 by it already, although to no purpose. If anything more is done concerning it, it must be done by the people at Sarum themselves. I am, with love to Sister Thom, dear Billy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To his Niece Sarah Wesley Date: BRISSTOL, September 27, 1790. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1790) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR SALLY, -- Will it not be best for you to spend a little time at Margate [She went there. See next letter.] as soon as possible I hope to be in town on Saturday, October 3. And before the end of October you should be at the City Road, if not [already gone] to Twickenham. I believe sea-bathing will brace your nerves; but I pray [you not to drink] sea-water. [See letter of Sept. 8, 1788.] If you look into the Primitive Physick, you will see what] is the diet-drink [In the Primitive Physick under the head of 'Scorbutick Sores' is given a drink to be taken 'fasting and at four in the afternoon.' This is probably the 'diet-drink' to which he refers. It is called 'a diet-drink' in the later editions. See W.H.S. iv. 72.] therein prescribed for scorbutic sores; though your disorder is not come so far, I expect it would thoroughly purify your blood in a month's time. I shall be right glad to see Mr. Galloway. [For Joseph Galloway, see letter of Aug. 18.] A few such acquaintance as him and Miss Galloway I wish you to have. I wish you was likewise acquainted with that lovely woman Mrs. Wolff [Mrs. Wolff, of Balham. From their house Wesley went home to City Road to die.]; 'the perfect pattern of true womanhood.' Peace be with all your spirits ! -- My dear Sally, adieu!

To the Custom House Date: CITY ROAD, November 14, 1790. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1790) Author: John Wesley --- GENTLEMEN, -- Two or three days ago Mr. Ireland sent me as a present two dozen of French claret, which I am ordered to drink during my present weakness. At the White Swan it was seized. Beg it may be restored to Your obedient servant. Whatever duty comes due I will see duly paid.

To Richard Rodda Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1791) Author: John Wesley --- LONDON [January]. 1791. DEAR RICHARD, -- It was madness to make that matter up. I would rather have thrown it into Chancery. [See letter of Nov. 20, 1789, to him.] Charles Bond is determined, it is plain, to sell the Methodists for a wife. I do not see how you can help it. Sammy and you have done your pain. His blood is not upon your head. [Samuel Bradburn was Rodda's colleague. Bond, fourth preacher in the Manchester Circuit, was stationed at Coventry in 1791, at Norwich in 1791, and in 1793 'desisted from traveling.' See letter of July 7, 1786.] Perhaps greater consequences than yet appear may follow from the dissentions at Mr. Bayley's chapel. [Dr. Cornelius Bayley. See letter of Oct. 12, 1778.] However, it is your duty to go straight forward, breathing nothing but peace and love. I do not depend upon taking any more journeys. But if my life is prolonged I shall probably be at Manchester about the usual time. Peace be with you all! -- I am, dear brother, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To James Macdonald Date: LONDON, January 18, 1791. Source: The Letters of John Wesley (1791) Author: John Wesley --- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am glad to hear that the work of God is so prosperous at Newry. Continue to seek Him by fasting, and you shall see still greater things than these. Take care to keep as exact an account as you can of everything that occurs. The verses are worthy to be inserted in the Arminian Magazine. I should be glad to be acquainted with the author of them; but I hardly think either she or you will see me any more in this world. [See letter of Oct. 23, 1790.] Your affectionate friend and brother.

They were about eighty in number; of whom near seventy were believers, and sixteen (probably) renewed in love. Here were two Bands of children, one of boys, and one of girls, most of whom were walking in the light. Four of those who seemed to be saved from sin were of one family; and all of them walked holy and unblamable, adorning the doctrine of God their Saviour. At eleven I preached once more, though in great weakness of body, and met the Stewards of all the societies. I then rode to Stokesley, and, having examined the little society, went on 64 REv. J. WESLEY’s [June, 1761. for Guisborough. The sun was burning hot; but, in a quarter of an hour, a cloud interposed, and he troubled us no more. I was desired by a gentleman of the town to preach in the market-place; and there a table was placed for me, but it was in a bad neighbourhood; for there was so vehement a stench of stinking fish, as was ready to suffocate me, and the people roared like the waves of the sea; but the voice of the Lord was mightier; and in a few minutes the whole multitude was still, and seriously attended while I proclaimed “Jesus Christ, made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” Tues. 23.--I began about five, near the same place, and had a great part of the same audience; yet they were not the same. The change might easily be read in their countenance. When we took horse, and just faced the sun, it was hard work for man and beast; but about eight the wind shifted, and blowing in our face, kept us cool till we came to Whitby. In the evening I preached on the top of the hill, to which you ascend by an hundred ninety and one steps. The congre gation was exceeding large, and ninety-nine in an hundred were attentive. When I began, the sun shone full in my face; but he was soon clouded, and shone no more till I had done. After meeting the society, I talked with a sensible woman, whose experience seemed peculiar. She said: “A few days before Easter last, I was deeply convinced of sin; and in Easter week, I knew my sins were forgiven, and was filled with “joy and peace in believing.

“I dislike your spending so much time in several meetings, as many that attend can ill spare from the other duties of their calling, unless they omit either the preaching, or their class, or band. This naturally tends to dissolve our society, by cutting the sinews of it. “As to your more public meetings, I like the praying fervently and largely for all the blessings of God; and I know much good has been done hereby, and hope much more will be done. “But I dislike several things therein: 1. The singing, or speaking, or praying, of several at once: 2. The praying to the Son of God only, or more than to the Father: 3. The using improper expressions in prayer; sometimes too bold, if not irreverent; sometimes too pompous and magnificent, extolling yourselves rather than God, and telling him what you are, not what you want : 4. Using poor, flat, bald hymns: 5. The never kneeling at prayer: 6. Your using postures or gestures highly indecent: 7. Your screaming, even so as to make the words unintelligible: 8. Your affirming, people will be justified or sanctified just now : 9. The affirming they are, when they are not: 10. The bidding them say, ‘I believe: 11. The bitterly condemning any that oppose, calling them wolves, &c.; and pronouncing them hypocrites, or not justified. “Read this calmly and impartially before the Lord, in prayer: So shall the evil cease, and the good remain; and you will then be more than ever united to “Your affectionate brother, “Canterbury, Nov. 2, 1762. JoHN WESLEY.” Sat. 6.--Having had more satisfaction here than I had had for many years, I cheerfully commended the little flock to God. 122 REv. J. wesLEY’s [Nov. 1762. In the way to London I read “The Death of Abel.” That manner of writing, in prose run mad, I cordially dislike: Yet, with all that disadvantage, it is excellent in its kind; as much above most modern poems, as it is below “Paradise Lost.” I had hopes of seeing a friend at Lewisham in my way; and so I did; but it was in her coffin. It is well, since she finished her course with joy. In due time I shall see her in glory. Mon. 8.--I began visiting the classes; in many of which we had hot spirits to deal with.

I have no right so to judge, nor authority so to speak. I will rather say, “She was unfaithful to the grace of God, and so cast away what was really given.” Therefore that way of talking which has been very common, of staying “to see if the gift be really given,” which some take to be exceeding wise, I take to be exceeding foolish. If a man says, “I now feel mothing but love,” and I know him to be an honest man, I believe him. What then should I stay to see? Not whether he has such a blessing, but whether he will keep it. There is something remarkable in the manner wherein God revived his work in these parts. A few months ago the generality of people in this Circuit were exceeding lifeless. Samuel Meggot, perceiving this, advised the society at Barnard-Castle to observe every Friday with fasting and prayer. The very first Friday they met together, God broke in upon them in a wonderful manner; and his work has been increasing among them ever since. The neigh bouring societies heard of this, agreed to follow the same rule, and soon experienced the same blessing. Is not the neglect of this plain duty (I mean, fasting, ranked by our Lord with almsgiving and prayer) one general occasion of deadness among Christians? Can any one willingly neglect it, and be guiltless? In the evening I preached at Yarm; but I found the good doctrine of Christian Perfection had not been heard of there for some time. The wildness of our poor brethren in London has put it out of countenance above two hundred miles off; so these strange advocates for perfection have given it a deeper wound than all its enemies together could do! June, 1763.] JOURNAL, 137 Wed. 8.--Just as I began preaching (in the open air, the Room being too small even for the morning congregation) the rain began; but it stopped in two or three minutes, I am persuaded, in answer to the prayer of faith.

W., C. W., John Richardson, Benjamin Colley: Not excluding any other Clergyman, who agrees in these essentials,-- “I. Original Sin. “II. Justification by Faith. “III. Holiness of Heart and Life; provided their life be answerable to their doctrine. “‘But what union would you desire among these?” Not an union in opinions. They might agree or disagree, touching absolute decrees on the one hand, and perfection on the other. Not an union in expressions. These may still speak of the imputed righteousness, and those of the merits, of Christ. Not an union with regard to outward order. Some may still remain quite regular, some quite irregular; and some partly regular, and partly irregular. But these things being as they are, as each is persuaded in his own mind, is it not a most desirable thing that we should,-- “1. Remove hinderances out of the way? Not judge one another, not despise one another, not envy one another? Not be displeased at one another's gifts or success, even though greater than our own? Not wait for one another's halting, much less wish for it, or rejoice therein? “Never speak disrespectfully, slightly, coldly, or unkindly of each other; never repeat each other’s faults, mistakes, or infirmities, much less listen for and gather them up ; never say or do anything to hinder each other’s usefulness, either directly or indirectly? Is it not a most desirable thing that we should,-- “2. Love as brethren ? Think well of and honour one another? Wish all good, all grace, all gifts, all success, yea, greater than our own, to each other? Expect God will answer our wish, rejoice in every appearance thereof, and praise him for it? Readily believe good of each other, as readily as we once believed evil? “Speak respectfully, honourably, kindly of each other; defend each other’s character; speak all the good we can of each other; recommend one another where we have influence; each help the other on in his work, and enlarge his influence by all the honest means he can 7 April, 1764.] JOURNAL. 171 “This is the union which I have long sought after; and is it not the duty of every one of us so to do? Would it not be far better for ourselves? A means of promoting both our holiness and happiness?

In the evening I preached at Musselborough, and the next on the Calton-Hill, at Edinburgh. It being the time of the General Assembly, many of the Ministers were there. The wind was high and sharp, and blew away a few delicate ones. But most of the congregation did not stir till I had concluded. Sun. 27.--At seven I preached in the High-School yard, on the other side of the city. The morning was extremely cold. In the evening it blew a storm. However, having appointed to be on the Calton-Hill, I began there to an huge congregation. At first, the wind was a little troublesome; but I soon forgot it. And so did the people for an hour and a half, in which I fully delivered my own soul. Mon. 28.--I spent some hours at the General Assembly, composed of about an hundred and fifty Ministers. I was surprised to find, 1. That any one was admitted, even lads, twelve or fourteen years old: 2. That the chief speakers were Lawyers, six or seven on one side only: 3. That a single question took up the whole time, which, when I went away, seemed to be as far from a conclusion as ever, namely, “Shall Mr. Lindsay be removed to Kilmarnock parish or not?” The argument for it was, “He has a large family, and this living is twice as good as his own.” The argument against it was, “The people are resolved not to hear him, and will leave the kirk if he comes.” If then the real point in view had been, as their law directs, majus bonum Ecclesiae,” instead of taking up five hours, the debate might have been determined in five minutes. On Monday and Tuesday I spoke to the members of the society severally. Thursday, 31. I rode to Dundee, and, about half an hour after six, preached on the side of a meadow near the town. Poor and rich attended. Indeed, there is * The greater benefit of the Church.-EDIT, June, 1764.] JOURNAL, } 79 seldom fear of wanting a congregation in Scotland. But the misfortune is, they know everything: So they learn nothing. Fri. JUNE 1.--I rode to Brechin, where Mr. Blair received me in the most friendly manner. In the afternoon I preached on the side of an hill near the town, where we soon forgot the cold.

“But the main point between you and me is Perfection. ‘This, you say, ‘has no prevalence in these parts; otherwise I should think it my duty to oppose it with my whole strength; not as an opinion, but as a dangerous mistake, which appears to be subversive of the very foundation of Christian experience; and which has, in fact, given occasion to the most grievous offences.’ “Just so my brother and I reasoned thirty years ago, “as thinking it our duty to oppose Predestination with our whole strength; not as an opinion, but as a dangerous mistake, which appears to be subversive of the very foundation of Christian experience; and which has, in fact, given occasion to the most grievous offences.’ “That it has given occasion to such offences, I know; I can name time, place, and persons. But still another fact stares me in the face. Mr. H and Mr. N hold this, and yet I believe these have real Christian experience. But if so, this is only an opinion : It is not ‘subversive ’ (here is clear proof to the contrary) ‘of the very foundation of Christian experience.’ It is ‘compatible with love to Christ, and a genuine work of grace.” Yea, many hold it, at whose feet I desire to be found in the day of the Lord Jesus. If, then, I ‘oppose this with my whole strength,” I am a mere bigot still. I leave you in your calm and retired moments to make the application. “But how came this opinion into my mind? I will tell you with all simplicity. In 1725 I met with Bishop Taylor's “Rules of Holy Living and Dying. I was struck particularly with the chapter upon intention, and felt a fixed intention May, 1765.] JOURNAL, 213 ‘to give myself up to God.” In this I was much confirmed soon after by the ‘Christian Pattern, and longed to give God all my heart. This is just what I mean by Perfection now : I sought after it from that hour. “In 1727 I read Mr. Law’s ‘Christian Perfection, and ‘Serious Call, and more explicitly resolved to be all devoted to God, in body, soul, and spirit. In 1730 I began to be Jhomo unius libri; * to study (comparatively) no book but the Bible.

The mob here used to be exceeding boisterous; but none now opened his mouth. How easily, when it seems him good, does God “still the madness of the people !” 248 REv. J. wesLEY’s [April, 1766. Hence we rode to Trusthorpe in the Marsh, where a multitude of plain, simple-hearted people assembled. When I met the society after preaching, abundance of them crowded in; many of whom, while we were wrestling with God in prayer, cried out with a loud and bitter cry. But it was not long before some of them rejoiced with joy unspeakable. Tues. 22.--I preached to a congregation of a very different kind at Horncastle. John Hill has done more mischief here than a man of far greater talents can do good. By that unhappy division of the society, he has opened the mouths of all the gainsayers; and, to complete the scandal, he and six-and-twenty more have been dipped ! “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel!” Wed. 23.--I preached at five; in Torrington at nine; and about two at Scotter, where the poor people now enjoy great quietness, by means of Sir N. H. About six I preached at Ferry. I do not choose to preach above twice or thrice in a day; but when I am called to do more, it is all one: I find strength according to my need. Thur. 24.--I rode to Epworth, and the next day, through heavy rain, to Swinfleet. I supposed, as the rain kept many from coming, the preaching-house would contain the congrega tion; but it would not. However, as the door and windows were open, I believe, most of them could hear; and the eagerness with which they heard made me hope they were not forgetful hearers. Sun. 27.--I rode over to Misterton, and visited a young woman, who a year or two since was struck first with deep melancholy, and soon after with utter distraction. We were quickly convinced whence her disorder came. Let Physicians do all they will or can; yet it will be found in the end, that “this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” After preaching I hasted away to Haxey, and came thither before the church began. The Curate preached a very harmless sermon against the Methodists.

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. 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? “But Mr. Wesley says, the other Methodists have. I say no such thing. What I say, after having given a scriptural account of a perfect Christian, is this:--‘By these marks the Methodists desire to be distinguished from other men: By these we labour to distinguish ourselves.” And do not you yourself desire and labour after the very same thing? “But you insist, ‘Mr. Wesley affirms the Methodists’ (i.e., all Methodists) ‘to be perfectly holy and righteous.” Where do I affirm this? Not in the Tract before us. In the front of this I affirm just the contrary; and that I affirm it any where else is more than I know. Be pleased, Sir, to point out the place: Till this is done, all you add (bitterly enough) is mere brutum fulmen; and the Methodists (so 274, REv. J. wesLEY’s [March, 1767. called) may still declare, (without any impeachment of their sincerity,) that they do not come to the holy table “trusting in their own righteousness, but in God’s manifold and great mercies.’ I am, Sir, “Yours, &c., Sun. 8.--In the evening I left London, and reached Bath on Tuesday, in the afternoon, time enough to wait on that venerable man, the Bishop of Londonderry. After spending an agreeable and a profitable hour with him, my brother read Prayers, and I preached at Lady H.’s chapel. I know not when I have seen a more serious or more deeply attentive congregation. Is it possible? Can the Gospel have place where Satan’s throne is? Thursday, 12, and the two following days, I examined the society in Bristol.

25.--I rode to Shronill, and preached at twelve to the largest congregation I have ever seen there. Thence we crossed the country to Kilfinnan. I had hardly begun to speak, when a young person, a kind of a gentleman, came, and took great pains to make a disturbance. Mr. Dancer mildly desired him to desist; but was answered with a volley of oaths and a blow. One of the town then encountered him, and beat him well. But the noise preventing my being heard, I retired a few hundred yards, with the serious part of the congregation, and quietly finished my discourse. Tues. 26.--I went on to Cork, and on Thursday, 28, to Bandon. This evening I preached in the House; the next, in the main street: But the wind was so high and so cold, that none either could or would bear it but those who really desired to save their souls. I judged the House would hold these: So the next evening I preached within; and when the benches were removed, it held the greatest part of the congre gation: And those who could not get in heard tolerably well, either at the doors or windows. Sunday, 31. We had most of them again at seven; and I took my leave of them with much satisfaction, after having strongly enforced, “To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.” I would fain have preached abroad at Cork in the evening, but the wind and rain would not permit. Two years ago I left above three hundred in the society; I find an hundred and eighty-seven. What has occasioned so considerable a reduction? I believe the real cause is this:-- Between two and three years ago, when the society was nearly as low as it is now, Thomas Taylor and William June, 1767.] JOURNAL. 281 Pennington came to Cork. They were zealous men, and sound Preachers; full of activity, and strict in discipline, without respect of persons. They set up meetings for prayer in several places, and preached abroad at both ends of the city. Hearers swiftly increased; the society increased; so did the number both of the convinced and the converted.

She said, ‘I have long been drinking wine-and-water here; now I shall drink wine in my Father's kingdom. She lay still about a quarter of an hour, and then breathed her soul into the hands of her Redeemer.” On Wednesday and Thursday, we had our little Confer ence at Dublin. Friday we observed as a day of fasting and prayer; and concluded it with the most solemn watch-night that I ever remember in this kingdom. I was much tired. between seven and eight o'clock, but less and less so as the service went on; and at the conclusion, a little after twelve, I was fresher than at six in the morning. Sunday, 26, was a comfortable day indeed; but the conclusion of it tried my strength, as I was speaking, with scarce any intermission, from a little after five till between nine and ten. Mon. 27.--Having a severe cold, I was in hopes of riding it away; so I took horse a little after four, and reached Newry in the evening. But my voice was still so weak, that I doubt if many of the congregation in the market-house could hear me; and my cough was so violent at night, I could hardly Aug. 1767.] JourtNAL. 298 sleep a quarter of an hour together. However, I preached at five in the morning, without much difficulty. Wednesday, 29. I hasted on to Donaghadee, but found all the packet-boats were on the other side. So I agreed with the Captain of a small vessel, and went on board about two o'clock; but it was so late when we landed, (after a passage of five hours,) that we could only reach Stranraer that night. Thur. 30.--We rode through a country swiftly improving to Ayr, and passed a quiet and comfortable night. Friday, 31. Before two we reached Glasgow. In the evening I preached, and again at five in the morning. Saturday, AUGUST 1. As both my horse and myself were a little tired, I took the stage-coach to Edinburgh. Before I left Glasgow I heard so strange an account, that I desired to hear it from the person himself. He was a sexton, and yet for many years had little troubled himself about religion.

Tuesday, 27. I rode to Weedon, where, the use of the church being refused, I accepted the offer of the Presby terian meeting-house, and preached to a crowded audience. Wednesday, 28. About two in the afternoon I preached at Towcester, where, though many could not get in, yet all were quiet. Hence we rode to Northampton, where, in the evening, (our own Room being far too small,) I preached in the riding-school to a large and deeply-serious congregation. After service, I was challenged by one that was my parishioner at Epworth, near forty years ago. I drank tea at her house the next afternoon with her daughter-in-law from London, very big with child, and greatly afraid that she should die in labour. When we went to prayers, I enlarged in prayer for her in particular. Within five minutes after we went away her pangs began, and soon after she was delivered of a fine boy. Friday, 30. I rode across the country to Bedford, and preached in the evening to a civil, heavy congregation. Saturday, 31. After preaching at Luton in the way, I returned to London. Sun. NoveMBER 1.--Being All-Saints' Day, (a festival I dearly love,) I could not but observe the admirable propriety with which the Collect, Epistle, and Gospel for the day are suited to each other. As I was to set out for Kent in the morning, Mr. B. invited me to spend the evening with him at Lewisham. Soon after we took horse, we found one of our horses lame. On inquiry, it appeared that five nails were driven into the quick: So we were at a full stop. But Mr. B. supplying us with another horse, we rode on, through heavy rain, to Staplehurst. In the evening I met with a young Clergyman, who seemed to have no desire, but to save his own soul and those that heard him. I advised him to expect crosses and persecution. But he was sure his Rector would stand by him. Vain hope, that the children of the world should long stand by the children of God! Soon after, his Rector told him, unless he kept away from this people he must leave his curacy. Tues. 3.--I rode to Rye, and preached in the evening.

She found peace with God many years since, and about five years ago was entirely changed, and enabled to give her whole soul to God. From that hour she never found any decay, but loved and served him with her whole heart. Pain and sick ness, and various trials, succeeded almost without any inter mission: But she was always the same, firm and unmoved, as the rock on which she was built; in life and in death uniformly praising the God of her salvation. The attain ableness of this great salvation is put beyond all reasonable doubt by the testimony of one such (were there but one) living and dying witness. Fri. 20.--I preached to the condemned felons in Newgate, 304 REv. J. wesi.EY’s [Nov. 1767. on, “To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” All of them were struck, and melted into tears: Who knows but some of them may “reap in joy?” In the evening I preached at Leytonstone. How good would it be for me to be here, not twice in a year, but in a month ! So it appears to me: But God is wiser than man. When it is really best, will he not bring it to pass? About this time I received two or three remarkable letters; extracts from which I here subjoin: “REveREND SIR, “LATELY I was requested to read Mr. Marshall’s “Gospel-Mystery of Sanctification. It was represented to me as the most excellent piece ever published on that subject. I have read it, and, lest I should be mistaken, submit to you the following short remarks : “It must be acknowledged, he is, on the one hand, copious in showing the impracticability of real, genuine holiness, or of doing any works acceptable to God, till we “repent and believe the Gospel. On the other hand, he shows the deadly consequences of that faith which sets aside our obligations to observe God’s holy Law. “I rejoice, likewise, to find him showing how well able a believer is to keep this Law; and proving that this faith implies a divine assurance of our belonging to Christ; but most of all, to observe him speaking so excellently of the growth of a believer in holiness. “We are always,’ says he, “to resist the devil, to quench all his fiery darts, and to perfect holiness in the fear of God.

“I wroTE you word before, that Elizabeth Hobson was put into possession of the house. The same night her old visitant, who had not troubled her for some time, came again, and said, ‘You must meet me at Boyldon-Hill, on Thursday night, a little before twelve. You will see many appear ances,” who will call you to come to them; but do not stir, neither give them any answer. A quarter after twelve, I shall come and call you; but still do not answer, nor stir. She said, ‘It is an hardship upon me for you to desire me to meet you there. Why cannot you take your leave now?” He answered, ‘It is for your good that I desire it. I can take my leave of you now; but if I do, I must take something from you, which you would not like to part with. She said, ‘May not a few friends come with me?” He said, “They may; but they must not be present when I come.” * How strange is this I Who can account for it? June, 1768.] JOURNALs 335 “That night twelve of us met at Mr. Davison's," and spent some time in prayer. God was with us of a truth. Then six of us went with her to the place, leaving the rest to pray for us. We came thither a little before twelve, and then stood at a small distance from her. It being a fine night, we kept her in our sight, and spent the time in prayer. She stood there till a few minutes after one. When we saw her move, we went to meet her. She said, ‘Thank God, it is all over and done. I found everything as he told me. I saw many appearances, who called me to them; but I did not answer or stir. Then he came and called me at a distance; but I took no notice. Soon after, he came up to me, and said, You are come well-fortified.” He then gave her the reasons why he required her to meet him at that place, and why he could take his leave there, and not in the house, without taking something from her.

The rain drove us into the House, which was once more throughly filled. I scarce ever spoke so plain as I did both this and the two following days; yet for many years the congregations had not been so large. Wednesday and Thursday I visited the classes. Decreasing still ! Seven years ago we had near four hundred members in this society; five years since, about three hundred members. Two years ago they were two hundred; now one hundred and ninety. On Thursday evening, JUNE 1, I preached at Blackpool, to such a congregation as I never saw there before. Friday, 2, we observed as a day of fasting and prayer. At five and at nine we found God was with us; but much more at one, and most of all at the watch-night, during the application of those awful words, “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” Sat. 3.-I preached at Blackpool again. Again multitudes of “publicans and sinners drew near,” and gladly heard that “there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth.” Sunday, 4. The rain again prevented my preaching at the Barrack-Hill; but God was again present at the Room, and filled many souls with strong consolation. When I took my leave of the society, many were moved, fearing we should meet no more. If not, is it not enough that we shall meet again at the resurrection of the just? Mon. 5.--Having been much importuned to give them a day or two more, I rode to Limerick. Tuesday, 6. I looked over a considerable part of Mr. Turner’s “Remarkable Providences.” What pity is it that the author had not a little judgment as well as piety | What an heap of things has he huddled together, good, bad, and indifferent l But how fine a treatise might a man of sense collect out of it! After encouraging as many as I could, both in public and private, to “press on toward the mark,” on Thursday, 8, I once more took my leave of this loving people, and set out for Waterford. We intended to dine at Tipperary, but were directed wrong. At length we stumbled on a little town, called Golding. And here I found poor Michael Weston, June, 1769.] JOURNAL. 365 who rambled hither from Westminster, some months since, in quest of an estate.

May He open your heart, that you may discern his holy, and acceptable, and perfect will; that you may have a right judgment in all things, and evermore rejoice in his holy comfort! I am, dear Madam, “Your affectionate servant, “JoHN WESLEY.” Wed. 28.--I rode to Mount-Mellick, and, for the sake of some tender persons, preached in the new House. It was a solemn time; in consequence of which it was pretty well filled in the morning. A serious awe spread over the whole congregation; but more remarkably the next evening, while I was opening and applying the story of Dives and Lazarus. Friday, 30. I rode over to Montrath, a wild place as most in Ireland, and preached in the shell of a new House to many more than it would contain. All were quiet and attentive. In the middle of the sermon a young woman, who was a sinner, endeavoured for a while to hide her tears, by creeping behind another, till in a few minutes her strength failed, and she sunk down to the ground. I was sorry they carried her away; otherwise, I think she would have soon lifted up her head with joy. In the evening we had a love-feast at Mount-Mellick; and great was our rejoicing in the Lord. Many were filled with consolation, trusting he would soon “make an end of sin, and bring in everlasting righteousness.” Sat. JULY 1.--I found a far different face of things at Portarlington. The large society had once an hundred and thirty members; (an hundred and four I joined in three days;) it had now no more than twenty-four; and some of these had only a name to live. In the evening I applied particularly to the backsliders; but almost as soon as I began, a large company of Quality (as they called them) came, and embar rassed me not a little. I knew this was heathen Greek to them; but I could not then change my subject. However, I diluted my discourse as much as I could, that it might not be quite too strong for their digestion. Sun. 2.--I read Mrs. Rowe's “Devout Exercises of the Heart.” It is far superior to anything of hers which I ever read, in style as well as in sense.

13.--I rode on to Enniscorthy, and preached on, “Is there no balm in Gilead?” To-day I saw one of the most lively and sensible children that I have met with in the kingdom. What a miracle will it be if she saves her soul; if general admiration does not destroy her | Hence I rode to Bunklody, a little, ugly, scattered town; but delightfully situated. I did not find that five persons in the town would come a bow-shot to hear. So I ordered a table to be set in the street; and a few slowly crept together: They were as quiet and seemed as much affected as the trees. Thence I rode on to Carlow. The Under-Sheriff had promised the use of the Town-Hall; but the High-Sheriff, coming to town, would not suffer it. I thank him: For, by this means, I was driven to the barrack-field, where were twice as many as the Hall could have contained; over and above many of the poor Papists, who durst not have come into it. Afterwards I met the little society. I used to wonder they did not increase: Now I should wonder if they did; so exquisitely bitter are the chief of them against the Church. I solemnly warned them against this evil; and some of them had ears to hear. Fri. 14.-At noon I preached in Baltinglass, to a handful of serious people; and in the evening at Donard, to a much more numerous, but not more serious, congregation. I could Aug. 1769.] JOURNAL. 373 not but observe one pretty kind of a woman, with a child in her arms. She stood awhile, then walked to and fro; then stood, then walked again; and appeared to be as perfectly unconcerned as some pretty calves which stood behind her. Saturday, 15. I crossed the country to my old pupil, Mr. Morgan’s, and in the afternoon returned to Dublin. All the following week we had a remarkable blessing, both at the Morning and Evening Service. On Wednesday and Thursday we had our little Conference, at which most of the Preachers in the kingdom were present. We agreed to set apart Friday, the 21st, for a day of fasting and prayer. At every meeting, particularly the last, our Lord refreshed us in an uncommon manner. About ten I was a little tired; but before it struck twelve, my weariness was all gone.

Hindmarsh met them all in the school, and gave an exhortation suited to the occasion. He then gave out that hymn, And am I born to die, To lay this body down P And must my trembling spirit fly Into a world unknown P This increased their concern; so that it was with great diffi culty they contained themselves till he began to pray. Then Al r M r, and R--d N--e, cried aloud for mercy; and quickly another and another, till all but two or three were constrained to do the same; and as long as he continued to pray, they continued the same loud and bitter cry. One of the maids, Elizabeth Nutt, was as deeply convinced as any of them. After prayer, Mr. H. said, “Those of you who are resolved to serve God may go and pray together.” Fifteen of them did so, and continued wrestling with God, with strong cries and tears, till about nine o’clock. Wed. 19.--At the morning prayer many of them cried out again, though not so violently. From this time their whole spirit and behaviour were changed: They were all serious and loving to each other. The same seriousness and mildness continued on Thursday; and they walked together, talking only of the things of God. On Friday evening their concern greatly increased, and caused them to break out again into strong cries. Saturday, 22. They seemed to lose none of their concern, and spent all their spare time in prayer. Sun. 23.--Fifteen of them gave me their names; being resolved, they said, to serve God. In the afternoon I gave them a strong exhortation, and afterward Mr. Rankin. Their very countenances were entirely changed. They drank in every word. Tues. 25.-During the time of prayer in the evening, they Sept. 1770.] JOURNAL, 415 were affected just as the Tuesday before. The two other maids were then present, and were both cut to the heart. Wed. 26.--“I rode,” says Mr. Rankin, “in the afternoon to Kingswood, and went up stairs, in order to retire a little. But when I came up, I heard one of the boys at prayer, in an adjoining room. I listened a while, and was exceedingly struck with many of his expressions. When he ceased I went in, and found two others with him. Just then three more came in. I went to prayer.

He rose and said, “I am the Earl of Desmond.” The wretch, rejoicing that he had found so great a prize, cut off his head at once. Queen Elizabeth and King James allowed a pension to his relict for many years. I have seen a striking picture of her, in her widow’s weeds, said to be taken when she was an hundred and forty years old. At a small distance from the castle stands the old Abbey, the finest ruin of the kind in the kingdom. Not only the walls of the church, and many of the apartments, but the whole cloisters, are entire. They are built of black marble exquisitely polished, and vaulted over with the same. So that they are as firm now as when they were built, perhaps seven or eight hundred years ago; and if not purposely destroyed, (as most of the ancient buildings in Ireland have been,) may last these thousand years. But add these to the years they have stood already, and what is it to etermity? A moment! Fri. 24.--I spoke severally to the members of the society in Limerick. I have found no society in Ireland, number for number, so rooted and grounded in love. We observed this as a day of fasting and prayer, and were much comforted together. Sun. 26.--The rain obliged me to preach within, at five in the evening. It was a season of solemn joy and sorrow. I took horse immediately after preaching, and rode through continued rain to Snugborough, about fourteen Irish miles from Limerick. Mon. 27.--We pushed on through violent wind and rain, and reached Galway in the afternoon. About six I preached in the Court-House, by far the neatest which I have seen in the king June, 1771.] JOURNAL. 433 dom. Abundance of the soldiers, who were to march for Dublin the next day, willingly attended: And not a few of the townsfolk; but (what is rarely seen in Ireland) five or six men to one woman. I was enabled to speak exceeding close; and many were stunned, if not wounded. The next evening, the number of townsmen was doubled; among whom were the Mayor, and several other people of fashion. Again I spoke with the utmost plainness, and could not but hope there will be a work of God even in Galway. Wed. 29.--Heavy rain, with furious wind, accompanied us all day.

The very thing which Mr. Shinstra calls fanaticism, is no other than heart-religion; in other words, “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” These must be felt, or they have no being. All, therefore, who condemn inward feelings in the gross, leave no place either for joy, peace, or love in religion; and consequently reduce it to a dry, dead Cal'CaSS. In the evening, I preached in the new, neat preaching-house, to many more than it would contain. The next evening I was constrained to preach abroad. Friday, 16. I returned to Brecknock; and, after spending two comfortable days there, on Monday, 19, rode to Carmarthen. The rain obliged me to preach within. Tuesday, 20. I rode to Haverfordwest; and, in the evening, preached in St. Martin’s church-yard, to a numerous and deeply-attentive congregation. The next evening I strongly applied the story of Dives and Lazarus; and many were almost persuaded to be Christians. I rode, on Thursday, 22, to Dala, a little village at the mouth of Milford-Haven. It seemed to me that our Preachers had bestowed here much pains to little purpose. The people, one and all, seemed as dead as stones,--perfectly quiet, and perfectly unconcerned. I told them just what I thought. It went as a sword to their hearts. They felt the truth, and wept bitterly. I know not where we have found more of the presence of God. Shall we at last have fruit here also ? Fri. 23.--I preached at noon, to a lovely congregation of plain, artless people, at Houghton; and in the Town-Hall at Pembroke, in the evening, to many rich and elegant hearers. Sunday, 25. At ten I began the Service at St. Daniel’s. The 442 Rev. J. wesLEY’s [Sept. 1771. church, as usual, would ill contain the congregation. In the afternoon I preached in Monk-Town church, (one of the three belonging to Pembroke,) a large, old, ruinous building. I suppose it has scarce had such a congregation in it during this century. Many of them were gay, genteel people: So I spake on the first elements of the Gospel. But I was still out of their depth. O how hard it is to be shallow enough for a polite audience | Mon. 26.--I rode to Llanelly, and at six read Prayers, and preached in another large church, almost as ruinous as that at Pembroke.

But why should he condemn wine toto genere, which is one of the noblest cordials in nature? Yet stranger, why should he condemn bread? Great whims belong to great men. Tues. 10.--I preached at Bath; Wednesday, 11, at Frome; Thursday, 12, at Keynsham. Here, too, the seed, which seemed lost for so many years, at length begins to spring up. After seeing so many instances of this kind, how can we despair of any people? Saturday, 14. I preached abroad at Bedminster. Many horsemen stopped, and had strange things brought to their ears: Perhaps some of whom, we may hear, by and by, were found of Him they sought not. Sun. 15.--At eight I preached on the quay; at five in St. James’s, Barton. Many strangers stopped at both places. Surely this is casting our bread upon the waters! This week I visited the rest of the neighbouring societies, and found them increasing both in grace and number. Thursday, 26. I preached once more at Bath, to an elegant congregation, on, “Knowledge puffeth up.” But, I trust, many of them can witness that “love edifieth ;” builds us up both in holiness and happiness. Mon. 30.--I took leave of Bristol for the present; and, having preached at Pensford and Shepton-Mallet in the way, came to Shaftesbury; and preached to a numerous congre gation, but wonderfully unconcerned. I scarce know a town in England where so much preaching has been to so very little purpose. Tues. OCTOBER 1.--I went on to Salisbury. Wednesday, 2. I preached at Whitchurch; Thursday, 3, at Winchester. I now found time to take a view of the cathedral. Here the sight of that bad Cardinal’s tomb, whom the sculptor has placed in a posture of prayer, brought to my mind those fine lines of Shakspeare, which he put into the mouth of King Henry the Sixth : Lord Cardinal, If thou hast any hope of Heaven's grace, Give us a sign. He dies, and makes no sign. On Thursday and Friday evening I preached at Ports mouth Common. Saturday, 5. I set out at two. About ten some of our London friends met me at Cobham, with 444 REv. J. wesLEY’s [Oct. 1771. whom I took a walk in the neighbouring gardens, inexpress ibly pleasant, through the variety of hills and dales; and the admirable contrivance of the whole.

23.--I went on to Alnwick, and preached in the Town-Hall. What a difference between an English and a Scotch congregation : These judge themselves rather than the Preacher; and their aim is, not only to know, but to love and obey. Mon. 25.--I preached in Morpeth at noon, and in the evening at Newcastle. Wednesday, 27. I went on to Sunderland, and was surprised to find the society smaller than I left it. It is true, many are removed to other places, and many are removed to Abraham’s bosom . But still there must be want of zeal in those that remain, or this loss would have been more than supplied, out of the multitude of serious people who constantly attend the preaching. Sat. 30.--I met a company of the most lively children that I have seen for several years. One of them repeated her hymn with such propriety, that I did not observe one accent misplaced. Fair blossoms ! And if they be duly attended, there may be good fruit ! Sun. 31.--At eight I preached near the Market-place, to an immense congregation. That in Gateshead-Fell, at two, was still more numerous, but more attentive they could not be. About five, I preached in the Castle-garth at Newcastle, to the largest congregation of all, but not the most serious; there being not a few casual or curious hearers among them. Mon. JUNE 1.--I began a little tour through the Dales. About nine, I preached at Kiphill; at one, at Wolsingham. Here we began to trace the revival of the work of God; and here began the horrid mountains we had to climb over. However, before six, we reached Barnard-Castle. I preached at the end of the preaching-house, to a large congregation of established Christians. At five in the morning, the House was near full of persons ripe for the height and depth of the Gospel. 466 REv. J. wesLEY’s [June, 1772. Tuesday, 2. We rode to New Orygan, in Teesdale. The people were deeply attentive; but, I think, not deeply affected. From the top of the next enormous mountain, we had a view of Weardale. It is a lovely prospect.

They have in general married with each other; and that not for the sake of money, but virtue. Hence, having been yoke-fellows in grace before, they more easily bear the yoke of marriage, and assist each other in training up their children; and God has eminently blessed them therein. For in most of their families, the greatest part of the children above ten years old are converted to God. So that to several among them one may say, as St. Paul to Timothy, “The faith which dwelt 468 REv. J. wesley’s [June, 1772. first in thy grandmother, and thy mother, I am persuaded is in thee also.” It was observable too, that their Leaders were upright men, alive to God, and having an uncommon gift in prayer. This was increased by their continual exercise of it. The Preachers were there but once a fortnight. But though they had neither Preacher nor Exhorter, they met every night for singing and prayer. Last summer the work of God revived, and gradually increased till the end of November. Then God began to make bare his arm in an extraordinary manner. Those who were strangers to God felt, as it were, a sword in their bones, constraining them to roar aloud. Those who knew God were filled with joy unspeakable, and were almost equally loud in praise and thanks giving. The convictions that seized the unawakened were generally exceeding deep; so that their cries drowned every other voice, and no other means could be used than the speak ing to the distressed, one by one, and encouraging them to lay hold on Christ. And this has not been in vain. Many that were either on their knees, or prostrate on the ground, have suddenly started up, and their very countenance showed that the Comforter was come. Immediately these began to go about from one to another of them that were still in distress, praising God, and exhorting them without delay to come to so gracious a Saviour. Many, who to that hour appeared quite unconcerned, were thereby cut to the heart, and suddenly filled with such anguish of soul as extorted loud and bitter cries. By such a succession of persons mourning and rejoicing, they have been frequently detained, so that they could not part till ten or eleven at night, nay, sometimes, not till four in the morning.

The Room being far too small, I was desired to preach in the church yard. On the ringing of the bells, I removed thence to the market-house, where we had more than double the congrega tion, the snow-ball gathering all the way we went. Tues. 23.--About cleven I preached at Drifficld. The sun was extremely hot; but I was tolerably screened by a shady tree. In the evening I preached at Beverley, and on Wednesday, 24, in the new House at Hull, extremely well finished, and, upon the whole, one of the prettiest preaching houses in England. The next evening we were crowded enough. Being informed that many Antinomians were present, I preached on, “God sent his own Son,-that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, walking not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Fri. 26.--I went on to York. The next day I read over Mr. Else’s ingenious “Treatise on the Hydrocele.” He supposes the best cure is by a seton or a caustic; but I am not inclined to try either of them. I know a Physician that has a shorter cure than either one or the other. Mon. 29.--I preached, about ten, at Tadcaster, and in the July, 1772.] JOURNAL. 475 evening at Pateley-Bridge. Tuesday, 30. Calling at a little inn on the Moors, I spoke a few words to an old man there, as my wife did to the woman of the house. They both appeared to be deeply affected. Perhaps Providence sent us to this house for the sake of these two poor souls. In the evening I preached in the new House at Otley, as neat as that at Hull; and the people appeared to be much alive; so that I was greatly comforted among them. Sat. JULY 4.--I rode to the Ewood, to S. Lockwood’s, formerly the wife of young Mr. Grimshaw, afterward married to Mr. Lockwood, and now again a young widow. Her sister was with her, the relict of Mr. Sutcliffe, whose case was very uncommon. He had for some time used the cold bath for a nervous disorder, and was advised to try the warm. Imme diately he was seized with racking pains all over, and in two hours expired.

Gre gory’s “Advice to his Daughters.” Although I cannot agree with him in all things; (particularly as to dancing, decent pride, and both a reserve and a delicacy which I think are quite unnatural;) yet I allow there are many fine strokes therein, and abundance of common sense: And if a young woman followed this plan in little things, in such things as daily occur, and in great things copied after Miranda, she would form an accomplished character. Fri. 20.-I rode over to Mr. Fraser's, at Monedie, whose mother-in-law was to be buried that day. O what a difference is there between the English and the Scotch method of burial The English does honour to human nature; and even to the poor remains, that were once a temple of the Holy Ghost ! But when I see in Scotland a coffin put into the earth, and covered up with out a word spoken, it reminds me of what was spoken concern ing Jehoiakim, “He shall be buried with the burial of an ass!” Sat. 21.--I returned to Perth, and preached in the evening to a large congregation. But I could not find the way to their hearts. The generality of the people here are so wise that they need no more knowledge, and so good that they need no more religion | Who can warn them that are brim ful of wisdom and goodness, to flee from the wrath to come. Se:... 22.--I endeavoured to stir up this drowsy people, by speaking as strongly as I could, at five, on, “Awake, thou that sleepest;” at seven, on, “Where their worm dieth not;” and in the evening, on, “I saw the dead, small and great, stand before May, 1774.] JOURNAL. 15 God.” In the afternoon a young gentleman, in the west kirk, preached such a close, practical sermon, on, “Enoch walked with God,” as I have not heard since I came into the kingdom. Mon. 23.--About ten, I preached to a considerable number of plain, serious, country-people, at Rait, a little town in the middle of that lovely valley, called the Carse of Gowry. In riding on to Dundee, I was utterly amazed at reading and con sidering a tract put into my hands, which gave a fuller account than I had ever seen of the famous Gowry conspiracy in 1600. And I was throughly convinced,--l.

6.--I walked from Newport to Berkeley-Castle. It is a beautiful, though very ancient, building; and every part of it kept in good repair, except the lumber-room and the chapel; the latter of which, having been of no use for many years, is now dirty enough. I particularly admired the fine situation, and the garden on the top of the house. In one corner of the castle is the room where poor Richard II. was murdered. His effigy is still preserved, said to be taken before his death. If he was like this, he had an open, manly countenance, though with a cast of melancholy. In the afternoon we went on to Bristol. The Conference, begun and ended in love, fully employed me on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday; and we observed Friday, 12, as a day of fasting and prayer for the success of the Gospel. Mon. 15.-I set out for Wales, but did not reach Cardiff till near eight o'clock. As the congregation was waiting in the Town-Hall, I went thither without delay; and many, I believe, did not regret the time they had waited there. Tues. 16.--I preached, about noon, in the great hall at 26 Rev. J. Wesley’s [Aug. 1774. Llandaff, on, “It is appointed unto men once to die.” Strange doctrine, and not very welcome to the inhabitants of palaces ! Wed. 17.--At eleven I preached in the Town-Hall, at Cow bridge: The neatest place of the kind I have ever seen. Not only the floor, the walls, the ceiling, are kept exactly clean, but every pane of glass in the windows. Hence I hasted on to Swansea, and at seven preached in the Castle to a large congregation. The next morning I went on to Llanelly; but what a change was there! Sir Thomas Stepney, the father of the poor, was dead: Cut down in the strength of his years' So the family was broke up, and Wilfred Colley, his butler, the father of the society, obliged to remove. Soon after, John Deer, who was next in usefulness to him, was taken into Abraham's bosom. But just then Col. St. Leger, in the neigh bourhood, sent to Galway for Lieutenant Cook to come and put his house into repair, and manage his estate. So another is brought, just in time to supply the place of Wilfred Colley.

Wed. 20.--I preached at Luton; the next evening, at Hertford; and on Friday morning, returned to London. This day we observed as a day of fasting and prayer, and were much persuaded God will yet be entreated. Thur. 21.--I revised a volume of Latin Poems, wrote by a gentleman of Denmark. I was surprised. Most of the verses are not unworthy of the Augustan age. Among the rest, there is a translation of two of Mr. Pope’s Epistles, line for line. And yet, in language, not only as pure as Virgil’s, but as elegant too. Tues. JANUARY 2, 1776.-Being pressed to pay a visit to our brethren at Bristol, some of whom had been a little un settled by the patriots, so called, I set out early; but the roads were so heavy, that I could not get thither till night. I came just time enough, not to see, but to bury, poor Mr. Hall, my brother-in-law, who died on Wednesday morning; I trust, in peace; for God had given him deep repentance. Such another monument of divine mercy, considering how low he had fallen, and from what height of holiness, I have not seen, no, not in seventy years l I had designed to visit him in the morning; but he did not stay for my coming. It is enough, if, after all his wanderings, we meet again in Abraham's bosom. JANUARY 1, 1776.--About eighteen hundred of us met together in London, in order to renew our covenant with God; and it was, as usual, a very solemn opportunity. Tues. 2.-I set out for Bristol. Between London and Bristol, I read over that elegant trifle, “The Correspondence between Theodosius and Constantia.” I observed only one sentiment which I could not receive, that “youth is the only possible time for friendship; because every one has at first a natural store of sincerity and benevolence; but as in process of time men find every one to be false and self-interested, they conform to them more and more, till, in riper years, they have neither truth nor benevolence left.” Perhaps it may be so with all that know not God; but they that do, escape “the corruption that is in the world;” and increase both in sincerity and in benevolence, as they grow in the knowledge of Christ. Sat.

I began a journey through some of our societies, to desire their assistance towards the expense of the new chapel. I preached at Birmingham on Monday, 7; in Congleton, on Tuesday; and on Wednesday went on to Macclesfield. The new church here is far the most elegant that I have seen in the kingdom. Mr. Simpson read Prayers, and I preached on the first verse of the Second Lesson, Heb. xi. And I believe many felt their want of the faith there spoken of. The next evening I preached on Heb. xii. 14: “Without holiness no man shall see the Lord.” I was enabled to make a close application, chiefly to those that expected to be saved by faith. I hope none of them will hereafter dream of going to heaven by any faith which does not produce holiness. Fri. 11.--I preached at Stockport about ten, and at Man chester in the evening. Monday, 14. I preached about noon at Warrington, and in the evening at Liverpool; where many large ships are now laid up in the docks, which had been 96 REv. J. wesley’s [May, 1777. employed for many years in buying or stealing poor Africans, and selling them in America for slaves. The men-butchers have now nothing to do at this laudable occupation. Since the American war broke out, there is no demand for human cattle. So the men of Africa, as well as Europe, may enjoy their native liberty. Wed. 16.--About noon I preached at Wigan; in the even ing, at the new House in Bolton, crowded within and without, on the “wise man” who “built his house upon a rock.” Many here are following his example, and continually increasing both in the knowledge and love of God. Thur. 17.--I called upon Mr. Barker, at Little-Leigh, just tottering over the great gulf. Being straitened for time, I rode from thence to Chester. I had not for some years rode so far on horseback, but it did me no hurt. After preaching, I took chaise, and came to Middlewich, a little before the Liverpool coach, in which I went on to London. I have now finished Dr. Gell’s “Essay toward an Amend ment of the last Translation of the Bible.” This part only takes in the Pentateuch; but many other texts are occasion ally explained.

At six I preached near the Castle, I believe, to all the inhabitants of the town. Two or three gay young women showed they knew nothing about religion; all the rest were deeply serious. Afterwards I spent an hour very agreeably at Mrs. Wood's, the widow of 100 REv. J. WESLEY’s [June, 1777. the late Governor. I was much pressed to stay a little longer at Castletown; but my time was fixed. Sun. JUNE 1.-At six I preached in our own Room; and, to my surprise, saw all the gentlewomen there. Young as well as old were now deeply affected, and would fain have had me stayed, were it but an hour or two; but I was forced to hasten away, in order to be at Peeltown before the Service began. Mr. Corbett said, he would gladly have asked me to preach, but that the Bishop had forbidden him; who had also forbidden all his Clergy to admit any Methodist Preacher to the Lord’s Supper. But is any Clergyman obliged, either in law or con science, to obey such a prohibition? By no means. The will even of the King does not bind any English subject, unless it be seconded by an express law. How much less the will of a Bishop “But did not you take an oath to obey him?” No, nor any Clergyman in the three kingdoms. This is a mere vulgar error. Shame that it should prevail almost universally. As it rained, I retired after Service into a large malt house. Most of the congregation followed, and devoured the word. It being fair in the afternoon, the whole congrega tion stopped in the church-yard; and the word of God was with power. It was a happy opportunity. Mon. 2.-The greater part of them were present at five in the morning. A more loving, simple-hearted people than this I never saw. And no wonder; for they have but six Papists, and no Dissenters, in the island. It is supposed to contain near thirty thousand people, remarkably courteous and humane. Ever since smuggling was suppressed, they diligently cultivate their land : And they have a large herring fishery, so that the country improves daily. The old Castle at Peel (as well as the cathedral built within it) is only a heap of ruins.

Mon. 6.--Atten I met the contending parties; the Preachers on one hand, and the excluded members on the other: I heard them at large, and they pleaded their several causes with earnestness and calmness too. But four hours were too short to hear the whole cause; so we adjourned to the next day: Meantime, in order to judge in what state the society really was, I examined them myself; meeting part of them to-day, and the rest on Tuesday and Wednesday. Four-and-thirty persons, I found, had been Lut out of, or left, the society: But, notwithstanding, as there were last quarter four hundred and fifty-eight members, so there are just four hundred and fifty eight still. At the desire of the members lately excluded, I now drew up the short state of the case; but I could in no wise pacify them : They were all civil, nay, it seemed, affec tionate to me; but they could never forgive the Preachers that had expelled them : So that I could not desire them to return into the society; they could only remain friends at a distance. Thur. 9.--I was desired by some of our friends to clear up the point of Imputed Righteousness: I did so, by preaching on, “Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.” In opening these words, I showed what that faith was, which was imputed to him for righteousness, Oct. 1777.j JOURNAL. 11] viz., faith in God’s promise to give him the land of Canaan faith in the promise that Sarah should conceive a son; and the faith whereby he offered up Isaac on the altar. But Christ is not in any of these instances the direct or immediate object of Abraham's faith; whereas he is the direct, immediate object of that faith which is imputed to us for righteousness. Sat. 11.--I visited many, sick and well, and endeavoured to confirm them in their love towards each other. I was more and more convinced that God had sent me at this time to heal the breach of his people. Sun. 12.--We had a lovely congregation in the morning, to whom I closely applied St.

The house is neat and handsome, but not magnificent; and is elegantly, but not splen didly, furnished. The domain is beautifully laid out in meadow ground, sprinkled with trees; on one side of which is a long hill covered with a shrubbery, cut into serpentine walks. On each side of the shrubbery is a straight walk, commanding a beautiful prospect. Since this Primate came, the town wears another face: He has repaired and beautified the cathedral, built a row of meat houses for the Choral-Vicars, erected a public Library and an Infirmary, procured the Free-School to be rebuilt of the size of a little College, and a new-built horse-barrack, together 180 REv. J. wesley’s [June, 1778. with a considerable number of convenient and handsome houses; so that Armagh is at length rising out of its ruins into a large and populous city. So much good may any man of a large fortune do, if he lays it out to the best advantage 1 Tues. 23.--I went on to Tanderagee, one of the pleasantest towns in Ireland. As it was a fair, calm evening, I had designed to preach in the avenue to the Castle; but being desired to preach in the court-yard, I took my place under a tall spreading tree, in the midst of a numerous congregation, who were still as night. There could not be devised a more pleasing scene: The clear sky, the setting sun, the surround ing woods, the plain, unaffected people, were just suitable to the subject, “My yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” Wed. 24.--For exactly two months, we have had only two days without rain. In the evening I preached in the same lovely place. I dined, supped, and lodged at Dr. Lesley's, the Rector; a well-bred, sensible, and I believe a pious man. We had family prayers before supper, which he read with admirable propriety and devotion; and I know not that I have spent a more agreeable evening since I came into the kingdom. Thur. 25.-I walked round Dr. Lesley’s domain : A plea santer spot I never saw. It lies on the top of a fruitful hill, at a small distance from the town; and commands the whole view of a lovely country, east, west, north, and south; and it is laid out with the finest taste imaginable.

J. wesley’s [Aug. 1778. but I was shocked at the stupidity and ill-breeding of several Officers, who kept walking and talking together all the time with the most perfect unconcern. We had no such Gallios in the evening at the Dock, though the congregation was four times as large. Surely this is an understanding people: May their love be equal to their knowledge | Mon. 24.--In the way to Medros, Mr. Furz gave me a strange relation, which was afterwards confirmed by eye and ear witnesses:-In July, 1748, Martin Hoskins, of Sithney, being in a violent passion, was struck raving mad, and obliged to be chained down to the floor. Charles Sk Went to See him. He cried out, “Who art thou? Hast thou faith? No; thou art afraid.” Charles felt an inexpressible shock, and was raving mad himself. He continued so for several days, till some agreed to keep a day of fasting and prayer. His lunacy then ended as suddenly as it began. But what was peculiarly remarkable was, while he was ill, Martin was quite well: As soon as he was well, Martin was as ill as ever. Thence I went on to Redruth, Helstone, and Penzance. On Thursday, 27, in the evening I preached in the market place, at St. Just. Very few of our old society are now left : The far greater part of them are in Abraham's bosom. But the new generation are of the same spirit; serious, earnest, devoted to God; and particularly remarkable for simplicity and Christian sincerity. Fri. 28.--The Stewards of the societies met at St. Ives, a company of pious, sensible men. I rejoiced to find that peace and love prevailed through the whole Circuit. Those who styled themselves My Lady’s Preachers, who screamed, and railed, and threatened to swallow us up, are vanished away. I cannot learn that they have made one convert; a plain proof that God did not send them. One was mentioning to-day a wonderful oration, which Mr. Rowland H. had lately made. I thought Mr. Toplady had not left behind him his fellow ; but see l-- --Primo avulso, non deficit alter Aureus, et simili frondescit virga metallo." Sat. 29.--I found the venerable old man at Cubert pale, * The following is Dryden's translation of these lines :- The first thus rent, a second will arise: And the same metal the same room supplies.--EDIT.

And if so, they will surely increase. At two in the afternoon I preached at Walsingham, a place famous for many generations. Afterwards I walked over what is left of the famous Abbey, the east end of which is still standing. We then went to the Friary; the cloisters and chapel whereof are almost entire. Had there been a grain of virtue or public spirit in Henry the Eighth, these noble buildings need not have run to ruin.-* Wed. 31.-I went to Lynn, and preached in the evening to a very genteel congregation. I spoke more strongly than I am accustomed to do, and hope they were not all sermon-proof. Friday, NoveMBER 2. I returned to London. Mon. 5.--I began visiting the classes, and found a consider able increase in the society. This I impute chiefly to a small company of young persons, who have kept a prayer-meeting at five every morning. In the following week I visited most of the country societies, and found them increasing rather than decreasing. Sunday, 18. I preached at St. John’s, Wapping; and God was present both to wound and heal. Monday, 19. Travelling all night, I breakfasted at Towcester, and preached there in the evening and the following morning. Tuesday, 20. We had a pleasant walk to Whittlebury. This is still the loveliest congregation, as well as the liveliest society, in the Circuit. Thursday, 22. We had a large congregation at Northampton. On Friday I returned to London. Mon. 26.--I took a little tour through Sussex; and Wednes day, 28, I preached at Tunbridge-Wells, in the large Presby terian meeting-house, to a well-dressed audience, and yet deeply serious. On Thursday I preached at Sevenoaks. Friday, 30. I went on to Shoreham, to see the venerable old man. He is in his eighty-ninth year, and has nearly lost his sight: But he has not lost his understanding, nor even his memory; and is full of faith and love. On Saturday I returned to London. Sunday, DEcEMBER 2-I preached at St. Swithin's church 220 REv. J. Wesley’s [Jan. 1782. in the even, ng. About eight I took coach, and reached St. Neot’s in the morning. I preached in the evening to a larger congregation than I ever saw there before. Tuesday, 4. About nine I preached for the first time at Bugden, and in the evening at Huntingdon. Wednesday, 5. I was at Bedford.

A--’s, in the Maze-pond, Southwark; but both Mr. A-- and his wife informed me they were determined to quit the house as soon as possible, by reason of strange noises, which they heard day and night, but in the night chiefly, as if all the tables and chairs had been thrown up and down, in the rooms above and under them. Sun. 2.-Mr. Maxfield continuing ill, I preached this after noon at his chapel. Prejudice seems now dying away : God grant it may never revive Tuesday, 11. I buried the remains of Sarah Clay, many years a mother in Israel; the last of those holy women, who, being filled with love, forty years ago devoted themselves wholly to God, to spend and be spent in his service. Feb. 1783.] J()URNAL. 243 Her death was like her life, calm and easy. She was dress ing herself when she dropped down and fell asleep. Mon. 17.--I had an opportunity of attending the Lecture of that excellent man, Dr. Conyers. He was quite an ori ginal; his matter was very good, his manner very bad; but it is enough that God owned him, both in the conviction and conversion of sinners. Thur. 20.--I went to Dorking; and in the afternoon took a walk through the lovely gardens of Lord Grimstone. His father-in-law, who laid them out, is some time since num bered with the dead; and his son-in-law, living elsewhere, has not so much as the beholding them with his eyes! Fri. 21.-At our yearly meeting for that purpose, we exa mined our yearly accounts, and found the money received (just answering the expense) was upwards of three thousand pounds a year; but that is nothing to me: What I receive of it yearly, is neither more nor less than thirty pounds. To-day Charles Greenwood went to rest. He had been a melancholy man all his days, full of doubts and fears, and con tinually writing bitter things against himself.

Thursday, 4. Preaching at Tadcaster in the way, in the evening I preached at York. Sunday, 7. In the morning I preached at St. May, 1786.] JOURNAL. 331 Saviour's church, thoroughly filled with serious hearers; and in the afternoon at St. Margaret's, which was over-filled ; many being constrained to go away. We had a love-feast in the evening, at which many artlessly testified what God had done for their souls. I have not for many years known this society in so prosperous a condition. This is undoubtedly owing, first, to the exact discipline which has for some time been observed among them; and, next, to the strongly and continually exhorting the believers to “go on unto perfection.” Mon. 8.-I preached about one in the new House at Easing wold, and in the evening at Thirsk. Tuesday, 9. Iwent on to Richmond. I alighted, according to his own desire, at Arch deacon Blackburne's house. How lively and active was he some years ago! I find he is two years younger than me; but he is now a mere old man, being both blind, and deaf, and lame. Who maketh thee to differ? He durst not ask me to preach in his church, “for fear somebody should be offended.” So I preached at the head of the street, to a numerous congregation; all of whom stood as still, (although it rained all the time,) and behaved as well, as if we had been in the church. Wed. 10.--I rode through a lovely country to Barnard Castle, and found much life in the congregation. Thursday, 11. About noon we came to Appleby, the county-town of Cumber land. A very large room being provided, I preached with much liberty, and then cheerfully went on to Penrith. In my way hither, I looked over Lord Bacon’s “Ten Centuries of Experiments.” Many of them are extremely curious; and many may be highly useful. Afterwards I read Dr. Anderson’s “Account of the Hebrides.” How accurate and sensible a writer | But how clearly does he show that, through the ill-judged salt [duty], the herring-fishery there, which might be of great advantage, is so effectually destroyed, that the King's revenue therefrom is annihilated; yea, that it generally, at least frequently, turns out some thousand pounds worse than nothing ! Fri. 12.--I preached at Carlisle; and Saturday, 13, after a long day's journey, at Glasgow.

1788.] J() URNAL. 433 course of years, out of necessity, not choice, slowly and warily varied in some points of discipline, by preaching in the fields, by extemporary prayer, by employing Lay Preachers, by form ing and regulating societies, and by holding yearly Confer ences. But we did none of these things till we were convinced we could no longer omit them, but at the peril of our souls. Wed, 6.-Our Conference ended, as it began, in great peace. We kept this day as a fast, meeting at five, nine, and one, for prayer; and concluding the day with a solemn watch-night. The three following days I retired, revised my papers, and finished all the work I had to do in London. Sunday, 10. I was engaged in a very unpleasing work, the discharge of an old servant. She had been my housekeeper at West-Street for many years, and was one of the best housekeepers I had had there ; but her husband was so motorious a drunkard, that I could not keep them in the house any longer. She received her dismission in an excellent spirit, praying God to bless us all. I preached in the morning at West-Street to a large congre gation; but to a far larger at the new chapel in the evening. It seems the people in general do not expect that I shall remain among them a great while after my brother; and that, therefore, they are willing to hear while they can. In the evening we set out in the mail-coach, and early in the morning got to Portsmouth. They have lately built a neat preaching-house in the town, something larger than that at Deptford. It is well situated near the midst of the town, and has three well-constructed galleries. I preached at noon to a large and well-behaved audience, and to a much larger in the evening. I believe the word took place in many souls. All went away still as night. Tues. 12.--Joseph Bradford preached at five in the morning. I preached in the new House about six in the evening, and guarded them against that deadly Antinomianism which has so often choked the good seed here. In the evening I preached at our House on the common. Afterwards, meeting the society, I took a solemn leave of them, which I hope they will remember if they see me no more.

The Dean preached a serious, useful sermon; and we had such a company of communicants as, I suppose, had scarce been seen there together for above a hundred years. Our House would not contain them that came in the evening; many of whom being little awakened, I preached on, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” On Monday and Tuesday we settled the rest of our business; and on Wed nesday morning we parted in the same love that we met. I had much satisfaction in this Conference; in which, convers ing with between forty and fifty Travelling Preachers, I found such a body of men as I hardly believed could have been found together in Ireland; men of so sound experience, so deep piety, and so strong understanding. I am convinced, they are no way inferior to the English Conference, except it be in number. Friday, 10, we observed as a day of fasting and prayer, chiefly for the increase of the work of God. This was con cluded with a very solemn watch-night, wherein the hearts of many were greatly comforted. Sun. 12.-At seven I preached in Marlborough-Street, where (though it rained all the morning) we had a full congregation of July, 1789.] JOURNAL. 465 serious people. We met at the new Room at half-hour past nine; and truly God was with us. We had never so many communi cants before; but as my day, so was my strength. About two we left Dublin, and hastened down to the ship; the Princess Royal, of Parkgate; the neatest and most elegant packet I ever saw. But the wind failing, we did not get out of the bay till about twelve. We had exceeding agreeable company; and I slept as well as if I had been in my own bed. Monday, 13. The sea being smooth, I shut myself up in my chaise, and read over the life of the famous Mr. George F , one of the most extraordinary men (if we may call him a man) that has lived for many centuries. I never heard before of so cool, delibe rate, relentless a murderer And yet from the breaking of the rope at his execution, which gave him two hours of vehe ment prayer, there is room to hope he found mercy at last.

But the Conference shall and may dispense with or consent to the absence of any member from any of the said yearly assemblies for any cause which the Conference may see fit or necessary; and such member, whose absence shall be so dispensed with or consented to by the Conference, shall not by such absence cease to be a member thereof. Eighth, The Conference shall and may expel and put out o: from being a member thereof, or from being in connexion therewith, or from being upon trial, any person, member of the Conference, or admitted into connexion, or upon trial, for any cause which to the Conference may seem fit or necessary; and every member of the Conference so expelled and put out, shall cease to be a member thereof, to all intents and purposes, as though he was naturally dead. And the Conference, immediately after the expulsion of any member thereof as aforesaid, shall elect another person to be a member of the Conference, in the stead of such member so expelled. Ninth, The Conference shall and may admit into connexion with them, or upon trial, any person or persons whom they shall approve, to be Preachers and Expounders of God’s Holy Word, under the care and direction of the Confer ence; the name of every such person or persons so admitted into connexion or upon trial as aforesaid, with the time and degrees of the admission, being entered in the Journals or Minutes of the Conference.- Tenth, No person shall be elected a member of the Confer ence, who hath not been admitted into connexion with the Conference, as a Preacher and Expounder of God’s Holy Word, as aforesaid, for twelve months. Eleventh, The Conference shall not, nor may, nominate or appoint any person to the use and enjoyment of, or to preach and expound God’s Holy Word in, any of the chapels and premises so given or conveyed, or which may be given or conveyed upon the trusts aforesaid, who is not either a member of the Conference, or admitted into connexion with the same, or upon trial as aforesaid; mor appoint any person for more than three years successively, to the use and enjoyment of any chapel and premises already given, or to be given or conveyed, upon the trusts aforesaid, except ordained Ministers of the Church of England.

18. If you desire to read the scripture in such a manner as may most effectually answer this end, would it not be advisable, 1. To set apart a little time, if you can, every morning and evening for that purpose 2. At each time if you have leisure, to read a chapter out of the Old, and one out of the New Testament: is you cannot do this, to take a single chapter, or a part of one 3. To read this with a single eye, to know the whole will of God, and a fixt resolution to do it In order to know his will, you should, 4. Have a constant eye to the analogy of faith; the connexion and harmony there is between those grand, fundamental doctrines, Original Sin, Justification by Faith, the New Birth, Inward and Outward Holiness. 5. Serious and earnest prayer should be constantly used, before we consult the oracles of God, seeing "scripture can only be understood thro' the same Spirit whereby "it was given." Our reading should likewise be closed with prayer, that what we read may be written on our hearts. 6. It might also be of use, if while we read, we were frequently to pause, and examine ourselves by what we read, both with regard to our hearts, and lives. This would furnish us with matter of praise, where we found God had enabled us to conform to his blessed will, and matter of humiliation and prayer, where we were conscious of having fallen short. And whatever light you then receive, should be used to the uttermost, and that immediately. Let there be no delay. Whatever you resolve, begin to execute the first moment you can. So shall you find this word to be indeed the power of God unto present and eternal salvation. April 25, 1765.

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. - Genesis is a name borrowed from the Greek: it signifies the original or generation: fitly is this book so called, for it is a history of originals; the creation of the world, the entrance of sin and death into it, the invention of arts, the rise of nations, and especially the planting of the church, and the state of it in its early days. 'Tis also a history of generations, the generations of Adam, Noah, Abraham, &c. - The beginning of the New Testament is called Genesis too, Matt 1:1, the book of the Genesis, or generation of Jesus Christ. Lord, open our eyes, that we may see the wondrous things both of thy law and gospel!

We have here, (1.) The settlement of the kingdom of nature, in God's resting from the work of creation, Ge 2:1,2. Where observe, 1. That the creatures made both in heaven and earth, are the hosts or armies of them, which speaks them numerous, but marshalled, disciplined, and under command. God useth them as his hosts for the defence of his people, and the destruction of his enemies. 2. That the heavens and the earth are finished pieces, and so are all the creatures in them. So perfect is God's work that nothing can be added to it or taken from it, Eccl 3:14. 3. That after the end of the first six days, God ceased from all work of creation. He hath so ended his work, as that though in his providence he worketh hitherto, John 5:17. preserving and governing all the creatures, yet he doth not make any new species of creatures. 4. That the eternal God, tho' infinitely happy in himself, yet took a satisfaction in the work of his own hands. He did not rest as one weary, but as one well - pleased with the instances of his own goodness. (2.) The commencement of the kingdom of grace, in the sanctification of the sabbath day, Ge 2:3. He rested on that day, and took a complacency in his creatures, and then sanctified it, and appointed us on that day to rest and take a complacency in the Creator; and his rest is in the fourth commandment made a reason for ours after six days labour. Observe, 1. That the solemn observation of one day in seven as a day of holy rest, and holy work, is the indispensible duty of all those to whom God has revealed his holy sabbaths. 2. That sabbaths are as ancient as the world. 3. That the sabbath of the Lord is truly honourable, and we have reason to honour it; honour it for the sake of its antiquity, its great author, and the sanctification of the first sabbath by the holy God himself, and in obedience to him, by our first parents in innocency. See note at "Ge 2:1 See note at "Ge 2:1 4, 5, 6, 7

What is this that thou hast done - What an ill thing; how unbecoming a wife and good man! Why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife - Intimating, that if he had known that, he would not have taken her. It is a fault, too common among good people, to entertain suspicions of others beyond what there is cause for. We have often found more of virtue, honour, and conscience in some people, than we thought there was; and it ought to be a pleasure to us to be thus disappointed, as Abram was here, who found Pharaoh to be a better man than he expected. And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him - That is, he charged them not to injure him in any thing. And he appointed them, when Abram was disposed to return home, after the famine, to conduct him safe out of the country, as his convoy.

That nation whom they shall serve, even the Egyptians, will I judge - This points at the plagues of Egypt, by which God not only constrained the Egyptians to release Israel, but punished them for all the hardships they had put upon them. The punishing of persecutors is the judging of them; it is a righteous thing with God, and a particular act of justice, to recompense tribulation to those that trouble his people. 3. The deliverance of Abram's seed out of Egypt. And afterwards shall they come out with great substance - Either after they have been afflicted 400 years, or, after the Egyptians are judged and plagued. Thou shalt go to thy fathers - At death we go to our fathers, to all our fathers that are gone before us to the state of the dead, to our godly fathers that are gone before us to the state of the blessed. The former helps to take off the terror of death, the latter puts comfort into it. Thou shalt be buried in a good old age - Perhaps mention is made of his burial here, where the land of Canaan is promised him, because a burying - place was the first possession he had in it. Old age is a blessing, if it be a good old age: theirs may be called a good old age, That are old and healthful, not loaded with such distempers as make them weary of life: That are old and holy, whose hoary head is found in the way of righteousness, old and useful, old and exemplary for godliness, that is indeed a good old age. They shall come hither again - Hither to the land of Canaan, wherein thou now art. The reason why they must not have the land of promise in possession till the fourth generation, is because the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full. The righteous God has determined, that they shall not be cut off till they are arrived to such a pitch of wickedness; and therefore till it come to that, the seed of Abram must be kept out of possession. When the sun was gone down the sign was given - The smoaking furnace signified the affliction of his seed in Egypt: they were there in the furnace of affliction, and labouring in the very fire.

And when Sarai dealt hardly with her - Making her to serve with rigour; she fled from her face - She not only avoided her wrath for the present, but totally deserted her service. Here is the first mention we have in scripture of an angel's appearance, who arrested her in her flight. It should seem she was making towards her own country, for she was in the way to Shur, which lay towards Egypt. 'Twere well if our afflictions would make us think of our home, the better county. But Hagar was now out of the way of her duty, and going farther astray, when the angel found her. It is a great mercy to be stopt in a sinful way, either by conscience or providence. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid - As a check to her pride. Though she was Abram's wife, yet he calls her Sarai's maid to humble her. As a rebuke to her flight. Sarai's maid ought to be in Sarai's tent, and not wandering in the wilderness. Whence comest thou - Consider that thou art running away both from the duty thou wast bound to, and the privileges thou wast blest with, in Abram's tent. And Whither wilt thou go - Thou art running thyself into sin in Egypt; if she return to that people, she will return to their gods. And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress - She acknowledges her fault in fleeing from her mistress; and yet, excuses it, that it was from the face, or displeasure, of her mistress. And the angel said, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hand - Go home and humble thyself for what thou hast done amiss, and resolve for the future to behave thyself better. I will multiply thy seed exceedingly - Heb. multiplying I will multiply it, that is, multiply it in every age, so as to perpetuate it. 'Tis supposed that the Turks at this day descended from Ishmael, and they are a great people. Ishmael, that is, God will hear; and the reason is, because the Lord hath heard: he hath, and therefore he will. The experience we have had of God's seasonable kindness in distress should encourage us to hope for the like help in the like exigencies.

He went out to meditate (or pray) in the field at the even tide - Some think he expected his servants about this time, and went out on purpose to meet them. But it should seem he went out to take the advantage of a silent evening, and a solitary field, for mediation and prayer. Our walks in the field are then truly pleasant, when in them we apply ourselves to meditation and prayer we there have a free and open prospect of the heavens above us, and the earth around us, and the hosts and riches of both, by the view of which we should he led to the contemplation of the Maker and Owner of all. Merciful providences are then doubly comfortable, when they find us in the way of our duty: some think Isaac was now praying for good success in this affair, and meditating upon that which was proper to encourage his hope in God concerning it; and now when he sets himself, as it were, upon his watch - tower, to see what God would answer him, he sees the camels coming. She lighted off her camel, and took a vail and covered herself - In token of humility, modesty and subjection.

The more we see of God, the more cause we see for holy trembling and blushing before him. Those whom God is pleased to manifest himself to, are laid and kept very low in their own eyes, and see cause to fear even the Lord and his goodness, Hos 3:5. And said, How dreadful is this place! - That is, the appearance of God in this place is to be thought of, but with a holy awe and reverence; I shall have a respect for this place, and remember it by this token as long as I live. Not that he thought the place itself any nearer the divine visions than any other places; but what he saw there at this time was, as it were, the house of God, the residence of the Divine Majesty, and the gate of heaven, that is, the general rendezvous of the inhabitants of the upper world; as the meetings of a city were in their gates; or, the angels ascending and descending were like travellers passing and repassing through the gates of a city. He set up the stone for a pillar - To mark the place again, if he came back, and erect a lasting monument of God's favour to him: and because he had not time now to build an altar here, as Abraham did in the places where God appeared to him, Gen 12:7, he therefore poured oil on the top of this stone, which probably was the ceremony then used in dedicating their altars, as an earnest of his building an altar when he should have conveniencies for it, as afterwards he did, in gratitude to God, Ge 35:7. Grants of mercy call for our returns of duty and the sweet communion we have with God ought ever to be remembered. It had been called Luz, an almond - tree, but he will have it henceforth called Beth - el, the house of God. This gracious appearance of God to him made it more remarkable than all the almond - trees that flourished there. And Jacob vowed a vow - By religious vows we give glory to God, and own our dependance upon him, and we lay a bond upon our own souls, to engage and quicken our obedience to him.

Those are best prepared for the greatest mercies that see themselves unworthy of the least. For with my staff I passed over this Jordan - Poor and desolate, like a forlorn and despised pilgrim: He had no guides, no companions, no attendants. And now I am become two bands - Now I am surrounded with a numerous retinue of children and servants. Those whose latter end doth greatly increase, ought with humility and thankfulness to remember how small their beginning was. Lord, deliver me from Esau, for I fear him - The fear that quickens prayer is itself pleadable. It was not a robber, but a murderer that he was afraid of: nor was it his own life only that lay at stake, but the mothers, and the childrens. Thou saidst, I will surely do thee good - The best we can say to God in prayer is, what he hath said to us. God's promises as they are the surest guide of our desires in prayer, and furnish us with the best petitions, so they are the firmest ground of our hopes, and furnish us with the best pleas. Thou saidst, I will do thee good - Lord, do me good in this matter. He pleads also a particular promise, that of the multiplying of his seed. Lord, what will become of that promise, if they be all cut off Jacob having piously made God his friend by a prayer, is here prudently endeavouring to make Esau his friend by a present. He had prayed to God to deliver him from the hand of Esau - His prayer did not make him presume upon God's mercy, without the use of means. He sent him also a very humble message, which he ordered his servants to deliver in the best manner. They must call Esau their lord, and Jacob his servant: they must tell him the cattle they had was a small present which Jacob had sent him. They must especially take care to tell him that Jacob was coming after, that he might not suspect him fled. A friendly confidence in mens goodness may help to prevent the mischief designed us by their badness. Very early in the morning, a great while before day.

Very early in the morning, a great while before day. Jacob had helped his wives and children over the river, and he desired to be private, and was left alone, that he might again spread his cares and fears before God in prayer. While Jacob was earnest in prayer, stirring up himself to take hold on God, an angel takes hold on him. Some think this was a created angel, one of those that always behold the face of our Father. Rather it was the angel of the covenant, who often appeared in a human shape, before he assumed the human nature. We are told by the prophet, Hos 12:4, how Jacob wrestled, he wept and made supplication; prayers and tears were his weapons. It was not only a corporal, but a spiritual wrestling by vigorous faith and holy desire. The angel prevailed not against him - That is, this discouragement did not shake his faith, nor silence his prayer. It was not in his own strength that he wrestled, nor by his own strength that he prevails; but by strength derived from heaven. That of Job illustrates this, Job 23:6. Will he plead against me with his great power No; had the angel done so, Jacob had been crushed; but he would put strength in me: and by that strength Jacob had power over the angel, Hos 12:3. The angel put out Jacob's thigh, to shew him what he could do, and that it was God he was wrestling with, for no man could disjoint his thigh with a touch. Some think that Jacob felt little or no pain from this hurt; it is probable be did not, for he did not so much as halt 'till the struggle was over, Ge 32:31, and if so, that was an evidence of a divine touch indeed, which wounded and healed at the same time. Let me go - The angel, by an admirable condescension, speaks Jacob fair to let him go, as God said to Moses, Exo 32:10. Let me alone. Could not a mighty angel get clear of Jacob's grapples He could; but thus he would put an honour upon Jacob's faith and prayer.

Hither he came, and sat down by a well; tired and thoughtful, waiting to see which way Providence would direct him. It was a great change with him, since he was but the other day at ease in Pharaoh's court. Stood up and helped them - This be did, because wherever he was, as occasion offered itself, he loved to be doing justice, and appearing in the defence of such as he saw injured. He loved to be doing good: wherever the Providence of God call us, we should desire and endeavour to be useful; and when we cannot do the good we would, we must be ready to do the good we can. Reul or Raguel (see <cite>Num 10:29</cite>,) seems to have been their grandfather and father of Hobab or Jethro, their immediate father. Gershom - That is, A stranger there. Now this settlement of Moses in Midian was designed by Providence. To shelter him for the present; God will find hiding places for his people in the day of their distress. It was also designed to prepare him for the services he was farther designed to. His manner of life in Midian, where he kept the flock of his father - in - law would be of use to him, to inure him to hardship and poverty; and to inure him to contemplation and devotion. Egypt accomplished him for a scholar, a gentleman, a statesman, a soldier, all which accomplishments would be afterwards of use to him; but yet lacketh he one thing, in which the court of Egypt could not befriend him. He that was to do all by divine revelation must know, what it was to live a life of communion with God, and in this he would be greatly furthered by the retirement of a shepherd's life in Midian. By the former he was prepared to rule in Jeshurun, but by the latter he was prepared to converse with God in mount Horeb. Those that know what it is to be alone with God, are acquainted with better delights than ever Moses tasted in the court of Pharaoh. The king of Egypt died - And after him, one or two more of his sons or successors.

The solemn eating of the lamb was typical of our gospel duty to Christ. 1st, The paschal lamb was killed not to be looked upon only, but to be fed upon; so we must by faith make Christ ours, as we do that which we eat, and we must receive spiritual strength and nourishment from him, as from our food, and have delight in him, as we have in eating and drinking when we are hungry or thirsty. 2dly, It was to be all eaten: those that, by faith, feed upon Christ, must feed upon a whole Christ. They must take Christ and his yoke, Christ and his cross, as well as Christ and his crown. 3dly, It was to be eaten with bitter herbs, in remembrance of the bitterness of their bondage in Egypt; we must feed upon Christ with brokenness of heart, in remembrance of sin. 4thly, It was to be eaten in a departing posture <cite>Ex 12:11</cite>, when we feed upon Christ by faith, we must sit loose to the world, and every thing in it. The feast of unleavened bread was typical of the Christian life, <cite>1Cor 5:7</cite>,8. Having received Christ Jesus the Lord, 1st. We must keep a feast, in holy joy, continually delighting ourselves in Christ Jesus; If true believers have not a continual feast, it is their own fault. 2dly, It must be a feast of unleavened bread, kept in charity, without the leaven of malice, and in sincerity, without the leaven of hypocrisy. All the old leaven of sin must be put far from us, with the utmost caution, if we would keep the feast of a holy life to the honour of Christ. 3dly, It was to be an ordinance forever. As long as we live we must continue feeding upon Christ, and rejoicing in him always, with thankful mention of the great things he has done for us. Raw - Half roasted, but throughly drest. Ye shall burn with fire - To prevent the profane abuse of it. The Lord's passover - A sign of his passing over you, when he destroyed the Egyptians. An holy convocation - A solemn day for the people to assemble together. A stranger - A proselyte. Heathens were not concerned in the passover.

Heathens were not concerned in the passover. Out of the door of his house - Of that house, wherein he ate the passover: Until the morning - That is, till towards morning, when they would be called for to march out of Egypt. They went out very early in the morning. The destroyer - The destroying angel, whether this was a good or an evil angel, we have not light to determine. The people bowed the head and worshipped - They hereby signified their submission to this institution as a law, and their thankfulness for it as a favour and privilege. Rise up, and get you forth - Pharaoh had told Moses he should see his face no more, but now he sent for him; those will seek God in their distress, who before had set him at defiance. Such a fright he was now in that he gave orders by night for their discharge, fearing lest if he delay'd, he himself should fall next. And that he sent them out, not as men hated (as the Pagan historians have represented this matter) but as men feared, is plain by his request to them. Bless me also - Let me have your prayers, that I may not be plagued for what is past when you are gone. We be all dead men - When death comes unto our houses, it is seasonable for us to think of our own mortality. Their kneading - troughs - Or rather, their lumps of paste unleavened. About six hundred thousand men - The word means strong and able men fit for wars, beside women and children, which we cannot suppose to make less than twelve hundred thousand more. What a vast increase was this to arise from seventy souls, in little more than two hundred years. And a mixed multitude went up with them - Some perhaps willing to leave their country, because it was laid waste by the plagues. But probably the greatest part was but a rude unthinking mob, that followed they knew not why: It is likely, when they understood that the children of Israel were to continue forty years in the wilderness, they quitted them, and returned to Egypt again.

Chariots and horsemen - It should seem he took no foot with him, because the king's business required haste. They were sore afraid - They knew the strength of the enemy, and their own weakness; numerous indeed they were, but all foot, unarmed, undisciplined, dispirited, by long servitude, and now pent up, so that they could not escape. On one hand was Pi - hahiroth, a range of craggy rocks unpassable; on the other hand were Migdol and Baal - zephon, forts upon the frontiers of Egypt; before them was the sea, behind them were the Egyptians; so that there was no way open for them but upwards, and thence their deliverance came. Moses answered not these fools according to their folly: Instead of chiding he comforts them, and with an admirable pretence of mind, not disheartened either by the threatenings of Egypt, or the tremblings of Israel, stills their murmuring, Fear ye not, It is our duty, when we cannot get out of our troubles, yet to get above our fears, so that they may only serve to quicken our prayers and endeavours, but may not prevail to silence our faith and hope. Stand still, and think not to save yourselves either by fighting or flying; wait God's orders, and observe them; Compose yourselves, by an entire confidence in God, into a peaceful prospect of the great salvation God is now about to work for you. Hold your peace, you need not so much as give a shout against the enemy: the work shall be done without any concurrence of yours. In times of great difficulty, it is our wisdom to keep our spirits calm, quiet, and sedate, for then we are in the best frame both to do our own work, and to consider the work of God. Wherefore criest thou unto me - Moses though he was assured of a good issue, yet did not neglect prayer. We read not of one word he said in prayer, but he lifted up his heart to God, and God well understood, and took notice of. Moses's silent prayer prevailed more with God, than Israel's loud out - cries. But is God displeased with Moses for praying? No, he asks this question, Wherefore criest thou unto me? Wherefore shouldst thou press thy petition any farther, when it is already granted?

The watering of the host of Israel. In the wilderness they wanted water, ver. 1. In their want they chide with Moses, ver. 2, 3. Moses cried to God, ver. 4. God ordered him to smite the rock, and fetch water out of it; and he did so, ver. 5, 6. The place named from it, ver. 7. The defeating of the host of Amalek. The victory obtained by the prayer of Moses, ver. 8 - 12. By the sword of Joshua, ver. 13 A record kept of it, ver.14 - 16. They journeyed according to the commandment of the Lord, led by the pillar of cloud and fire, and yet they came to a place where there was no water for them to drink - We may be in the way of our duty, and yet meet with troubles, which Providence brings us into for the trial of our faith. Go on before the people - Though they spake of stoning him. He must take his rod with him, not to summon some plague to chastise them, but to fetch water for their supply. O the wonderful patience and forbearance of God towards provoking sinners! He maintains those that are at war with him, and reaches out the hand of his bounty to those that lift up the heel against him. If God had only shewed Moses a fountain of water in the wilderness, as he did to Hagar, not far from hence, <cite>Gen 21:19</cite>, that had been a great favour; but that he might shew his power as well as his pity, and make it a miracle of mercy, he gave them water out of a rock. He directed Moses whither to go, appointed him to take of the elders of Israel with him, to be witnesses of what was done, ordered him to smite the rock, which he did, and immediately water came out of it in great abundance, which ran throughout the camp in streams and rivers, <cite>Psa 78:15</cite>,16, and followed them wherever they went in that wilderness: God shewed his care of his people in giving them water when they wanted it; his own power in fetching it out of a rock, and put an honour upon Moses in appointing the water to flow out upon his smiting of the rock.

The ten commandments as God himself spake them upon Mount Sinai, ver. 1 - 17. The impressions made upon the people, thereby, ver. 18 - 21. Some particular instructions which God gave to Moses, relating to his worship, ver. 22 - 26. God spake all these words - The law of the ten commandments is a law of God's making; a law of his own speaking. God has many ways of speaking to the children of men by his spirit, conscience, providences; his voice in all which we ought carefully to attend to: but he never spake at any time upon any occasion so as he spake the ten commandments, which therefore we ought to hear with the more earnest heed. This law God had given to man before, it was written in his heart by nature; but sin had so defaced that writing, that it was necessary to revive the knowledge of it. I am the Lord thy God - Herein, God asserts his own authority to enact this law; and proposeth himself as the sole object of that religious worship which is enjoined in the four first commandments. They are here bound to obedience.

Because God is the Lord, Jehovah, self - existent, independent, eternal, and the fountain of all being and power; therefore he has an incontestable right to command us. He was their God; a God in covenant with them; their God by their own consent. He had brought them out of the land of Egypt - Therefore they were bound in gratitude to obey him, because he had brought them out of a grievous slavery into a glorious liberty. By redeeming them, he acquired a farther right to rule them; they owed their service to him, to whom they owed their freedom. And thus, Christ, having rescued us out of the bondage of sin, is entitled to the best service we can do him. The four first commandments, concern our duty to God (commonly called the first - table.) It was fit those should be put first, because man had a Maker to love before he had a neighbour to love, and justice and charity are then only acceptable to God when they flow from the principles of piety. The first commandment is concerning the object of our worship, Jehovah, and him only, Thou shalt have no other gods before me - The Egyptians, and other neighbouring nations, had many gods, creatures of their own fancy. This law was pre - fixed because of that transgression; and Jehovah being the God of Israel, they must entirely cleave to him, and no other, either of their own invention, or borrowed from their neighbours. The sin against this commandment, which we are most in danger of, is giving that glory to any creature which is due to God only. Pride makes a God of ourselves, covetousness makes a God of money, sensuality makes a God of the belly. Whatever is loved, feared, delighted in, or depended on, more than God, that we make a god of. This prohibition includes a precept which is the foundation of the whole law, that we take the Lord for our God, accept him for ours, adore him with humble reverence, and set our affections entirely upon him. There is a reason intimated in the last words before me. It intimates,

That we cannot have any other god but he will know it. That it is a sin that dares him to his face, which he cannot, will not, overlook. The second commandment is concerning the ordinances of worship, or the way in which God will be worshipped, which it is fit himself should appoint. Here is, [1.] The prohibition; we are forbidden to worship even the true God by images, <cite>Ex 20:4</cite>,5. First, The Jews (at least after the captivity) thought themselves forbidden by this to make any image or picture whatsoever. It is certain it forbids making any image of God, for to whom can we liken him? <cite>Isa 40:18</cite>,25. It also forbids us to make images of God in our fancies, as if he were a man as we are. Our religious worship must be governed by the power of faith, not by the power of imagination. Secondly, They must not bow down to them - Shew any sign of honour to them, much less serve them by sacrifice, or any other act of religious worship. When they paid their devotion to the true God, they must not have any image before them for the directing, exciting, or assisting their devotion. Though the worship was designed to terminate in God, it would not please him if it came to him through an image. The best and most ancient lawgivers among the Heathen forbad the setting up of images in their temples. It was forbidden in Rome by Numa a Pagan prince, yet commanded in Rome by the Pope, a Christian bishop. The use of images in the church of Rome, at this day, is so plainly contrary to the letter of this command, that in all their catechisms, which they put into the hand of the people, they leave out this commandment, joining the reason of it to the first, and so the third commandment they call the second, the fourth the third, &c. only to make up the number ten, they divide the tenth into two. For I the Lord Jehovah, thy God, am a jealous God, especially in things of this nature.

[1.] A strict prohibition. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain - Supposing that, having taken Jehovah for their God, they would make mention of his name, this command gives a caution not to mention it in vain, and it is still as needful as ever. We take God's name in vain, First, By hypocrisy, making profession of God's name, but not living up to that profession. Secondly, By covenant breaking. If we make promises to God, and perform not to the Lord our vows, we take his name in vain. Thirdly, By rash swearing, mentioning the name of God, or any of his attributes, in the form of an oath, without any just occasion for it, but to no purpose, or to no good purpose. Fourthly, By false - swearing, which some think is chiefly intended in the letter of the commandment. Fifthly, By using the name of God lightly and carelessly. The profanation of the form of devotion is forbidden, as well as the profanation of the forms of swearing; as also, the profanation of any of those things whereby God makes himself known. For the Lord will not hold him guiltless - Magistrates that punish other offences, may not think themselves concerned to take notice of this; but God, who is jealous for his honour, will not connive at it. The sinner may perhaps hold himself guiltless, and think there is no harm in it; to obviate which suggestion, the threatening is thus expressed, God will not hold him guiltless - But more is implied, that God will himself be the avenger of those that take his name in vain; and they will find it a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. The fourth commandment concerns the time of worship; God is to be served and honoured daily; but one day in seven is to be particularly dedicated to his honour, and spent in his service. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy; in it thou shalt do no manner of work - It is taken for granted that the sabbath was instituted before. We read of God's blessing and sanctifying a seventh day from the beginning, <cite>Gen 2:3</cite>, so that this was not the enacting of a new law, but the reviving of an old law. 1st.

As a day of rest; they were to do no manner of work on this day, in their worldly business. As a holy day, set apart to the honour of the holy God, and to be spent in holy exercises. God, by his blessing it, had made it holy; they, by solemn blessing him, must keep it holy, and not alienate it to any other purpose than that for which the difference between it and other days was instituted. 3dly, Who must observe it? Thou and thy son and thy daughter - The wife is not mentioned, because she is supposed to be one with the husband, and present with him, and if he sanctify the sabbath, it is taken for granted she will join with him; but the rest of the family is instanced in it, children and servants must keep it according to their age and capacity. In this, as in other instances of religion, it is expected that masters of families should take care, not only to serve the Lord themselves, but that their houses also should serve him. Even the proselyted strangers must observe a difference between this day and other days, which, if it laid some restraint upon them then, yet proved a happy indication of God's gracious design, to bring the Gentiles into the church. By the sanctification of the sabbath, the Jews declared that they worshipped the God that made the world, and so distinguished themselves from all other nations, who worshipped gods which they themselves made. God has given us an example of rest after six days work; he rested the seventh day - Took a complacency in himself, and rejoiced in the work of his hand, to teach us on that day, to take a complacency in him, and to give him the glory of his works. The sabbath begun in the finishing of the work of creation; so will the everlasting sabbath in the finishing of the work of providence and redemption; and we observe the weekly sabbath in expectation of that, as well as in remembrance of the former, in both conforming ourselves to him we worship. He hath himself blessed the sabbath day and sanctified it.

He hath himself blessed the sabbath day and sanctified it. He hath put an honour upon it; it is holy to the Lord, and honourable; and he hath put blessings into it which he hath encouraged us to expect from him in the religious observation of that day. Let us not profane, dishonour, and level that with common time, which God's blessing hath thus dignified and distinguished. We have here the laws of the second table, as they are commonly called; the six last commandments which concern our duty to ourselves, and one another, and are a comment upon the second great commandment, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. As religion towards God is, an essential branch of universal righteousness, so righteousness towards men is an essential branch of true religion: godliness and honesty must go together. The fifth commandment is concerning the duties we owe to our relations; that of children to their parents is only instanced in, honour thy father and thy mother, which includes,

Thou shalt not commit adultery - This commandment forbids all acts of uncleanness, with all those desires, which produce those acts and war against the soul. Thou shalt not steal - This command forbids us to rob ourselves of what we have, by sinful spending, or of the use and comfort of it by sinful sparing; and to rob others by invading our neighbour's rights, taking his goods, or house, or field, forcibly or clandestinely, over - reaching in bargains, not restoring what is borrowed or found, with - holding just debts, rents or wages; and, which is worst of all, to rob the public in the coin or revenue, or that which is dedicated to the service of religion. Thou shalt not bear false witness - This forbids,

In all places where I record my name - Or where my name is recorded, that is, where I am worshipped in sincerity, I will come unto thee, and will bless thee. Neither shall thou go at by steps unto mine altar - Indeed afterwards God appointed an altar ten cubits high. But it is probable, they went not up to that by steps, but by a sloping ascent. Chapter XXI The laws recorded in this chapter relate to the fifth and sixth commandments; and though not accommodated to our constitution, especially in point of servitude yet are of great use for the explanation of the moral law, and the rules of natural justice.

Here are several enlargements upon the fifth commandment, which concerns particular relations. The duty of masters towards their servants, their men servants ver. 2 - 6. and maid - servants, ver. 7 - 11. The punishment of disobedient children that strike their parents, ver. 15. or curse them, ver. 17. Upon the sixth commandment, which forbids all violence offered to the person of man. Here is, Concerning murder, ver. 12 - 14. Man - stealing, ver, 16. Assault and battery, ver. 18, 19. Correcting a servant, ver. 20, 21 Hurting a woman with child, ver. 22, 23. The law of retaliation, ver. 24, 25. Maiming a servant, ver. 26, 27. An ox goring, ver. 26 - 32. Damage by opening a pit, ver. 33, 34. Cattle fighting, ver 35, 36. The first verse is the general title of the laws contained in this and the two following chapters. Their government being purely a theocracy; that which in other states is to be settled by human prudence, was directed among them by a divine appointment. These laws are called judgments; because their magistrates were to give judgment according to them. In the doubtful cases that had hitherto occurred, Moses had particularly enquired of God, but now God gave him statutes in general, by which to determine particular cases. He begins with the laws concerning servants, commanding mercy and moderation towards them. The Israelites had lately been servants themselves, and now they were become not only their own matters, but masters of servants too; lest they should abuse their servants as they themselves had been abused, provision was made for the mild and gentle usage of servants. If thou buy an Hebrew servant - Either sold by him or his parents through poverty, or by the judges for his crimes, yet even such a one was to continue in slavery but seven years at the most. For ever - As long as he lives, or till the year of Jubilee. Who hath betrothed her to himself - For a concubine, or secondary Wife. Not that Masters always took Maid - servants on these terms. After the manner of daughters - He shall give her a portion, as to a daughter. Direction is given what should be done, if a servant died by his master's correction.

Direction is given what should be done, if a servant died by his master's correction. This servant must not be an Israelite, but a Gentile slave, as the Negroes to our planters; and it is supposed that he smite him with a rod, and not with any thing that was likely to give a mortal wound, yet if he died under his hand, he should be punished for his cruelty, at the discretion of the judges, upon consideration of circumstances. Eye for eye - The execution of this law is not put into the hands of private persons, as if every man might avenge himself, which would introduce universal confusion. The tradition of the elders seems to have put this corrupt gloss upon it. But magistrates had an eye to this rule in punishing offenders, and doing right to those that are injured. Chapter XXII The laws of this chapter relate,

To the eighth commandment, concerning theft, ver. 1 - 4 Trespass by cattle, ver. 5. Damage by fire, ver. 6. Trusts, ver. 7 - 13. Borrowing cattle, ver. 14, 15. Or money, ver. 25 - 27. To the seventh commandment. Against fornication, ver. 16, 17. Bestiality, ver. 19. To the first table. Forbidding witchcraft, ver. 18. Idolatry, ver. 20. Commanding to offer the first - fruits, ver. 29. 30. To the poor, ver. 21 - 24. To the civil government, ver. 28. To the Jewish nation, ver. 13. Five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep - More for an ox than for a sheep, because the owner, besides all the other profit, lost the daily labour of his ox. If we were not able to make restitution, he must be sold for a slave: the court of judgment was to do it, and it is likely the person robbed received the money. Thus with us in some cases, felons are transported to the Plantations, where only, Englishmen know what slavery is. But let it be observed, the sentence is not slavery, but banishment: nor can any Englishman be sold, unless he first indent himself to the captain that carries him over. If a thief broke a house in the night, and was killed in the doing it, his blood was upon his own head. But if it were in the day - time that the thief was killed, he that killed him was accountable for it, unless it were in the necessary defence of his own life. For he should make full restitution - This the law determined: not that he should die. In his hand alive - Not killed, nor sold, as <cite>Ex 22:1</cite>, so that the owner recover it with less charge and trouble. He that wilfully put his cattle into his neighbour's field, must make restitution of the best of his own. The Jews hence observed it as a general rule, that restitution must always be made of the best; and that no man should keep any cattle that were likely to trespass upon his neighbour, or do him any damage. He that designed only the burning of thorns might become accessary to the burning of corn, and should not be held guiltless.

They must not receive use for money from any that borrowed for necessity. And such provision the law made for the preserving estates to their families by the year of Jubilee, that a people who had little concern in trade could not be supposed to borrow money but for necessity; therefore it was generally forbidden among themselves; but to a stranger they were allowed to lend upon usury. This law therefore in the strictness of it seems to have been peculiar to the Jewish state; but in the equity of it, it obligeth us to shew mercy to those we have advantage against, and to be content to share with those we lend to in loss as well as profit, if Providence cross them: and upon this condition it seems as lawful to receive interest for my money, which another takes pains with, and improves, as it is to receive rent for my land, which another takes pains with, and improves, for his own use. They must not take a poor man's bed - clothes in pawn; but if they did, must restore them by bed - time. Thou shalt not revile the gods - That is, the judges and magistrates. Princes and magistrates are our fathers, whom the fifth commandment obligeth us to honour, and forbids us to revile. St. Paul applies this law to himself, and owns that he ought not to speak evil of the ruler of his people, no, not though he was then his most unrighteous persecutor, <cite>Acts 23:5</cite>. The first - born of thy sons shalt thou give unto me - And much more reason have we to give ourselves and all we have to God, who spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all. The first ripe of their corn they must not delay to offer; there is danger if we delay our duty, lest we wholly omit it; and by slipping the first opportunity in expectation of another, we suffer Satan to cheat us of all our time. Ye shall be holy unto me - And one mark of that honourable distinction is appointed in their diet, which was, that they should not eat any flesh that was torn of beasts - Both because the blood was not duly taken out of it, and because the clean beast was ceremonially defiled, by the touch of the unclean.

Some laws of universal obligation, relating especially to the ninth commandment, against bearing false witness, ver. 1. and giving false judgement, ver. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8. Also a law of doing good to our enemies, ver. 4, 5. and not oppressing strangers, ver. 9. Some laws peculiar to the Jews: the sabbatical years, ver. 10, 11. the three annual feasts, ver. 14 - 17. with laws pertaining thereto. Gracious promises of completing the mercy God had begun for them, upon condition of their obedience, that God would conduct them through the wilderness, ver 20 - 24. that he would prosper all they had, ver. 25, 26, that he would put them in possession of Canaan, ver. 27 - 31. But they must not mingle themselves with the nations, ver. 32, 33. Thou shalt not raise, the margin reads, Thou shalt not receive a false report, for sometimes the receiver in this case is as bad as the thief; and a backbiting tongue would not do so much mischief, if it were not countenanced. Sometimes we cannot avoid hearing a false report, but we must not receive it, we must not hear it with pleasure, nor easily give credit to it. Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil - General usage will never excuse us in any ill practice; nor is the broad way ever the safer for its being crowded. We must inquire what we ought to do, not what the most do; because we must be judged by our master, not our fellow servants; and it is too great a compliment, to be willing to go to hell for company. Keep thee far from a false matter - From assisting or abetting an ill thing. Yea, keep thee far from it, dread it as a dangerous snare. I will not justify the wicked - That is, I will condemn him that unjustly condemns others. Thou shalt not oppress the stranger - Though aliens might not inherit lands among them; yet they must have justice done them. It was an instance of the equity of our law, that if an alien be tried for any crime except treason, the one half of his jury, if he desire it, shall be foreigners; a kind provision that strangers may not be oppressed.

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.

In allusion to this, the new Jerusalem is said to be of pure gold, <cite>Rev 21:18</cite>. But the builders of the gospel church said, Silver and gold have we none; and yet the glory of their building far exceeded that of the tabernacle. The veils are here ordered to be made, one for a partition between the holy place and the most holy, which not only forbad any to enter, but so much as to look into the holiest of all. Under that dispensation divine grace was veiled, but now we behold it with open face. The apostle tells us, this veil, intimated that the ceremonial law could not make the comers thereunto perfect. The way into the holiest was not made manifest while the first tabernacle was standing; life and immortality lay concealed till they were brought to light by the gospel, which was therefore signified by the rending of this veil at the death of Christ. We have now boldness to enter into the holiest in all acts of devotion by the blood of Jesus; yet such as obliges us to a holy reverence, and a humble sense of our distance. Another veil was for the outward door of the tabernacle. Through this the priests went in every day to minister in the holy - place, but not the people, <cite>Heb 9:6</cite>. This veil was all the defence the tabernacle had against thieves and robbers, which might easily be broken through, for it could be neither locked nor bared, and the abundance of wealth in it, one would think, might be a temptation. But by leaving it thus exposed, The priests and Levites would be so much the more obliged to keep a strict watch upon it: and, God would shew his care of his church on earth, though it be weak and defenceless, and continually exposed. A curtain shall be (if God please to make it so) as strong a defence, as gates of brass and bars of iron. Chapter XXVII In this chapter directions are given,

He is our oracle; by him God in these last days, makes known himself and his mind to us. Divine revelation centers in him, and comes to us through him; he is the light, the true light, the faithful witness; and from him we receive the Spirit of truth, who leads into all truth. The joining of the breast - plate to the ephod notes, that his prophetical office was founded on his priesthood; and it was by the merit of his death that he purchased this honour for himself, and this favour for us. It was the Lamb that had been slain that was worthy to take the book and to open the seals. <cite>Rev 5:9</cite>. The judgment - The breast - plate of judgment: That breast - plate which declared the judgment or mind of God to the Israelites. The robe of the ephod - This was next under the ephod, and reached down to the knees, without sleeves, and was put on over their head, having holes on the sides to put the arms through, or, as Maimonides describes it, was not sewn together on the sides at all. The hole on the top through which the head was put was carefully bound about, that it might not tear in the putting on. The bells gave notice to the people in the outer court, when he went into the holy place to burn incense, that they might then apply themselves to their devotions at the same time, <cite>Luke 1:10</cite>, in token of their concurrence with him, and their hopes of the ascent of their prayers to God in the virtue of the incense he offered. Aaron must come near to minister in the garments that were appointed him, that he die not. 'Tis at his peril if he attend otherwise than according to the institution. An habergeon - A coat of armour. Pomegranates - The figures of Pomegranates, but flat and embroidered. On the golden plate fixed upon Aaron's forehead, like an half coronet, reaching, as the Jews say, from ear to ear, must be engraven, Holiness to the Lord - Aaron must hereby be minded, that God is holy, and that his priests must be holy. The high priest must be consecrated to God, and so must all his ministrations.

God appoints what workmen should be employed in the building and furnishing the tabernacle, ver. 1 - 11. He repeats the law of the sabbath, ver. 12 - 17. He delivers to Moses the two tables of the testimony, ver. 18. See I have called Bezaleel, the grandson of Hur, probably that Hur who had helped to hold up Moses's hand, <cite>Ex 17:10 </cite>- 12, and was at this time in commission with Aaron for the government of the people in the absence of Moses. Aholiab of the tribe of Dan is appointed next to Bezaleel, and partner with him. Hiram, who was the head - workman in the building of Solomon's temple, was also of the tribe of Dan, <cite>2Chron 2:14</cite>. And I have filled him with the spirit of God; and <cite>Ex 31:6</cite>. In the hearts of all that are wise - hearted I have put wisdom. Skill in common employments is the gift of God; It is he that puts even this wisdom into the inward parts, <cite>Job 38:36</cite>. He teacheth the husbandman discretion, <cite>Isa 28:26</cite>, and the tradesman too, and he must have the praise of it. It is a sign between me and you - The institution of the sabbath was a great instance of God's favour, and a sign that he had distinguished them from all other people: and their religious observance of it, was a great instance of their duty to him. God, by sanctifying this day among them, let them know that he sanctified them, and set them apart for his service, otherwise he would not have revealed to them his holy sabbaths to be the support of religion among them. The Jews by observing one day in seven, after six days labour, testified that they worshipped the God that made the world in six days, and rested the seventh; and so distinguished themselves from other nations, who having first lost the sabbath, the memorial of the creation, by degrees lost the knowledge of the creator, and gave the creature the honour due to him alone. It is holy unto you - That is, it is designed for your benefit as well as for God's honour; it shall be accounted holy by you.

It is holy unto you - That is, it is designed for your benefit as well as for God's honour; it shall be accounted holy by you. It is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord - It is separated from common use, for the service of God; and by the observance of it we are taught to rest from worldly pursuits, and devote ourselves, and all we are, have, and can do, to God's glory. It was to be observed throughout their generations, in every age, for a perpetual covenant - This was to be one of the most lasting tokens of the covenant between God and Israel. On the seventh day he rested - And as the work of creation is worthy to be thus commemorated, so the great Creator is worthy to be thus imitated, by a holy rest the seventh day. These tables of stone, were not prepared by Moses, but probably by the ministry of angels. They were written with the finger of God - That is, by his will and power immediately, without the use of any instrument. They were written in two tables, being designed to direct us in our duty, towards God, and towards man. And they were called tables of testimony, because this written law testified the will of God concerning them, and would be a testimony against them if they were disobedient. Chapter XXXII Here is,

Is this Aaron the saint of the Lord! Is this he that had not only seen, but had been employed in summoning the plagues of Egypt, and the judgments executed upon the gods of the Egyptians? What! And yet himself copying out the abandoned idolatries of Egypt? How true is it, that the law made them priests which had infirmity, and needed first to offer for their own sins? They have turned aside quickly - Quickly after the law was given them, and they had promised to obey it; quickly after God had done such great things for them, and declared his kind intentions to do greater. It is a stiff - necked people - Unapt to come under the yoke of the divine law, averse to all good, and prone to evil, obstinate to the methods of cure. Let me alone - What did Moses, or what could he do, to hinder God from consuming them? When God resolves to abandon a people, and the decree is gone forth, no intercession can prevent it. But God would thus express the greatness of his displeasure, after the manner of men, who would have none to interceed for those they resolve to be severe with. Thus also he would put an honour upon prayer, intimating, that nothing but the intercession of Moses could save them from ruin, that he might be a type of Christ, by whose mediation alone God would reconcile the world unto himself. And Moses besought the Lord his God - If God would not be called the God of Israel, yet he hoped he might address him as his own God. Now Moses is standing in the gap to turn away the wrath of God. <cite>Psa 106:23</cite>. He took the hint which God gave him when he said, Let me alone, which, though it seemed to forbid his interceding, did really encourage it, by shewing what power the prayer of faith hath with God. Turn from thy fierce wrath - Not as if he thought God were not justly angry, but he begs that he would not be so greatly angry as to consume them. Let mercy rejoice against judgment; repent of this evil - Change the sentence of destruction into that of correction, against thy people which thou broughtest up out of Egypt - For whom thou hast done so great things?

He brings a very humbling message from God to them, ver. 1, 2, 3, 5. which has a good effect upon then, ver. 4, 6. He settles a correspondence between God and them; and both God and the people signify their approbation of that correspondence, God by descending in a cloudy pillar, and the people by worshipping at the tent - doors, ver. 7 - 12. He is earnest with God in prayer, and prevails. For a promise of his presence with the people, ver. 12 - 17. For a sight of his glory for himself, ver. 18 - 23. I will come up - As if he had said, ye deserve that I should do so. Put off thine ornaments, that I may know what to do with thee - That is, put thyself into the posture of a penitent, that the dispute may be determined in thy favour, and mercy may rejoice against judgment. And Israel stript themselves of their ornaments, by the mount; or, as some read it, at a distance from the mount - Stand afar off, like the publican, <cite>Luke 18:13</cite>. God bid them lay aside their ornaments, and they did so; both to shew in general their deep mourning, and in particular to take a holy revenge upon themselves for giving their ear - rings to make the golden calf of. And Moses took the tabernacle - The tent wherein he gave audience, heard causes, and inquired of God, and pitched it without, afar off from the camp - To signify to them that they were unworthy of it. Perhaps this tabernacle was a model of the tabernacle that was afterwards to be erected, a hasty draught from the pattern shewed him in the mount, designed for direction to the workman, and used in the mean time as a tabernacle of meeting between God and Moses about public affairs. And when Moses went out to the tabernacle, the people looked after him - In token of their respect to him whom before they had slighted, and their dependence upon his mediation. By this it appeared, that they were full of concern what would be the issue. And when they saw the cloudy pillar, that symbol of God's presence, give Moses the meeting, they all worshipped every man at his tent door - Thereby they signified, Their humble adoration of the divine majesty.

The orders he gives to Moses to come up to the mount the next morning, and bring two tables of stone with him, ver. 1 - 4. His meeting him there, and the proclamation of his name, ver. 6 - 9. The instructions he gave him there, and his converse with him forty days, ver. 10 - 28. The honour he put upon him when he sent him down with his face shining, ver. 29 - 35. In all which God dealt with Moses as a mediator between him and Israel, and a type of the great Mediator. Moses must prepare for the renewing of the tables. Before God himself provided the tables, and wrote on them; now Moses must hew him out the tables, and God would only write upon them. When God was reconciled to them, he ordered the tables to be renewed, and wrote his law in them, which plainly intimates to us, that even under the gospel (of which the intercession of Moses was typical) the moral law should continue to oblige believers. Though Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, yet not from the command of it, but still we are under the law to Christ. When our Saviour in his sermon on the mount expounded the moral law, and vindicated it from the corrupt glosses with which the scribes and Pharisees had broken it, he did in effect renew the tables, and make them like the first; that is, reduce the law to its primitive sense and intention. The Lord descended - By some sensible token of his presence, and manifestation of his glory. He descended in the cloud - Probably that pillar of cloud which had hitherto gone before Israel, and had the day before met Moses at the door of the tabernacle. And the Lord passed by before him - Fixed views of God are reserved for the future state; the best we have in this world are transient. And proclaimed the name of the Lord - By which he would make himself known. He had made himself known to Moses in the glory of his self - existence, and self - sufficiency, when he proclaimed that name, I am that I am; now he makes himself known in the glory of his grace and goodness, and all - sufficiency to us.

The work of the tabernacle is begun, ver. 1 - 4. A stop put to the people's contributions, ver. 5 - 7. A particular account of the making the tabernacle; the fine curtains of it, ver. 8 - 13. The coarse ones, ver. 14 - 19. The boards, ver. 20 - 30: The bars, ver. 31 - 34 The partition veil, ver. 35, 36. and the hangings of the door, ver. 37, 38. And Moses called Bezaleel - "Even those whom God has qualified for, and inclined to the service of the tabernacle, yet must wait for a call to it, either extraordinary, as that of preachers and apostles, or ordinary, as that of pastors and teachers. And observe who they were that Moses called; those in whose heart God had put wisdom for this purpose, beyond their natural capacity, and whose heart stirred him up to come to the work in good earnest." Those are to be called to the building of the gospel tabernacle, whom God has by his grace made in some measure fit for the work, and free to it: ability and willingness, with resolution, are the two things to be regarded in the call of ministers. The veil made for a partition between the holy place and the most holy, signified the darkness and distance of that dispensation compared with the New Testament, which shews us the glory of God more clearly, and invites us to draw near to it; and the darkness and distance of our present state in comparison with heaven, where we shall be ever with the Lord, and see him as he is. An hanging - Which divided the holy place from the court. Chapter XXXVII Bezaleel and his workmen are still busy, making, The ark with the mercy - seat and the cherubim, ver. 1 - 9. The table with its vessels, ver. 10 - 16. The candle - stick with its appurtenances, ver. 17 - 24. The golden altar for incense, ver. 25 - 28. The holy oil and incense, ver. 29. 1 - 9

Of the making of the brazen altar, ver. 1 - 7. and the laver, ver. 8. The preparing of the hangings for the inclosing of the court in which the tabernacle was to stand, ver. 9 - 20. A summary account of the gold, silver and brass that was contributed to, and, used in the preparing of the tabernacle, ver. 21 - 31. The altar of burnt - offering - On this all their sacrifices were offered. Christ was himself the altar to his own sacrifice of atonement, and so he is to all our sacrifices of acknowledgment. We must have an eye to him in offering them, as God hath in accepting them. This laver signified the provision that is made in the gospel for cleansing our souls from the pollution of sin by the merit of Christ, that we may be fit to serve the holy God in holy duties. This is here said to be made of the looking - glasses of the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle. It should seem these women were eminent for devotion, attending more constantly at the place of public worship than others, and notice is here taken of it to their honour. These looking - glasses were of the finest brass, burnished for that purpose. In the laver, either they were artfully joined together, or else molten down and cast anew; but it is probable the laver was so brightly burnished that the sides of it still served for looking - glasses, that the priests when they came to wash might there see their faces, and so discover the spots to wash them clean. And he made the court - The walls of the court, were like the rest, curtains, or hangings. This represented the state of the Old Testament church, it was a garden enclosed; the worshippers were then confined to a little compass. But the inclosure being of curtains only, intimated that that confinement of the church to one particular nation was not to be perpetual. The dispensation itself was a tabernacle - dispensation, moveable and mutable, and in due time to be taken down and folded up, when the place of the tent should be enlarged, and its cords lengthened, to make room for the Gentile world.

The last thing prepared was the holy garments. The ephod, and its curious girdle, ver. 1 - 5. The onyx stones for the shoulders, ver. 6, 7. The breast - plate with the precious stones in it, ver. 8 - 21. The robe of the ephod, ver. 22 - 26. The coats, bonnets and breeches for the inferior priests, ver. 27 - 29. And the plate of the holy crown, ver. 30, 31. A summary account of the whole work, ver. 32 - 43. The priests garments are called here clothes of service - Those that wear robes of honour must look upon them as clothes of service; for those upon whom honour is put, from them service is expected. Holy garments were not made for men to sleep in, but to do service in, and then they are indeed for glory and beauty. These also were shadows of good things to come, but the substance is Christ. He is our great high priest; he put upon him the clothes of service when he undertook the work of our redemption; arrayed himself with the gifts and graces of the Spirit, which he received not by measure; charged himself with all God's spiritual Israel, bare them on his shoulder, carried them in his bosom, and presented them in the breast - plate of judgment unto his Father. And, lastly, he crowned himself with holiness to the Lord, consecrated his whole undertaking to the honour of his Fathers holiness. And all true believers are spiritual priests. The clean linen with which all their clothes of service must be made, is the righteousness of saints: and holiness to the Lord must be so written upon their foreheads, that all who converse with them may see they bear the image of God's holiness. Thus was all the work finished - In not much more than five months. Though there was a great deal of fine work, such as used to be the work of time, embroidering, and engraving, not only in gold, but in precious stones, yet they went through with it in a little time, and with the greatest exactness imaginable. The workmen were taught of God, and so were kept from making blunders, which would have retarded them. And the people were hearty and zealous in the work, and impatient till it was finished.

And this is noted as a character of imperfection in the priesthood of the law, whereby the Israelites were directed to expect another and better high - priest, even one who is holy, harmless, and separate from sinners, Heb 7:26. According to the sin of the people - In the same manner as any of the people do; which implies that God expected more circumspection from him, than from the people. But the words may be rendered, to the sin or guilt of the people, which may be mentioned as an aggrevation of his sin, that by it he commonly brings sin, and guilt, and punishment upon the people, who are infected or scandalized by his example. A young bullock - The same sacrifice which was offered for all the people, to shew how much his sin was aggravated by his quality. Sin - offering - Heb. sin, which word is oft taken in that sense. On the head - To testify both his acknowledgment of his sin, and faith in God's promise for the expiation of his sins through Christ, whom that sacrifice typified. Kill the bullock - By one of the priests, whom he should cause to do it. To the tabernacle - Into the tabernacle; which was not required nor allowed in any other sacrifice, possibly to shew the greatness of the high - priest's sin, which needed more than ordinary diligence in him, and favour from God to expiate it. Seven times - A number much used in scripture, as a number of perfection; and here prescribed, either to shew that his sins needed more then ordinary purgation, and more exercise of his faith and repentance, both which graces he was obliged to join with that ceremonial rite. Before the veil - The second veil dividing between the holy of holies, which is generally called the veil of the sanctuary. All the blood - All the rest; for part was disposed elsewhere. The whole bullock - So no part of this was to be eaten by the priests, as it was in other sin - offerings. The reason is plain, because the offerer might not eat of his own sin - offering, and the priest was the offerer in this case, as also in the sin - offering for the whole congregation below, of which the priest himself was a member.

The reason is plain, because the offerer might not eat of his own sin - offering, and the priest was the offerer in this case, as also in the sin - offering for the whole congregation below, of which the priest himself was a member. Shall be carried forth - Not himself, which would have defiled him, but by another whom he shall appoint for that work. Without the camp - To signify either, The abominable nature of sin, especially in high and holy persons, or when it overspreads a whole people. Or, The removing of the guilt or punishment of that sin from the people. Or, That Christ should suffer without the camp or gate.

Where the ashes are - For the ashes, though at first they were thrown down near the altar, Lev 1:16, yet afterwards they, together with the filth of the sacrifices, were carried into a certain place without the camp. The whole congregation - The body of the people, or the greater part of them, their rulers concurring with them. A bullock - But if the sin of the congregation was only the omission of some ceremonial duty, a kid of the goats was to be offered, Num 15:24. The elders - Who here acted in the name of all the people, who could not possibly perform this act in their own persons. And sprinkle it - It was not to be poured out there, but sprinkled only; for the cleansing virtue of the blood of Christ was sufficiently represented by sprinkling. It was sprinkled seven times: seven is a number of perfection; because God made the world in six days, and rested the seventh. This signified the perfect satisfaction Christ made, and the compleat cleansing of our souls thereby. The altar - Of incense: Which is before the Lord - That is, before the holy of holies, where the Lord was in a more special manner present. For a sin - offering - That is, for the priest's sin - offering, called the first bullock, Lev 4:21. The burnt - offering - So called by way of eminency, to wit, the daily burnt - offering. It is a sin - offering - And therefore to be killed where the burnt - offering is killed; whereby it is distinguished from the peace - offering, which were killed elsewhere. It shall be forgiven - Both judicially, as to all ecclesiastical censures or civil punishment; and really, upon condition of repentance and faith in the Messiah to come. A female - Which here was sufficient, because the sin of one of those was less than the sin of the ruler, for whom a male was required. He shall slay it - Not by himself, but by the hands of the priest. Burn them - The fat; but he useth the plural number, because the fat was of several kinds, as we saw Lev 4:8,9, Heb. upon the offerings, together with them, or after them; because the burnt - offerings were to have the first place.

The tenth part of an ephah - About six pints. He shall put no oil, neither frankincense - Either to distinguish these from the meal - offerings, Lev 2:1, or as a fit expression of their sorrow for their sins, in the sense whereof they were to abstain from things pleasant; or to signify that by his sins he deserved to be utterly deprived both of the oil of gladness, the gifts, graces and comforts of the Holy Ghost; and of God's gracious acceptance of his prayers and sacrifices, which is signified by incense, Psa 141:2. As a meal offering - As it was in the meal - offering, where all, except one handful, fell to the share of the priests. And this is the rather mentioned here, because in the foregoing sacrifices, Lev 4:3, &c. Lev 4:13, &c. the priest had no part reserved for him. A trespass - Against the Lord and his priests. Through ignorance - For if a man did it knowingly, he was to be cut off, Num 15:30. In the holy things - In things consecrated to God, and to holy uses; such as tithes and first - fruits, or any things due, or devoted to God, which possibly a man might either with - hold, or employ to some common use. A ram - A more chargeable sacrifice than the former, as the sin of sacrilege was greater. With thy estimation - As thou shalt esteem or rate it, thou, O priest; and at present, thou, O Moses, for he as yet performed the priest's part. And this was an additional charge and punishment to him; besides the ram, he was to pay for the holy thing which he had with - held or abused, so many shekels of silver as the priest should esteem proportionable to it. The former law concerns the alienation of holy things from sacred to common use; this may concern other miscarriages about holy things, and holy duties, as may be gathered from Lev 5:19, where this is said to be a trespass against the Lord, not in a general sense, for so every sin was; but in a proper and peculiar sense.

Thereon - Upon the burnt - offering, which thereby would be sooner consumed, that the way might be made for other sacrifices. Thus should we keep the fire of holy love ever burning in our hearts. Of the meal - offering - Of that which was offered alone, and that by any of the people, not by the priest, for then it must have been all burnt. This law before delivered, is here repeated for the sake of some additions made to it. His sons - The males only might eat these, because they were most holy things; whereas the daughters of Aaron might eat other holy things. In the court - In some special room appointed for that purpose. The reason why this was to be eaten only by holy persons, and that in an holy place, is given Lev 6:17, because it is most holy. It - That part which remains to the priest; for the part offered to God seems not to have been baked at all. Every one - That is, none should touch, or eat them, but consecrated persons, priests, or their sons. When he is anointed - For high - priest for he only of all the priests was to be anointed in future ages. This law of his consecration was delivered before, and is here repeated because of some additions made to it. Perpetual - Whensoever any of them shall be so anointed. At night - Or, in the evening; the one to be annexed to the morning - sacrifice, the other to the evening - sacrifice, over and besides that meal - offering which every day was to be added to the daily morning and evening sacrifices. Thou - Who art so anointed and consecrated. It shall not be eaten - No part of it shall be eaten by the priest, as it was when the offering was for the people.

It shall not be eaten - No part of it shall be eaten by the priest, as it was when the offering was for the people. The reason of the difference is, partly because when he offered it for the people, he was to have some recompence for his pains; partly to signify the imperfection of the Levitical priest, who could not bear their own iniquity; for the priest's eating part of the people's sacrifices did signify his typical bearing of the people's iniquity; and partly to teach the priests and ministers of God, that it is their duty to serve God with singleness of heart, and to be content with God's honour though they have no present advantage by it. For sin - For the sins of the rulers, or of the people, or any of them, but not for the sins of the priests; for then its blood was brought into the tabernacle, and therefore it might not be eaten. Upon any garment - Upon the priest's garment; for it was he only that sprinkled it, and in so doing he might easily sprinkle his garments. In the holy place - Partly out of reverence to the blood of sacrifices, which hereby was kept from a profane or common touch; and partly that such garments might be decent, and fit for sacred administrations. Broken - Because being full of pores, the liquor in which it was sodden might easily sink into it, whereby it was ceremonially holy, and therefore was broken, lest afterwards it should be abused to common uses. Rinsed - And not broken, as being of considerable value, which therefore God would not have unnecessarily wasted. And this being of a more solid substance than an earthen vessel, was not so apt to drink in the moisture.

And this fire now given was to be carefully kept, and not suffered to go out, Lev 6:13, and therefore was carried in a peculiar vessel in their journeys in the wilderness. From before the Lord - Or, from the presence of the Lord, that is, from the place where God was in a special manner present, either from heaven or from the holy of holies. They shouted - As wondering at, rejoicing in, and blessing God for this gracious discovery of himself, and his favour. This also was a figure of good things to come. Thus the Spirit descended in fire upon the apostles, so ratifying their commission, as this does that of the priests. And the descent of this holy fire into our souls, to kindle in them devout affections, and such an holy zeal as burns up all unholiness, is a certain token of God's gracious acceptance.

That come nigh me - Who draw near to me, or to the place where I dwell, and are admitted into the holy place, whence others are shut out. It is a description of the priests. I will be glorified - As they have sinned publickly and scandalously, so I will vindicate my honour in a public and exemplary manner, that all men may learn to give me the glory of my holiness by an exact conformity to my laws. And Aaron held his peace - In acknowledgment of God's justice and submission to it. He murmured not, nor replied against God. Moses called Mishael - For Aaron and his sons were employed in their holy ministrations, from which they were not called for funeral solemnities. Brethren - That is, kinsmen, as that word is oft used. Out of the camp - Where the burying - places of the Jews were, that the living might neither be annoyed by the unwholesome scent of the dead, nor defiled by the touch of their graves. In their coats - In the holy garments wherein they ministered; which might be done, either, as a testimony of respect due to them, notwithstanding their present failure; and that God in judgment remembered mercy, and when he took away their lives, spared their souls. Or, because being polluted both by their sin, and by the touch of their dead bodies, God would not have them any more used in his service. Uncover not your head - That is, give no signification of your sorrow; mourn not for them; partly lest you should seem to justify your brethren, and tacitly reflect upon God as too severe; and partly lest thereby you should be diverted from, or disturbed in your present service, which God expects to be done chearfully. But bewail the burning - Not so much in compassion to them, as in sorrow for the tokens of divine displeasure. Ye shall not go from the tabernacle - Where at this time they were, because this happened within seven days of their consecration. The oil of the Lord is upon you - You are persons consecrated peculiarly to God's service, which therefore it is just you should prefer before all funeral solemnities. Drink not wine - it is not improbable, that the sin of Nadab and Abihu was owing to this very thing.

The blood was not brought in - Because Aaron was not yet admitted into the holy place, whither that blood should have been brought, 'till he had prepared the way by the sacrifices which were to be offered in the court. They have offered - They have done the substance of the thing, though they have mistaken this one circumstance. Such things - Whereby, haying been oppressed with grief, it is not strange nor unpardonable if I have mistaked. Should it have been accepted - Because it was not to be eaten with sorrow, but with rejoicing and thanksgiving. He rested satisfied with his answer. it appeared, that Aaron sincerely aimed at pleasing God: and those who do so, will find he is not extreme to mark what is done amiss.

And this branch is to be joined with the former, both properties being necessary for the allowed beasts. But the reason hereof must be resolved into the will of the law - giver; though interpreters guess that God would hereby signify their duties, by the first, that of discerning between good and evil; and by the latter, that duty of recalling God's word to our minds and meditating upon it. The camel - An usual food in Arabia, but yielding bad nourishment. Divideth not the hoof - So as to have his foot cloven in two, which being expressed, Lev 11:3, is here to be understood. Otherwise the camel's hoof is divided, but it is but a small and imperfect division. As for the names of the following creatures, seeing the Jews themselves are uncertain and divided about them, it seems improper to trouble the unlearned readers with disputes about them. Ye shall not touch - Not in order to eating, as may be gathered by comparing this with Gen 3:3. But since the fat and skins of some of the forbidden creatures were useful, for medicinal and other good purposes, and were used by good men, it is not probable that God would have them cast away. Thus God forbad the making of images, Exo 20:4, not universally, but in order to the worshipping them, as Christian interpreters agree. Fins and scales - Both of them; such fishes being more cleanly, and more wholesome food than others. The names of them are not particularly mentioned, partly because most of them wanted names, the fish not being brought to Adam and named by him as other creatures were; and partly because the land of Canaan had not many rivers, nor great store of fish. Unto you - This clause is added to shew that they were neither abominable in their own nature, nor for the food of other nations; and consequently when the partition - wall between Jews and Gentiles was taken away, these distinctions of meat were to cease. Among the fowls - The true signification of the following Hebrew words is now lost, as the Jews at this day confess; which not falling out without God's singular providence may intimate the cessation of this law, the exact observation whereof since Christ came is become impossible.

upon his hands, that is, which hath feet divided into several parts like fingers, as dogs, cats, apes, and bears. That on which such water cometh - That flesh or herbs or other food which is dressed in water, in a vessel so polluted, shall be unclean; not so, if it be food which is eaten dry, as bread, or fruits; the reason of which difference seems to be this, that the water did sooner receive the pollution in itself, and convey it to the food so dressed. Of this no reason can be given, but the will of the law - giver and his merciful condescension to men's necessities, water being scarce in those countries; and for the same reason God would have the ceremonial law of sacrifices, give place to the law of mercy. Seed - Partly because this was necessary provision for man; and partly because such seed would not be used for man's food till it had received many alterations in the earth whereby such pollution was taken away. If any water - The reason of the difference is, because wet seed doth sooner receive, and longer retain any pollution and partly because such seed was not fit to be sown presently, and therefore that necessity which justified the use of the dry seed, could not be pretended in this case. If any beast die - Either of itself, or being killed by some wild beast, in which cases the blood was not poured forth, as it was when they were killed by men either for food or sacrifice. He that eateth - Unwittingly, for if he did it knowingly, it was a presumptuous sin against an express law, Deu 14:21, and therefore punished with cutting off. Every creeping thing - Except those expressly excepted, Lev 11:29,30. Upon the belly - As worms and snakes, Upon all four - As toads and divers serpents. Ye shall be holy - By this he gives them to understand, that all these cautions about eating or touching these creatures was not for any real uncleanness in them, but only that by diligent observation of these rules they might learn with greater care to avoid all moral pollutions, and to keep themselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, and from all familiar and intimate converse with notorious sinners.

Chapter XII Laws concerning the uncleanness of women in child - birth, ver. 1 - 5. Concerning their purification, ver. 6 - 8. From uncleanness contracted by the touching or eating of external things, he now comes to that uncleanness which ariseth from ourselves. Seven days - Not for any filthiness which was either in the conception, or in bringing forth, but to signify the universal and deep pollution of man's nature, even from the birth, and from the conception. Seven days or thereabouts, nature is employed in the purgation of most women. Her infirmity - Her monthly infirmity. And it may note an agreement therewith not only in the time, Lev 15:19, but in the degree of uncleanness. In the blood of her purifying - In her polluted and separated estate; for the word blood or bloods signifies both guilt, and uncleanness, as here and elsewhere. And it is called the blood of her purifying, because by the expulsion or purgation of that blood, which is done by degrees, she is purified. No hallowed thing - She shall not eat any part of the peace - offerings which she or her husband offered, which otherwise she might have done; and, if she be a priest's wife, she shall not eat any of the tythes or first fruits, or part of the hallowed meats, which at other times she together with her husband might eat. Threescore and six days - The time in both particulars is double to the former, not so much from natural causes, as to put an honour upon the sacrament of circumcision, which being administered to the males, did put an end to that pollution sooner than otherwise had been. For a son or a daughter - For the birth of a son, or of a daughter: but the purification was for herself, as appears from the following verses. A sin - offering - Because of her ceremonial uncleanness, which required a ceremonial expiation. The morality of this law obliges women who have received mercies from God in child - bearing, with all thankfulness to acknowledge his goodness to them, owning themselves unworthy of it, and (which is the best purification) to continue in faith, and love, and holiness, with sobriety.

Whosoever toucheth her - Of grown persons. For the infant, to whom in that case she might give suck, was exempted from this pollution by the greater law of necessity, and by that antecedent law which required women to give suck to their own children. Seven days - If he did this ignorantly; but if the man and woman did this knowingly, being accused and convicted, they were punished with death, Lev 20:18, for as there was a turpitude in the action, so it was very prejudicial to the children then begotten, who were commonly weak, or leprous; which was also an injury to the commonwealth of Israel, and redounded to the dishonour of God and of the true religion, that the professors thereof gave such public evidence of their intemperance. Seven days - From the stopping of her issue. And this was for trial, whether it was only a temporary obstruction, or a real cessation. When they defile my tabernacle - Both ceremonially, by coming into it in their uncleanness, and morally by the contempt of God's express command to cleanse themselves. The grand reason of all these laws was, to separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness. Hereby they were taught their privilege and honour, that they were purified unto God, a peculiar people; for that was a defilement to them, which was not so to others. They were also taught their duty, which was to keep themselves clean from all pollutions.

Chapter XVI The institution of the yearly day of atonement for the whole nation. The whole service is committed to the high - priest, who is, Then only to come into the holy of holies, in his linen garments with a young bullock, ver. 1 - 4. To offer a goat, and a bullock for a sin - offering, ver. 5 - 13. To sprinkle the blood before the mercy seat, and upon the altar, ver. 13 - 19. To confess over the scape - goat, the sins of the people, and then send him into the wilderness, ver. 20 - 23. To offer the burnt - offerings, ver. 24 - 28. And, To appoint this day to be a solemn fast, by a statute for ever, ver. 29 - 34. At all times - Not whensoever he pleaseth, but only when I shall appoint him, namely, to take down the parts and furniture of it upon every removal, and to minister unto me once in the year. Lest he die - For his irreverence and presumption. In the cloud - In a bright and glorious cloud, over the mercy - seat, as a token when I would have him come. With a young bullock - That is, with the blood of it; the body of it was to be offered upon the altar of burnt - offerings. A sin - offering - For his own and family's sins; for a goat was offered for the sins of the people. The linen coat - It is observable, the high - priest did not now use his peculiar and glorious robes, but only his linen garments, which were common to him with the ordinary priests. The reason whereof was, because this was not a day of feasting and rejoicing, but of mourning and humiliation, at which times people were to lay aside their ornaments. These are holy - Because appropriated to an holy and religious use. For the Lord - For the Lord's use by way of sacrifice. Both this and the other goat typified Christ; this in his death and passion for us; that in his resurrection for our deliverance. The bullock - Mentioned in general, Lev 16:6. The ceremonies whereof are here particularly described. This was a different bullock or heifer from that Num 19:2,5,9,10,17, as appears by comparing the places.

This was a different bullock or heifer from that Num 19:2,5,9,10,17, as appears by comparing the places. Within the veil - That is, into the holy of holies, Lev 16:2. Upon the fire - Which was in the censer, Lev 16:12. Upon the mercy - seat - To teach us, that God is merciful to sinners only through and for the blood of Christ. With his face east - ward, or upon the eastern part, towards the people, who were in the court which lay east - ward from the holy of holies, which was the most western part of the tabernacle. This signified that the high - priest in this act represented the people, and that God accepted it on their behalf. Before the mercy - seat - On the ground. Then shall he kill the goat - He went out of the holy of holies, and killed it, and then returned thither again with its blood. And whereas the high - priest is said to be allowed to enter into that place but once in a year, that is to be understood, but one day in a year, though there was occasion of going in and coming out more than once upon that day. Because of the uncleannesses of Israel - For though the people did not enter into that place, yet their sins entered thither, and would hinder the effects of the high - priest's mediation on their behalf if God was not reconciled to them. In the midst of their uncleanness - ln the midst of a sinful people, who defile not themselves only, but also God's sanctuary. And God hereby shewed them, how much their hearts needed to be purified, when even the tabernacle, only by standing in the midst of them, needed this expiation. In the tabernacle - ln the holy place, where the priests and Levites were at other times. This was commanded for the greater reverence to the Divine Majesty then in a more special manner appearing, and that none of them might cast an eye into the holy of holies, as the high - priest went in or came out.

Chapter XVIII A prohibition of conformity to the heathens, ver. 1 - 5. Particular laws against incest, ver. 6 - 18. Against unnatural lusts and barbarous idolatries, ver. 19 - 23. Enforced from the destruction of the Canaanites, ver. 24 - 30. Your God - Your sovereign, and lawgiver. This is often repeated because the things here forbidden were practised and allowed by the gentiles, to whose custom he opposes divine authority and their obligation to obey his commands. Egypt and Canaan - These two nations he mentions, because their habitation and conversation among them made their evil example in the following matters more dangerous. But under them he includes all other nations. My judgments - Though you do not see the particular reason of some of them, and though they be contrary to the laws and usages of the other nations. He shall live in them - Not only happily here, but eternally hereafter. This is added as a powerful argument why they should follow God's commands, rather than mens examples, because their life and happiness depend upon it. And though in strictness, and according to the covenant of works they could not challenge life for so doing, except their obedience was universal, perfect, constant and perpetual, and therefore no man since the fall could be justified by the law, yet by the covenant of grace this life is promised to all that obey God's commands sincerely. To uncover their nakedness - I think Mr. Free has made it highly probable, that this phrase does not mean marriage, but fornication, throughout this chapter. So it unquestionably means in the twentieth chapter. Thy brother's wife - God afterwards commanded, that in one case, a man should marry his brother's widow. Thou shalt not take a wife to her sister - Perhaps this text doth not simply forbid the taking one wife to another, but the doing it in such a manner or for such an end, that he may vex or punish, or revenge himself of the former; which probably was a common motive amongst that hardhearted people to do so. As long as she is set apart - No not to thy own wife. This was not only a ceremonial pollution, but an immorality also, whence it is put amongst gross sins, Eze 18:6. And therefore it is now unlawful under the gospel.

Chapter XIX Various Precepts to be holy, ver. 1, 2. To honour parents and sabbaths, ver. 3. To shun idolatry, ver. 4. Duty to eat their peace - offering, ver. 5 - 8. To leave gleanings for the poor, ver. 9, 10. Not to steal, lie, swear falsely, or defraud, ver. 11 - 13. Not to curse the deaf, or put a stumbling - block before the blind, ver. 14. Not to judge unjustly, carry tales, or bear false witness, ver. 15, 16. To reprove sinners, not to revenge themselves; to love their neighbours, ver. 17, 18. Not to mix different things, ver. 19. Not to lie with their bond - maids, ver. 20 - 22. Not to eat of the fruit of the land for four years, ver. 23 - 25. Not to eat blood, use enchantments, or heathen customs, ver. 26 - 28. Or prostitute their daughters, ver. 29. To reverence God and his sanctuary, ver. 30. Not to regard wizards, ver. 31. To honour the aged, ver. 32. Love and right the stranger, ver. 33, 34. Do no injustice, ver. 34, 35, 36. Be ye holy - Separated from all the forementioned defilements, and entirely consecrated to God and obedient to all his laws. I am holy - Both in my essence, and in all my laws, which are holy and just and good. His mother - The mother is put first, partly because the practice of this duty begins there, mothers, by perpetual converse, being sooner known to their children than their fathers; and partly because this duty is commonly neglected to the mother, upon whom children have not so much dependence as they have upon their father. And this fear includes the two great duties of reverence and obedience. And keep my sabbaths - This is added, to shew, that, whereas it is enjoined to parents that they should take care the sabbath be observed both by themselves and their children, it is the duty of children to fear and obey their parents in this matter. But that, if parents should neglect their duty herein, or by their command, counsel, or example, draw them to pollute the sabbath, the children in that case must keep the sabbath, and prefer the command of God before the commands of their parents.

Chapter XXI Directions to the priests, ver. 1 - 9. To the high - priest, ver. 10 - 15. None of these must have any blemish, ver. 16 - 24. Among his people - None of the priests shall touch the dead body, or assist at his funeral, or eat of the funeral feast. The reason of this law is evident, because by such pollution they were excluded from converse with men, to whom by their function they were to be serviceable upon all occasions, and from the handling of holy things. And God would hereby teach them, and in them all successive ministers, that they ought entirely to give themselves to the service of God. Yea, to renounce all expressions of natural affection, and all worldly employments, so far as they are impediments to the discharge of their holy services. Near to him - Under which general expression his wife seems to be comprehended, though she be not expressed. And hence it is noted as a peculiar case, that Ezekiel, who was a priest, was forbidden to mourn for his wife, Eze 24:16, &c. These exceptions God makes in condescension to human infirmity, because in such cases it was very hard to restrain the affections. But this allowance concerns only the inferior priest, not the high - priest. That is nigh him - That is, by nearness not of relation, (for that might seem a needless addition) but of habitation, one not yet cut off from the family. For if she was married, she was now of another family, and under her husband's care in those matters. Being - Or, seeing he is a chief man, for such not only the high - priest, but others also of the inferior priests were. He shall not defile himself for any other person whatsoever. To profane himself - Because such defilement for the dead did profane him, or make him as a common person, and consequently unfit to manage his sacred employment. They shall not make baldness - In funerals, as the Heathens did. Though I allow them to defile themselves for some of the dead, yet in no case shall they use these superstitious rites, which also the people were forbidden to do; but the priests in a more peculiar manner, because they are by word and example to teach the people their duty.

For which reason, such persons as have notorious defects or deformities, are still unfit for the ministry except where there are eminent gifts and graces, which vindicate a man from the contemptibleness of his bodily presence. The particular defect's here mentioned, I shall not enlarge upon because some of the Hebrew words are diversely interpreted, and because the use of these things being abolished, the knowledge of them is not necessary. A flat nose - Most restrain this word to the nose, and to some great deformity relating to it. But according to others, it signifies more generally, a person that wants some member or members, because the next word, to which it is opposed, signifies one that hath more members than he should. A blemish - Any notorious blemish whereby he is disfigured, though not here mentioned. He shall eat - Which a priest having any uncleanness might not do whereby God would shew the great difference between natural infirmities sent upon a man by God, and moral defilements which a man brought upon himself. To the veil - To the second veil which was between the holy and the most holy place, to burn incense, to order the shew - bread, and to dress the lamps, which were nigh unto that veil though without. My altar - The altar of burnt - offering, which was without the sanctuary. The sense is, he shall not execute the priest's office, which was to be done in those two places.

Chapter XXII A priest, having any uncleanness, must not eat of the holy things, ver. 1 - 7. No priest must eat that which dies of itself, or is torn, ver. 8, 9. No stranger must eat of holy things, ver. 10 - 13. Of them that do it ignorantly, ver. 14 - 16. Sacrifices must be without blemish, and of a due age, ver. 17 - 27. Thank offerings must be eaten the same day, ver. 29, 30. An exhortation to obedience, ver. 31 - 33. Separate themselves - When any uncleanness is upon them, as appears from Lev 22:3,4. From the holy things - From eating of those parts of the offerings, which belong to them. Only of the tithes they might eat. They - The children of Israel. And it ill became the priests to profane or pollute what the people did hallow. Goeth unto the holy things - To eat them, or to touch them; for if the touch of one of the people having his uncleanness upon him defiled the thing he touched, much more was it so in the priest. Cut off - From my ordinances by excommunication: He shall be excluded both from the administration, and from the participation of them. His food - His portion, the means of his subsistence. This may be added, to signify why there was no greater nor longer a penalty put upon the priests than upon the people in the same case, because his necessity craved some mitigation: tho' otherwise the priests being more sacred persons, deserved a greater punishment. Lest they bear sin - Incur guilt and punishment. For it - For the neglect or violation of it. No stranger - Of a strange family, who is not a priest; but there is an exception to this rule, Lev 22:11. A sojourner - One that comes to his house and abides there for a season, and eats at his table. A stranger - To one of another family, who is no priest. Yet the priest's wife, though of another family, might eat. The reason of which difference is, because the wife passeth into the name, state and privileges of her husband, from whom the family is denominated. Unto it - Over and above the principle, and besides the ram to be offered to God, Lev 5:15.

Unto it - Over and above the principle, and besides the ram to be offered to God, Lev 5:15. And shall give unto the priest the holy thing - That is, the worth of it, which the priest was either to take to himself or to offer to God, as the nature of the thing was. They - The people shall not profane them, by eating them: or the priests shall not profane them, that is, suffer the people to profane them, without censure and punishment. They - That is, the priests, shall not (the negative particle being understood out of the foregoing clause) suffer them - That is, the people, to bear the iniquity of trespass - That is, the punishment of their sin, which they might expect from God, and for the prevention whereof the priest was to see restitution made. Strangers - Such as were proselytes. A male - For a burnt - offering, which was always of that kind: but the females were accepted in peace - offerings, and sin - offerings. A stranger's hand - From proselytes: even from those, such should not be accepted, much less from the Israelites. The bread of your God - That is, the sacrifices. In one day - Because it favoured of cruelty. Hallowed, or sanctified, either by you in keeping my holy commands, or upon you in executing my holy and righteous judgments. I will manifest myself to be an holy God that will not bear the transgression of my laws.

Wave them - Some part of them in the name of the whole; and so for the two lambs, otherwise they had been too big and too heavy, to be waved. For the priests - Who had to themselves not only the breast and shoulder as in others, which belonged to the priest, but also the rest which belonged to the offerer; because the whole congregation being the offerer here, it could neither be distributed to them all, nor given to some without offence to the rest. An holy convocation - A sabbath or day of rest, called pentecost; which was instituted, partly in remembrance of the consummation of their deliverance out of Egypt by bringing them thence to the mount of God, or Sinai, as God had promised, and of that admirable blessing of giving the law to them on the 50th day, and forming them into a commonwealth under his own immediate government; and partly in gratitude for the farther progress of their harvest, as in the passover they offered a thank - offering to God for the beginning of their harvest. The perfection of this feast, was the pouring out of the holy spirit upon the apostles on this very day, in which the law of faith was given, fifty days after Christ our passover was sacrificed for us. And on that day the apostles, having themselves received the first - fruits of the spirit, begat three thousand souls thro' the word of truth, as the first - fruits of the Christian church. When ye reap, thou - From the plural, ye, he comes to the singular, thou, because he would press this duty upon every person who hath an harvest to reap, that none might plead exemption from it. And it is observable, that though the present business is only concerning the worship of God, yet he makes a kind of excursion to repeat a former law of providing for the poor, to shew that our devotion to God is little esteemed by him if it be not accompanied with acts of charity to men. A sabbath - Solemnized with the blowing of trumpets by the priests, not in a common way, as they did every first day of every month, but in an extraordinary manner, not only in Jerusalem, but in all the cities of Israel.

Shall bear his sin - That is, the punishment of it; shall not go unpunished. He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord - This is a repetition of the same sin in other words, which is common. As this law is laid down in general terms, Lev 24:15, so both the sin and the punishment are particularly expressed, Lev 24:16. All the congregation - To shew their zeal for God, and to beget in them the greater dread and abhorrence of blasphemy. He that killeth - This law is repeated here, to prevent the mischievous effects of men's striving together, which as here it caused blasphemy, so it might in others lead to murder. One law - That is, in matters of common right, but not as to church privileges. Stone him with stones - This blasphemer was the first that died by the law of Moses. Stephen the first that died for the gospel, died by the abuse of the law. The martyr and the malefactor suffered the same death; but how vast the difference between them.

Jubilee - So called either from the Hebrew word Jobel which signifies first a ram, and then a ram's horn, by the sound whereof it was proclaimed; or from Jubal the inventor of musical instruments, Gen 4:21, because it was celebrated with music and all expressions of joy. Unto his possession - Which had been sold or otherwise alienated from him. This law was not at all unjust, because all buyers and sellers had an eye to this condition in their bargains; but it was expedient in many regards, as To mind them that God alone was the Lord and proprietor both of them and of their lands, and they only his tenants; a point which they were very apt to forget. That hereby inheritances, families, and tribes, might be kept entire and clear until the coming of the Messiah, who was to be known as by other things, so by the tribe and family out of which he was to come. And this accordingly was done by the singular providence of God until the Lord Jesus did come. Since which time those characters are miserably confounded: which is no small argument that the Messiah is come. To set bounds both to the insatiable avarice of some, and the foolish prodigality of others, that the former might not wholly and finally swallow up the inheritances of their brethren, and the latter might not be able to undo themselves and their posterity for ever, which was a singular privilege of this law and people. His family - From whom he was gone, being sold to some other family either by himself or by his father. It shall be holy - So it was, because it was sequestered in great part from worldly employments and dedicated to God, and to the exercise of holy joy and thankfulness; and because it was a type of that holy and happy jubilee which they were to expect and enjoy under the Messiah. The increase thereof - Such things as it produced of itself. Out of the field - Whence they in common with others might take it as they needed it; but must not put it into barns, See Lev 25:5, and Exo 23:11. Ye shall not oppress - Neither the seller by requiring more, nor the buyer by taking the advantage from his brother's necessities to give him less than the worth of it.

These are the laws which the Lord made between him and the children of Israel - Hereby his communion with his church is kept up. He manifests not only his dominion over them, but his favour to them, by giving them his law. And they manifest not only their holy fear, but their holy love by the observance of it. And thus it is made between them rather as a covenant than as a law: for he draws them with the cords of a man.

Five years old - At which age they might be vowed by their parents, as appears from 1Sam 1:11 - 28, tho' not by themselves; and the children were obliged by their parents vow, which is not strange considering the parents right to dispose of their children so far as is not contrary to the mind of God. Than thy estimation - If he be not able to pay the price which thou, according to the rules here given, requirest of him. Whereof men bring an offering - That is, a clean beast. Giveth - Voweth to give: Shall be holy - Consecrated to God, either to be sacrificed, or to be given to the priest, according to the manner of the vow, and the intention of him that voweth. He shall not alter it, nor change it - Two words expressing the same thing more emphatically, that is, he shall in no wise change it, neither for one of the same, nor of another kind: partly because God would preserve the reverence of consecrated things, and therefore would not have them alienated, and partly to prevent abuses of them who on this pretence might exchange it for the worse. It and the exchange - That is, both the thing first vowed, and the thing offered or given in exchange. This was inflicted upon him as a just penalty for his levity in such weighty matters. Unclean - Either for the kind, or for the quality of it; if it were such an one as might not be offered. Sanctify his house - By a vow, for of that way and manner of sanctification he speaks in this whole chapter. The fifth part - Which he might the better do, because the priests did usually put a moderate rate upon it. Of his possession - That is, which is his by inheritance, because particular direction is given about purchased lands, Lev 27:22. And he saith, part of it, for it was unlawful to vow away all his possessions, because thereby he disabled himself from the performance of divers duties, and made himself burdensome to his brethren. According to the seed - That is, according to the quantity and quality of the land, which is known by the quantity of seed which it can receive and return.

Chapter IV A command to number the Levites from thirty to fifty years old, ver. 1 - 3. The charge of the Kohathites, ver. 4 - 20. Of the Gershonites, ver. 21 - 28. Of the Merarites, ver. 29 - 33. The number of each, ver. 34 - 45. Of all in general, ver. 46 - 49. From thirty - This age was prescribed, as the age of full strength of body, and therefore most proper for their laborious work of carrying the parts and vessels of the tabernacle, and of maturity of judgment, which is necessary for the right management of holy services. Whence even John and Christ entered not upon their ministry till that age. Indeed their first entrance upon their work was at their 25th year, when they began as learners, and acted under the inspection and direction of their brethren; but in their 30th year they were compleatly admitted to a full discharge of their whole office. But David, being a prophet, and particularly directed by God in the affairs of the temple, made a change in this matter, because the magnificence of the temple, and the great multitude of sacred utensils and sacrifices, required a greater number of attendants than formerly was necessary. Until fifty - When they were exempted from the toilsome work of carrying burdens, but not discharged from the honourable and easy work done within the tabernacle, Num 8:26. All that enter - That is, that do and may enter, having no defect, nor other impediment. They shall take down - For upon this necessary occasion the inferior priests are allowed to come into the holy of holies, which otherwise was peculiar to the high - priest. The covering veil - The second veil, wherewith the ark was covered while the tabernacle stood, Exo 40:3. Cover the ark - Because the Levites, who were to carry the ark, might neither see, nor immediately touch it. Badgers - skins - Whereby the ark was secured from the injuries of the weather. The dishes - Upon which the shew - bread was put.

The dishes - Upon which the shew - bread was put. Continual bread - So called because it was continually to be there, even in the wilderness; where though they had only manna for themselves, yet they reserved corn for the weekly making of these loaves, which they might with no great difficulty procure from some of the people bordering upon the wilderness. The golden altar - All covered with plates of gold. The instruments of ministry - The sacred garments used by the priests in their holy ministrations. Cover them - All these coverings were designed, For safety, that these holy things might not be filled by rain, or tarnished by the sun. For decency, most of them had a cloth of blue, or purple, or scarlet over them; the ark, a cloth wholly of blue, perhaps an emblem of the azure skies, which are spread between us and the Majesty on high; For concealment. It was a fit sign of the darkness of that dispensation. The holy things were then covered. But Christ hath now destroyed the face of the covering. The altar - Hence we may conclude, that they did offer sacrifices at other times, though not so constantly and diligently, as they did in Canaan. Moreover the taking away of the ashes only doth sufficiently imply that the fire was preserved, which as it came down from heaven, Lev 9:24. So it was by God's command to be continually fed, and kept burning, and therefore doubtless was put into some vessel, which might be either fastened to the altar and put within this covering, or carried by some person appointed thereunto. Bear it - Upon their shoulders. Afterward the priests themselves, being multiplied, carried these things, though the Levites also were not excluded. They shall not touch - Before they are covered. Eleazar - He himself is to carry these things, and not to commit them to the sons of Kohath. The oversight - The care that all the things above mentioned be carried by the persons and in the manner expressed. Cut not off - Do not by your neglect provoke God to cut them off for touching the holy things. To his service - To that which is peculiarly allotted to him, the services, and burdens being equally distributed among them. The curtains - The curtains or covering of goats - hair.

The curtains - The curtains or covering of goats - hair. The tabernacle - The ten curtains which covered the boards of the tabernacle; for the boards themselves were carried by the Merarites. His covering - The covering of rams - skins which was put next over those ten curtains. Which is round about - Which court compassed both the tabernacle and the altar. Under the hand - Under his conduct and direction. The sockets - Which were as the feet upon which the pillars stood. Ye shall reckon - Every part and parcel shall be put in an inventory; which is required here rather than in the fore - going particulars; because these were much more numerous than the former; because being meaner things, they might otherwise have been neglected; and also to teach us, that God esteems nothing small in his service, and that he expects his will should be observed in the minutest circumstances. The death of the saints is represented us the taking down of the tabernacle. The immortal soul, like the most holy things, is first covered and taken away, carried by angels unseen, and care is taken also of the body, the skin and flesh, which are as the curtains, the bones and sinews, which are as the bars and pillars. None of these shall be lost. Commandment is given concerning the bones, a covenant made with the dust. They are in safe custody, and shall be produced in the great day, when this tabernacle shall be set up again, and these vile bodies made like the glorious body of Jesus Christ. Three thousand - Here appears the wisdom of Divine Providence, that whereas in the Kohathites and Gershonites, whose burdens were fewer and easier, there were but about a third part of them fit for service; the Merarites, whose burdens were more and heavier, had above half of them fit for this work.

Chapter VI The law of the Nazarites. What they were to abstain from, ver. 1 - 8. How to be cleansed from casual uncleanness, ver. 9 - 12. How to be discharged from their vow, ver. 13 - 21. The form of blessing the people, ver. 22 - 27. Man or woman - For both sexes might make this vow, if they were free and at their own disposal: otherwise their parents or husbands could disannul the vow. A vow of a Nazarite - Whereby they sequestered themselves from worldly employments and enjoyments, that they might entirely consecrate themselves to God's service, and this either for their whole lifetime, or for a less and limited space of time. Nor eat grapes - Which was forbidden him for greater caution to keep him at the farther distance from wine. All the days of his separation - Which were sometimes more, sometimes fewer, as he thought fit to appoint. No razor - Nor scissors, or other instrument to cut off any part of his hair. This was appointed, partly as a sign of his mortification to worldly delights and outward beauty; partly as a testimony of that purity which hereby he professed, because the cutting off the hair was a sign of uncleanness, as appears from Num 6:9, partly that by the length of his hair he might be constantly minded of his vow; and partly that he might reserve his hair entirely for God, to whom it was to be offered. Holy - That is, wholly consecrated to God and his service, whereby he shews that inward holiness was the great thing which God required and valued in these, and consequently in other rites and ceremonies. His father - Wherein he was equal to the high - priest, being, in some sort, as eminent a type of Christ, and therefore justly required to prefer the service of God, to which he had so fully given himself, before the expressions of his affections to his dearest and nearest relations. The consecration - That is, the token of his consecration, namely, his long hair.

Chapter X Orders concerning the silver trumpets, ver. 1 - 10. The removal of the Israelites to Paran, ver. 11 - 28. The treaty of Moses with Hobab, ver. 29 - 32. His prayer at the removal and resting of the ark, ver. 33 - 36. Two trumpets - For Aaron's two sons: though afterwards the number of the trumpets was much increased, as the number of the priests also was. These trumpets were ordained, both for signification of the great duty of ministers, to preach the word; and for use, as here follows. For their journeys - As a sign for them to march forward, and consequently for the rest to follow them. Ye shall be saved - If you use this ordinance of God with trust and dependance upon God for help. In the days of your gladness - Days appointed for rejoicing and thanksgiving to God for former mercies, or deliverances. Your solemn days - Your stated festivals. For a memorial - That God may remember you for good to accept and bless you. God then takes pleasure in our religious exercises, when we take pleasure in them. Holy work should be done with holy joy. Paran - From which they travelled to other places, and then returned into it again, Num 12:16. The others - The Gershonites, and Merarites, who therefore marched after the first camp, a good distance from, and before the Kohathites, that they might prepare the tabernacle for the reception of its utensils, which the Kohathites brought some time after them. Raguel - Called also Reuel, Exo 2:18, who seems to be the same with Jethro; it being usual in scripture for one person to have two or three names. And therefore this Hobab is not Jethro, but his son, which may seem more probable, because Jethro was old and unfit to travel, and desirous, as may well be thought, to die in his own country, whither he returned, Exo 18:27, but Hobab was young and fitter for these journeys, and therefore entreated by Moses to stay and bear them company. I will not go - So he might sincerely say, though afterward he was overcome by the persuasions of Moses.

All these commandments - Those now spoken of, which concern the outward service of God, or the rites or ceremonies belonging to it. And herein principally this law may seem to differ from that Lev 4:13, which speaks of some positive miscarriage, or doing that which ought not to have been done, about the holy things of God; whereas this speaks only of an omission of something which ought to have been done about holy ceremonies. Reproacheth the Lord - He sets God at defiance, and exposeth him to contempt, as if he were unable to punish transgressors. On the sabbath - day - This seems to be added as an example of a presumptuous sin: for as the law of the sabbath was plain and positive, so this transgression of it must needs be a known and wilful sin. To all the congregation - That is, to the rulers of the congregation. They - That is, Moses and Aaron, and the seventy rulers. What should be done - That is, in what manner he was to be cut off, or by what kind of death he was to die, which therefore God here particularly determines: otherwise it was known in general that sabbath - breakers were to be put to death. Fringes - These were certain threads or ends, standing out a little further than the rest of their garments, lest there for this use. In the borders - That is, in the four borders or quarters, as it is, Deut 22:12. Of their garments - Of their upper garments. This was practiced by the Pharisees in Christ's time, who are noted for making their borders larger than ordinary. A ribband - To make it more obvious to the sight, and consequently more serviceable to the use here mentioned. Of blue - Or, purple. For a fringe - That is, the ribband, shall be unto you, shall serve you for a fringe, to render it more visible by its distinct colour, whereas the fringe without this was of the same piece and colour with the garment, and therefore less observeable. That ye seek not - Or, enquire not for other rules and ways of serving me than I have prescribed you.

Chapter XVII The blossoming of Aaron's rod, ver. 1 - 9. It is laid up for a memorial, ver. 10,11. The people are terrified, ver. 12,13. Of every one - Not of every person, but of every tribe. A rod - That staff, or rod, which the princes carried in their hands as tokens of their dignity and authority. Every man's name - Every prince's: for they being the first - born, and the chief of their tribes might above all others pretend to the priesthood, if it was communicable to any of their tribes, and besides each prince represented all his tribe: so that this was a full decision of the question. And this place seems to confirm, that not only Korah and the Levites, but also those of other tribes contested with Moses and Aaron about the priesthood, as that which belonged to all the congregation they being all holy. Aaron's name - Rather than Levi's, for that would have left the controversy undecided between Aaron and the other Levites, whereas this would justify the appropriation of the priesthood to Aaron's family. One rod - There shall be in this, as there is in all the other tribes, only one rod, and that for the head of their tribe, who is Aaron in this tribe: whereas it might have been expected that there should have been two rods, one for Aaron, and another for his competitors of the same tribe. But Aaron's name was sufficient to determine both the tribe, and that branch or family of the tribe, to whom this dignity should be affixed. Before the testimony - That is, before the ark of the testimony, close by the ark. I will meet with you - And manifest my mind to you, for the ending of this dispute. Among their rods - Was laid up with the rest, being either one of the twelve, as the Hebrews affirm, or the thirteenth, as others think. Into the tabernacle - Into the most holy place, which he might safely do under the protection of God's command, though otherwise none but the high - priest might enter there, and that once in a year.

Chapter XVIII The Work of the priests and Levites, ver. 1 - 7. The maintenance of the priests, ver. 8 - 20. Of the Levites, ver. 21 - 24. The portion they are to pay to the priests, ver. 25 - 32. Shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary - Shall suffer the punishment of all the usurpations, or pollutions of the sanctuary, or the holy things, by the Levites, or any of the people, because you have power from me to keep them all within their bounds. Thus the people are in good measure secured against their fears. Also they are informed that Aaron's high dignity was attended with great burdens, having not only his own, but the people's sins to answer for; and therefore they had no such reason to envy him, if the benefits and dangers were equally considered. The iniquity of your priesthood - That is, Of all the errors committed by yourselves, or by you permitted in others in things, belonging to your priesthood. Unto thee - About sacrifices and offerings and other things, according to the rules I have prescribed them. The Levites are said to minister to Aaron here, to the church, Num 16:9, and to God, Deu 10:8. They shall not contend with thee for superiority, as they have done, but shall be subordinate to thee. Thy sons with thee - Or, both to thee, and to thy sons with thee: Which translation may seem to be favoured by the following words, before the tabernacle, which was the proper place where the Levites ministered. Besides, both the foregoing words, and the two following verses, entirely speak of the ministry of the Levites, and the ministry of the priests is distinctly spoken of, Nu 18:5. They charge - That is, that which thou shalt command them and commit unto them. The sanctuary - Of the holy, and of the most holy place. To you they are given as a gift - We are to value it as a great gift of the divine bounty, to have those joined to us, that will be helpful and serviceable to us, in the service of God. The altar - Of burnt - offering. Within the veil - This phrase here comprehends both the holy and the most holy place.

Within the veil - This phrase here comprehends both the holy and the most holy place. As a gift which I have freely conferred upon you, and upon you alone; and therefore let no man henceforth dare either to charge you with arrogance in appropriating this to yourselves, or to invade your office. I have given them - Not only the charge, but the use of them for thyself and family. By reason of the anointing - That is, because thou art priest, and art to devote thyself wholly to my service. Most holy - Such as were to be eaten only by the priests, and that in the sanctuary. Reserved - That is, such sacrifices or parts of sacrifices as were not burnt in the fire. Render unto me - By way of compensation for a trespass committed against me, in which case a ram was to be offered, which was a most holy thing, and may be particularly designed here. In the most holy place - In the court of the priests, where there were places for this use, which is called the most holy place, not simply and absolutely, but in respect of the thing he speaks of because this was the most holy of all the places appointed for eating holy things, whereof some might be eaten in any clean place in the camp, or in their own house. Whatsoever is first ripe - Not only the first - fruits of the oil and wine, and wheat now mentioned, but all other first - fruits of all other grains, and all fruit trees. Clean - And none else, because these were first offered to God, and by consequence given to priests; but for those which were immediately given to the priests, the clean and unclean might eat of them. Devoted - Dedicated to God by vow or otherwise, provided it be such a thing as might be eaten: for the vessels or treasures of gold and silver which were dedicated by Joshua, David, or others, were not the priests, but appropriated to the uses of the temple. Of men - Which were offered to God in his temple, and to his service and disposal.

Chapter XIX The manner of preparing the water of purification, ver. 1 - 10. Of using it, ver. 11 - 22. Red - A fit colour to shadow forth the bloody nature of sin, and the blood of Christ, from which this water and all other rites had their purifying virtue. No blemish - A fit type of Christ. Upon which never came yoke - Whereby may be signified, either that Christ in himself was free from all the yoke or obligation of God's command, till for our sakes he put himself under the law; or that Christ was not forced to undertake our burden and cross, but did voluntarily chuse it. He was bound and held with no other cords but those of his own love. Eleazar - Who was the second priest, and in some cases, the deputy of the high - priest. To him, not to Aaron, because this service made him unclean for a season, and consequently unfit for holy ministrations, whereas the high - priest was, as far as possibly he could, to be preserved from all sorts of defilement, fit for his high and holy work. Without the camp - Partly because it was reputed an unclean and accursed thing, being laden with the sins of all the people; and partly to signify that Christ should suffer without the camp, in the place where malefactors suffered. Before the tabernacle - Or, towards the tabernacle, standing at a good distance from it, even without the camp, yet turning and looking towards it. For here is no intimation that he went into the camp before this work was done, but rather the contrary is implied, Nu 19:7. And because being defiled by this work he could not come near the tabernacle, it was sufficient for him to turn and look towards it. This signified his presenting this blood before the Lord by way of atonement for his and the people's sins, and his expectation of acceptance and pardon only from God, and from his mercy - seat in the tabernacle. And this typified the satisfaction that was made to God, by the death of Christ, who by the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, and did as it were sprinkle his own blood before the sanctuary, when he said, Into thy hands I commend my spirit!

Chapter XXVII The case of Zelophehad's daughters determined, ver. 1 - 11. Notice given to Moses of his death, ver. 12 - 14. His successor provided. ver. 15 - 23. By the door of the tabernacle - Nigh unto which it seems was the place where Moses and the chief rulers assembled for the administration of publick affairs, which also was very convenient, because they had frequent occasion of recourse to God for his direction. In his own sin - For his own personal sins. It was a truth, and that believed by the Jews that death was a punishment for mens own sins. Be done away - As it will be, if it be not preserved by an inheritance given to us in his name and for his sake. Hence some gather, that the first son of each of these heiresses was called by their father's name, by virtue of that law, Deu 25:6, whereby the brother's first son was to bear the name of his elder brother, whose widow he married. Give us a possession - In the land of Canaan upon the division of it, which though not yet conquered, they concluded would certainly be so, and thereby gave glory to God. No brethren - Nor sisters, as appears from Nu 27:8. A statute of judgment - A statute or rule, by which the magistrates shall give judgment in such cases. Abarim - The whole tract of mountains was called Abarim, whereof one of the highest was called Nebo, and the top of that Pisgah. Thou shalt be gathered unto thy people - Moses must die: but death does not cut him off; it only gathers him to his people, brings him to rest with the holy patriarchs that were gone before him. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were his people, the people of his choice, and to them death gathered him. And Moses spake unto the Lord - Concerning his successor. We should concern ourselves both in our prayers and in our endeavours for the rising generation, that God's kingdom may be advanced among men, when we are in our graves.

To afflict her soul - Herself by fasting, by watching, or the like. And these words are added to shew that the husband had this power not only in those vows which concerned himself or his estate, but also in those which might seem only to concern her own person, or body, and the reason is, because the wife's person or body being the husband's right; she might not do any thing to the injury of her body without his consent. After he hath heard - And approved them by his silence from day to day, if after that time he shall hinder it, which he ought not to do: her non - performance of her vow shall be imputed to him, not to her.

Chapter XXXI God commands Moses to avenge Israel of the Midianites, ver. 1,2. Moses sends them to the war, ver. 3 - 6. They slay the Midianites, ver. 7 - 12. He reproves them for sparing the women, ver. 13 - 18. Directions for purifying themselves, ver. 19 - 24. The distribution of the spirit, ver. 25 - 47. The free - will - offering of the officers, ver. 48 - 54. Avenge ye the Lord - For the affront which they offered to God, by their own idolatry and lewdness, and by seducing God's people into rebellion against him. God's great care was to avenge the Israelites, Nu 31:2, and Moses's chief desire was to avenge God rather than himself or the people. Twelve thousand - God would send no more, though it is apparent the Midianites were numerous and strong, because he would exercise their trust in him, and give them an earnest of their Canaanitish conquests. Them and Phinehas - Who had the charge not of the army, as general, (an office never committed to a priest in all the Old Testament) but of the holy instruments, and was sent to encourage, and quicken, them in their enterprize. The holy instruments - The holy breast - plate, wherein was the Urim and Thummim, which was easily carried, and very useful in war upon many emergent occasions. All the males - Namely all who lived in those parts, for colonies of them, were sent forth to remoter places, which therefore had no hand either in their former sin, or in this present ruling. And herein they did according to God's own order concerning such people, Deu 20:13, only their fault was, that they did not consider the special reason which they had to involve the women in the destruction. Without the camp - Partly to put respect upon them, and congratulate with them for their happy success; and partly to prevent the pollution of the camp by the untimely entrance of the warriors into it.

The Greek interpreters call this book Deuteronomy, that is, The second law, or a second edition of the law, because it is a repetition of many of the laws, (as well as much of the history contained in the three foregoing books. They to whom the first law was given were all dead, and a new generation sprung up, to whom God would have it repeated by Moses himself, that it might make the deeper impression upon them. It begins with a brief rehearsal of the most remarkable events, that had befallen them since they came from mount Sinai. In the fourth chapter begins a pathetic exhortation to obedience: From the 12th to the 27th are repeated many particular laws, inforced in the 27th and 28th with promises and threatnings, which are formed into a covenant, chap. 29,30. Care is taken in chap. 31. to perpetuate the remembrance of these things among them, particularly by a song, chap. 32 concluded with a blessing, chap. 33. All this was delivered by Moses to Israel, in the last month of his life. See how busy this great and good Man was to do good, when he knew his time was short.

Chapter IV An exhortation to obedience, ver. 1 - 13. A warning against idolatry, ver. 14 - 28. A promise upon repentance, ver. 29 - 40. Cities of refuge appointed, ver. 41 - 43. The place where Moses repeated the law, ver. 44 - 49. The statutes - The laws which concern the worship and service of God. The judgments - The laws concerning your duties to men. So these two comprehend both tables, and the whole law of God. In the sight of the nations - For though the generality of Heathens in the latter ages, did through inveterate prejudices condemn the laws of the Hebrews, yet it is certain, the wisest Heathens did highly approve of them, so that they made use of divers of them, and translated them into their own laws and constitutions; and Moses, the giver of these laws, hath been mentioned with great honour for his wisdom and learning by many of them. And particularly the old Heathen oracle expressly said, that the Chaldeans or Hebrews, who worshipped the uncreated God, were the only wise men. So nigh - By glorious miracles, by the pledges of his special presence, by the operations of his grace, and particularly by his readiness to hear our prayers, and to give us those succours which we call upon him for. So righteous - Whereby he implies that the true greatness of a nation doth not consist in pomp or power, or largeness of empire, as commonly men think, but in the righteousness of its laws. Thou stoodest - Some of them stood there in their own persons, though then they were but young, the rest in the loins of their parents. The midst of heaven - Flaming up into the air, which is often called heaven. No similitude - No resemblance or representation of God, whereby either his essence, or properties, or actions were represented, such as were usual among the Heathens. Statutes and judgments - The ceremonial and judicial laws which are here distinguished from the moral, or the ten commandments.

By temptations - Temptations is the general title, which is explained by the following particulars, signs, and wonders, &c. which are called temptations, because they were trials both to the Egyptians and Israelites, whether they would be induced to believe and obey God or no. By terrors - Raised in the minds of the Egyptians, or, by terrible things done among them. In his sight - Keeping his eye fixed upon him, as the father doth on his beloved child. This is the law - More punctually expressed in the following chapter, to which these words are a preface.

O beware of this! It is scattering abroad arrows, fire - brands, and death. Neither shalt thou covet any thing that is thy neighbour's - The plain meaning of this is, thou shalt not desire any thing that is not thy own, any thing which thou hast not. Indeed why shouldst thou God hath given thee whatever tends to thy one end, holiness. Thou canst not deny it, without making him a liar: and: when any thing else will tend thereto, he will give thee that also. There is therefore no room to desire any thing which thou hast not. Thou hast already every thing that is really good for thee, wouldst thou have more money, more pleasure, more praise still Why this is not good for thee. God has told thee so, by withholding it from thee. O give thyself up to his wise and gracious disposal! Out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness - That was a dispensation of terror, designed to make the gospel of grace the more welcome, and to be a specimen of the terrors of the judgment - day. He added no more - He ceased for that time to speak immediately, and with that loud voice unto the people; for the rest were delivered to Moses, and by him communicated unto them. This he did to shew the preeminence of that law above the rest, and its everlasting obligation. Why should we die - For though God hath for this season kept us alive, yet we shall never be able to endure any farther discourse from him in such a terrible manner, but shall certainly sink under the burden of it. Flesh - Is here put for man in his frail, corruptible, and mortal state. O that there were such an heart in them! - A heart to fear God, and keep his commandments forever! The God of heaven is truly and earnestly desirous of the salvation of poor sinners.

Righteousness shall be to us. We shall be owned and pronounced by God to be righteous and holy persons, if we sincerely obey him, otherwise we shall be declared to be unrighteous and ungodly. Or, mercy shall be to us, or with us. For as the Hebrew word rendered righteousness is very often put for mercy, (as Psa 24:5 36:10 51:14 Pro 10:2 11:4 Dan 9:16) so this sense seems best to agree both with the scripture use of this phrase, (in which righteousness, seldom or never, but grace or mercy frequently, is said to be to us or with us) and with the foregoing verse and argument God, saith he, Deu 5:24, commanded these things for our good, that he might preserve us alive, as it is this day. And, saith he in this verse, this is not all; for as he hath done us good, so he will go on to do us more and more good, and God's mercy shall be to us, or with us, in the remainder of our lives, and for ever, if we observe these commandments.

Chapter IX A promise of Canaan, ver. 1 - 3. A caution, not to ascribe this to their own merit, ver. 4 - 6. A rehearsal of their various rebellions, ver. 7 - 24. and of Moses's intercession for them, ver. 25 - 29. Hear, O Israel - This seems to be a new discourse, delivered at some distance of time from the former, probably on the next sabbath - day. This day - That is, shortly, within a little time, the word day being often put for time. Nations - That is, the land of those nations. Mightier than thyself - This he adds, that they might not trust to their own strength, but rely upon God's help for the destroying them, and, after the work was done, might ascribe the glory of it to God alone, and not to themselves. Who can stand - This seems to be a proverb used in those times. Not for thy righteousness - Neither for thy upright heart, nor holy life, which are the two things which God above all things regards. And consequently he excludes all merit. And surely they who did not deserve this earthly Canaan, could not merit the kingdom of glory. To perform the word - To shew my faithfulness in accomplishing that promise which I graciously made and confirmed with my oath. Stiff - necked - Rebellious and perverse, and so destitute of all pretence of righteousness. And thus our gaining possession of the heavenly Canaan, must be ascribed to God's power, not our own might, and to God's Grace, not our own merit. In him we must glory. In Horeb - When your miraculous deliverance out of Egypt was fresh in memory; when God had but newly manifested himself to you in so stupendous and dreadful a manner, and had taken you into covenant with himself, when God was actually conferring farther mercies upon you. With the finger of God - Immediately and miraculously, which was done not only to procure the greater reverence to the law, but also to signify, that it is the work of God alone to write this law upon the tables of men's hearts. In the day of the assembly - That is, when the people were gathered by God's command to the bottom of mount Sinai, to hear and receive God's ten commandments from his own mouth. Let me alone!

Thy tents - That is, thy dwellings, which he calls tents, as respecting their present state, and to put them in mind afterwards when they were settled in better habitations, that there was a time when they dwelt in tents. Six days - Namely, besides the first day, on which the passover was killed. To put the sickle - That is, to reap thy corn, thy barley, when the first - fruits were offered. Of weeks - Of pentecost. Thou shalt give - Over and besides what was appointed. Thou shalt rejoice - In God and the effects of his favour, praising him with a glad heart. Judges - Chief magistrates to examine and determine causes and differences. Officers - Who were subordinate to the other to bring causes and persons before him, to acquaint people with the sentence of the judges, and to execute their sentence. Thy gates - Thy cities, which he here calls gates, because there were seats of judgment set. Pursuant to this law, in every town which contained above an hundred and twenty families, there was a court of twenty three judges; in the smaller towns, a court of three judges. Wrest judgment - Not give an unjust sentence. A gift doth blind the eyes - Biasseth his mind, that he cannot discern between right and wrong. The words - That is the sentence, of those judges who are used to do righteous things, it makes them give wrong judgment. That which is altogether just - Heb. righteousness, righteousness, that is, nothing but righteousness in all causes and times, and to all persons equally. Thou shalt not plant - Because this was the practice of idolaters, and might be an occasion of reviving idolatry.

Hast a desire unto her - Or, hast taken delight in her: which may be a modest expression for lying with her, and seems probable, because it is said, De 21:14, that he had humbled her. And here seem to be two cases supposed, and direction given what to do in both of them, that he did desire to marry her, of which he speaks, De 21:11 - 13. that he did not desire this, of which he speaks, De 21:14. She shall shave her head - In token of her renouncing her heathenish idolatry and superstition, and of her becoming a new woman, and embracing the true religion. Raiment of captivity - Those sordid raiments which were put upon her when she was taken captive. Bewail her father and mother - Either their death, or which was in effect the same, her final separation from them. If thou have no delight in her - If thou dost not chuse to marry her. Thou shalt not make merchandise of her - Make gain of her, either by using her to thy own servile works, or by prostituting her to the lusts or to the service of others. Two wives - This practice, though tolerated, is not hereby made lawful; but only provision is made for the children in this case. Hated - Comparatively, that is, less loved. His father and mother - The consent of both is required to prevent the abuse of this law to cruelty. And it cannot reasonably be supposed that both would agree without the son's abominable and incorrigible wickedness, in which case it seems a righteous law, because the crime of rebellion against his own parents did so fully signify what a pernicious member he would be in the commonwealth of Israel, who had dissolved all his natural obligations. Unto the elders - Which was a sufficient caution to preserve children from the malice of any hard - hearted parents, because these elders were first to examine the cause with all exactness, and then to pronounce the sentence. A glutton and a drunkard - Under which two offences others of a like or worse nature are comprehended. On a tree - Which was done after the malefactor was put to death some other way, this publick shame being added to his former punishment.

Nor is it necessary for us to know: they for whom this law was intended, undoubtedly understood it. The father - Because this was a reproach to his family, and to himself, as such a miscarriage of his daughter would have been ascribed to his evil education. She cried not - And therefore is justly presumed to have consented to it. Even so - Not an act of choice, but of force and constraint. The damsel cried - Which is in that case to be presumed; charity obliging us to believe the best, 'till the contrary be manifest. Fifty shekels - Besides the dowry, as Philo, the learned Jew notes, which is here omitted, because that was customary, it being sufficient here to mention what was peculiar to this case. His wife - If her father consented to it. Take - To wife. So this respects the state, and the next branch speaks of the act only.

Chapter XXV Stripes not to exceed forty, ver. 1 - 3. The ox not to be muzzled, ver. 4. Of marrying the brother's widow, ver. 5 - 10. Of an immodest woman, ver. 11, 12. Of just weights and measures, ver. 13 - 16. Amalek to be destroyed, ver. 17 - 19. Justify - Acquit him from guilt and false accusations, and free him from punishment. Beaten - Which the Jews say was the case of all those crimes which the law commands to be punished, without expressing the kind or degree of punishment. Before his face - That the punishment may be duly inflicted, without excess or defect. And from this no person's rank or quality exempted him, if he was a delinquent. Forty stripes - It seems not superstition, but prudent caution, when the Jews would not exceed thirty - nine stripes, lest through mistake or forgetfulness they should go beyond their bounds, which they were commanded to keep. Should seem vile - Should be made contemptible to his brethren, either by this cruel usage of him, as if he were a brute beast: or by the deformity or infirmity of body which excessive beating might produce. He treadeth out the corn - Which they did in those parts, either immediately by their hoofs on by drawing carts or other instruments over the corn. Hereby God taught them humanity, even to their beasts that served them, and much more to their servants or other men who laboured for them, especially to their ministers, 1Cor 9:9. Together - In the same town, or at least country. For if the next brother had removed his habitation into remote parts, on were carried thither into captivity, then the wife of the dead had her liberty to marry the next kinsman that lived in the same place with her. One - Any of them, for the words are general, and the reason of the law was to keep up the distinction of tribes and families, that so the Messiah might be discovered by the family from which he was appointed to proceed; and also of inheritances, which were divided among all the brethren, the first - born having only a double portion. A stranger - To one of another family. That his name be not put out - That a family be not lost.

Chapter XXVII A command to write all the law upon stones, ver. 1 - 8. A charge to Israel, to obey God, ver. 9 - 10. To pronounce a blessing on mount Gerizzim, and a curse on mount Ebal, ver. 11 - 13. To the Levites, to pronounce the whole curse, ver. 14 - 26. On that day - About that time, for it was not done 'till some days after their passing over. This law - The law properly so called, that is, the sum and substance of the precepts or laws of Moses, especially such as were moral, particularly the decalogue. Write it, that thou mayest go in - As the condition of thy entering into the land. For since Canaan is given only by promise, it must be held by obedience. Mount Ebal - The mount of cursing. Here the law is written, to signify that a curse was due to the violators of it, and that no man could expect justification from the works of the law, by the sentence whereof all men are justly accused, as being all guilty of the transgression of it in one kind and degree or other. Here the sacrifices are to be offered, to shew that there is no way to be delivered from this curse, but by the blood of Christ, which all these sacrifices did typify, and by Christ's being made a curse for us. Whole stones - Rough, not hewed or polished. By the law written on the stones, God spake to them: by the altar and sacrifices upon it, they spake to God: and thus was communion kept up between them and God. The people of the Lord - By thy solemn renewing of thy covenant with him. Upon mount Gerizzim - These words may be rendered beside or near to mount Gerizzim. There were in Canaan two mountains that lay near together, with a valley between, one called Gerizzim, the other Ebal. On the sides of these which faced each other, all the tribes were to be drawn up, six on a side, so that in the valley they came near each other, so near that the priests standing between them, might be heard by them that were next them on both sides.

Four of these are children of the bond - woman, to shew that the curse belongs to those of servile and disingenuous spirits. With these are joined Reuben, who by his shameful sin fell from his dignity, and Zebulun, the youngest of Leah's children, that the numbers might be equal. The Levites - Some of the Levites, namely, the priests, who bare the ark, as it is expressed Jos 8:33, for the body of the Levites stood upon mount Gerizzim, Deu 27:12. But these stood in the valley between Gerizzim and Ebal, looking towards the one or the other mountain as they pronounced either the blessings or the curses. Cursed - The curses are expressed, but not the blessings. For as many as were under the law, were under the curse. But it was an honour reserved for Christ to bless us; to do that which the law could not do. So in his sermon on the mount, the true mount Gerizzim, we have blessings only. The man - Under this particular he understands all the gross violations of the first table, as under the following branches he comprehends all other sins against the second table. Amen - 'Tis easy to understand the meaning of Amen to the blessings. But how could they say it to the curses It was both a profession of their faith in the truth of it, and an acknowledgment of the equity of these curses. So that when they said Amen, they did in effect Say, not only, it is certain it shall be so, but it is just it should be so. Light - Or, despiseth in his heart: or reproacheth or curseth, secretly: for if the fact was notorious, it was punished with death. Out of the way - That misleadeth simple souls, giving them pernicious counsel, either for this life, or for the next. Smiteth - That is, killeth. This includes murder under colour of law, which is of all others the greatest affront to God. Cursed therefore is he that any ways contributes to accuse, or convict, or condemn an innocent person. Confirmeth not - Or, performeth not. To this we must all say, Amen! Owning ourselves to be under the curse, and that we must have perished for ever, if Christ had not redeemed us from the curse of the law, by being made a curse for us.

And so this well agrees with Rom 10:6, &c. where St. Paul applies this place to the righteousness of faith. Is not hidden - Heb. Is not too wonderful for thee, not too hard for thee to know and do. The will of God, which is but darkly manifested to other nations, Acts 17:27, is clearly and fully revealed unto thee: thou canst not pretend ignorance or invincible difficulty. In heaven - Shut up there, but it hath been thence delivered and published in thy hearing. Neither beyond the sea - The knowledge of this commandment is not to be fetched from far distant places, to which divers of the wise Heathens travelled for their wisdom; but it was brought to thy very doors and ears, and declared to thee in this wilderness. In thy mouth - Thou knowest it so well, that it is the matter of thy common discourse. In thy heart - In thy mind, (as the heart is very commonly taken) to understand and believe it. In a word, the Law is plain and easy: but the gospel is much more so. Chuse life - They shall have life that chuse it: they that chuse the favour of God, and communion with him, shall have what they chuse. They that come short of life and happiness, must thank themselves only. They had had them, if they had chosen them, when they were put to their choice: but they die, because they will die. That thou mayest love the Lord thy God - Here he shews them in short, what their duty is; To love God as the Lord, a being most amiable, and as their God, a God in covenant with them: as an evidence of their love, to obey his voice in every thing, and by constancy in this love and obedience, to cleave to him all their days. And what encouragement had they to do this For he is thy life and the length of thy days - He gives life, preserves life, restores life, and prolongs it, by his power, tho' it be a frail life, and by his presence, tho' it be a forfeited life. He sweetens life by his comforts, and compleats all in life everlasting.

Chapter XXXI Moses encourages the people and Joshua, ver. 1 - 8. 23. Delivers to the priests the law, to be read every seventh year, ver. 9 - 13. God informs Moses of his approaching death, and the future apostasy of Israel, ver. 14 - 18. Orders him to write a song, which should be a testimony against them, ver. 19 - 22. Moses gives the law to the Levites to lay up beside the ark, and bids them assemble the people to hear his song, ver. 24 - 30. Went and spake - Continued to speak, an usual Hebrew phrase. Go out and come in - Perform the office of a leader or governor, because the time of my death approaches. This law - Largely so called, the whole law or doctrine delivered unto Moses contained in these five books. To the priests - That they might keep it carefully and religiously, and bring it forth upon occasion, and read it, and instruct the people out of it. The elders - Who were assistants to the priests, to take care that the law should be kept, and read, and observed. The year of release - When they were freed from debts and troubles, and cares of worldly matters, and thereby fitter to attend on God and his service. Thou shalt read - Thou shalt cause it to be read by the priest or Levites; for he could not read it himself in the hearing of all Israel, but this was to be done by several persons, and so the people met in several congregations. Together - Not in one place. But into divers assemblies or synagogues. Women who hereby are required to go to Jerusalem at this solemnity, as they were permitted to do in other solemnities. Children - Such of them as could understand, as appears from Neh 8:2,3, the pious Jews doubtless read it daily in their houses, and Moses of old time was read in the synagogues every sabbath day. But once in seven years, the law was thus to be read in public, to magnify it and make it honourable. Give him a charge - Immediately from myself for his greater encouragement, and to gain him more authority with the people.

But because the land of Edom is sometimes taken more largely, and so reacheth even to the Red - sea, and therefore mount Sinai was near to it, and because Paran was also near Sinai, being the next station into which they came from the wilderness of Sinai: all this verse may belong to God's appearance in mount Sinai, where that glorious light which shone upon mount Sinai directly, did in all probability scatter its beams into adjacent parts, such as Seir and Paran were. And if so, this is only a poetical expression of the same thing in divers words, and God coming or rising or shining from or to or in Sinai and Seir and Paran note one and the same illustrious action of God appearing there with ten thousands of his saints or holy angels, and giving a fiery law to them. Paran - A place where God eminently manifested his presence and goodness both in giving the people flesh which they desired, and in appointing the seventy elders and pouring forth his spirit upon them. With ten thousands of saints - That is, with a great company of holy angels, Psa 68:17 Dan 7:10, which attended upon him in this great and glorious work of giving the law, as may be gathered from Acts 7:53 Gal 3:19. From his right hand - Which both wrote the law and gave it to men. An allusion to men who ordinarily write and give gifts with their right hand. A fiery law - The law is called fiery, because it is of a fiery nature purging and searching and inflaming, to signify that fiery wrath which it inflicteth upon sinners for the violation of it, and principally because it was delivered out of the midst of the fire. The people - The tribes of Israel. The sense is, this law, though delivered with fire and smoke and thunder, which might seem to portend nothing but hatred and terror, yet in truth was given to Israel, in great love, as being the great mean of their temporal and eternal salvation. Yea, he, embraced the people, and laid them in his bosom! so the word signifies, which speaks not only the dearest love, but the most tender and careful protection.

so the word signifies, which speaks not only the dearest love, but the most tender and careful protection. All God's saints or holy ones, that is, his people, were in thy hand, that is, under God's care to protect, direct and govern them. These words are spoken to God: the change of persons, his and thy, is most frequent in the Hebrew tongue. This clause may farther note God's kindness to Israel, in upholding them when the fiery law was delivered, which was done with so much terror that not only the people were ready to sink under it, but even Moses did exceedingly fear and quake. But God sustained both Moses and the people, in or by his hand, whereby he in a manner covered them that no harm might come to them. At thy feet - Like scholars to receive instructions. He alludes to the place where the people waited when the law was delivered, which was at the foot of the mount. Every one - Of the people will receive or submit to thy instructions and commands. This may respect either, the peoples promise when they heard the law, that they would hear and do all that was commanded. Or, their duty to do so. Moses - He speaks this of himself in the third person, which is very usual in the Hebrew language. The law is called their inheritance, because the obligation of it was hereditary, passing from parents to their children, and because this was the best part of their inheritance, the greatest of all those gifts which God bestowed upon them. He was king in Jeshurun - Moses was their king not in title, but in reality, being under God, their supreme governor, and law giver. Gathered together - When the princes and people met together for the management of public affairs, Moses was owned by them as their king and lawgiver. Let Reuben live - Though Reuben deserve to be cut off or greatly diminished and obscured, according to Jacob's prediction, Gen 49:4, yet God will spare them and give them a name and portion among the tribes of Israel, and bless them with increase of their numbers. All the ancient paraphrasts refer this to the other world, so far were they from expecting temporal blessings only. Let Reuben live in life eternal, says Onkelos, and not die the second death.

Let Reuben live in life eternal, says Onkelos, and not die the second death. Let Reuben live in this world, so Jonathan and the Jerusalem Targum, and not die that death which the wicked die in the world to come. Hear, Lord - God will hear his prayer for the accomplishment of those great things promised to that tribe, Gen 49:8 - 12. This implies the delays and difficulties Judah would meet with, that would drive him to his prayers, which would be with success. Unto his people - When he shall go forth to battle against his enemies and shall fall fiercely upon them, as was foretold, Gen 49:8,9. Bring him back with honour and victory, to his people, to the rest of his tribe who were left at home when their brethren went to battle: and to his brethren the other tribes of Israel. Let his hands be sufficient for him - This tribe shall be so numerous and potent that it shall suffice to defend itself without any aid, either from foreign nations or from other tribes; as appeared when this tribe alone was able to grapple with nine or ten of the other tribes. From his enemies - Thou wilt preserve this tribe in a special manner, so that his enemies shall not be able to ruin it, as they will do other tribes, and that for the sake of the Messiah who shall spring out of it. Let thy Urim - The Thummim and the Urim, which are thine, O Lord by special institution and consecration, (by which he understands the ephod in which they were put, and the high priesthood, to which they were appropriated, and withal the gifts and graces signified by the Urim and Thummim, and necessary for the discharge of that high - office) shall be with thy holy one, that is, with that priest, whom thou hast consecrated to thyself, and who is holy in a more peculiar manner than all the people were; that is, the priesthood shall be confined to and continued in Aaron's family. Whom thou didst prove - Altho' thou didst try him, and rebuke him, yet thou didst not take away the priesthood from him. At Massah - Not at that Massah mentioned Exo 17:7, which is also called Meribah, but at that other Meribah, Num 20:13.

And so having dispatched Issachar in two words, he returns to Zebulun. The people - the Gentiles, either those of Galilee, which was called Galilee of the Gentiles, who were their neighbours; or people of other nations, with whom they had commerce, which they endeavoured to improve in persuading them to worship the true God. The mountain - That is, to the temple, which Moses knew was to be seated upon a mountain. Sacrifices of righteousness - Such as God requires. Their trafficking abroad with Heathen nations shall not make them forget their duty at home, nor shall their distance from the place of sacrifice hinder them from coming to it to discharge that duty. Of the abundance of the sea - They shall grow rich by the traffick of the sea, and shall consecrate themselves and their riches to God. Hid in the sand - Such precious things as either Are contained in the sand of the sea and rivers, in which sometimes there is mixed a considerable quantity of gold and silver. Or, Such as grow in the sea, or are fetched from the sandy bottom of it, as pearls, coral, ambergrease. Or, Such as being cast into the sea by shipwreck are cast upon the shore by the workings of the sea. It were well, if the enlargement of our trade with foreign countries, were made to contribute to the spreading of the gospel. Enlargeth - That bringeth him out of his straits amid troubles, which he was often engaged in, because he was encompassed with potent enemies. As a lion - Safe and secure from his enemies, and terrible to them when they rouse and molest him. Teareth the arm - Utterly destroys his enemies, both the head, the seat of the crown, their dignity and principality, and the arm, the subject of strength and instrument of action; both chief princes, and their subjects. The first part - The first fruits of the land of promise, the country of Sihon, which was first conquered, which he is said to provide for himself, because he desired and obtained it of Moses.

In this book and those that follow to the end of Esther, we have the history of the Jewish nation. These books, to the end of the second book of Kings, the Jewish writers call, the first book of the prophets: as being wrote by prophets, men divinely inspired. Indeed it is probable they were collections of the authentic records of the nation, which some of the prophets were divinely directed and assisted to put together. It seems the substance of the several histories was written under divine direction, when the events had just happened, and long after put into the form wherein they stand now, perhaps all by the same hand. In the five books of Moses we had a full account of the rise and constitution of the Old Testament church, the miracles by which it was built up, and the laws and ordinances by which it was to be governed. And any nation that had statutes and judgments so righteous, one would think, should have been very holy. But alas! a great part of the history is a representation of their sins and miseries. For the law made nothing perfect; that was to be done by the bringing in of the better hope. The book of Joshua, if not written by him, was at least collected out of his journals or memoirs. It contains the history of Israel under the command of Joshua: how he presided over them, In their entrance into Canaan, chap. 1 - 5. In their conquest of Canaan, chap. 6 - 12. In the distribution of the land among the tribes of Israel, chap. 13 - 21. In the establishment of religion among them, chap. 21 - 24. In all which he was a great example of wisdom, courage, fidelity and piety. And in this history we may see, Much of God and his providence; his power in the kingdom of nature; his justice in punishing the Canaanites; his faithfulness to his covenant with the patriarchs; his kindness to his people: Much of Christ and his grace: Joshua being in many respects an eminent type of him.

Rest - That is, a place of rest, as that word signifies. Before their brethren - In the front of all of them; which was but reasonable; because they had the advantage of their brethren, having actually received their portion, which their brethren had only in hope, because they were freed from those impediments which the rest were exposed to, their wives, and children, and estates being safely lodged; and to prevent their withdrawing themselves from the present service, which they otherwise would have had temptation to do, because of the nearness of their habitations. Armed - For by this time they were well furnished with arms, which they had either from the Egyptians, Amalekites, or Amorites, from whom they had taken them; or by purchase from those people by whose borders they passed. Men of valour - All such were obliged to go over if occasion required it, but Joshua took only some of them, because they were sufficient for his purpose, and because some were fit to be left, both to secure their own wives, children, and possessions, and to prevent their enemies on that side from giving them disturbance in their enterprise upon Canaan. And they answered - Not the two tribes and an half only, but the officers of all the people, in their name, concurring with the divine appointment, by which Joshua was set over them. Thus must we swear allegiance to our Lord Jesus, as the captain of our salvation. Unto thee - The same obedience which we owed, to Moses, we promise unto thee. With Moses - This is not a limitation of their obedience, as if they would not obey him any longer than he was prosperous, but an additional prayer for him. As we have hereby promised thee our obedience, so our prayer shall be, that God would bless and prosper thee, as he did Moses.

To Ai - They were not to go into the city of Ai, but into the country belonging to it, to understand the state of the place; and the people. Go up - Which was done by the wise contrivance of Divine providence, that their sin might be punished, and they awaked and reformed with as little mischief and reproach, as might be: for if the defeat of these caused so great a consternation in Joshua, it is easy to guess what dread it would have caused in the people if a host had been defeated. They fled - Not having courage to strike a stroke, which was a plain evidence that God had forsaken then; and an useful instruction, to shew them what they were when God left them: and that it was God, not their own valour, that gave the Canaanites into their hands. About thirty and six men - A dear victory to them, whereby Israel was awakened and reformed, and they hardened to their own ruin. The going down - By which it seems it was a down - hill way to Jericho, which was nearer Jordan. As water - Soft and weak, and full of fluctuation and trembling. Rent his clothes - In testimony of great sorrow, for the loss felt, the consequent mischief feared, and the sin which he suspected. His face - In deep humiliation and fervent supplication. Until the even - tide - Continuing the whole day in fasting and prayer. Put dust upon their heads - As was usual in case of grief and astonishment. Over Jordan - This and the following clause, tho' well intended, yet favour of human infirmity, and fall short of that reverence and modesty, and submission, which he owed to God; and are mentioned as instances that the holy men of God were subject to like passions and infirmities with other men. What shall I say - In answer to the reproaches of our insulting enemies. When Israel - God's people, which he hath singled out of all nations for his own. Thy great name - Which will upon this occasion be blasphemed and charged with inconstancy, and with inability to resist them, or to do thy people that good which thou didst intend them. The name of God is a great name, above every name.

Chapter VIII Here is God's encouragement to Joshua, ver. 1, 2. Joshua's orders to the men of war, ver. 3 - 8. The stratagem succeeds, ver. 9 - 22. Joshua takes and destroys the city, ver. 23 - 29. The solemn writing and reading of the law before all Israel, ver. 30 - 35. Take all the people - That all of them might be partakers of this first spoil, and thereby encouraged to proceed in their work. The weak multitude indeed were not to go, because they might have hindered them in the following stratagem; and it was but fit that the military men who run the greatest hazards, should have the precedency in the spoils. To Ai - That is, the city and people of Ai. Unto Jericho and her king - That is, overcome and destroy them. This was enjoined to chastise their last insolence, and the triumphs and blasphemies which doubtless their success had produced: and to revive the dread and terror which had been impressed upon the Canaanites by Jericho's ruin, and had been much abated by the late success of Ai. To go up against Ai - That is, to consider about this expedition; not as if all the people of war did actually go up, which was both unnecessary and burdensome: but it seems to be resolved by Joshua and all the council of war, that the thirty thousand here following should be selected for the enterprize. Either, 1, the thirty thousand now mentioned; or, 2. part of them; namely, such as were to lie in wait; and these were

Built an altar - Namely, for the offering of sacrifices, as appears from the following verse. Mount Ebal - God's altar was to be but in one place, Deut 12:13,14, and this place was appointed to he mount Ebal, Deut 27:4,5, which also seems most proper, that in that place whence the curses of the law were denounced against sinners, there might also be the tokens and means of grace, and peace, and reconciliation with God, for the removing of the curses, and the procuring of God's blessing to sinners. Upon the stones - Not upon the stones of the altar, which were to be rough and unpolished, ver.31, but upon other stones, smooth and plaistered, as is manifest from Deut 27:2. The law of Moses - Not certainly the whole five books of Moses, for what stones and time would have sufficed for this, but the most weighty parts of the law, and especially the law of the ten commandments. All Israel - That is, the whole congregation, old and young, male and female. That side - Some on one side of it, and some on the other. Mount Gerizim - These two places were in the tribe of Ephraim, not far from Shechem, as appears both from scripture, and from other authors. Bless - Or curse, which is easily understood out of the following verse. Afterward - After the altar was built, and the stones plaistered and writ upon. He read - That is, he commanded the priests or Levites to read, Deut 27:14. Blessings and cursings - Which words came in not by way of explication, as if the words of the law were nothing else besides the blessings and curses; but by way of addition, to note that these were read over and above the words of the law. Read not - Therefore he read not the blessings and curses only, as some think, but the whole law, as the manner was when all Israel, men and women, were assembled together, or the ten commandments. Among them - Who were proselytes, for no others can be supposed to be with them at this time.

Let it not go down lower, and by degrees, out of the sight of Gibeon. It may seem, that the sun, was declining, and Joshua perceiving that his work was great and long, and his time but short, begs of God the lengthening out of the day, and that the sun and moon might stop their course, He mentions two places, Gibeon and Ajalon, not as if the sun stood over the one and the moon over the other, which is absurd especially these places being so near the one to the other; but partly to vary the phrase, as is common in poetical passages; partly because he was in his march in the pursuit of his enemies, to pass from Gibeon to Ajalon; and he begs that he may have the help of longer light to pursue them, and to that end that the sun might stand still, and the moon also; not that he needed the moon's light, but because it was fit, either that both sun and moon should go, or that both should stand still to prevent disorder in the heavenly bodies. The prayer is thus exprest with authority, because it was not an ordinary prayer, but the prayer of a prophet, divinely inspired at this very time for this purpose. And yet it intimates to us the prevalency of prayer in general, and may mind us of that honour put upon prayer, concerning the work of my hands command you me. Avenged them on their enemies - That is, till they bad utterly destroyed them. Book of Jasher - This book was written and published before Joshua wrote his, and so is fitly alluded here. But this, as well as some other historical books, is lost, not being a canonical book, and therefore not preserved by the Jews with the same care as they were. The sun stood - Here is no mention of the moon, because the sun's standing was the only thing which Joshua desired and needed; and the moon's standing he desired only by accident to prevent irregularity in the motions of those celestial lights.

Chapter XXII Joshua's dismission of the two tribes and an half, and their return to their own country, ver. 1 - 9. The altar they built on that side of Jordan, which offended the other tribes, ver. 10 - 20. Their apology, with which the rest were satisfied, ver. 21 - 34. Your tents - That is, to your settled habitations. Tho' their affections to their families could not but make them very desirous to return, yet like good soldiers, they would not move 'till they had orders from their general. So, tho' we desire to be at home with Christ ever so much, yet we must stay here till our warfare is accomplished, wait for a due discharge, and not anticipate the time of our removal. Take heed - Watch over yourselves and all your actions. Commandment and law - Two words expressing the same thing, the law of commandments delivered by Moses. All your heart and soul - With the whole strength of your minds, and wills, and affections. With your brethren - That is, with them who stayed beyond Jordan for the defence of their land, and wives, and children, who therefore were to have a share, though not an equal share with these. But for them, 1Sam 30:24, their share was equal, because their danger was equal. Built an altar - About that time when they came to them, they designed it, and as soon as they were got over Jordan, which was in a very little time, they effected and perfected it. They built it, no doubt, on their own side of the water: for how could they build on other men's land, without their consent And it is said, in the following verse, to be over against the land of Jordan. Nor would there have been cause to suspect that it was designed for sacrifice, if they had not built it among themselves. At the passage - Where they passed over Jordan, either at their first entrance into Canaan, or afterwards, and usually. The children of Israel - Not in their own persons, not by their elders, who used to transact all affairs of this kind in the name of all the people. Against them - As apostates from God, according to God's command in that case, Deut 13:13. &c.

Threescore and ten - Which is not strange in those times and places. For it is well known, that anciently each ruler of a city, or great town, was called a king, and had kingly power in that place; and many such kings we meet with in Canaan: and it is probable, that some years before, kings were more numerous there, 'till the greater devoured many of the less. Under my table - An act of barbarous inhumanity thus to insult over the miserable, joined with abominable luxury. And took - Yet some of the inhabitants retired into the castle, and held out there 'till David's time. Judah went - Under the conduct of Caleb, as is recorded, Josh 15:14, &c., for that relation, and this, are doubtless one and the same expedition, and it is mentioned there by anticipation. Moses's father - in - law - That is, of Jethro, so called from the people whom he descended, Numb 24:21,22. And, whatsoever he did, it is evident, that his posterity came into Canaan with the Israelites, and were there seated with them, see chap. 4:11,17 5:24 1Sam 15:6 1Chron 2:1 - 54,55. City of palm - trees - That is, from Jericho, so called, Deut 34:3, not the city which was destroyed, but the territory belonging to it, where it seems they were seated, in a most pleasant, and fruitful, and safe place, according to the promise made by Moses to their father, Numb 10:29 - 32, and whence they might remove, either to avoid the neighboring Canaanites; or out of love to the children of Judah. South of Arad - In the southern part of the land of Canaan, where Arad was, Numb 21:1. They went - That is some of them, for others of them dwelt in a contrary quarter, in the most northern part of the land. Among the people - Heb. that people, namely, those children of Judah that lived there. Judah went with Simeon - According to his promise, ver.3, and the laws of justice and gratitude. Hormah - Either, The same place so called, Numb 21:3, and so what was there vowed, is here executed: or, Some other place called by the same name upon the like occasion, which was frequent among the Hebrews. This seems more probable.

And this Jabin might suffer to be done, especially by a woman. Yet the frequent discharge of this part of the judge's office, whereby she gained great power and authority with the people, did notably (though not observed by the tyrant) prepare the way for her sliding into the other part of her office, which was to defend and rescue the people from their enemies. And she dwelt - Or, she sat: she had her judgment - seat in the open air, under the shadow of that tree; which was an emblem of the justice she administered there: thriving and growing against opposition, as the palm - tree does under pressures. Came to her - To have their suits and causes determined by her sentence. Called Barak - By virtue of that power which God had given her, and the people owned in her. Kedesh Naphtali - So called, to distinguish it from other places of that name, one in Judah, and another in Issachar. Hath not the Lord, &c. - That is, assuredly God hath commanded thee; this is not the fancy of a weak woman, which peradventure thou mayst despise; but the command of the great God by my mouth. Mount Tabor - A place most fit for his purpose, as being in the borders of divers tribes, and having a large plain at the top of it, where he might conveniently marshal and discipline his army. Naphtali and Zebulun - These she names because they were nearest and best known to Barak, and therefore soonest brought together, because they were nearest to the enemy, and therefore might speedily be assembled, whilst the other tribes, being at a distance, had better opportunity of gathering forces for their succour; and because these had most smarted under this oppressor, who was in the heart of their country; but these are not named exclusively, as appears by the concurrence of some other tribes. Draw to Thee - By my secret and powerful providence, ordering and over - ruling his inclinations that way. In fixing the very place, she gave him a sign, which might confirm his faith, when he came to engage.

Did with her - Jephthah's daughter was not sacrificed, but only devoted to perpetual virginity. This appears, From ver.37,38, where we read, that she bewailed not her death, which had been the chief cause of lamentation, if that had been vowed, but her virginity: From this ver.39, where, after he had said, that he did with her according to his vow; he adds, by way of declaration of the matter of that vow, and she knew no man. It is probably conceived, that the Greeks, who used to steal sacred histories, and turn them into fables, had from this history their relation of Iphigenia (which may be put for Jephtigenia) sacrificed by her father Agamemnon, which is described by many of the same circumstances wherewith this is accompanied. The daughter of Jephthah - It is really astonishing, that the general stream of commentators, should take it for granted, that Jephthah murdered his daughter! But, says Mr. Henry, "We do not find any law, usage or custom, in all the Old Testament, which doth in the least intimate, that a single life was any branch or article of religion." And do we find any law, usage or custom there, which doth in the least intimate, that cutting the throat of an only child, was any branch or article of religion If only a dog had met Jephthah, would he have offered up that for a burnt - offering No: because God had expressly forbidden this. And had he not expressly forbidden murder But Mr. Poole thinks the story of Agamemnon's offering up Iphigenia took its rise from this. Probably it did. But then let it be observed, Iphigenia was not murdered. Tradition said, that Diana sent an hind in her stead, and took the maid to live in the woods with her.

He went - Without his wife. It were well for us, if the unkindnesses we meet with from the world, and our disappointments therein has this good effect on us, to oblige us to return by faith and prayer, to our heavenly father's house. Was given - By her father. Whom he had used - That is, to the chief of the bride - men, to whom he had shewed most respect and kindness.

For all our glory is gone, when the covenant of our separation to God, as spiritual Nazarites, is profaned. The hair - This circumstance, though in itself inconsiderable, is noted as a sign of the recovery of God's favour, and his former strength, in some degree, upon his repentance, and renewing his vow with God, which was allowed for Nazarites to do. Dagon - An idol, whose upper part was like a man, and whose lower part was like a fish: probably one of the sea - gods of the Heathens. Made sport - Either being made by them the matter of their sport and derision, of bitter scoffs, and other indignities: or, by some proofs of more than ordinary strength yet remaining in him, like the ruins of a great and goodly building: whereby he lulled them asleep, until by this complaisance he prepared the way for that which he designed. Whereon the house standeth - Whether it were a temple, or theatre, or some slight building run up for the purpose. The roof - Which was flat, and had window's through which they might see what was done in the lower parts of the house. Samson called - This prayer was not an act of malice and revenge, but of faith and zeal for God, who was there publickly dishonoured; and justice, in vindicating the whole common - wealth of Israel, which was his duty, as he was judge. And God, who heareth not sinners, and would never use his omnipotence to gratify any man's malice, did manifest by the effect, that he accepted and owned his prayer as the dictate of his own Spirit. And that in this prayer he mentions only his personal injury, and not their indignities to God and his people, must be ascribed to that prudent care which he had, upon former occasions, of deriving the rage of the Philistines upon himself alone, and diverting it from the people. For which end I conceive this prayer was made with an audible voice, though he knew they would entertain it only with scorn and laughter. Two pillars - Instances are not wanting of more capacious buildings than this, that have been supported only by one pillar. Pliny in the 15th chapter of the 36th Book of his Natural History, mentions two theatres built by C.

Chapter I Naomi removes to Moab, ver. 1, 2. Her husband and sons die, ver. 3 - 5. Designing to return to Bethlehem, she addresses her daughters - in - law, ver. 6 - 13. Orpah stays, but Ruth returns with her, ver. 14 - 18. They came to Bethlehem, ver. 19 - 22. In the land - Of Canaan. It must be early: for Boaz was born of Rahab. So Christ descended from two Gentile mothers. Ephrathites - Bethlehem was otherwise called Ephratha. Naomi signifies my amiable or pleasant one: Mahlon and Chilon signify sickness and consumption. Probably they were sickly children, and not likely to be long - lived. Such are the products of our pleasant things, weak and infirm, fading and dying. Took wives - Either these were Proselytes when they married them, or they sinned in marrying them, and therefore were punished with short life, and want of issue. Was left of her two sons, and her husband - Loss of children and widowhood are both come upon her. By whom shall she be comforted It is God alone that is able to comfort those who are thus cast down. Bread - That is, food; so she staid no longer there than necessity forced her. Mother's house - Because daughters used to converse more frequently with their mothers, and to dwell in the same apartments with them, which then were distinct from those parts of the house where the men dwelt. The dead - With my sons, your husbands, while they lived. Your husbands - According to the ancient custom, Gen 38:8, and the express law of God, Deut 25:5, which doubtless she had acquainted them with before, among other branches of the Jewish religion. It grieveth me - That you are left without the comfort of husbands or children; that I must part with such affectionate daughters; and that my circumstances are such, that I cannot invite you to go alone with me. For her condition was so mean at this time, that Ruth, when she came to her mother's city, was forced to glean for a living. It is with me, that God has a controversy. This language becomes us, when we are under affliction; tho' many others share in the trouble, yet we are to hear the voice of the rod, as if it spake only to us.

An allusion either to hens, which protect and cherish their young ones under their wings; or to the wings of the Cherubim, between which God dwelt. Tho' I be not - I humbly implore the continuance of thy good opinion of me, though I do not deserve it, being a person more mean, necessitous, and, obscure, a stranger, and one born of heathen parents, and not of the holy and honourable people of Israel, as they are. She sat - Not with or among them, but at some little distance from them, as one inferior to them. It is no disparagement to the finest hand, to be reached forth to the needy. An Ephah - About a bushel. Reserved - At dinner, after she had eaten and was sufficed, or satisfied. Where hast thou gleaned to - day - It is a good question to ask ourselves in the evening, "Where have I gleaned to - day" What improvements have I made in grace or knowledge What have I learned or done, which will turn to account To the dead - That is, which he formerly shewed to those who are now dead, my husband and his sons whilst they were living, and now continues to us. Harvest - Both barley - harvest, and wheat - harvest. She tells what kindness Boaz had shewed her; but not, how he had commended her. Humility teaches not only not to praise ourselves, but not to be forward in repeating the praise which others have given us. Other field - Whereby thou wilt both expose thyself to many inconveniences, which thou mayst expect from strangers; and incur his displeasure, as if thou didst despise his kindness.

Chapter III The directions Naomi gives to Ruth, ver. 1 - 5. Her punctual observance of them, ver. 6, 7. The honourable treatment which Boaz gave her, ver. 8 - 15. Her return to Naomi, ver. 16 - 18. Rest - A life of rest, and comfort, and safety, under the care of a good husband. Threshing - floor - Which was in a place covered at the top, but open elsewhere, whither Ruth might easily come. And this work of winnowing corn was usually ended with a feast. Raiment - Thy best raiment. Known - In so familiar a way, as thou mayest do hereafter. Uncover his feet - Remove the clothes that were upon his feet; thereby to awaken him. Will tell thee - What course thou shalt take to obtain that marriage which belongs unto thee. At midnight - He did not discover her sooner. Spread thy Skirt - That is, take me to be thy wife, and perform the duty of an husband to me. Shewed kindness - Both to thy deceased husband, the continuance of whose name and memory thou seekest; and to thy mother - in - law, whose commands thou hast punctually obeyed. Followedst not - To seek thy marriage here, or in thy own country, as thou wouldst have done if thou hadst not preferred obedience to God's command, before pleasing thyself. Perform, &c. - Take thee to wife, to raise up seed to his brother. Bishop Hall sums up the matter thus. "Boaz, instead of touching her as a wanton, blesseth her as a father, encourages her as a friend, promises her as a kinsman, rewards her as a patron, and sends her away laden with hopes and gifts, no less chast, but more happy than she came. O admirable temperance, worthy the progenitor of him, in whose lips and heart there was no guile!" Let it not, &c. - He takes care to preserve not only his conscience towards God, but his reputation, and hers also, among men. Veil - Or, the apron. Who art thou - This is not a question of doubting, but of wonder, as if she had said, Art thou in very deed my daughter I can hardly believe it. How camest thou hither in this manner, and thus early

Hannah's song of thanksgiving, ver. 1 - 10. Elkanah leaves Samuel to minister before the Lord, ver. 11. The wickedness of Eli's sons, ver. 12 - 17. A farther account of Samuel and his parents, ver. 18 - 21. Eli's too mild reproof of his sons, ver. 22 - 25. Samuel's growth, ver. 26. God's dreadful message to Eli, ver. 27 - 36. Prayed - That is, praised God; which is a part of prayer. Rejoiceth - Or, leapeth for joy: for the words note not only inward joy, but also the outward demonstrations of it. In the Lord - As the author of my joy, that he hath heard my prayer, and accepted my son for his service. Horn - My strength and glory (which are often signified by an horn,) are advanced and manifested to my vindication, and the confusion of mine enemies. Mouth enlarged - That is, opened wide to pour forth abundant praises to God, and to give a full answer to all the reproaches of mine adversaries. Enemies - So she manifests her prudence and modesty, in not naming Peninnah, but only her enemies in the general. Salvation - Because the matter of my joy is no trivial thing, but that strange and glorious salvation or deliverance which thou hast given me from my oppressing care and grief, and from the insolencies and reproaches of mine enemies. None holy - None so perfectly, unchangeably and constantly holy. None beside - Not only none is so holy as thou art, but in truth there is none holy besides thee; namely, entirely, or independently, but only by participation from thee. Any rock - Thou only art a sure defence and refuge to all that flee to thee. Talk no more - Thou Peninnah, boast no more of thy numerous off - spring, and speak no more insolently and scornfully of me. She speaks of her in the plural number, because she would not expose her name to censure. Of knowledge - He knoweth thy heart, and all that pride, and envy, and contempt of me, which thy own conscience knows; and all thy perverse carriage towards me. Actions - That is, he trieth all mens thoughts and actions, (for the Hebrew word signifies both) as a just judge, to give to every one according to their works. Bows - The strength of which they boasted.

Samuel's decay and the degeneracy of his sons, ver. 1 - 3. The people petition him for a king, who refers it to God, ver. 4 - 6. God directs him what answer to give, ver. 7 - 18. They insist upon their petition, ver. 19, 20. Which he promises, shall be granted, ver. 21, 22. Old - And so unfit for his former travels and labours. He is not supposed to have been now above sixty years of age. But he had spent his strength and spirits in the fatigue of public business: and now if he thinks to shake himself as at other times, he finds he is mistaken: age has cut his hair. They that are in the prime of their years, ought to be busy in doing the work of life: for as they go into years, they will find themselves less disposed to it, and less capable of it. Judges - Not supreme judges, for such there was to be but one, and that of God's chusing; and Samuel still kept that office in his own hands, chap.7:15, but his deputies, to go about and determine matters, but with reservation of a right of appeals to himself. He had doubtless instructed them in a singular manner, and fitted them for the highest employments; and he hoped that the example he had sent them, and the authority he still had over them, would oblige them to diligence and faithfulness in their trust. Beer - sheba - In the southern border of the land of Canaan, which were very remote from his house at Ramah; where, and in the neighbouring places Samuel himself still executing the office of judge. Took bribes - Opportunity and temptation discovered that corruption in them which 'till now was hid from their father. It has often been the grief of holy men, that their children did not tread in their steps. So far from it, that the sons of eminently good men, have been often eminently wicked. A king - Their desires exceed their reasons, which extended no farther than to the removal of Samuel's sons from their places, and the procuring some other just: and prudent assistance to Samuel's age. Nor was the grant of their desire a remedy for their disease, but rather an aggravation of it.

Saul is pacified by Jonathan, ver. 1 - 7. Attempts again to kill David, ver. 8 - 10. Is deceived by Michal, who sends David away, ver. 11 - 17. David flies to Ramah, and Saul prophesies, ver. 18 - 24. Spake good - Which he could not do without hazard to himself. Herein therefore he performed the duty of a true friend, and of a valiant man. As the Lord, &c. - And without all doubt, he intended what he said, feeling a real change in himself for the present. "God," says Mr. Henry, "inclined the heart of Saul to hearken to the voice of Jonathan." And David, &c. - So David continues his good service, tho' it was ill requited. They who are ill paid for doing good, yet must not be weary of well doing, remembering how bountiful a benefactor God is, even to the evil and unthankful. The evil spirit - David's successes against the Philistines revived his envy, and the devil watched the opportunity, as he had done before. Goats hair - Or, put great goats hair upon his bolster; upon the head and face of the image, which lay upon his bolster, that it might have some kind of resemblance of David's head and hair, at least in a sick man's bed, where there useth to be but a glimmering light. Covered it - Upon pretence of his being sick, and needing some such covering. To Samuel - Both for comfort and direction in his distress; and for safety, supposing that Saul would be ashamed to execute his bloody designs in the presence of so venerable a person as Samuel. Over them - To instruct and direct them in those holy exercises. For though they prophesied by Divine inspiration, yet they were both to prepare themselves for it before hand, and to make good improvement of it afterwards, in both which they needed Samuel's counsel and assistance. And whereas some might falsely pretend to those raptures; or the devil might transform himself into an angel of light, Samuel's presence and judgment was necessary to prevent and to detect such impostures. Besides, Samuel would by his present conjunction with them in those holy exercises, encourage them, and stir up others to the coveting of those gifts, and to the performance of such religious duties.

Continue forever, &c. - When Christ for ever sat down on the right - hand of God, and received all possible assurance, that his seed and throne should be as the days of heaven, then this prayer was abundantly answered.

David's men - All thy officers, guards, and soldiers. This is mentioned as an aggravation of their fault, that they did not only carry the king over Jordan, but all his men too, without asking their advice. Of kin - Of the same tribe with us, and therefore both oweth the more respect to us, and might expect more respect from us. Gifts - We have neither sought nor gained any advantage to ourselves hereby, but only discharged our duty to the king, and used all expedition in bringing him back, which you also should have done, and not have come in by halves, and so coldly as you have done. Ten - They say but ten, though strictly there were eleven; either, because they accounted Joseph (which comprehends both Ephraim and Manasseh under it) for one tribe, or because Simeon, whose lot lay within the tribe of Judah, were joined with them in this action. More right - As in the general we have more right in the king and kingdom; so particularly, we have more right in David than you, because you were the first beginners, and the most zealous promoters of this rebellion; howsoever, as he is king, we justly claim a greater interest in him, than you; inasmuch as we are the far greatest part of his subjects. Fiercer - Instead of mollifying them with gentle words, they answered them with greater fierceness so that David durst not interpose in the matter.

Chapter VI The time when the temple was built, ver. 1. The dimensions of it, ver. 2, 3. The windows, chambers, materials, doors, ver. 4 - 10. God's message to Solomon, ver. 11 - 13. The walls and flooring, ver. 14 - 18. The oracle and cherubim, ver. 19 - 30. The doors and inner court, ver. 31 - 36. How long it was building, ver. 37 - 38. Four hundred and four score, &c. - Allowing forty years to Moses, seventeen to Joshua, two hundred ninety - nine to the Judges, forty to Eli, forty to Samuel and Saul, forty to David, and four to Solomon before he began the work, we have just the sum of four hundred and eighty. So long it was before that holy house was built, which in less than four hundred and thirty years was burnt by Nebuchadnezzar. It was thus deferred, because Israel had by their sins, made themselves unworthy of this honour: and because God would shew how little he values external pomp and splendor in his service. And God ordered it now, chiefly to be a shadow of good things to come. The house - Properly so called, as distinct from all the walls and buildings which were adjoining to it; namely, the holy, and most holy place. Length - From east, to west. And this and the other measures may seem to belong to the inside from wall to wall. Cubits - Cubits of the sanctuary. Height - Namely, of the house: for the porch was one hundred and twenty cubits high, 2Chron 3:4. So that all the measures compared each with other were harmonious. For sixty to twenty (the length to the breadth) is triple: or as three to one: and sixty to thirty (the length to the height) is double, or as two to one: and thirty to twenty (the height to the breadth) is one and an half, as three to two. Which are the proportions answering to the three great concords in music, commonly called, a twelfth, an eighth, and a fifth. Which therefore must needs be a graceful proportion to the eye, as that in music is graceful to the ear.

Wood - With other kind of wood, even with fir; as appears from 2Chron 3:5, wherewith the floor is here said to be covered. Floor - This is spoken only concerning the floor, because there was nothing but planks of fir; whereas there was both cedar and fir in the sides of the house, the fir being either put above, or upon the cedar; or intermixed with, or put between the boards or ribs of cedar: as may be gathered from, 2Chron 3:5. House - That is, the most holy place, which contained in length twenty cubits, which may be said to be on the sides Of the house, because this part took off twenty cubits in length from each side of the house, and was also twenty cubits from side to side, so it was twenty cubits every way. The oracle - the most holy place - The last words are added, to explain what he means by the word oracle, which he had not used before. House - That is, the holy place. Temple - This is added, to restrain the signification of the word house, which otherwise notes the whole building. It - The oracle. Cedar - Cedar is here named, not to exclude all other wood, but stone only; as the following words shew. Prepared - That is, adorned and fitted it for the receipt of the ark. Solomon made every thing new, but the ark. That with its mercy seat was still the same that Moses made. This was the token of God's presence, which is with his people, whether they meet in tent or temple, and changes not with their condition. Forepart - Which was in the inner part of the house, called in Hebrew, the forepart; not because a man first enters there, but because when a man is entering, or newly entered into the house, it is still before him. Covered - With gold, chap.7:48 1Chron 28:18. The altar - The altar of incense. House - Or, that house, the oracle. Partition - He made a veil, which was a farther partition between the holy, and the most holy; which veil did hang upon these golden chains.

Partition - He made a veil, which was a farther partition between the holy, and the most holy; which veil did hang upon these golden chains. Before the oracle - In the outward part of the wall, or partition, which was erected between the oracle and the holy place; which is properly said to be before the oracle, there the veil was hung; and there the chains or bars, or whatsoever it was which fastened the doors of the oracle, were placed. It - The partition; which he here distinguisheth from the house, or the main walls of the house, which he had in the former part of this verse told us were overlaid with gold; and now he affirms much as of the partition. Whole house - Not only the oracle, but all the holy place. The altar - the altar of incense, which was set in the holy place close by the doors of the oracle. With gold - As before he overlaid it with cedar. Cherubim - Besides those two made by Moses, Exod 25:18, which were of gold, and far less than these. The Heathens set up images of their gods, and worshipped them. These were designed to represent the servants and attendants of the God of Israel, the holy angels, not to be worshipped themselves, but to shew how great he is whom we worship. Cherubim - As signs of the presence and protection of the angels vouch - safed by God to that place. Palm - trees - Emblems of that peace and victory over their enemies, which the Israelites duly serving God in that place might expect. Within and without - Within the oracle and without it, in the holy place. Fifth part - That is, four cubits in height or breadth, whereas the wall was twenty cubits. Inner court - The priests court, 2Chron 4:9, so called, because it was next to the temple which it compassed. Cedar beams - Which is understood, of so many galleries, one on each side of the temple, whereof the three first were of stone, and the fourth of cedar, all supported with rows of pillars: upon which there were many chambers for the uses of the temple, and of the priests.

Left side - On the north side. The south - In the south - east part, where the offerings were prepared. The pots - To boil those parts of the sacrifices which the priests, &c. were to eat. Vessels - Such as Moses had made only these were larger, and richer, and more. Table of gold - Under which, are comprehended both all the utensils belonging to it, and the other ten tables which he made together with it. Candlesticks - Which were ten, according to the number of the tables, whereas Moses made but one: whereby might be signified the progress of the light of sacred truth, which was now grown clearer than it was in Moses's time, and should shine brighter and brighter until the perfect day of gospel light. Pure gold - Of massy and fine gold. The oracle - In the holy place. Flowers - Wrought upon the candlesticks, as it had formerly been. Silver and gold - So much of it as was left. And vessels - Those which David had dedicated, and with them the altar of Moses, and some other of the old utensils which were now laid aside, far better being put in the room of them.

Chapter VIII The chief men of Israel called together, ver. 1, 2. The ark fixt in the most holy place, ver. 3 - 9. God takes possession of it by a cloud, ver. 10 - 12. Solomon tells the people the occasion of their meeting, ver. 13 - 21. The prayer of dedication, ver. 22 - 53. He dismisses the assembly with a blessing and an exhortation, ver. 54 - 61. Offers abundance of sacrifices, ver. 62 - 66. Elders - The senators, and judges, and rulers. Heads - For each tribe had a peculiar governor. Chief - The chief persons of every great family in each tribe. Jerusalem - Where the temple was built. Bring the ark - To the top of Moriah, upon which it was built; whither they were now to carry the ark in solemn pomp. City of David - Where David had placed the ark, which is called Zion, because it was built upon that hill. All Israel - Not only the chief men, but a vast number of the common people. The feast - The feast of the dedication, to which Solomon had invited them. Seventh month - Which time he chose with respect to his peoples convenience, because now they had gathered in all their fruits, and were come up to Jerusalem, to celebrate the feast of tabernacles. But the temple was not finished till the eighth month, chap.6:38, how then could he invite them in the seventh month This was the seventh month of the next year. For although the house in all its parts was finished the year before, yet the utensils of it were not then fully finished: and many preparations were to be made for this great and extraordinary occasion. The priests - For although the Levites might do this, Numb 4:15, yet the priests did it at this time, for the greater honour of the solemnity; and because the Levites might not enter into the holy - place, much less into the holy of holies, where it was to be placed, into which the priests themselves might not have entered, if the high - priest alone could have done it.

The priests - For although the Levites might do this, Numb 4:15, yet the priests did it at this time, for the greater honour of the solemnity; and because the Levites might not enter into the holy - place, much less into the holy of holies, where it was to be placed, into which the priests themselves might not have entered, if the high - priest alone could have done it. The tabernacle - That made by Moses, which doubtless before this time had been translated from Gibeon to Zion, and now together with other things, was put into the treasuries of the Lord's house, to prevent all superstitious use of it, and to oblige the people to come up to Jerusalem, as the only place where God would now be worshipped. Sacrificing - When the ark was seated in its place: for although they might in the way offer some sacrifices, as David did; yet that was not a proper season to offer so many sacrifices as could not be numbered. This is more particularly related below, ver.62,63,64, which is here signified by way of anticipation. Cherubim - Of Solomon's new made cherubim, not of the Mosaic cherubim, which were far less, and unmovably fixed to the ark, Exod 37:7,8, and therefore together with the ark, were put under the wings of these cherubim. Drew out - Not wholly, which was expressly forbidden, Exod 25:15, Numb 4:6, but in part. Seen out - In the most holy place, which is oft called by way of eminency, the holy place, and the Hebrew words rendered before the oracle, may be as well rendered, within the oracle. And these staves were left in this posture, that the high - priest might hereby be certainly guided to that very place where he, was one day in a year to sprinkle blood, and to offer incense before the ark, which otherwise he might mistake in that dark place, where the ark was wholly covered with the wings of the great cherubim, which stood between him and the ark when he entered in. Nothing - Strictly and properly: but in a more large sense, the pot of manna, and Aaron's rod were also in it, Heb 9:4, that is, by it, in the most holy place, before the ark of the testimony, where God commanded Moses to put them.

Good way - The way, of their duty, which is good in itself; and both delightful and profitable, to those that walk in it. Give rain - The order of Solomon's prayer is very observable; first and chiefly, he prays for their repentance and forgiveness, which is the chief blessing, and the only solid foundation of all other mercies: and then he prays for temporal mercies; thereby teaching us what to desire principally in our prayers; which also Christ hath taught us in his perfect prayer; wherein there is but one petition for outward, and all the rest are for spiritual blessings. The plague - His sin, which may be called the plague of his heart, in opposition to the other plagues here mentioned; so the sense is, who, by their afflictions are brought to a true and serious sense of their worse and inward plague of their sins, which are most fitly called the plague of the heart, because that is both the principal seat of sin, and the fountain from whence all actual sins flow. Thou knowest - Not only the plagues of their hearts, their several wants and burdens, (these he knows! but he will know them from us,) but the desire and intent of the heart, the sincerity or hypocrisy of it. A stranger - A proselyte. But cometh - That he may worship, and glorify thy name. Calleth for - Agreeable to thy will and word. It is observable, that his prayer for the strangers is more large, and comprehensive, than for the Israelites; that thereby he might both shew his public - spiritedness, and encourage strangers to the worship of the true God. Thus early were the indications of God's favour, toward the sinners of the Gentiles. As there was then one law for the native and for the stranger, so there was one gospel for both. To battle - In a just cause, and by thy warrant or commission. Shall pray - Whereby he instructs them, that they should not trust, either to the strength or justice of their arms, but only to God's help and blessing. Chosen - For thy dwelling - place, and the seat of thy temple.

Chapter IX God in a vision answers Solomon's prayer, ver. 1 - 9. The mutual presents of Solomon and Hiram, ver. 10 - 14. His workmen and buildings, ver. 15 - 24. His devotion, ver. 25. His navy, ver. 26 - 28. For ever - As long as the Mosaic dispensation lasts; whereas hitherto my worship has been successively in several places. Eyes - My watchful and gracious providence. Heart - My tender affection. Shall be there - Shall be towards this place and people. Then - Upon that condition; for my promise to David was conditional. High - Glorious and renowned. Astonished - At its unexpected and wonderful ruin. Hiss - By way of contempt and derision. Galilee - Or, near the land of Galilee, bordering upon it; in those parts which were near, and adjoining to Hiram's dominions: with the cities, understand the territories belonging to them. These cities, though they were within those large bounds which God fixed to the land of promise, Gen 15:18 Josh 1:4, yet were not within those parts which were distributed by lot in Joshua's time. It is probable they were not inhabited by Israelites, but by Canaanites, or other Heathens; who being subdued, and extirpated by David or Solomon, those cities became a part of their dominions; and afterwards were reckoned a part of Galilee, as Josephus notes. Cabul - That is, of dirt, as most interpret it. Because, though the land was very good, yet being a thick and stiff clay, and therefore requiring great pains to manure it, it was very unsuitable to the disposition of the Tyrians, who were delicate, and lazy, and luxurious, and wholly given to merchandise. And on his returning them, there is no doubt but Solomon gave him an equivalent more to his taste. Sent - And this seems to be here added, both to declare the quantity of the gold sent, which had been only named before, ver.11, and as the reason why he resented Solomon's action, because so great a sum required a better recompense. Raised - Both the levy of men; of which, chap.5:13, and the levy of money upon his people and subjects. He raised this levy, both to pay what he owed to Hiram, and to build the works following. Those - He used them as bondmen, and imposed bodily labours upon them.

Thy life - What was the great sin of Ahab in this action, for which God so severely punisheth him The great dishonour hereby done to God, in suffering so horrid a blasphemer, to go unpunished, which was contrary to an express law, Lev 24:16. And God had delivered him into Ahab's hand, for his blasphemy, as he promised to do, ver.28, by which act of his providence, compared with that law, it was most evident, that this man was appointed by God to destruction, but Ahab was so far from punishing this blasphemer, that he doth not so much as rebuke him, but dismisseth him upon easy terms, and takes not the least care for the reparation of God's honour, and the people were punished for their own sins, which were many, and great; though God took this occasion to inflict it.

Chapter III The character of Jehoram, ver. 1 - 3. He and his allies invade Moab, ver. 4 - 8. Their distress and relief, ver. 9 - 20. Their success, ver. 21 - 25. The king of Moab sacrifices his son, and they retire, ver. 26, 27. The sins - The worship of the calves: which all the kings of Israel kept up as a wall of partition between their subjects and those of Judah. So that altho' he had a little religion, yet he had not enough to over - rule this policy. A sheep - master - A man of great wealth (which in those times and places consisted much in cattle) which enabled and emboldened him to rebel against his sovereign. He said - He joins with him in this war; because the war was just in itself, and convenient for Jehoshaphat, both in the general, that revolters should be chastised: lest the examples should pass into his dominions, and the Edomites be encouraged to revolt from him, as they did from his son; and in particular, that the Moabites should be humbled, who had invaded his land before this time, 2Chron 20:1, and might do so again if they were not brought low; for which a fair opportunity now offered. King of Edom - That is, the vice - roy under Jehosaphat, 1Kings 22:47, here called king: because that word is sometimes used for any prince or chief ruler. Seven days - Because they made a great army, which could move but slowly; and they fetched a greater compass than was usual, for some advantage which they expected by it. No water - A frequent want in those parts; and now, it seems, increased by the extraordinary heat and dryness of the season. Is there not, &c. - This he should have asked before, when they first undertook the expedition, as he did in a like case, 1Kings 22:5, and for that neglect he now suffers; but better late than never: his affliction brings him to the remembrance of his former sin, and present duty. Poured water - Who was his servant; this being one office of a servant: and this office was the more necessary among the Israelites, because of the frequent washings which their law required. Probably it was by a special direction from God, that Elisha followed them, unasked, unobserved.

Grew warm - Not by any external heat, which could not be transmitted to the child's body by such slight touches of the prophet's body; but from a principle of life, which was already infused into the child, and by degrees enlivened all the parts of his body. He walked - He changeth his postures for his own necessary refreshment, and walked to and fro, exercising his mind in prayer to God. And went - Repeating his former actions, to teach us not to be discouraged in our prayers, if we be not speedily answered. Opened his eyes - So the work begun in the former verse is here perfected. Although miracles were for the most part done in an instant, yet sometimes they were done by degrees. Unto him - To the door. Death - That is, some deadly thing. Into the pot - Together with the pottage which they had taken out of it. First fruits - Which were the priests due, Numb 18:12, but these, and probably the rest of the priests dues, were usually brought by the pious Israelites, according to their ability and opportunity, to the Lord's prophets, because they were not permitted to carry them to Jerusalem.

Chapter V Naaman hears of Elisha, ver. 1 - 4. The king of Syria sends him to the king of Israel, ver. 5 - 7. He goes to Elisha and is healed, ver. 8 - 14. His grateful acknowledgment to Elisha, ver. 15 - 19. Gehazi follows him, and receives gifts from him, ver. 20 - 24. The leprosy of Naaman entailed on Gehazi's family, ver. 25 - 27. Go to, &c. - It was very natural for a king to suppose, that the king of Israel could do more than any of his subjects. Elisha sent - Which he did, partly, to exercise Naaman's faith and obedience: partly, for the honour of his religion, that it might appear he sought not his own glory and profit, but only God's honour, and the good of men. Was wroth - Supposing himself despised by the prophet. Are not, &c. - Is there not as great a virtue in them to this purpose But he should have considered, that the cure was not to be wrought by the water, but by the power of God. My father - Or, our father. So they call him, to shew their reverence and affection to him. He refused - Not that he thought it unlawful to receive presents, which he did receive from others, but because of the special circumstances of the case; this being much for the honour of God that the Syrians should see the generous piety, and kindness of his ministers and servants, and how much they despised all that worldly wealth and glory, which the prophets of the Gentiles so greedily sought after. Two mules burden of earth - So he seems to farm the money which he brought with him, to express how little value he now set upon it. Ten talents (above three thousand five hundred pounds) in silver, with six thousand pieces of gold, (beside ten changes of raiment) were a burden for several mules. Shall I not give this to thy servant, Gehazi, if thou thyself will accept of nothing This seems a more probable interpretation than the common one, that he wanted to build an altar therewith. For what altar could be built of the earth which two mules could carry into Syria Unless they were as large and as strong as Elephants.

So, &c. - So you shall guard all the gates or entrances into the temple that neither Athaliah nor any of her soldiers may break in. That go, &c. - Who having finished their course, should have gone home, but were detained, 2Chron 23:8. Shall keep - While the rest guard the entrances into the temple; these shall have a special care of the king's person. Ranges - Or, fences, the wall wherewith the courts of the temple were environed. Testimony - The book of the law, which he put into the king's hand, to mind him of his duty at his entrance upon his kingdom, which was to read and write out that holy book, Deut 17:18, and to govern himself and his kingdom by it: the law of God being frequently and most properly called a testimony, because it is a witness of God's will, and man's duty. Host - Of these companies of Levites, who are elsewhere called the Lord's host, and now were the king's host. A covenant - A sacred covenant whereby he solemnly engaged both the king, and people, that they should be the Lord's people; that they should renounce, and root out all idolatry, and set up and maintain God's true worship. Between the king - This was a civil covenant, whereby the king engaged himself to rule them justly, and in the fear of God; and the people obliged themselves to defend and obey him.

Chapter XIV The good character of Amaziah, ver. 1 - 4. He avenges his father's death, ver. 5, 6. Overthrows the Edomites, ver. 7. Is defeated by Joash, ver. 8 - 14. The death and burial of Joash, ver. 15, 16. Amaziah is killed by conspirators, ver. 17 - 20. The beginning of Azariah's reign, ver. 21, 22. The reign and death of Jeroboam, ver. 23 - 29. High places - It is hard to get clear of those corruptions, which by long usage have gained prescription. Slew not - Wherein he shewed faith and courage, that he would obey this command of God, though it was hazardous to himself, such persons being likely to seek revenge for their father's death. Joktheel - Which signifies, the obedience of God, that is, given him by God as a reward of his obedience to God's message by the prophet, 2Chron 25:8,9. Sent - This challenge he sent, from self - confidence, and a desire of advancing his glory. But he that is fond either of fighting or going to law, will probably be the first that repents it. Saying, &c. - By the thistle, a low and contemptible, yet troublesome shrub, he understands Amaziah; and by the cedar, himself, whom he intimates to be far stronger than he, and out of his reach. Trod down - And with no less ease shall my soldiers tread down thee and thy forces. Glory - Content thyself with that glory, and let not thine ambition betray thee to ruin. Tents - Josephus says, when they were to engage, they were struck with such a terror, that they did not strike a stroke, but every man made the best of his way. Ahaziah - Amaziah's pedigree comes in somewhat abruptly, the son of Joash, the son of Ahaziah: Probably because he now smarted, for the iniquity of his ancestors. On horses - Or, with horses, in a chariot. Azariah - This Azariah is called Uzziah, chap.15:30, both names signifying the same thing for substance; that, God's help; and this, God's strength. But this was not done till twelve years after his father's death: so long the government was in the hands of protectors. The sea - Unto the dead sea, once a goodly plain, Gen 13:10, which was their southern border.

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. Having thrust it out from the use for which it was instituted, which was to sanctify the gifts offered upon it, he pretends to advance it above its institution, which it is common for superstitious people to do. But to overdo is to underdo. Our wisdom is, to do just what God has commanded. The covert - The form and use whereof is now unknown. It is generally understood of some building, either that where the priests after their weekly course was ended, abode until the next course came; which was done upon the sabbath - day: or that in which the guard of the temple kept their station; or that under which the king used to sit to hear God's word, and see the sacrifices; which is called, the covert of the sabbath, because the chief times in which the king used it for those ends, was the weekly sabbath, and other solemn days of feasting, or fasting (which all come under the name of sabbaths in the Old Testament) upon which the king used more solemnly, to present himself before the Lord, than at other times. The entry - By which the king used to go from his palace to the temple.

Chapter XXII The general character of Josiah, ver. 1, 2. He repairs the temple, ver. 3 - 7. The high - priest brings him the original book of the law, ver. 8 - 10. He sends to consult Huldah the prophetess, ver. 11 - 14. The destruction of Jerusalem foretold, ver. 15 - 20. The scribe - The secretary of state. The book - That original book of the law of the Lord, given or written by the hand of Moses, as it is expressed, 2Chron 34:14, which by God's command was put beside the ark, Deut 31:26, and probably taken from thence and hid, by the care of some godly priest, when some of the idolatrous kings of Judah persecuted the true religion, and defaced the temple, and (which the Jewish writers affirm) burnt all the copies of God's law which they could find. It was now found among the rubbish, or in some secret place. The words - The dreadful comminations against them for the sins still reigning among the people. If Josiah had seen and read it before, which seems more probable, yet the great reverence which he justly bare to the original book, and the strange, and remarkable, and seasonable finding of it, had awakened and quickened him to a more serious and diligent consideration of all the passages contained in it. And what a providence was this, that it was still preserved! Yea, what a providence, that the whole book of God is preserved to us. If the holy scriptures had not been of God, they had not been in being at this day. God's care of the bible, is a plain proof of his interest in it. It was a great instance of God's favour, that the book of the law was thus seasonably brought to light, to direct and quicken that blessed reformation, which Joash had begun. And it is observable, they were about a good work, repairing the temple, when it was found. They that do their duty according to their knowledge, shall have their knowledge increased. Enquire - What we shall do to appease his wrath, and whether the curses here threatened must come upon us without remedy, or whether there be hope in Israel concerning the prevention of them.

Gilead - Of a man so called: a man of noted valour, and the great champion in those parts. Sons of Machir - Partly to his own sons, and partly to his son - in - law Jair, who by reason of that dear affection which was betwixt them, and his forsaking his own tribe and kindred to fight for them and to dwell with them, is here reckoned as his own son. Tekoa - A known place whose father he is called, because he was either the progenitor of the people inhabiting there: or, their prince and ruler: or, the builder of the city. The sons - An expression often used in prophane authors too, where there is but one son. Jarha - Probably he was not only a proselyte, but an eminent man: else an Israelite would not have given him his only daughter. Beth - zur - A place in Judah. Madmannah - This, and divers other following names are the names of places in Judah. Bethlehem - That is, the inhabitants of Bethlehem. Scribes - Either civil, who were public notaries, that wrote and signed legal instruments: or ecclesiastical. And these were either Levites, or Simeonites, or rather Kenites, and are here mentioned not as if they were of the tribe of Judah, but because they dwelt among them, and probably were allied to them by marriages, and so in a manner incorporated with them.

Of God - Appropriated to the worship of God; not such as they used on other occasions. Between common mirth and holy joy, there is a vast difference: and the limits and distances between them must be carefully kept up.

Levi - They were accounted only as common Levites, and were not priests: which is mentioned for the honour of Moses, and the demonstration of his eminent piety and self - denial, who willingly left the government to Joshua, and the priesthood to Aaron, and was content to have his posterity reduced to a private and mean condition. Twenty years - As the Levites were anciently numbered from two several times, from the twenty fifth year of their age, and from the thirtieth, Numb 4:3 8:24. In like manner they are here numbered both from their twentieth year, when they were solemnly prepared for, and instructed, and by degrees exercised in some parts of their work; and from their thirtieth year, when they were admitted to the full exercise of their office. And the reason why they were now sooner admitted to service than they had been formerly, is given in the next verses because now their work was more easy, being wholly discharged from that burdensome work of carrying the tabernacle. Besides the people of Israel were multiplied: therefore more hands were necessary, that every Israelite who brought an offering, might find a Levite ready to assist him. Holy things - Holy places, and garments, and vessels, and sacrifices, which were to be washed and cleansed from any filthiness that might cleave to them. All measure - All measures used either in sacred or civil things, the publick standards whereof were kept in the temple; and therefore the care of keeping them inviolable and producing them upon occasion, musts needs belong to the priests, and under them to the Levites, who were to examine other measures and all things by them, as occasion required; that so the priests might be at leisure for their higher and greater employments. Morning and even - The two solemn times of offering sacrifices: which work was attended with publick prayer and thanksgiving. Charge - What the priests should commit to their charge, or command them to do.

In the words - To sing Divine songs as were inspired by God to the prophets or holy men of God. The horn - To praise God with the sound of a trumpet or some other musical instrument made of horn, which being a martial kind of music, might be most grateful to David's martial spirit: tho' he was also skilled in other instruments of music which he used in the house of God. Cunning - Who were so skilful that they were able to teach others; and together with their scholars, made up the four thousand mentioned chap.23:5. Ward - A course of Levites answerable to one of the priests, upon whom the Levites were to wait in their holy ministrations, chap.23:28. The scholar - Without any respect to their different ages or abilities. To Joseph - For the family of Asaph, of which Joseph was. Here that clause, he, his sons, and his brethren were twelve, is to be understood, as it is expressed in all the following verses, otherwise they do not make up that number of two hundred and eighty - eight mentioned ver.7.

Chapter III The place and time of his building the temple, ver. 1, 2. The dimension and ornaments of it, ver. 3 - 9. The cherubim in the most holy place, ver. 10 - 13. The veil, ver. 14. The two pillars, ver. 15 - 17. Moriah - It was the belief of the ancient Jews, that the temple was built on that very place, where Abraham offered up Issac. Instructed - By David, and by the Spirit of God. The measure - According to he measure which was first fixed. The height - This being a kind of turret to the building. Greater house - The holy place, which was thrice as large as the holy of holies. Nails - Each of the nails, screws, or pins, by which the golden plates were fastened to the walls, weighed, or rather was worth, fifty shekels, workmanship and all. Upper chambers - Rather, the roof. Image work - Or, of moveable work, not fixed to the mercy - seat, as the Mosaical cherubim, but in a moving posture. It seems, they were designed to represent the angels, who attend the Divine Majesty. Inward - Heb. towards the house, that is, the most holy house. The veil - The inner veil before the most holy place. This denoted the darkness of that dispensation and the distance at which the worshippers were kept. But at the death of Christ this veil was rent; for thro' him we are brought nigh, and have boldness, or liberty, not only to look, but to enter into the holiest. Jachin - That is, He shall establish. Boaz - That is, In it is strength.

Chapter VII God answers by fire, the people worship, ver. 1 - 3. Solomon's sacrifices, ver. 4 - 7. After keeping the feast he sends the people away, ver. 8 - 11. God appears to him in a vision, ver. 12 - 22. The fire &c. - In token of God's acceptance of his prayer. The surest evidence of God's acceptance of our prayers is the descent of his holy fire upon us. As a farther token that God accepted Solomon's prayer, the glory of the Lord filled the house; the heart that is filled with an holy awe and reverence of the divine glory, to which God manifests his greatness, and (which is no less his glory) his goodness, is thereby owned as a living temple. With their faces - Thus expressing their awful dread of the Divine Majesty, their chearful submission to the Divine authority, and the sense they had of their utter unworthiness to enter into his presence. Upon - The cloud first came down upon the house, and then entered into the house, and was seen both within it by the priests, and without it by the people. David praised - For David composed the psalms or hymns, and appointed them to be sung by the Levites, and instrumental music to be joined to their voices. This house - There will I make myself known, and there will I be called upon. Chapter VIII Solomon's buildings, ver. 1 - 6. His workmen and officers, ver. 7 - 10. He settles his wife, ver. 11. Fixes the method of the temple service, ver. 12 - 16. His trade, ver. 17, 18. The house - He built this house for her; because the ark was now in the house of David, which therefore ought to be kept pure and free from the very danger and appearance of pollution. Man of God - A prophet inspired by God in these matters, whose commands therefore are the commands of God. Prepared - All the materials were procured, and in all points fitted and compleated before - hand.

Chapter XVII Jehoshaphat is established in his kingdom, ver. 1 - 3. His piety, ver. 4 - 6. He sends Levites to teach Judah, ver. 7 - 9. His influence over his neighbours, ver. 10, 11. His greatness, captains and armies, ver. 12 - 19. Sought not, &c. - It is true, he recovered from that fall. "Yet perhaps, says Mr. Henry, he never, while he lived, fully retrieved the spiritual strength he lost by it." Brought presents - As subjects in those times used to do to their kings, as a token of their respect and subjection to them. Lifted up - Above all discouragements, and fears. He was valiant and resolute for God and his ways. Groves - Those wherein idols were worshipped, and though Asa had done this before, yet either he did not do it thoroughly; or the Jews (who were many of them mad upon their idols) had secretly made new ones, in the latter part of his reign, when he grew more infirm in body, and more remiss in God's cause. To teach - To inform the people of their duty, and of the king's pleasure, as judges teach or instruct the people in the laws of the land, when they deliver their charges upon the bench; so did these princes in the king's name admonish and require the people to observe and obey the laws of God, which were the municipal laws of that land: the particular explication and enforcement whereof, they left to the Levites and priests here following, who were sent for this end, and accordingly taught the people, ver.9. And they taught, &c. - And these itinerant judges and itinerant preachers together, Mr. Henry observes were instrumental to diffuse a blessed light throughout the cities of Judah. Fear fell - Justly concluding from his singular piety that God would eminently appear for him, for even the Heathens could not but observe, that the kings of Judah were either prosperous or unhappy, according as they served God or forsook him. Business - To repair and fortify them, and furnish them with provisions: and to purge out all their relicks of idolatry and injustice.

Believe - God's promise delivered to us by this prophet, and consequently all other predictions of the prophet. Consulted - Jehoshaphat called a counsel of war, and it was resolved, to appoint singers to go out before the army, who had nothing to do, but to praise God, to praise his holiness, which is his beauty, to praise him as they did in the temple, that beauty of holiness. By this strange advance to the field of battle, Jehoshaphat shewed his firm reliance on the word of God, which enabled him to triumph before the battle, to animate his own men and confound the enemy. To sing - So acceptable are the fervent prayers of God's people to God, and so terrible to their enemies. Ambushments - Or, liers in wait, either the holy angels, who appeared in the shape of men, and possibly put on the appearances and visages of the Moabites or Ammonites, and in that shape slew the rest, who supposing this slaughter to be done by a part of their own army, fell upon them, and so broke forth into mutual slaughters. Or, God raised jealousies and animosities among themselves, which broke forth, first into secret ambushments, which one party laid for another, and then into open hostilities to their utter destruction.

Chapter XXVI Uzziah reigns well, ver. 1 - 5. Prospers in his wars, building, and the affairs of his kingdom, ver. 6 - 15. Invading the priest's office, is struck with a leprosy, ver. 16 - 20. Is confined to his death, ver. 21 - 23. Towers - To guard his cattle from the inroads which the Arabians were accustomed to make: and to give notice of the approach of any enemy. Into Jerusalem - Into the holy place, where the altar of incense stood, and into which none but the priests might enter, much less offer incense. Withstood - Heb. stood up against Uzziah, not by force, or laying hands upon him to restrain him, for in the next verse you still find the censer in his hand; but only by admonition and reproof, which follows. Neither, &c. - Expect that God will punish thee, or put some brand of infamy upon thee for this presumption. But this they express modestly, because they considered that he to whom they spake, though an offender, was their sovereign. His forehead - So that he could not hide his shame: though it is probable it was also in the rest of his body. From beside - By a stroke from an invisible hand coming from the altar; that he might be assured this was the effect of God's displeasure. Thrust - Not by force, which needed not, for he voluntarily hasted away, as it follows; but by vehement persuasions and denunciations of God's farther judgments upon him, if he did not depart. His death - God would have this leprosy to be incurable, as a lasting monument of his anger against such presumptuous invaders of the priest's office. Dwelt, &c. - As he was obliged to do by law, which he durst not now resist, being under the hand of God, and under the fear of worse plagues, if he did not so. For - He dwelt in a several house, because he might not come into the temple or courts, nor consequently into any publick assembly. So the punishment answered the sin, as face does to face in a glass. He thrust himself into the temple of God, whether the priests only had admission: and for that was thrust out of the very courts of the temple, into which the meanest of, his subjects might enter.

The hand of God - God by the power of his grace inclined their hearts to an unanimous compliance with God's and the king's will. And this is mentioned as the reason of this wonderful change wrought in these men, who had lately been given up to idolatry. Ashamed - Their negligence and remissness being upbraided by the general forwardness of the people. The zeal which we observe in others, should make us ashamed of our own coldness, and quicken us not only to do our duty, but to do it with our might. The sanctuary - With that purification which was required of them that came in God's sanctuary. So he calls it to distinguish from that internal purity which they are here acknowledged to have. The great thing required in our attendance on God's ordinances is, that we prepare our heart to seek him; that the inward man be engaged, that we make heart work of it. All is nothing without this. Healed - That is, pardoned this their sin, and accepting them and their services, as if they had been clean. Spoke comfortably - Encouraged them to a chearful and diligent attendance upon their holy ministrations. Princes and magistrates by encouraging faithful and laborious preachers, greatly promote the kingdom of God. That taught - Who by their office were to instruct and build up the people in the knowledge and fear of God: which is mentioned as the cause of his respect and kindness to them. Did give - First to God, to whom the parts appointed were offered in a way of thanksgiving; and then to the people, who feasted upon the relicks, as the offerer used to do in peace - offerings: and Hezekiah, who was the offerer, gave away his right in the remains of the sacrifices to the people. Which generosity is the more considerable, because it was in the beginning of his reign, when he found the exchequer empty; and when he had been at great expense about cleansing and refitting the temple, and making preparations for this great feast. The Levites - Those of the Levites who were priests also; for to them only this work belonged.

And they praised the people for their forwardness and faithfulness in it. Questioned - How it came to pass that no more of their provision was spent and that there yet remained such great heaps of it. Most holy things - The remainders of the freewill - offering, the sin - offering, and trespass - offering, and the shew - bread; to see that all had a competent maintenance for themselves and their families. And next, &c. - These were intrusted with receiving and distributing the several portions belonging to the priests who abode in their several cities, whilst their brethren came up to Jerusalem. For, &c. - This is alleged as a reason why their wives and children were provided for out of the holy things, because they sequestered themselves from worldly affairs, by which they might otherwise have provided for their families.

Chapter XXXIV The general character of Josiah, ver. 1, 2. He roots out idolatry, ver. 3 - 7. Repairs the temple, ver. 8 - 13. Rends his clothes on hearing the book of the law, and sends to enquire of God, ver. 14 - 22. Huldah foretells the destruction of Jerusalem, ver. 23 - 28. Josiah and the people renew their covenant with God, ver. 29 - 33. Young - ln the sixteenth year of his age; when he was entering into the age of temptation, and had the administration of his kingdom wholly in his own power, and none to restrain him; even then he begins to be religious in good earnest. Naphtali - Which was in the utmost borders of the kingdom of Israel. For it must be remembered, that the ten tribes were now gone into captivity; and those who were come in their stead were weak and few, and not able to withstand the power of Josiah. The house - The house of God, called the house by way of eminency. Houses - The chambers joining to the temple. Musick - All these here named, were skilful in instruments of musick. Which may be here mentioned, to intimate, that as they were skilful, so they were exercised in both employments, and did successively oversee the work, and praise God with their voices and instruments. Rent his clothes - Were the things contained in scripture new to us, as they were here to Josiah, surely they would make deeper impressions upon us than they commonly do. But they are not the less weighty, and therefore should not be the less regarded, because they are well known. To stand to it - He caused them to engage by an oath or covenant, that they would observe the laws of God, as his predecessors had formerly done, and which indeed they were before obliged to do. Even to serve - The repetition shews, that this was the only thing his heart was set upon. He aimed at nothing in all he did, but to engage them to God and their duty.

Chapter XXXV Josiah keeps a solemn passover, ver. 1 - 19. He goes against Pharaoh - necho, and is slain, ver, 20 - 24. He is bitterly lamented, ver. 25 - 27. The house - In the holy of holies. Whence, it may seem, it had been removed, by some of the wicked kings of Judah, possibly by Josiah's father Amon. A burden - Or, that it might not be a burden, so these words are to be joined with the former, as the reason why Solomon built this house, that the ark might have a constant and fixed habitation, and not need to be carried from place to place upon their shoulders, as it had been done while it was in the tabernacle. Ministers must look upon themselves as servants both to Christ, and to the people, for his sake. They must take care and take pains, and lay themselves out to the utmost, both for the honour and glory of God, and for the benefit of his people, not as having dominion over their faith, but as helpers of their holiness and joy. Stand - Or, minister, (as that word is frequently used) in the court of the priests. According - According to the several families both of the people, whom he calls their brethren, lest they should despise them, or grudge to serve them, and of the Levites. For the passover was to be eaten by the several families according to their numbers, and therefore he commands these persons, that when the paschal lambs were brought to them to be killed, they might so order the matter, that they might be distributed to the several families whether of the Levitical or other tribes. Princes - Not the political, but ecclesiastical princes, or the chief of the priests and Levites, whose names here follow. Levites - For the use of any of the families of them, as need should be. For they supposed the thirty thousand which the king had given were not sufficient for all the families. Removed - Some of the lesser cattle; for these also might be offered as burnt - offerings, Lev 1:10, and hence it may seem that all these small cattle were not given for paschal - lambs, but were to be offered as burnt - offerings for the people.

Chapter III They set up the altar, offer sacrifices thereon, and keep the feasts, ver. 1 - 6. They contribute, and lay the foundation of the temple, ver. 7 - 13. Seventh month - This was a sacred kind of month wherein there were divers festivals, for which the people had been preparing themselves, and now came to Jerusalem to the celebration of them. Altar - Which was of more present necessity than the temple, both to make atonement to God for all their sins, and to obtain God's assistance for the building of the temple, and to strengthen their own hearts and hands in that great work. For fear - So they made the more haste, lest they should be hindered. Apprehension of dangers should quicken us in our duty. Have we many enemies We have the more need to have God for our friend and to keep up our correspondence with him. Tabernacles - This seems to be mentioned for all the solemnities of this month, whereof this was the most eminent, otherwise it is not probable, that they would neglect the day of atonement which was so severely enjoined, Lev 23:27 - 29, and was so exceeding suitable to their present condition. Offering - The morning and evening, sacrifice. The law required much; but they offered more; for tho' thy had little wealth, they had much zeal. Happy they that bring with them out of the furnace of affliction, such a holy heat as this! Burnt - offerings - And the other sacrifices which were to be offered with them upon that day, being the feast of trumpets. Burnt - offerings are often put for all sacrifices. Joshua - Not the high - priest so called, but a Levite, of whom see chap.2:40. To set forward - To encourage them to a vigorous prosecution of the work. Sung - That everlasting hymn, which will never be out of date, and to which our tongue should never be out of tune, the burden of Psalm 136:1 - 26. Whatever our condition is, let it be owned, that God is good, and whatever fails, that his mercy fails not. Had seen - Which divers of them might well do; because it was destroyed not sixty years ago.

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.

Chapter VI Nehemiah's answer to his enemies, courting him to an interview, ver. 1 - 4. To their charge of rebellion, ver. 5 - 9. To Shemaiah's false prophecy, ver. 10 - 14. Notwithstanding the treachery of some of the nobles, the work is finished, ver. 15 - 19 The doors - Not all of them. Meet - To consult about the common service of our master the king of Persia, or to make a friendly accommodation. Four times, &c. - We must never be overcome by the greatest importunity, to do anything ill or imprudent: but when we are attacked with the same temptation, still resist it with the same reason and resolution. Open letter - As speaking of a thing commonly known. A king - We have now a king of our nation. Counsel - That we may impartially examine the matter, that thy innocency may be cleared. Strengthen my hands - A good prayer, when we are entering on any particular services or conflicts in our Christian warfare. Shut up - In his chamber adjoining to the temple, upon pretence of singular devotion, and communion with God, and withal upon pretence of certain knowledge, by the Spirit of God concerning their approaching danger, from which thy could be safe nowhere but in the temple. For if Nehemiah had done this, the people would have left their work, and every one have shifted for his own safety. As I - I the chief governor, upon whose presence, the very life of the whole city and nation in a great measure depends: I who have professed such resolution, and courage, and confidence in God. I, who have had such eminent experience of God's assistance, of his calling me to this employment, and carrying me through it when our danger was greater than now it is. Shall I now dishonour God and religion, and betray the people and city of God by my cowardice Go in - Tho' his life depended upon it. And sin - By going into a place forbidden to me, and that in such a manner, which would have been both sinful and shameful. Reproach - As a coward, and conscious of my own guilt, that they might make me contemptible and odious both to my own people, and to the king of Persia. My God, &c. - This prayer we are not to imitate.

- This prayer we are not to imitate. Elul - Answering part to our August, and part to September. Chapter VII Nehemiah appoints persons to keep the city, ver. 1 - 4. Reviews the people, ver. 5 - 7. Hot - 'Till it be clear and broad day; when the people will be ready in case of an assault. They - The watches appointed to that end. Watches - Nehemiah was now about to return to the court, and left the charge of the city to these in his absence. God put it into mine heart - Whatever good motion is in our minds, we must acknowledge it to come from God. What is done by human prudence is to be ascribed to the direction of Divine Providence. Tirshatha - Nehemiah. So it is no wonder that the number of the monies, and other things here contributed, differ from that Ezra 2:68,69, because this is another collection.

Chapter VIII The solemn reading and expounding of the law, ver. 1 - 8. The joy of the people, ver. 9 - 12. The keeping of the feast of tabernacles, ver. 13 - 18. First day - This was the feast of trumpets, which is called a sabbath, and on which they were to have an holy convocation, Lev 23:24. And it was on this day, the altar was set up, after their return from captivity; in remembrance of which they had probably kept it ever since, with more than ordinary solemnity. Understand - As well the words, which being Hebrew, now needed to be translated into the Chaldee or Syriack language, now, the common language of that people, who together with their religion, had also in a great part lost their language; as also the meaning of them: they expounded the mind and will of God in what they read, and applied it to the peoples present condition. Place - That is, In their several places and stations into which the company seems to have been distributed for conveniency of hearing; it not being likely that so vast a congregation could distinctly hear one man's voice. Or, by their stations, that is, by the several stations of the Levites, and persons last named; who seem to have had several scaffolds, by comparing this with chap.9:4, upon which thy stood, as Ezra did upon his pulpit, ver.8:4. They - Ezra and his companions successively. Sense - The meaning of the Hebrew words, which they expounded in the common language. Thy gave - So they gave them both a translation of the Hebrew words into the Chaldee, and an exposition of the things contained in them. Wept - Out of a sense of their guilt and danger by reason of it. Eat - Feast before the Lord. Send - For the relief of your poor brethren. Holy - Being the feast of trumpets, and the beginning of this joyful month, wherein so many days of thanksgiving were to be observed. Strength - Rejoicing in God in serving him with chearfulness, and thankfulness, which is your duty always, but now especially, will give you that strength both of mind and body, which you greatly need, both to perform all the duties required of you, and to oppose all the designs of your enemies.

Strength - Rejoicing in God in serving him with chearfulness, and thankfulness, which is your duty always, but now especially, will give you that strength both of mind and body, which you greatly need, both to perform all the duties required of you, and to oppose all the designs of your enemies. Levites - Chusing rather to confess their ignorance than vainly to pretend to more knowledge than they had: wherein they shew both humility, and serious godliness, that they were more careful to learn their duty than to preserve their reputation. Mount - The mount of Olives, which was next Jerusalem, and stored with olive - branches, and probably with the rest: for these trees seem to have been planted hereabouts principally, for the use of the city in this very feast, which, though, long neglected, should have been celebrated every year. And this place seems to be here designed as the most eminent place, being put for any place near to the several cities of Judah, where these branches were to be procured. Done so - So, as to the manner and circumstances. They never kept this feast so joyfully, having not only the same causes of rejoicing which they formerly had, but special causes to increase their joy; they never kept it so solemnly and religiously: for whereas at other times, only the first and last day of that feast were celebrated with an holy convocation, now there was an holy convocation, and the people assembled, and attended upon the reading of the law, every day of this feast.

Fled - To his possession in the country, being forced to do so for a livelihood. Contended - I sharply reproved those priests to whom the management of those things was committed, for neglect of their duty, and breach of their late solemn promise. Why, &c. - You have not only injured men in with - holding their dues, but you have occasioned the neglect of God's house and service. Gathered - To Jerusalem from their several country possessions. Set - Restored them to the exercise of their office. Bought - Out of the respect which they had to Nehemiah, and because they saw they would now be applied to their proper uses. Faithful - By the consent of those who knew them. Such he now sought out the more diligently, because he had experience of the perfidiousness of the former trustees. Jerusalem - The holy city, where God's house was; and where the great judicatories of the nation were. So this is added as an aggravation of their sin, that it was done with manifest contempt of God and man. Nobles - Their chief men and rulers; whom he charges with this sin, because though others did it, it was by their countenance or connivance: probably too by their example. If the nobles allowed themselves in recreations, in idle visits and idle talk on the sabbath day, the men of business would profane it by their worldly employments, as the more justifiable of the two. At the gates - Out of a diffidence in those, to whom the keeping of the gates was committed. Cleanse - Because the work they now were set upon, though common in its nature, yet was holy in design of it, and had respect unto the sabbath: and, because the day in which they were to do this was the sabbath - day, for the observation whereof they were obliged to purify themselves. Gates - The gates of the city; not daring to trust the common porters, he commits the charge of them upon the sabbath - days, to the Levites, to whom the care of sanctifying the sabbath did properly belong.

Chapter I Ahasuerus feasts his great men, ver. 1 - 9. Sends for his queen, who refuses to come, ver. 10, 11. He divorces her, ver. 12 - 22. Ahasuerus - Many suppose this to be Darius Hystapas, for his kingdom was thus vast, and he subdued India, as Herodotus reports: and one of his wives was called Atossa, differing little from Hadassah, which is Esther's other name, Esth 2:7. Provinces - So seven new provinces were added to those hundred and twenty mentioned, Dan 6:1. Sat - Was settled in the peaceable possession of it. Shushan - The chief or royal city. Shushan might be the proper name of the palace, which thence was given to the whole city. Here the kings of Persia used to keep their courts in winter, as at Exbatana in summer. Many days - Making every day a magnificent feast, either for all his princes, or for some of them, who might come to the feast successively, as the king ordered them to do. The Persian feasts are much celebrated in authors, for their length and luxury. Beds - For in those eastern countries, they did not then sit at tables as we do, but rested or leaned upon beds or couches. The law - According to this law which the king had now made, that none should compel another to drink more than he pleased. How does this Heathen prince shame many, that are called Christians, who think they do not make their friends welcome, unless they make them drunk, and under pretence of sending the health round, send the sin round, and death with it! Women - While the king entertained the men. For this was the common custom of the Persians, that men and women did not feast together. Refused - Being favoured in this refusal by the law of Persia, which was to keep mens wives, and especially queens, from the view of other men. The times - The histories of former times, what princes have done in such cases as this was. Saw - Who had constant freedom of access to the king, and familiar converse with him: which is thus expressed, because the Persian kings were very seldom seen by their subjects. Sat - Who were his chief counsellors and officers. Contempt - Contempt in the wives, and thereupon wrath in the husbands; and consequently strife in families.

Chapter VIII The estate of Haman is given to Esther, ver. 1, 2. Esther petitions the king, to reverse the edict against the Jews, ver. 3 - 6. They are authorized to defend themselves, ver. 7 - 14. The Jews and their friends rejoice, ver. 15 - 17. The house - With all his goods and estate, which being justly forfeited to the king, he no less justly bestows it upon the queen, to compensate the danger to which Haman had exposed her. Came - Was by the queen's desire admitted into the king's presence, and family, and, as it seems, made one of the seven princes. Had told - How nearly he was related to her: which 'till this time she had wisely concealed. Ring - That ring which he had formerly given to Haman he now gives to Mordecai, and with it that power whereof this ring was a sign, making him, as Haman had been, the keeper of his signet. Set - As her steward, to manage that great estate for her as he thought fittest. To put - To repeal that cruel decree. If &c. - She uses various expressions, that she might confirm the king's favour, by such a full submission to his good pleasure. Haman - She prudently takes off the hatefulness of the action from the king, and lay's it upon Haman, who had for his own ends contrived the whole business, and circumvented the king in it. Reverse - For this reason he could not recall the former letters, because they were irrevocable by the law of the Medes and Persians. How much more prudent is our constitution, that no law whatever can be established as to be unrepealable It is God's prerogative, not to repent, and to say what can never be altered. Then - Which was above two months after the former decree.

Chapter XV Eliphaz reproves Job for justifying himself, ver. 1 - 13. Persuades him to humble himself before God, ver. 14 - 16. Describes the misery of wicked men, ver. 17 - 35. Fill - Satisfy his mind and conscience. East wind - With discourses not only unprofitable, but also pernicious both to himself and others; as the east - wind was in those parts. Castest off - Heb. thou makes void fear; the fear of God, piety and religion, by thy unworthy speeches of God, and by those false and pernicious principles, that God makes no difference between good and bad in the course of his providence, but equally prospers or afflicts both: thou dost that which tends to the subversion of the fear and worship of God. Restrainest prayer - Thou dost by thy words and principles, as far as in thee lies, banish prayer out of the world, by making it useless and unprofitable to men. Uttereth - Thy words discover the naughtiness of thy heart. Crafty - Thou speakest wickedly, and craftily: thou coverest thy impious principles with fair pretences of piety. Are - Are those comforts, which we have propounded to thee on condition of thy repentance, small and contemptible in thine eyes Secret - Hast thou any secret and peculiar way of comfort which is unknown to us, and to all other men Why - Why dost thou suffer thyself to be transported by the pride of thine heart, to use such unworthy expressions Wink - Why dost thou look with such an angry, supercilious, and disdainful look Against God - Eliphaz here does in effect give the cause on Satan's side, and affirms that Job had done as he said he would, Curse God to his face. Saints - In his angels, chap.4:18, who are called his saints or holy ones, Deut 33:2 Psal 103:20. Who though they were created holy, yet many of them fell. Heavens - The angels that dwell in heaven; heaven being put for its inhabitants. None of these are pure, simply and perfectly, and comparatively to God. The angels are pure from corruption, but not from imperfection. Who - Who besides his natural proneness to sin, has contracted habits of sinning; and sins as freely, as greedily and delightfully, as men, especially in those hot countries, drink up water.

Chapter XXIV Job shews that open sinners are often prosperous, ver. 1 - 12. That secret sinners often pass undiscovered, ver. 13 - 18. That God punishes such by secret judgments, and reserves them for future judgment, ver. 19 - 25. Why - Why (how comes it to pass) seeing times, (the fittest seasons for every, action, and particularly for the punishment of wicked men,) are not hidden from, or unknown to the Almighty God, (seeing all times, and men that live, and things that are done, or to be done in their times and seasons, are exactly known to God) do they that know him, (who love and obey him) not see (whence is it that they cannot discern) his (that is, God's) days His times and seasons which he takes for the punishment of ungodly men; which if they were constant and fixed in this life, they would not be unknown to good men, to whom God uses to reveal his secrets. Pledge - Contrary to God's law, first written in mens hearts, and afterwards in holy scripture, Exod 22:26,27. Way - Out of the path or place in which these oppressors walk and range. They labour to keep out of their way for fear of their farther injuries. Hide - For fear of these tyrants. Wild asses - Which are lawless, and fierce, and greedy of prey. Desert - Which is the proper habitation of wild asses. They - The oppressors. Go - To spoil and rob. They - The oppressors. Wicked - Of such as themselves: so they promiscuously robbed all, even their brethren in iniquity. Naked - Those whom they stripped of their garments and coverings. Wet - With the rain - water, which runs down the rocks or mountains into the caves, to which they fled for shelter. Rock - Are glad when they can find a cleft of a rock in which they may have some protection against the weather. They - The oppressors. Pluck - Out of covetousness; they will not allow the mother time for the suckling of her infant. The sheaf - That single sheaf which the poor man had got with the sweat of his brow to satisfy his hunger. Walls - Within the walls of the oppressors for their use. Suffer - Because they are not permitted to quench their thirst out of the wine which they make.

Chapter II Solomon shews, that they who diligently seek wisdom shall find it, ver. 1 - 9. He shews the advantage of it, that it would preserve them from evil men, ver. 10 - 15. And evil women, ver. 16 - 19. And would lead them into, and keep them in the way of good men, ver. 20 - 22. Hide - Lay them up in thy heart with care, as men do their choicest treasures. Criest - To God, the only giver of it. Seek her - With unwearied diligence and earnest desire and patient expectation. Path of judgment - Righteous paths, judgment being here put for righteousness. And keeping of paths may be put for keeping them in their paths. Then - When God in answer to thy desires hath given thee wisdom. Equity - All the parts of thy duty to man, as well as the fear of God. When - Thou dost truly love wisdom. Darkness - Of sin. Crooked - Who swerve from the straight way of God's law, and have windings and turnings, to escape conviction. Strange woman - From the adulteress or whore. Forsaketh - Her husband whom she took to be her guide and governor, in her youth. The covenant - The marriage covenant: so called because God is the author of that mutual obligation: and because God is called to be the witness and judge of that solemn promise and covenant. For - Conversation with her (which was most usual in her own house) is the certain way to death, which it brings many ways, and undoubtedly, without repentance, to God's wrath and the second death. That - This depends upon ver.11, and is mentioned as another happy fruit of wisdom.

Chapter III An exhortation to be steadily religious, ver. 1 - 4. To trust God, ver. 5, 6. To fear him, ver. 7, 8. To honour him with our substance, ver. 9, 10. To bear affliction well, ver. 11 - 12. The praise of wisdom, ver. 13 - 20. The good effects of adhering to it, ver. 21 - 26. Caution, against uncharitableness, strife, envy; if we would avoid a curse and inherit a blessing, ver. 27 - 35. My law - The law of God, which might be called his law, as the gospel is called Paul's gospel, 2Tim 2:8, because delivered by him. Mercy - Mercy denotes all benignity, charity, and readiness to do good to others: truth or faithfulness respects all those duties which we owe to God or man, which we have special obligation from the rules of justice. Bind them - Like a chain, wherewith persons adorn their necks. Table - In thy mind and heart, in which all God's commands are to be received and engraven. Understanding - Whereby to know thy duty, and to discern between good and evil. Of God - Grace or favour with God, and that understanding which is good in God's sight. Trust - Wholly rely upon God's promises and providences. Lean not - Under this one kind of carnal confidence, he understands all other confidence in bodily strength, wealth, or friends. Navel - To thy body, which is signified by one part of it. Marrow - Which is the nourishment and strength of the bones. Substance - Lay out thy estate not to please thyself, but to glorify God. First - fruits - Or, with the chief or best; which answers to the first - fruits under the law. So - This is not the way to diminish thy estate, but rather to increase it. Despise not - Either by making light of it, or not being duly affected with it; or by accounting it an unnecessary thing: but rather esteem it a privilege and favour from God. Weary - Neither think it tedious or hard, but endure it with patience and chearfulness. Findeth - Which supposes his diligent searching for it. Peace - Procure a blessed tranquility in a man's mind and conscience. A tree - A pledge of everlasting life.

A tree - A pledge of everlasting life. He alludes to the tree of life, and intimates, that this is the only restorer of that life which we have lost by sin. Wisdom - Either by Christ, or by that Divine perfection of wisdom, which is the fountain of wisdom in man. The depths - That great abyss contained in the bowels of the earth, breaks forth into fountains and rivers. Eyes - The eyes of thy mind. Constantly and seriously meditate upon them. Grace - Like a beautiful chain or ornament. Be not - Thou shalt not be afraid. Sudden - For sudden and unexpected evils are most frightful. And fear is here put for the evils feared. Desolation - Which cometh upon the wicked. Shall be - A sure ground of confidence to thee. Taken - In the snares either of sin or mischief. With - hold not - Do not deny it, but readily and chearfuly impart it. Good - Any thing which is good, either counsel, comfort, reproof, or the good things of the present life. Due - That is, to all men, by that great and sovereign law of love. Say not - The former verse forbad the denial, and this forbids the delay of this duty. Securely - Relying upon thine integrity. Envy not - For his impunity and success. Abomination - Therefore sooner or later he must be miserable. The righteous - They are God's friends, to whom he imparts the favours and comforts to which other men are strangers. The house - Not only upon his own person, but also upon his posterity. Shame - Instead of that glory which they seek.

Chapter VI A caution against suretyship, ver. 1 - 5. Against slothfulness, ver. 6 - 11. The practice and end of a mischievous man, ver. 12 - 15. Account of seven things which God hates, ver. 16 - 19. An exhortation to keep the commandments, ver. 20 - 23. Farther warnings against whoredom, ver. 24 - 35. Surety - Rashly, without considering how thou shalt discharge the debt as occasion require. Otherwise suretyship in some cases may be not only lawful, but an act of justice and charity. Stricken thy hand - Obliged thyself by giving thine hand, as the custom then was in such cases. With - With the creditor, whom he calls a stranger, because the usurers in Israel, who lent money to others, upon condition of paying use for it, were either Heathens, or were reputed as bad as Heathens, because this practice was forbidden by God's law, Deut 23:19. Hand - Into the power. Friend - Of the debtor, for whom, as being thy friend, thou didst become surety; whereby thou art in his power, by his neglect or unfaithfulness, to expose thee to the payment of the debt. Make sure - Or, and prevail with thy friend, strive to win him by thine incessant and earnest solicitations. Give not sleep - Until thou hast taken care for the discharge of this obligation. Go - This is a distinct precept; and it is for the most part as needless to seek, as hard to find, coherence in the proverbs. Travelleth - Swiftly and unexpectedly. Armed man - Irresistibly. Hate - Above many other sins which have a worse name in the world. Deviseth - He whose practice it is to contrive wickedness. Swift - Such as greedily execute their wicked designs. The law - The word of God, which thy parents delivered to thee. Bind them - Constantly remember, and duly consider them. It - The law of God which thy parents have taught thee. Talk - It shall give thee counsel and comfort. Eye - lids - With her wanton glances, Despise - Abhor, but rather pity him. Restore - He speaks not of that restitution which the law required, but of that which either the wronged person might force the thief to make, or which the thief would willingly give rather than be exposed to public shame.

Restore - He speaks not of that restitution which the law required, but of that which either the wronged person might force the thief to make, or which the thief would willingly give rather than be exposed to public shame. Rage - It enflames a man with rage. In the day - When he hath an opportunity to avenge himself. Chapter VII An exhortation to cleave to wisdom, as a preservative from strange women, ver. 1 - 5. The snares they lay for unwary young men, ver. 6 - 23. A serious caution against coming near them, ver. 24 - 37. Live - Thou shalt live. Eye - With all possible care and diligence. Bind them - As a ring which is continually in a man's eye. And call - Acquaint and delight thyself with her. Passing - Idle and careless, near the corner of the street in which her house stood. Without - Without the door of her house. Corner - Of the streets, where she might either conceal or discover herself, as she saw fit. Offerings - I have paid my peace - offerings which I had vowed. Whereby she signifies, that she had plentiful provisions at her house for his entertainment. For the peace - offerings were to be of the best flesh, Lev 22:21, and a considerable part of these offerings fell to the offerer's share. Hath taken - Which is an evidence that he designs to stay a considerable time. At the day - So that we need not fear any surprise. As an ox - Going to it securely, as if it were going to a good pasture. His liver - His vital parts, 'till his life be lost.

Rejoice - She lives in constant tranquillity of mind, from a just confidence in God's gracious providence. Openeth her mouth - She is neither sullenly silent, nor full of impertinent talk, but speaks discreetly and piously, as occasion offers. In her tongue - Her speeches are guided by wisdom and grace, and not by inordinate passions. And this practice is called a law in her tongue, because it is constant and customary, and proceeds from an inward and powerful principle of true wisdom. Looketh well - She diligently observes the management of her domestick business, and the whole carriage of her children and servants. Favour - Comeliness, which commonly gives women favour with those who behold them. Deceitful - It gives a false representation of the person, being often a cover to a deformed soul; it does not give a man that satisfaction, which at first he promised to himself from it; and it is soon lost, not only by death, but by many diseases and contingencies. Give her - It is but just, that she should enjoy those praises which her labours deserve. Let her works - If men be silent, the lasting effects of her prudence and diligence will trumpet forth her praises. In the gates - In the most publick and solemn assemblies.

The most subtle wickedness cannot outwit death, nor the most daring wickedness out - brave it. To his hurt - There are some kings, who use their power tyrannically, whereby they not only oppress their people, but hurt themselves, bringing the vengeance of God upon their own heads. And so - In like manner. The wicked - Wicked princes or rulers. Buried - With state and pomp. Who - Had administered publick justice, which is frequently signified by the phrase of coming in and going out before the people. The holy - The throne or tribunal seems to be so called here, to aggravate their wickedness, who being advanced by God into so high and sacred a place, betrayed so great a trust. Where - They lived in great splendor, and were buried with great magnificence. This - That men should so earnestly thirst after glory, which is so soon extinct. Therefore - God's forbearance makes them presumptuous and secure. A shadow - His life, though it may seem long, yet in truth is but a shadow, which will quickly vanish and disappear. Done - Either by wicked potentates, who do commonly advance unworthy men, and oppress persons of greatest virtue and merit: or, by God's providence, who sees it fit for many weighty reasons so to manage the affairs of the present world. To whom - Who meet with such usage as the worst of men deserve. It happeneth - Who, instead of those punishments which they deserve, receive those rewards which are due to virtuous men. To be merry - This he speaks of sensual delights. To see - To observe mens various designs and employments, and their unwearied labours about worldly things. For there is - Having now mentioned the business which is done, or which man doth, upon earth, he further adds, as an evidence of man's eagerness in pursuing his business, for even by day and by night he (the busy man) seeth not sleep with his eyes. He grudges himself necessary refreshments, and disquiets himself with endless cares and labours. I beheld - I considered the counsels and ways of God, and the various methods of his providence, and the reasons of them. Find out - No man, though ever so wise, is able fully and perfectly to understand these things.

Chapter III The church seeks Christ, finds him, and resolves not to displease him again, ver. 1 - 5. Christ's coming out of the wilderness; his bed, guard and chariot, ver. 6 - 10. An invitation of the church to the kingdom of glory, ver. 11. By night - When others compose themselves to sleep, my affections were working towards him. I sought - I sought for Christ's gracious and powerful presence. I sought - This repetition denotes her perseverance and unweariedness in seeking him. Found him not - For he had withdrawn the manifestations of his love from me, either because I had not sought him diligently, or because I had abused his favour. The city - The city of God, the church in which Christ resides. Broadways - Not finding him in private prayer, and meditation, I sought him in the places of public assemblies and ordinances. Found not - He saw fit still to delay the discoveries of his grace. The watch - men - The ministers of Christ, and rulers of the church. Go about - To prevent disorders and dangers. Him - She does not name him, because she thought it needless, as supposing a person of such transcendent excellency could not be unknown to men in that capacity. Their answer is not mentioned, either because they gave her no satisfactory answer, or because by their silence she gathered that they were unable to inform her; and being eager in the pursuit, she would not lose time. Found him - Christ met me, and manifested his love to me. Mother's house - As the spouse here, signifies particular believers, so her mother is the universal church, or the true Jerusalem, which hath its rise from above, which is the mother of us all, Gal 4:26, in which Christ and believers are united, and have sweet communion together in holy ordinances, into which believers are said to bring Christ, by faith and prayer. Conceived me - Christ is as it were the father that begets, and the church the mother that conceives and brings forth believers. Who - The persons speaking seem to be the daughters of Jerusalem, who upon occasion of the bride's speech to them, make this reply. The person spoken of is the spouse.

Chapter II God's numerous and continued mercies render the Jews in their idolatry inexcusable, and unparalleled in any nation; and themselves the causes if their calamities, ver. 1 - 19. Their gross idolatry, ver. 20 - 28. Incorrigibleness, bloodshedding, and hypocrisy, ver. 29 - 37. Go - From Anathoth to Jerusalem. Remember - I remind thee of the kindness that was between us. The love - When I entered into covenant with thee at the giving of the law. Wilderness - I took such care of thee, in the howling wilderness, a land that was not sown. Holiness - A people dedicated to God. As - As the first fruits were holy to God, so was Israel. Devour - All that were injurious to him. Offend - Were liable to punishment. Evil - Evil was inflicted on them from the Lord, as upon the Egyptians, Amalekites, Midianites, Canaanites. Vanity - Idols. Vain - Fools; senseless as the stocks and stones that they made their idols of. Neither - They never concerned themselves about what God had done for them, which should have engaged them to cleave to him. Of drought - Where they had no water but by miracle. Death - Bringing forth nothing that might support life, therefore nothing but death could be expected; and besides, yielding so many venomous creatures, as many enemies that they went in continual danger of. No man dwelt - As having in it no accommodation for travellers, much less for habitation. My land - Consecrated to my name; by your idols and many other abominations. They - They that should have taught others, knew as little as they, or regarded as little, who are said here to handle the law, the priests and Levites, who were the ordinary teachers of the law. Pastors - Either teachers, or kings and princes. Prophets - They that should have taught the people the true worship of God, were themselves worshippers of Baal. Plead - By his judgments, and by his prophets, as he did with their fathers, that they may be left without excuse. Children - God often visits the iniquities of the parents upon the children, when they imitate their parents.

Chapter XXVI The prophet, by God's command, in the court of the temple, threatens that the temple shall be as Shiloh, and the land a curse: exhorts to repentance, ver. 1 - 7. He is apprehended and arraigned, ver. 8 - 11. His apology, ver. 12 - 15. The princes clear him by the example of Micah, ver. 16 - 19. and of Urijah, ver. 20 - 23. and by the care of Ahikam, ver. 24. When - When the nobles, and other civil magistrates, heard of the tumult, they came from the king's court, where the nobles and great officers of nations usually are, to the temple. At the entry - It was the place where their sanhedrim, who were to judge of false prophets, were wont to sit. The priests - "In the corrupt state of all kingdoms, the ecclesiastical officers always were the greatest enemies to the faithful ministers of God." They speak to the members of the court who are called princes, and to the people who were in the court. Micah - This was that Micah, whose prophecies are part of holy writ, as appears by Micah 1:1 3:12, where are the very words of the prophecy here mentioned, the substance of whose prophecy was the same with this, that Zion should be plowed up, and the place where the temple stood, should become so desolate that trees should grow there, as in a forest. Thus - Now, if we should take a quite contrary course, and put this man to death, we should do ourselves no good, but procure great evil against our souls; that is against ourselves. And there was - This is a story which we have recorded in no other part of scripture. They are probably the words of some others, who were enemies to Jeremiah. Cast his body - Not in the sepulchers of the prophets, but amongst the vulgar people. Nevertheless - Tho' Jeremiah's enemies pleaded this instance of Urijah, a case judged in this very king's reign; yet the hand, that is, the power and interest of Ahikam, one of Josiah's counsellors, and the father of Gedaliah, was with Jeremiah.

Backsliding - Running after idols; or seeking help from foreign nations, instead of applying to God. A woman - This seems to be a promise of the Jewish church in its time, and of the gospel - church, prevailing over all its enemies; though, considering the fewness of the church's members, with the multitude of its enemies, and their power, it seemed as strange a thing, as for a woman to prevail against a strong and mighty man. The Lord of hosts - These prophecies of the restoration of the Jews, are ordinarily prefaced with these two attributes of God, the one of which asserts his power to do the thing promised; the other his goodness to his people. For - The words are a promise, that God would give his people abundance of ease and plenty. Upon this I awaked - Probably this revelation was made to Jeremiah, in a dream. I will sow - That is, I will exceedingly multiply them, both with men and with cattle. Behold - And not only with the Jews, but all those who should be ingrafted into that Olive. It is not called the new covenant, because it was as to the substance new, for it was made with Abraham, Gen 17:7, and with the Jews, Deut 26:17,18, but because it was revealed after a new manner, more fully and particularly, plainly and clearly. Nor was the ceremonial law any part of it, as it was to the Jews, a strict observance of that. It was likewise new in regard of the efficacy of the spirit attending it, in a much fuller and larger manner. Not according - The covenant which God made with the Jews when they came out of the land of Egypt, was on God's part the law which he gave them, with the promises annexed; on their part (which made it a formal covenant) their promise of obedience to it. With - That is, with those who are Jews inwardly. And write it - The prophet's design is here to express the difference betwixt the law and the gospel. The first shews duty, the latter brings the grace of regeneration, by which the heart is changed, and enabled for duty.

The first shews duty, the latter brings the grace of regeneration, by which the heart is changed, and enabled for duty. All under the time of the law that came to salvation, were saved by this new covenant; but this was not evidently exhibited; neither was the regenerating grace of God so common under the time of the law, as it hath been under the gospel. I will forgive - God makes the root of all this grace to be the free pardon, and the remission of their sins. Those ordinances - The ordinances of nature, which are God's establishments for the working of natural causes in their order. I will cast off - That is, I will never cast off all the seed of Israel. The city - Shall be built round, as largely as ever. The line - That is, it shall be built round about upon its old foundations. The valley - A valley, so called from the multitude of Sennacherib's army slain there. Of the ashes - So called from the ashes of the sacrifices carried thither. Holy - All these places shall be parts of the holy city, and God's name shall be sanctified, and he shall be worshipped in them all. For ever - If we interpret the word for ever of a perpetuity, the church of God must here be understood, against which the gates of hell shall never prevail.

Chapter XXXIII The taking of Jerusalem, carrying away the people, their return, ver. 1 - 8. Joyful state and settled government, ver. 9 - 14. Christ the branch of righteousness, his everlasting kingdom and priesthood, and blessed seed, ver. 15 - 26. The Lord - The maker thereof, of Jerusalem, or of these promises, his name is Jehovah; he hath a sufficiency in himself to make good his word. They - The Jews sally out and fight with their enemies, but to no purpose, but to fill their houses with their own dead bodies, whom I will cause in my anger to be slain. I will cure - The miserable disturbed state of a nation being compared to wounds and sickness, the restoring of it to a peaceable prosperous state is fitly called its health and cure. I will bring them again to a quiet and peaceable state in which they shall abide many days. They shalt fear - And not only so but shall fear to engage against a nation so beloved and favoured by me. Is desolate - That is, a great part of which is, and the other part shall soon be desolate. Shall pass - So as to keep tally of them, as they were wont to do both morning and evening in those countries. The branch - The kings they had hitherto had of the line of David, were most of them unrighteous men, but God promises that after the captivity, they should have a branch of David who would execute judgment and righteousness in the land, for the protection and government of those that feared him. Saved - It is the opinion of some that a spiritual salvation and security is promised under these expressions, but by the most and best interpreters, a temporal salvation. This was typical of that spiritual and eternal salvation which is promised to the true Israel of God; as their rest in Canaan typified that rest which remaineth for the people of God. The Lord our righteousness - There is no such name any where given, either to the Jewish or Christian church, as the Lord our righteousness, but the full import of that name is spoken of Christ, Isa 45:23, which text is applied to Christ, Rom 14:11 Phil 2:10.

The Lord our righteousness - There is no such name any where given, either to the Jewish or Christian church, as the Lord our righteousness, but the full import of that name is spoken of Christ, Isa 45:23, which text is applied to Christ, Rom 14:11 Phil 2:10. David - That is, apparently a promise relating to Christ, for David's line had failed long since, had it not been continued in Christ, whose kingdom is and shall be an everlasting kingdom. A man - That is, a ministry to abide in the church to the end of the world, nor is it unusual for God in the Old Testament to express promises to be fulfilled under the gospel by expressions proper to the Old Testament. My covenant - The same with the ordinances mentioned, chap.31:35. God's law established in the course of natural causes, by virtue of which the day and night, orderly succeed one another. The succession of the gospel ministry in the church of God to abide for ever, shall be as certain as the succession of darkness and light. Of David - Christ is himself called David, whose seed and whose Levites are multiplied in the multiplying of Christians and of faithful ministers under the gospel, which are the things here promised. The two families - The families of David and Aaron. Despised - Spoken scornfully of my people, as if they should never be a nation more, having rulers of themselves, and a ministry.

Chapter XXXV By the obedience of the Rechabites, ver. 1 - 11. God condemns the Jews disobedience, ver. 12 - 17. The Rechabites are blessed, ver. 18, 19. The word - This is another evidence that the prophecies of this book are not left us in that order wherein they were delivered; for those which we had in the two or three foregoing chapters being in the time of Zedekiah, must needs be ten or eleven years after this. Rechabites - These Rechabites had their name from Rechab their father, descended from Hemath, a Kenite, who is also called Hobab, Judg 4:11, or Jethro the father in law of Moses. Igdaliah - A prophet. The princes - The chamber were the princes were wont to meet. Jonadab - Jonadab of whom we read, 2Kings 10:15, was the father, that is the progenitor of the Rechabites, at three hundred years distance. That ye may live - Jonadab cautions his sons by a thrifty, sober, laborious life, to which they had been bred, in keeping flocks, to avoid any thing which might expose them to the envy or hatred of the people amongst whom they were come to sojourn. Tents - Moveable habitations, which they could with little labour remove to feed their flocks. For ever - For ever here signifies the ever of the Jewish state, or church.

Chapter II Jeremiah laments the misery of Jerusalem, and its causes, and their enemies derision, ver. 1 - 17. An exhortation to true sorrow and repentance, and a fervent prayer, ver. 18 - 22. His footstool - His temple; but suffered the Chaldeans to destroy it. Cast down - That is, thrown them down from the highest glory and honour, to the meanest degree of servitude. Polluted - Dealt with them as with a polluted thing; cast them off, brake them in pieces. The horn - All their beauty and strength. Drawn back - God hath drawn back his assistance which he was wont to give the Jews against their enemies. Round about - God consumed them, not in this or that part, but round about, as a fire seizing an house at once on all sides. He - That is, God, (whom by their sins they had provoked and made their enemy) behaved himself as an enemy. And slew - All their young men, and maidens who were pleasant to look upon. His tabernacle - His temple. The places - The synagogues. The king - By the king and the priests are meant persons of greatest rank and eminency, though it is thought here is a special reference to Zedekiah the king of Judah, and Seraiah who was the high priest; the former of which was miserably handled, the latter slain. They - The enemies with their triumphs and blasphemies, made as great a noise, as those that sang holy songs, or played on instruments, were wont to make to the glory of God. The wall - The strength and security of the Jews. A line - Artificers used with lines not only to mark out places for building, but also for destruction, to direct them what to cut off; and such a line is here meant. Among the Gentiles - In miserable captivity. The law - Is no more read, opened or observed. Her prophets - They had but very few prophets, from this time to the time of the gospel, and very few of those at this time alive had any revelation from God. The virgins - The whole city is in a mournful posture. Mine eyes - This whole verse is but expressive of the prophets great affliction for the miseries come upon the Jews. He wept himself almost blind.

Chapter IV Zion bewaileth her misery: confesseth her sins, ver. 1 - 6. Miseries of the chief ones: women who killed and dressed their own children, ver. 7 - 12. The sin of the false prophets and priests, their vain hope, ver. 13 - 19. Their king taken prisoner, ver. 20. Edom is threatened, and Zion comforted, ver. 21, 22. The top - Are scattered in the head of every street. Earthen pitchers - The nobles, the priests, and the good men, are looked upon no better than earthen vessels, the workmanship of an ordinary potter. Cruel - The Jewish women are become cruel to their children, or forced to appear so, having through the famine no milk to give them, nor any thing to relieve them. Ostriches - Like ostriches that lay their eggs, and leave them in the sand. Of Sodom - Their punishment was greater, because more lingering, and gradual, whereas Sodom was overthrown in a moment, and that by no human hands that abode upon her, causing her a continued torment. Nazarites - Her Nazarites in this place signify her separated ones, who either in respect of birth, education, estate, or place of magistracy, were distinguished from the rest of the people. Not known - So that those who before knew them, do not know them now. Priests - The ecclesiastical men were a great cause of the first and last destruction of Jerusalem. And so they are of most other places that come to ruin, through their neglect of their duty, or encouraging others in their wicked courses. They - The prophets and priests wandered up and down the streets polluting themselves with blood, either the blood of the children which they slew, or the just men, mentioned ver.13, the slaughter of whom they either encouraged, or at least did not discourage; so that one could not touch a prophet or priest, but he must be legally polluted, and there were so many of them, that men could not walk in the streets, but he must touch some of them. Touch not - The Jews that made conscience of keeping the law against touching dead bodies, cried to the other Jews to leave the city as themselves did, the city being now so full of dead bodies that they could not stay in it without polluting themselves.

Therefore thou shalt be deprived of the rain, that should cool thy thirsty land. A conspiracy - A contrivance, to speak all alike, smooth words, and give out promises of peace and safety. Thereof - Of the land. The treasure - As a reward of their lies. Made her - By persuading Zedekiah to hold out the war, which filled Jerusalem with dead husbands, and forlorn widows. My holy things - Sacrifices, and oblations. Put no difference - Neither have they in their practice, differenced holy and profane, nor in their teaching acquainted the people with the difference, nor in the exercise of their authority, separated the profane from the holy, either persons, or things. Hid their eyes - Despised, and would not see the holiness of the sabbaths. Profaned - Contemned, dishonoured, disobeyed. Destroy souls - Ruin families; cutting off the fathers, and impoverishing the widow, and fatherless. Daubed them - Flattered them, in their ways of sin. Untempered mortar - With promises that like ill - tempered mortar, will deceive them, though all seems at present smooth and safe. I sought - God speaks after the manner of men. A man - Any one, among princes, prophets, priests, or people, to repair the breach. And stand - Interpose between a sinful people, and their offended God, and intreat for mercy. But - All were corrupted.

As the holy flock - Flocks designed to holy uses. In her solemn feasts - These flocks were for quality, the best of all; and for numbers, very great, on the solemn feasts. Thus shall men multiply, and fill the cities of replanted Judea. And the increase of the numbers of men is then honourable, when they are all dedicated to God as a holy flock, to be presented to him for living sacrifices. Crowds are a lovely sight in God's temple.

Chapter XLI The dimensions of the house and various parts of it, ver. 1 - 13. An account of another building, ver. 14, 15. The manner of the building of the house, ver. 16, 17. The ornaments of the house, ver. 18 - 20. The altar of incense and the table, ver. 21, 22. The doors between the temple and the oracle, ver. 23 - 26. The breadth - These walls in their thickness took up as much space as the whole breadth of Moses's tabernacle, Exod 26:16,22. Went he - From the porch thro' the body of the temple, to the partition between the body of the temple and the holy of holies. Measured - Either the thickness of that partition wall, or of the pilasters, which stood one on the one side, and the other on the other side of the door. Of the door - Or entrance out of the temple into the oracle. And the door - This door was six cubits broad, and an upright bar or post on which the leaves met, and which was of one cubit's breadth, make out seven cubits. Thereof - Of the holy of holies, which was an exact square. Before - Parallel with the breadth of the temple. After - Having left the holy of holies, now he is come to take the measures of the outer wall. The house - The temple. Six cubits - Three yards thick was this wall from the ground to the first story of the side - chambers. Side - chamber - Of the lowest floor; for there were three stories of these, and they differed in their breadth, as the wall of the temple, on which they rested, abated of its thickness; for the middle chambers were broader than the lowest by a cubit, and the highest as much broader than the middle. Round about - On the north, south, and west parts, on each side of every one of these three gates. They might - That the beams of the chambers might have good and firm resting - hold. Had not hold - The ends of the beams were not thrust into the main body of the wall of the temple.

The breadth - The whole front of the house eastward. Cherubim - Generally taken for the portrait of angels, or young men with wings: yet is the description of them very different in different places; in Ezekiel's vision, Eze 1:5 - 14 10:14, Isaiah's vision, Isa 6:2, John's vision, Rev 4:6 - 8, and in Solomon's temple, 1Kin 6:23 - 26. Through all the house - And thus it was through the whole house round about. The face - The door or gate of the temple was square, not arched. As the appearance - As was the form of the gate of the temple in its larger, so was the form of the gate of the oracle in its lesser dimensions. The altar - Of incense. The corners - The horns framed out of the four posts at each angle on the top of the altar. The walls - The sides. Before the Lord - In the temple, not in the holy of holies. Two doors - Each had one. Them - The doors of both temple and oracle. The temple - Including the holy of holies also.

Chapter XLIII In this chapter and the next, the temple - service is described, but under the type of the Old Testament service. The glory of God first fills the temple, ver. 1 - 6. A promise of God's continuing with his people, if they obey him, ver. 7 - 12. A description of the altar of burnt offerings, ver. 13 - 17. Directions for the consecration of that altar, ver. 18 - 27. Came - When the glory departed, it went eastward, and now it returns, it comes from the east. And his voice - Though by the voice of God, thunder is sometimes meant, yet here it was an articulate voice. And it - This glory of the God of Israel. To destroy - To declare, that their sins would ruin their city, chap.9:3,4. I fell - Overwhelmed, and as it were swallowed up. Came - The sins of Israel caused the glory of the Lord to go out of his house, now the repentance of Israel is blest with the return of this glory. The man - Christ. Stood - To encourage, and strengthen him. He - The glorious God of Israel. My throne - The throne of his grace is in his temple; in the dispensations of grace, God manifests himself a king. My feet - Speaking after the manner of men, and expressing his abode and rest, in his temple, as the type, in his church, as the antitype. In their high places - Perhaps some kings were buried in the temples of their idols, near the idols they worshipped. Their threshold - The kings of Judah and Israel, built temples and altars for their idols, and these are called their thresholds. They erected these in the courts, or near the courts of the temple. Abominations - Idolatries, and wickednesses not to be named. Far from me - From my temple. Son of man - Ezekiel, who is called thus above eighty times in this book. Shew - Describe it to them in all the parts. To the house - To the rulers, prophets, and priests especially, not excluding others. Their iniquities - When they shall blush to see what glory their iniquities had ruined. The law - This is the first comprehensive rule: holiness becomes God's house; and this relative holiness referred to personal and real holiness.

The law - This is the first comprehensive rule: holiness becomes God's house; and this relative holiness referred to personal and real holiness. The top - The whole circuit of this mountain shall be holy, but the top of it on which the temple stands, shall be most holy. The altar - Of burnt - offerings. And an hand - breath - The sacred cubit, three inches longer than the common cubit. The bottom - The ledge or settle, fastened to the altar on all sides at the bottom, shall be a cubit in height. The breadth - From the edge of this bench on the outside to the edge where it joined the body of the altar, a cubit, and this the breadth, twenty one inches, broad enough for the priests to walk on. Border - A ledge going round on all the squares. The edge - On the outer edge of this settle a span high. The back - As the back bears burdens, so this was to bear the weight of the whole altar. From the bottom - From the first ledge, which was a cubit broad, and a cubit high from the ground. To the lower - To the top of that square settle, which is called lower, because another settle is raised upon it. Two cubits - In height. The lesser - From the highest edge of the uppermost settle, down to the cubit broad ledge about the lower settle. The greater - So called, because it exceeded the upper settle a cubit in breadth. Four cubits - ln height. Four cubits - In height. From the altar - From the top of the altar. Stairs - Or steps, for such they needed, (probably each stair about one fourth of a cubit,) to carry them, up to the first and second settles. Give - Direct, or command that it be given. Shalt take - Appoint it to be taken. He - The priest. In the appointed place - That is, in the court of the house, and on the altar appointed; this is the first day's sacrifice. They - The priests in attendance. Shalt offer - On the third day, and so on, through seven days. Shalt offer - Direct them to offer. Salt - It may allude to the perpetuity of the covenant thus made by sacrifice. They - The priests in course.

Chapter XLV The division of the holy land, ver. 1 - 8. The ordinances that were given both to the prince and to the people, ver. 9 - 12. The oblations to be offered, and the princes part therein, ver. 13 - 17. Particularly, in the beginning of the year, ver. 18 - 20. And in the passover, and feast of tabernacles, ver. 21 - 25. Of this - Whole portion of twenty five thousand cubits long, or twelve miles and half, and ten thousand broad, or five miles and a little more. For the sanctuary - For a platform for the sanctuary, both house and court. And in it - In the center of this. The possession - Land to be a possession to the citizens of Jerusalem, and to be the content of the city. Broad - About two miles and half broad, and twelve miles and half long. Long - This must run along parallel in length with the holy portion, though but half its breadth. For the whole house - As the capital city, to which the tribe's resort, it must be large enough to entertain them. The prince - The king. Our side - One half of the prince's portion lay on the west side of those three already set out. The other side - The other half lay on the east - side thereof, so the portion of the city, Levites and priests, lay in the middle. The holy portion - Of priests, and Levites, and sanctuary. Before - It lay parallel as broad as these three were broad, and so run on both sides in its breadth from north to south, and had its length as the other, from east to west. Over against - What is called now over - against, or by the side, is called before three times together. So now you have an exact square of twenty - five thousand cubits laid out for God, the Levites and city, which appears thus in the breadth. For the priests. For the Levites. For the city.

Chapter XLVII The vision of the holy waters, ver. 1 - 12. The borders of the land of Canaan, ver. 13 - 23. Eastward - The fountain lay to the west, the conduit pipes were laid to bring the water to the temple, and so must run eastward, and perhaps one main pipe might be laid under the east - gate of the temple. The right side - On the south - side of the temple. Out - Of the inmost court. The outer gate - The outmost north - gate in the wall that compassed the whole mountain of the Lord's house. He measured - By the line in his hand. He brought me - Went before, and the prophet followed; all this was in vision. The sea - The Dead - sea, or lake of Sodom. Shall be healed - The waters of the sea shall be healed, made wholesome. So where the grace of God from his temple and altar flows, it heals the corrupt nature of man, and renders barren terrible deserts, as a land of waters and gardens. Shall live - Be preserved alive, and thrive, whereas no fish can live in the Dead - sea. For they - The poisonous waters of the Dead - sea shall be made wholesome for fish. Shall live - Thrive, and multiply in the virtue of the healing streams. Thus is the fruitfulness of the grace of God in the church set forth. En - gedi - Which lay on the south - west of the lake of Sodom. En - eglaim - A city on the north - east of the Dead - sea. To spread forth nets - All along on the west - side of this sea to dry them. Consumed - Never be consumed, never decay, there shall always be fruit, and enough. Their waters - Those that watered them. Issued out - And so carried a blessing with them. The border - The utmost bounds of the whole land. Shall inherit - That is, shall divide for inheritance to the tribes of Israel. Joseph - That is, the two sons of Joseph, Ephraim, and Manasseh. The great sea - The Mediterranean, which was the greatest sea the Jews knew. The east sea - The Dead - sea, which lay on the east of Jerusalem.

Chapter IX Daniel's prayer for the restoration of Israel, ver. 1 - 23. The answer sent him by an angel, ver. 24 - 27. This is the clearest prophecy of the Messiah in all the Old Testament. In the first year of Darius - That is, immediately after the overthrow of the kingdom of Babylon, which was the year of the Jews deliverance from captivity. Of the Medes - This Darius was not Darius the Persian, under whom the temple was built, as some have asserted, to invalidate the credibility of this book; but Darius the Mede, who lived in the time of Daniel. By books - By the sacred books. Judged us - Whose duty it was to govern the people, and to judge their causes; wherein if there was a failure, it was a sin, and judgment upon the people, and upon the rulers and judges themselves also. Upon Jerusalem - A place privileged many ways above all others, and punished above all others. The Lord watched - God's watching denotes the fit ways that he always takes to punish sinners. For the Lord's sake - For the sake of the Messiah: to whom the title Lord is frequently given in the Old Testament. About the time - The time of the evening sacrifice was a solemn and set time of devotion. Tho' the altar was in ruins, and there was no oblation offered upon it, yet the pious Jews were daily thoughtful of the time when it should have been offered, and hoped that their prayer would be set forth before God as incense, and the lifting up of their hands, as the evening sacrifice. This was peculiarly a type of that great sacrifice, which Christ was to offer: and it was in virtue of that sacrifice, that Daniel's prayer was accepted, when he prayed for the Lord's sake. Seventy weeks - These weeks are weeks of days, and these days are so many years. To finish the transgression - The angel discovers first the disease in three several words, which contain all sorts of sin, which the Messiah should free us from by his full redemption. He shews the cure of this disease in three words. To finish transgression. To make an end of sin. To make reconciliation:

Shall understand - Which the prophet has delivered. The ways - The ways which he would have us walk in towards him, his law, his ordinances, his whole doctrine are all righteous and equal. And the ways wherein God walks towards us, in afflicting or comforting are all righteous and equal. Shall walk in them - Will approve them all, justifying the righteousness of God's displeasure, and confessing he remembereth mercy in the midst of judgment. And justifying the righteousness of his precepts by endeavouring to observe them. The transgressors - Wilful, obstinate sinners, stumble and are offended at his commands, but more at his judgments; they cast off the one, and vainly hope to shift off the other, 'till at last they fall under the weight of their own sins and God's wrath. Joel speaks of the same judgments that Amos does: whence it is probable they appeared about the same time, Amos in Israel, and Joel in Judah. Now Amos prophesied in the days of Jeroboam the second. (Amos 7:10.) In this prophecy, The desolation made by armies of insects is described: The people are called to repentance; Promises are made of mercy to the penitent, and of the pouring out of the spirit in the latter days. The cause of God's people is pleaded against their enemies, and glorious things are spoken of the Gospel - Jerusalem.

Chapter I The prophet complains of the violence practised by the Jews, ver. 1 - 4. God foretells the punishment of it, ver. 5 - 11. The prophet complains of the mischief done by the Chaldeans, ver. 12 - 17. The burden - The prophet seems to speak of these grievous things, as a burden which he himself groaned under. Therefore - Because the wicked go on with impunity. The law - The whole law, moral, ceremonial, and judicial. Is slacked - Is slighted, and not observed. Go forth - From magistrates, judges, and public officers. Doth compass about - As it were besieges, with design to oppress and ruin. Behold ye - Here God begins to answer the prophet. Among the heathen - See what judgments have been executed upon the heathen for like sins. Bitter - Cruel, and without mercy. Hasty - Speedy in executing their merciless purposes. Their judgment - The law they observe, is their own will. Their dignity - Their authority is all from themselves, without respect to any other law or rule whatever. The evening wolves - Which with fasting in the day, came out in the evening, fierce and ravenous. Shall spread - All over the land. For violence - To enrich themselves by making a prey of all. Their faces - Their very countenances shall be as blasting as the east - wind. At the kings - Which opposed their designs. And take it - By mighty mounts cast up. Shall not die - Be utterly destroyed. Ordained - Set up, and designed. Them - The Chaldean kingdom. For judgment - To execute this judgment, which is tempered with mercy. For correction - To chastise, not to destroy. And makest - Not infusing cruel appetites, but permitting them to act according to such appetite which was already in them. As the fishes - Of which the greater greedily devour the smaller. Creeping things - Which in the waters are food for the lesser fry; so the world, like the sea, is wholly oppression. No ruler - None to defend the weak, or restrain the mighty. They - The Chaldeans draw out all alike, good or bad. In their net - Destroying many together. And gather - As if they could never have enough, they drive men into their nets. They sacrifice - Ascribe the praise of their victories.

Holy flesh - Part of the sacrifice, legally sanctified, or made holy by the altar on which the whole was sanctified. In the skirt - In the lap of his garment, or in any other cloth, and if this cloth touch any common thing as bread, &c., shall that become legally holy Said - Now the second case is proposed. These - Bread or pottage, wine or oil, or meat. Unclean - Shall that which the unclean doth touch, become unclean Though a mediate touch of what is holy will not make holy, yet will not a mediate touch of what is polluted defile So - Polluted persons, touching what is clean, pollute it, so polluted Jews, polluted God's ordinances, while the outward performing of legal duties, left them as unholy in themselves, as they were before: somewhat more then is to be done. The soul is first to be purified, that they and we may offer up a pure offering. The people - The body of the Jews. Every work - Whatever they do, they pollute all by polluted hands. Offer - What they bring to the altar with impure hearts, is polluted by them. Upward - Through past years. Before - Before you would set upon the re - building of the temple after you had intermitted it. Since - All the while the temple lay neglected. When one came - Men are disappointed half in half. But ten - Which he expected would prove twenty measures, ephahs or bushels. It proved but half your hope, thus your corn failed, and your oil much more. Blessing - Burning, and scorching winds. All the labours - In your plowing and sowing, in planting of olives and vines. From the day - When you began to build on the old foundation. Is the seed - Your seed for the next harvest is yet in your barns. Hath not brought forth - No sign yet appears what vintage you shall have, what store of wine, oil, figs, and pomegranates. Yet in the word of God I tell you, you shall be blest in them all, and have a large produce. My servant - A type of him who was God's most beloved servant. As a signet - Which is very highly valued, and carefully kept.

Chapter VII In answer to a question concerning fasting, the prophet reproves them for the mismanagement of their fasts, ver. 1 - 7. Exhorts them to reform their lives, ver. 8 - 14. When they - The captives who still continued in Babylon. The house of God - The temple, which now half built began to be frequented. Regem - melech - It appears not who these were, but no doubt they were eminent in dignity and piety. Their men - The train of friends that accompanied them. To pray - To intreat the Lord for pardon of what was past, acceptance of them at present, and an answer to their enquiry. The prophets - Haggai and Zechariah. Weep - Fast, in remembrance of the burning of the temple on the tenth day of that month. Separating myself - From worldly cares and designs. Unto all the people - By their messengers. And seventh - For the murder of Gedaliah, slain by Ishmael. Even to me - You pleased yourselves in it, not me; you wept more for the inconveniences of the thing than the sinfulness of it. For yourselves - I was as little minded by you in your fasts, as in your feasts. Hear the words - You needed not have thus enquired, had you heeded the written word. Prophets - Who have called for repentance, and sincere love to God, and man, and shewed how light, formal services are. Prosperity - Did such observances preserve Jerusalem in its prosperity Were they sufficient to save the men that inhabited the south of the plain Did they do no good when things were all safe and well And do you imagine they can profit you, now all is in ruins Spake - To your fathers. Imagine evil - Neither think ill of, or with ill to, nor plot evil against one another. Pulled away - Withdrew their shoulder from the yoke of the law. In his spirit - By his holy spirit. They laid the land desolate - By their sins.

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.

Holiness unto the Lord - Their persons shall bear the dedicating inscription of holiness to the Lord, and by their study of holiness they shall make good their motto. The pots - Which were used in the kitchens of the temple, and were not accounted so sacred as the utensils near the sacrifices, and altar. The bowls - Which received the blood of the sacrifices, were esteemed more holy; so shall thy holiness in these days exceed the holiness of those former days. Every pot - The utensils of private houses shall be all dedicated to God's service. That sacrifice - So the prophet expresses all religious affections, practice, and worship, which shall be as pleasing to God, as were the sacrifices of his people offered up with divine warrant and approbation. Seethe therein - That part of the sacrifice which pertaineth to the priests, and to the offerer to feast on. The Canaanite - Any of the accursed nation, or one who makes merchandise of religion. But all shall know that the Lord hath the greatest pleasure in upright, and sincere love and holiness. Tho' Malachi be the last of the prophets, and in him prophecy ceased: yet the spirit of prophecy shines as clear, as strong, as bright, in him, as in any that went before. The Jews call him the seal of prophecy, because in him the succession of prophets came to a period: God wisely ordering, that prophecy should cease, some ages before the Messiah came, that he might appear the more conspicuous, and be the more welcome. Haggai and Zechariah were sent to reprove the people, for delaying to build the temple: Malachi to reprove them for their neglect of it, now it was built, and for their profanation of the temple - service. And the sins he reproves, are those complained of by Nehemiah, with whom he is supposed to have been cotemporary. And now prophecy was to cease, he speaks more clearly of the Messiah, than any other of the prophets had done.

Ye say - By your deportment. Is polluted - Not a sacred thing. His meat - Either the meat which fell to the priest's share, or the portion which was laid upon the altar. What a weariness - What a toil and drudgery to observe every point of the law. This - With such minds snuffing at my service, and with such sacrifices, unfit for mine altar. The deceiver - The hypocrite that would seem to offer a sacrifice of the best, but puts God off with the worst. A male - A perfect male, such as God requireth.

Chapter II The priests reproved for profaning the holy things of God, ver. 1 - 9. The priests and people for various abuses with regard to marriage, ver. 10 - 17. I have cursed them - I have already sent out the curse, and it is in part upon you. I will corrupt - I will take away the prolific virtue and strength of it, that it shall bring forth no fruit. Spread dung - It is an expression of the greatest contempt. Of your solemn feasts - Your most solemn days and feasts, shall be as loathsome to me as dung, and shall make you, who offer them as unclean, and loathsome, as if I had thrown the dung of those sacrifices into your faces. Take you away - You shall be taken away with it, removed as equally unclean with the dung itself, equally fit to be cast out to the dunghill. My covenant - If you will not confirm, and keep Levi's covenant among you, I will make it firm on my part, by punishing the violators of it. With him - With Levi. Peace - Of long life, and prosperous, assured to the Levites in their due ministrations before God. Before my name - Behaved himself with reverence before God. Was in his mouth - He taught to the people. Aaron, Eleazar, Phineas, every one of those priests or Levites, in what age soever they lived; who feared God, and were humble. Iniquity is not found - He judged not with respect of persons, or for bribes. He walked - His whole life was a continual walking with God; he lived with God, and to him. In peace - With God, and it was his aim to live peaceably with others. Should keep knowledge - It is this that their office binds them to; it is the duty of all God's people to know his law, but the priest's duty to know it more than others. And they - The people. But ye - Priests. Stumble at the law - By your false expositions of it. Have corrupted - You have violated it, have contradicted the great intentions of it, and done what in you lay, to defeat them. Have been partial - You have perverted the law to please great men, or to serve some unworthy design.

Chapter IV The approaching misery of the wicked, and happiness of the righteous, ver. 1 - 3. A direction to keep to the law, and to expect Elijah, that is, John the Baptist, the fore - runner of the Messiah, ver. 4 - 6. Cometh - Tho' it be at a distance from you, yet it is coming and will overtake you and overwhelm you too. As an oven - The refiner's fire, chap. 3:2, is now represented as a fire, burning more dreadfully, as it did indeed when Jerusalem and the temple were on fire, when the fire raged every where, but most fiercely where the arched roofs made it double itself, and infold flames with flames. And this may well be an emblem of the day of judgment. The sun of righteousness - Christ, who is fitly compared to the sun, being the fountain of light, and vital heat to his church. And of mercy and benignity; for the Hebrew word imports both. With healing - His beams shall bring health and strength, with delight and joy, safety and security. Go forth - Go out of Jerusalem, before the fatal siege. Grow up - In strength, vigour and spiritual stature. Of the stall - Where they are safe guarded and well ordered. Tread down the wicked - When believers by faith overcome the world, when they suppress their corrupt appetites and passions, and when the God of peace bruises Satan under their feet, then they indeed tread down the wicked. Remember - Now take leave of prophecy, for you shall have no more 'till the great prophet, 'till Shiloh come, but attend ye diligently to the law of Moses. For all Israel - So long as they should be a people and church. Statutes and judgments - Be not partial; statutes and judgments, that is, the whole law must you attend to, and remember it as God requires. Behold I will send - Though the spirit of prophecy cease for four hundred years, yet at the expiring of those years, you shall have one sent, as great as Elijah. Elijah - Namely John the Baptist, who came in the spirit and power of Elijah, Luke 1:17, and therefore bears his name.

Now, the question is not whether these Rubrics ought to be observed, (you take this for granted in making the objec tion,) but whether in fact they have been observed by you, or me, most. Many can witness I have observed them punctu ally, yea, sometimes at the hazard of my life; and as many, I fear, that you have not observed them at all, and that several of them you never pretended to observe. And is it you that are accusing me for not observing the Rubrics of the Church? What grimace is this ! “O tell it not in Gath ! Publish it not in the streets of Askelon | * 82. With regard to the Canons, I would, in the first place, desire you to consider two or three plain questions: First. Have you ever read them over? Secondly. How can these be called the Canons of the Church of England, seeing they were never legally established by the Church, never regularly confirmed in any full Convocation? Thirdly. By what right am I required to observe such Canons as were never legally established? And then I will join issue with you on one question more, viz., Whether you or I have observed them most. To instance only in a few: “Canon 29.--No person shall be admitted godfather or godmother to any child, before the said person hath received the holy communion. “Can. 59.--Every Parson, Vicar, or Curate, upon every Sunday and holiday, before Evening Prayer, shall, for half an hour, or more, examine and instruct the youth and igno rant persons of his parish. “Can. 64.--Every Parson, Vicar, or Curate, shall declare to the people every Sunday, whether there be any holidays or fasting-days the week following. “Can. 68.--No Minister shall refuse or delay to christen any child that is brought to the church to him upon Sundays or holidays to be christened, or to bury any corpse that is brought to the church or church-yard.” (N.B. Inability to pay fees does not alter the case.) “Can.

But this I say, faith by itself saved him. But works by themselves never justified any man. “Good works go not before in him which shall afterwards be justified. But good works do follow after when a man is first justified.” (Homily on Fasting. Part I.) 8. From the whole tenor then of her Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies, the doctrine of the Church of England appears to be this: (1.) That no good work, properly so called, can go before justification. (2.) That no degree of true sanctification can be previous toit. (3.) That as the meritorious cause of justification is the life and death of Christ, so the condition of it is faith, faith alone. And, (4.) That both inward and outward holiness are consequent on this faith, and are the ordinary, stated condition of final justification. 9. And what more can you desire, who have hitherto opposed justification by faith alone, merely upon a principle of conscience; because you was zealous for holiness and good works? Do I not effectually secure these from contempt at the same time that I defend the doctrines of the Church? I not only allow, but vehemently contend, that none shall ever enter into glory who is not holy on earth, as well in heart, as “in all manner of conver sation.” I cry aloud, “Let all that have believed, be careful to maintain good works; ” and, “Let every one that nameth the name of Christ, depart from all iniquity.” I exhort even those who are conscious they do not believe: “Cease to do evil, learn to do well: The kingdom of heaven is at hand; ” therefore, “repent, and bring forth fruits meet for repentance.” Are not these directions the very same in substance which you yourself would give to persons so circumstanced? What means then this endless strife of words? Or what doth your arguing prove P 10. Many of those who are perhaps as zealous of goodworks as you, think I have allowed you too much. Nay, my brethren, but how can we help allowing it, if weallow the Scriptures to be from God? For is it not written, and do not you yourselves believe, “Without holiness no man shall see the Lord?” And how then, without fighting about words, can we deny that holiness is a con dition of final acceptance?

And, (2.) That at what time soever faith is given, holiness commences in the soul. For that instant “the love of God” (which is the source of holiness) “is shed abroad in the heart.” But it is objected by the author of “The Notions of the Methodists disproved,” “St.James says, “Can faithsave him?” I answer, Such a faithasis without works cannot “bring a man to heaven.” But this is quite beside the present question. You object, (2) “St. Paul says that “faith made perfect by love, St. James, that “faith made perfect by works, is the condition of salvation.” You mean final salvation. I say so too: But this also is beside the question.- You object, (3) “That the belief of the gospel is called the obedience of faith.” (Rom. i. 5.) And, (4.) that what Isaiah terms believing, St. Paul terms obeying. Suppose I grant you both the one and the other, what will you infer? You object, (5.) That in one scripture our Lord is styled, “The Saviour of them that believe;” and in another, “The Author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him.” (6.) That to the Galatians St. Paul writes, “Neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love;” and to the Corinthians, “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping the command ments of God.” And hence you conclude, “There are several texts of Scripture wherein unbelief and disobedience are equivalently used.” Very true; but can you conclude from thence that we are not “saved by faith alone?” 11. You proceed to answer some texts which I had quoted. The first is Ephesians ii. 8: “By grace ye are saved through faith.” “But,” say you, “faith does not mean here that grace especially so called, but includes also obedience.” But how do you prove this? That circumstance you had forgot; and so run off with a comment upon the context; to which I have no other objection, than that it is nothing at all to the question. Indeed, some time after, you add, “It is plain then that good works are always, in St. Paul’s judgment, joined with faith;” (so undoubtedly they are; that is, as an effect is always joined with its cause;) “and therefore we are not saved by faith alone.” I cannot possibly allow the consequence.

For” now every one of them may truly say, “The law,” or power, “of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,” given unto me for his sake, “hath made me free from the law,” or power, “of sin and death. For that which the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,” did, when he “ con demned,” crucified, put to death, destroyed, “sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh, mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.” (Verses 1-5.) Is it not evident, that the Apostle is here describing a true. Christian, a holy believer?--in opposition, not particularly to a Jew, much less to the Jewish law, but to every unholy man, to all, whether Jews or Gentiles, “who walk after the flesh?” He goes on: “For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: For it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot. please God.” (Verses 6-8.) The opposition between a holy and unlıoly man is still glar ing and undeniable. But can any man discern the least glim mering of opposition between the Christian and the Jewish law? The Apostle goes on: “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that. raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit which dwelleth in you. Therefore, bre thren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

and that your hearing is vain, unless the same power be present to heal your soul, and to give you a faith which “standeth not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God?” 14. “Another passage that,” your Lordship thinks, “has been misapplied by enthusiasts, but was really peculiar to the times of the Apostles, is 1 John ii. 20, 27: ‘Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.--But theanointing which ye have received of him abideth in you : And ye need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. And even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.’ Here the Apostle arms the true Christians against seducers, by an argument drawn from ‘the unction from the Holy One,” that was in, or rather, among them; that is, from the immediate inspiration of some of their Teachers.” (Pp. 35, 37.) Here it rests upon your Lordship to prove, as well as affirm, oF REASON AND RELIGION. 9I (1.) That ev should be translated among : (2.) That this “unction from the Holy One” means the inspiration of some of their Teachers. The latter your Lordship attempts to prove thus:-- “The inspired Teachers of old were set apart for that office, by an extraordinary effusion of the Holy Ghost: Therefore, “‘The unction from the Holy One here means such an effusion.” (P. 38.) I deny the consequence; so the question is still to be proved. Your Lordship's second argument is drawn from the twenty sixth verse of the fourteenth chapter of St. John's Gospel. Proposed in form, it will stand thus:-- “If those words, “He shall teach you all things, relate only to a miraculous gift of the Holy Ghost, then these words, ‘The same anointing teacheth you of all things, relate to the same miraculous gift : “But those words relate only to a miraculous gift : “Therefore these relate to the same.” I conceive, it will not be very easy to make good the conse quence in the first proposition. But I deny the minor also: The contradictory whereto, I trust, has appeared to be true.

Stephen’s Day.) “Send thy Holy Ghost, and pour into our hearts that most excellent gift of charity.” (Quinquagesima Sunday.) “O. Lord, from whom all good things do come, grant to us, thy humble servants, that by thy holy inspiration we may think those things that are good, and by thy merciful guidance may perform the same.” (Fifth Sunday after Easter.) “We beseech thee, leave us not comfortless, but send us the Holy Ghost to comfort us.” (Sunday after Ascension Day.) “Grant us by the same Spirit to have a right judgment in all things, and evermore to rejoice in his holy comfort.” (Whit-Sunday.) (N.B. The Church here teaches all Christians to claim the Comforter, in virtue of the promise made, John xiv.) “Grant us, Lord, we beseech thee, the Spirit, to think and do always such things as be rightful.” (Ninth Sunday after Trinity.) “O God, forasmuch as without thee we are not able to please thee; mercifully grant that thy Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts.” (Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity.) “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.” (Communion Office.) “Give thy Holy Spirit to this infant, (or this person,) that he may be born again.-Give thy Holy Spirit to these persons,” (N.B. already baptized,) “that they may continue thy servants. “Almighty God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these persons by water and the Holy Ghost; strengthen them with the Holy Ghost the Comforter, and daily increase in them the manifold gifts of thy grace.” (Office of Confirmation.) From these passages it may sufficiently appear, for what purposes every Christian, according to the doctrine of the Church of England, does now “receive the IIoly Ghost.” But this will be still more clear from those that follow ; wherein the reader may likewise observe a plain, rational sense of God’s revealing himself to us, of the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and of a believer's feeling in himself “the mighty working” of the Spirit of Christ:-- 25. “God gave them of old grace to be his children, as he doth us now.

30. The first inference easily deduced from what has been said, is, that we are not false prophets. In one sense of the word, we are no prophets at all; for we do not foretel things to come. But in another, (wherein every Minister is a prophet,) we are; for we do speak in the name of God. Now, a false pro phet (in this sense of the word) is one who declares as the will of God what is not so. But we declare (as has been shown at large) nothing else as the will of God, but what is evidently con tained in his written word, as explained by our own Church. Therefore, unless you can prove the Bible to be a false book, you cannot possibly prove us to be false prophets. The text which is generally cited on this occasion is Matthew vii. 15. But how unhappily chosen In the preceding chap ters, our Lord had been describing that “righteousness which exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees,” and without which we cannot “enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Even the life of God in the soul; holiness of heart, producing all holiness of conversation. In this, he closes that rule which sums up the whole, with those solemn words, “Enter ye in at the strait gate; ” (such indeed is that of universal holiness;) “for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction.” The gate of hell is wide as the whole earth; the way of unholiness is broad as the great deep. “And many there be which go in thereat; ” yea, and excuse themselves in so doing, “because strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” It follows, “Beware of false prophets;” of those who speak as from God what God hath not spoken; those who show you any other way to life, than that which I have now shown. So that the false prophets here spoken of are those who point out any other way to heaven than this; who teach men to find a wider gate, a broader way, than that described in the foregoing chapters. But it has been abundantly shown that we do not. Therefore (whatever we are beside) we are not false prophets.

of it?” If not, are they not all “liable to the penalties of the several statutes made before that time against unlawful assemblies?” How can they escape? Have they “qualified themselves for holding these separate assemblies, according to the tenor of that Act?” Have, then, “the several members thereof taken the oaths to the government?” And are the “doors of the places wherein they meet always open at the time of such meetings?” I presume you know they are not; and that neither “the per sons nor places are so qualified as that Act directs.” How then come “the Bishops and Clergy to countenance and encourage” unlawful assemblies? If it be said, “They meet in a private, inoffensive way;” that is nothing to the point in hand. If those meetings are unlawful in themselves, all their inoffensiveness will not make them lawful. “O, but they behave with modesty and decency.” Very well; but the law ! What is that to the law There can be no solid defence but this: They are not Dissenters from the Church; therefore they cannot use, and they do not need, the Act of Toleration. And their meetings are not seditious; therefore the statute against seditious meetings does not affect them. The application is obvious. If our meetings are illegal, so are theirs also. But if this plea be good (as doubtless it is) in the one case, it is good in the other also. 8. You propose another objection to our manner of preach ing, in the second part of the “Observations.” The substance of it I will repeat, and answer as briefly as I can :-- “They run up and down from place to place, and from county to county;” that is, they preach in several places. This is undoubtedly true. “They draw after them confused multitudes of people;” that is, many come to hear them. This is true also. “But they would do well to remember, God is not the author of confusion or of tumult, but of peace.” I trust we do: Nor is there any confusion or tumult at all in our largest congregations; unless at some rare times, when the sons of Belial mix therewith, on purpose to disturb the peace able worshippers of God.

To the same head may be referred the objection some time urged, by a friendly and candid man, viz., “That it was unlawful to use extemporary prayer, because there was a Canon against it.” It was not quite clear to me, that the Canon he cited was against extemporary prayer. But supposing it were, my plain answer would be, “That Canon I dare not obey; because the law of man binds only so far as it is consistent with the word of God.” The same person objected my not obeying the Bishops and Governors of the Church. I answer, I both do and will obey them, in whatsoever I can with a clear conscience. So that there is no just ground for that charge,--that I despise either the rules or the Governors of the Church. I obey them in all things where I do not apprehend there is some particular law of God to the contrary. Even in that case, I show all the deference I can : I endeavour to act as inoffensively as possible; and am ready to submit to any penalty which can by law be inflicted upon me. Would to God every Minister and member of the Church were herein altogether as I am ! VII. 1. I have considered the chief objections that have lately been urged against the doctrines I teach. The main arguments brought against this manner of teaching have been considered also. It remains, to examine the most current objections, concerning the effects of this teaching. Many affirm, “that it does abundance of hurt; that it has had very bad effects; insomuch that if any good at all has been done, yet it bears no proportion to the evil.” But, to come to particulars: “First, then, you are disturb ers of the public peace.” What, do we either teach or raise sedition? Do we speak evil of the ruler of our people? Or do we stir them up against any of those that are put in authority under him? Do we directly or indirectly promote faction, mutiny, or rebellion? I have not found any man in his senses yet, that would affirm this. “But it is plain, peace is broke, and disturbances do arise, in consequence of your preaching.” I grant it. But what would you infer? Have you never read the Bible?

“Suppose ye that I am come to send peace upon earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five divided in one house, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law against the daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law.” (Luke xii. 51-53.) “And the foes of a man shall be they of his own household.” (Matt. x. 36.) Thus it was from the very beginning. For is it to be sup posed that a heathen parent would long endure a Christian child, or that a heathen husband would agree with a Chris tian wife? unless either the believing wife could gain her husband; or the unbelieving husband prevailed on the wife to renounce her way of worshipping God; at least, unless she would obey him in going no more to those societies, or con venticles, (etaptat) as they termed the Christian assemblies? 4. Do you think, now, I have an eye to your case? Doubt less I have ; for I do not fight as one that beateth the air. “Why have not I a right to hinder my own wife or child from going to a conventicle? And is it not the duty of wives to obey their husbands, and of children to obey their parents?” Only set the case seventeen hundred years back, and your own conscience gives you the answer. What would St. Paul have said to one whose husband forbade her to follow this way any more? What directions would our Saviour have given to him whose father enjoined him not to hear the gospel? His words are extant still: “He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me. And he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.” (Matt. x. 37.) Nay more, “If any man cometh to me, and hateth not,” in compari son of me, “his father, and mother, and wife, and children, yea, and his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke xiv. 26.) “O, but this is not a parallel case! For they were Heathens; but I am a Christian.” A Christian | Are you so? Do you understand the word?

They all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.” (lvi. 10, 11.) Little better were those of whom the Prophets that followed have left us so dreadful an account: “Both Prophet and Priest are profane; yea, in my house have I found their wickedness, saith the Lord. And from the Prophets of Jeru salem is profaneness gone forth into all the land.” (Jer. xxiii. 11, 15) “Her Priests have violated my law, and have pro faned my holy things: They have put no difference between the holy and the profane, and I am profaned among them.” (Ezekiel xxii. 26.) “If I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of Hosts unto you, O Priests, that despise my name!” (Malachii. 6) Yea, some of them were fallen into the grossest sins: “The company of Priests,” saith Hosea, “commit lewdness: There is the whoredom of Ephraim, Israel is defiled.” (vi. 9, 10.) “I have seen also in the Prophets of Jerusalem,” saith God by Jeremiah, “an horrible thing: They commit adultery, and walk in lies.” (xxiii. 14.) 18. And those who were clear of this, were deeply covetous; “Who is there among you that would shut the doors for nought? Neither do ye kindle fire on my altar for nought. have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of Hosts.” (Malachi i. 10.) “The Priests of Zion teach for hire, and the Prophets thereof divine for money. Yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say, Is not the Lord among us?” (Micah iii. 11.) “Thus saith the Lord, The Prophets bite with their teeth, and cry, Peace; and he that putteth not into their mouths, they even prepare war against him.” (iii. 5.) Therefore, “the word of the Lord came unto Ezekiel, saying, Prophesy against the shep herds of Israel, and say, Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool; but ye feed not the flock.

Does one Captain in fifty? Does one in five hundred? May we not go farther yet? Are there five Captains of vessels now in London, who have not, at one time or another, by this very oath, which they knew to be false when they took it, incurred the guilt of wilful perjury? 11. The oath which all Officers of His Majesty's Customs take, at their admission into the office, runs thus: “I do swear to be true and faithful in the execution, to the best of my knowledge and power, of the trust committed to my charge and inspection, in the service of His Majesty’s Customs; and that I will not take or receive any reward or gratuity, directly or indirectly, other than my salary, or what is or shall be allowed me from the Crown, or the regular fees established by law, for any service done or to be done in the execution of my employment in the Customs, on any account whatsoever. So help me God.” On this it may be observed, (1.) That there are regular fees, “established by law,” for some of these officers: (2.) That the rest do hereby engage not to take or receive “any reward or gratuity, directly or indirectly,” other than their salary or allowance from the Crown, “on any account whatsoever.” How do the former keep this solemn engagement? they whose fees are “established by law?” Do they take those established fees, and no more? Do they not “receive any farther gratuity,” not “on any account whatsoever?” If they do, they are undeniably guilty of wilful perjury. And do the latter take no fees at all? Do they receive “no reward or gratuity, for any service done, or to be done, in the execution of their employment?” Do they not take any money, “directly or indirectly, on any account whatsoever?” Every time they do receive either more or less, they also are flatly forsworn. Yet who scruples either the one or the other? either the taking a larger fee than the law appoints; or the taking any fee, large or small, which is offered, even where the law appoints none at all? What innumerable perjuries, then, are here committed, over and over, day by day! and without any remorse; without any shame; without any fear either of God or man | 12. I will produce but one instance more.

I appeal to a Judge for the recovery of it. How astonishing is it that this Judge himself cannot give me what is my right, and whatevidently appears so to be, unless I first give, perhaps, one half of the sum to men I neversaw beforein my life! 22. I have hitherto supposed that all causes, when they are decided, are decided according to justice and equity. But is it so P Ye learned in the law, is no unjust sentence given in your Courts? Have not the same causes been decided quite opposite ways? one way this term, just the contrary the next? Perhaps one way in the morning, (this I remember an instance of) and another way in the afternoon. How is this? Is there no justice left on earth; no regard for right or wrong? Or have causes been puzzled so long, that you know not now what is either wrong or right; what is agreeable to law, or contrary to it? I have heard some of you frankly declare, that it is in many cases next to impossible to know what is law, and what is not. So are your folios of law multiplied upon you, that no human brain is able to contain them; no, nor any consistent scheme or abstract of them all. But is it really owing to ignorance of the law (this is the most favourable supposition) that so few of you scruple taking fees on either side of almost any cause that can be conceived; and that you generally plead in the manner you do on any side of any cause; rambling to and fro in a way so abhorrent from common sense, and so utterly foreign to the question? I have been amazed at hearing the pleadings of some eminent Coun sel; and when it has fallen out that the Pleader on the other side understood only the common rules of logic, he has made those eminent men appear either such egregious knaves, if they could help it, or such egregious blockheads, if they could not, that one would have believed they would show their face there no more. Meantime, if there be a God that judgeth righteously, what horrid insults upon him are these ! “Shall I not visit for these things, saith the Lord? Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?” 23.

But great, inexpressi bly great, as this is, it is perhaps the least part of our work. To “seek and save that which is lost; ” to bring souls from Satan to God; to instruct the ignorant; to reclaim the wicked; to convince the gainsayer; to direct their feet into the way of peace, and then keep them therein; to follow them step by step, lest they turn out of the way, and advise them in their doubts and temptations; to lift up them that fall; to refresh them that are faint; and to comfort the weak-hearted; to administer various helps, as the variety of occasions require, according to their several necessities: These are parts of our office; all this we have undertaken at the peril of our own soul. A sense of this made that holy man of old cry out, “I marvel if any ruler in the Church shall be saved; ” and a greater than him say, in the fulness of his heart, “Who is sufficient for these things?” 35. But who is not sufficient for these things, for the taking care of a parish, though it contain twenty thousand souls, if this implies no more than the taking care to preach there once or twice a week; and to procure one to read Prayers on the other days, and do what is called the parish duty ? Is any trade in the nation so easy as this? Is not any man sufficient for it, without any more talents, either of nature or grace, than a small degree of common understanding? But Q | what manner of shepherds are those who look no farther into the nature of their office, who sink no deeper into the import ance of it, than this ! Were they not such as these concerning whom “the word of the Lord came unto Ezekiel, saying, Wo be to the shepherds that feed themselves | should not the shepherds feed the flock? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool; but ye feed not the flock.

A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, Part III Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 8 (Zondervan) Year: 1745 Author: John Wesley --- I. 1. Now, what can an impartial person think concerning the present state of religion in England? Is there a nation under the sun which is so deeply fallen from the very first prin ciples of all religion? Where is the country in which is found so utter a disregard to even heathen morality; such a thorough contempt of justice and truth, and all that should be dear and honourable to rational creatures? What species of vice can possibly be named, even of those that nature itself abhors, of which we have not had, for many years, a plentiful and still-increasing harvest? What sin remains either in Rome or Constantinople, which we have not imported long ago, (if it was not of our native growth,) and improved upon ever since? Such a complication of villanies of every kind, considered with all their aggravations; such a scorn of whatever bears the face of virtue; such injustice, fraud, and falsehood; above all, such perjury, and such a method of law, we may defy the whole world to produce. What multitudes are found throughout our land, who do not even profess any religion at all ! And what numbers of those who profess much, confute their profession by their practice yea, and perhaps by their exorbitant pride, vanity, covetousness, rapaciousness or oppression, cause the very name of religion to stink in the nostrils of many (otherwise) reasonable men I 2. “However, we have many thousands still of truly virtuous and religious men.” Wherein does their religion consist? in righteousness and true holiness; in love stronger than death; fervent gratitude to God, and tender affection to all his crea tures? Is their religion the religion of the heart; a renewal of soul in the image of God? Do they resemble Him they worship? Are they free from pride, from vanity, from malice and envy; from ambition and avarice; from passion and lust; from every uneasy and unlovely temper? Alas, I fear neither they (the greater part at least) nor you know what this religion means; or have any more notion of it, than the peasant that holds the plough of the religion of a Gymnosophist.

They made every one who did, lay down a penny,--“to make the mob drink.” 9. About Candlemas, the wife of Joshua Constable, of Dar laston, was going to Wednesbury, when a mob met her in the road, threw her down several times, and abused her in a manner too horrible to write. A warrant was procured for some of these; but one of them only was carried before Mr. G , who came back and told his companions, the Justice said that they might go home about their business. On this the mob rose again, came to Joshua’s house, and destroyed all the necessary goods therein. They likewise broke and spoiled all his shop tools, threw the tiles off the roof of the house, and pulled down one room, the joist of which they carried away with them. All his gun-locks they took away; they tore in pieces all his wife’s linen, cut the bed and bedstead, so that it was good for nothing; and tore her Bible and Common Prayer Book all to pieces. She and her husband retired to another house; but one telling the mob they were there, they swore they would tear it down immediately, if the man let them stay any longer: So they went out in the frost and snow, not knowing where to lay their head. 10. On Tuesday, January 31, 1743-4, Henry Old came to John Griffith's house, saying, if he did not leave following “this way,” he had a hundred men at his command, who should come and pull his house down. Soon after he brought some with him; but the neighbours gave him money, and sent him away for that time. Monday, February 6, between seven and eight at night, came part of the same company. Hearing them afar off, John and his wife fastened the door, and left the house. Some of the neighbours going in soon after, found them destroying all they could: Two chairs and several bundles of linen were laid upon the fire. After they had destroyed what they could, they loaded themselves with clothes and meat, and went their way.

(4.) That it is bondage to do a thing because it is com manded, or forbear it because it is forbidden. (5.) That a believer is not obliged to use the ordinances of God, or to do good works. (6.) That a Preacher ought not to exhort to good works; not unbelievers, because it is hurtful; not believers, because it is needless. Q. 21. What was the occasion of St. Paul's writing his Epistle to the Galatians? A. The coming of certain men amongst the Galatians, who taught, “Except ye be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” Q. 22. What is his main design therein? A. To prove, (1.) That no man can be justified or saved by the works of the law, either moral or ritual. (2.) That every believer is justified by faith in Christ, without the works of the law. Q. 23. What does he mean by “the works of the law?” (Galatians ii. 16, &c.) A. All works which do not spring from faith in Christ. Q. 24. What, by being “under the law?” (Gal. iii. 23.) A. Under the Mosaic dispensation. Q. 25. What law has Christ abolished? A. The ritual law of Moses. Q. 26. What is meant by liberty? (Gal. v. 1.) A. Liberty, (l.) From that law. (2.) From sin. ON TUESDAY MoRNING, June 26th, wAs considERED THE WITH regard to which, the questions asked, and the sub stance of the answers given, were as follows: Q. 1. What is it to be sanctified? A. To be renewed in the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness. Q. 2. Is faith the condition, or the instrument, of sanctifi cation? A. It is both the condition and instrument of it. When we begin to believe, then sanctification begins. And as faith increases, holiness increases, till we are created anew. Q. 3. What is implied in being a perfect Christian? A. The loving the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our mind, and soul, and strength. (Deut. vi. 5, xxx. 6; Ezek. xxxvi. 25-29.) Q. 4. Does this imply that all inward sin is taken away? A. Without doubt; or how could we be said to be saved “from all our uncleannesses?” (Ver. 29.) Q. 5. Can we know one who is thus saved? What is a rea sonable proof of it? A.

Minutes of Several Conversations, 1744 to 1789 Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 8 (Zondervan) Year: 1789 Author: John Wesley --- IT is desired, that all things be considered as in the imme diate presence of God; that every person speak freely whatever is in his heart. Q. 1. How may we best improve the time of this Conference? A. (1.) While we are conversing, let us have an especial care to set God always before us. (2.) In the intermediate hours, let us redeem all the time we can for private exercises. (3) Therein let us give ourselves to prayer for one another, and for a blessing on this our labour. Q. 2. Have our Conferences been as useful as they might have been.” A. No : We have been continually straitened for time. Hence, scarce anything has been searched to the bottom. To remedy this, let every Conference last nine days, con cluding on Wednesday in the second week. Q. 3. What may we reasonably believe to be God’s design in raising up the Preachers called Methodists? A. Not to form any new sect; but to reform the nation, particularly the Church; and to spread scriptural holiness over the land. * This tract, which is usually denominated, “The Large Minutes,” contains the plan of discipline as practised in the Methodist Connexion during the life of Mr. Wesley. As its title intimates, it underwent several alterations and enlargements from the year 1744 to 1789, when the last revision took place. It is here reprintel from a copy which bears the date of 1791,-the year in which Mr. Wesley died,--colla'ed with the edition of 1789-EDIT. Q. 4. What was the rise of Methodism, so called? A. In 1729, two young men, reading the Bible, saw they could not be saved without holiness, followed after it, and incited others so to do. In 1737 they saw holiness comes by faith. They saw likewise, that men are justified before they are sanctified; but still holiness was their point. God then thrust them out, utterly against their will, to raise a holy people. When Satan could no otherwise hinder this, he threw Calvinism in the way; and then Antinomianism, which strikes directly at the root of all holiness. Q. 5. Is it advisable for us to preach in as many places as we can, without forming any societies? A. By no means.

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.

Let him that is zealous for God and the souls of men begin now. (1.) Where there are ten children in a society, meet them at least an hour every week. (2.) Talk with them every time you see any at home. (3.) Pray in earnest for them. (4.) Diligently instruct and vehemently exhort all parents at their own houses. (5.) Preach expressly on education, particularly at Mid summer, when you speak of Kingswood. “But I have no gift for this.” Gift or no gift, you are to do it; else you are not called to be a Methodist Preacher. Do it as you can, till you can do it as you would. Pray earnestly for the gift, and use the means for it. Particularly, study the “Instructions” and “Lessons for Children.” Q. 34. Why are not we more holy? Why do not we live in eternity; walk with God all the day long? Why are we not all devoted to God; breathing the whole spirit of Missionaries? A. Chiefly because we are enthusiasts; looking for the end, without using the means. To touch only upon two or three instances: Who of you rises at four in summer; or even at five, when he does not preach? Do you recommend to all our societies the five o’clock hour for private prayer? Do you observe it, or any other fixed time? Do not you find by experience, that any time is no time? Do you know the obligation and the benefit of fasting P How often do you practise it? The neglect of this alone is sufficient to account for our feebleness and faintness of spirit. We are continu ally grieving the Holy Spirit of God by the habitual neglect of a plain duty Let us amend from this hour. Q. 35. But how can I fast, since it hurts my health? A. There are several degrees of fasting which cannot hurt your health. I will instance in one: Let you and I every Friday (beginning on the next) avow this duty throughout the nation, by touching no tea, coffee, or chocolate in the morning but (if we want it) half a pint of milk or water-gruel. Letus dine on potatoes, and (if we need it) eat three or four ounces of flesh in the evening. At other times let us eat no flesh-suppers: These exceedingly tend to breed nervous disorders.

At other times let us eat no flesh-suppers: These exceedingly tend to breed nervous disorders. Q. 36. What is the best general method of preaching? A. (1.) To invite. (2.) To convince. (3.) To offer Christ. (4.) To build up; and to do this in some measure in every Sermon. ..Q. 37. Are there any smaller advices relative to preaching, which might be of use to us? A. Perhaps these: (1.) Be sure never to disappoint a con gregation, unless in case of life or death. (2.) Begin and end precisely at the time appointed. (3.) Let your whole deportment before the congregation. be serious, weighty, and solemn. (4.) Always suit your subject to your audience. (5.) Choose the plainest texts you can. (6.) Take care not to ramble; but keep to your text, and make out what you take in hand. (7.) Be sparing in allegorizing or spiritualizing. (8.) Take care of anything awkward or affected, either in your gesture, phrase, or pronunciation. (9.) Sing no hymns of your own composing. (10.) Print nothing without my approbation. (11.) Do not usually pray above eight or ten minutes (at most) without intermission. (12.) Frequently read and enlarge upon a portion of the Notes. And let young Preachers often exhort, without taking a text.- (13.) In repeating the Lord's Prayer, remember to say “hal lowed,” not hollowed ; “trespass against us ; ” “amen.” (14) Repeat this prayer aloud after the Minister, as often as he repeats it. (15.) Repeat after him aloud every confession, and both the doxologies in the Communion-Service. (16.) Always kneel during public prayer. (17.) Everywhere avail yourself of the great festivals, by preaching on the occasion, and singing the hymns, which you should take care to have in readiness. (18.) Avoid quaint words, however in fashion, as object, originate, very, high, &c. (19.) Avoid the fashionable impropriety of leaving out the w in many words, as honor, vigor, &c. This is mere childish affectation. (20.) Beware of clownishness, either in speech or dress. Wear no slouched hat. (21.) Be merciful to your beast. Not only ride moderately, but see with your own eyes that your horse be rubbed, fed, and bedded. Q. 38. Have not some of us been led off from practical preaching by what was called preaching Christ? A. Indeed we have.

Indeed we have. The most effectual way of preaching Christ, is to preach him in all his offices, and to declare his law as well as his gospel, both to believers and unbelievers. Let us strongly and closely insist upon inward and outward holiness, in all its branches. Q. 39. How shall we guard against formality in public wor ship; particularly in singing? A. (1.) By preaching frequently on the head. (2.) By taking care to speak only what we feel. (3.) By choosing such hymns as are proper for the congregation. (4.) By not sing ing too much at once; seldom more than five or six verses. (5.) By suiting the tune to the words. (6.) By often stopping short, and asking the people, “Now, do you know what, you said last? Did you speak no more than you felt 7” Is not this formality creeping in already, by those complex tunes, which it is scarcely possible to sing with devotion? Such is, “Praise the Lord, ye blessed ones:” Such the long quavering hallelujah annexed to the morning-song tune, which I defy any man living to sing devoutly. The repeating the same words so often, (but especially while another repeats different words, the horrid abuse which runs through the modern church-music) as it shocks all common sense, so it necessarily brings in dead formality, and has no more of reli gion in it than a Lancashire hornpipe. Besides, it is a flat contradiction to our Lord’s command, “Use not vain repeti tions.” For what is a vain repetition, if this is not? What end of devotion does it serve? Sing no anthems. (7.) Do not suffer the people to sing too slow. This natu rally tends to formality, and is brought in by them who have either very strong or very weak voices. (8.) In every large society let them learn to sing; and let them always learn our own tunes first. (9.) Let the women constantly sing their parts alone. Let no man sing with them, unless he under stands the notes, and sings the bass, as it is pricked down in the book. (10.) Introduce no new tunes till they are perfect in the old. (11.) Let no organ be placed anywhere, till pro posed in the Conference.

Hook, a very eminent and a zealous Papist. When I asked him, “Sir, what do you do for public worship here, where you have no Romish service?” he answered, “Sir, I am so fully convinced it is the duty of every man to worship God in public, that I go to church every Sunday. If I cannot have such worship as I would, I will have such worship as I can.” But some may say, “Our own service is public worship.” Yes; but not such as supersedes the Church Service; it pre supposes public prayer, like the sermons at the University. If it were designed to be instead of the Church Service, it would be essentially defective; for it seldom has the four grand parts of public prayer, deprecation, petition, interces sion, and thanksgiving. If the people put ours in the room of the Church Service, we hurt them that stay with us, and ruin them that leave us; for then they will go nowhere, but lounge the Sabbath away without any public worship at all. Q. 46. Nay, but is it not our duty to separate from the Church, considering the wickedness both of the Clergy and the people? A. We conceive not ; (1.) Because both the Priests and the people were full as wicked in the Jewish Church; and yet it was not the duty of the holy Israelites to separate from them. (2.) Neither did our Lord command his disciples to separate from them; he rather commanded the contrary. (3.) Hence it is clear that could not be the meaning of St. Paul’s words: “Come out from among them, and be ye separate.” Q. 47. But what reasons are there why we should not separate from the Church? A. Among others, those which were printed above twenty years ago, entitled, “Reasons against a Separation from the Church of England.” We allow two exceptions: (1) If the parish Minister be a notoriously wicked man. (2.) If he preach Socinianism, Arianism, or any other essentially false doctrine. Q. 48. Do we sufficiently watch over our Helpers?- A. We might consider those that are with us as our pupils; into whose behaviour and studies we should inquire every day. Should we not frequently ask each, Do you walk closely with God? Have you now fellowship with the Father and the Son? At what hour do you rise?

50. How shall we try those who think they are moved by the Holy Ghost to preach P A. Inquire, (1.) Do they know God as a pardoning God? Have they the love of God abiding in them? Do they desire and seek nothing but God? And are they holy in all manner of conversation? (2.) Have they gifts (as well as grace) for the work? Have they (in some tolerable degree) a clear, sound understanding? Have they a right judgment in the things of God? Have they a just conception of salvation by faith? And has God given them any degree of utterance? Do they speak justly, readily, clearly? (3.) Have they fruit? Are any truly convinced of sin, and converted to God, by their preaching? As long as these three marks concur in any one, we believe he is called of God to preach. These we receive as sufficient proof that he is “moved thereto by the Holy Ghost.” Q. 51. What method may we use in receiving a new Helper? A. A proper time for doing this is at a Conference after solemn fasting and prayer. Every person proposed is then to be present; and each of them may be asked,--Have you faith in Christ? Are you “going on to perfection?” Do you expect to be “perfected in love” in this life? Are you groaning after it? Are you resolved to devote yourself wholly to God and to his work? Do you know the Methodist plan? Have you read the “Plain Account?” the “Appeals?” Do you know the Rules of the Society? of the Bands? Do you keep them? Do you take no snuff, tobacco, drams? Do you constantly attend the church and sacrament? Have you read the “Min utes of the Conference?” Are you willing to conform to them? Have you considered the Rules of a Helper; especially the First, Tenth, and Twelfth? Will you keep them for conscience sake? Are you determined to employall your time in the work of God? Will you preach every morning and evening; endeavouring not to speak too long, or too loud 7 Will you diligently in struct the children in every place? Will you visit from house to house? Will you recommend fasting, both by precept and example? Are you in debt? Are you engaged to marry? (N.B.

A. I think this would be throwing money away; (1.) Because this form was drawn up by three eminent Counsellors: But, (2.) It is the way of almost every Lawyer to blame what another has done. Therefore, you cannot at all infer, that they think a thing wrong, because they say so. (3.) If they did in reality think it wrong, this would not prove it was so. (4.) If there was (which I do not believe) some defect therein, who would go to law with the body of Methodists? But, (5.) If they did, would any Court in England put them out of possession; espe cially when the intent of the deed was plain and undeniable? Q. 63. Is anything farther advisable with regard to building? A. (1.) Build all preaching-houses, where the ground will permit, in the octagon form. It is best for the voice, and, on many accounts, more commodious than any other. (2.) Why should not any octagon House be built after the model of Yarm? any square House, after the model of Bath or Scarborough? Can we find any better model? (3.) Let the roof rise only one-third of its breadth: This is the true proportion. (4.) Have doors and windows enough; and let all the windows be sashes, opening downward. (5.) Let there be no Chinese paling, and no tub-pulpit, but a square projection, with a long seat behind. (6.) Let there be no pews, and no backs to the seats, which should have aisles on each side, and be parted in the middle by a rail running all along, to divide the men from the women; just as at Bath. (7.) Let all preaching-houses be built plain and decent; but not more expensive than is absolutely unavoidable: Otherwise the necessity of raising money will make rich men necessary to us. But if so, we must be dependent upon them, yea, and governed by them. And then farewell to the Methodist discipline, if not doctrine too. (8.) Wherever a preaching-house is built, see that lodgings for the Preachers be built also. Q. 64. Is there any exception to the rule, “Let the men and women sit apart?” A. In those galleries where they have always sat together, they may do so still. Butlet them sit apart everywhere below, and in all new-erected galleries. Q. 65. But how can we secure their sitting apart there?

Beware you do not oppose, or speak or think evil of, what God hath done in the earth. Rather, each in the station wherein he is placed, join hearts and hands in the work, till holiness and happiness cover our land as the waters cover the sea.

It is now my turn to complain of unfair usage; of the exceeding lame, broken, imperfect manner wherein you cite my words. For instance, your citation runs thus: You“never knew but one of the Mora vian Church affirm, that a believer does not grow in holiness.” Whereas my words are these: “I never knew one of the Mora vian Church, but that single person, affirm, that a believer does not grow in holiness; and perhaps he would not affirm it on reflection.” Now, why was the former part of the sentence changed, and the latter quite left out? Had the whole stood in your tract just as it does in mine, it must have appeared I do not here charge the Moravian Church. I complain also of your manner of replying to the first article of this very paragraph. For you do not cite so much as one line of that answer to which you profess to reply. My words are, “You ought not to charge the Moravian Church with the first of these” errors, “since in the very page from which you quote those words, “There is no justifying faith where there ever is any doubt,’ that note occurs, (viz., Vol. I. p. 328,) “In the preface to the Second Journal, the Moravian Church is cleared from this mistake.” If you had cited these words, could you possibly have subjoined, “I have not charged the Moravian Church with anything; but only repeat after you?” 4. I have now considered one page of your reply, in the man ner you seem to require. But sure you cannot expect I should follow you thus, step by step, through a hundred and forty pages! If you should then think it worth while to make a second reply, and to follow me in the same manner, we might write indeed, but who would read? I return therefore to what I proposed at first, viz., to touch only on what seems of the most importance, and leave the rest just as it lies. 5. You say, “With regard to subtlety, evasion, and disguise, you now would have it thought, that you only found this ‘in many of them; not in all, nor in most.” (Page 80) “You now would have it thought !” Yes, and always, as well as now.

(4) “You ‘praise them for not regarding outward adorn ing.’” So I do, the bulk of the congregation. “And yet you say,” (I again recite the whole sentence,) “‘I have heard some of you affirm that Christian salvation implies liberty to conform to the world, by putting on gold and costly apparel.’” I have so; and I blame them the more, because “they are condemned by the general practice of their own Church.” To this also you reply not. So I must count this the fourth contradiction which you have charged upon me, but have not proved. (5) “You call their discipline, in most respects, truly excel lent. I could wish you had more fully explained yourself. “I have, in the Second Journal, Vol. I. pp. 115-147. It is no sign of good discipline to permit such abominations; that is, error in opinion, and guile in practice. “True; it is not; nor is it any demonstration against it: For there may be good discipline even in a college of Jesuits. Another fault is, too great a deference to the Count. And yet, in most respects, their discipline is truly excellent.’” You reply, “Such excellent discipline, for all that I know, they may have; ” (that is, as the Jesuits;) “but I cannot agree that this is scarce inferior to that of the apostolical age.” It may be, for anything you advance to the contrary. “Here I cited some words of yours, condemning their subordination, (page 88,) which you prudently take no notice of.” Yes; I had iust before taken notice of their too great deference to the Count. But, the contradiction | Where is the contradiction? (6) “You mention it as a good effect of their discipline, that “every one knows and keeps his proper rank. Soon after, as it were with a design to confute yourself, you say, ‘Our brethren have neither wisdom enough to guide, nor prudence enough to let it alone.’” I answered, “Pardon me, Sir, I have no design either to confute or contradict myself in these words. The for mer sentence is spoken of the Moravian brethren; the latter, of the English brethren of Fetter-Lane, not then united with the Moravians, neither acting by their direction.” To this likewise you do not reply. Here is then a sixth contradiction, alleged against me, but not proved. 13.

They may be wrong, or they may be right, for all you know. Therefore, when you are first supposing that I have told you my notions, and them assigning the reasons of them, what can be said, but that you imagine the whole matter? 3. How far I have acted agreeably to the rules and orders of our Church, is a farther question. You think I have acted contrary thereto, First, by using extemporary prayer in public. “The Church,” you say, “has strongly declared her mind on this point, by appointing her excellent Liturgy, which you have solemnly promised to use, and no other.” I know not when or where. “And whoever does not worship God in the manner she prescribes must be supposed to slight and contemn her offices and rules; and therefore can be no more worthy to be called her Minister.” (Ibid. p. 7.) I do not “slight or contemn the offices” of the Church: I esteem them very highly. And yet I do not, at all times, wor ship God, even in public, in the very terms of those offices. Nor yet do I knowingly “slight or contemn her rules:” For it is not clear to my apprehension, that she has any rule which forbids using extemporary prayer, suppose between the Morning and Evening Service. And if I am “not worthy to be called her Minister,” (which I dare by no means affirm myself to be,) yet her Minister I am, and must always be, unless I should be judicially deposed from my ministry. Your Second argument is this: “If you suppose the Scrip ture enjoins you to use extemporary prayer, then you must suppose our Liturgy to be inconsistent with Scripture; and, consequently, unlawful to be used.” That does not follow ; unless I supposed the Scripture to enjoin, to use extemporary prayer and no other. Then it would follow, that a form of prayer was inconsistent with Scripture. But this I never did suppose. Your Third argument is to this effect: “You act contrary to the rule of the Church. Allow she is in the wrong; yet, while you break her rule, how do you act as her Minister?” It ought to be expressed, “How are you her Minister?” for the conclusion to be proved is, that I am not her Minister.

Allow she is in the wrong; yet, while you break her rule, how do you act as her Minister?” It ought to be expressed, “How are you her Minister?” for the conclusion to be proved is, that I am not her Minister. I answer, (1.) I am not convinced, as I observed before, that I do hereby break her rule. (2.) If I did, yet should I not cease to be her Minister, unless I were formally deprived. (3.) I now actually do continue in her communion, and hope that I always shall. 4. You object farther, that I “disobey the governors of the Church.” I answer, I both do, and will, obey them in all things, where I do not apprehend there is some particular law of God to the contrary. “Here,” you say, “you confess that in some things you do not, and cannot obey your governors.” (Page 8.) Did I confess this? Then I spoke rashly and foolishly; for I granted more than I can make good. I do certainly apprehend that the law of God requires me, both to preach, and, some times, to pray extempore. Yet I do not know that I disobey the governors of the Church herein: For I do not know that they have forbidden me to do either. But your “behaviour and method of teaching is irregular. Have you any warrant from Scripture for preaching” up and down thus? I think I have; I think God hath called me to this work “by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery,” which directs me how to obey that general command, “While we have time, let us do good unto all men.” “But we ought to do this agreeably to our respective situa tions, and not break in upon each other's provinces. Every private man may take upon himself the office of a Magistrate FARTHER EXPLAINED. 439an and quote this text as justly as you have done.” (Page 9.) No; the private man is not called to the office of a Magistrate; but I am to the office of a Preacher. “You was, indeed, authorized to preach the gospel; but it was in the congregation to which you should be lawfully appointed.

“You was, indeed, authorized to preach the gospel; but it was in the congregation to which you should be lawfully appointed. Whereas you have many years preached in places whereunto you was not lawfully appointed; nay, which were entrusted to others, who neither wanted nor desired your assistance.” Many of them wanted it enough, whether they desired it or no. But I shall not now debate that point. I rather follow you to the First Part of the “Farther Appeal,” where this objection is considered. 5. “Our Church,” it was said, “has provided against this preaching up and down, in the ordination of a Priest, by expressly limiting the exercise of the powers then conferred upon him to the congregation where he shall be lawfully appointed thereunto.” I answered, (1.) “Your argument proves too much. If it be allowed just as you propose it, it proves that no Priest, has authority either to preach or administer the sacrament in any other than his own congregation.” (Farther Appeal, p. 117.) You reply, “Is there no difference between a thing’s being done occasionally, and its being done for years together?” Yes, a great one; and more inconveniences may arise from the latter than from the former. But this is all wide : It does not touch the point. Still, if our Church does expressly limit the excrcise of the sacerdotal powers to that congregation whereunto each Priest shall be appointed, this precludes him from exercising those powers at all, in any other than that congregation. I answered, (2.) “Had the powers conferred been so limited when I was ordained Priest, my ordination would have signified just nothing. For I was not appointed to any congregation at all; but was ordained as a member of that ‘College of Divines,” (so our Statutes express it,) ‘founded to overturn all heresies, and defend the catholic faith.’” You reply, “I presume it was expected you should either continue at your College, or enter upon some regular cure.” Perhaps so; but I must still insist, that if my sacerdotal powers had been then expressly limited to that congregation whereunto I should be appointed, my ordination would have signified nothing. I mean, I could never, in virtue of that ordination, have exercised those powers at all; seeing I never was appointed to any single congregation, at least not till I went to Georgia.

I mean, I could never, in virtue of that ordination, have exercised those powers at all; seeing I never was appointed to any single congregation, at least not till I went to Georgia. I answered, (3.) “For many years after I was ordained Priest, this limitation was never heard of. I heard not one syllable of it, by way of objection to my preaching up and down in Oxford or London, or the parts adjacent; in Glouces tershire or Worcestershire; in Lancashire, Yorkshire, or Lincolnshire. Nor did the strictest disciplinarian scruple suffering me to exercise those powers wherever I came.” You reply, “There is great difference between preaching occasionally, with the leave of the incumbents, and doing it constantly without their leave.” I grant there is; and there are objections to the latter, which do not reach the former case. But they do not belong to this head. They do not in the least affect this consequence,--“If every Priest, when ordained, is expressly limited, touching the exercise of the power then received, to that congregation to which he shall be appointed; then is he precluded by this express limitation from preaching, with or without the incumbent’s leave, in any other congrega tion whatever.” I answered, (4) “Is it not, in fact, universally allowed, that every Priest, as such, has a power, in virtue of his ordination, to preach in any congregation, where the Curate desires his assistance?” You reply to this by what you judge a parallel case. But it does not touch the restriction in question. Either this does, or does not, expressly limit the exercise of the powers conferred upon a Priest in his ordination to that congregation whereunto he shall be appointed. If it does not, I am not condemned by this, however faulty I may be on a thousand other accounts. If it does, then is every Priest condemned whoever preaches out of the congregation to which he is appointed. Your parallel case is this: “Because a man does not offend against the law of the land, when I prevail upon him to teach my children;” therefore “he is impowered to seize” (read, he does not offend against the law of the land in seizing) “an apart ment in my house, and against my will and approbation to conti nue therein, and to direct and dictate to my family!” (Page 11.) An exact parallel indeed!

Your parallel case is this: “Because a man does not offend against the law of the land, when I prevail upon him to teach my children;” therefore “he is impowered to seize” (read, he does not offend against the law of the land in seizing) “an apart ment in my house, and against my will and approbation to conti nue therein, and to direct and dictate to my family!” (Page 11.) An exact parallel indeed! When, therefore, I came to live in St. Luke's parish, was it just the same thing as if I had seized an apartment in Dr. Buckley's house? And was the continuing therein against his will and approbation (supposing it were so) precisely the same, as if I had continued in his house, whether he would or no? Is the one exactly the same offence against the law of the land as the other? Once more. Is the warning sinners in Moorfields to flee from the wrath to come, the very same with directing the Doctor’s family under his own roof? I should not have answered this, but that I was afraid you would conclude it was unanswerable. I answered the former objector, (5.) “Before those words which you suppose to imply such a restraint, were those spoken without any restraint or limitation at all, which I apprehend to convey an indelible character, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a Priest in the church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands.’” You reply, “The question is not, whether you are in orders or not.” (Ibid. p. 12.) I am glad to hear it. I really thought it was. “But whether you have acted suitably to the directions or rules of the Church of England.” Not suitably to that rule, if it were strictly to be interpreted, of preaching only in a single congregation. But I have given my reasons why I think it cannot be so interpreted. And those reasons I do not see that you have invalidated. I would only add, If I am in orders, if I am a Minister still, and yet not a Minister of the Church of England, of what Church am I a Minister? Whoever is a Minister at all is a Minister of some particular Church.

15.) I do say so still. I cannot have a greater regard to any human rules, than to follow them in all things, unless where I apprehend there is a divine rule to the contrary. I dare not renounce communion with the Church of England. As a Minister, I teach her doctrines; I use her offices; I conform to her Rubrics; I suffer reproach for my attachment to her. As a private member, I hold her doctrines; I join in her offices, in prayer, in hearing, in communicating. I expect every reasonable man, touching these facts, to believe hisown eyes and ears. But if these facts are so, how dare any man of common sense charge me with renouncing the Church of England? 9. Use ever so many exaggerations, still the whole of this matter is, (1.) I often use extemporary prayer. (2.) Wherever I can, I preach the gospel. (3.) Those who desire to live the gospel, I advise how to watch over each other, and to put from them such as walk disorderly. Now, whether these things are, on other considerations, right or wrong, this single point I must still insist on : “All this does not prove, either that I am no member, or that I am no Minister, of the Church of England. Nay, nothing can prove, I am no member of the Church, till I either am excommunicated, or renounce her communion, and no longer join in her doctrine, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayer. Nor can anything prove, I am no Minister of the Church, till I either am deposed from my ministry, or voluntarily renounce her, and wholly cease to teach her doctrines, use her offices, and obey her Rubrics for conscience sake. However, I grant, that whatsoever is “urged on this head deserves my most serious consideration.” And whensoever I am convinced, that by taking any methods, more or less dif ferent from those I now take, I may better “consult the honour of religion, and be able to do more good in the world,” by the grace of God I shall not persist in these one hour, but instantly choose the more excellent way. IV. 1.

“But you seem to desire to have it believed, that an extra ordinary blessing attended your prayers. Whereas, if the cir cumstances could be particularly inquired into, most probably it would appear, that either the fury of the distemper was abated, or the persons you visited were seized with it in a more favourable degree, or were, by reason of a good constitution, more capable of going through it. Neither do I believe that they would have failed of an equal blessing and success had they had the assistance and prayers of their own parish Ministers.” There, Sir; now I have done as you require; I have quoted our whole remark. But does all this prove, that I “boast of curing bodily distempers by prayer, without the use of any other means?” If you say, Although it does not prove this, it proves that “you seem to desire to have it believed, that an extraordinary blessing attended your prayers;” and this is another sort of enthusiasm: It is very well: So it does not prove the conclusion you designed; but it proves another, which is as good | 11. The two last instances of my enthusiasm which you bring, (Remarks, pp. 72, 73.) I had summed up in two lines, thus: “At two several times, being ill and in violent pain, I prayed to God, and found immediate ease.” (Answer, p. 412.) But since you say, I “must not hope to escape so; these instances must once more be laid before me particularly;” (Second Letter, p. 140;) I must yield to necessity, and set them down from the beginning to the end:-- “Saturday, March 21. I explained in the evening the thirty-third chapter of Ezekiel; in applying which, I was seized with such a pain in my side, I could not speak. I knew my remedy, and immediately kneeled down. In a moment the pain was gone.” (Vol. I. p. 304.) “Friday, May 8. I found myself much out of order: How ever, I made shift to preach in the evening. But on Saturday my bodily strength failed, so that for several hours I could scarce lift up my head. Sunday, 10. I was obliged to lie down most part of the day, being easy only in that posture.

What manner of lives do they lead now? And if you do not find, (1.) That three in four of these were, two years ago, notoriously wicked men; (2.) That the main doc trines they have heard since, were, “Love God and your neigh bour, and carefully keep his commandments;” and, (3.) That they have since exercised themselves herein, and continue so to do;--I say, if you, or any reasonable man, who will be at the pains to inquire, does not find this to be an unquestionable fact, I will openly acknowledge myself an enthusiast, or what soever else you shall please to style me. Only one caution I would give to such an inquirer: Let him not ask the colliers of Coleford, “Were not the generality of you, before you followed these men, serious, regular, well disposed people?” Were you not “offended at the profaneness and debauchery of the age?” And “was it not this disposition which at first made you liable to receive these impressions?” (Second Letter, p. 103.) Because if he talk thus to some of those who do not yet “follow these men,” perhaps he will not live to bring back their answer. 9. But will this, or a thousand such instances as this, “stop the mouths of all adversaries at once?” O'Sir, would one expect such a thought as this in one that had read the Bible? What, if you could convert as many sinners as St. Paul himself?

258.) “‘Believers,’ said Mr. Simpson, “are not subject to ordi nances, and unbelievers have nothing to do with them.” (Ibid. p.269.) “‘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.’” (Ibid. p. 277.) “‘For one who is not born of God to read the Scriptures, or to pray, or to communicate, or to do any dutward work, is deadly poison. If he does any of these things, he destroys himself. Mr. Bell earnestly defended this.” (Ibid. p. 281.) “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.” (Ibid. p. 314.) “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 com municate: That is the devil.’” (Ibid. p. 329.) “They affirmed that there is no commandment in the New Testament but to believe; that no other duty lies upon us; and that, when a man does believe, he is not bound or obliged to do anything which is commanded there.” (Ibid. p. 275.) “Mr. St-told me, “No one has any degree of faith till he is perfect as God is perfect.’” (Ibid. p. 270.) “You believe there are no degrees in faith.” (Ibid.) “I have heard Mr. Molther affirm, that there is no justify ing faith where there is ever any doubt.” (Ibid. p. 328.) “The moment a man is justified, he is sanctified wholly. Thenceforth, till death, he is neither more nor less holy.” (Ibid. p. 324.) “We are to growin grace, but not in holiness.” (Ibid. p. 325.) 2.

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. I am more concerned for their “despising and decrying self-denial;” for their “extending Christian liberty beyond all warrant of holy writ;” for their “want of zeal for good works;” and, above all, for their supposing, that “we may, on some accounts, use guile;” in consequence of which they do “use guile or dissimulation in many cases.” “Nay, in many of them I have found” (not in all, nor in most) “much subtlety, much evasion and disguise; so “becoming all things to all men, as to take the colour and shape of any that were near them.” (Ibid. pp. 307, 258, 332, 327.) I can neither defend nor excuse those among the Moravians whom I have found guilty of this. But neither can I condemn all for the sake of some. Every man shall give an account of himself to God. But you say, “Your protesting against some of theiropinions is not sufficient to discharge you. Have you not prepared the way for these Moravians, by countenancing and commending them; and by still speaking of them as if they were in the main the best Christians in the world, and only deluded or mistaken in a few points?” (Remarks, pp. 11, 12.) I cannot speak of them otherwise than I think.

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 will transcribe a few more, before I answer: “How could you so long and so intimately converse with, so much commend, and give such countenance to, such desperately wicked people as the Moravians, according to your own account, were known by you to be? And you still speak of them, as if they were, in the main, the best Christians in the world. In one place you say, ‘A few things I could not approve of; but in God’s name, Sir, is the contempt of almost the whole of our duty, of every Christian ordinance, to be so gently touched? Can detestation in such a case be too strongly expressed? Either they are some of the vilest wretches in the world, or you are the falsest accuser in the world. Christian charity has scarce an allowance to make for them as you have described them. If you have done this truly, they ought to be discouraged by all means that can be imagined.” 7. Let us now weigh these assertions. “They” (that is, “the charms of their sour behaviour”) “must be in your eye very extraordinary.”--Do not you stumble at the threshold? The Moravians excel in sweetness of behaviour.

The Moravians excel in sweetness of behaviour. “As they can be sufficient to cover such a multitude of errors and crimes.” Such a multitude of errors and crimes / I believe, as to errors, they hold universal salvation, and are partly Antinomians, (in opinion,) and partly Quietists; and for this cause I cannot join with them. But where is the multitude of errors? Whosoever knows two or three hundred more, let him please to mention them. Such a multitude of crimes too ! That some of them have used guile, and are of a close reserved behaviour, I know. And I excuse them not. But to this multitude of crimes I am an utter stranger. Let him prove this charge upon them who can. For me, I declare I cannot. “To keep up the same regard and affection.”--Not so. I say, my affection was not lessened, till after September, 1739, till I had proof of what I had feared before. 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.

Lastly. I believe they trample under foot, in a good degree, “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life:” And yet many of them use reserve, yea, guile. Therefore, my soul mourns for them in secret places. 10. “But I must observe,” you say, “that you fall not only into inconsistencies, but into direct contradictions. You com mend them for “loving one another in a manner the world know eth not of;’ and yet you charge them with being “in the utmost confusion, biting and devouring one another.’ You say, ‘They caution us against natural love of one another; and had well migh destroyed brotherly love from among us.” “You praise them for “using no diversions, but such asbecome saints; and for ‘not regarding outward adorning:” Yet you say they ‘conform to the world in wearing gold and costly apparel; and by joining in worldly diversions, in order to do good.’ “You call their discipline, ‘in most respects, truly excellent.” I wish you had more fully explained yourself. I am sure it is no sign of good discipline, to permit such abominations. And you tell them yourself, ‘I can show you such a subordination as answers all Christian purposes, and yet is as distant from that among you as the heavens are from the earth.” “You mention it as a good effect of their discipline, that “every one knows and keeps his proper rank. Soon after, as if it were with a design to confute yourself, you say, ‘Our brethren have neither wisdom enough to guide, nor prudence enough to let it alone.’ “And now, Sir, how can you reconcile these opposite descrip tions?” (Ibid. pp. 21, 22.) Just as easily as those before, by simply declaring the thing as it is. “You commend them.” (the Moravians) “for loving one another; and yet charge them with biting and devouring one another.” (Vol. I. pp. 245,256.) Them / Whom ? Not the Moravians; but the English bre thren of Fetter-Lane, before their union with the Moravians. Here, then, is no shadow of contradiction. For the two sen tences do not relate to the same persons. “You say, ‘They had well-nigh destroyed brotherly love from among us; partly by ‘cautions against natural love.” (Ibid. p. 330.) It is a melancholy truth; so they had. But we had then no connexion with them.

But we had then no connexion with them. Neither, therefore, does this contradict their “loving one another in a manner the world knoweth not of.” “You praise them for using no diversions but such as become saints;” (Ibid. p. 245;) “and yet say,” (Irecite the whole sen tence,) “I have heard some of you affirm, that “Christian salvation implies liberty to conform to the world, by joining in worldly diversions in order to do good.” (Ibid. p. 327.) And both these are true. The Moravians, in general, “use no diversions but such as become saints;” and yet I have heard some of them affirm, in contradiction to their own practice, that “one then mentioned did well, when he joined in playing at tennis in order to do good.” 11. “You praise them for not ‘regarding outward adorn ing.” (Ibid. p. 245.) So I do, the bulk of the congregation. “And yet you say,” (I again recite the whole sentence,) “I have heard some of you affirm, that “Christian salvation im plies liberty to conform to the world, by putting on of gold and costly apparel.” (Ibid. p. 327.) I have so. And I blame them the more, because they are condemned by the general practice of their own Church. “You call their discipline “in most respects truly excellent.’ (Ibid. p. 245.) I could wish you had more fully explained yourself.” I have, in the Second Journal. (Ibid. pp. 115 147.) “It is no sign of good discipline to permit such abomi nations;” that is, error in opinion, and guile in practice. True, it is not; nor is it any demonstration against it. For there may be good discipline even in a College of Jesuits. Another fault is, too great a deference to the Count. And yet, “in most respects, their discipline is truly excellent.” “You mention it as a good effect of their discipline, that “every one knows and keeps his proper rank. (Ibid. p. 245.) Soon after, as it were with a design to confute yourself, you say, ‘Our brethren have neither wisdom enough to guide, nor prudence enough to let it alone.” (Ibid. p. 255) Pardon me, Sir. I have no design either to confute or to contradict myself in these words. The former sentence is spoken of the Moravian brethren; the latter, of the English brethren of Fetter-Lane. 12.

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 repentance.* 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, that faith alone is the proximate condition of justification.” 4. This is what I hold concerning justification. I am next briefly to observe what you object. “If faith,” say you, “is the sole condition of justification, then it is our sole duty.” (Remarks, p. 25.) I deny the consequence. Faith may be, in the sense above described, the sole condition of justification; and yet not only repentance be our duty before, but all obedi ence after, we believe. . You go on : “If good works are not conditions of our justi fication,they are not conditions of our (final) salvation.” (Page 25.) I deny the consequence again. Good works, properly so called, cannot be the conditions of justification; because it * See this glaring misprint of one of the earliest editions corrected by Mr. Wes ley himself in a subsequent part of this volume, page 428.--EDIT. is impossible to do any good work before we are justified. And yet, notwithstanding, good works may be, and are, conditions of final salvation. For who will say it is impossible to do any good work before we are finally saved? You proceed: “Can we be saved in the contemptuous neg lect of repentance, prayer,” &c.? (Page 26.) No, nor justified neither; but while they are previous to faith, these are not allowed to be good works. You afterwards argue from my own concessions, thus: “Your notion of true stillness is, ‘a patient waiting upon God, by lowliness, meekness, and resignation, in all the ways of his holy law, and the works of his commandments. But how is it possible to reconcile to this, the position, that these duties are not conditions of our justification? If we are justified without them, we may be saved without them.

“Was not irreligion and vice already prevailing enough in the nation, but we must--throw snares in people’s way, and root out the remains of piety and devotion, in the weak and well-meaning? That this has been the case, your own con fessions put beyond all doubt. And you even now hold and teach the principles from which these dangerous consequences do plainly and directly follow.” (Page 3.) “Was not irreligion and vice already prevailing enough,” (whether I have increased them, we will consider by and by,) “but we must throw snares in people’s way?” God forbid! My whole life is employed in taking those snares out of people's way, which the world and the devil had thrown there. “And root out the remains of piety and devotion in the weak and well-meaning?” Of whom speaketh the Prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? “Your own confessions put this beyond all doubt.” What! that “I root out the remains of piety and devotion?” Not so. The sum of them all recited above amounts to this and no more: “That while my brother and I were absent from London, many weak men were tainted with wrong opinions, most of whom we recovered at our return; but even those who continued therein did, notwith standing, continue to live a holier life than ever they did before they heard us preach.” “And you even now hold the principles from which these dangerous consequences do plainly and directly follow.” But I know not where to find these con sequences, unless it be in your title-page. There indeed I read of the very fatal tendency of justification by faith only: “The divisions and perplexities of the Methodists, and the many errors relating both to faith and practice, which,” as you con ceive, “have already arisen among these deluded people.” However, you “charitably believe, I was not aware of these consequences at first.” (Remarks, p. 4.) No, nor am I yet; though it is strange I should not, if they so naturally suc ceed that doctrine. I will go a step farther. I do not know, neither believe, that they ever did succeed that doctrine, unless perhaps accidentally, as they might have succeeded any doctrine whatsoever. And till the contrary is proved, those conse quences cannot show that these principles are not true. 13.

13. Another consequence which you charge on my preaching justification by faith, is, the introducing the errors of the Mora vians. “Had the people,” say you, “gone on in a quiet and regular practice of their duty, as most of them did before you deluded them, it would have been impossible for the Moravian tenets to have prevailed among them. But when they had been long and often used to hear good works undervalued, I cannot wonder that they should plunge into new errors, and wax worse and worse.” (Page 12.) This is one string of mistakes. “Had the people gone on in a quiet and regular practice of their duty, as most of them did before you deluded them.” Deluded them Into what? Into the love of God and all mankind, and a zealous care to keep his commandments. I would to God this delusion (if such it is accounted) may spread to the four corners of the earth ! But how did most of them go on before they were thus deluded ? Four in five, by a moderate computation, even as other baptized Heathens, in the works of the devil, in all the “wretchlessness of most unclean living.” “In a quiet and re gular practice of their duty!” What duty? the duty of cursing and swearing; the duty of gluttony and drunkenness; the duty of whoredom and adultery; or of beating one another, and any that came in their way? In this (not very “quiet or regular”) practice did most of those go on before they heard us, who have now “put off the old man with his deeds,” and are “holy in all manner of conversation.” Have these, think you, “been long and often used to hear good works undervalued?” Or are they prepared for receiving the Moravian errors, by the knowledge and love of God? O Sir, the Moravians know, if you do not, that there is no such barrier under heaven against their tenets as those very people whom you suppose just prepared for receiving 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.

For it may be where there is no religion at all; in men of the most abandoned lives; yea, in the devil himself. And yet this does not prove that I “separate reason from grace; ” that I “discard reason from the service of religion.” I do continually “employ it to distinguish between right and wrong opinions.” I never affirmed “this distinction to be of little consequence,” or denied “the gospel to be a reasonable service.” (Page 158.) But “the Apostle Paul considered right opinions as a full third part, at least, of religion. For he says, “The fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth. By goodness is meant the conduct of particulars to the whole, and consists in habits of social virtue; and this refers to Christian practice. By righteousness is meant the conduct of the whole to particulars, and consists in the gentle use of church authority; and this refers to Christian discipline. By truth is meant the conduct of the whole, and of particulars to one another, and consists in orthodoxy or right opinion; and this refers to Christian doctrine.” (Page 159.) My objections to this account are, First, It contradicts St. Paul; Secondly, It contradicts itself. First. It contradicts St. Paul. It fixes a meaning upon his words, foreign both to the text and context. The plain sense of the text, taken in connexion with the context, is no other than this: (Eph. v. 9:) “The fruit of the Spirit” (rather, “of the light,” which Bengelius proves to be the true reading, opposite to “the unfruitful works of darkness,” mentioned verse 11) “is,” consists, “in all goodness, kind ness, tender-heartedness,” (iv. 32,)--opposite to “bitterness, wrath, anger, clamour, evil-speaking; ” (verse 31;) “in all righteousness,” rendering unto all their dues,--opposite to “stealing; ” (verse 28;) “ and in all truth,” veracity, sin cerity,-opposite to “lying.” (Verse 25.) 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.

“But take the affair from the beginning. He began to sus pect 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 7 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 differ ent Preachers;” (page 250;) and particularly for his giving Mr. Whitefield the talents which I have not. 6. What farther proof of hypocrisy? Why, “he had given innumerable flirts of contempt in his Journals against human learning.” (Pages 252, 253.) Where? I do not know. Let the passages be cited; else, let me speak for it ever so much, it will prove nothing. “At last he was forced to have recourse to what he had so much scorned, I mean, prudence.” (Page 255.) All a mistake. I hope never to have recourse to false prudence; and true prudence I never scorned. “He might have met Mr. Whitefield half way; but he was too formidable a rival. With a less formidable one he pur sues this way. “I laboured, says he, ‘to convince Mr. Gr--,’” (my assistant, not rival,) “‘that he had not done well, in confuting, as he termed it, the sermon I preached the Sunday before. I asked, Will you meet me half way?” (The words following put my meaning beyond all dispute:) “I will never publicly preach against you. Will not you against me?” Here we see a fair invitation to Mr. Gr-- to play the hypocrite with him.” (Ibid.) Not in the least.

For they rise at any hour of the night when they awake, and, after eating and drinking as much as they can, go to sleep again. Hence we could not but remark what is the religion of nature, properly so called, or that religion which flows from natural reason, unas sisted by Revelation.’” (Page 290.) I believe this dispute may be cut short by only defining the term. What does your Lordship mean by natural religion ? a system of principles? But I mean by it, in this placc, men’s natural manners. These certainly “flow from their natural passions and appe tites,” with that degree of reason which they have. And this, in other instances, is not contemptible; though it is not sufficient to teach them true religion. II. I proceed to consider, in the Second place, what is advanced concerning the operations of the Holy Spirit. “Our blessed Redeemer promised to send among his follow ers the Holy Ghost, called ‘the Spirit of Truth’ and ‘the Comforter, which should co-operate with man, in establishing his faith, and in perfecting his obedience; or, in other words, should sanctify him to redemption.” (Page 2.) Accordingly, “the sanctification and redemption of the world, man cannot frustrate nor render ineffectual. For it is not in his power to make that to be undone, which is once done and perfected.” (Page 337.) 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 Polish exorcist, than I can believe the tale of an hundred people talking without tongues, on the credit of Dr. Middleton. “The other gifts of the Spirit St.

He illuminated their minds with all necessary truth. For a rule of faith not being yet com posed,” (No! Had they not “the Law and the Prophets?”) “some extraordinary infusion of his virtue was still necessary. But when this rule was perfected, part of this office was trans ferred upon the sacred Canon; and his enlightening grace was not to be expected in such abundant measure, as to make the recipients infallible guides.” (Page 112.) Certainly it was not. If this is all that is intended, no one will gainsay. “Yet modern fanatics pretend to as high a degree of divine communications, as if no such rule were in being;” (I do not;) “or, at least, as if that rule needed the further assistance of the Holy Spirit to explain his own meaning.” This is quite ano ther thing. I do firmly believe, (and what serious man does not?) omnis scriptura legi debet eo Spiritu quo scripta est: “We need the same Spirit to understand the Scripture, which enabled the holy men of old to write it.” “Again, the whole strength of human prejudices was then set in opposition to the gospel, to overcome the obstinacy and violence of which, nothing less than the power of the Holy One was sufficient. At present, whatever prejudices may remain, it draws the other way.” (Page 113.) What, toward holiness? toward temperance and chastity? toward justice, mercy, and truth? Quite the reverse. And to overcome the obstinacy and violence of the heart-prejudices which still lie against these, the power of the Holy One is as necessary now, as ever it was from the beginning of the world. “A further reason for the ceasing of miracles is, the peace and security of the Church. The profession of the Christian faith is now attended with ease and honour.” The profession, true; but not the thing itself, as “all that will live godly in Christ Jesus” experience. “But if miracles are not ceased, why do you not prove your mission thereby?” As your Lordship has frequently spoke to this effect, I will now give a clear answer. And I purposely do it in the same words which I published many years since: “l. I have in some measure explained myself on the head of miracles, in the Third Part of the ‘Farther Appeal.

Stephen’s Day.) “Send thy Holy Ghost, and pour into our hearts that most excellent gift of charity.” (Quinquagesima Sunday.) “O Lord, from whom all good things do come, grant to us thy humble servants, that by thy holy inspiration we may think those things that are good, and by thy merciful guidance may perform the same.” (Fifth Sunday after Easter.) “We beseech thee, leave us not comfortless, but send to us the Holy Ghost to comfort us.” (Sunday after Ascension Day.) “Grant us by the same Spirit to have a right judgment in all things, and evermore to rejoice in his holy comfort.” (Whit-unday.) “Grant us, Lord, we beseech thee, the Spirit to think and do always such things as be rightful.” (Ninth Sunday after Trinity.) “O God, forasmuch as without thee we are not able to please thee, mercifully grant that thy Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts.” (Nineteenth Sun day after Trinity.) “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.” (Communion Office.) “Give thy Holy Spirit to this infant, (or this person,) that he may be born again. Give thy Holy Spirit to these per sons,” (N. B. already baptized,) “that they may continue thy servants.” “Almighty God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these persons by water and the Holy Ghost, strengthen them with the Holy Ghost the Comforter, and daily increase in them the manifold gifts of thy grace.” (Office of Confirmation.) From these passages it may sufficiently appear for what pur poses every Christian, according to the doctrine of the Church of England, does now receive the Holy Ghost. But this will be still more clear from those that follow; wherein we may likewise observe a plain rational sense of God’s “revealing” himself to us, of the “inspiration” of the Holy Ghost, and of a believer's “feeling” in himself the “mighty working” of the Spirit of Christ. “God gave them of old, grace to be his children, as he doth us now. But, now by the coming of our Saviour Christ, we have received more abundantly the Spirit of God in our hearts.” (Homily on Faith.

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? This needs some proof: I absolutely deny the fact. So that all which follows is mere flourish, and falls to the ground at once; and all that you aver of their “open and scandalous opposition to the Twentieth Article” (ibid.) is no better than open and scandalous slander. 6.

6. Your Second assertion is this: “The Methodist, for the perdition of the souls of his followers, openly gives our Saviour the lie, loads the Scripture with falsehood and contradic tion; ” (and pray what could a Mahometan, or infidel, or the devil himself do more?) “yea, openly blasphemes the name of Christ, by saying that the works of men are of no consideration at all; that God makes no distinction between virtue and vice, that he does not hate vice or love virtue. What blasphemy then and impiety are those wretches guilty of who, in their diabolical frenzy, dare to contradict our Saviour's authority, and that in such an essential article of religion l” (Pages 7-9.) Here also the Methodists plead, Not Guilty, and require you to produce your evidence; to show in which of their writings they affirm that God “will not reward every man according to: his works; that he makes no distinction between virtue and vice; that he does not hate vice or love virtue.” These are positions which they never remember to have advanced. If you can, refresh their memory. 7. You assert, Thirdly, the Methodists, by these positions, “destroy the essential attributes of God, and ruin his character as Judge of the world.” Very true; if they held these positions. But here lies the mistake. They hold no such positions. They never did. They detest and abhor them. In arguing, therefore, on this supposition, you are again “beating the air.” 8. You assert, Fourthly, the Methodists “teach and propa gate downright Atheism,-a capital crime; and Atheists in some countries have been put to death. Hereby they make room for all manner of vice and villany; by which means the bands of society are dissolved. And therefore this attempt must be considered as a sort of treason by Magistrates.” (Pages 10, 11.)- Again we deny the whole charge, and call for proof; and, blessed be God, so do the Magistrates in Great Britain. Bold, vehement asseverations will not pass upon them for legal evi dence: Nor indeed on any reasonable men. They can distin guish between arguing and calling names: The former be comes a gentleman and a Christian: But what is he who can be guilty of the latter? 9.

15.) I do; an exeryxos of things not seen ; which is far more than a bare assent, and yet toto genere differ ent from a reliance. Therefore, if you prove that neither an assent nor a reliance justifies, nor both of them together, still you do not prove that we are not justified by faith, even by faith alone. But how do you prove, that we cannot be justified by faith as a reliance on the promises? Thus: “Such a reliance must be founded on a consciousness of having performed the conditions. And a reliance so founded is the result of works wrought through faith.” No; of works wrought without faith; else the argument implies a contradiction. For it runs thus: (On the supposition that faith and reliance were synonymous terms:) Such a reliance is the result of works wrought through such a reliance. 5. Your Fourth argument against justification by faith alone, is drawn from the nature of justification. This, you observe, “implies a prisoner at the bar, and a law by which he is to be tried; and this is not the law of Moses, but that of Christ, requiring repentance and faith, with their proper fruits;” (page 16;) which now, through the blood of Christ, are accepted and “counted for righteousness.” St. Paul affirms this concerning faith, in the fourth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. But where does he say, that either repentance or its fruits are counted for righteousness? Nevertheless, I allow that the law of Christ requires such repentance and faith before justification, as, if there be opportunity, will bring forth the “fruits of right eousness.” But if there be not, he that repents and believes is justified notwithstanding. Consequently, these alone are neces sary, indispensably necessary, conditions of our justification. 6. Your Last argument against justification by faith alone “is drawn from the method of God’s proceeding at the last day. He will then judge every man ‘according to his works. If, therefore, works wrought through faith are the ground of the sentence passed upon us in that day, then are they a necessary condition of our justification; ” (page 19;) in other words, “if they are a condition of our final, they are a condition of our present, justification.” I cannot allow the consequence. All holiness must precede our entering into glory.

You proceed to give as punctual an account of us, tan quam intus et in cute nosses : * “They outstripped, if pos sible, even Montanus, for external sanctity and severity of discipline.” (Page 22.) “They condemned all regard for tem poral concerns. They encouraged their devotees to take no thought for any one thing upon earth; the consequence of which was, a total neglect of their affairs, and an impoverish ment of their families.” (Page 23.) Blunder all over ! We had no room for any discipline, severe or not, five-and-twenty years ago, unless college discipline; my brother then residing at Christ Church, and I at Lincoln College. And as to our “sanctity,” (were it more or less,) how do you know it was only external 7 Was you intimately acquainted with us? I do not remember where I had the honour of conversing with you. Or could you (as the legend says of St. Pabomius) “smell an heretic ten miles” off? And how came you to dream, again, that we “condemned all regard for temporal concerns, and encouraged men to take no thought for any one thing upon earth?” Vain dream ! We, on the contrary, severely condemn all who neglect their temporal concerns, and who do not take care of everything on earth wherewith God hath entrusted them. The consequence of this is, that the Meth odists, so called, do not “neglect their affairs, and impoverish their families; ” but, by diligence in business, “provide things honest in the sight of all men.” Insomuch, that multitudes of them, who, in time past, had scarce food to eat or raiment to put on, have now “all things needful for life and godli ness;” and that for their families, as well as themselves. 7. Hitherto you have been giving an account of two wolf lings only; but now they are grown into perfect wolves. Let us see what a picture you draw of them in this state, both as to their principles and practice. You begin with a home stroke: “In the Montanist you may behold the bold lineaments and bloated countenance of the * This accommodated quotation from Persius may be thus rendered:--“As if you had the most intimate knowledge of ns.”-EDIT. Methodist.” (Page 17.) I wish you do not squint at the honest countenance of Mr.

Some of your words are, “They set out with forming a fair and tempting model of religion, so flattering the follies of degenerate man, that it could not fail to gain the hearts of multitudes, especially of the loose and vicious, the lazy and indolent. They want to get to heaven the shortest way, and with the least trouble: Now, a reliance on Christ, and a disclaiming of good works, are terms as easy as the merest libertine can ask. They per suade their people that they may be-saved by the righteous ness of Christ, without any holiness of their own; nay, that good works are not only unnecessary, but also dangerous; that we may be saved by faith, without any other requisite, such as gospel obedience, and an holy life. Lastly: The Valenti nians pretended, that if good works were necessary to salva tion, it was only to animal men, that is, to all who were not of their clan; and that, although sin might damn others, it could not hurt them. In consequence of which, they lived in all lust and impurity, and wallowed in the most unheard-of bestialities. The Methodists distinguish much after the same manner.” (Methodism Examined, pp. 52, 31, 38, 14.) Sir, you are not awake yet. You are dreaming still, and fighting with shadows of your own raising. The “model of religion with which the Methodists set out” is perfectly well known; if not to you, yet to many thousands in England who are no Methodists. I laid it before the University of Oxford, at St. Mary’s, on January 1, 1733.

An Extract of a Letter to the Rev. Mr. Law Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 9 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- IN matters of religion I regard no writings but the inspired. Tauler, Behmen, and a whole army of Mystic authors, are with me nothing to St. Paul. In every point I appeal “to the law and the testimony,” and value no authority but this. At a time when I was in great danger of not valuing this authority enough, you made that important observation: “I see where your mistake lies. You would have a philosophical religion; but there can be no such thing. Religion is the most plain, simple thing in the world. It is only, ‘We love him, because he first loved us.” So far as you add philo sophy to religion, just so far you spoil it.” This remark I have never forgotten since; and I trust in God I never shall. But have not you? Permit me, Sir, to speak plainly. Have you ever thought of it since 2 Is there a writer in England who so continually blends philosophy with religion ? even in tracts on “The Spirit of Prayer,” and “The Spirit of Love,” wherein, from the titles of them, one would expect to find no more of philosophy than in the Epistles of St. John. Con cerning which, give me leave to observe in general, l. That the whole of it is utterly superfluous: A man may be full both of prayer and love, and not know a word of this hypothesis. 2. The whole of this hypothesis is unproved;--it is all pre carious, all uncertain. 3. The whole hypothesis has a dangerous tendency. It naturally leads men off from plain, practical religion, and fills them with the “knowledge” that “puffeth up,” instead of the “love” that “ edifieth.” And, 4. It is often flatly contrary to Scripture, to reason, and to itself. But over and above this superfluous, uncertain, dangerous, irrational, and unscriptural philosophy, have not you lately grieved many who are not strangers to the spirit of prayer or love, by advancing tenets in religion, some of which they think are unsupported by Scripture, some even repugnant to it? Allow me, Sir, first to touch upon your philosophy, and then to speak freely concerning these. I. As to your philosophy, the main of your theory respects, 1.

That we “must be baptized with the Holy Ghost,” implies this and no more, that we cannot be “renewed in righteousness and true holiness” any otherwise than by being over-shadowed, quickened, and animated by that blessed Spirit. “Our fall is nothing else but the falling of our soul from its heavenly body and spirit, into a bestial body and spirit. Our redemption” (you mean, our new birth) “is nothing else but the regaining our first angelic spirit and body.” (Ibid.) What an account is here of the Christian redemption How would Dr. Tindal have smiled at this ! Where you say, “Re demption is nothing else but the life of God in the soul,” you allow an essential part of it. But here you allow it to be no thing else but that which is no part of it at all; nothing else but a whim, a madman’s dream, a chimera, a mere non-entity! “This,” (angelic spirit and body,) “in Scripture, is called our ‘new’ or ‘inward man.’” (Ibid.) The “inward man” in Scripture means one thing, the “new man” another. The former means, the mind, opposed to the body: “Though our outward man,” our body, “perish, yet the inward man,” the mind or soul, “is renewed day by day.” (2 Cor. iv. 16.) The latter means, universal holiness: “Put off the old man, which is corrupt; and put on the new man, which, after God, is created in righteousness and true holiness.” (Eph. iv. 22, 24.) But neither does the one nor the other ever mean “this angelic spirit and body.” You yourself know better what the new birth is. You describe it better, though still with amazing queerness of language, where you say, - “Man hath the light and water of an outward nature to quench the wrath of his own life, and the light and meekness of Christ, as a seed born in him, to bring forth anew the image of God.” But it is not strange, that you speak so confusedly and darkly, as you generally do, of the new birth, seeing you seem to have no conception of that faith whereby we are born again. This abundantly appears from your frank declaration, “We are neither saved by faith, nor by works.” (Spirit of Prayer, Part II., p. 36.) Flatly contrary to the declaration of St.

Surely not. There is an intermediate state between that of “babes in Christ,” and that of fathers. You yourself are very sensible there is, although you here speak as if there were not. You go on : “People who have long dwelt in this fervour are frighted when coldness seizes upon them;” (page 174;) that is, when they lose it, when their love grows cold. And certainly, well they may, if this fervour was to bring them to “fulness of faith, purity of love, and absolute resignation.” Well they may be affrighted, if that fervour be lost before “it has done its work.” Indeed, they might be affrighted when it is not lost, if that which follows be true : “Fervour is good, and ought to be loved; but distress and coldness are better. It brings the soul nearer to God than the fervour did.” (Pages 175, 176.) The fervour, you said, brought the soul to “its highest union with God in this life.” Can coldness do more? Can it bring us to an union higher than the highest? To explain this, you say, “The fervour made the soul delight in God. But it was too much an own delight. It was a fancied self-holiness, and occasioned rest and satisfaction in itself, in a spiritual self.” (Page 175.) Either fervour does bring us to purity of love, and absolute resignation, or not. To say it does not, contradicts what you said before: To say, it does, contra dicts what you say now. For if it does, we cannot say, “Cold ness does the work which fervour did in a higher degree.” I should not insist so long on these glaring inconsistencies, were not thedoctrine you are here labouring to support abso lutely inconsistent with that of St. Paul, and naturally pro ductive of the most fatal consequences. St. Paul asserts, the present kingdom of God in the soul is “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” He continually teaches, that these, which God hath joined, man ought not to put asunder; that peace and joy should never be separated from righteousness, being the divine means both of preserving and increasing it; and that we may, yea, ought, to rejoice ever more, till the God of peace sanctifies us wholly.

A Letter to the Rev. Mr. Potter Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 9 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- 1. TILL to-day I had not a sight of your sermon, “On the Pretended Inspiration of the Methodists.” Otherwise I should have taken the liberty, some days sooner, of sending you a few lines. That sermon, indeed, only repeats what has been often said before, and as often answered. But as it is said again, I believe it is my duty to answer it again. Not that I have any acquaintance with Mr. Cayley or Osborn: I never exchanged a word with either. However, as you lump me and them toge ther, I am constrained to speak for myself, and once more to give a reason of my hope, that I am clear from the charge you bring against me. 2. There are several assertions in your sermon which need not be allowed; but they are not worth disputing. At present, therefore, I shall only speak of two things: (1.) Your account of the new birth; and, (2) “The pretended inspiration” (as you are pleased to term it) “of the Methodists.” 3. Of the new birth, you say, “The terms of being regene. rated, of being born again, of being born of God, are often used to express the works of gospel righteousness.” (Pages 10, 11.) I cannot allow this. I know not that they are ever used in Scripture to express any outward work at all. They always express an inward work of the Spirit, whereof baptism is the outward sign. You add, “Their primary, peculiar, and precise meaning signifies” (a little impropriety of expression) “our redemption from death, and restoration to eternal life, through the grace of God.” (Page 13.) It does not, unless by death you mean sin; and by eternal life, holiness. The precise mean ing of the term is, “a new birth unto righteousness,” an in ward change from unholy to holy tempers. You go on : “This grace our Lord here calls, ‘entering into the kingdom of God.’” If so, his assertion is, “Except a man be born again,--he cannot” be born again. Not so. What he says is, Except a man experience this change, he cannot enter into my kingdom. 4.

“To what purpose could any further inspiration serve?” Answer yourself: “To enlighten the understanding, and to rectify the will.” Else, be the Scriptures ever so complete, they will not save your soul. How, then, can you imagine it is unnecessary; and that “the supposed need of it is injurious to the written word?” And when you say yourself, “The Spirit is to teach us all things, and to guide us into all truth;” judge you, whether this is “to explain, or to supply, the written word.” “O, He does this by the written word.” True; but also “by his holy inspiration.” So the compilers of our Liturgy speak; who, therefore, according to you, are guilty of “wicked presumption, with which Satan filled their hearts, to lie of the Holy Ghost.” 18. These, also, are the men upon whom you fall in the fol lowing warm words:--“The power of enthusiasm over an heated imagination may be very great. But it must be under the ferment of that old, sour leaven, hypocrisy, to rise to that daring height.” I think not: I think they were neither hypo crites nor enthusiasts, though they teach me to pray for, and consequently to expect, (unless I am an hypocrite indeed,) “God’s holy inspiration,” both in order to “think the things that be good,” and also “perfectly to love him, and worthily to magnify his holy name.” 19. You go on: “They boast that their heart is clean, and their spirit right within them.” Sir, did you ever read Morn ing Prayer on the tenth day of the month? You then said, “Make me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.” Did you mean what you said? If you did not, you was guilty of the grossest hypocrisy. If you did, when did you expect God would answer that prayer? when your body was in the grave? Too late 1 Unless we have clean hearts before we die, it had been good we had never been born. 20. “But they boast they are pure from sin, harmless, and undefiled.” So, in a sound sense, is every true believer. “Nay, they boast that their bodies are a living sacrifice, holy, accept able to God.” Sir, is not yours? Are not your soul and body such a sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God?

Are not your soul and body such a sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God? As the Lord God liveth, before whom we stand, if they are not, you are not a Christian. If you are not a holy, living sacrifice, you are still “dead in trespasses and sins.” You are an “alien from the commonwealth of Israel, without” Christian “hope, without God in the world !” 21. You add, “Thus have I exposed their boasted claim to a particular and immediate inspiration.” (Page 30.) No, Sir, you have only exposed yourself; for all that we claim, you allow. “I have shown what a miserable farce is carrying on, beneath the mask of a more refined holiness.” No tittle of this have you shown yet; and before you attempt again to show any thing concerning us, let me entreat you, Sir, to acquaint yourself better with our real sentiments. Perhaps you may then find, that there is not so wide a difference as you imagined between you and, Reverend Sir, Your servant for Christ’s sake,

I am persuaded you have. And yet surely your brain is always cool and temperate! never “intoxicated with the heated fumes of spirituous particles !” 13. If you quote not incoherent scraps, (by which you may make anything out of anything,) but entire connected sen tences, it will appear that the rest of your quotations make no more for your purpose than the foregoing. Thus, although I allow, that on May 24, “I was much buffeted with tempta tions; but I cried to God, and they fled away; that they re turned again and again; I as often lifted up my eyes, and he sent me help from his holy place;” (Vol. I. p. 103;) it will only prove the very observation I make myself: “I was fight ing both under the law and under grace. But then I was some times, if not often, conquered; now I was always conqueror.” That sometime after, I “was strongly assaulted again, and after recovering peace and joy, was thrown into perplexity afresh by a letter, asserting that no doubt or fear could con sist with true faith; that my weak mind could not then bear to be thus sawn asunder,” will not appear strange to any who are not utter novices in experimental religion. No more than that, one night the next year, “I had no life or spirit in me, and was much in doubt, whether God would not lay me aside, and send other labourers into his harvest.” 14. You add, “He owns his frequent relapses into sin, for near twice ten years. Such is the case of a person who tells us that he carefully considered every step he took; one of inti mate communication with the Deity l’” Sir, I did not tell you that; though, according to custom, you mark the words as mine. It is well for you, that forging quotations is not felony. My words are, “O what an hypocrite have I been (if this be so) for near twice ten years! But I know it is not so. I know every one under the law is even as I was;” namely, from the time I was twelve years old, till considerably above thirty. “And is it strange,” you say, “that such a one should be destitute of means to resolve his scruples?

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. The third passage (which you tack to the former, as if they were one and the same) runs thus: “I have not such a peace as excludes the possibility either of doubt or fear. When holy men have told me I had no faith, I have often doubted whether I had or no. And those doubts have made me very uneasy, till I was relieved by prayer and the Holy Scrip tures.” (Vol. I. p. 162.) Speak frankly, Sir: Does this prove me guilty of scepticism, infidelity, or Atheism? What else does it prove? Just nothing at all, but the “pertinacious confidence” of him that cites it. 25. You recite more at large one passage more. The whole paragraph stands thus: “St. Paul tells us, ‘The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, temperance. Now, although, by the grace of God in Christ, I find a measure of some of these in myself, viz., of peace, longsuffering, gentle ness, meekness, temperance; yet others I find not. I cannot find in myself the love of God or of Christ. Hence my dead mess and wanderings in public prayer. Hence it is that, even in the holy communion, I have rarely any more than a cold attention. Hence, when I hear of the highest instance of God’s love, my heart is still senseless and unaffected. Yea, at this moment, (October 14, 1738.) I feel no more love to Him, than one I had never heard of.” (Vol. I. p. 162.) To any who knew something of inward religion I should have observed, that this is what serious Divines mean by desertion.

You go on: “Under this head may, not improperly, be considered their undutiful behaviour to the civil powers.” What proof have you of this? Why, a single sentence, on which I laid so little stress myself, that it is only inserted by way of parenthesis, in the body of another sentence: “Ye learned in the law, what becomes of Magna Charta, and of English liberty and property? Are not these mere sounds, while, on any pretence, there is such a thing as a press-gang suffered in the land?” Upon this you descant: “The legislature has, at several times, made Acts for pressing men. But no matter for this; touch but a Methodist, and all may perish, rather than a soldier be pressed. He who had before bound himself not to speak a tittle of worldly things is now bawling for liberty and property.” Very lively this! But I hope, Sir, you do not offer it by way of argument. You are not so unlearned in the law, as not to know, that the legislature is out of the question. The legis lature, six years ago, did not appoint press-gangs, but legal officers to press men. Consequently, this is no proof (and find another if you can) of our undutiful behaviour to the civil powers. 32. “Another natural consequence,” you say, “of Method ism, is their-mutual jealousies and envyings, their manifold divisions, fierce and rancorous quarrels, and accusations of one another.” (Vol. I. p. 252.) I shall carefully attend whatever you produce on this head: And if you prove this, I will grant you all the rest. You First cite those words: “Musing on the things that were past, and reflecting how many that came after me were preferred before me, I opened my Testament on those words: ‘The Gen tiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness; but Israel, which followed after the law of righ teousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.’” And how does this prove the manifold divisions and rancorous quarrels of the Methodists? Your Second argument is: “Mr. Whitefield told me, he and I preached two different gospels;” (his meaning was, that he preached particular, and I universal, redemption;) “and therefore he would not join with me, but publicly preach against me.” (Section xix. p.

The most material part of it is this: “Saturday, 28. I read the follow ing paper at Kingswood : “For their scoffing at the word and Ministers of God, for their backbiting and evil-speaking, I declare the persons above-mentioned to be no longer members of this society.’” (Ibid. p. 301.) “And we had great reason to bless God, that, after fifty two were withdrawn, we have still upwards of ninety left.” (Ibid. p. 302.) Who those other “forty were, that,” you say, “left them,” I know not. Perhaps you may inform me. Upon the whole, all these quotations prove only this: That about eleven years ago, Mr. C., falling into predestination, set the society in Kingswood a disputing with each other, and occasioned much confusion for some months. But still you have not gone one step toward proving, (which is the one point in question,) that the Methodists in general were, even then, “all together by the ears; ” and much less, that they have been so ever since, and that they are so now. However, you fail not to triumph, (like Louis le Grand, after his victory at Blenheim,) “What shall we say now? Are these the fruits of Methodism?” No, Sir. They are the fruits of opposing it. They are the tares sown among the wheat. You may hear of instances of the same kind, both in earlier and later ages. You add, “This is bad enough; but it is not the worst. For consider, what becomes of those that leave them 7” Why, Sir, what, if “their last end be worse than their first?” Will you charge this upon me? By the same rule, you must have charged upon the Apostles themselves whatever befel those who, having “known the way of righteousness,” afterwards “turned back from the holy commandment once delivered to them.” 36. You conclude this section: “Mr. Wesley will probably say, “Must Ibe answerable for the Moravians, against whom I have preached and written?” True, since he and the Mora vians quarrelled. But who gives them a box on the ear with the one hand, and embraces them with the other? Who first brought over this wicked generation ? Who made a Moravian his spiritual guide? Who fanaticized his own followers, and de prived them of their senses?

“Lastly: Where is the spawn of Moravianism working so strongly as in the children of Methodism?” If you mean the errors of Moravianism, they are not working at all in the generality of the children of Methodism; the Methodists in general being thoroughly apprized of, and fully guarded against, them. So much for your modest assertion, that the Methodists in general are “all together by the ears; ” the very reverse of which is true. They are in general in perfect peace. They enjoy in themselves “the peace of God, which passeth all understanding.” They are at peace with each other; and, as much as lieth in them, they live peaceably with all men. 37. Your next charge is, that “Methodism has a tendency to undermine morality and good works.” (Section xx. p. 146, &c.) To prove this you assert, (1.) “That the Methodists are trained up to wait in quietness for sudden conversion; whence they are naturally led to neglect the means of salva tion.” This is a mistake all over. For neither are they taught to wait in quietness (if you mean any more than patience by that term) for either sudden or gradual conver sion; neither do they, in fact, neglect the means. So far from it, that they are eminently exact in the use of them. You assert, (2) “The doctrine of assurance of pardon and salvation, present and future, causes a false security, to the neglect of future endeavours.” Blunder upon blunder again. That all Christians have an assurance of future sal vation, is no Methodist doctrine; and an assurance of pre sent pardon is so far from causing negligence, that it is of all others the strongest motive to vigorous endeavours after universal holiness. You assert, (3.) “Impulses and impressions being made the rule of duty, will lead into dangerous errors.” Very true: But the Methodists do not make impulses and impres sions the rule of duty. They totally disclaim any other rule of duty than the written word. You assert, (4.) “A claim of unsinning perfection” (I mean by perfection, the loving God with all our heart) “drives some into frenzies, others into despair.” Sir, I doubt the fact. You assert, (5) “The Moravian Methodists trample down morality, and multitudes of the Wesleyans have been in fected.” The Moravian Methodists 1 You may as well say, the Presbyterian Papists.

I proceed to your definition of them: “By the Methodists, was then and is now understood, a set of enthusiasts, who, pre tending to be members of the Church of England, either offend against the order and discipline of the Church, or pervert its doctrines relating to faith and works, and the terms of salva tion.” Another grievous mistake. For whatever “is now, by the Methodists then was” not “understood any set of enthusiasts,” or not enthusiasts, “offending against the order and discipline of the Church.” They were tenacious of it to the last degree, in every the least jot and tittle. Neither were they “they understood to pervert its doctrines, relating to faith and works, and the terms of salvation.” For they thought and talked of all these, just as you do now, till some of them, after their return from Georgia, were “perverted” into different senti ments, by reading the book of Homilies. Their perversion, therefore, (if such it be,) is to be dated from this time. Conse quently, your definition by no means agrees with the persons. defined. However, “as a Shibboleth to distinguish them at present, when they pretend to conceal themselves, throw out this, or such like proposition, “Good works are necessary to salvation.” You might have spared yourself the labour of proving this: For who is there that denies it? Not I: Not any in connexion with me. So that this Shibboleth is just good for nothing. 5. And yet we firmly believe, that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law; that to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith, without any good work preceding, is counted to him for righte ousness. We believe (to express it a little more largely) that we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Good works follow after justification, springing out of true, . living faith; so that by them living faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit. And hence it follows, that as the body without the soul is dead, so that faith which is without works is dead also. This, therefore, properly speak ing, is not faith; as a dead man is not properly a man.

The writings of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Jeremiah, leave us noroom to think that they were reformed by those calamities. Nor was there any lasting reformation in the time of Ezra, or of Nehemiah and Malachi; but they were still, as their forefathers had been, “a faithless and stub born generation.” Such were they likewise, as we may gather from the books of Maccabees and Josephus, to the very time when Christ came into the world. 11. Our blessed Lord has given us a large description of those who were then the most eminent for religion: “Ye devour,” says he, “widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayers. Ye make” your proselytes “twofold more the children of hell than yourselves. Ye neglect the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith. Ye make clean the outside of the cup, but within are full of extortion and excess. Ye are like whited sepulchres, outwardly beautiful, but within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damna tion of hell!” (Matt. xxiii. 14, &c.) And to these very men, after they had murdered the Just One, his faithful follower declared, “Ye stiff-necked, and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye.” (Acts vii. 51.) And so they continued to do, until the wrath of God did indeed “come upon them to the uttermost;” until eleven hundred thousand of them were destroyed, their city and temple levelled with the dust, and above ninety thousand sold for slaves, and scattered into all lands. 12. Such in all generations were the lineal children of Abra ham, who had so unspeakable advantages over the rest of man kind; “to whom pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises:” Among whom, therefore, we may reasonably expect to find the greatest eminence of knowledge and virtue. If these then were so stupidly, brutishly ignorant, so desperately wicked, what can we expect from the heathen world, from them who had not the knowledge either of his law or promises? Certainly we cannot expect to find more goodness among them.

Is the King of France, or the republic of Holland, at liberty to violate their most solemn treaties at pleasure, provided they give up to the King of England the Ambassador, or General, by whom that treaty was made? What would all Europe have said of the late Czar, if, instead of punctually performing the engagements made with the Porte when in his distress, he had only given up the persons by whom he transacted, and immediately broke through them all? There is therefore no room to say, Modo Punica scripta supersint, Non minus infamis forte Latina fides. “Perhaps, if the Carthaginian writings were extant, Roman faith would be as infamous as Punic.” We need them not. In vain have they destroyed the Carthaginian writings; for their own sufficiently testify of them; and fully prove that in perfidy the natives of Carthage could not exceed the senate and people of Rome. 14. They were as a nation aa top you, void of natural affection, even to their own bowels. Witness the universal custom which obtained for several ages in Rome, and all its dependencies, (as it had done before through all the cities of Greece,) when in their highest repute for wisdom and virtue, of exposing their own new-born children, more or fewer of them, as every man pleased, when he had as many as he thought good to keep; throwing them out to perish by cold and hunger, unless some more merciful wild beast shortened their pain, and provided them a sepulchre. Nor do I remember a single Greek, or Roman, of all those that occasionally mention it, ever complaining of this diabolical custom, or fixing the least touch of blame upon it. Even the tender mother in Terence, who had some compassion for her helpless infant, does not dare to acknowledge it to her husband, without that re markable preface, Ut miserè superstitiosae sumus omnes; “As we women are all miserably superstitious.” 15. I would desire those gentlemen who are so very severe upon the Israelites for killing the children of the Canaanites, at their entrance into the land of Canaan, to spend a few thoughts on this.

1. Such is the state with regard to knowledge and virtue, wherein, according to the most authentic accounts, mankind was from earliest times, for above four thousand years. Such nearly did it continue, during the decline, and since the destruction, of the Roman empire. But we will wave all that is past, if it only appears that mankind is virtuous and wise at this day. This, then, is the point we are at present to consi der: Are-men in general now wise and virtuous? Our ingenious countryman, Mr. Brerewood, after his most careful and laborious inquiries, computes, that, supposing that part of the earth which we know to be inhabited were divided into thirty equal parts, nineteen of these are Heathen still; and of the remaining eleven, six are Mahometan, and only five Christian. Let us take as fair and impartial a survey as we can of the Heathens first, and then of the Mahometans and Christians. 2. And, First, of the Heathens. What manner of men are these, as to virtue and knowledge, at this day? Many of late, who still bear the Christian name, have entertained very honourable thoughts of the old Heathens. They cannot be lieve them to have been so stupid and senseless as they have been represented to be; particularly with regard to idolatry, in worshipping birds, beasts, and creeping things; much less can they credit the stories told of many nations, the Egyp tians in particular, Who are said to Have set the leek they after pray'd to. But if they do not consider who they are that transmit to us these accounts, namely, both those writers who, they profess to believe, spake “as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” and those whom perhaps they value more, the most credible of their contemporary Heathens; if, I say, they forget this, do they not consider the present state of the heathen world? Now, allowing the bulk of the ancient Heathens (which itself is not easily proved) to have had as much understanding as the modern, we have no pretence to suppose they had more. What therefore they were, we may safely gather from what they are; we may judge of the past by the present.

It is not without cause, that a ship has been called, “a floating hell.” What power, what form, of religion is to be found in nine out of ten, shall I say, or ninety-nine out of a hundred, either of our merchantmen, or men-of-war? What do the men in them think or know about religion? What do they practise; either sailors or marines? I doubt whether any heathen sailors, in any country or age, Greek, Roman, or Barbarian, ever came up to ours, for profound ignorance, and barefaced, shameless, shocking impiety. Add to these, out of our renowned metropolis, the whole brood of porters, draymen, carmen, hackney-coachmen, and I am sorry to say, Noblemen and Gentlemen’s footmen, (together making up some thousands,) and you will have such a collection of knowing and pious Christians as all Europe cannot exceed ! “But all men are not like these.” No; it is pity they should. And yet how little better are the retailers of brandy or gin, the inhabitants of blind alehouses, the oyster-women, fish wives, and other good creatures about Billingsgate, and the various clans of pedlars and hawkers that patrol through the streets, or ply in Rag-fair, and other places of public resort | These, likewise, amount to several thousands, even within the Bills of Mortality. And what knowledge have they? What religion are they of ? What morality do they practise? “But these have had no advantage of education, many of them scarce being able to write or read.” Proceed we, then, to those who have had these advantages, the officers of the Excise and Customs. Are these, in general, men of reason, who think with clearness and connexion, and speak perti nently on a given subject? Are they men of religion; sober, temperate, fearing God and working righteousness; having a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man? How many do you find of this kind among them? men that fear an oath; that fear perjury more than death; that would die rather than neglect any part of that duty which they have sworn to perform; that would sooner be torn in pieces, than suffer any man, under any pretence, to defraud His Majesty of his just right?

men that fear an oath; that fear perjury more than death; that would die rather than neglect any part of that duty which they have sworn to perform; that would sooner be torn in pieces, than suffer any man, under any pretence, to defraud His Majesty of his just right? How many of them will not be deterred from doing their duty either by fear or favour, regard no threatenings in the execution of their office, and accept no bribes, called presents? These only are wise and honest men. Set down all the rest as having neither religion nor sound reason. “But surely tradesmen have.” Some of them have both ; and in an eminent degree. Some of our traders are an honour to the nation. But are the bulk of them so 7 Are a vast majority of our tradesmen, whether in town or country, I will not say religious, but honest men? Who shall judge whether they are or no? Perhaps you think St. Paul is too strict. Let us appeal then to Cicero, an honest Heathen. Now, when he is laying down rules of honesty between man and man, he proposes two cases: 1. Antisthenes brings a ship load of corn to Rhodes, at a time of great scarcity. The Rhodians flock about him to buy. He knows that five other ships laden with corn will be there to-morrow. Ought he to tell the Rhodians this, before he sells his own corn? “Undoubtedly he ought,” says the Heathen; “otherwise, he makes a gain of their ignorance, and so is no better than a thief or a robber.” 2. A Roman Nobleman comes to a Gentleman to buy his house, who tells him, “There is another going to be built near it, which will darken the windows,” and, on that ac count, makes a deduction in the price. Some years after, the Gentleman buys it of him again. Afterward he sues the Nobleman for selling it without telling him first that houses. were built near, which darkened the windows. The Noble man pleads, “I thought he knew it.” The Judge asks, “Did you tell him or not?” and, on his owning he did not, determines, “This is contrary to the law, Ne quid dolo malo. fiat, Let nothing be done fraudulently,” and sentences him immediately to pay back part of the price.

Of these, there fore, I would only ask, “Are they all moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon them that office and ministry?” If not, they do not “enter by the door into the sheep-fold;” they are not sent of God. Is their “eye single?” Is it their sole intention, in all their ministrations, to glorify God, and to save souls? Otherwise, “the light which is in them is darkness.” And if it be, “how great is that darkness l’’ Is their “heart right with God?” Are their “affections set on things above, not on things of the earth?” Else, how will they themselves go one step in the way wherein they are to guide others? Once more: “Are they holy in all manner of conversation, as He who hath called them is holy?” If not, with what face can they say to the flock, “Be ye follow ers of me, as I am of Christ?” 12. We have now taken a cursory view of the present state of mankind in all parts of the habitable world, and seen, in a general way, what is their real condition, both with regard to knowledge and virtue. But because this is not so pleasing a icture as human pride is accustomed to draw ; and because those who are prepossessed with high notions of their own beauty, will not easily believe thatit is taken from the life; I shall endeavour to place it in another view, that it may be cer tainly known whether it resembles the original. I shall desire every one who is willing to know mankind, to begin his inquiry at home. First, let him survey himself; and then go on, step by step, among his neighbours. I ask, then, First, Are you throughly pleased with your self? Say you, Who is not? Nay, I say, Who is? Do you observe nothing in yourself which you dislike, which you cannot cordially approve of? Do you never think too well of yourself? think yourself wiser, better, and stronger than you appear to be upon the proof? Is not this pride? And do you approve of pride? Was you never angry without a cause, or farther than that cause required? Are you not apt to be so? Do you approve of this? Do not you frequently resolve against it, and do not you break those resolutions again and again?

Now, how is this to be accounted for, that, in so long a tract of time, no one nation under the sun has been able, by whole some laws, or by any other method, to remove this grievous evil; so that, their children being well educated, the scale might at length turn on the side of reason and virtue? These are questions which I conceive will not easily be answered to the satisfaction of any impartial inquirer. But, to bring the matter to a short issue: The first parents who educated their children in vice and folly, either were wise and virtuous themselves, or were not. If they were not, their vice did not proceed from education; so the supposition falls to the ground: Wickedness was antecedent to bad education. If they were wise and virtuous, it cannot be supposed but they would teach their children to tread in the same steps. In mowise, therefore, can we account for the present state of mankind from example or education. 2. Let us then have recourse to the oracles of God.

(5.) Was not every wilful, impenitent trans gressor, during this whole time, subject to death everlasting? Neither can I allow that unnatural interpretation of, “Them who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgres sion;” “Had not sinned against law, making death the pe nalty of their sin, as Adam did.” (Page 42.) Do not the words obviously mean, “Had not sinned by any actual sin, as Adam did?” Nay, “the Sodomites and Antediluvians are no objection to this.” That is strange indeed! But how so? “Because extraordinary interpositions come under no rule, but the will of God.” What is that to the purpose? Their sins were actually punished with death, “during that space wherein,” you say, “mankind were not subject to death for their trans gression.” They were subject to death for their transgressions, as God demonstrated by those extraordinary interpositions. You add, “That law, ‘Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, makes death the penalty of mur der.” (Page 43.) It does; and thereby overthrows your whole assertion. “No; for, (1.) It was not enacted till the year of the world 1657.” Well, and if it had been enacted only the year before Moses was born, it would still have destroyed your argument. But, (2) “It is given as a rule for Magistrates in executing justice, and not as a declaration of the penalty of sin to be inflicted by God himself.” What then? What does it matter, whether the penalty annexed by God were inflicted by God or man? However, I suppose this punishment on the Antediluvians, and on Sodom and Gomorrah, was “inflicted by God himself.” But, (3) “None of these were made mortal by those sins.” Certainly, infallibly true! And yet the case of any of these abundantly proves, that the law was in force from Adam to Moses, even according to your own definition of it: “A rule of duty with the penalty of death annexed, as due to the transgressor from God.” 13. You affirm, (6.) “The consequences of Adam’s sin answer those of Christ's obedience; but not exactly: ‘Not as the offence, so is the free gift.

This is not “what God sees fit it should be.” “It is his power alone that forms it.” Yes, that forms us men; but not that forms us sinful men. “To say, The nature he gives is the object of his wrath, is little less than blasphemy.” As he gave it, it is not the object of his wrath; but it is, as it is defiled with sin. “Far was it from the Apostle to depreciate our nature.” True, our original nature; but never did man more deeply depreciate our present corrupt nature. “His intent is to show the Ephesians they were children of wrath, through the sins in which they walked.” Yea, and through “the desires of the flesh and the mind,” mentioned immediately before; “through the vanity of their mind;” through “the blindness of their hearts, past feeling, alienated from the life of God.” Is he “not here speaking of their nature, but of the vicious course of life they had led?” (Page 111.) “He well understood the worth of the human nature;”--he did, both in its original and in its present state;--“and elsewhere shows it was endowed, even in the Heathens, with light and power sufficient to know God, and obey his will.” In what Heathens, in Europe, Asia, Africa, or America, is nature now endowed with this light and power? I have never found it in any Heathen yet; and I have con versed with many, of various nations. On the contrary, I have found one and all deeply ignorant of the very end of their existence. All of them have confirmed what a heathen Meeko (or Chief) told me many years ago: “He that sitteth in heaven knoweth why he made man; but we know nothing.” “But St. Paul says, “When the Gentiles which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, they are a law to themselves. This supposes, they might have done them “by nature, or their natural powers.” But how does it appear, that, “by nature,” here means, By their mere “natural powers?” It is certain they had not the written law; but had they no supernatural assistance?

This supposes, they might have done them “by nature, or their natural powers.” But how does it appear, that, “by nature,” here means, By their mere “natural powers?” It is certain they had not the written law; but had they no supernatural assistance? Is it not one God “who works in ” us and in them, “both to will and to do?” They who, by this help, do the things contained in the law, we grant, “are not the objects of God’s wrath.” “Again: He affirms, the Gentiles had light sufficient to have seen God’s eternal power and Godhead.” (Rom. i. 19 -21.) They had; but how does it appear that this was the merely natural light of their own unassisted reason? If they had assistance from God, and did not use it, they were equally without excuse. “Nay, if their nature was corrupt, and therefore they did not glorify God, they had a fair excuse.” (Page 112.) True, if God had not offered them grace to balance the corruption of nature: But if he did, they are still without excuse; because they might have con quered that corruption, and would not. Therefore we are not obliged to seek any other sense of the phrase, “By nature,” than, “By the nature we bring into the world.” However, you think you have found another: “By nature, may signify really and truly. Thus St. Paul calls Timothy, ‘yvmatov tekvov, “his own, genuine son in the faith; not to signify he was the child of the Apostle, but that he was a real imitator of his faith. 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.

The comely order of this house is all turned into confusion; the beauties of holiness into noisome impurities; the house of prayer into a den of thieves: Thieves of the worst kind; for every lust is a thief, and every theft is sacri lege. The noble powers which were designed and dedicated to divine contemplation and delight in God, are alienated to the service of the most despicable idols, and employed in the vilest embraces: To behold and admire lying vanities; to indulge and cherish lust and wickedness. “There is not now a system, an entire table, of coherent truths to be found, or a frame of holiness: but some shivered parcels. And if any with great toil and labour apply them selves to draw out here one piece, and there another, and set them together; they serve rather to show, how exquisite the divine workmanship was in the original composition, than to the excellent purposes for which the whole was at first designed. Some pieces agree, and own one another; but how soon are our inquiries nonplussed and superseded! How many attempts have been made, since that fearful fall and ruin of this fabric, to compose again the truths of so many several kinds into their distinct orders, and make up frames of science or useful know ledge And after so many ages, nothing is finished in any kind. Sometimes truths are misplaced; and what belongs to one kind is transferred to another, where it will not fitly match; some times falsehood inserted, which shatters or disturbs the whole frame. And what with much fruitless pains is done by one hand, is dashed in pieces by another; and it is the work of a following age, to sweep away the fine-spun cobwebs of a for mer. And those truths which are of greatest use, though not most out of sight, are least regarded; their tendency and design are overlooked, or they are so loosened and torn off, that they cannot be wrought in, so as to take hold of the soul, but hover as faint, ineffectual motions that signify nothing. “Its very fundamental powers are shaken and disjointed, and their order toward one another confounded and broken; so that what is judged considerable, is not considered; what is recom mended as lovely and eligible, is not loved and chosen.

And this ‘new man,” this new life, is “after the image,’ that is, agreeable to the nature, ‘of God.’” (Page 179.) As you advance no proof of this perfectly new interpreta tion, I leave it to shift for itself. To disprove the common interpretation, you add, “Adam could not be originally created in righteousness and true holi ness; because habits of holiness cannot be created without our knowledge, concurrence, or consent. For holiness in its nature implies the choice and consent of a moral agent, without which it cannot be holiness.” (Page 180.) What is holiness? Is it not essentially love? the love of God, and of all mankind? love producing “bowels of mercies, humbleness of mind, meekness, gentleness, long-suffering?” And cannot God shed abroad this love in any soul without his concurrence, antecedent to his knowledge or consent? And supposing this to be done, will love change its nature? Will it be no longer holiness? This argument can never be sus tained, unless you would play upon the word habits. Love is holiness wherever it exists. And God could create either men or angels, endued from the very first moment of their existence with whatsoever degree of love he pleased. You “think, on the contrary, it is demonstration that we cannot be righteous or holy, we cannot observe what is right, without our own free and explicit choice.” I suppose you mean, practise what is right. But a man may be righteous before he does what is right; holy in heart before he is holy in life. The confounding these two, all along, seems to be the ground of your strange imagination, that Adam “must choose to be righteous, must exercise thought and reflection, ibefore he could be righteous.” Why so? “Because righteous mess is the right use and application of our powers.” Here is your capital mistake. No, it is not; it is the right state of our powers. It is the right disposition of our soul, the right temper of our mind. Take this with you, and you will no more dream that “God could not create man in righteous mess and true holiness;” or that “to talk of wanting that righteousness in which Adam was created, is to talk of nothing we want.” (Page 181.) On Romans ii.

Yet this no way contradicts, what is matter of daily experience, that we have a natural propensity to evil. Nay, the latter of these texts strongly confirms it; for if there be no such propensity, how comes “foolishness” (that is, wickedness, in the language of Solomon) to be “bound in the heart of a child?” of every child, of children in general, as the phrase manifestly imports? It is not from education here: It is sup posed to be antecedent to education, whether good or bad. “O, foolishness means only strong appetite.” (Page 193.) Yes, strong appetite to evil; otherwise it would not call for “the rod of correction,” or need to be “driven far from him.” “Objection 6. Might not Adam's posterity be said to sin in him, as Levi is said to ‘pay tithes in Abraham?’ (Heb. vii. 9.)” If the querist means, not to prove a doctrine already proved, but only to illustrate one expression by another, your answer, that “it is a bold figure,” (page 195) does not at all affect him. It is so; but still it may be pertinently cited to illustrate a similar expression. “Objection 7. “But there is a law in our members which wars against the law of our minds, and brings us into captivity to the law of sin and death.’ (Rom. vii. 23.) And does not this prove, that we come into the world with sinful propensities?” (Page 199.) You answer, (1) “If we come into the world with them, they are natural; but if natural, necessary; and if necessary, then no sin.” (Page 200.) If the consequence were good, with regard to what is so natural and necessary as to be irresistible, yet certainly it is not good with regard to those propensities which we may both resist and conquer. You answer, (2.) “The Apostle does not in this chapter speak of any man as he comes into the world, but as he is afterward depraved and corrupted by his own wicked choice.” Where is the proof? How does it appear that he does not speak of men corrupted both by choice and by nature?

How does it appear that he does not speak of men corrupted both by choice and by nature? You answer, (3.) “He does not speak of himself, or any regenerate man, but of a Jew under the power of sin.” (Ibid.) Nay, your argument proves, he does not speak of any Jew; for in order to prove, “the Apostle does not speak of himself,” you say, “The persons of whom he speaks were, ‘before the commandment came, that is, before they came under the law, “once without the law. But the Apostle never was ‘without the law.’” No, nor any Jew. “For he was born and continued ‘under the law till he was a Christian.” So did all the Jews as well as he,--“ and therefore it cannot be true, that he,” or any Jew whatever, “was ‘without the law” before he came under it.” So you have clearly proved, that the Apostle does not in this passage speak of any Jew at all. But why do you think he does speak of Jews? may, of them only? It “appears,” you say, “from verse 1, ‘I speak to them that know the law. For the Gentiles never were “under the law.” Yes, they were: All the Gentiles who were “convinced of sin” were “under the law” in the sense here spoken of, under the condemning power of the law “written in their hearts;” for transgressing which they were under the wrath of God. And this whole chapter, from verses 7 to 24, describes the state of all those, Jews or Gentiles, who saw and felt the wickedness both of their hearts and lives, and groaned to be delivered from it. Many passages in your paraphrase on the former part of this chapter are liable to much exception; but as they do not imme diately touch the point in question, Ipass on tothe latter part: “Verse 14: I am ‘ carnal, sold under sin.” He means a willing slavery.” (Page 216.) Quite the contrary; as appears from the very next words: “For that which I do, I allow not: For what I would, I do not; but what I hate, that I do.” “What I hate;” not barely, “what my reason disapproves;” but what I really detest and abhor, yet cannot help.

Verse 21: “I find then that when I would do good,” when I choose and earnestly desire it, I cannot; “evil is present with me;” as it were, gets in between. “Verse 22: “For I delight in the law of God, after the inward man: My mind, my conscience approves it. “Verse 23: “But I see another law in my members, which warreth against the law in my mind: Another principle of action, which fights against my reason and conscience, ‘and bringeth me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members: Which captivates and enslaves me to the principle of wickedness.” (Page 219.) (Strange language for you to use !) “Seated in the lusts of the flesh:” Seated indeed in all my tempers, passions, and appetites, which are the several members of “the old man.” “‘O wretched man that I am I who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Verse 24.) He is under the power of such passions as his own reason disapproves, but is too weak to conquer; and, N. B., being a Jew, he stands condemned to eternal death by the law. How shall such a wretched Jew be delivered from sinful lusts, and the curse of the law P” Did, then, none but a Jew ever cry out, under the burden of sin, “Wretched man that I am?” Are none but Jews “under the power of such passions as their own reason disapproves, but is too weak to conquer?” And does the law of God condemn to eternal death no sinners beside Jews? Do not Christians also (in the wide sense of the word) groan to be delivered “from the body of this death?” With what truth, with what sense, can you restrain this passage to a Jew any more than to a Turk? I cannot but observe, upon the whole, the question is, Does not Rom. vii. 23, show that we come into the world with sinful propensities?

“Is thine eye evil, because he is good?” The premises them being gone, what becomes of the con clusion: “So that the being ‘born into God’s peculiar kingdom depends upon a right use and application of our life and being, and is the privilege only of those wise men whose spirits attain to a habit of true holiness?” This stands without any proof at all. At best, therefore, it is extremely doubtful. But it must appear extremely absurd to those who believe, God can create spirits both wise and holy; that he can stamp any creature with what measure of holiness he sees good, at the first moment of its existence. The occasion of your running into this absurdity seems to be, that you stumbled at the very threshold. In the text under consideration, our Lord mentions two things,--the “new birth,” and the “kingdom of God.” These two your imagina tion blended into one; in consequence of which you run on with “born into his kingdom,” (a phrase never used by our Lord, nor any of his Apostles,) and a heap of other crude expressions of the same kind, all betraying that confusedness of thought which alone could prevent your usual clearness of language. Just in the same manner you go on: “Our first parents in Paradise were to form their minds to an habitual subjection to the law of God, without which they could not be received into his spiritual kingdom.” (Pages 252,253.) This runs upon the same mistaken supposition, that God could not create them boly. Certainly he could and did; and from the very moment that they were created, their minds were in subjection to the law of God, and they were members of his spiritual kingdom. “But if Adam was originally perfect in holiness,” (say, per fectly holy, made in the moral image of God,) “what occasion was there for any farther trial?” That there might be room for farther holiness and happiness. Entire holiness does not exclude growth; nor did the right state of all his faculties entitle him to that full reward which would have followed the right use of them. “Upon the whole, regeneration, or gaining habits of holiness, takes in no part of the doctrine of original sin.” (Page 254.) But regeneration is not “gaining habits of holiness;” it is quite a different thing.

You say, “If what was lost by “the disobedience of one’ person might afterward be recovered by “the obedi ence’ of another, then matters would have stood upon an equal footing.” (Page 113.) And this is, indeed, the truth. For “all that was lost to us by Adam’s ‘disobedience’ is fully recovered by Christ’s “obedience; however we denominate the relation in which the one and the other stands to us.” In this we agree; but not in what follows: “By law, in the fifth of the Romans, as in several other places, the Apostle does not mean, barely a rule of duty; but such a rule, with the penalty of death threatened to every transgression of it. Such was the law given by Moses;” that is, “a rule, to every transgression of which the penalty of death was threatened.” (Pages 114, 115.) Not so; there were a thousand transgres sions of it, to which death was not threatened. Observe: By death, we now mean temporal death, according to the whole tenor of your argument. “But is it not said, ‘Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the law to do them?’” It is. But whatever this curse implied, it did not imply temporal death. For a man might neglect to do many “things written in the law,” and yet not be punish able with death. Neither can I agree with your interpretation of Rom. vii. 9: “‘I was alive without the law once;’ namely, before the giv ing of the law at Mount Sinai. The Jew was then alive; that is, because he was not then under the law, he was not slain by his sin. His sin was not so imputed to him as to subject him to death. “But when the commandment came,’ with the penalty of death annexed, “sin revived,’--acquired full life and vigour,”--(How so? One would have expected just the contrary !) “‘ and I died;’ that is, was a dead man in law, upon the first transgression I committed.” (Page 116.) Beside many other objections to this strange interpretation, an obvious one is this: It supposes every transgression punish able with death. But this is a palpable mistake: Therefore, all that is built on this foundation falls to the ground at once. Upon the whole: Whatever objections may lie against Dr.

ii. 15: “Christ abolished the enmity, to make” (or create) “in himself of twain one new man.” Does this only mean one new profession? It evidently means one Church, both of Jews and Gentiles. You prove it, 2. From Col. iii. 8-12; where “the Apostle tells the Colossian Christians, that ‘now’ they were obliged to “put off anger, and “to put on bowels of mercies;’ to admit the Christian spirit into their hearts, and to practise Christian duties; for this reason, because they “had put off the old man, and ‘had put on the new. This shows ‘the new man’ was something they might have “put on, and yet be defective in personal, internal holiness.” True; defective so far, as still to want more; more “bowels of mercies, meekness, long-suf fering.” But this does not show, that the “new man” does not mean the principle both of internal and external holiness. The consciousness of having received this is a strong motive both to depart from evil, and to labour after a continual increase of every holy and heavenly temper; therefore, here likewise, “the putting off the old and the putting on the new man” does not mean an outward profession, but a real, inward change; a renewal of soul “in righteousness and true holiness.” You prove it, 3. From Eph. iv. 22, 24: “Here,” you say, “he considers ‘the putting off the old and ‘putting on the new man’ as a duty. They had done it by profession, and therefore were obliged to do it effectually.” They had done it effectually. So the whole tenor of the Apostle's words implies: “Ye have not so learned Christ; if so be,” rather, seeing that, “ye have been taught by him;--that ye put off the old man; --and be renewed in the spirit of your mind;--and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” (Eph. iv. 20-24.) The Apostle here manifestly speaks, not of a lesson they had not learned, but of one which God had taught them already; and thence exhorts them to walk worthy of the blessing they had received, to be “holy in all manner of conversation.” But, 4. “‘The putting on the new man’ is one thing, and the creating him is another.

“The word of the Lord is right.” (Psalm xxxiii. 4.) “The ways of the Lord are right.” (Hosea xiv. 9.) 4. “Be glad and rejcice, ye righteous.” (Psalm xxxii. 11.) “Rejoice in the Lord, O ye righteous.” (Psalm xxxiii. 1.) In the very same sense it occurs in numberless places. As the word is there fore properly applied to God himself, to his word, his provi dences, and his people, (in all which cases it must necessarily mean righteous,) we cannot lightly depart from this its proper signification. But you think there is a necessity of departing from it here; because “to say, God created Adam righteous, is to affirm a contradiction, or what is inconsistent with the very nature of righteousness. For a righteousness wrought in him without his knowledge or consent, would have been no righteousness at all.” (Page 161.) You may call it by any name you like better. But we must use the old name still; as being persuaded that the love of God, governing the senses, appetites, and passions, however or whenever it is wrought in the soul, is true, essential righteousness. Nay, “righteousness is right action.” Indeed it is not. Here (as we said before) is your fundamental mistake. It is a right state of mind; which differs from right action, as the cause does from the effect. Righteousness is, properly and directly, a right temper or disposition of mind, or a complex of all right tempers. For want of observing this, you say, “Adam could not act before he was created. Therefore he must exist, and use his intellectual powers, before he could be righteous.” “But, according to this reasoning,” as Dr. Jennings observes, “Christ could not be righteous at his birth.” You answer, “He ex isted before he was made flesh.” I reply, He did,--as God. But the man Christ Jesus did not. Neither, therefore, did he use his intellectual powers. According to your reasoning, then, the man Christ Jesus could not be righteous at his birth. The Doctor adds: “Nay, according to this reasoning, God could not be righteous from eternity? because he must exist be fore he was righteous.” (Jennings's Windication.) You answer: “My reasoning would hold even with respect to God, were it true that he ever did begin to exist. But neither the existence nor the holiness of God was prior to each other.” (Taylor's Sup plement, p.

But neither the existence nor the holiness of God was prior to each other.” (Taylor's Sup plement, p. 162.) Nay, but if his existence was not prior to his holiness, if he did not exist before he was holy, your assertion, that every being must exist before it is righteous, is not true. Besides, (to pursue your reasoning a little farther,) if “God did always exist,” yet unless you can prove that he always acted, it will not clear your argument. For let him exist millions of ages, he could not be righteous (according to your maxim) before he acted right. One word more on this article: You say, “My reasoning would hold good, even with respect to God, were it true that he ever did begin to exist.” Then I ask concerning the Son of God, Did he ever begin to exist? If he did not, he is the one, eternal God; (for there cannot be two eternals; ) if he did, and your reasoning hold good, when he began to exist he was not righteous. “But St.John saith, “He that doeth righteousness is right eous.’” Yes, it appears he is, by his doing or practising “righteousness.” “But where doth the Scripture speak one word of a righteousness infused into us?” Where it speaks of “the love of God” (the essence of righteousness) “shed abroad in our hearts.” And cannot God, by his almighty power, infuse any good tempers into us? You answer, “No;--no being whatever can do for us that which cannot be at all if it be not our own choice, and the effect of our own industry and exercise. But all good tempers are the effect of our own industry and exer cise; otherwise they cannot be at all.” Nay, then, it is certain they cannot be at all. For neither lowliness, meekness, long-suffering, nor any other good tem per, can ever be the effect of my own industry and exercise. But I verily believe they may be the effect of God's Spirit, working in me whatsoever pleaseth him. See Isaiah xxvi. 12. You add: “The thing cannot exist, unless we choose; because our choosing to do what is right, is the very thing which is to exist.” No; the thing which is to exist is, a right state of mind.

You add: “The thing cannot exist, unless we choose; because our choosing to do what is right, is the very thing which is to exist.” No; the thing which is to exist is, a right state of mind. And it is certain, God can give this to any creature, at the very first moment of its existence. Nay, it may be questioned, whether God can create an intelligent being in any other state. “But a habit is gained by repeated acts. Therefore, habits of righteousness could not be created in man.” Mere play ing upon words! He could be, he was, created full of love. Now, whether you call this a habit or no, it is the sum of all righteousness. “But this love is either under the government of my will, or it is not.” It is. The love of God which Adam enjoyed was under the government of his will. “But if so, it could be righteous only so far as applied to right action in heart and life.” (Pages 164, 165.) Stop here. The love of God is righteousness, the moment it exists in any soul; and it must exist before it can be applied to action. Accordingly, it was righteousness in Adam the moment he was created. And yet he had a power either to follow the dictates of that love, (in which case his righteousness would have endured for ever,) or to act contrary thereto; but love was righteousness still, though it was not irresistible. “I might add, Adam’s inclination to sin (for he could not sin without a sinful inclination) must be so strong as to over come his (supposed) inbred propensity to holiness; and so malignant, as to expel that principle at once, and totally. Consequently, the supposed original righteousness was con sistent with a sinful propensity, vastly stronger and more malignant than ever was or can be in any of his posterity; who cannot sin against such resistance, or with such dreadful consequences. Thus, original righteousness in Adam proves far worse than original sin in his posterity.” (Page 166.) I have set down your argnment at large, that it may appear in its full strength. Now, let us view it more closely: “Adam cculd not sin without a sinful inclination.” The sentence is ambiguous.

Now, let us view it more closely: “Adam cculd not sin without a sinful inclination.” The sentence is ambiguous. Either it may mean, “Adam could not choose ill, without some sinful temper preceding;” and in this sense it is false; or, “He could not commit outward sin, without first inclining, that is, choosing so to do.” 2. “This his sinful in clination (or temper) was so strong as to overcome his inbred propensity to holiness.” It was not any sinful inclination (in this sense) which overcame his propensity to holiness; but strong temptation from without: How strong we know not, and the circumstances of it we know not. 3. “This his sinful inclination was so malignant, as to expel that principle at once, and totally.” Not by any sinful inclination, but by yielding to temptation, he did lose the love and image of God. But that this was totally and at once, we have no authority to affirm. 4. “Consequently, original righteousness in Adam was consistent with a sinful propensity, vastly stronger, and more malignant, than ever was or can be in any of his posterity.” It was consistent with no sinful propensity at all, but barely with a power of yielding to temptation. It declined in the same proportion, and by the same degrees, as he did actually yield to this. And when he had yielded entirely, and eaten the fruit, original righteousness was no more. Therefore, the Fifth proposition, “Thus original righteousness proves to be far worse than original sin,” is flourish. What a figure does this fair argument make, now it is turned inside out ! From all this it may appear, that the doctrine of original righteousness (as well as that of original sin) hath a firm foun dation in Scripture, as well as in the attributes of a wise, holy, and gracious God. As you do not offer any new argument in your conclusion, I need not spend any time upon it. You subjoin Remarks on Dr. Watts's Additions to his book. Some of these deserve a serious consideration: 1. Either the new-created man loved God supremely, or not. If he did not, he was not innocent ; since the very law and light of nature require such a love to God. If he did, he stood disposed for every act of obedience. And this is true holiness of heart.

How could a wise, just, and good God place his creature in such a state as that the scale of evil should preponderate? Although it be allowed, he is, in a measure, free still; the other scale does not “fly up, and kick the beam.” 3. Notwithstanding all the cavils which have been raised, yet if those two texts (Eph. iv. 24; Col. iii. 10) are considered together, their obvious meaning will strike an honest and unbiassed reader, the new man, or the principle of true reli gion in the heart, is created by God after his moral image, in that righteousness and true holiness wherein man was at first created. You answer, “I have endeavoured to prove the contrary; and he does not offer to point out any one mistake in my inter pretations.” (Page 189.) I have pointed out more than one. 4. If these are the qualifications with which such a new made creature should be endued; and these the circumstances, wherein, from the wisdom, justice, and goodness of God, we should expect him to be situated ; then, by a careful survey of what man is now, compared with what he should be, we may easily determine, whether man is at present such a creature as the great and blessed God made him at first. You answer in abundance of words, the sum of which is this: “Our circumstances are, on the whole, far better than Adam’s were; for he was under that severe law, ‘Transgress and die.’” (Page 190.) He was so; but this does not prove the point still; balancing this single disadvantage (if such it was; for even that may be disputed) with the numerous advantages he was possessed of, with the holiness and happiness which he enjoyed, and might have enjoyed for ever, it does by no means appear that the present circumstances of mankind in general are better than Adam’s were. 5. God did not give Noah dominion over the brute creatures in so ample a manner as he did to Adam. Fear indeed fell on the brutes; but this does not sufficiently preserve man from their outrage. In the innocent state, no man would have been poisoned or torn by serpents or lions as now.

“O, by his own choice; as Seth was righteous.” Well; afterwards, both wicked Cain and good Seth begat sons and daughters. Now, was it not just as probable, one should infect his children with goodness, as the other with wickedness? How came, then, Cain to transmit vice, any more than Seth to transmit virtue? If you say, “Seth did transmit virtue; his posterity was vir tuous until they mixed with the vicious offspring of Cain,” I answer, (1.) How does that appear? How do you prove that all the posterity of Seth were virtuous? But, (2.) If they were, why did not this mixture amend the vicious, rather than corrupt the virtuous? If our nature is equally inclined to virtue and vice, vice is no more contagious than virtue. How, then, came it totally to prevail over virtue, so that “all flesh had corrupted themselves before the Lord?” Con tagion and infection are nothing to the purpose; seeing they might propagate good as well as evil. Let us go one step farther: Eight persons only were saved from the general deluge. We have reason to believe that four, at least, of these were persons truly virtuous. How then came vice to have a majority again among the new inhabitants of the earth ? Had the nature of man been inclined to neither, virtue must certainly have had as many votaries as vice. Nay, suppose man a reasonable creature, and supposing virtue to be agreeable to the highest reason, according to all the rules of probability, the majority of man. kind must in every age have been on the side of virtue. 8. Some have reckoned up a large catalogue of the instances of divine goodness, and would make this as evident a proof that mankind stands in the favour of God, as all the other instances are of a universal degeneracy of man, and the anger of God against them. But it is easy to reply, The goodness of God may incline him to bestow a thousand bounties upon criminals; but his justice and goodness will not suffer him to inflict misery in such a universal manner, where there has been no sin to deserve it either in parents or children. You answer: “There is more than enough sin among man kind, to deserve all the sufferings God inflicts upon them.

Does it not demand, that every sense, appetite, and passion, should be perfectly sub ject to reason? Now, is there a man on earth, who can say, ‘I am able by my natural powers to do this?’” (Page 50.) “Even the outward temptations to which man is exposed, are evidently too strong to be effectually and constantly re sisted by his now enfeebled reason and conscience; while at the same time, his will, his appetites, and passions, have a powerful propensity to comply with them.” (Page 51.) “Now, would a just, a wise, and a merciful God have formed intellectual creatures in such awretched state, with powers and capacities so much below their duties, that they break his law daily and continually, and are notable to help it?” (Page 52.) “Should it be said, ‘God cannot require more than we are able to perform: 'You have an answer in your own bosom; for you know and feel God does require this, even by the law he has written in your heart; yet you feel you are not able to perform it, untie or cut the knot how you may. “Should it be said again, “God pities and pardons feeble creatures:” I answer, (1.) According to the covenant of grace, he does, but not according to the law of creation. But, (2) Did God make some of his noblest creatures so feeble in their original state, as continually to offend, and want pardon? Did he give them such a law as should never, never be fulfilled by any one of them? Would a God who adjusts the proportion of all things with the exactest wisdom, give a law to his crea tures so disproportionate to their original powers, that, even in the state of their creation, they are under a necessity of breaking it, and stand in need of daily forgiveness?

“I answer, (3.) Though the bulk of mankind were happy in the present constitution of things, this gives no manner of satisfaction to any one individual who is unhappy without any demerit: The advantage of the majority is no reason at all why any one innocent should suffer. If any one, therefore, man or child, and much more, if numbers of them, have more pain than pleasure, they must be involved in some guilt, which may give just occasion to their misery.” (Page 79.) “12. To enforce this, after the survey of these pains and sorrows, let us consider what are the pleasures of the bulk of mankind. Cast a glance at the sports of children, from five to fifteen years of age. What toys and fooleries are these! Would a race of wise and holy beings waste so many years of early life in such wretched trifles? And as for our manly years, what are the greatest part of the delights of men, but silly and irrational, if not grossly sinful? What are the pleaaures even of the rich and great, to relieve them under the common sorrows of life? If they be not luxury and intemperance, are they not furniture and equipage, finery of dress and gay appearances? to shine in silks of various dye, and blaze in the splendour of gold and jewels? Now, would wise and holy creatures have made this the matter of their joy and pleasure: ‘My coat is gayer than yours, and I have more glittering things about me than you have P’” (Pages 80, 81.) “Others call for cards, or dice, to divert their trouble, and pass away their time. How inexpressibly trifling are these sports, if mere diversion be sought therein But if the design be gain, how is the game mingled with uneasy fears, with the working of various passions, which, in case of disappointment and loss, often break out into wrath and fury! “Again: What multitudes drench themselves in gross sensualities as their chief delight ! They make a god of their belly, till they overload nature, and make haste to disease and death. They drown their cares and their senses together; or they bury them in sensual impurities.” (Page 82.) “Others release themselves from the troubles of life, by gadding abroad, and mixing with impertinent company.

They drown their cares and their senses together; or they bury them in sensual impurities.” (Page 82.) “Others release themselves from the troubles of life, by gadding abroad, and mixing with impertinent company. Some delight in wanton jests, in foolish merriment, in mean and trifling conversation; a little above the chattering of monkeys in a wood, or the chirping of crickets upon a hearth. Nay, perhaps it is their diversion to rail at their neighbours, to murder the reputation of the absent. This is their mirth and recreation; these their reliefs against the common miseries of human life l’’ (Page 83.) “But would a race of innocent beings fly to such mean and foolish, or criminal, refuges from pain as these? Would they pursue such vain or vile delights? Would they become rivals to the beasts of the field, or sport themselves, as devils do, in accusing their fellow-creatures? Surely, if we survey the very pleasures, as well as the sorrows, of the bulk of mankind, we may learn from thence, that we are by no means such creatures as we were originally created. “13. I need add but one more proof of the general ruin of human nature. We are all posting to the grave. Every one of us are succeeding our neighbours, into some unknown, invisible world. And we all profess to believe this. Yet how exceeding few are solicitous about this great and awful futurity | Though we are exposed to so many sins and miseries in this life, and are hastening visibly and hourly to the end of it, yet how few are there that make any careful preparation for a better state than this! What multitudes are daily running down into darkness, speeding to an endless duration in an unknown country, without any earnest inquiries about the manner of exist ence there! They walk over the busy stage of life, they toil and labour, or play and trifle awhile here, and then plunge into a strange unseen world, where they will meet with a just and holy God, whose wisdom will assign them a place and portion suited to their own character. Now, were men indeed wise and holy, could they remain so ignorant and thoughtless of that state into which they are all hastening?

v. 1-3, 5: “In the day that God cre ated man, in the likeness of God made he him:--And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years’ after his loss of the image of God, ‘and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image;’ that is, his own sinful and mortal image. “It is not to be supposed, that Moses, in this brief history of the first generations of men, should so particularly repeat ‘the image and likeness of God in which Adam was created, unless he had designed to set the comparison in a fair light, between Adam’s begetting a son in his own sinful and mortal *mage, whereas he himself was created in God’s holy and immortal image.” (Page 162.) “4. God was pleased to put the man whom he had made upon a trial of his obedience for a season. He placed him in a garden of Eden, (or pleasure,) and gave him a free use of all the creatures; only forbidding him to eat of the fruit of one tree,--‘the tree of the kncwledge of good and evil.” “For in the day,” said he, ‘that thou eatest of it, thou shalt surely die.’ In which threatening were doubtless included all evils,--death spiritual, temporal, and eternal.” (Page 163.) “5. As Adam was under a law whose sanction threatened death upon disobedience, so doubtless God favoured him with a covenant of life, and a promise of life and immortality upon his obedience.” (Page 164) “6. Adam broke the law of his maker, lost his image and his favour, forfeited the hope of immortality, and exposed him self to the wrath of God, and all the punishment which he had threatened; in consequence of which he was now painfully afraid of Him in whom he before delighted, and foolishly endeavoured to ‘hide himself from the presence of the Lord.’” (Page 168.) “7. Adam, after his sin, propagated his kind according to the law of nature;--not in the moral image or likeness of God; not “in righteousness and true holiness;' but in his own sinful likeness; with irregular passions, corrupt appetites and inclina tions. To this degeneracy Job manifestly refers in those expressions: ‘What is man, that he should be clean? or the son of man, that he should be righteous? Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?

Adam was the head of all mankind, who became sinful and mortal through his sin; Christ was the head of all believers, who obtain pardon and life through his righteousness. To prove this headship of Adam, the Apostle says, “Until the law,’ (that is, from the creation till the law of Moses,) “sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed where there is no law; that is, where there is no law or constitution of duty or penalty at all. Yet, saith he, “Death reigned from Adam to Moses:” Yet sin was imputed, and pun ished by death, even upon all mankind, both small and great, before the law given by Moses. The inference is, therefore, there was some law or constitution during all the time from Adam to Moses, in virtue of which sin was imputed to man kind, and death accordingly executed upon them. Now, what law or constitution could this be, beside that which said to Adam, as a representative of his whole posterity, ‘In the day thou sinnest thou shalt die?’” (Pages 177, 178.) “2. The Apostle carries his argument yet farther: ‘Sin was imputed, and death reigned, or was executed, “even upon those who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgres sion;' who had not broken an express command, as Adam had done. This manifestly refers to infants;--death reigned over them; death was executed upon them. And this must be by some constitution which, in some sense, imputed sin to them who had not committed actual sin: For without such a con stitution, sin would never have been imputed, nor death executed on children. “Yet, 3. Death did not come upon them as a mere natural effect of their father Adam’s sin and death, but as a proper and legal punishment of sin; for it is said, his sin brought “con demnation’ upon all men. (Verse 18.) Now, this is a legal term, and shows that death is not only a natural but a penal evil, and comes upon infants as guilty and condemned;--not for their own actual sins, for they had none; but for the sin of Adam, their legal head, their appointed representative.” (Page 179.) “In the eighteenth verse the expression is very strong: “By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to con demnation.

Whereas no such calamity could ever have befallen innocent Adam, or his innocent offspring.” (Page 187.) “The ‘image of God,” in which Adam was created, consisted eminently in righteousness and true holiness. But that part of the ‘image of God’ which remained after the fall, and remains in all men to this day, is the natural image of God, namely, the spiritual nature and immortality of the soul; not excluding the political image of God, or a degree of dominion over the creatures still remaining. But the moral image of God is lost and defaced, or else it could not be said to be ‘renewed.” It is then evident, that the blessing given to Adam in innocency, and that given to Noah after the flood, differ so widely, that the latter was consistent with the condemnation or curse for sin, and the former was not. Consequently, mankind does not now stand in the same favour of God, as Adam did while he was innocent.” (Pages 188, 189.) “Thus it appears that the holy Scriptures, both in the Old and New Testaments, give us a plain and full account of the conveyance of sin, misery, and death, from the first man to all his offspring.” APosTACY FROM GoD 7 A GENERAL survey of THE FOLLIES AND MISERLEs “UPoN a just view of human nature, from its entrance into life, till it retires behind the curtain of death, one would be ready to say concerning man, ‘Is this the creature that is so superior to the rest of the inhabitants of the globe, as to require the peculiar care of the Creator in forming him? Does he deserve such an illustrious description, as even the heathen poet has given us of him?” Sanctius his animal, mentisque capacius alte Deerat adhuc, et quod dominari in catera posset. Natus homo est / sive hunc divino semine cretum Ille opifex rerum mundi melioris origo Finzit in effigiem moderantúm cuncta deorum. Pronaque cum spectent animalia caetera terram; Os homini sublime dedit; calumque tueri Jussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere vultus. A creature of a more exalted kind Was wanting yet; and then was man design'd: Conscious of thought, of more capacious breast, For empire form’d, and fit to rule the rest.

If those children had been guiltless in the eye of God, could this have been their portion? In short, can we suppose the wise, and right eous, and merciful God would have established and continued such a constitution for that propagation of mankind which should naturally place so many millions of them so early in such dismal circumstances if there had not been some dread ful and universal degeneracy spread over them and their fathers, by some original crime, which met and seized them at the very entrance into life?” (Page 420.) “THIs doctrine has been attended with many noisy contro versies in the Christian world. Let us try whether it may not be set in so fair and easy a light as to reconcile the sentiments of the contending parties.” (Page 427.) “When a man has broken the law of his country, and is punished for so doing, it is plain that sin is imputed to him; his wickedness is upon him; he bears his iniquity; that is, he is reputed, or accounted guilty; he is condemned and dealt with as an offender.” (Page 428.) “On the other hand, if an innocent man, who is falsely accused, is acquitted by the court, sin is not imputed to him, but righteousness is imputed to him; or, to use another phrase, his ‘righteousness is upon him.’ “Or if a reward be given a man for any righteous action, this righteous act is imputed to him. “Farther: If a man has committed a crime, but the Prince pardons him, then he is justified from it; and his fault is not imputed to him.” (Page 429.) “But if a man having committed treason, his estate is taken from him and his children, then they “bear the iniquity of their father, and his sin is imputed to them also. “If a man lose his life and estate for murder, and his children thereby become vagabonds, then the blood of the person murdered is said to be upon the murderer, and upon his children also. So the Jews: ‘His blood be on us and on our children;’ let us and our children be punished for it !

“I answer: 2. Sin is taken either for an act of disobedience to a law, or for the legal result of such an act; that is, the guilt, or liableness to punishment. Now, when we say, The sin of a traitor is imputed to his children, we do not mean, that the act of the father is charged upon the child; but that the guilt, or liableness to punishment, is so transferred to him, that he suffers banishment or poverty on account of it.” (Pages 432, 433,434.) “In like manner, righteousness is either particular acts of obedience to a law, or the legal result of those actions; that is, a right to the reward annexed to them. “And so when we say, The righteousness of him that has performed some eminent act of obedience is imputed to his children, we do not mean, that the particular act of the father is charged on the child, as if he had done it; but that the right to reward, which is the result of that act, is transferred to his children. “Now, if we would but thus explain every text of Scripture wherein either imputed sin, or imputed righteousness, is men tioned, (whether in express words, or in the plain meaning of them,) weshould find them all easy and intelligible.” (Page435.) “Thus we may easily understand how the obedience of Christ is imputed to all his seed; and how the disobedience of Adam is imputed to all his children.” (Page 436.) “To confirm this, I would add these three remarks:-- “1. There are several histories in Scripture, where expres sions of the same import occur. “So Gen. xxii. 16: “Thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies, because thou hast obeyed my voice.” Here Abraham’s obedience, that is, the result of it, is imputed to his posterity. “So Num. xxv. 13: ‘God gave to Phinehas and his seed after him the covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God,” and slew the criminals in Israel. This was so imputed to his children, that they also received the reward of it.” (Page 437.) “Thus the sin of Achan was so imputed to his children, that they were all stoned on account of it. (Joshua vii. 24.) In like manner, the covetousness of Gehazi was imputed to his posterity, (2 Kings v.

24.) In like manner, the covetousness of Gehazi was imputed to his posterity, (2 Kings v. 27) when God by his Prophet pronounced that the leprosy should cleave unto him and to his seed for ever.” (Page 438.) “2. The Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, use the words sin and iniquity, (both in Hebrew and Greek,) to signify, not only the criminal actions themselves, but also the result and consequences of those actions; that is, the guilt or liableness to punishment; and sometimes the punish ment itself, whether it fall upon the original criminal, or upon others on his account.” (Page 439.) “In the same manner, the Scriptures use the word righteous ness, not only for acts of obedience, but also the result of them; that is, justification, or right to a reward. A moderate study of some of those texts where these words are used may convince us of this. “So Job xxxiii. 26: “God will render to a man his righteousness, that is, the reward of it. “Sow to yourselves in righteousness, till the Lord come and rain righteousness upon you:’ (Hosea x. 12:) That is, till he pour down the rewards, or fruits, of it upon you. “I might add here, that, in several places of St. Paul’s Epistles, righteousness means justification, in the passive sense of the word.” (Page 440.) “So Rom. x. 4: ‘Christ is the end of the law for righteous ness to every one that believeth;’ that is, in order to the justification of believers. . ‘With the heart man believeth unto righteousness;' (verse 10;) that is, so as to obtain jus tification. “‘If righteousness, that is,justification, ‘come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” (Gal. ii. 21.) This particularly holds where the word Aoyugouai, or impute, is joined with righteousness. As Rom. iv. 3: Abraham ‘believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness.’ ‘His faith is counted to him for righteousness.” (Rom. iv.5.) It is not avrt or varep, for or instead of righteousness; but evs Bucatoavvmw, ‘in order to justification, or acceptance with God. “And in other places of Scripture, a work, whether good or evil, is put for the reward of it: ‘The work of a man will he render unto him;’ (Job xxxiv. 11;) that is, the recompence of it. So St.

6, it is joined and is the same with pure. In the same sense it is taken, (to mention but a few out of many texts which might be produced,) Prov. x. 29: “The way of the Lord is strength to the upright; but destruc tion shall be to the workers of iniquity.’ ‘The integrity of the upright shall guide them; but the perverseness of trans gressors shall destroy them. (xi. 3.) ‘The righteousness of the upright shall deliver them; but transgressors shall be taken in their own naughtiness.” (Verse 6.) ‘By the blessing of the upright the city is exalted. (Verse 11.) ‘The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord; but the prayer of the upright is his delight.” (xv.8.) “A wicked man hardeneth his face; but as for the upright, he directeth his way.” (xxi. 29.) From all these texts it manifestly appears, that uprightness, as applied to man, is the very same with righteousness, holi ness, or integrity of heart and conversation.” (Pages 5, 6.) “When, therefore, Solomon says, God “made man upright,’ the plain, undeniable meaning is, God at first formed man righteous or holy; although “they have sought out many inventions.” They, --this refers to Adam, which is both a singular and a plural noun: They, our first parents, and with them their posterity, have sought out many inventions;’ many contrivances, to offend God, and injure themselves. These ‘many inventions’ are opposed to the uprightness, the simplicity of heart and integrity, with which our first parents, and mankind in them, were originally made by God.” (Page 7.) “The doctrine of the text then is, that God, at his creation, ‘made man upright, or righteous; not only rational, and a free agent, but holy. Therefore, to maintain, that ‘man neither was, nor could be, formed holy, because none can be holy, but in consequence of his own choice and endeavour, is bold indeed! To prove the contrary, and justify Solomon’s assertion, I offer a few plain arguments.” (Page 8.) “1. Moses, in his account of the creation, writes, “And God said, Let us make man in our own image. Now, that righte ousness or holiness is the principal part of this image of God, appears from Eph. iv. 22, 24, and Col. iii. 9, 10.

9, 10. On which passages I observe, (1.) By ‘the old man’ is not meant a heathenish life, or an ungodly conversation; but a corrupt nature. For the Apostle elsewhere speaks of our ‘old man,’ as ‘crucified with Christ;’ and here distinguishes from it their ‘former conversation,’ or sinful actions, which he calls ‘the deeds of the old man.’ (2.) By ‘the new man’ is meant, not a new course of life; (as the Socinians interpret it;) but a principle of grace, called by St. Peter, ‘The hidden man of the heart, and a ‘divine nature. (3.) To put off ‘the old man’ (the same as to ‘crucify the flesh”) is, to subdue and mortify our corrupt nature; to “put on the new man’ is, to stir up and cultivate that gracious principle, that new nature. ‘This,” saith the Apostle, ‘is created after God, in righteous ness and true holiness.’ It is created: Which cannot pro perly be said of a new course of life; but may of a ‘new nature. It is ‘created after God; or, ‘in his image and likeness, mentioned by Moses. But what is it to be “created after God,” or ‘in his image?’ It is to be “created in righte ousness and true holiness;’ termed ‘knowledge, the practical knowledge of God. (Col. iii. 10.) But if ‘to be created after God, or ‘in his image and likeness, is ‘to be created in righteousness and true holiness, and if that principle of right eousness and holiness by which we are ‘created unto good works, is a ‘new man,” a “divine nature; it is easy to infer, that man was at first created ‘righteous’ or ‘holy.’” (Pages 9, 10.) “2. All things, as at first made by God, ‘were very good.’ Nor indeed could he make them otherwise. Now, a rational being is not good, unless his rational powers are all devoted to God. The goodness of man, as a rational being, must lie in a devotedness and consecration to God. Consequently, man was at first thus devoted to God: Otherwise he was not good. But this devotedness to the love and service of God is true righteous ness or holiness. This righteousness then, this goodness, or uprightness, this regular and due state or disposition of the human mind, was at first natural to man. It was wrought into his nature, and concreated with his rational powers.

It was wrought into his nature, and concreated with his rational powers. A rational creature, as such, is capable of knowing, loving, serving, living in communion with, the Most Holy One. Adam at first either did or did not use this capacity; either he knew and loved God, or he did not. If he did not, he was not ‘very good, no, nor good at all: If he did, he was upright, righteous, holy.” (Page 12.) “3. When God vested man with dominion over the other creatures, how was he qualified for exercising that dominion,' unless he had in himself a principle of love and obedience to the Supreme Governor? Did not God form the creatures obedient to man, to confirm man in his loving obedience to God; Or did he create them with a disposition to depend on and obey man as their lord, and not create man with a disposition to obey and live dependent on the Lord of all? But this disposition is uprightness. Therefore God “made man upright.’” (Page 13.) “4. Either man was created with principles of love and obe dience, or he was created an enemy to God. One of these must be: For as all the duty required of man, as a rational being, is summarily comprised in love, a supreme love to God, and a sub ordinate love to others, for his sake; so there can be no me dium between a rational creature's loving God, and not loving, which is a degree of ‘enmity’ to him. Either, O man, thou lovest God, or thou dost not: If thou dost, thou art holy or righteous; if thou dost not, thou art indisposed to serve him in such a manner, and with such a frame of spirit, as he re quires. Then thou art an enemy to God, a rebel against his authority. But God could not create man in such a state, in a state of enmity against himself. It follows, that man was created a lover of God, that is, righteous and holy.” (Page 14.) “In a word: Can you prove, either that man was not ‘created after God,” or that this does not mean, being ‘created in righteousness and true holiness?’ Was not man, as all crea tures, good in his kind? And is a rational creature good, unless all its powers are devoted to God?

The words added, ‘In the day thou eatest thereofthou shalt surely die, or literally, “In dying thou shalt die, mean, not only, ‘Thou shalt certainly die, but, ‘Thou shalt suffer every kind of death:” Thy soul as well as thy body shall die. And, indeed, if God made manupright or holy; if man at first enjoyed the life of God, including holiness joined with blessedness; and if the miserable state of the soul (as well as the dissolution of the body) is in the Scripture termed ‘death;’ it plainly follows, that the original threatening includes nothing less than a loss of man’s original uprightness, of his title to God’s favour, and happy life of communion with God.” (Pages 26, 27.) “The words mean, farther, “Thou shalt instantly die;’ as soon as ever thou eatest. And so he did. For in that instant his original righteousness, title to God’s favour, and communion with God being lost, he was spiritually dead, ‘dead in sin; his soul was dead to God, and his body liable to death, temporal and eternal.” (Pages 28, 29.) “And as there is a threatening of death expressed in these words, so a promise of life is implied. The threatening death only in case of disobedience, implied, that otherwise he should not die. And even since the fall, the law of God promises life to obedience, as well as threatens death to disobedience; since the tenor of it is, “Do this and live: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’” (Page 30.) “Now, a law given by God with a promise of life and a threatening of death, consented to by man, is evidently a cove nant. For what is a covenant, but a mutual agreement of two or more parties on certain terms? Now, in this sense God covenanted with man, and man covenanted with God. God gave a law, promising life in case of obedience, threat ening death in case of disobedience. And man accepted of the terms. Here, therefore, was a real covenant.” (Page 31.) “But, to guard this against objections, I add:-- “1. We do not affirm, that God visibly appeared, and form ally treated with Adam, as one man with another. Without so formal a procedure, God could, and doubtless did, signify to him, on what terms he was to expect life or death.” (Page 32.) “2.

But if so, and if wherever ‘flesh” is opposed to ‘the Spirit, it implies sinful corruption, then it is evident, to be ‘born of the flesh, is to be the sinful offspring of sinful parents, so as to have need of the renewing influ ences of the Holy Spirit, on that account, even from our birth. “If to ‘walk after the flesh, as opposed to “walking after the Spirit,” is to follow our sinful inclinations; if to ‘be in the flesh, opposed to “being in the Spirit, is to be in a state of sin; if ‘the flesh” and ‘the Spirit” are two contrary prin ciples, which counteract each other; (Gal. v. 16, 17;) if ‘the works of the flesh, and the lusts of the flesh, are opposed to ‘the Spirit” and ‘the fruit of the Spirit;’ then, “to be born of the flesh” must signify more than barely to be born of a woman. Had Adam transmitted a pure nature to his de scendants, still each of them would have been born of a woman; but they would have had no necessity of being ‘born of the Spirit, or renewed by the Holy Ghost. “But what is that corruption of nature which the Scrip ture terms flesh 2 There are two branches of it: 1. A want of original righteousness: 2. A natural propensity to sin. “1. A want of original righteousness. God created man righteous; holiness was connatural to his soul; a principle of love and obedience to God. But when he sinned he lost this principle. And every man is now born totally void both of the knowledge and love of God. “2. A natural propensity to sin is in every man. And this is inseparable from the other. If man is born and grows up without the knowledge or love of God, he is born and grows up propense to sin; which includes two things,'--an aversion to what is good, and an inclination to what is evil. “We are naturally averse to what is good. ‘The carnal mind is enmity against God. Nature does not, will not, cannot, submit to his holy, just, and good law. Therefore, ‘they that are in the flesh cannot please God. Being averse to the will, law, and ways of God, they are utterly indisposed for such an obedience as the relation between God and man indispensably requires.

Again: “By the disobedience of one, the same, ‘many are constituted sinners. Therefore, when our Lord says, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, he means, not only that we and our parents are ‘mortal, but that all man kind derive spiritual as well as temporal death from their first father.” “1. SIN is “a transgression of the law;’ of that law of God to which a rational creature is subject. “Righteousness’ is a fulfilment of, or conformity to, that law. This is the proper scriptural sense of the words. But as sin involves the creature in guilt, that is, a liableness to punishment, the same words are often used to denote either sin itself, or guilt and punishment. On the other hand, righteousness denotes, not only a fulfilling of the law, but also a freedom from guilt and punishment; yea, and sometimes all the rewards of righteousness.” (Pages 1,2...) “Accordingly, to impute sin, is either to impute sin itself, or guilt on the account of it. To impute sin itself to a person, is to account him a transgressor of the law, to pronounce him such, or to treat him as a transgressor. To impute guilt to a person, is to account him obnoxious to a threatened punish ment, to pronounce him so, or to inflict that punishment. So, to impute righteousness, properly so called, is to account him a fulfiller of the law, to pronounce him so to be, and to treat him as righteous. And to impute righteousness, as opposed to guilt, is to account, to pronounce, and to treat him as guiltless. “Thus much is agreed. But the point in question is, “Does God impute no sin or righteousness but what is per sonal?” Dr. Taylor positively asserts, he does not. I under take to prove that he does; that he imputes Adam’s first sin to all mankind, and our sins to Christ.” (Page 5.) “l. God imputes Adam’s first sin to all mankind. I do not mean that the actual commission of it was imputed to any beside himself; (it was impossible it should;) nor is the guilt of it imputed to any of his descendants, in the full latitude of it, or in regard to its attendant circumstances. It consti tutes none of them equally guilty with him.

It consti tutes none of them equally guilty with him. Yet both that sin itself, and a degree of guilt on account of it, are imputed to all his posterity; the sin itself is imputed to them, as included in their head. And on this account, they are reputed guilty, are ‘children of wrath, liable to the threat ened punishment. And this cannot be denied, supposing, (1.) Man’s original righteousness: (2.) Adam’s being the federal head of all mankind.” (Page 6.) “(1.) Man’s original righteousness has been largely proved. Let me add only an argument ad hominem. Supposing (not granting) that the Son of God is no more than the first of creatures, either he was originally righteous, or he was not. If he was not, then time was when he was not ‘the Holy One of God;’ and possibly he never might have been such, no, nor righteous at all; but instead of that, as ungodly, guilty, and wretched, as the devil himself is. For the best creature is (Dr. Taylor grants) alterable for the worst; and the best, when corrupted, becomes the worst. Again: If the Son of God was a mere creature, and as such made without righteousness, (which every creature must be, according to Dr. Taylor,) then he was not, could not be, at first as righteous, as like God, as the holy angels are now, yea, or as any holy man on earth is. But if these suppositions are shockingly absurd; if the Son of God could not have become as bad as the devil; if he never was unrighteous; if he was not originally less holy than angels and men are now; then the assertion, ‘that righteous ness must be the effect of a creature's antecedent choice and endeavour, falls to the ground.” (Pages, 7, 9, 10.) “But the Hebrew word jasher, Dr. Taylor says, “does not generally signify a moral character. This is one of the numer ous critical mistakes in this gentleman’s books. Of the more than one hundred and fifty texts in which jasher, or the sub stantive josher, occurs, there are very few which do not confirm our interpretation of Ecclesiastes vii.29. “But jasher is applied to various things not capable of moral action. It is; and what then? Many of these applications are neither for us, nor against us.

Unto whom, with God the Father, and the sanctifying, comforting Spirit, be ascribed all praise for ever !” (Page 83.) “THE phrase, original sin, so far as we can discover, was first used in the fourth century. The first who used it was either St. Chrysostom, or Hilary, some of whose words are these: ‘The Psalmist says, Behold, I was conceived in iniqui ties, and in sins did my mother conceive me. He acknow ledges that he was born under original sin and the law of sin.” Soon after Hilary’s time, St. Augustine, and other Christian writers, brought it into common use.” (Pages 2, 3.) “The scriptural doctrine of original sin may be comprised in the following propositions:-- “I. Man was originally made righteous or holy. “II. That original righteousness was lost by the first sin. “III. Thereby man incurred death of every kind; for," “IV. Adam’s first sin was the sin of a public person, one whom God had appointed to represent all his descendants. “W. Hence all these are from their birth ‘children of wrath,’ void of all righteousness, and propense to sin of all sorts. “I add, WI. This is not only a truth agreeable to Scripture and reason, but a truth of the utmost importance, and one to which the Churches of Christ, from the beginning, have borne a clear testimony.” (Page 8.)- “I. Man was originally made righteous or holy; formed with such a principle of love and obedience to his Maker as disposed and enabled him to perform the whole of his duty with ease and pleasure. This has been proved already; and this wholly over turns Dr. Taylor's fundamental aphorism, ‘Whatever is natural is necessary, and what is necessary is not sinful. For if man was originally righteous or holy, we may argue thus: It was at first natural to man to love and obey his Maker; yet it was not necessary; neither as necessary is opposed to voluntary or free; (for he both loved and obeyed freely and willingly;) nor, as necessary means unavoidable; (this is manifest by the event;) no, nor as necessary is opposed to rewardable; for had he continued to love and obey, he would have been rewarded with everlasting happiness.

For if man was originally righteous or holy, we may argue thus: It was at first natural to man to love and obey his Maker; yet it was not necessary; neither as necessary is opposed to voluntary or free; (for he both loved and obeyed freely and willingly;) nor, as necessary means unavoidable; (this is manifest by the event;) no, nor as necessary is opposed to rewardable; for had he continued to love and obey, he would have been rewarded with everlasting happiness. Therefore that assertion, ‘What ever is natural is necessary, is palpably, glaringly false; consequently, what is natural, as well as what is acquired, may be good or evil, rewardable or punishable.” (Page 10.) “II. Man’s original righteousness was lost by the first sin. Though he was made righteous, he was not made immutable. He was free to stand or fall. And he soon fell, and lost at once both the favour and image of God. This fully appears, 1. From the account which Moses gives of our first parents, where we read, (1.) ‘The eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;’ (Gen. iii.;) that is, they were conscious of guilt, and touched with a pungent sense of their folly and wickedness. They began to find their naked ness irksome to them, and to reflect on it with sinful emotions of soul. (2.) Immediately they were indisposed for com munion with God, and struck with such a dread of him as could not consist with true love. (Verse 8.) (3.) When questioned by God, how do they prevaricate, instead of con fessing their sin, and humbly imploring forgiveness! which proves, not only their having "inned, but their being as yet wholly impenitent. (4.) The judgment passed upon them was a proof of their being guilty in the sight of God. Thus was man’s original righteousness lost; thus did he fall both from the favour and image of God.” (Pages 14, 15.) “This appears, 2. From the guilt which inseparably attends every trangression of the divine law. I say, every transgres sion; because every sin virtually contains all sin; for ‘whoso ever keepeth the whole law, and offendeth in one point, he is guilty of all.” Every single offence is a virtual breach of all the commands of God.

And I believe you have moral endowments which are infinitely more valuable and more amiable than all these. For (if I am not greatly deceived) you bear “good-will to all men.” And may not I add, you fear God? O what might not you do with these abilities! What would be too great for you to attempt and effect! Of what service might you be, not only to your own countrymen, but to all that bear the Christian name ! How might you advance the cause of true, primitive, scriptural Christianity; of solid, rational virtue; of the deep, holy, happy, spiritual religion, which is brought to light by the gospel ! How capable are you of recommending, not barely morality, (the duty of man to man,) but piety, the duty of man to God, even the “worshipping him in spirit and in truth !” How well qualified are you to explain, enforce, defend, even “the deep things of God,” the nature of the kingdom of God “within us;” yea, the interiora regni Dei !” (I speak on supposition of your having the “unction of the Holy One,” added to your other qualifications.) And are you, whom God has so highly favoured, among those who serve the opposite cause? If one might transfer the words of a man to Him, might not one conceive Him to say, Kat av et exeuvov; scal av, Texvov;t Are you disserving the cause of inward religion, labouring to destroy the inward kingdom of God, sapping the foundations of all true, spiritual worship, advancing morality on the ruins of piety? Are you among those who are overthrow ing the very foundations of primitive, scriptural Christianity? which certainly can have noground to stand upon, if the scheme lately advanced be true. What room is there for it, till men repent? know themselves? Without this can they know or love God? O why should you block up the way to repentance, and, consequently, to the whole religion of the heart? “Let a man be a fool,” says the Apostle, “that he may be wise.” But you tell him, he is wise already; that every man is by nature as wise as Adam was in paradise. He gladly drinks in the soothing sound, and sleeps on and takes his rest.

I am grieved for you, who surely desire to teach them the way of God in truth. O'Sir, think it possible, that you may have been mistaken that you may have leaned too far, to what you thought the better extreme! Be persuaded once more to review your whole cause, and that from the very foundation. And in doing so, you will not disdain to desire móre than natural light. O that “the Father of glory may give unto you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation : * May He “enlighten the eyes of your understanding, that you may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints l’” March 24, 1757. BECAUSE of the unspeakable importance of throughly under standing this great foundation of all revealed religion, I subjoin one more extract, relating both to the original and the present state of man:-- “God “made man upright. By man we are to understand our first parents, the archetypal pair, the root of mankind. This man was made right, (agreeable to the nature of God, whose work is perfect) without any imperfection, corruption, or principle of corruption, in his body or soul. He was made upright; that is, straight with the will and law of God, with out any irregularity in his soul. God made him thus; he did not first make him, and then make him righteous: But in the very making of him he made him righteous; righteousness was concreated with him. With the same breath that God breathed into him a living soul, he breathed into him a righteous soul. “This righteousness was the conformity of all the faculties and powers of his soul to the moral law; which implied three things: “First. His understanding was a lamp of light. He was made after God’s image, and, consequently, could not want knowledge, which is a part thereof. And a perfect knowledge of the law was necessary to fit him for universal obedience, see ing no obedience can be according to the law, unless it proceed from a sense of the command of God requiring it. It is true, Adam had not the law writ on tables of stone; but it was writ ten upon his mind.

He had also an executive power, answerable to his will ; a power to do the good which he knew should be done, and which he inclined to do; even to fulfil the whole law of God. If it had not been so, God would not have required perfect obedience of him. For to say that “the Lord gathereth where he hath not strewed, is but the blasphemy of a slothful servant. “From what has been said it may be gathered, that man's original righteousness was universal, and natural, yet mutable. “1. It was universal, both with respect to the subject of it, the whole man; and the object of it, the whole law: It was diffused through the whole man; it was a blessed leaven that leavened the whole lump. Man was then holy in soul, body, and spirit: While the soul remained untainted, the members of the body were consecrated vessels and instruments of righteousness. A combat between reason and appetite, nay, the least inclination to sin, was utterly inconsistent with this uprightness in which man was created; and has been invented to veil the corruption of man’s nature, and to obscure the grace of God in Christ Jesus. And as this righteousness spread through the whole man, so it respected the whole law. There was nothing in the law but what was agreeable to his reason. and will. His soul was shapen out in length and breadth, to the commandment, though exceeding broad; so that his origi mal righteousness was not only perfect in parts, but in degrees. “2. As it was universal, so it was natural to him. He was created with it. And it was necessary to the perfection of man, as he came out of the hand of God; necessary to con stitute him in a state of integrity. Yet, “3. It was mutable: It was a righteousness which might be lost, as appears from the sad event. His will was not indifferent to good and evil: God set it towards good only, yet did not so fix it, that it could not alter: it was movable to evil, but by man himself only. “Thus was man made originally righteous, being ‘created in God’s own image,’ (Gen. i. 27,) which consists in ‘knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.’ (Col. iii. 10; Eph. iv. 24.) All that God made ‘was very good, according to their several natures.

“Without me,’ that is, separate from me, ‘ye can do nothing; nothing truly and spiritually good. To evidence this, consider, “(1.) How often do men see the good they should choose, and the evil they should refuse; and yet their hearts have no more power to comply with their light, than if they were arrested by some invisible hand! Their consciences tell them the right way; yet cannot their will be brought up to it. Else, how is it, that the clear arguments on the side of virtue do not bring men over to that side? Although heaven and hell were but a may be, even this would determine the will to holiness, could it be determined by reason. Yet so far is it from this, that men ‘knowing the judgment of God, that they who do such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.’ “(2.) Let those who have been truly convinced of the spirituality of the law, speak, and tell if they then found themselves able to incline their hearts toward it. Nay, the more that light shone into their souls, did they not find their hearts more and more unable to comply with it? Yea, there are some who are yet in the devil’s camp that can tell from their own experience, light let into the mind cannot give life to the will, or enable it to comply therewith. “Secondly. There is in the unrenewed will an averseness to good. Sin is the natural man’s element; and he is as loath to part with it, as the fishes are to come out of the water. He is sick; but utterly averse to the remedy: He loves his disease, so that he loathes the Physician. He is a captive, a prisoner, and a slave; but he loves his conqueror, gaoler, and master: He is fond of his fetters, prison, and drudgery, and has no liking to his liberty. For evidence of this averseness to good in the will of man,-- “Consider, 1. The untowardness of children. How averse are they to restraint ! Are they not ‘as bullocks unaccus tomed to the yoke ’’ Yea, it is far easier to tame young bullocks to the yoke, than to bring young children under dis cipline.

Ye are ‘enemies to God in your mind.’ Ye are not as yet reconciled to him. The natural enmity is not slain, though perhaps it lies hid, and ye do not perceive it. Every natural man is an enemy to God, as he is revealed in his word, --to an infinitely holy, just, powerful, and true Being. In effect, men are naturally “haters of God;’ and if they could, they would certainly make him another than what he is. “To convince you of this, let me propose a few queries: (1.) How are your hearts affected to the infinite holiness of God? If ye are not “partakers of his holiness, ye cannot be reconciled to it. The Heathens, finding they were not like God in holiness, made their gods like themselves in filthiness; and thereby discovered what sort of a god the natural man would have. God is holy. Can an unholy creature love his unspotted holiness? Nay, it is ‘the righteous” only that can “give thanks at the remembrance of his holiness.” God is light: Can creatures of darkness, and that walk in darkness, rejoice therein? Nay, “every one that doeth evil hateth the light.” For what communion hath light with darkness? (2.) How are your hearts affected to the justice of God? There is not a man who is wedded to his sins, but would be content with the blood of his body to blot that letter out of the name of God. Can the malefactor love his condemning judge; or an unjustified sinner a just God? No, he cannot. And hence, since men cannot get the doctrine of his justice blotted out of the Bible, yet it is such an eye-sore to them, that they strive to blot it out of their minds; they ruin themselves by presuming on his mercy, “ saying in their heart, The Lord will not do good, neither will he do evil.” (3.) How are ye affected to the omniscience and omnipresence of God? Men naturally would ratherhave a blind idol, than an all-seeing God; and therefore do what they can, as Adam did, to ‘hide themselves from the presence of the Lord.’ They no more love an omni present God, than the thief loves to have the judge witness to his evil deeds. (4.) How are ye affected to the truth of God?

They kindly entertain his enemies, and will never absolutely resign themselves to his government. Thus you see the natural man is an enemy to Jesus Christ in all his offices. “3. Ye are enemies to the Spirit of God: He is the Spirit of holiness. The natural man is unholy, and loves to be so; and therefore “resists the Holy Ghost. The work of the Spirit is to ‘convince the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.’ But O, how do men strive to ward off these convictions, as they would a blow that threatened their life! If the Spirit dart them in, so that they cannot avoid them, does not the heart say, ‘Hast thou found me, O mine enemy?’ And indeed they treat him as an enemy, doing their utmost to stifle their convictions, and to murder these harbingers that come to prepare the way of the Lord into the soul. Some fill their hands with business, to put convictions out of their head, as Cain, who fell to building a city. Some put them off with fair promises, as Felix did; some sport or sleep them away. And how can it be other wise? For it is the work of the Holy Spirit to subdue lusts, and burn up corruption. How then can he whose lusts are dear as his life fail of being an enemy to Him? “Lastly. Ye are enemies to the law of God. Though the matural man ‘desires to be under the law,’ as a covenant of works; yet as it is a rule of life, he ‘is not subject to it, neither indeed can be.’ For, (1.) Every natural man is wedded to some sin, which he cannot part with. And as he cannot bring up his inclinations to the law, he would fain bring down the law to his inclinations. And this is a plain, standing evidence of the enmity of his heart against it. (2.) The law, set home on the awakened conscience in its spirituality, irritates corruption. It is as oil to the fire, which, instead of quenching, makes it flame the more. “When the commandment comes, sin revives.” What reason can be assigned for this, but the natural enmity of the heart against the holy law P.

“When the commandment comes, sin revives.” What reason can be assigned for this, but the natural enmity of the heart against the holy law P. We conclude then, that the unregenerate are heart-enemies to God, his Son, his Spirit, and his law; that there is a natural contrariety, opposition, and enmity in the will of man, to God himself and his holy will. “Fifthly. The unrenewed will is wholly perverse, in refer ence to the end of man. Man is a merely dependent being; having no existence or goodness originally from himself; but all he has is from God, as the first cause and spring of all per fection, natural and moral. Dependence is woven into his very nature; so that, should God withdraw from him, he would sink into nothing. Since then whatever man is, he is of Him, surely whatever he is, he should be to Him; as the waters which came out of the sea return thither again. And thus man was cre ated looking directly to God, as his last end; but, falling into sin, he fell off from God, and turned into himself. Now, this infers a total apostasy and universal corruption in man; for where the last end is changed, there can be no real goodness. And this is the case of all men in their natural state: They seek not God, but themselves. Hence though many fair shreds of morality are among them, yet ‘there is none that doeth good, no, not one. For though some of them “run well, they are still off the way; they never aim at the right mark. Whithersoever they move, they cannot move beyond the circle of self. They seek themselves, they act for themselves; their natural, civil, and religious actions, from whatever spring they come, do all run into, and meet in, this dead sea. “Most men are so far from making God their end in their natural and civil actions, that he is not in all their thoughts. They eat and drink for no higher end, than their own pleasure or necessity. Nor do the drops of sweetness God has put into the creatures raise their souls toward that ocean of delights that are in the Creator. And what are the natural man’s civil actions, such as buying, selling, working, but fruit to himself?

By his sin he stripped himself of his original righteousness and corrupted himself. We were in him repre sentatively, as our moral head; we were in him seminally, as our natural head. Hence we fell in him; (as Levi ‘paid tithes’ when ‘in the loins of Abraham;’) “by his disobe dience’ we ‘were made sinners;’ his first sin is imputed to us. And we are left without that original righteousness. which, being given to him as a common person, he cast off. And this is necessarily followed, in him and us, by the cor ruption of our whole nature; righteousness and corruption being two contraries, one of which must always be in man. And Adam, our common father, being corrupt, so are we;. for, ‘who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?’ “It remains only to apply this doctrine. And First, for information: Is man’s nature wholly corrupted? Then, 1. No wonder the grave opens its devouring mouth for us as soon as the womb has cast us forth. For we are all, in a spiritual sense, dead-born; yea, and ‘filthy,' (Psalm xiv. 3,) noisome, rank, and stinking, as a corrupt thing; so the word imports. Let us not complain of the miseries we are exposed to at our entrance, or during our continuance, in the world. Here is the venom that has poisoned all the springs of earthly enjoyments. It is the corruption of human nature, which brings forth all the miseries of life. “2. Behold here, as in a glass, the spring of all the wicked mess, profaneness, and formality in the world. Every thing acts agreeable to its own nature; and so corrupt man acts corruptly. You need not wonder at the sinfulness of your own heart and life, nor at the sinfulness and perverseness of others. If a man be crooked, he cannot but halt; and if the clock be set wrong, how can it point the hour right? “3. See here why sin is so pleasant, and religion such a bur den, to men: Sin is natural; holiness not so. Oxen cannot feed in the sea, nor fishes in the fruitful field. A swine brought into a palace would prefer the mire. And corrupt nature tends ever to impurity. “4. Learn from hence the nature and necessity of regene ration. (1.) The nature: It is not a partial, but a total, change.

Thoughts upon Jacob Behmen Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 9 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- I HAVE considered the Memoirs of Jacob Behmen, of which I will speak very freely. I believe he was a good man. But I see nothing extra ordinary either in his life or in his death. I have known many, both men and women, who were far more exemplary in their lives, and far more honoured of God in their death. I allow he wrote many truths; but none that would have appeared at all extraordinary, had he thrown aside his hard words, and used plain and common language. What some seem most to admire in his writings, is what I most object to; I mean his philosophy and his phraseology. These are really his own; and these are quite new ; therefore, they are quite wrong. I totally object to his blending religion with philosophy; and as vain a philosophy as ever existed: Crude, indigested; supported neither by Scripture nor reason, nor anything but his own ipse dixit.- I grant, Mr. Law, by taking immense pains, has licked it into some shape. And he has made it hang tolerably together. But still it admits of no manner of proof. And all he writes concerning religion is what very many have said before him, and in a far better manner. To his whole scheme I object, 1. The whole foundation of it is wrong; the very attempt to explain religion, which is the most simple thing in the world, by an abstruse, complicated, philosophical theory, is "the most absurd thing that can be conceived. I pray, consider but one argument against it. Either St. Paul and St. John knew this theory, or they did not. Mr. Law supposes, they did not know it; but that Jacob knew more than them both. I verily think this needs no confuta tion. Let him believe it that can. But if they did know it, how did they dare to conceal any part of the counsel of God? Upon the theory itself I shall only repeat a very little of what I observed in my printed “Letter to Mr. Law: ”-- “All that can be conceived,” says Mr. Law, quoting from Jacob, “is God, or nature, or creature.” Is nature created or not created ? It must be one or the other; for there is no medium.

Law never understood a page of him.” 4. The whole of Behmenism, including both phrase and sense, is useless. It stuns and astonishes its admirers. It fills their heads, but it does not change their hearts. It makes no eminent Christians. For many years I have dili gently inquired concerning the grand patrons of it. And I have found none of them who were burning and shining lights; none who adorned the doctrine of God our Saviour. 5. But it is not barely useless; it is mischievous, and that in a high degree. For it strikes at the root of both internal and external religion, (suppose Mr. Law understood it,) by sapping the foundation of justification by faith. For Jacob affirms, “God was never angry at sinners.” But, if so, he was never reconciled to them. His wrath was never turned away, if it never existed. And, admitting this, there is no place for justification; nor, consequently, for faith in a pardoning God, which is the root of both inward and outward holiness. More particularly, it strikes at the root of humility, tending to make men admire themselves, and despise others. Never was a more melancholy proof of this than Mr. Law, who seri ously believed himself the most knowing man in the kingdom, and despised all that contradicted him, even in the tenderest manner, as the mire in the streets. It strikes at the root of charity, inspiring into its strictest votaries deep censorious ness toward the world in general, and an inexpressible bitter ness toward all who do not receive their new apostle. This may be observed in all the authors of the memoirs, though, in other respects, good men; and in all I have conversed with in my life who were thorough Behmenists. Above all, it strikes at the root of external religion, by destroying zeal for good works; by laying little stress on either works of piety or mercy, and still less upon Christian society; it particularly tends to make all men of sense and learning bury their talent in the earth, the natural effect of continually declaiming, in a loose and indiscriminate manner, against reason and learning. It strikes at the root of all revealed religion, by making men think meanly of the Bible; a natural effect of thinking Behmen more highly illuminated than any or all of the Apostles. So Mr. S.

that both alleged what was true; that in a point of so little importance the Apostles varied themselves; some of them observing it on the fourteenth day of the moon, and others not. But, be this as it may, it can be no proof, either that Polycarp was not a holy man, or that he was not favoured with the extraordinary, as well as ordinary, gifts of the Spirit. 9. With regard to the narrative of his martyrdom, you affirm, “It is one of the most authentic pieces in all primitive antiquity.” (Page 124.) I will not vouch for its authenticity; nor therefore for the story of the dove, the flame forming an arch, the fragrant smell, or the revelation to Pionius. But your attempt to account for these things is truly curious. You say, “An arch of flame round his body is an appearance which might easily happen, from the common effects of wind. And the dove said to fly out of him, might be conveyed into the wood which was prepared to consume him.” (Page 229.) How much more naturally may we account for both, by supposing the whole to be a modern fiction, wrote on occasion of that account mentioned by Eusebius, but lost many ages ago! But whatever may be thought of this account of his death, neither does this affect the question, whether during his life he was endued with the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost. 10. There is one of those whom you style apostolic Fathers yet behind, of whom you talk full as familiarly as of the rest: I mean, Hermas: “To whom,” you say, “ some impute the fraud of forging the Sibylline books.” (Page 37.) It would not have been amiss, if you had told us, which of the ancients, whether Christian, Jew, or Heathen, ever accused him of this. If none ever did, some will be apt to think it is giving a person but hard measure, to bring an accusation against him which never was heard of till sixteen hundred years after his death.

I have seen many examples of this sort.’” (Page 14.) In another place he says, “Signs of the Holy Ghost were shown at the beginning of the teaching of Jesus;” (not, as you translate it, “Miracles began with the preaching of Jesus;” that is quite a different thing;) “more were shown after his ascension, but afterwards fewer. However, even now there are still some remains of them with a few, whose souls are cleansed by the word, and a life conformable to it.” (Page 15.) Again : “Some,” says he, “heal the sick. I myself have seen many so healed, of loss of senses, madness, and innumerable other evils which neither men nor devils can cure.” (Ibid.) “And this is done, not by magical arts, but by prayer, and certain plain adjurations, such as any common Christian may use; for generally common men do things of this kind.” (Page 16.) 14. “Cyprian, who wrote about the middle of the third century, says, “Beside the visions of the night, even in the day-time, innocent children among us are filled with the Holy Spirit; and in ecstasies see, and hear, and speak those things by which God is pleased to admonish and instruct us.’” (Ibid.) Elsewhere he particularly mentions the casting out of devils: “Which,” says he, “either depart immediately, or by degrees, according to the faith of the patient, or the grace of him that works the cure.” (Page 17.) “Arnobius, who is supposed to have wrote in the year of Christ 303, tells us, ‘Christ appears even now to men unpol luted, and eminently holy, who love him;--whose very name puts evil spirits to flight, strikes their prophets dumb, deprives the soothsayers of the power of answering, and frustrates the acts of arrogant magicians.’” (Page 18.) “Lactantius, who wrote about the same time, speaking of evil spirits, says, “Being adjured by Christians, they retire out of the bodies of men, confess themselves to be demons, and tell their names, even the same which are adored in the temples.’” (Ibid.) 15. “These,” you say, “are the principal testimonies which assert miraculous gifts through the three first centuries; which might be supported by many more of the same kind, from the same as well as different writers. But none will scruple to risk the fate of the cause upon these.” (Page 19.) Thus far I do not scruple it.

4. You observe, Fifthly, how Tertullian was “imposed upon by the craft of ecstatic visionaries,” (page 99,) and then fall upon Cyprian with all your might: Your objections to whom we shall now consider:-- And, First, you lay it down as a postulatum, that he was “fond of power and episcopal authority.” (Page 101.) I cannot grant this, Sir: I must have some proof; else this, and all you infer from it, will go for nothing. You say, Secondly, “In all questionable points of doctrine or discipline, which he had a mind to introduce into the Christian worship, we find him constantly appealing to the testimony of visions and divine revelations. Thus he says to Caecilius, that he was divinely admonished to mix water with wine in the sacrament, in order to render it effectual.” You set out unhappily enough. For this can never be a proof of Cyprian’s appealing to visions and revelations in order to introduce questionable points of doctrine or discipline into the Christian worship; because this point was unquestionable, and could not then be “introduced into the Christian wor ship,” having had a constant place therein, as you yourself have showed, (Introductory Discourse, p. 57) at least from the time of Justin Martyr. Indeed, neither Justin nor Cyprian use those words, “In order to render it effectual.” They are an ingenious and honest addition of your own, in order to make something out of nothing. 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.”* 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, 104.) True, but what “questionable point of doctrine” or discipline did he introduce hereby ?

6. Without this I cannot but doubt, whether they can long maintain their cause; whether, if they do not obey the loud call of God, and lay far more stress than they have hitherto done on this internal evidence of Christianity, they will not, one after another, give up the external, and (in heart at least) go over to those whom they are now contending with; so that in a century or two the people of England will be fairly divided into real Deists and real Christians. And I apprehend this would be no loss at all, but rather an advantage to the Christian cause; nay, perhaps it would be the speediest, yea, the only effectual, way of bringing all reasonable Deists to be Christians. 7. May I be permitted to speak freely? May I, without offence, ask of you that are called Christians, what real loss would you sustain in giving up your present opinion, that the Christian system is of God? Though you bear the name, you are not Christians: You have neither Christian faith nor love. You have no divine evidence of things unseen; you have not entered into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. You do not love God with all your heart; neither do you love your neighbour as yourself. You are neither happy nor holy. You have not learned in every state therewith to be content; to rejoice evermore, even in want, pain, death; and in every thing to give thanks. You are not holy in heart; superior to pride, to anger, to foolish desires. Neither are you holy in life; you do not walk as Christ also walked. Does not the main of your Christianity lie in your opinion, decked with a few outward observances? For as to morality, even honest, heathen morality, (O let me utter a melancholy truth!) many of those whom you style Deists, there is reason to fear, have far more of it than you. 8. Go on, gentlemen, and prosper. Shame these nominal Christians out of that poor superstition which they call Christianity. Reason, rally, laugh them out of their dead, empty forms, void of spirit, of faith, of love.

§ So many are granted to particular churches in Rome, for the benefit of pilgrims. | So those that upon his motion took up arms against the Albigenses, had by an indulgence the promise of an eternal reward. Baron. ad A. D. 1179, n. 7. "| So Pope Alexander VI. granted to those that recited this prayer to the blessed Virgin, and St. Ann her mother, 30,000 years' indulgence. REPLY. The scandal given by them was so notorious, that order was given by the Council of Trent for reforming the abuses of them; but when the Fathers thought fit not to dis cover those abuses, and only forbad wicked gain, (Sess. 25, Decret. de Indulg.,) they left a large scope for making a gain of them. And two of the Popes under whom that Council sat, viz., Paul III., and Julius III., (A Bull of Indulgence to the Fraternity of the Altar, Paris, 1550, v. B. Taylor's Defence, Part II., l. 2, p. 8) proceeded in the same course as their predecessors, if they did not exceed them; for by their Bulls, there is granted to all such of the Fraternity of the Holy Altar, as visit the Church of St. Hilary of Chartres, during the six weeks of Lent, 775,700 years of pardon, besides fourteen or fifteen plenary indulgences. And since that, Urban VIII., (Bullar. to 3., p. 74) and Clement X., (A.D. 1671. Bull upon the Canonization of five Saints,) have granted by their indulgence a plenary remission of sins. Q. 19. Upon what pretence or reason is the doctrine and practice of indulgences founded ? A. Upon works of supererogation,” that is, the overplus of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints, which is a treasury, (Concil. Trid. Sess., 21, c. 9) committed to the Church’s custody,t and to be disposed of as she sees meet. (Bellarm. Ibid. c. 3.) REPLY. “The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us;” (Rom. viii. 18;) so 2 Cor. iv. 17. “Every one of us shall give an account of himself to God.” (Rom. xiv.

8.) REPLY. We honour this blessed Virgin as the mother of the holy Jesus, and as she was a person of eminent piety; but we do not think it lawful to give that honour to her which belongs not to a creature, and doth equal her with her Redeemer. Q. 39. Have they not some singular forms of devotion to l:er ? A. Yes; for apprehending her to be in glory superior to all created beings, they offer a service to her, beyond what they give either to angels or saints. Q. 40. After what manner do they apply themselves to her? A. According to some Missals, they ask her to command her Son, by the right and authority of a mother; (Missal. Paris. Anno 1520, folio 65;) or, as it is in the Breviaries used at this day, “Show thyself a mother.” (Brev. Rom. Fest. Assump.) They pray to her, that she would loose the bands of the guilty, bring light to the blind, would make them mild and chaste, and cause their hearts to burn in love to Christ. (Officium B. M. in the hymn called Planctus B. M., Antwerp, 1641.) In a book printed lately in London, the author saith, that “whatever gifts are bestowed upon us by Jesus, we receive them by the mediation of Mary; no one being gracious to Jesus that is not devoted to Mary; that the power of Mary in the kingdom of Jesus is suitable to her maternity; and though the condition of some great sinners may be so deplor able, that the limited excellency and merits cannot effectually bend the mercies of Jesus to relieve them; yet such is the acceptableness of the mother of Jesus to Jesus, that whoso ever is under the verge of her protection, may confide in her intercession to Jesus;” that the person devoted to her, is to beg of her to accompany him as his “sacred guide, advocate, and champion, against the assaults of sin and sensuality.” (Contemplations of the Life and Glory of Holy Mary, &c., pp. 7-9, 14. Printed anno 1685.) Much after the fore-cited manner did the Council of Con stance invoke the blessed Virgin, as other Councils used to do the Holy Ghost, calling her the “mother of grace, the fountain of mercy;” and they call on her for “light from heaven.” REPLY.

2, 11.) REPLY. It is said that Christ instituted the matter and form of confirmation from the authority of Pope Fabian; (pars 4, q. 3, m. 2, n. 3, & q. 9, m. l;) but Alexander Ales saith, it was ordained by the Meldensian Council. (Catech. Rom., ibid., n. 6, 12, et Bellarminus de Confirm., c. 2.) And indeed the Roman Catechism, after some pretence to divine institution, thinks it safest to resolve it into the authority of the Church. Q. 61. What ceremonies are used in confirmation? A. (1.) In the anointing, the Bishop dips the tip of his finger in the chrism, and, making a cross, saith, “I sign thee,” &c. (Pontific. de Confirm.) (2.) After confirmation, he strikes the person slightly on the cheek, that he may remember he is to suffer all injuries for the name of Christ, with patience and courage. (Catech., n. 25.) (3.) Then the person to be confirmed, setting his foot upon the right foot of the godfather, (Pontific., ibid.,) is to have his head bound with a clean head-band for some days more or less, with reverence to the holy chrism; which done, the band is to be preserved in the sacrarium, or other clean place, till the following Ash-Wednesday, to be burnt to holy ashes. (Pastorale.) REPLY. Whether we consider the far-fetched significations of these ceremonies or the virtue put in them, the abuse is intolerable; as, for instance, that in consecration of the chrism, the Bishop blows upon it, to signify the descent of the Holy Ghost for the sanctification of it, (Bellarm. de Confirm., l. 2, c. 13, sec. Tertio habet, ) and that it hath a power of sanctification as the instrument of God. (Ibid., sec. Quarta caremonia.) So the Bishop prays in the consecration of it, that God “in bestowing spiritual grace upon this ointment, would pour out the fulness of sanctification, and that it may be to all that are to be anointed with it, for the adoption of sons by the Holy Spirit. Amen.” (Pontif Rom.) Q. 62. WHAT is the eucharist? A. It is a sacrament wherein is truly, really, and substan tially contained whole Christ, God-Man, body and blood, bones and nerves, (Catech. Rom., par. 2, c. 4, n. 33,) soul and divinity, under the species or appearance of bread and wine. (Concil. Trid, Sess. 13, de Real. Praes., c.

Corp. Ch.) And whosoever holds it unlawful or idolatrous so to do, is accursed. (Concil. Trid, ibid., Can. 6.) REPLY. We freely own that Christ is to be adored in the Lord’s supper; but that the elements are to be adored, we deny. If Christ is not corporally present in the host, they grant their adoration to be idolatry. (Coster. Enchir., c. 8, n. 10.) And that he is not corporally present anywhere but in heaven, we are taught, Acts i. 11, iii. 21, whither he went, and where he is to continue till his second coming to judgment. Q. 73. What are the ceremonies used in the mass? A. The ceremonies in the mass respect either things, actions, or words. Among the things, are garments, places, time, vessels, cloths, incense, lights, &c. (Bellarmin. Doctr. Trid. de Sacr. Miss.) Q. 74. What are the garments used by the Priest in the mass, and what is their signification? A. (1.) The amice, or white veil, which he puts over his head, signifies mystically, either the divinity of Christ covered under his humanity, or the crown of thorns; and morally, contemplation, or hope. In putting it on, he saith, “Put on, O Lord, the helmet of salvation upon my head, that I may overcome all diabolical temptations.” (2.) The alb, or long white garment, signifies mystically, the white robe put on our Saviour; and morally, faith and innocency. In putting it on, he saith, “Make me white, O Lord, and cleanse my heart, that, being whitened in the blood of the Lamb, I may enjoy everlasting gladness.” (3.) The girdle signifies mystically, the cords wherewith our Saviour was bound; and morally, (being turned up on both sides,) the two means to preserve chastity, namely, fasting and prayer. When he puts it about him, he prays, “Gird me, O Lord, with the girdle of purity, and quench in my loins the humour of lust, that there may remain in me the virtue of continency and chastity.” The like account is given of the maniple, vestment, and stole, and of the divers colours of the furniture used in the several seasons, in the “Manual of the Poor Man’s Devotion,” chap. Of the Orna ments of the Mass. REPLY. The Council of Trent saith, that the ceremonies of the mass, such as mystical benedictions, lights, incensings, garments, &c., are from Apostolical tradition; (Sess. 22, c.

(Epist. 5.) And in this large sense he calls the sign of the cross a sacrament; (in Psalm. cxli.,) and others give the same name to washing the feet, (Cypr. de Lotione Pedum,) and many other mysteries. But then matrimony doth no more confer grace, than wash ing the feet, or using the sign of the cross; which Bellar mine, after all the virtue he ascribes to it, will not allow to be properly and truly a sacrament. (De Imag., l. 2, c. 30, sec. Dices ergo.) Q. 88. May those that are in holy orders marry, or those that are married be received into orders in the Church of Rome? A. No; these that are married may not be admitted; (Concil. Later. 1, Can. 21, et Later. 2, Can. 6;) those that are admitted may not marry; and those that, being admitted, do marry, are to be separated. Q. 89. If marriage is a sacrament, and so confers grace, how comes it to be denied to those that are in holy orders? (Catech. Rom., par. 2, c. 8, n. 17.) A. Those in holy orders are the temple of God, and it is a shameful thing that they should serve uncleanness. (Later. Concil. 2, Can. 6.) REPLY. The Apostle, on the contrary, saith, “Marriage is honourable in all; ” (Heb. xiii. 4;) and gives a hard character of that doctrine which forbids it. (1 Tim. iv. 1-3.) And how lawful it was, the direction of the Apostle about it (1 Tim. iii. 2) doth show. And how convenient it is, is manifest from the mischiefs attending the prohibition of it in the Romish Church, which wise men among themselves have lamented. (Polyd. Virgil. de Invent, l. 3, c. 4, et Cassander Consult, art. 23.) I MIGHT have added the Fifth Section about the juris diction which the Church of Rome challenges over Princes, and about their canonization of saints, their consecration of Agnus Deis and beads, &c., and the use these and the like are applied to. 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.

68. That one who is a true believer, or, in other words, one who is holy or righteous in the judgment of God himself, may nevertheless finally fall from grace, appears, (1.) From the word of God by Ezekiel: “When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity: In his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.” (xviii. 24.) Do you object, “This chapter relates wholly and solely to the Jewish Church and nation ?”* I answer, Prove this. Till then, I shall believe that many parts of it concern all mankind. If you say, (2.) “The righteousness spoken of in this chap ter was merely an outward righteousness, without any inward principle of grace or holiness:” I ask, How is this consistent with the thirty-first verse: “Cast away from you all your trans gressions whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit?” Is this a “merely outward righteous ness, without any inward principle of grace or holiness?” 69. Will you add, “But admitting the person here spoken of to be a truly righteous man, what is here said is only a supposition?” That I flatly deny. Read over the chapter again; and you will see the facts there laid down to be not barely supposed, but expressly asserted. That the death here mentioned is eternal death, appears from the twenty-sixth verse: “When a righteous man turn eth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them,”--here is temporal death; “for his iniquity that he hath done he shall die.” Here is death eternal. If you assert, “Both these expressions signify the same thing, and not two different deaths,” you put a palpable force upon the text, in order to make the Holy Ghost speak nonsense. “‘Dying in his iniquity,’” you say, “is the same thing as “dying for his iniquity.’” Then the text means thus: “When he dieth in them, he shall die in them.” A very deep discovery ! But you say, “It cannot be understood of eternal death; because they might be delivered from it by repentance and reformation.” And why might they not by such repentance as is mentioned in the thirty-first verse be delivered from eternal death?

Here you see the Jews, who never had the gospel, are said to put it away.” How ! Are you sure they “never had what they are here said to put away?” Not so: What they put away, it is undeniable, they had, till they put it away; namely, “the word of God spoken” by Paul and Barnabas. This instance, therefore, makes full against you. It proves just the reverse of what you cited it for. But you object further: “Men may have a good con science, in some sense, without true faith.” I grant it, in a restrained, limited sense; but not a good conscience, simply and absolutely speaking. But such is that of which the Apostle here speaks, and which he exhorts Timothy to “hold fast.” Unless you apprehend that the holding it fast likewise “rather supposes he never had it.” “But the faith here mentioned means only the doctrine of faith.” I want better proof of this. It remains, then, one who has the faith which produces a good conscience may yet finally fall. 71. Thirdly. Those who are grafted into the good olive tree, the spiritual, invisible Church, may nevertheless finally fall. For thus saith the Apostle: “Some of the branches are broken off, and thou art grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive-tree. Be not high-minded, but fear: If God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he spare not thee. Behold the good ness and severity of God! On them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: Otherwise thou shalt be cut off.” (Rom. xi. 17, &c.) We may observe here, (1.) The persons spoken to were actually ingrafted into the olive-tree. (2.) This olive-tree is not barely the outward, visible Church, but the invisible, consisting of holy believers. So the text: “If the first fruit be holy, the lump is holy; and if the root be holy, so are the branches.” And “because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.” (3.) Those holy believers were still liable to be cut off from the invisible Church, into which they were then grafted. (4.) Here is not the least intimation of their being ever grafted in again.

2. The Church of Rome teaches, that “good works truly merit eternal life.” This is flatly contrary to what our Saviour teaches: “When ye have done all those things that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: We have done that which was our duty to do.” (Luke xvii. 10.) A command to do it, grace to obey that command, “and a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory,” must for ever cut off all pretence of merit from all human obedience. 3. That a man may truly and properly merit hell, we grant; although he never can merit heaven. But if he does merit hell, yet, according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, he need never go there. For “the Church has power to grant him an indulgence, which remits both the fault and the punishment.” Some of these indulgences extend only to so many days; some, to so many weeks; but others extend to a man’s whole life; and this is called a plenary indulgence. These indulgences are to be obtained by going pilgrimages, by reciting certain prayers, or (which is abundantly the most common way) by paying the stated price of it. Now, can anything under heaven be imagined more horrid, more execrable than this? Is not this a manifest prostitution of religion to the basest purposes? Can any possible method be contrived, to make sin more cheap and easy % Even the Popish Council of Trent acknowledged this abuse, and condemned it in strong terms; but they did not in any degree remove the abuse which they acknowledged. Nay, two of the Popcs under whom the Council sat, Pope Paul III., and Julius III., pro ceeded in the same course with their predecessors, or rather exceeded them; for they granted to such of the Fraternity of the Holy Altar as visited the Church of St. Hilary of Chartres during the six weeks of Lent, seven hundred and seventy-five thousand seven hundred years of pardon. 4.

A more dangerous error in the Church of Rome is, the for bidding the Clergy to marry. “Those that are married may not be admitted into orders: Those that are admitted may not marry : And those that, being admitted, do marry, are to be separated.” The Apostle, on the contrary, says, “Marriage is honour able in all;” (Heb. xiii. 4;) and accuses those who “forbid to marry,” of teaching “doctrines of devils.” How lawful it was for the Clergy to marry, his directions concerning it show. (1 Tim. iv. 1, 3.) And how convenient, yea, necessary, in many cases it is, clearly appears from the innumerable mischiefs which have in all ages followed the prohibition of it in the Church of Rome; which so many wise and good men, even of her own communion, have lamented. I have now fairly stated, and calmly considered, most of the particular doctrines of the Church of Rome. Permit me to add a few considerations of a more general nature. That many members of that Church have been holy men, and that many are so now, I firmly believe. But I do not know, if any of them that are dead were more holy than many Protestants who are now with God; yea, than some of our own country, who were very lately removed to Abraham's bosom. To instance only in one : (Whom I mention the rather, because an account of his life is extant :) I do not believe that many of them, of the same age, were more holy than Thomas Walsh. And I doubt if any among them, living now, are more holy than several Protestants now alive. But be this as it may: However, by the tender mercies of God, many members of the Church of Rome have been, and are now, holy men, notwithstanding their principles; yet I fear many of their principles have a natural tendency to undermine holiness; greatly to hinder, if not utterly to destroy, the essential branches of it,-to destroy the love of God, and the love of our neighbour, with all justice, and mercy, and truth. I wish it were possible to lay all prejudice aside, and to consider this calmly and impartially. I begin with the love of God, the fountain of all that holiness without which we cannot see the Lord.

They abstained from all appearance of evil; they overcame evil with good. If their enemy hungered, they fed him; if he thirsted, they gave him drink; and, by patiently con tinuing so to do, “heaped coals of fire upon his head,” and melted his hardness into love. In fine, it was their meat and drink to do the will of their Father which was in heaven. And hence whatsoever they did, whether in word or deed, they did all to the glory of God. Let every Clergyman of our Church live thus, and in a short time there will not be a Papist in the nation. 9. As to the preaching of the Apostles, with regard to the matter of it, they preached Jesus, “the Author and Finisher of our faith,” having “determined not to know anything, save Jesus Christ and him crucified.” They preached Jesus Christ as “of God made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” They declared, “Other foundation” of morality, religion, holiness, happiness, “can no man lay.” All they spoke, either in public or private, centred in this one point, “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.’’ More particularly, they preached that “a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law;” that “to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness.” 10. They preached farther, that “except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God;” except he be “born from above,” born not only of water, but “of the Holy Ghost;” and that “the ” present “kingdom of God is not meats and drinks,” lies not in externals of any kind, “but righteousness,” the image of God on the heart, “peace,” even a peace that passeth all understanding, “and joy in the Holy Ghost,” whereby they rejoiced with “joy unspeakable and full of glory.” They declared “that he that is ” thus “born of God doth not commit sin;” that “he that is begotten of God, keepeth himself, and the wicked one toucheth him not;” but that as Christ who hath called him is holy, so is he holy in all manner of conversation. 11.

So in page 208 of his “Apology,” he says, in express terms, “Justification, taken in its proper signification, is making one just; and is all one with sanctification.” “8. In whom this holy birth is fully brought forth, the body of sin and death is crucified, and their hearts are subjected to the truth, so as not to obey any suggestion of the evil one; but to be free from actual sinning and transgressing of the law of God, and, in that respect, perfect. “9. They in whom his grace hath wrought in part to purify and sanctify them, may yet by disobedience fall from it, and make shipwreck of the faith.” In these propositions there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. 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.

But although St. Paul was not ignorant of his character, still he calls 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 lan guage 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 av, as, or n N ; 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.” If this is not lawful, then some law of God forbids it. Can you show me that law? If you cannot, then the scrupling this is another plain instance of superstition, not Christianity. “It is not lawful for a Christian to use superfluities in apparel; as neither to use such games, sports, and plays, under the notion of recreations, as are not consistent with gravity and godly fear.” As to both these propositions, there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. Only observe, touching the former, that the sin of superfluous apparel lies chiefly in the superfluous expense. To make it therefore a point of conscience to differ from others, as to the shape or colour of your apparel, is mere superstition; let the difference lie in the price, that you may have the more wherewith to clothe them that have none.

To make it therefore a point of conscience to differ from others, as to the shape or colour of your apparel, is mere superstition; let the difference lie in the price, that you may have the more wherewith to clothe them that have none. “It is not lawful for Christians to swear before a Magistrate, nor to fight in any case.” Whatever becomes of the latter proposition, the former is no part of Christianity; for Christ himself answered upon oath before a Magistrate. Yea, he would not answer till he was put to his oath; till the High Priest said unto him, “I adjure thee by the living God.” Friend, you have an honest heart, but a weak head; you have a zeal, but not according to knowledge. You was zealous once for the love of God and man, for holiness of heart and holiness of life. You are now zealous for particular forms of speaking, for a set of phrases, and opinions. Once your zeal was against ungodliness and unrighteousness, against evil tempers and evil works. Now it is against forms of prayer, against singing psalms or hymns, against appointing times of praying or preaching; against saying you to a single person, uncovering your head, or having too many buttons upon your coat. O what a fall is here ! What poor trifles are these, that now well-nigh engross your thoughts | Come back, come back, to the weightier matters of the law, to spiritual, rational, scriptural religion. No longer waste your time and strength in beating the air, in vain controversies and strife of words; but bend your whole soul to the growing in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the continually advancing in that holiness, without which you cannot see the Lord.

For notwith standing all that Christ has done, he that believeth not shall be damned. But he has done all which was necessary for the conditional salvation of all mankind; that is, if they believe; for through his merits all that believe to the end, with the faith that worketh by love, shall be saved. “2. We are to do nothing as necessary to salvation, but simply to believe in Him.” If we allow the Count’s definition of faith, namely, “the historical knowledge of this truth, that Christ has been a man and suffered death for us,” (Sixteen Discourses, p. 57) then is this proposition directly subversive of the whole revelation of Jesus Christ. “3. There is but one duty now, but one command, viz., to believe in Christ.” Almost every page in the New Testament proves the false hood of this assertion. “4. Christ has taken away all other commands and duties, having wholly abolished the law.” How absolutely contrary is this to his own solemn declara tion l--“Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. One jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till heaven and earth pass.” “Therefore a believer is free from the law.” That he is “free from the curse of the law,” we know ; and that he is “free from the law,” or power, “ of sin and death: ” But where is it written that he is free from the law of God? “He is not obliged thereby to do or omit anything, it being inconsistent with his liberty to do anything as commanded.” So your liberty is a liberty to disobey God; whereas ours is a liberty to obey him in all things: So grossly, while we “establish the law,” do you “make void the law through faith !” “5. We are sanctified wholly the moment we are justified, and are neither more nor less holy to the day of our death; entire sanctification and entire justification being in one and the same instant.” Just the contrary appears both from the tenor of God’s word, and the experience of his children. “6. A believer is never sanctified or holy in himself, but in Christ only.

A believer is never sanctified or holy in himself, but in Christ only. He has no holiness in himself at all; all his holiness being imputed, not inherent.” Scripture holiness is the image of God; the mind which was in Christ; the love of God and man; lowliness, gentleness, temperance, patience, chastity. And do you coolly affirm, that this is only imputed to a believer, and that he has none at all of this holiness in him? Is temperance imputed only to him that is a drunkard still ; or chastity, to her that goes on in whoredom? Nay, but a believer is really chaste and temperate. And if so, he is thus far holy in himself. Does a believer love God, or does he not? If he does, he has the love of God in him. Is he lowly, or meek, or patient at all? If he is, he has these tempers in himself; and if he has them not in himself, he is not lowly, or meek, or patient. You cannot therefore deny, that every believer has holiness in, though not from, himself; else you deny, that he is holy at all; and if so, he cannot see the Lord. And indeed, if holiness in general be the mind which was in Christ, what can any one possibly mean by, “A believer is not holy in himself, but in Christ only? that the mind which was in Christ is in a believer also; but it is in Him,-- not in himself, but in Christ !” What a heap of palpable self-contradiction, what senseless jargon, is this! “7. If a man regards prayer, or searching the Scriptures, or communicating, as matter of duty; if he judges himself obliged to do these things, or is troubled when he does them not, he is ‘in bondage,’ he has no faith at all, but is seeking salvation by the works of the law.” Thus obedience with you is a proof of unbelief, and disobe dience a proof of faith ! What is it, to put darkness for light, and light for darkness, if this is not?

Paul uses it thrice in his Epistle to the Romans, five times in that to the Galatians, and in one passage of his former Epistle to the Corinthians; where he declares in what sense he was himself “under the law,” and in what sense he was not. “Unto them that are under the law,” (that still adhere to the whole Jewish dispensation,) “I became as under the law,” (I conformed to their ceremonies,) “that I might gain them that are under the law . But unto them that are without the law,” (unto the Gentiles or Heathens,) “as without the law: Being,” meantime, “not without law to God, but under the law to Christ.” (1 Cor. ix. 20, 21.) It is plain, therefore, the Apostle was “under the law” of Christ, though he was not “under the law” of ceremonies. Ant.--But does not St. Paul say to the believers at Rome, “Ye are not under the law, but under grace?” Friend.--He does; and his meaning is, “Ye are not under the Jewish, but the gracious Christian, dispensation:” As also in the next verse, where he says, “We are not under the law, but under grace.” Ant.--But what does he mean, when he says to the Galatians, “Before faith came, we were kept under the law?” Friend.--Doubtless he means, we were kept under the Jewish dispensation, till we believed in Christ. (iii. 19.) And so we read in the next chapter, “When the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made under the law,” (the Jewish dispensation,) “to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons;” (verses 4, 5;) might serve God, without fear, in righteousness and holiness, with a free, loving, child-like spirit. Ant.--You cannot persuade me to this; I know better. The law of works (the moral law, as you call it) is nothing to me. “From any demand of the law, no man is obliged to go one step, to give away one farthing, to eat, or omit one morsel. For what did our Lord do with the law He abolished it.” Friend.--However, ought not we, after we believe in him, to obey all the commandments of Christ?

For what did our Lord do with the law He abolished it.” Friend.--However, ought not we, after we believe in him, to obey all the commandments of Christ? Ant.--Obey law / works / commandments / O what “legal ness is in your spirit !” So, I suppose, “your comforts vanish away when you are not assured that you obey all Christ’s commandments !” On the contrary, “a spiritual man beholdeth justifying grace in believing, without his obedience to commands for external worship and good works.” Friend.--But how does this agree with numberless texts of Scripture? in particular, with those words of our Lord, “Think not that I am come to destroy” (or abolish) “the law: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. v. 17, &c.) Ant.--I tell you plainly, I will not reason. Friend.--That is as much as to say, “I will not be con vinced: I love darkness rather than light.” Ant.--No; it is you that are in darkness. I was so till a few weeks since. But now my eyes are opened. I see my liberty now. Now I am free. I was in bondage long enough. Friend.--What are you free from ? Ant.--From sin, and hell, and the devil, and the law. Friend.--You put the law of God in goodly company. But how came you to be free from the law 7 % % Ant.--Christ made me free from it. Friend.--What I from his own law? Pray, where is that written? Ant.--Here, Galatians iii. 13: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” Friend.--What is this to the purpose? This tells me, that “Christ hath redeemed us” (all that believe) “from the curse,” or punishment, justly due to our past transgressions of God’s law, But it speaks not a word of redeeming us from the law, any more than from love or heaven. But what do you mean by bondage? Ant--Why, the being bound to keep the law. Friend.--You have no tittle of Scripture for this.

Friend.--You have no tittle of Scripture for this. Bond age to fear and bondage to sin are mentioned there; and bondage to the ceremonial law of Moses: But, according to your sense of the word, all the angels in heaven are in bondage. , Ant.--Well, I am not bound. St. Paul himself says to believers, “Why are ye subject to ordinances?” (Col. ii. 20.) Friend.--True; that is, Why are you Christian believers subject to Jewish ordinances? such as those which are mentioned in the very next verse, “Touch not, taste not, handle not.” Ant.--Nay, that is not all. I say, “Outward things do nothing avail to salvation.” This is plain; for “if love to God, and love to our neighbour, and relieving the poor, be altogether unprofitable and unavailable either to justification or salvation; then these outward works, in submitting to outward ordinances, are much less available.” Friend.--Do you speak of the ordinances of Christ? Ant.--I do. “They bring in the most dangerous kind of Popery, and pervert the pure gospel of Christ, who persuade men, that if they do not submit to the ordinances of the Lord Jesus, he will not confess them before his Father.” And I affirm, “it is better not to practise outward ordinances at all, than to practise them on these gospel-destroying principles, to the ruining of our souls.” Friend.--What scripture do you produce for this? Ant.--I wish you would not build so much upon the letter: It is your letter-learning too makes you talk of inherent righteousness. * Friend.--Do you say then, a believer has no inherent righteousness? Ant.--That I do. I say, “God will save us to the utmost, without any righteousness or holiness of our own.” To look for inherent righteousness, “is to deny the Spirit, and trample under foot the blood of the covenant. Believers have not any inherent righteousness in them. Our righteousness is nothing but the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.” Friend.--Now, I believe that Christ by his Spirit works righteousness in all those to whom faith is imputed for righteousness. Ant.--“By no means; all our righteousness is in Christ. It is wholly imputed, not inherent. We are always righteous in Christ, but never righteous in ourselves.” Friend.--Is not, then, every believer righteous or holy? Ant.--Doubtless; but he is holy in Christ, not in himself.

Ant.--Doubtless; but he is holy in Christ, not in himself. Friend.--Does he not live a holy life; and is he not holy of heart 2 Ant.--Most certainly. Friend.--Is he not, by plain consequence, holy in himself? Ant.--No, no, in Christ only; not holy in himself: He has no holiness at all in himself. Friend.--Has he not in him the love of God, and of his neighbour; yea, the whole image of God? Ant.--He has. But this is not gospel holiness. Friend.--What vain jangling is this ! You cavil at the name, while you allow the whole thing I contend for. You allow, a believer is holy both in heart and life. This is all I mean by inherent righteousness or holiness. Ant.--But I tell you, this is not gospel holiness. Gospel holiness is faith. Friend.--Stand to this, and you still give up the whole cause. For, on your supposition, I argue thus:--Faith is holiness or righteousness: But faith is in every believer: Therefore, holiness or righteousness is in every believer. Ant.--Alas, alas! I pity you. Take my word for it, you are in utter darkness. You know nothing yet of true faith; nothing at all about it. Friend.--Will you then be so kind as to explain it to me? Ant.--I will. I will make it as clear as the sun. I will show you the very marrow of that doctrine which “I recommend, with all my heart, to all, as the most wholesome doctrine of Jesus Christ. “Many think they know it, when they have but crude, carnal, indigested notions of it. And they imagine we rest contented with such a faith as theirs; namely, that Christ has died to ward off the wrath of God, to purchase his favour, and, as an effect of that, to obtain certain inherent qualities and dispositions, to make us meet for the kingdom of heaven. Was this our faith, it would be requisite to seek after this sort of sanctification, and not to be at rest, without we felt some thing of it. But, on the contrary, we believe that the blood shed upon the cross has put away and blotted out all our sins, and that then there was an everlasting righteousness brought in : By believing which, our hearts and consciences are made as perfectly clean as though we had never sinned.

But whether you understand yourself or no, it is sure I do not understand you. How can my mind at the same time it is “continually disposed to evil,” be “free from sin, perfectly clean, perfectly holy?” Ant.--O the dulness of some men ' I do not mean really holy, but holy by imputation. I told you plainly, the holi ness of which we speak is not in us, but in Christ. “The fruits of the Spirit, (commonly called sanctification,) such as love, gentleness, longsuffering, goodness, meekness, temper ance, neither make us holy before God, nor in our own consciences.” Friend.--I know these cannot atone for one sin. This is done by the blood of Christ alone: For the sake of which, God forgives, and works these in us by faith. Do I reach your meaning now? Ant.-No, no; I wonder at your ignorance. I mean, “we are not made good or holy by any inward qualities or dispo sitions: But being made pure and holy in our consciences, by believing in Christ, we bear forth, inwardly and outwardly, the fruits of holiness.” Now, I hope, you understand me. Friend.--I hope not. For, if I do, you talk as gross nonsense and contradiction as ever came out of the mouth of man. Ant.--How so? Friend.--You say, “We are not made good or holy by any inward qualities or dispositions.” No | are we not made good by inward goodness? (observe, we are not speaking of justification, but sanctification;) holy, by inward holiness? meek, by inward meekness? gentle, by inward gentleness? And are not all these, if they are anything at all, “inward qualities or dispositions?” Again: Just after denying that we have any inward holi ness, you say, “We are made holy in our consciences, and bear forth, inwardly and outwardly, the fruits of holiness.” What heaps of self-contradictions are here ! Ant.--You do not take me right. I mean, these inward dispositions “are not our holiness. For we are not more holy, if we have more love to God and man, nor less holy, if we have less.” Friend.--No ! Does not a believer increase in holiness, as he increases in the love of God and man? Ant.--I say, No. “The very moment he is justified, he is wholly sanctified. And he is neither more nor less holy, from that hour, to the day of his death.

And he is neither more nor less holy, from that hour, to the day of his death. Entire justification and entire sanctification are in the same instant. And neither of them is thenceforth capable either of increase or decrease. Friend.--I thought we were to grow in grace! Ant.--“We are so; but not in holiness. The moment we are justified, we are as pure in heart as ever we shall be. A new-born babe is as pure in heart as a father in Christ. There is no difference.” Friend.--You do well to except against Scripture and reason. For till a man has done with them, he can never swallow this. I understand your doctrine now, far better than I like it. In the main, you are talking much and saying nothing; labouring, as if you had found out the most important truths, and such as none ever knew before. And what does all this come to at the last? A mere, empty “strife of words.” All that is really uncommon in your doctrine is a heap of broad absurdities, in most of which you grossly contradict yourselves, as well as Scripture and common sense. In the meantime, you boast and vapour, as if “ye were the men, and wisdom should die with you.” I pray God to “humble you, and prove you, and show you what is in your hearts l”

A Second Dialogue between an Antinomian and His Friend Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 10 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- FRIEND.--WELL met ! You have had time to consider. What think you of our last conference? ANTINoMIAN.--I think, “the giving of scandalous names has no warrant from Scripture.” (Mr. Cudworth's Dialogue, p. 2.) Friend.--Scandalous names 1 Ant.--Yes; you called me Antinomian. But “our Saviour bids me not return railing for railing.” (Ibid.) Friend.--St. Peter does, and that is all one. But how is that a scandalous name? I think it is properly your own; for it means, “one that speaks against the law.” And this you did at that time very largely. But pray what would you have me call you? Ant.--“A Preacher of God’s righteousness.” (Ibid., page 1.) Friend.--What do you call me then? Ant.--“A Preacher of inherent righteousness.” (Ibid.) Friend.--That is, in opposition to God’s righteousness. So you mean, a Preacher of such righteousness as is inconsistent with that righteousness of God which is by faith. Ant.--True: For, “I plainly perceive you know but one sort of righteousness, that is, the righteousness of inherent qualities, dispositions, and works. And this is the reason why the language of the Holy Ghost seems foolishness unto you; even because the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.” (Ibid., pages 11, 12.) Friend.--Are you absolutely sure that this is the reason why I do not think or speak as you do? Ant.--The thing itself speaks: “Thou hast forgotten the Lord, and hast trusted in falsehood. Therefore, saith the Lord, I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, that thy shame may appear.” (Ibid., page 1.) Friend.--Peremptory enough ! But you will “not return railing for railing!” so, out of mere tenderness and respect, you pronounce me a “natural man,” and one who “ hath forgotten the Lord,” and hath “trusted in falsehood l’” Ant.--And so you are, if you do not believe in Christ. Pray let me ask you one question: Do you believe that “Christ hath appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself?” Friend.--I do. Ant.--But in what sense? Friend.--I believe he made, by that one oblation of him self, once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.

I never used it in my life. But I say, you have not true faith, unless your faith “worketh by iove;” and that though “I have all faith, so that I could even remove mountains, yet if I have no love I am nothing.” Ant.--Will you answer me one question more? Is not a believer free from the law P Friend.--He is free from the Jewish ceremonial law; that is, he does not, and need not, observe it. And he is free from the curse of the moral law; but he is not free from observing it. He still walks according to this rule, and so much the more, because God has written it in his heart. Ant.--But St. Paul says, “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” (Ibid., page 8.) Friend.--He is so. He put an end to the Mosaic dispen sation, and established a better covenant, in virtue whereof “faith is counted for righteousness to every one that believeth.” Ant.--But still “as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse,” (Gal. iii. 10,) are they not? Friend.--They are; as many as still “seek to be justified by the works of the law;” that is, by any works antecedent to, or independent on, faith in Christ. Ant.--“But does not the Apostle say farther, ‘Ye are become dead to the law?’ (Rom. vii. 4.)” (Ibid.) Friend.--You are so, as to its condemning power, if you truly believe in Christ. For “there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.” But not as to its directing power; for you “walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” You “love him, and keep his commandments.” Ant.--That is not all. I maintain, “a believer is entirely free from the law.” (Ibid.) Friend.--By what scripture do you prove that? Ant.--By Gal. iv.

iv. 4, 5: “God sent forth his Son, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.” Friend.--The plain meaning of this I mentioned before: “‘God sent forth his Son, made under the law,’ (the Jewish dispensation,) ‘to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons; ’ might ‘serve God without fear, in righteousness and holiness, with a free, loving, child-like spirit.” (First Dialogue, page 270.) Ant.--So you say, “Christ was made only under the Jewish dispensation, to redeem the Jews from that dispen sation.” (Cudworth's Dialogue, pages 8, 9.) Friend.--I do not say so. By inserting “only” you quite pervert my words. You cannot deny, that Christ “was made under the Jewish dispensation.” But I never affirmed, He was “made under it only to redeem the Jews from that dispensation.” Ant.--Was he made “under the moral law” at all? Friend.--No doubt he was. For the Jewish dispensation included the moral, as well as ceremonial, law. Ant.--Then the case is plain. “If he was under the moral law, we are redeemed from the moral law.” (Ibid.) Friend.--That does not follow. “He redeemed them that were under” this, as well as the ceremonial, “law.” But from what did he redeem them? Not “from the law;” but “from guilt, and sin, and hell.” In other words, He redeemed them from the “condem nation of this law,” not from “obedi ence to it.” In this respect they are still, “not without law to God, but under the law to Christ.” (1 Cor. ix. 21.) Ant.--“‘Under the law to Christ !” No. The Greek word is swowo; Xpis?, in a law to Christ; that is, the law of love and liberty.” (Ibid.) Friend.--Very true. This is the exact thing I mean. You have spoken the very thought of my heart. Ant.--It may be so. But “a believer is free from the law of commandments,” call it moral, or what you please. Friend.--Do you mean only, that he obeys the law of Christ, by free choice, and not by constraint? that he keeps the com mandments of God, out of love, not fear? If so, you may tri umph without an opponent. But if you mean, he is free from obeying that law, then your liberty is a liberty to disobey God. Ant.--God forbid.

Ant.--God forbid. It is “a liberty to walk in the Spirit, and not fulfil the lust (or desire) of the flesh.” (Ibid., page 8.) Friend.--Why, this is the thing I am contending for. The very thing I daily assert is this, that Christian liberty is a liberty to obey God, and not to commit sin. Ant.--But how do you understand those words of St. Paul, that Christ “blotted out the hand-writing of ordi. nances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way?” (Col. ii. 14.) Friend.--I understand them of the Jewish ordinances; as it is plain St. Paul himself did, by the inference he immediately draws: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink,” (the ordinances touching these being now “taken out of the way,”) “ or in respect of an holy-day,” (once observed,) “ or of the new moon, or of the’’ (Jewish) “Sabbaths.” (Verse 16.) Ant.--But how could the “hand-writing” of these “ordi nances” be said to be “against us,” or to be “contrary to us?” Friend.--I will not insist on the criticism of those who render the words, “over against us,” as alluding to that “hand-writing on the wall” which appeared “over against King Belshazzar.” The words of St. Peter suffice, which will bear no dispute, who, speaking of these same ordinances, calls them “a yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear.” (Acts xv. 5, 10.) Ant.--You must then understand those words of our Lord, of the moral law alone: “Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matt. v. 17, 18.) But I say, our Lord has fulfilled every jot and tittle of this law too. Friend.--I grant he has. But do you infer from thence, “therefore he has destroyed the law?” Our Lord’s arguing is the very reverse of yours.

But do you infer from thence, “therefore he has destroyed the law?” Our Lord’s arguing is the very reverse of yours. He mentions his coming to “fulfil the law,” as an evident proof that he did not come to “destroy” or “take it away.” But suppose you could get over the former verse, what can you do with the following?--“Verily I say unto you, One jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till heaven and earth pass;” or, which comes to the same thing, “till all be fulfilled.” The former evasion will do you no service with regard to this clause. For the word “all” in this does not refer to the law, but to heaven and earth and “all things” therein: The original sentence running thus: Ews ay wravia ysvara. Nor indeed is the word 'yevnrx well rendered by the ambiguous word “fulfilled,” which would easily induce an English reader to suppose it was the same word that was ren dered so just before; it should rather be translated accom plished, finished, or done; as they will be in the great and terrible day of the Lord, when the “earth and the heaven shall flee from his face, and there shall be no place found for them.” Ant.--But why did you say, my account of sanctification was crude and indigested? (First Dialogue, page 273.) Friend.--Let me. hear it again. If it be better digested than it was, I shall rejoice. Ant.--“Our minds are either defiled and impure, or pure and holy. The question is, Which way is a defiled and impure mind to be made a good one? You say, “By love, meekness, gentleness.’ I say, By believing in Christ. By this, my conscience becomes purged and clean, as though I had not committed sin. And such a purged conscience bears forth the fruit of love, meekness, gentleness, &c. It is therefore absurd to say, We are made good by goodness, meek by meekness, or gentle by gentleness. We are only denominated so from these fruits of the Spirit.” (Cudworth’s Dialogue, page 10.) Friend.--You have mended the matter a little, and not much. For, 1. “The question,” say you, “is, Which way is a defiled and impure mind to be made a good one?” Nothing less.

xviii. 24.) That this is to be understood of eternal death appears from the twenty-sixth verse: “When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them;” (here is temporal death;) “for his iniquity that he hath done he shall die.” (Here is death eternal.) It appears farther from the whole scope of the chapter, which is to prove, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” (Verse 4.) If you say, “The soul here means the body,” I answer, That will die whether you sin or no. 6. Again, thus saith the Lord: “When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness,” (yea, or to that promise as absolute and unconditional,) “and commit iniquity, all his righteousness shall not be remembered; but for the iniquity that he hath committed shall he die.” (xxxiii. 13.) Again: “When the righteous turneth from his righteous ness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby.” (Verse 18.) Therefore, one who is holy and righteous in the judgment of God himself may yet so fall as to perish everlastingly. 7. “But how is this consistent with what God declared elsewhere: ‘If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments,--I will visit their offences with the rod, and their sin with scourges. Nevertheless, my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my truth to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. I have sworn once by my holiness, that I will not fail David.’” (Psalm lxxxix. 30-35.) I answer, There is no manner of inconsistency between one declaration and the other. The Prophet declares the just judgment of God against every righteous man who falls from his righteousness. The Psalmist declares the old loving kindnesses which God sware unto David in his truth. “I have found,” saith he, “David, my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him. My hand shall hold him fast, and my arm shall strengthen him. His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.” (Verses 20, 21, 29.) It follows: “But if his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments;--nevertheless, my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my truth to fail.

(2.) This olive-tree is not barely the outward visible Church, but the invisible, consisting of holy believers. So the text: “If the firstfruit be holy, the lump is holy; and if the root be holy, so are the branches.” (Verse 16.) And, “Because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.” (3.) These holy believers were still liable to be cut off from the invisible Church, into which they were then grafted. (4.) Here is not the least intimation of those who were so cut off being ever grafted in again. Therefore, those who are grafted into the good olive-tree, the spiritual invisible Church, may nevertheless so fall from God as to perish everlastingly. 13. “But how does this agree with the 29th verse, “The gifts and calling of God are without repentance?’” The preceding verse shows: “As touching the election” (the unconditional election of the Jewish nation) “they are beloved for the fathers' sake;” for the sake of their fore fathers. It follows: (In proof of this, that “they are beloved for the fathers' sake,” that God has still blessings in store for the Jewish nation :) “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;” for God doth not repent of any blessings he hath given them, or any privileges he hath called them to. The words here referred to were originally spoken with a peculiar regard to these national blessings. “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent.” (Numb. xxiii. 19.) 14. “But do not you hereby make God changeable? Whereas ‘with Him is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James i. 17.)” By no means. God is unchange ably holy: Therefore, he always “loveth righteousness and hateth iniquity.” He is unchangeably good: Therefore he pardoneth all that “repent and believe the gospel.” And he is unchangeably just : Therefore, he “rewardeth every man according to his works.” But all this hinders not his resisting, when they are proud, those to whom he gave grace when they were humble. Nay, his unchangeableness itself requires, that, if they grow high-minded, God should cut them off; that there should be a proportionable change in all the divine dispensations toward them. 15.

A Sufficient Answer to Letters to the Author of Theron and Aspasio Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 10 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- IT is not very material who you are. If Mr. Glass is still alive, I suppose you are he. If not, you are at least one of his humble admirers, and probably not very old: So your youth may in some measure plead your excuse for such a peculiar pertness, insolence, and self-sufficiency, with such an utter contempt of all mankind, as no other writer of the present age has shown. As you use no ceremony toward any man, so neither shall I use any toward you, but bluntly propose a few objections to your late performance, which stare a man in the face as soon as he looks in it. I object, First, that you are a gross, wilful slanderer. For, 1. You say of Mr. Hervey, “He shuts up our access to the divine righteousness, by holding forth a preliminary human one as necessary to our enjoying the benefit of it.” (Page 4.) Again: “You set men to work to do something, in order to make their peace with God.” (Page 9.) This is an absolute slander, founded on that poor pretence, that he supposes those who repent and believe, and none but those, to “enjoy the benefit of Christ's righteousness.” And has he not the warrant of Christ himself for so doing,--“Repent ye, and believe the gospel?” If this is “teaching man to acquire a righteousness of his own,” the charge falls on our Lord himself. You say, 2. “As to that strange something which you call faith, after all you have told us about it, we are at as great a loss to tell distinctly what it is, as when you began.” (Ibid.) This is another slander. You are at no loss (as will presently appear) to tell what Mr. Hervey means by faith. Whether it be right or wrong, his account of it is as clear and distinct as any that ever was given. You say, 3. “The popular Preachers” (so you term Arch bishop Tillotson, Dr. Lucas, Crisp, Doddridge, Watts, Gill; Mr. Guthrie, Boston, Erskine, Willison; Mr. Flavel, Marshal; Mr.

They are no part of the meritorious cause; but they are the conditions of it. This and no other is “the doctrine of Scripture, and of the Church of England l’” Both the Scripture and “our Church allow, yea, insist on these qualifications or condi tions.” (Page 21.) “But if repentance and faith would not be valid and acceptable without the righteousness of Christ, then they cannot be necessary qualifications for our justification.” (Page 22.) I cannot allow the consequence. They are not acceptable without the righteousness or merits of Christ; and yet he himself has made them necessary qualifications for our justification through his merits. But the grand objection of this gentleman lies against the Doctor’s next paragraph; the sum of which is: “The merits of Christ were never intended to supersede the necessity of repentance and obedience,” (I would say, repentance and faith,) “but to make them acceptable in the sight of God, and to purchase for them” (I would add, that obey him) “a reward of immortal happiness.” I am not afraid to undertake the defence of this paragraph, with this small variation, against Mr. Chapman, Mr. Nyberg, Count Zinzendorf, or any other person whatever; provided only that he will set his name to his work; for I do not love fighting in the dark. And I, as well as Dr. T., affirm, that “to say more than this concerning Christ’s imputed merits,” to say more than, that “they have purchased for us grace to repent and believe, acceptance upon our believing, power to obey, and eternal salvation to them that do obey him;”--to say more than this “is blasphemous Antinomianism,” such as Mr. Calvin would have abhorred; and does “open a door to all manner of sin and wickedness.” “I must likewise affirm, that to talk of imputed righteous ness in the manner many do at this day, is making the imaginary transfer of Christ's righteousness serve as a cover for the unrighteousness of mankind.” (Page 26.) Does not Mr. Ch-p-n do this at Bristol? Does not Mr. M-rd--n, at London? Let them shudder then, let their blood run cold, who do it; not theirs who tell them that they do so.

Thoughts on the Imputed Righteousness of Christ Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 10 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- 1. A TRACT has lately been published in my name, con cerning the imputed righteousness of Christ. This calls me to explain myself upon that head; which I will do with all the clearness I can. But I quarrel with no man for thinking or speaking otherwise than I do: I blame none for using those expressions which he believes to be scriptural. If he quarrels with me for not using them, at least not so frequently as himself, I can only pity him, and wish him more of “the mind which was in Christ.” 2. “The righteousness of Christ” is an expression which I do not find in the Bible. “The righteousness of God” is an expression which I do find there. I believe this means, First, the mercy of God; as 2 Peter i. 1 : “Them that have obtained like precious faith with us, through the righteous ness of God.” How does it appear that “the righteousness of God” here, means either more or less than his mercy? “My mouth shall show forth thy righteousness and thy salvation;” thy mercy in delivering me. “I will make mention of thy righteousness only. Thy righteousness, O God, is very high.” (Psalm lxxi. 15, &c.) Here the “righte ousness of God” is expressly mentioned; but I will not take upon me to say, that it means the righteousness or mercy of the Son, any more than of the Holy Ghost. 3. I believe this expression means, Secondly, God’s method of justifying sinners. So Rom. i. 17: “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for therein is the righteousness of God,” his way of justifying sinners, “revealed.” “Now the righteousness of God is manifested; even the righteousness of God which is by faith;” (unless righteousness here also means mercy;) “Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of the sins that are past; that he might be just, and yet the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” (iii.

17: “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for therein is the righteousness of God,” his way of justifying sinners, “revealed.” “Now the righteousness of God is manifested; even the righteousness of God which is by faith;” (unless righteousness here also means mercy;) “Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of the sins that are past; that he might be just, and yet the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” (iii. 21, &c.) “They being ignorant of God’s righteousness,” (method of justifying sinners,) “and going about to establish their own righteousness,” (a method of their own opposite to his,) “have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” (x. 3.) 4. Perhaps it has a peculiar meaning in 2 Cor. v. 21: “He made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in ” (or through) “him;” that we might be justified and sanctified, might receive the whole blessing of God, through him. 5. And is not this the natural meaning of Phil. iii. 8, 9: “That I may win Christ, and be found in him,” grafted into the true vine, “not having my own righteousness,”--the method of justification which I so long chose for myself, “which is of the law; but the righteousness which is of God”--the method of justification which God hath chosen--“by faith?’” 6. “But is not Christ termed “our righteousness?’” He is: “This is the name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness.” (Jer. xxiii. 6.) And is not the plain, indisputable meaning of this scripture, He shall be what he is called, the sole Purchaser, the sole meritorious Cause, both of our justification and sanctification? 7. Nearly related to this is the following text: “Jesus Christ is made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” (1 Cor. i. 30.) And what does this prove, but that he is made unto us righteousness, or justification, just as he is made unto us sanctification? In what sense? He is the sole Author of one, as well as of the other, the Author of our whole salvation. 8. There seems to be something more implied in Romans x. 3.

3. Does it not imply thus much “Christ is the end of the law”--not only of the Mosaic dispensation, but of the law of works, which was given to Adam in his original per fection--“for righteousness to every one that believeth;” to the end that “every one who believeth” in him, though he have not kept, and cannot keep, that law, may be both accounted and made righteous. 9. Accordingly, frequent mention is made, in Scripture, of “faith counted for righteousness.” So Genesis xv. 6: “He” (Abraham) “believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness:” A text repeated, with but little variation, over and over in the New Testament: “To him that worketh not, but believeth on him who justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” (Rom. iv. 5.) Thus it was that “Noah became heir of the righteousness,” the justification, “which is by faith.” (Heb. xi. 7.) Thus also “the Gentiles,” when the Jews fell short, “attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith.” (Rom. ix. 30.) But that expression, “the righteousness of Christ,” does not occur in any of these texts. 10. It seems, righteousness in the following texts means neither more nor less than justification: “If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” (Gal. ii. 21.) “If there had been a law which could have given life,” spiritual life, or a title to life eternal, “then righteousness should have been by the law;” (iii. 21;) though some may think it here includes sanctification also; which it appears to do, Rev. xix. 8: “The fine linen is the righteousness of the saints.” 11. “But when St. Paul says, (Rom. v. 18) ‘By the righte ousness of one,’ (called in the following verse, ‘the obedience of one, even his “obedience unto death, his dying for us,) ‘the free gift came, does he not mean the righteousness of Christ?” Undoubtedly he does. But this is not the question. We are not inquiring what he means, but what he says. We are all agreed as to the meaning, but not as to the expression, “the imputing the righteousness of Christ,” which I still say, I dare not insist upon, neither require any one to use, because I cannot find it in the Bible.

We are all agreed as to the meaning, but not as to the expression, “the imputing the righteousness of Christ,” which I still say, I dare not insist upon, neither require any one to use, because I cannot find it in the Bible. If any one can, he has better eyes than me; and I wish he would show me where it is. 12. Now, if by “the righteousness of Christ” we mean anything which the Scripture does not mean, it is certain we put darkness for light. If we mean the same which the Scripture means by different expressions, why do we prefer this expression to the scriptural? Is not this correcting the wisdom of the Holy Ghost, and opposing our own to the perfect knowledge of God? 13. I am myself the more sparing in the use of it, because it has been so frequently and so dreadfully abused; and because the Antinomians use it at this day to justify the grossest abominations. And it is great pity that those who love, who preach, and follow after, holiness, should, under the notion of honouring Christ, give any countenance to those who continually make him “the minister of sin,” and so build on his righteousness as to live in such ungodliness and unrighteousness as is scarce named even among the Heathens. 14. And doth not this way of speaking naturally tend to make Christ the minister of sin? For if the very personal obedience of Christ (as those expressions directly lead me to think) be mine the moment I believe, can anything be added thereto? Does my obeying God add any value to the perfect obedience of Christ? On this scheme, then, are not the holy and unholy on the very same footing? 15. Upon the whole, I cannot express my thoughts better than in the words of that good man, Mr. Hervey: “If people may be safe and their inheritance secure without any know ledge of these particularities, why should you offer to puzzle their heads with a few unnecessary terms? We are not very solicitous as to the credit or the use of any particular set of phrases. Only let men be humbled as repenting criminals at the Redeemer's feet; let them rely as devoted pensioners on his precious merits; and they are undoubtedly in the way to a blissful immortality.” (Dialogues, vol. i., p. 43.

Preface to a Treatise on Justification, Extracted from Mr. John Goodwin Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 10 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- 1. PERHAPs I should not have submitted, at least not so soon, to the importunity of my friends, who have long been soliciting me to abridge and publish the ensuing treatise, had not some warm people published a tract, entitled, “The Scrip ture Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness Defended.” I then judged it absolutely incumbent upon me to publish the real Scripture doctrine. And this I believed I could not either draw up or defend better than I found it done to my hands by one who, at the time he wrote this book, was a firm and zealous Calvinist. This enabled him to confirm what he advanced by such authorities, as well from Calvin himself, as from his most eminent followers, as I could not have done, nor any who had not been long and critically versed in their writings. 2. A greater difficulty was, to know what notice I ought to take of Mr. Hervey’s treatise, wrote, as the Leeds publisher says, with a “becoming and well-tempered tartness.” The case was peculiar. My acquaintance with Mr. Hervey com menced about thirty years ago, when I was a Fellow, and he was a Commoner, of Lincoln College in Oxford. At my request he was permitted, as was Mr. Whitefield some time after, to make one of a little company who used to spend the evenings together, in reading the Holy Scriptures. And I rejoiced in having many opportunities of assisting him both in his studies and in his Christian warfare; which he acknowledged in very strong terms, by a letter now in my hands, wrote not long after the publication of his “Medita tions among the Tombs.” In my answer to this, I told him frankly, there were one or two passages in that book, which, if I had seen before it was printed, I should have advised him not to insert. He replied, if he printed anything more, he would beg of me to correct it first. Accordingly, he sent me, not long after, the manuscript of his three first Dialogues.

(I cite the pages according to the Dublin edition, having wrote the rough draught of what follows in Ireland.) Is justification more or less than God’s pardoning and accepting a sinner through the merits of Christ? That God herein “reckons the righteousness and obedience which Christ performed as our own,” (page 39,) I allow; if by that ambiguous expression you mean only, as you here explain it yourself, “They are as effectual for obtaining our salvation, as if they were our own personal qualifications.” (Page 41.) “We are not solicitous as to any particular set of phrases. Only let men be humbled, as repenting criminals at Christ's feet, let them rely as devoted pensioners on his merits, and they are undoubtedly in the way to a blissful immor tality.” (Page 43.) Then, for Christ's sake, and for the sake of the immortal 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. I have had abundant proof, that the frequent use of this unnecessary phrase, instead of “furthering men's progress in vital holiness,” has made them satisfied without any holiness at all; yea, and encou raged them to work all uncleanness with greediness. “To ascribe pardon to Christ's passive, eternal life to his active, righteousness, is fanciful rather than judicious. His universal obedience from his birth to his death is the one foundation of my hope.” (Page 45.) This is unquestionably right. But if it be, there is no manner of need to make the imputation of his active righteous ness a separate and laboured head of discourse. O that you had been content with this plain scriptural account, and spared some of the dialogues and letters that follow ! The Third and Fourth Dialogues contain an admirable illustration and confirmation of the great doctrine of Christ's satisfaction. Yet even here I observe a few passages which are liable to some exception: “Satisfaction was made to the divine law.” (Page 54.) I do not remember any such expression in Scripture.

Many allow the former, who cannot allow the latter. “The righteousness which justifies us is already wrought out.” (Page 151.)--A crude, unscriptural expression “It was set on foot, carried on, completed.”--O vain philosophy The plain truth is, Christ lived and “tasted death for every man.” And through the merits of his life and death, every believer is justified. “Whoever perverts so glorious a doctrine shows he never believed.” (Page 152.) Not so. They who “turn back as a dog to the vomit” had once “escaped the pollutions of the world by the knowledge of Christ.” “The goodness of God leadeth to repentance.” (Page 153.) This is unquestionably true. But the nice, metaphysical doctrine of imputed righteousness leads not to repentance, but to licentiousness. “The believer cannot but add to his faith works of righteous ness.” (Page 154.) During his first love, this is often true. But it is not true afterwards, as we know and feel by melan choly experience. “We no longer obey in order to lay the foundation of our final acceptance.” (Page 155.) No.: That foundation is already laid in the merits of Christ. Yet we obey in order to our final acceptance through his merits. And in this sense, by obeying, we “lay a good foundation, that we may attain eternal life.” “‘We establish the law:” We provide for its honour, by the perfect obedience of Christ.” (Page 156.) Can you possibly think St. Paul meant this? that such a thought ever entered into his mind? The plaih meaning is, We establish both the true sense and the effectual practice of it: We provide for its being both understood and practised in its full extent. “On those who reject the atonement, just severity.” (Page 157.) Was it ever possible for them not to reject it? If not, how is it just to cast them into a lake of fire for not doing what it was impossible they should do? Would it be just (make it your own case) to cast you into hell for not touching heaven with your hand? “Justification is complete the first moment we believe, and is incapable of augmentation.” (Page 159.) Not so: There may be as many degrees in the favour as in the image of God. “St. Paul often mentions a righteousness imputed:” Not a righteousness, never once; but simply, righteousness.

Paul often mentions a righteousness imputed:” Not a righteousness, never once; but simply, righteousness. “What can this be, but the righteousness of Christ?” (Page 190.) He tells you himself, “To him that believeth on him that justi fieth the ungodly, faith is imputed for righteousness.” (Rom. iv. 5.) “Why is Christ styled Jehovah our Righteousness?” Because we are both justified and sanctified through Him. “My death, the cause of their forgiveness; my righteous mess, the ground of their acceptance.” (Page 191.) How does this agree with page 45?--“To ascribe pardon to Christ's passive, eternal life to his active, righteousness, is fanciful rather than judicious.” “He commends such kinds of beneficence only, as were exer cised to a disciple as such.” (Page 195.) Is not this a slip of the pen? Will not our Lord then commend, and reward eternally, all kinds of beneficence, provided they flowed from a principle of loving faith? yea, that which was exercised to a Samaritan, a Jew, a Turk, or a Heathen? Even these I would not term “transient bubbles,” though they do not procure our justification. “How must our righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees? Not only in being sincere, but in possessing a complete righteousness, even that of Christ.” (Page 197.) Did our Lord mean this? Nothing less. He specifies, in the following parts of his Sermon, the very instances wherein the righteousness of a Christian exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees. “He brings this specious hypocrite to the test.” (Page 198.) How does it appear that he was an hypocrite? Our Lord gives not the least intimation of it. Surely he “loved him,” not for his hypocrisy, but his sincerity Yet he loved the world, and therefore could not keep any of the commandments in their spiritual meaning. And the keeping of these is undoubtedly the way to, though not the cause of, eternal life. “‘By works his faith was made perfect: Appeared to be true.” (Page 200.) No.: The natural sense of the words is, “By” the grace superadded while he wrought those “works, his faith was” literally “made perfect.” “‘He that doeth righteousness is righteous:” Manifests the truth of his conversion.” (Ibid.) Nay, the plain meaning is, He alone is truly righteous, whose faith worketh by love. “St.

I cannot but except to several passages also in the Tenth Dialogue. I ask, first, “Does the righteousness of God ever mean,” as you affirm, “the merits of Christ?” (Page 291.) I believe, not once in all the Scripture. It often means, and particularly in the Epistle to the Romans, God’s method of justifying sinners. When, therefore, you say, “The righteousness of God means, such a righteousness as may justly challenge his acceptance,” (page 292,) I cannot allow it at all; and this capital mistake must needs lead you into many others. But I follow you step by step. “In order to entitle us to a reward, there must be an imputation of righteousness.” (Ibid.) There must be an interest in Christ; and then “every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labour.” “A rebel may be forgiven, without being restored to the dignity of a son.” (Page 293.) A rebel against an earthly King may; but not a rebel against God. In the very same moment that God forgives, we are the sons of God. Therefore this is an idle dispute. For pardon and acceptance, though they may be distinguished, cannot be divided. The words of Job which you cite are wide of the question. Those of Solomon prove no more than this, (and who denies it?) that justification implies both pardon and acceptance. “Grace reigneth through righteousness unto eternal life;” (page 295;) that is, the free love of God brings us through justification and sanctification to glory. “That they may receive forgiveness, and a lot among the sanctified;” (ibid.;) that is, that they may receive pardon, holiness, heaven. “Is not the satisfaction made by the death of Christ sufficient to obtain both our full pardon and final happiness?” (Ibid.) Unquestionably it is, and neither of the texts you cite proves the contrary. “If it was requisite for Christ to be baptized, much more to fulfil the moral law.” (Page 296.) I cannot prove that either one or the other was requisite in order to his purchasing redemption for us. “By Christ's sufferings alone, the law was not satisfied.” (Page 297.) Yes, it was; for it required only the alternative, Obey or die. It required no man to obey and die too. If any man had perfectly obeyed, he would not have died.

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 defence 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.) O 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 modern 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 unadvisedly with his lips.” (Vol. II., page 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 burdened with the workings of inbred corruption?’” You know, this is not the meaning of the text.

20, 21.) This is the plain, natural meaning of the words. It does not appear that one word is spoken here about imputed righteousness; neither in the passages cited in the next page from the Common Prayer and the Articles. In the Homily likewise that phrase is not found at all, and the main stress is laid on Christ's shedding his blood. Nor is the phrase (concerning the thing there is no question) found in any part of the Homilies. (Letter 3, page 93.) “If the Fathers are not explicit with regard to the imputa tion of active righteousness, they abound in passages which evince the substitution of Christ in our stead; passages which disclaim all dependence on any duties of our own, and fix our hopes wholly on the merits of our Saviour. When this is the case, I am very little solicitous about any particular forms of expression.” (Page 101.) O lay aside then those questionable, dangerous forms, and keep closely to the scriptural ! “The authority of our Church, and of those eminent Divines,” (Letter 4, p. 105,) does not touch those “particular forms of expression;” neither do any of the texts which you afterwards cite. As to the doctrine, we are agreed. “The righteousness of God signifies the righteousness which God-Man wrought out.” (Ibid.) No; it signifies God’s method of justifying sinners. “The victims figured the expiation by Christ’s death; the clothing with skins, the imputation of his righteousness.” (Page 107.) That does not appear. Did not the one rather figure our justification; the other, our sanctification ? Almost every text quoted in this and the following letter in support of that particular form of expression is distorted above measure from the plain, obvious meaning which is pointed out by the context. I shall instance in a few, and just set down their true meaning without any farther remarks. (Page 109.) To “show unto man his uprightness;” to convince him of God’s justice in so punishing him. “He shall receive the blessing,” pardon, “from the Lord, and righteousness,” holiness, “from the God of his salva tion;” the God who saveth him both from the guilt and from the power of sin. (Page 110.) I will “make mention of thy righteousness only:” Of thy mercy; so the word frequently means in the Old Testament.

(Page 110.) I will “make mention of thy righteousness only:” Of thy mercy; so the word frequently means in the Old Testament. So it unquestionably means in that text, “In’’ or by “thy righteousness shall they be exalted.” (Page 111.) “Sion shall be redeemed with judgment,” after severe punishment, “and her converts with righteousness,” with the tender mercy of God following that punishment. (Page 112.) “In,” or through, “the Lord I have righteousness and strength,” justification and sanctification; “he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation,” saved me from the guilt and power of sin; both of which are again expressed by, “He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness.” (Page 113.) “My righteousness,” my mercy, “shall not be abolished.” (Page 114.)• “To make reconciliation for iniquity,” to atone for all our sins, “and to bring in everlasting righteousness,” spotless holiness into our souls. And this righteousness is not human, but divine. It is the gift and the work of God. (Page 116.) “The Lord our Righteousness;” the author both of our justification and sanctification. (Page 117.) “What righteousness shall give us peace at the last day, inherent or imputed?” (Page 127.) Both. Christ died for us and lives in us, “that we may have boldness in the day of judgment.” “That have obtained like precious faith through the righteousness,” the mercy, “of our Lord.” “Seek ye the kingdom of God and his righteousness,” the holiness which springs from God reigning in you. (Letter 5, p. 131.) “Therein is revealed the righteousness of God,” God’s method of justifying sinners. (Page 132.) “We establish the law, as we expect no salvation without a perfect conformity to it, namely, by Christ.” (Page 135.) ls not this a mere quibble? and a quibble which, after all the laboured evasions of Witsius and a thousand more, does totally “make void the law P” But not so does St. Paul teach. According to him, “without holiness,” personal holiness, “no man shall see the Lord;” none who is not himself conformed to the law of God here, “shall see the Lord” in glory. This is the grand, palpable objection to that whole scheme.

This is the grand, palpable objection to that whole scheme. It directly “makes void the law.” It makes thousands content to live and die “transgressors of the law,” because Christ fulfilled it “for them.” Therefore, though I believe he hath lived and died for me, yet I would speak very tenderly and sparingly of the former, (and never separately from the latter,) even as sparingly as do the Scriptures, for fear of this dreadful consequence. “‘The gift of righteousness’ must signify a righteousness not their own.” (Page 138.) Yes, it signifies the righteous ness or holiness which God gives to, and works in, them. “‘The obedience of one’ is Christ’s actual performance of the whole law.” (Page 139.) So here his passion is fairly left out! Whereas his “becoming obedient unto death,” that is dying for man, is certainly the chief part, if not the whole, which is meant by that expression. “‘That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us; that is, by our representative in our nature.” (Ibid.) Amazing ! But this, you say, “agrees with the tenor of the Apostle’s arguing. For he is demonstrating, we cannot be justified by our own conformity to the law.” No; not here. He is not speaking here of the cause of our justification, but the fruits of it. Therefore, that unnatural sense of his words does not at all “agree with the tenor of his arguing.” I totally deny the criticism on 8.xxioavvm and Bixaloux, and cannot conceive on what authority it is founded. O how deep an aversion to inward holiness does this scheme naturally create 1 (Page 140.) “The righteousness they attained could not be any personal righteousness.” (Page 142) Certainly it was: It was implanted as well as imputed. “For ‘instruction in righteousness, in the righteousness of Christ.” (Page 145.) Was there ever such a comment before? The plain meaning is, “for training up in holiness” of heart and of life. “He shall convince the world of righteousness;” that I am not a sinner, but innocent and holy. (Page 146.) “‘That we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Not intrinsically, but imputatively.” (Page 148.) Both the one and the other. God, through him, first accounts and then makes us righteous.

God, through him, first accounts and then makes us righteous. Accordingly, “‘The righteousness which is of God by faith, is both imputed and inherent.” (Page 152.) “My faith fixes on both the meritorious life and atoning death of Christ.” (Page 153.) Here we clearly agree. Hold then to this, and never talk of the former without the latter. If you do, you cannot say, “Here we are exposed to no hazard.” Yes, you are to an exceeding great one; even the hazard of living and dying without holiness. And then we are lost for ever. The Sixth Letter contains an admirable account of the earth and atmosphere, and comprises abundance of sense in a narrow compass, expressed in beautiful language. Gems have “a seat on the virtuous fair one’s breast.” (Page 177.) I cannot reconcile this with St. Paul. He says, “Not with pearls;” by a parity of reason, Not with diamonds. But in all things I perceive you are too favourable, both to “the desire of the flesh, and the desire of the eye.” You are a gentle casuist as to every self-indulgence which a plentiful fortune can furnish. “Our Saviour’s obedience.” (Page 182.) O say, with the good old Puritans, “Our Saviour's death or merits!” We swarm with Antinomians on every side. Why are you at such pains to increase their number? “My mouth shall show forth thy righteousness and thy salva tion;” thy mercy, which brings my salvation. (Page 194.) The Eighth Letter is an excellent description of the supreme greatness of Christ. I do not observe one sentence in it, which I cannot cheerfully subscribe to. The Ninth Letter, containing a description of the sea, with various inferences deduced therefrom, is likewise a masterpiece, for justness of sentiment, as well as beauty of language. But I doubt whether “mere shrimps” (page 241) be not too low an expression; and whether you might not as well have said nothing of “cod, the standing repast of lent;” or concerning “the exquisite relish of turbot, or the deliciousness of sturgeon.” Are not such observations beneath the dignity of a Minister of Christ?

But I doubt whether “mere shrimps” (page 241) be not too low an expression; and whether you might not as well have said nothing of “cod, the standing repast of lent;” or concerning “the exquisite relish of turbot, or the deliciousness of sturgeon.” Are not such observations beneath the dignity of a Minister of Christ? I have the same doubt concerning what is said of “delicately flavoured tea, finely scented coffee, the friendly bowl, the pyramid of Italian figs, and the pastacia-nut of Aleppo.” (Page 264) Beside that the mentioning these in such a manner is a strong encouragement of luxury and sensuality. And does the world need this? The English in particular ! Si non insaniunt satis sua sponte, instiga.* “Those treasures which spring from the imputation of Christ's righteousness.” (Letter 10, p. 271.) Not a word of his atoning blood | Why do so many men love to speak of his righteousness, rather than his atonement? I fear, because it affords a fairer excuse for their own unrighteousness. To cut off this, is it not better to mention both together? at least, never to name the former without the latter? “Faith is a persuasion that Christ has shed his blood for me, and fulfilled all righteousness in my stead.” (Page 285.) I * This quotation from Terence is thus translated by Colman : “If he raves not of himself enough, Do irritate him.”-EDIT. can by no means subscribe to this definition. There are hundreds, yea, thousands of true believers, who never once thought one way or the other of Christ's fulfilling all righteousness in their stead. I personally know many who, to this very hour, have no idea of it; and yet have each of them a divine evidence and conviction, “Christ loved me, and gave himself for me.” This is St. Paul’s account of faith; and it is sufficient. He that thus believes is justified. “It is a sure means of purifying the heart, and never fails to work by love.” (Page 287.) It surely purifies the heart, --if we abide in it; but not if we “draw back to perdition.” It never fails to work by love while it continues; but if itself fail, farewell both love and good works.

“It is a sure means of purifying the heart, and never fails to work by love.” (Page 287.) It surely purifies the heart, --if we abide in it; but not if we “draw back to perdition.” It never fails to work by love while it continues; but if itself fail, farewell both love and good works. “Faith is the hand which receives all that is laid up in Christ.” Consequently, if we make “shipwreck of the faith,” how much soever is laid up in Christ, from that hour we receive nothing. “Faith in the imputed righteousness of Christ is a funda mental principle in the gospel.” (Letter 11, p. 288.) If so, what becomes of all those who think nothing about imputed righteousness? How many who are full of faith and love, if this be true, must perish everlastingly ! “Thy hands must urge the way of the deadly weapon through the shivering flesh, till it be plunged in the throbbing heart.” (Page 297.) Are not these descriptions far too strong? May they not occasion unprofitable reasonings in many readers? Ne pueros coran populo Medea trucidet.* “How can he justify it to the world?” (Page 298.) Not at all. Can this then justify his faith to the world? “You take the certain way to obtain comfort,--the righteousness of Jesus Christ.” (Page 304.) What, without the atonement? Strange fondness for an unscriptural, dangerous mode of expression “So the merits of Christ are derived to all the faithful.” (Page 306.) Rather, the fruits of the Spirit; which are likewise plainly typified by the oil in Zechariah’s vision. “Has the law any demand? It must go to him for satis faction.” (Page 310.) Suppose, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;” then I am not obliged to love my * The following is Lord Roscommon's translation of this verse from Horace : “Medea must not draw her murdering knife, Nor spill her children's blood, upon the stage.”--EDIT. neighbour: Christ has satisfied the demand of the law for me. Is not this the very quintessence of Antinomianism? “The righteousness wrought out by Jesus Christ is wrought out for all his people, to be the cause of their justification, and the purchase of their salvation. The righteousness is the cause, and the purchase.” (Page 311.) So the death of Christ is not so much as named !

(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.

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. I have had abundant proof, that the frequent use of this unnecessary phrase, instead of furthering men's progress in vital holiness, has made them satisfied without any holiness at all.” Is the speaking earnestly on such a subject “idle pomp?” Are not the souls of men at stake? And most certainly the whole sentence is at as great a distance from levity as from profaneness. 11. I am accused, Sixthly, of acting in a manner unworthy a gentleman, a Christian, or a man of sense. “I am quite ashamed of your meanness,” (strong words !) “ and grieved at your uncharitable rashness;” in naming three men, the fellows of whom, I hope, are not to be found in England. “How unworthy is such a proceeding either of the gentleman, the Christian, or the man of sense !” (Page 186.) I am not conscious of either meanness, rashness, or uncharit ableness in this matter. But I am willing to refer it to the judgment of any who know the men and their communication. 12. I am accused, Seventhly, of impudence. “Harmless enough, I must own; but what follows is not quite so modest.” (Page 201.) “Your last daring innovation.” Affirming that the word usually rendered righteousness does sometimes mean mercy. I dare not say otherwise. I must affirm this still, both of the Hebrew and Greek word. “Everybody knows that the particle beth signifies in, and everybody but Mr. Wesley would blush to assert the contrary.” (Page 220.) I never asserted the contrary, nor did I ever deny, that the particle sy likewise signifies in. Yet I affirm that both the former and the latter have several other significations.- 13. I am accused, Eighthly, of denying justification by faith, and of being an enemy to the righteousness of Christ. “We have liberty to look upon ourselves as justified with out any works of our own.” (True; but not without faith.) “This you would supersede and abolish.” (Page 261.) The whole tenor of my writing, preaching, and conversa tion clears me of this charge. “Why should you be so averse to the righteousness of God our Saviour?” (Page 227.) Far, very far from it.

“Why should you be so averse to the righteousness of God our Saviour?” (Page 227.) Far, very far from it. I admire, love, and embrace it, as the ground of all my hope, as the only foundation of every blessing, in time and in eternity. “Why should you ransack all the stores of your learning and knowledge, to exclude this glorious truth from the Bible?” I do just the contrary. I use whatever knowledge God has given me, to defend that glorious truth, “Jesus Christ is made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sancti fication, and redemption.” 14. The Ninth accusation is short: You are an heretic, and your doctrine poisonous. “You scarce distinguish yourself by this language from an heretic. You may rank with the Arian and Socinian.” (Page 140.) What is this language? The saying, “The free love of God brings us through justification and sanctification to glory.” True; neither do I distinguish myself from a Jew, by saying, “There is one God.” Does it follow, that I may rank with Jews? that I am a Jew too? “Such errors are extremely pernicious. They are like poison mixed with food.” (Page 120.) Let those errors be pointed out and proved. I shall then willingly retract them.- 15. I am- accused, Tenthly, with being an Antinomian. “‘Do you then establish the law?’ Are not you the Antinomian P” (Page 143.) I should not imagine Mr. Hervey was in earnest here, but that I read in another place,-- “It is one of your leading errors, that you form low, scarty apprehensions of God’s law.” (Page 69.) What apprehensions I form of God’s law, any one may see in the second and third volumes of my Sermons; wherein, after explaining all the particular branches of it contained in our Lord's Sermon on the Mount, I say of it in general, Vol. V., p. 438:-- “This law is an incorruptible picture of the High and Holy One that inhabiteth eternity. It is He whom in his essence no man hath seen or can see, made visible to men and angels. It is the face of God unveiled; God manifested to his creatures, as they are able to bear it.

It is the face of God unveiled; God manifested to his creatures, as they are able to bear it. It is the heart of God disclosed to man; yea, in some sense, we may apply to his law what the Apostle says of his Son, it is ‘the streaming forth or out beaming of his glory, the express image of his person.’ “What is the law but divine virtue and wisdom, assuming a visible form? What is it but the original ideas of truth and good, which were lodged in the uncreated mind from eternity, now drawn forth and clothed with such a vehicle, as to appear even to human understanding? “The law of God is a copy of the eternal mind, a transcript of the divine nature; yea, it is the fairest offspring of the ever lasting Father, the brightest efflux of his essential wisdom, the visible beauty of the Most High.” Are these low and scanty apprehensions of God’s law? Or are any such found in the preceding sermons? Can any one form higher apprehensions of it? If not, let this accusation sink for ever. 16. I am accused, in the Eleventh place, for teaching Popish doctrine : “Mr. Wesley, setting aside pardon and reconciliation, together with the one perfect righteousness that procures them,” (I set aside neither the one or the other,) “ascribes all to the love of God. This notion may pass current at Rome, but not among the Protestant Churches.” (Page 101.) “This was the doctrine established by the Council of Trent.” (But it is not mine.) “This is still maintained in the con clave of Rome.” (Page 117.) But it is not maintained by me, nor any of my friends. We teach quite the contrary. “I acquit you from the charge of being a Jesuit or a Papist;” (so far, so good;) “but nobody, I apprehend, can acquit your principles from halting between Protestantism and Popery:” (No more than the principles of all who believe that “Christ tasted death for every man:”) “You have stolen the unhallowed fire, and are infected with the leaven of Antichrist. You have adopted papistical tenets,” (I know not which, and should be glad any one would inform me,) “and are listening to ‘the mother of abominations’ more than you are aware.” (Page 118.) But let it be observed, the holding universal redemption is no proof of this.

It effectually tears up all desire of it, all endeavour after it. It forbids all such exhortations as might excite those desires, or awaken those endeavours. Nay, it makes men afraid of personal holiness, afraid of cherishing any thought of it, or motion toward it, lest they should deny the faith, and reject Christ and his righteousness: So that, instead of being “zealous of good works,” they are a stink in their nostrils. And they are infinitely more afraid of “the works of God,” than of “the works of the devil.” 9. Here is wisdom | though not the wisdom of the saints, but wisdom from beneath. Here is the masterpiece of Satan': Farther than this he cannot go. Men are holy, without a grain of holiness in them holy in Christ, however unholy in themselves; they are in Christ, without one jot of the mind that was in Christ; in Christ, though their nature is whole in them. They are “complete in him,” though they are, in themselves, as proud, as vain, as covetous, as passionate as ever. It is enough : They may be unrighteous still, seeing Christ has “fulfilled all righteousness.” 10. “O ye simple ones, how long will ye love simplicity?” How long will ye “seek death in the error of your life?” “Know ye not,” whoever teacheth you otherwise, “that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?” “Be not deceived; ” although there are many lie in wait to deceive, and that under the fair pretence of exalting Christ; --a pretence which the more easily steals upon you, because “to you he is precious.” But as the Lord liveth, “neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” “Such” indeed “were some of you.

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. Hill goes on : “This doctrine” (of the “The use of the term” (the “imputed righteousness of “imputed righteousness of Christ”) “I have constantly Christ”) “is not scriptural; believed and taught for near it is not necessary; it has eight-and-twenty years.” done immense hurt.”e “‘It has done immense hurt, says Mr. W.; ‘but here is no contradiction.’ Whether there be or not, there is a plain concession from Mr. W. himself, that he has been preaching a doctrine for eight-and-twenty years together, which has done immense hurt.” Let this (one instance out of an hundred) be a specimen of Mr.

himself, that he has been preaching a doctrine for eight-and-twenty years together, which has done immense hurt.” Let this (one instance out of an hundred) be a specimen of Mr. Hill's fairness ! The whole strength of the argument depends on the artful jumbling of two sentences together, and inserting two or three little words into the latter of them. My words are: “We no more deny the phrase” (of “imputed righteousness”) “than the thing.” (Remarks, p. 383.) “This doctrine I have believed and taught for near eight and-twenty years.” (Ibid.) These distinct sentences Mr. Hill is pleased to thrust together into one, and to mend thus: “This doctrine (of the imputed righteousness of Christ) I have constantly believed and taught for near eight-and twenty years.” And here, says Mr. H., is a “plain concession from Mr. W. himself, that he has been preaching a doctrine for twenty-eight years together, which has done immense hurt.” No, the doctrine which I believe has done immense hurt, is that of the imputed righteousness of Christ in the Antinomian sense. The doctrine which I have constantly held and preached is, that faith is imputed for righteousness. And when I have either in that sermon or elsewhere said, that “the righteousness of Christ is imputed to every believer,” I mean, every believer is justified for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered. Yet still I think, “there is no use in contending for that particular phrase.” And I say still, “I dare not insist upon it, because I cannot find it in the Bible.” To contradict this, Mr. H. cites these words: “‘This...is fully consistent with our being justified, through the imputation of Christ's righteousness.” Mr. W.’s notes on Romans iv. 9.” Mr. H. adds: “These two, taken together, produce the following conclusion, that it is perfectly consist ent to say, that we are justified by that which cannot be found in the Bible.” (Farrago, p. 24.) That note runs thus: “‘Faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness.’ This is fully consistent with our being justified through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ: That is, our being pardoned, and accepted of God, for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered.

24.) That note runs thus: “‘Faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness.’ This is fully consistent with our being justified through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ: That is, our being pardoned, and accepted of God, for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered. For though this, and this alone, be the meritorious cause of our acceptance with God, yet faith may be said to be ‘imputed to us for righteousness,’ as it is the sole condition of our acceptance.” Now, is there any shadow of contradiction in this? or of our being justified by that which cannot be found in the Bible? 26. “Mr. W. frequently puts the expression, “imputed righteousness,’ in the mouth of a whole congregation. Yet he says, “I dare not require any to use it.’” Hence Mr. Hill deduces these two conclusions:-- (1) “That Mr. W. gives out such doctrines as he dares not require any others to believe.” (Page 25.) By what logic is this deduced? We are not speaking of doctrines at all, but simply of a particular expression. And that expression is not “imputed righteousness,” but “the imputed righteousness of Christ.” (2.) “That a whole congregation may have words in their mouths, and yet be all silent.” Well inferred again! But did I say, “A whole congrega tion had those words in their mouths?” I did not either say or suppose it; any more than that they were all silent. “Will Mr. W. be ingenuous enough to tell me, whether he did not write this when he was last in a certain country, which abounds with crassa ingenia?”* I will. I did not write this in the fogs of Ireland, but in the clear air of Yorkshire. 27. The two next propositions Mr. Hill quotes, are, “They to whom the righteousness of Christ is imputed,” (I mean, who truly believe,) “are made righteous by the Spirit of Christ; are renewed in the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness.” “The nice, metaphysical doctrine of imputed righteous ness” (if it is not carefully guarded) “leads not to repent ance, but to licentiousness. I have known a thousand instances of this.” And where is the contradiction between these propositions? “It is just this,” says Mr.

“It is just this,” says Mr. Hill, “that the doctrine of imputed righteousness makes those who believe it both holy and unholy.” (Page 26.) Unfold the propositions a little more, and then let any man judge. The First means just this: They whom God justifies, for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered, (whether they ever heard of that phrase, “imputing the righteousness of Christ,” or not,) are sanctified by his Spirit; are renewed in the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness. The Second means: I have known very many who so rested in the doctrine of the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, that they were quite satisfied without any holiness at all. Now, where is the contradiction? But my inserting in my own sentence those explanatory words, “I mean, who truly believe,” Mr. H. calls an interpola tion; and supposes I “mean to make a distinction between faith in Christ, and faith in the righteousness of Christ.” I mean just what I have said again and again, particularly in the note above cited. And this is the very thing which John Goodwin means, as he declares over and over. Mr. W. “winds up this point of imputed righteousness with a resolution which astonishes me, that “he will never * Persons of dull understandings.-EDIT. more use the phrase, the imputed righteousness of Christ, unless it occur to him in a hymn, or steal upon him unawares.’” This is my resolution. I repeat once more what I said in the “Remarks:” “The thing, that we are justified merely for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered, I have con stantly and earnestly maintained above four-and-thirty years. And I have frequently used the phrase, hoping thereby to please others ‘for their good to edification. But it has had a contrary effect, since so many improve it into an objection. Therefore I will use it no more.” (I mean, the phrase imputed righteousness; that phrase, the imputed righteousness of Christ, I never did use.) “I will endeavour to use only such phrases as are strictly scriptural.

So if there is any contradiction here, it is not I contradict myself, but Isaiah and our Lord that contradict St. Paul.” (Remarks, pages 389, 390.) Mr. Hill replies: “Then a man may do works in order to find favour, and yet such works cannot be called good.” You may call them so, if you please; but be not angry with me, if I do not. I still believe, no good works can be done before justification. Yet I believe, (and that without the least self contradiction,) that final salvation is “by works as a condi tion.” And let any one read over the twenty-fifth chapter of St. Matthew, and deny it if he can. Is Justification by Faith articulus stantis vel cadentis Ecclesiae? 32. In the beginning of the year 1738, I believed it was so. Soon after I found reason to doubt. Since that time I have not varied. “Nay, but in the year 1763 you say, ‘This is the name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness. A truth this, of which may be affirmed, (what Luther affirms of a truth nearly connected with it, justification by faith,) it is articulus stantis vel cadentis Ecclesiae.* It is certainly the pillar and ground of that faith of which alone cometh salvation.’” (Farrago, page 15.) I answered: “It is certain, here is a seeming contradiction; but it is not a real one; for these two opposite propositions do not speak of the same thing. The latter speaks of justification by faith; the former, of trusting in the righteousness or merits * A doctrine without which there can be no Christian Church. of Christ. (Justification by faith is only mentioned inci. dentally in a parenthesis.) Now, although Mr. Law denied justification by faith, he might trust in the merits of Christ. It is this, and this only, that I affirm (whatever Luther does) to be articulus stantis vel cadentis Ecclesiae.” (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.

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

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

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

Wesley?” No.; his Calvinism is omitted, to make him like the authors going before him; “to preserve a consistency throughout the work;” which still is not done as I could wish. However, those that are fond of his bowels may put them in again, and swallow them as they would the trail of a woodcock. 35. “They to whom the “The nice, metaphysical doc. righteousness of Christ is trine of imputed righteousness, imputed (I mean, who truly instead of furthering men in believe) are made righteous holiness, makes them satisfied by the Spirit of Christ.” without any holiness at all.” I have known a thousand instances of this. And yet “they who truly believe in Christ are made righteous by his Spirit.” Where is the contradiction between these propositions? 36. “Christian Library.” Nothing. 37. “Christ is now the Baxter's Aphorisms go for righteousness of all that truly nothing. Richard Baxter is believe.” not John Wesley. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43. Nothing. Nothing against 44. “To all believers, the Goodwin : Nothing. righteousness of Christ is imputed.” We have now examined four-and-forty witnesses; but still have no proof that I contradict myself, either with regard to the covenant, election, and perseverance, or the imputed righte ousness of Christ. With regard to this, the thing, that we are justified merely for the sake of what Christ has done and suf fered, I have constantly and earnestly maintained above four and-thirty years. And I have frequently used the phrase, hoping thereby to please others “for their good to edification.” But it has had a contrary effect, since so many improve it into an objection. Therefore, I will use it no more, unless it occur in an hymn, or steal upon me unawares; I will endeavour to use only such phrases as are strictly scriptural. And I will advise all my brethren, all who are in connexion with me throughout the three kingdoms, to lay aside that ambiguous, unscriptural phrase, which issoliable to be misinterpreted, and to speak in all instances, this in particular, “as the oracles of God.” “Suffering the penalty is not Suffering the penalty is all the all the law requires.” law requires. (Page 132.) 45. “So says the ‘Christian So says John Goodwin. Library.” But this does not prove that I contradict myself. St. Paul speaks of the law as St. Paul does not speak of the a person.

Paul does not speak of the a person. law as a person. (P. 138.) 46. “The law is here spoken “This way of speaking of of as a person, to which, as to the law as a person injured, an husband, life and death are and to be satisfied, seems ascribed.” hardly defensible.” There is no contradiction here. I do affirm, St. Paul speaks of the law “as a person to which, as an husband, life and death are ascribed.” But I deny, that he speaks of it “as a person injured, and to be satisfied.” For a twofold justification. Against a twofold justification. 47. “Mr. F. affirms, justi- “The justification spoken fication is twofold.” of by St. Paul to the Romans, and in our Articles, is one and no more.” (Page 133.) Most true. tion. (Matt. xii. 37.) And yet our Lord speaks of another justifica Now, I think one and one make two. For a justified state. 48. “The state of a justified person is inexpressibly great and glorious.” Against a justified state. (Page 139.) “Does not talking of a justified or sanctified state tend to mislead men?” It frequently does. But where is the contradiction? They who are once justified are justified for ever. 49. “Christian Library.” They who are justified may become total apostates. Nothing. Works are a condition of jus tification. (Page 134.) 50. “Salvation (that is, glory) is not by the merit of works, but by works as a condition.” This proposition does not speak of justification: So it is nothing to the purpose. Works are not a condition of justification. I believe no good works can be previous to justifica tion; nor, consequently, a condition of it. 51. “If a man could be holy before he was justified, it would set his justification aside.” “Whoever desires to find favour with God, should “cease from evil, and learn to do well.’ Whoever repents, should do “works meet for repentance.’ And if this is not in order to find favour, what does he do them for?” 52. “Thou canst do no thing but sin till thou art justified.” 53. “We allow that God justifies the ungodly, him that to that hour is full of all evil, void of all good; and him that worketh not, that till that mo ment worketh no goodness.” All this I believe still. “But Mr. W.

W. says, Whoever desires to find favour with God should “cease from evil and learn to do well,’” &c. Does not the Bible say so? Who can deny it? “Nay, but Mr. W. asks, “If this be not in order to find favour, what does he do them for?’” And I ask it again. Let Mr. H., or any one else, give me an answer. So, if there is any contradiction here, it is not I contradict myself, but Isaiah and our Lord that contradict St. Paul. Against justification by the For justification by the act of act of believing. believing. 54. “But do not you put “The faith which is said to faith in the room of Christ be imputed to Abraham for and his righteousness? No; righteousness, is faith pro I take particular care to put perly taken; and not the each of these in its proper righteousness of Christ ap place.” prehended by faith.” This is putting “each of these in its proper place.” The righteousness of Christ is the meritorious cause of our justification: That is its proper place. Faith in Him that gave himself for us is the condition of justification: That is its proper place. I am justified through the righteousness of Christ, as the price; through faith, as the condition. I do not say, neither does Goodwin, Faith is that for which we were accepted; but we both say, Faith is that through which we are accepted. We are justified, we are accepted of God, for the sake of Christ, through faith. Now, certainly, there is no contra diction in this, unless a contradiction to Mr. H.’s notions. 55. “Although we have “That which is the condi faith, hope, and love, yet we tion of justification is not the must renounce the merit of righteousness of Christ.” all, as far too weak to deserve Most true; otherwise we our justification; for which confound the condition with we must trust only to the the meritorious cause spoken merits of Christ.” of in the opposite column. Justification by faith alone is articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae.* All who do not hold it must perish ever lastingly. Justification by faith alone is not articulus stantis vel ca dentis ecclesiae. Some may doubt of it, yea, deny it, and yet not perish everlastingly. (Page 127.) * A doctrine without which there can be no Christian Church. 56.

56. “Of this may be affirm ed, (what Luther affirms of justification by faith,) that it is articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae, the pillar of that faith of which alone cometh salvation; that faith which unless a man keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he “A pious Churchman who has not clear conceptions of justification by faith may be saved; yea, a Mystic, (Mr. Law, for instance,) who denies justification by faith. If so, the doctrine of justification by faith is not articulus stan tis vel cadentis ecclesiae.” shall perish everlastingly.” It is certain here is a seeming contradiction; but it is not a real one. For these two opposite propositions do not speak of the same thing. The latter speaks of justification by faith; the former, of trusting in the righteousness or merits of Christ; justification by faith is only mentioned incidentally in a parenthesis. Now, although Mr. Law denied justification by faith, he might trust in the merits of Christ. It is this, and this only, that I affirm, (whatever Luther does,) to be articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae. Mr. W. is a Calvinist in the Mr. W. has leaned too much point of justification. toward Calvinism in this Apoint. 57. “I think on justifica tion just as I have done these seven-and-twenty years, and just as Calvin does.” “We have leaned too much toward Calvinism.” (Page 141.) But not in this point; not as to justification by faith. We still agree with him, that the merits of Christ are the cause, faith the condition, of justification. 58. “I have occasionally Goodwin. Nothing. used those expressions, ‘im puted righteousness, the ‘righteousness of Christ, and the like. But I never used them in any other sense than that wherein Calvin does.” 59. “Mr. W. does approve the expression, ‘Why me?’” My brother uses it in an hymn. “Mr. W. does not approve the expression, ‘Why me?’” “Mr. F.says, Mr. W. doubts concerning it.” (Page 140.) This proof halts on both feet. “But why did not Mr. W. strike out of Mr. F.'s manuscript the honourable expres sions concerning himself?” Because he thought them a proper counterbalance to the contumelious expressions of Mr. H. Our sin is imputed to Christ, and Christ’s righteousness to us. 60, 61, 62. “Christian Li brary.” Our sin is not imputed to Christ, nor Christ’s righte ousness to us. (Page 130.) Nothing.

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.

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

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.

4. “His sacrilegious hand violates the ashes of the dead, traduces the character of Mr. Whitefield, insinuates that he was the first who preached in the open air; with the greatest bitterness of speech, traduces the dead, as a Dissenter from the Church.” (Page 16.) My words are: “A good man, who met with us at Oxford, while he was absent from us, conversed much with Dissenters, and contracted a strong prejudice against the Church; and not long after he totally separated from us;” (Ibid., page 429;) from my brother and me. This is every word I say about Mr. Whitefield. And is this “violating the ashes of the dead?” Is this “traducing his character?” Certainly not traducing him as “a Dissenter from the Church,” much less “with the greatest bitterness of speech.” Where is the bitterness? And this is the whole ground for pouring out such a flood of abuse, obloquy, and calumny | But Mr. Hill goes on : “With ungodly craft he claws up the ashes of the dead. He says Mr. Whitefield, by conversing with the Dissenters,” (I mean chiefly the Presbyterians in New England,) “contracted a strong prejudice against the Church.” (Imposture Detected, p. 18.) I say so still. And how will Mr. Hill disprove it? Why, “he manifested his strong attachment to the Church, by erecting Tottenham Court chapel, for the celebration of the Church Service; yea, and reading the Liturgy himself.” Nay, if this proved his strong attachment to the Church, it will equally prove mine; for I have read the Liturgy as often as he, and I am now erecting a chapel (hinc ille lachrymae /* for the celebration of the Church Service. 5. “He cast lots for his creed.” (Page 8.) Never in my life. That paltry story is untrue. They who tell it cast no honour upon him who published a private letter, wrote in confidence of friendship. 6. “He gives up the righteousness of Christ.” (Page 9.) No more than I give up his Godhead. But I renounce both the phrase and thing, as it is explained by Antinomian writers. 7. “He gives up the atonement of Christ. The atonement and the righteousness of Christ he considers as mere words.” (Page 10.) Nothing can be more false.

12. “A vast number of sluts had taken possession of the preaching-houses,” (No; the preaching-houses were not in question,) “and female servants, by courtesy called maids,” (civil and kind ! But neither were servants in question,) “are * “Behold the token "-EDIT. filthy slovens in their persons, dress, and manoeuvres.” (See, Mr. Hill understands French !) “So Mr. John gives the public to understand.” (No, not Mr. John, but Mr. Hill. He goes on:) “And how is this mighty grievance to be redressed? ‘Why, says this Solomon in a cassock,” (Is not that witty?) “‘sluts are to be kept out, by not letting them in.’” (Imposture Detected, p. 12.) And is all this wit bestowed upon three poor lines? The words are just these:-- “Q. Complaint is made that sluts spoil our houses. How then can we prevent this? “A. Let no known slut live in any of them.” (Minutes.) What a colour does Mr. Hill put upon this ! But, meantime, where is conscience? Where is honour? 13. “He denies the doctrines of the Church of England;” (page 13;) that is, absolute predestination. Mr. Sellon has abundantly proved, that this is no doctrine of the Church of England. When Mr. Hill has answered his arguments, I will give him some more. The objections against lay Preachers (which come ill from Mr. Hill) I have largely answered in the “Third Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion.” But I know not that any lay Preachers in connexion with me, either baptize children, or administer the Lord’s supper. I never entreated anything of Bishop Erasmus, who had abundant unexceptionable credentials as to his episcopal character. Nor did he “ever reject any overture” made by me. (Page 14.) Herein Mr. Hill has been misinformed. I deny the fact; let him produce his evidence. The perfection I hold is so far from being contrary to the doctrine of our Church, that it is exactly the same which every Clergyman prays for every Sunday: “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.” I mean neither more nor less than this. In doctrine, therefore, I do not dissent from the Church of England. 14. However, “he renounces the discipline of the Church.” (Page 15.) This objection too I have answered at large, in my Letters to Dr.

However, “he renounces the discipline of the Church.” (Page 15.) This objection too I have answered at large, in my Letters to Dr. Church,-another kind of opponent than Mr. Rowland Hill; a gentleman, a scholar, and a Christian; and as such he both spoke and wrote. 15. “He falsely says, Almost all who were educated at Trevecka, except those that were ordained, and some of them too, disclaimed the Church, nay, and spoke of it upon all occasions with exquisite bitterness and contempt.” This is a terrible truth. If Lady Huntingdon requires it, I can procure affidavits, both concerning the time and place. 16. “He professes he stands in no need of Christ's righteousness.” (Page 23.) I never professed any such thing. The very sermon referred to, the fifth in the first volume, proves the contrary. But I flatly deny that sense of imputed righteousness which Mr. Hill contends for. 17. “He expressly maintains the merit of good works, in order to justification.” (Page 24.) Neither expressly nor implicitly. I hope Mr. Hill has not read Mr. Fletcher's Checks, nor my sermons on the subject. If he has not, he has a poor excuse for this assertion: If he has, he can have no excuse at all. 18. “He contradicts himself concerning Enoch and Elijah. See his Notés, the former edition.” (Page 28.) Wisely directed ! for Mr. Hill knew the mistake was corrected in the next edition. 19. “He is ever raising malicious accusations against the lives and doctrines of all Calvinists, whether Churchmen or Dissenters, throughout all the kingdom.” (Page 29.) Thousands of Calvinists know the contrary, both Church men and Dissenters. 20. “He exerts all his art to irritate the civil powers against all the people of God.” (Page 30.) “He says, the Dissenters revile and lightly esteem the sacred person of the King.” I answer, (1.) Are the Dissenters, are the Calvin ists, “all the people of God?” (2.) If you think they are, do all these defend the American rebels? Who affirms it? I hope not a quarter, not a tenth part, of them. (3.) Do I say, all the Dissenters revile the King? I neither say so, nor think so. Those that do, are guilty of what you impute to me. They “irritate the civil powers” against themselves. 21.

Hereby, however, he showed that he set an higher value on the gift, than on the money which he would have parted with for it. But you do not; you set a far higher value on the money than on the gift; insomuch that you do not desire, you will not accept of, the gift, unless the money accompany it ! The Bishop said, when you was ordained, “Receive thou the Holy Ghost.” But that was the least of your care. Let who will receive this, so you receive the money, the revenue of a good benefice. While you minister the word and sacraments before God, he gives the Holy Ghost to those who duly receive them: So that, “through your hands,” likewise, “the Holy Ghost is,” in this sense, “given” now. But you have little concern whether he be or not; so little, that you will minister no longer, he shall be given no more, either through your lips or hands, if you have no more money for your labour. O Simon, Simon what a saint wert thou, compared to many of the most honourable men now in Christendom | Let not any either ignorantly or wilfully mistake me. I would not “muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn.” I know the spiritual “labourer,” too, “is worthy of his reward;” and that, if “we sow unto” our flock “spiritual things,” it is meet that we “reap of their carnal things.” I do not therefore blame, no, not in any degree, a Minister's taking a yearly salary; but I blame his seeking it. The thing blamable is the having it in his view, as the motive, or any part of the motive, for entering into this sacred office. Hic nigra succus loliginis, hac est AErugomera." If preferment, or honour, or profit was in his eye, his eye was not single. And our Lord knew no medium between a single and an evil eye. The eye, therefore, which is not single is evil. It is a plain, adjudged case. He then that has any other design in undertaking or executing the office of a Minister than purely this, to glorify God and save souls, his eye is not single.

Till this is done, it can never be proved that “a dissent from the Church of England” (whether it can be justified from other topics or no) “is the genuine and just consequence of the allegiance which is due to Christ, as the only Law giver in the Church.” As you proposed to “bring the controversy to this short and plain issue, to let it turn on this single point,” I have done so; I have spoken to this alone; although I could have said something on many other points which you have advanced as points of the utmost certainty, although they are far more easily affirmed than proved. But I wave them for the present; hoping this may suffice to show any fair and candid inquirer, that it is very possible to be united to Christ and to the Church of England at the same time; that we need not separate from the Church, in order to preserve our allegiance to Christ; but may be firm members thereof, and yet “have a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man.” I am, Sir, Your very humble servant, January 10, 1758.

Thoughts on the Consecration of Churches and Burial Grounds Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 10 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- 1. It has been a custom for some ages, in Roman Catholic countries, to have a particular form of consecration for all churches and chapels: And not for these only, but for every thing pertaining to them; such as fonts, chalices, bells, sacer dotal vestments, and churchyards in particular. And all these customs universally prevailed in England, as long as it was under the Papal power. 2. From the time of our Reformation from Popery, most of these customs fell into disuse. Unconsecrated bells were rung without scruple, and unconsecrated vestments worn. But some of them remained still ; the consecration of churches and churchyards in particular; and many scrupled the performing divine service in an unconsecrated church, and could not consent that their bodies should be buried in unconsecrated ground. 3. Accordingly, the consecrating of churches and church yards has been practised in England ever since. But it is a thing purely indifferent, being neither forbidden nor established by law. The case is different in Ireland. While the Earl of Strafford was Lord Lieutenant of that kingdom, a law was made for the consecration, not only of churches, but of churchyards also. And a form of consecration for both was inserted in the Common Prayer-Book, which is used at this day; much resembling that which Archbishop Laud used in the consecration of St. Katherine Creed's church, in London. 4. But such a law has never passed in England, much less been inserted in our Common Prayer-Book. However, such consecration has been generally practised, though not autho rized by the legislature. “Is it then illegal?” That word is capable of a twofold meaning. It may mean, either, without any law in its favour, or, against law. I do not conceive it to be illegal in the latter sense. Perhaps it is in the former: I do not know any law that enjoins or even permits it. 5. And certainly, as it is not enjoined by the law of the land, so it is not enjoined by the law of God. Where do we find one word in the New Testament enjoining any such thing? Neither do I remember any precedent of it in the purest ages of the Church.

Neither do I remember any precedent of it in the purest ages of the Church. It seems to have entered, and gradually spread itself, with the other innovations and super stitions of the Church of Rome. “Do you think it, then, a superstitious practice?” Perhaps it is not, if it be practised as a thing indifferent. But if it be done as a necessary thing, then it is flatly superstitious. 6. For this reason I never wished that any Bishop should consecrate any chapel or burial-ground of mine. Indeed, I should not dare to suffer it; as I am clearly persuaded the thing is wrong in itself, being not authorized either by any law of God, or by any law of the land. In consequence of which, I conceive, that either the clerk or the sexton may as well consecrate the church or the churchyard, as the Bishop. 7. With regard to the latter, the churchyard, I know not who could answer that plain question: “You say, this is consecrated ground, so many feet broad, and so many long. But pray how deep is the consecrated ground?”--“Deep ! What does that signify?” O, a great deal: For if my grave be dug too deep, I may happen to get out of the consecrated ground: And who can tell what unhappy consequences may follow from this? 8. I take the whole of this practice to be a mere relic of Romish superstition. And I wonder that any sensible Protestant should think it right to countenance it; much more, that any reasonable man should plead for the necessity of it ! Surely, it is high time now that we should be guided, not by custom, but by Scripture and reason. DUMFRIEs, May 14, 1788.

“Indeed, as for a precedent of one House interfering with the rules, orders, or business of another, my memory does not serve me at present with the recollection of a single one. As to the case of Titus Oates, as mentioned by the noble Lord in my eye, (Lord Chatham,) he is very much mistaken in regard to the mode; his was a trial in the King's Bench, which, on a writ of error, the House of Commons interfered in, and they had an authority for so doing. A Judge certainly may be mistaken in points of law; the wisest and the best of us may be so at times; and it reflects no discredit, on the contrary, it does particular honour, when he finds himself so mistaken, to reverse his own decree. But for one House of Parliament interfering with the business, and reversing the resolutions, of another, it is not only unprecedented, but unconstitutional to the last degree. “But suppose, my Lords, that this House coincided with this motion; suppose we all agreed, nem. con., to repeal and rescind the Resolutions of the House of Commons, in regard to the expulsion and incapacitation of Mr. Wilkes;-Good God ! what may be the consequence 1 The people are violent enough already; and to have the superior branch of legisla tion join them, would be giving such a public encouragement to their proceedings, that I almost tremble while I even suppose such a scene of anarchy and confusion.” What then can we think of the violent outcry, that the nation is oppressed, deprived of that liberty which their ancestors bought with so much treasure and blood, and delivered down through so many generations? Do those who raise this cry believe what they say? If so, are they not under the highest infatuation? seeing that England, from the time of William the Conqueror, yea, of Julius Caesar, never enjoyed such liberty, civil and religious, as it does at this day. Nor do we know of any other kingdom or state in Europe or in the world, which enjoys the like. I do not defend the measures which have been taken with regard to America: I doubt whether any man can defend them, either on the foot of law, equity, or prudence. But whose measures were these? If I do not mistake, Mr. George Grenville's.

27. But can anything be done to open the eyes, to restore the senses, of an infatuated nation? Not unless the still renewed, still operating cause of that infatuation can be removed. But how is it possible to be removed, unless by restraining the licentiousness of the press? And is not this remedy worse than the disease? Let us weigh this matter a little. There was an ancient law in Scotland, which made leasing-making a capital crime. By leasing-making was meant, telling such wilful lies as tended to breed dissension between the King and his subjects. What pity but there should be such a law enacted in the present session of Parliament! By our present laws, a man is punishable for publishing even truth to the detriment of his neighbour. This I would not wish. But should he not be punished, who publishes palpable lies? and such lies as manifestly tend to breed dissension between the King and his subjects? Such, with a thousand more, was that bare-faced lie of the King’s bursting out into laughter before the city Magistrates ! Now, does not the publisher of this lie deserve to lose his ears more than a com mon knight of the post? And if he is liable to no punishment for a crime of so mischievous a nature, what a grievous defect is in our law ! And how loud does it call for a remedy 28. To return to the point whence we set out. You see whence arose this outcry for liberty, and these dismal com plaints that we are robbed of our liberty echoing through the land. It is plain to every unprejudiced man, they have not the least foundation. We enjoy at this day throughout these kingdoms such liberty, civil and religious, as no other king dom or commonwealth in Europe, or in the world, enjoys; and such as our ancestors never enjoyed from the Conquest to the Revolution. Let us be thankful for it to God and the King ! Let us not, by our vile unthankfulness, yea, our denial that we enjoy it at all, provoke the King of kings to take it away. By one stroke, by taking to himself that Prince whom we know not how to value, He might change the scene, and put an end to our civil as well as religious liberty.

Yet not altogether on this account neither; if so, it might be more tolerable. But here is an Englishman who has money enough to buy the estates of fifty freeholders, and yet he must not be numbered among the people because he has not two or three acres of land I How is this? By what right do you exclude a man from being one of the people because he has not forty shillings a year; yea, or not a groat? Is he not a man, whether he be 1 rich or poor? Has he not a soul and a body? Has he not the nature of a man; consequently, all the rights of a man, all that flow from human nature; and, among the rest, that of not being controlled by any but by his own consent. 14. “But he is excluded by law.” By what law? by a law of his own making? Did he consent to the making of it? Before this law was passed, was his consent either obtained or asked ? If not, what is that law to him? No man, you aver, has any power over another but by his own consent. Of consequence, a law made without his consent is, with regard to him, null and void. You cannot say other wise without destroying the supposition, that none can be governed but by his own consent. 15. See, now, to what your argument comes. You affirm, all power is derived from the people; and presently excluded one half of the people from having any part or lot in the matter. At another stroke, suppose England to contain eight millions of people, you exclude one or two millions more. At a third, suppose two millions left, you exclude three-fourths of these. And the poor pittance that remains, by I know not what figure of speech, you call the people of England 16. Hitherto we have endeavoured to view this point in the mere light of reason.

But why have they no work? Why are so many thousand people, in London, in Bristol, in Norwich, in every county, from one end of England to the other, utterly destitute of employment? Because the persons that used to employ them cannot afford to do it any longer. Many that employed fifty men, now scarce employ ten; those that employed twenty, now employ one, or none at all. They cannot, as they have no vent for their goods; food being so dear, that the generality of people are hardly able to buy anything else. 3. But why is food so dear? To come to particulars: Why does bread-corn bear so high a price? To set aside partial causes, (which indeed, all put together, are little more than the fly upon the chariot-wheel,) the grand cause is, because such immense quantities of corn are continually consumed by distilling. Indeed, an eminent distiller near London, hearing this, warmly replied, “Nay, my partner and I generally distil but a thousand quarters a week.” Perhaps so. And suppose five-and-twenty distillers, in and near the town, consume each only the same quantity: Here are five and-twenty thousand quarters a week, that is, above twelve hundred and fifty thousand a year, consumed in and about London | Add the distillers throughout England, and have we not reason to believe, that (not a thirtieth or a twentieth part only, but) little less than half the wheat produced in the kingdom is every year consumed, not by so harmless a way as throwing it into the sea, but by converting it into deadly poison; poison that naturally destroys not only the strength and life, but also the morals, of our countrymen? It may be objected, “This cannot be. We know how much corn is distilled by the duty that is paid. And hereby it appears, that scarce three hundred thousand quarters a year are distilled throughout the kingdom.” Do we know certainly, how much corn is distilled by the duty that is paid? Is it indisputable, that the full duty is paid for all the corn that is distilled? not to insist upon the multitude of private stills, which pay no duty at all. I have myself heard the servant of an eminent distiller occasionally aver, that for every gallon he distilled which paid duty, he distilled six which paid none.

I have myself heard the servant of an eminent distiller occasionally aver, that for every gallon he distilled which paid duty, he distilled six which paid none. Yea, I have heard distillers themselves affirm, “We must do this, or we cannot live.” It plainly follows, we cannot judge, from the duty that is paid, of the quantity of corn that is distilled. “However, what is paid brings in a large revenue to the King.” Is this an equivalent for the lives of his subjects? Would His Majesty sell an hundred thousand of his subjects yearly to Algiers for four hundred thousand pounds? Surely no. Will he then sell them for that sum, to be butchered by their own countrymen? “But otherwise the swine for the Navy cannot be fed.” Not unless they are fed with human flesh ! Not unless they are fatted with human blood O, tell it not in Constantinople, that the English raise the royal revenue by selling the flesh and blood of their countrymen I 4. But why are oats so dear? Because there are four times as many horses kept (to speak within compass) for coaches and chaises in particular, as were a few years ago. Unless, therefore, four times the oats grew now that grew then, they cannot be at the same price. If only twice as much is produced, (which, perhaps, is near the truth,) the price will naturally be double to what it was. And as the dearness of grain of one kind will always raise the price of another, so whatever causes the dearness of wheat and oats must raise the price of barley too. To account, therefore, for the dearness of this, we need only remember what has been observed above; although some particular causes may concur in producing the same effect. 5. Why are beef and mutton so dear? Because many considerable farmers, particularly in the northern counties, who used to breed large numbers of sheep, or horned cattle, and very frequently both, now breed none at all: They no longer trouble themselves with either sheep, or cows, or oxen; as they can turn their land to far better account by breeding horses alone. Such is the demand, not only for coach and chaise horses, which are bought and destroyed in incredible numbers, but much more for bred horses, which are yearly exported by hundreds, yea, thousands, to France.

As to the punishments inflicted on them, says Sir Hans Sloane, “they frequently geld them, or chop off half a foot: After they are whipped till they are raw all over, some put pepper and salt upon them; some drop melted wax upon their skin; others cut off their ears, and constrain them to broil and eat them. For rebellion,” (that is, asserting their native liberty, which they have as much right to as to the air they breathe,) “they fasten them down to the ground with crooked sticks on every limb, and then applying fire, by degrees, to the feet and hands, they burn them gradually upward to the head.” 9. But will not the laws made in the plantations prevent or redress all cruelty and oppression? We will take but a few of those laws for a specimen, and then let any man judge: In order to rivet the chain of slavery, the law of Virginia ordains: “That no slave shall be set free upon any pretence whatever, except for some meritorious services, to be adjudged and allowed by the Governor and Council; and that where any slave shall be set free by his owner, otherwise than is herein directed, the Churchwardens of the parish, wherein such Negro shall reside for the space of one month, are hereby authorized and required to take up and sell the said Negro by public outcry.” 10. Will not these lawgivers take effectual care to prevent cruelty and oppression? The law of Jamaica ordains: “Every slave that shall run away, and continue absent from his master twelve months, shall be deemed rebellious.” And by another law, fifty pounds are allowed to those who kill or bring in alive a rebellious slave. So their law treats these poor men with as little cere mony and consideration, as if they were merely brute beasts! But the innocent blood which is shed in consequence of such a detestable law, must call for vengeance on the murderous abettors and actors of such deliberate wickedness. 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 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 1) “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 lawmakers to £xpect 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 inquire, 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. 1 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 differ ence 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? Where is the justice of inflicting the severest evils on those that have done us no wrong? of depriving those that never injured us in word or deed, of every comfort of life?

When a man voluntarily comes into America, he may lose what he had when in Europe. Perhaps he had a right to vote for a knight or burgess; by crossing the sea he did not forfeit this right. But it is plain, he has made the exercise of it no longer possible. He has reduced himself from a voter to one of the innumerable multitude that have no votes. 6. But you say, “As the colonies are not represented in the British Parliament, they are entitled to a free power of legislation. For they inherit all the right which their ancestors had of enjoying all the privileges of Englishmen.” They do inherit all the privileges which their ancestors had; but they can inherit no more. Their ancestors left a country where the representatives of the people were elected by men particularly qualified, and where those who wanted that qualification were bound by the decisions of men whom they had not deputed. You are the descendants of men who either had no votes, or resigned them by emigration. You have therefore exactly what your ancestors left you; not a vote in making laws, nor in choosing legislators; but the happiness of being protected by laws, and the duty of obeying them. What your ancestors did not bring with them, neither they nor their descendants have acquired. They have not, by aban doning their right in one legislature, acquired a right to consti tute another; any more than the multitudes in England who have no vote, have a right to erect a Parliament for themselves. 7. However, the “colonies have a right to all the privi leges granted them by royal charters, or secured to them by provincial laws.” The first clause is allowed: They have certainly a right to all the privileges granted them by royal charters; provided those privileges be consistent with the British constitution. But as to the second there is a doubt: Provincial laws may grant privileges to individuals of the province; but surely no province can confer provincial privileges on itself! They have a right to all which the King has given them; but not to all which they have given themselves. 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.

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.

However, little as it was, they bore it not without huge indignation, and strong marks of resentment. And whenever a matter of this kind came before an American jury, (which could not but frequently be the case,) it was easy to foresee the event. The officer was sure to have his labour for his pains; for they were too good patriots to condemn their countrymen I By this means the customs of North-America, which ought to have brought in so considerable a sum as would have gone far toward defraying the expense of the government, were reduced to a very small pittance. 9. In consideration of this, the English Government a few years ago thought it equitable to lay a small duty upon the stamps in America, in order, if not to bear themselves harm less, yet to lessen their burden. Immediately a cry arose, as if all America was just going to be swallowed up. It was echoed across the Atlantic Ocean, from America to England. The patriots (so they styled themselves) in England eagerly joined the cry, and spared no labour and no expense to pro pagate it throughout the nation. Do you suppose they did this out of stark love and kindness to the poor, ruined Americans? No such matter. They understood the case too well; they knew they cried before they were hurt. But they laid hold on this as a fair occasion to throw an aspersion on those that were in power, being very willing, and supposing themselves very worthy, to supply their place. However, the Ministry finding the clamour increasing, and the storm spreading on both sides the ocean, were persuaded to give way to the torrent. They did so; and the Stamp Act was repealed. 10. The American leaders now apprehending that they had a sufficient number of fast friends in England, began to entertain higher designs; the New-England men in particular. They had no longer anything to fear from Canada, which the English had conquered for them. And they had nothing to fear from England, when they judged their allies were growing stronger and stronger. They therefore paved the way for the execution of their favourite scheme; first, by diligently cultivating the republican motions which they had received from their forefathers; and then by speaking and writing in the most contemptuous and reproachful manner of the English Government. 11.

What Minister is permitted to follow his own conscience in the execution of his office? to put man in mind to be “subject to principalities and powers?” to “fear God and honour the King?” Who is suffered (whatever his conscience may dictate) to “pray for the King, and all that are in authority?” There is no civil liberty. No man hath any security, either for his goods, or for his person; but is daily liable to have his goods spoiled or taken away, without either law or form of law, and to suffer the most cruel outrage as to his person, such as many would account worse than death. And there is no legal method wherein he can obtain redress for whatever loss or outrage he has sustained. 20. Do not you observe, wherever these bawlers for liberty govern, there is the vilest slavery? No man there can say that his goods are his own. They are absolutely at the dis posal of the mob, or the Congress. No man can say that his tongue is his own. If he say a word for the King, what will follow * No man can say that his body is his own. He may be imprisoned whenever our lords the Congress please. They are as absolute as the Emperor of Morocco: Their will is the sole law. No man can say his life is his own. Those who have the disposal of his substance, who have the disposal of his liberty, have the disposal of his life also. And of this they have given recent proofs. It is true, they do not themselves cut throats; they do not soil their own fingers; but their friends the mob are always ready. Thus is real liberty, in all its branches, given up for that poor shadow, independency! a phantom which does not, in fact, exist in any civilized nation under heaven It never did, and never will, being wholly inconsistent with the very idea of government. And to what a condition are these poor colonies brought, by quitting the substance for the shadow ! “Do you ask,” says a gentleman who writes from Philadelphia, “what is the present state of these provinces? You may see it upon Ezekiel's roll; such is the condition of this country: “It is written within and without, lamentation, and mourning, and woe.’” 21.

7. But you say, “The Parliament has already deprived them of one great branch of liberty, by enacting, that, in the cases there specified, they shall be tried in England.” I answer, How grievously did they abuse that liberty before it was taken away ! Let any fair man consider the case: How often have we heard of their quiet and peaceable submission to pay the duties by law established ! And what a merit has been made of this by all their advocates! But it was a merit that never belonged to them; for the duties were not paid. All this time they did not, in fact, pay one half, no, not a quarter, of those duties. They continually defrauded the King of the far greater part of them, without shame or fear. Indeed, what should they fear? They did not deign to do it privately, like their fellows in England; no, they acted openly in the face of the sun. Ship-loads of tea, for instance, were brought into Boston harbour, and landed at noon-day, without paying any duty at all. Who should hinder it? If a custom-house officer hindered, was it not at the peril of his life? And if, at any time, a seizure was made, and the cause came to be tried by a Boston jury, what would follow It was no more than, “Ask your fellow, whether you are a thief.” 8. Permit me to mention one eminent instance: The famous Mr. John Hancock, some time since, brought into Boston a ship-load of smuggled tea, at noon-day. Just then came in the ships from London, laden with the same com modity, which, by the removal of the former tax, they were now enabled to sell cheaper than him. What could he now do pro patria 2 as Mr. Evans says; in plain English, not to lose by his cargo? All Europe knows what was done: “Some persons in disguise,” Dr. Price tells us, “buried the English tea in the sea.” It was not so commonly known who employed them, or paid them for their labour: To be sure, good Mr. Hancock knew no more of it than the child unborn | 9. Now, I desire to know of any reasonable man, what could the English Government do? No officer could seize the smuggled goods; or, if he did, no jury would condemn the smuggler.

Has he not a soul and a body? Has he not the nature of a man; consequently, all the rights of a man, all that flow from human nature; and, among the rest, that of not being controlled by any but by his own consent? “But he that has not a freehold is excluded by law.” By a law of his own making? Did he consent to the making of it? If he did not, what is that law to him ? No man, you aver, has any power over another, but by his own consent: Of consequence, a law made without his consent is, with regard to him, null and void. You cannot say other wise, without destroying the supposition, that “none can be governed but by his own consent.” 26. See now to what your argument comes. You affirm, all power is derived from the people; and presently exclude one half of the people from having any part or lot in the matter. At another stroke, suppose England to contain eight millions of people, you exclude one or two millions more. At a third, suppose two millions left, you exclude three-fourths of these; and the poor pittance that remains, by I know not what figure of speech, you call the people of England ! 27. Hitherto we have endeavoured to view this point in the mere light of reason; and, even by this, it appears, that this supposition, which has been palmed upon us as undeniable, is not only false, not only contrary to reason, but contradictory to itself; the very men who are most positive that the people are the source of power, being brought into an inextricable difficulty, by that single question, “Who are the people?” reduced to a necessity of either giving up the point, or owning that by the people, they mean scarce a tenth part of them. 28. But we need not rest the matter entirely on reasoning. Let us appeal to matter of fact; and, because we cannot have so clear a prospect of what is at a distance, let us only take a view of what has been in our own country. I ask, then, When did the people of England (suppose you mean by that word only half a million of them) choose their own Governors? Did they choose (to go no further) William the Conqueror?

Then let them acknowledge their benefactors. “They rejoice particu larly in the last restraining Act: This will furnish them with a reason for confiscating the estates of all the friends of our Government among them.” (Page 97.) A reason / All the friends of our Government are infinitely obliged to you for suggesting this to them, who are full ready to improve any hint of the kind; and it will be no wonder if they soon use these enemies of their country as the Irish did the Protestants in 1641. 52. “One consideration more. From one end of America to the other, they are fasting and praying: But what are we doing? Ridiculing them as fanatics, and scoffing at religion.” This certainly is the case with many; but God forbid it should be the case with all ! There are thousands in England (I believe full as many, if not many more than in America) who are daily wrestling with God in prayer for a blessing upon their King and country; and many join fasting therewith; which, if it were publicly enjoined, would be no scandal to our nation. Are they “animated by piety?” So are we; although “not unto us be the praise.” “But can we declare, in the face of the sun, that we are not aggressors in this war?” We can. “And that we mean not, by it, to acquire dominion or empire, or to gratify resentment?” (Page 99.) I humbly believe, both the King and his Ministers can declare this before God: “But solely to gain reparation for injury,” from men who have already plundered very many of His Majesty’s loyal subjects, and killed no small number of them. 53. You now proceed to answer objections; and mention, as the First, “Are they not our subjects?” You answer: “They are not your subjects; they are your fellow-subjects.” Are they indeed? Do you affirm this? Then you give up the whole question; then their independency, which you have so vehemently maintained, falls to the ground at once. A Second objection, you say, is this: “But we are taxed; why should not they?” You answer: “You are taxed by yourselves; they insist on the same privilege.” I reply, They are now taxed by themselves, in the very same sense that nine-tenths of us are.

A Second objection, you say, is this: “But we are taxed; why should not they?” You answer: “You are taxed by yourselves; they insist on the same privilege.” I reply, They are now taxed by themselves, in the very same sense that nine-tenths of us are. We have not only no vote in the Parliament, but none in electing the members: Yet Mr. Evans says, “We are virtually represented:” And if we are, so are the Americans. You add: “They help you to pay your taxes, by giving you a monopoly of their trade.” They consented, as you observed before, to do this; but they have not done it for many years: They have, in fact, traded to Holland, to France, to Spain, and everywhere they could. And how have they helped us, by purchasing our manufac tures? Take one instance out of a thousand: They have taken large quantities of our earthenware, for which they regularly required three years’ credit. These they sold to the Spaniards, at a very advanced price, and for ready money only. And did they not hereby help themselves, at least, as much as they helped us? And what have we lost by losing their custom? We have gained forty, fifty, or sixty per cent. The Spaniards now come directly to Bristol; and pay down ready money, pieces of eight, for all the earthenware that can possibly be procured. 54. A Third objection, you say, is this: “They will not obey the Parliament and the laws.” You answer: “Say, They will not obey your Parliament and your laws; because they have no voice in your Parliament, no share in making your laws.” (Page 100.) So, now the mask quite falls off again. A page or two ago, you said, “They are your fellow subjects.” Now, you frankly declare, they owe no subjection to our Government, and attempt to prove it! To that proof I reply: Millions in England have no more voice in the Parliament than they ; yet that does not exempt them from subjection to the Government and the laws. But “they may have a voice in it if they will.” No; they cannot, any more than the Americans. “Then they so far want liberty.” I answer, (1.) Whether they do or no, they must needs be subject; and that not only for wrath, for fear of punishment, but for conscience sake.

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.

For they will then “find no place for repentance, though they should seek it carefully with tears.” O my friend, know the privilege you enjoy. Now, “remem ber the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy.” Your day of life and of grace is far spent. The night of death is at hand. Make haste to use the time you have; improve the last hours of your day. Now provide “the things which make for your peace,” that you may stand before the face of God for ever.

A Word to a Smuggler Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 11 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- I. “WHAT is smuggling?” It is the importing, selling, or buying of run goods; that is, those which have not paid the duty appointed by law to be paid to the King. 1. Importing run goods. All smuggling vessels do this with an high hand. It is the chief, if not the whole, business of these to bring goods which have not paid duty. 2. Next to these are all sea Captains, Officers, sailors, or passengers, who import anything without paying the duty which the law requires. 3. A third sort of smugglers are all those who sell anything which has not paid the duty. 4. A fourth sort, those who buy tea, liquors, linen, hand kerchiefs, or anything else which has not paid duty. II. “But why should they not? What harm is there in it 2 * 1. I answer, open smuggling (such as was common a few years ago, on the southern coasts especially) is robbing on the highway; and as much harm as there is in this, just so much there is in smuggling. A smuggler of this kind is no honester than an highwayman. They may shake hands together. 2. Private smuggling is just the same with picking of pockets. There is full as much harm in this as in that. A smuggler of this kind is no honester than a pickpocket. These may shake hands together. 3. But open smugglers are worse than common highway men, and private smugglers are worse than common pick pockets. For it is undoubtedly worse to rob our father than one we have no obligation to. And it is worse still, far worse, to rob a good father, one who sincerely loves us, and is at that very time doing all he can to provide for us and to make us happy. Now, this is exactly the present case. King George is the father of all his subjects; and not only so, but he is a good father. He shows his love to them on all occasions; and is continually doing all that is in his power to make his subjects happy. 4. An honest man therefore would be ashamed to ask, Where is the harm in robbing such a father?

us freely and willingly to please thee, in the constant exercise of righteousness and mercy, temperance and charity, meek ness and patience, truth and fidelity; together with such an humble, contented, and peaceable spirit, as may adorn the religion of our Lord and Master. Yea, let it ever be the joy of our hearts to be righteous, as thou art righteous; to be merciful, as thou, our heavenly Father, art merciful; to be “holy, as thou who hast called us art holy, in all manner of conversation;” to be endued with thy divine wisdom, and to resemble thee in faithfulness and truth. O that the example of our blessed Saviour may be always dear unto us, that we may cheerfully follow him in every holy temper, and delight to do thy will, O God. Let these desires, which thou hast given us, never die or languish in our hearts, but be kept always alive, always in their vigour and force, by the perpetual inspirations of the Holy Ghost. Accept, likewise, of our thanks, for thy merciful preserva tion of us all this day. We are bold again to commit ourselves unto thee this night. Defend us from all the powers of darkness; and raise up our spirits, together with our bodies, in the morning, to such a vigorous sense of thy continued goodness, as may provoke us all the day long to an unwearied diligence in well-doing. And the same mercies that we beg for ourselves, we desire. for the rest of mankind; especially for those who are called by the name of Christ.

for the rest of mankind; especially for those who are called by the name of Christ. O that every one of these may do his duty with all fidelity; that Kings may be tender-hearted, as the fathers of their countries; and all their subjects may be dutiful and obedient to them, as their children; that the Pastors of thy Church may feed their flocks with true wisdom and understanding, and the people all may submit unto them, and follow their godly counsels; that the rich and mighty may have compassion on the poor and miserable; and all such distressed people may bless the rich, and rejoice in the pros perity of those that are above them Give to husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants, the grace to behave themselves so in their several relations, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things, and may receive of him a crown of glory; in whose holy name and words we continue to beseech thy grace and mercy towards us and all thy people everywhere, saying, “Our Father,” &c. O God, blessed for ever, we thank and praise thee for all thy benefits, for the comforts of this life, and our hope of everlasting salvation in the life to come. We desire to have a lively sense of thy love always possessing our hearts, that may still constrain us to love thee, to obey thee, to trust in thee, to be content with the portion thy love allots unto us, and to rejoice even in the midst of all the troubles of this life. Thou hast delivered thine own Son for us all. How shalt thou not with him also freely give us all things? We depend upon thee especially for the grace of thy Holy Spirit. O that we may feel it perpetually bearing us up, by the strength of our most holy faith, above all the temptations that may at any time assault us; that we may keep ourselves unspotted from the world, and may still cleave to thee in righteousness, in lowliness, purity of heart, yea, the whole mind that was in Christ. Let thy mighty power enable us to do our duty towards thee, and towards all men, with care, and diligence, and zeal, and perseverance, unto the end.

Let me not bear any malice or hatred in my heart. Keep my hands from picking and stealing, my tongue from evil speaking, lying, and slandering; keep my body in temperance, soberness, and chastity; that I may not covet any person's goods, but learn and labour to get my own living, and to do my duty in the state of life wherein it shall please thee to place me. Direct me so to pass through things temporal, that I may not finally lose the things which are eternal, but at last be received into thy presence, where is fulness of joy, and be seated at thy right hand, where are pleasures for evermore, through Jesus Christ my Saviour. Amen. “Our Father,” &c. O Lord God, the gracious Giver of all good things, I praise and adore thee for thy goodness, which has been so plentiful towards me an unworthy child of man. Thou hast in thy mercy, not only preserved me this day from all dangers, but bestowed upon me all things needful, for which I desire entirely to praise thy fatherly goodness, and with angels and sarchangels, and all the company of heaven, to laud and magnify thy holy name. Bless, then, the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me, praise his holy name; for the Lord is gracious, and his mercy is everlasting towards them that fear him. And now, Lord, I most humbly implore thy fatherly goodness to forgive me whatever has this day, in my heart or life, offended the eyes of thy glory. O Lamb of God, Son of the Father, that takest away the sins of the world, receive my prayer. Prevent me, O Lord, in all my doings for the time to come, and further me with thy continual help, that, in all my thoughts, words, and works, I may continually glorify thy holy name. Grant me thy grace, that I may follow thy blessed saints in all righteousness and holy living, that I may at last come to be a partaker with them of glory everlasting. Do thou enable me, gracious Lord, to adorn thy gospel in all holy conversation, and to do whatever I do to the glory of thy name. Cleanse the thoughts of my heart, by the inspira tion of thy Holy Spirit, that I may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy name.

A Short Account of the Life and Death of the Reverend John Fletcher Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 11 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- No man in England has had so long an acquaint ance with Mr. Fletcher as myself. Our acquaintance began almost as soon as his arrival in London, about the year 1752, before he entered into Holy Orders, or, I believe, had any such intention; and it continued uninterrupted between thirty and forty years, even till it pleased God to take him to himself. Nor was ours a slight or ordinary acquaintance; but we were of one heart and of one soul. We had no secrets between us for many years; we did not purposely, hide anything from each other. From time to time he consulted me, and I him, on the most important occasions; and he constantly professed, not only much esteem, but, what I valued far more, much affection. He told me in one of his letters,--I doubt not from his heart, Tecum vivere amem; tecum obeam lubens. “With thee I gladly would both live and die.” I therefore think myself obliged by the strongest ties to pay this small tribute to his memory. But you may easily observe, that, in doing this, I am little more than a compiler; for I owe a great, if not the greatest, part of the ensuing Tract to a few friends, who have been at no small pains in furnishing me with materials; and, above all, to my dear friend, (such she has been almost from her childhood,) Mrs. Fletcher. I could easily have altered both hers and their language, while I retained their sentiments; but I was conscious I could not alter it for the better; and I would not alter for altering' sake; but judged it fairest to give you most of their accounts, very nearly in their own words. Amsterdam, September 12, 1786. 1. JoHN WILLIAM DE LA FLECHERE (this was properly his name) was born at Nyon, in Switzerland, a town about fifteen miles north of Geneva, on September the twelfth, in the year 1729. His father was an Officer in the French service, till he left the army in order to marry; but after a time he returned to the army, and was a Colonel in the Militia of his own country. 2.

9. When he returned from London in the same year, he was more frequently invited to preach in several of the neighbouring churches. And before his quitting the country he gave me a few printed papers, entitled, “A Christmas-box for Journey men and Apprentices.” I mention it the rather because I suppose this was the first thing which he ever published. 10. It was in the beginning of June, 1759, that he returned the last time from London to Tern-Hall; and being now less frequently called to public duty, he enjoyed his beloved retirement, giving himself up to study, meditation, and prayer, and walking closely with God. Indeed his whole life was now a life of prayer; and so intensely was his mind fixed upon God, that I have heard him say, “I would not move from my seat, without lifting up my heart to God.” Wherever we met, if we were alone, his first salute was, “Do I meet you praying?” And if we were talking on any point of divinity, when we were in the depth of our discourse, he would often break off abruptly, and ask, “Where are our hearts now 7” If ever the misconduct of an absent person was mentioned, his usual reply was, “Let us pray for him.” ll. It was, as I remember, about the close of this summer, that he was frequently desired, sometimes to assist, at other times to perform the whole service for, Mr. Chambers, then Vicar of Madeley. On these occasions it was, that he con tracted such an affection for the people of Madeley, as nothing could hinder from increasing more and more to the day of his death. While he officiated at Madeley, as he still lived at the Hall, ten miles distant from it, a groom was ordered to get a horse ready for him every Sunday morning. But so great was his aversion for giving trouble to any one, that if the groom did not wake at the time, he seldom would suffer him to be called, but prepared the horse for himself. 12. In answer to some queries concerning him, a gentle man who was intimately acquainted with him for many years wrote to me as follows:- “MY aversion to writing letters increases with my declining years. And yet I most willingly pay this debt to the precious memory of an old friend.

I believe it is therefore my bounden duty to clear up the whole affair. And I cannot do this better than by transcribing the substance of an account which I have received from Mr. Benson, in answer to my inquiries: 6. “My acquaintance with him,” says he, “ commenced when I was at Kingswood,--I think, in the year 1768. As he now and then made a short excursion from Madeley to Bath or Bristol, in one of those excursions we invited him to give us a sermon at Kingswood. He was peculiarly assisted while he was applying those encouraging words: ‘Him that cometh unto me I will in mowise cast out. The people were exceedingly affected; indeed, quite melted down. The tears streamed so fast from the eyes of the poor colliers, that their grisly, black faces were washed by them, and almost univer sally streaked with white. And as to himself, his zealous soul had been carried out so far beyond his strength, that, when he concluded, he put off a shirt which was as wet as if it had been dipped in water. But this was nothing strange; when ever he preached, it was generally the case. From this time I conceived a particular esteem for him, chiefly on account of his piety; and wished much for a greater intimacy with him; a blessing which I soon after obtained. 7. “For, about this time, the Countess of Huntingdon erected a seminary at Trevecka, in Wales, in order to educate pious young men, of whatever denomination, for the ministry. She proposed to admit only such as were converted to God, and resolved to dedicate themselves to His service. They were at liberty to stay there three years; during which they were to have their education gratis, with every necessary of life, and a suit of clothes once a year: Afterwards those who desired it might enter into the ministry, either in the Established Church of England, or among Protestants of any other denomina tion. From the high opinion which the Countess had of Mr. Fletcher’s piety, learning, and abilities for such an office, she invited him to undertake the direction of that seminary. Not that he could promise to be chiefly resident there; much less constantly. His duty to his own flock at Madeley would by no means admit of this.

While I preached the next day I found myself as much shackled as ever I was in my life. And after private prayer, I concluded I was not in my place. The same day, I resigned my office to my Lady, and on Wednesday, to the students and the Lord. “‘Mr. Shirley has sent my Lady a copy of part of the Minutes of the last Conference, viz., of the year 1770. They were called horrible and abominable. My Lady told me, she must burn against them ; and that whoever did not fully dis avow them must quit the College. She accordingly ordered the Master and all the students to write their sentiments upon them without reserve. I did so; explained them according to Mr. Wesley’s sentiments; and approved the doctrine, though not cautiously worded. I concluded by observing, that as, after such a step on my part, and such a declaration on my Lady’s, I could no longer, as an honest man, stay in the College, I took my leave of it; wishing my Lady might find a Minister to preside over it less insufficient than 16. “These were his reasons for resigning his charge at Trevecka. As the Circular Letter now went abroad, under the name of Mr. Shirley, inviting the Clergy of all denomina tions to assemble in a body at Bristol to oppose you and the Preachers met in Conference, and oblige you to revoke the dreadful heresies contained in those Minutes; and as Mr. Fletcher thought the Churches throughout Christendom to be verging very fast toward Antinomianism; he thought the propositions contained in those Minutes ought rather to be confirmed than revoked. And as he was now retired to his parish, he had more leisure for such a work than before. So, after much prayer and consideration, he determined to write in defence of them. In how able a manner he did this, I need not tell any that have read those incomparable writings. I know not how to give the character of them better, than in the words of Dr. D , to whom I sent Mr. Fletcher's Checks, with a recommendatory letter. He answered me,-- “‘WHEN I first read yours, I must own, I suspected your friendship for Mr.

7. Here, also, he missed no opportunity of instructing servants and children, suiting his discourse, in a manner pecu liar to himself, to their capacity or their business. And what would have appeared low in another, did not appear so when spoken by him. Thus, he advised the cook to stir up the fire of divine love in his heart, that it might burn up all the rubbish therein, and raise a flame of holy affection; to which, with the greatest cordiality, he would subjoin a short prayer. Thus, to the housemaid he said, “I entreat you to sweep every corner of your heart, that it may be fit to receive your heavenly Guest.” To a poor man, who came there in a deep consump tion, but little concerned for his soul, he said, in a very solemn manner, (laying one hand on his own breast, and the other on the poor man's,) “God has fixed a loud knocker at your breast and mine. Because we did not regard, as we ought to have done, the gentle knocks and calls of his Holy Spirit, his word, and his providences, he has taken fast hold here, and we cannot get out of his hand. O let this knocker awaken you, who are just dropping into eternal sleep!” 8. When one or another occasionally mentioned any unkind thing which had been said of him or his writings, if the person who had said it was named, he would stop the speaker imme diately, and offer up the most fervent prayer for the person of whom he spoke. He did not willingly suffer any one to say anything against his opponents; and he made all the allowances for them, which, on a change of circumstances, he would have wished them to make for him. 9. He continued at Brislington till the 1st of December, 1777. All other means having now been fairly tried, with very little effect, most of the symptoms being nearly the same as they were several months ago, it was determined, by the most skilful Physicians, that nothing could save his life but a sea-voyage When this was fixed, Mr. Ireland (a friend in need) carried him back to Newington. While he was here, preparing for his voyage, he wrote as follows to one of his flock at Madeley:-- “I HEARTILY thank you for your kind letter.

Fletcher's house is a fine large building, agreeably situated. It is in the form of a castle, and is supposed to have been built five hundred years ago.- “In passing through France, how bitterly did I regret the want of the Sunday Service And it was not much better with me when I came into Switzerland. For I under stood so little of their language, that I could not profit much by the public Service. Indeed this loss is in some measure made up by the company and conversation of Mr. Fletcher; who, however engaged he is the greater part of the day, is generally so kind as to spend a little time with me in the evening, in prayer and conversation. “His chief delight seems to be in the meeting of his little society of children. And as he is exceeding fond of them, they appear to be altogether as fond of him. He seldom either walks abroad or rides out, but some of them follow him; singing the hymns they have learned, and conversing with him, by the way. But you must not suppose that he is permitted to enjoy this happiness unmolested. Not only the drunkards make songs upon him and his little companions, but many of the Clergy loudly complain of such irregular proceedings. However, he is upon good terms with the three Ministers of the place; all of whom are not only serious men, but desirous of promoting true religion. “He is certainly stronger, and in better health, than he was when he left England. But as soon as ever he ventures to preach, his spitting of blood returns. Whenever this happens, his strength and spirits decay surprisingly, which he cannot in anywise recover but by lying by for some days. “Whether I succeed in my temporal business or not, I shall ever remember with pleasure and thankfulness the oppor tunities I have been blessed with of spending so much time in company with our inestimable friend; who, wherever he goes, preaches the gospel, both by his words and example, nay, by his very looks, not only to his friends, but to all he meets with. So that on the top of the frozen Alps, and in the dreary vale of Chateau d'Oex, some good seed has been sown. “When my business constrained me to go to Chateau d'Oex, Mr. Fletcher bore me company.

- (4.) All our blessings, temporal, spiritual, and eternal, depend on his intercession for us, which is one branch of his priestly office, whereof therefore we have always equal need. (5.) The best of men still need Christ in his priestly office, to atone for their omissions, their short-comings, (as some not improperly speak,) their mistakes in judgment and practice, and their defects of various kinds. For these are all deviations from the perfect law, and consequently need an atonement. Yet that they are not properly sins, we apprehend may appear from the words of St. Paul, “He that loveth, hath fulfilled the law; for love is the fulfilling of the law.” (Rom. xiii. 10.) Now, mistakes, and whatever infirmities necessarily flow from the corruptible state of the body, are noway contrary to love; nor therefore, in the f$cripture sense, sin. “To explain myself a little farther on this head: (1) Not only sin, properly so called, (that is, a voluntary trans gression of a known law,) but sin, improperly so called, (that is, an involuntary transgression of a divine law, known or unknown,) needs the atoning blood. (2.) I believe there is no such perfection in this life as excludes these involuntary trans gressions which I apprehend to be naturally consequent on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality. (3.) Therefore sinless perfection is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself (4.) I believe, a person filled with the love of God is still liable to these involuntary transgressions. (5.) Such transgressions you may call sins, if you please: I do not, for the reasons above-mentioned. “Q. What advice would you give to those that do, and those that do not, call them so? “A. Let those that do not call them sins, never think that themselves or any other persons are in such a state as that they can stand before infinite justice without a Mediator. This must argue either the deepest ignorance, or the highest arrogance and presumption. “Let those who do call them so, beware how they confound these defects with sins, properly so called. “But how will they avoid it? How will thesebe distinguished from those, if they are all promiscuously called sins?

About the same time, five or six honest enthusiasts foretold the world was to end on the 28th of February. I immediately withstood them, by every possible means, both in public and private. I preached expressly upon the subject, both at West-Street and Spitalfields. I warned the society, again and again, and spoke severally to as many as I could; and I saw the fruit of my labour. They made exceeding few converts: I believe scarce thirty in our whole society. Never theless, they made abundance of noise, gave huge occasion of offence to those who took care to improve to the uttermost every occasion against me, and greatly increased both the number and courage of those who opposed Christian perfection. 23. Some questions, now published by one of these, induced a plain man to write the following “QUERIEs, humbly proposed to those who deny perfection to be attainable in this life. “(1.) Has there not been a larger measure of the Holy Spirit given under the Gospel, than under the Jewish dispensation? If not, in what sense was the Spirit not given before Christ was glorified? (John vii. 39.) “(2.) Was that “glory which followed the sufferings of Christ,” (1 Peter i. 11,) an external glory, or an internal, viz., the glory of holiness? “(3.) Has God anywhere in Scripture commanded us more than he has promised to us? “(4.) Are the promises of God respecting holiness to be fulfilled in this life, or only in the next? “(5.) Is a Christian under any other laws than those which God promises to ‘write in our hearts?’ (Jer. xxxi. 31, &c.; Heb. viii. 10.) “(6.) In what sense is ‘the righteousness of the law fulfilled in those who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit?’ (Romans viii. 4.) “(7.) Is it impossible for any one in this life to ‘love God with all his heart, and mind, and soul, and strength?’ And is the Christian under any law which is not fulfilled in this love? “(8) Does the soul's going out of the body effect its purification from indwelling sin? “(9.) If so, is it not something else, not ‘the blood of Christ which cleanseth it ‘from all sin P’ “(10.) If his blood cleanseth us from all sin, while the soul and body are united, is it not in this life?

His body was then no clog to the mind; it did not hinder his apprehending all things clearly, judging truly concerning them, and reasoning justly, if he reasoned at all. I say, if he reasoned; for possibly he did not. Perhaps he had no need of reasoning, till his corruptible body pressed down the mind, and impaired its native faculties. Perhaps, till then, the mind saw every truth that offered as directly as the eye now sees the light. “Consequently, this law, proportioned to his original powers, required that he should always think, always speak, and always act precisely right, in every point whatever. He was well able so to do: And God could not but require the service he was able to pay. “But Adam fell; and his incorruptible body became corruptible; and ever since, it is a clog to the soul, and hinders its operations. Hence, at present, no child of man can at all times apprehend clearly, or judge truly. And where either the judgment or apprehension is wrong, it is impossible to reason justly. Therefore, it is as natural for a man to mistake as to breathe; and he can no more live without the one than without the other: Consequently, no man is able to perform the service which the Adamic law requires. “And no man is obliged to perform it; God does not require it of any man: For Christ is the end of the Adamic, as well as the Mosaic, law. By his death, he hath put an end to both; he hath abolished both the one and the other, with regard to man; and the obligation to observe either the one or the other is vanished away. Nor is any man living bound to observe the Adamic more than the Mosaic law.” “In the room of this, Christ hath established another, namely, the law of faith. Not every one that doeth, but every one that believeth, now receiveth righteousness, in the full sense ·of the word; that is, he is justified, sanctified, and glorified. “Q. 2. Are we then dead to the law 7 “A. We are ‘dead to the law, by the body of Christ’ given for us; (Rom. vii. 4;) to the Adamic as well as Mosaic law. We are wholly freed therefrom by his death; that law expiring with him. “Q. 3.

3. How, then, are we ‘not without law to God, but under the law to Christ?” (1 Cor. ix. 21.) “A. We are without that law; but it does not follow that we are without any law : For God has established another law in its place, even the law of faith: And we are all under this law to God and to Christ; both our Creator and our Redeemer require us to observe it. “Q. 4. Is love the fulfilling of this law? * I mean, it is not the condition either of present or future salvation. “A. Unquestionably it is. The whole law under which we now are, is fulfilled by love. (Rom. xiii. 9, 10.) Faith working or animated by love is all that God now requires of man. He has substituted (not sincerity, but) love, in the room of angelic perfection. “Q. 5. How is ‘love the end of the commandment?” (1 Tim. i. 5.) “A. It is the end of every commandment of God. It is the point aimed at by the whole and every part of the Christian institution. The foundation is faith, purifying the heart; the end love, preserving a good conscience. “Q. 6. What love is this? “A. The loving the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength; and the loving our neighbour, every man, as ourselves, as our own souls. “Q. 7. What are the fruits or properties of this love? “A. St. Paul informs us at large, love is long-suffering. It suffers all the weaknesses of the children of God, all the wickedness of the children of the world; and that not for a little time only, but as long as God pleases. In all, it sees the hand of God, and willingly submits thereto. Meantime, it is kind. In all, and after all, it suffers, it is soft, mild, tender, benign.

In all, and after all, it suffers, it is soft, mild, tender, benign. ‘Love envieth not; it excludes every kind and degree of envy out of the heart: ‘love acteth not rashly, in a violent, headstrong manner, nor passes any rash or severe judgment: It ‘doth not behave itself indecently; is not rude, does not act out of character: “Seeketh not her own’ ease, pleasure, honour, or profit: ‘Is not provoked; expels all anger from the heart: ‘Thinketh no evil; casteth out all jealousy, sus piciousness, and readiness to believe evil: “Rejoiceth not in iniquity; yea, weeps at the sin or folly of its bitterest enemies: “But rejoicethin the truth; in the holiness and happiness of every child of man. ‘Love covereth all things, speaks evil of no man; ‘believeth all things’ that tend to the advantage of another's character. It ‘hopeth all things,’ whatever may extenuate the faults which cannot be denied; and it ‘endureth all things’ which God can permit, or men and devils inflict. This is ‘the law of Christ, the perfect law, the law of liberty.” “And this distinction between the ‘law of faith’ (or love) and ‘the law of works, is neither a subtle nor an unnecessary distinction. It is plain, easy, and intelligible to any common understanding. And it is absolutely necessary, to prevent a thousand doubts and fears, even in those who do “walk in love.” “Q. 8. But do we not “in many things offend all, yea, the best of us, even against this law? “A. In one sense we do not, while all our tempers, and thoughts, and words, and works, spring from love. But in another we do, and shall do, more or less, as long as we remain in the body. For neither love nor the ‘unction of the Holy One makes us infallible: Therefore, through unavoidable defect of understanding, we cannot but mistake in many things. And these mistakes will frequently occasion something wrong, both in our temper, and words, and actions. From mistaking his character, we may love a person less than he really deserves. And by the same mistake we are unavoidably led to speak or act, with regard to that person, in such a manner as is contrary to this law, in some or other of the preceding instances. “Q. 9. Do we not then need Christ, even on this account? “A.

“A. The holiest of men still need Christ, as their Prophet, as ‘the light of the world.” For he does not give them light, but from moment to moment: The instant he withdraws, all is darkness. They still need Christ as their King; for God does not give them a stock of holiness. But unless they receive a supply every moment, nothing but unholiness would remain. They still need Christ as their Priest, to make atonement for their holy things. Even perfect holiness is acceptable to God only through Jesus Christ. “Q. 10. May not, then, the very best of men adopt the dying Martyr's confession: ‘I am in myself nothing but sin, dark ness, hell; but thou art my light, my holiness, my heaven?’ “A. Not exactly. But the best of men may say, ‘Thou art my light, my holiness, my heaven. Through my union with thee, I am full of light, of holiness, and happiness. But if I were left to myself, I should be nothing but sin, darkness, hell.’ “But to proceed: The best of men need Christ as their Priest, their Atonement, their Advocate with the Father; not only as the continuance of their every blessing depends on his death and intercession, but on account of their coming short of the law of love. For every man living does so. You who feel all love, compare yourselves with the preceding description. Weigh yourselves in this balance, and see if you are not wanting in many particulars. “Q. 11. But if all this be consistent with Christian perfec tion, that perfection is not freedom from all sin; seeing ‘sin is the transgression of the law :’ And the perfect transgress the very law they are under. Besides, they need the atone ment of Christ; and he is the atonement of nothing but sin. Is, then, the term sinless perfection, proper? “A. It is not worth disputing about. But observe in what sense the persons in question need the atonement of Christ. They do not need him to reconcile them to God afresh; for they are reconciled. They do not need him to restore the favour of God, but to continue it. He does not procure pardon for them anew, but “ever liveth to make intercession for them;’ and ‘by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” (Heb. x.

“Some are wanting in temperance. They do not steadily use that kind and degree of food, which they know, or might know, would most conduce to the health, strength, and vigour of the body: Or they are not temperate in sleep; they do not rigorously adhere to what is best both for body and mind; otherwise they would constantly go to bed and rise early, and at a fixed hour: Or they sup late, which is neither good for body nor soul: Or they use neither fasting nor abstinence: Or they prefer (which are so many sorts of intemperance) that preaching, reading, or conversation, which gives them transient joy and comfort, before that which brings godly sorrow, or instruction in righteousness. Such joy is not sanctified; it doth not tend to, and terminate in, the crucifixion of the heart. Such faith doth not centre in God, but rather in itself. “So far all is plain. I believe you have faith, and love, and joy, and peace. Yet you who are particularly concerned know each for yourself, that you are wanting in the respects above-mentioned. You are wanting either in long-suffering, gentleness, or goodness; either in fidelity, meekness, or temperance. Let us not, then, on either hand, fight about words. In the thing we clearly agree. “You have not what I call perfection; if others will call it so, they may. However, hold fast what you have, and earnestly pray for what you have not. “Q. 29. Can those who are perfect grow in grace? “A. Undoubtedly they can; and that not only while they are in the body, but to all eternity. “Q. 30. Can they fall from it? “A. I am well assured they can; matter of fact puts this beyond dispute. Formerly we thought, one saved from sin could not fall; now we know the contrary. We are sur rounded with instances of those who lately experienced all that I mean by perfection. They had both the fruit of the Spirit, and the witness; but they have now lost both. Neither does any one stand by virtue of anything that is implied in the nature of the state. There is no such height or strength of holiness as it is impossible to fall from. If there be any that cannot fall, this wholly depends on the promise of God. “Q. 31.

This may steal upon you in a thousand forms, so that you cannot be too watchful against it. Take heed of everything, whether in principle or practice, which has any tendency thereto. Even that great truth, that “Christ is the end of the law, may betray us into it, if we do not consider that he has adopted every point of the moral law, and grafted it into the law of love. Beware of thinking, ‘Because I am filled with love, I need not have so much holiness. Because I pray always, therefore I need no set time for private prayer. Because I watch always, therefore I need no particular self-examination.’ Let us ‘magnify the law, the whole written word, ‘and make it honourable. Let this be our voice: “I prize thy com mandments above gold or precious stones. O what love have I unto thy law ! all the day long is my study in it. Beware of Antinomian books; particularly the works of Dr. Crisp and Mr. Saltmarsh. They contain many excellent things; and this makes them the more dangerous. O be warned in time : Do not play with fire. Do not put your hand on the hole of a cockatrice den. I entreat you, beware of bigotry. Let not your love or beneficence be confined to Methodists, so called, only; much less to that very small part of them who seem to be renewed in love; or to those who believe yours and their report. O make not this your Shibboleth ! Beware of stillness; ceasing in a wrong sense from your own works. To mention one instance out of many: “You have received,” says one, ‘a great blessing. But you began to talk of it, and to do this and that; so you lost it. You should have been still.” “Beware of self-indulgence; yea, and making a virtue of it, laughing at self-denial, and taking up the cross daily, at fasting or abstinence. Beware of censoriousness; thinking or calling them that anyways oppose you, whether in judgment or prac tice, blind, dead, fallen, or ‘enemies to the work. Once more, beware of Solifidianism; crying nothing but, ‘Believe, believe!’ and condemning those as ignorant or legal who speak in a more scriptural way.

After more and more persons are convinced of sin, we may mix more and more of the gospel, in order to “beget faith,” to raise into spiritual life those whom the law hath slain; but this is not to be done too hastily neither. There fore, it is not expedient wholly to omit the law; not only because we may well suppose that many of our hearers are still unconvinced; but because otherwise there is danger, that many who are convinced will heal their own wounds slightly; therefore, it is only in private converse with a thoroughly convinced sinner, that we should preach nothing but the gospel. If, indeed, we could suppose a whole congregation to be thus convinced, we should need to preach only the gospel: And the same we might do, if our whole congregation were supposed to be newly justified. But when these grow in grace, and in the knowledge of Christ, a wise builder would c preach the law to them again; only taking particular care to" place every part of it in a gospel light, as not only a com mand, but a privilege also, as a branch of the glorious liberty of the sons of God. He would take equal care to remind them, that this is not the cause, but the fruit, of their acceptance with God; that other cause, “other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, even Jesus Christ;” that we are still forgiven and accepted, only for the sake of what he hath done and suffered for us; and that all true obedience springs from love to him, grounded on his first loving us. He would labour, therefore, in preaching any part of the law, to keep the love of Christ continually before their eyes; that thence they might draw fresh life, vigour, and strength, to run the way of his commandments. Thus would he preach the law even to those who were pressing on to the mark. But to those who were careless, or drawing back, he would preach it in another manner, nearly as he did before they were convinced of sin. To those, meanwhile, who were earnest, but feeble-minded, he would preach the gospel chiefly; yet variously intermixing more or less of the law, according to their various necessities.

But if the decree admit of any condition, it is mot an unconditional decree. Either, therefore, you must renounce your unconditional decrees, or deny that faith is the condition of salvation; or (which is just the same thing) affirm, that a man may be saved without either faith or works. 11. And I am consistent with myself, as well as with the Bible, when I affirm, that none shall be finally saved by any “faith” but that “which worketh by love,” both inward and outward holiness. I fear, many of them that hold uncon ditional decrees are not sensible of this. For they seriously believe themselves to be in the high road to salvation, though they are far from inward (if not outward) holiness. They have not “put on humbleness of mind, bowels of mercy, brotherly-kindness.” They have no gentleness, no meekness, no longsuffering; so far are they from the “love that endureth all things.” They are under the power of sin; of evil-surmising; of anger; yea, of outward sin. For they scruple mot to say to their brother, “Thou fool!” They not only, on a slight provocation, make no scruple of rendering evil for evil, of returning railing for railing; but they bring railing accusations unprovoked; they pour out floods of the lowest, basest invectives. And yet they are within the decree I instance in the two late publications of Mr. Rowland Hill. “O,” says Mr. Hill, “but Mr. Wesley is a wicked man.” What then? Is he more wicked than him that disputed with Michael about the body of Moses? How, then, durst he bring a railing accusation against a man, when an archangel durst not bring one against the devil? O fight, fight for an unconditional decree For if there be any condition, how can you be saved ?

A Scheme of Self-Examination Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 11 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- Sunday.--Love of God and Simplicity: Means of which are, Prayer and Meditation. 1. HAve I been simple and recollected in everything I said or did? Have I (1.) been simple in everything, that is, looked upon God, my Good, my Pattern, my one Desire, my Disposer, Parent of Good; acted wholly for Him; bounded my views with the present action or hour? (2) Recol lected? that is, has this simple view been distinct and unin terrupted? Have I, in order to keep it so, used the signs agreed upon with my friends, wherever I was ? Have I done anything without a previous perception of its being the will of God? or without a perception of its being an exercise or a means of the virtue of the day? Have I said anything without it? 2. Have I prayed with fervour? at going in and out of church? in the church? morning and evening in private? Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, with my friends, at rising? before lying down? on Saturday noon? all the time I am engaged in exterior work in private? before I go into the place of public or private prayer, for help therein? Have I, wherever I was, gone to church morning and even ing, unless for necessary mercy? and spent from one hour to three in private? Have I, in private prayer, frequently stopped short and observed what fervour? Have I repeated it over and over, till I adverted to every word? Have I at the beginning of every prayer or paragraph owned I cannot pray? Have I paused before I concluded in his name, and adverted to my Saviour now interceding for me at the right hand of God, and offering up these prayers? 3. Have I duly used ejaculations? that is, have I every hour prayed for humility, faith, hope, love, and the particular virtue of the day? considered with whom I was the last hour, what I did, and how 7 with regard to recollection, love of man, humility, self-denial, resignation, and thankfulness? considered the next hour in the same respects, offered up all I do to my Redeemer, begged his assistance in every particular, and commended my soul to his keeping?

exhorted and directed him? (9.) Have I persuaded all I could to attend public prayers, sermons, and sacraments, and in general to obey the laws of the Church Catholic, the Church of England, the State, the University, and their respective Colleges? (10.) Have I, when taxed with any act of obedience, avowed it, and turned the attack with sweetness and firmness? (11.) Have I disputed upon any practical point, unless it was to be practised just then ? (12.) Have I in disputing, (i.) Desired him to define the terms of the question; to limit it; what he grants, what denies? (ii) Delayed speaking my opinion? let him explain and prove his? then insinuated and pressed objections? (13.) Have I after every visit asked him who went with me, “Did I say anything wrong?” (14.) Have I when any one asked advice, directed and exhorted him with all my power? 2. Have I rejoiced with and for my neighbour in virtue or pleasure? grieved with him in pain, for him in sin? 3. Have I received his infirmities with pity, not anger? 4. Have I thought or spoke unkindly of or to him ? Have I revealed any evil of any one, unless it was necessary to some particular good I had in view? Have I then done it with all the tenderness of phrase and manner consistent with that end? Have I anyway appeared to approve them that did otherwise? 5. Has good-will been, and appeared to be, the spring of all my actions toward others? 6. Have I duly used intercession? (1.) Before, (2.) After, speaking to any? (3.) For my friends on Sunday? (4.) For my pupils on Monday? (5.) For those who have parti cularly desired it, on Wednesday and Friday? (6.) For the family in which I am, every day?

The King of Poland has promised what satisfaction shall be thought requisite in the affair of Thorn [In 1724 a riot occurred at Thorn in Poland between Jesuit students and Protestants who were accused of sacrilege. The aged President of the City Council and several leading citizens were executed in December. The Protestant Powers of Europe were indignant, and the Poles especially annoyed by the speech of the English minister at Ratisbon. See Morfill's Poland, p. 2o3; and letter of Nov.]; so that all Europe seemed now disposed for peace as well as England, though the Spaniards daily plunder our merchantmen as fast as they can catch them in the West Indies. [Spain was hoping to regain her lost possessions across the Atlantic, and sought to monopolize the commerce of the most important part of the New World, and the rigid exercise of the right of search on the high seas gave rise to many acts of violence and barbarity (Lecky's England. in the Eighteenth Century, i. 449). In 1727 she besieged Gibraltar.] You have much obliged me by your thoughts on Dr. Taylor, [See letter of Feb. 28, 1730.] especially with respect to humility, which is a point he does not seem to me sufficiently to dear. As to absolute humility (if I may venture to make a distinction, which I don't remember to have seen in any author), consisting in a mean opinion of ourselves, considered simply, or with respect to God alone, I can readily join with his opinion. But I am more uncertain as to comparative, if I may so term it; and think some, plausible reasons may be alleged to show it is not in our power, and consequently not a virtue, to think ourselves the worst in every company.

Whence Virtue meets its just reward. Though sweeter sounds adorned thy tongue Than Thracian Orpheus whilom played, When list'ning to the morning song Each tree bowed down its leafy head, Never I ah, never from the gloom Of unrelenting Pluto's sway Could the thin shade again resume Its ancient tenement of clay. Indulgent Patience! heav'n-born guest! Thy healing wings around display: Thou gently calm'st the stormy breast And driv'st the tyrant Grief away. Corroding Care and eating Pain By just degrees thy influence own; And lovely lasting Peace again Resumes her long-deserted throne. To his Brother Samuel LINCOLN COLLEGE, OXON, April 4, 1726 DEAR BROTHER,--I should have written long before now, had not a gentleman of Exeter made me put it off from day to day, in hopes of getting some little poems of his, which he promised to write out for me. Yesterday I saw them, though not much to my satisfaction, as being all on very wrong subjects, and run chiefly on the romantic notions of love and gallantry. I have transcribed one which is much shorter than any of the rest, and am promised by to-morrow night, -if that will do me any service, another of a more serious nature. I believe I have given Mr. Leyborn at different times five or six short copies of verses: the latest were a translation of part of the Second Georgic and an imitation of the 65th. Psalm. If he has lost them, as it is likely he has in so long a time, I can write them over in less than an hour, and send them by the post. My father, very unexpectedly a week ago, sent me in a letter a bill on Dr. Morley [John Morley, Rector of Lincoln College 1719-31. He held the living of Scotton, near Gainsborough. See Journal, iii. 511; and letter of Dec. 11, 1730.] for twelve pounds, which he had paid to the Rector's use at Gainsborough; so that, now several of my debts are paid and the expenses of my treat defrayed, I have above ten pounds remaining; and if I could have leave to stay in the country till my College allowance commences, this money would abundantly suffice me till then.

Two days ago I was reading a dispute between those celebrated masters of controversy, Bishop Atterbury and Bishop Hoadly [Atterbury preached a funeral sermon (on Thomas Bennet the bookseller) from 1 Cor. xv. 19, 'If in this life only . . .' He argued that, were there no life after this, men would be more miserable than beasts, and the best men often the most miserable. Hoadly disputed the interpretation of the text. Atterbury replied: Hoadly retorted. Atterbury preached another sermon on Charity (I Pet. iv. 8). Again Hoadly criticized at length. A concise account of the controversies may be read in the latest life of Atterbury by Canon Beeching, 1909, PP. 44-5. A fuller account is given in Hunt's Religious Thought in England, iii. 78-9. 'Coming from a High Churchman, at a time when most divines were eloquent on the natural rewards of virtue and religion, Atterbury's doctrine was startling.' For Wesley's interpretation, see his Notes upon the New Testament. See also previous letter.]; but must own I was so injudicious as to break off in the middle. I could not conceive that the dignity of the end was at all proportioned to the difficulty of attaining it. And I thought the labor of twenty or thirty hours, if I was sure of succeeding, which I was not, would be but ill rewarded by that important piece of knowledge whether Bishop Hoadly had misunderstood Bishop Atterbury or no.

I ought doubtless not to grieve because one who deserves so well of me is taken from me to God. Surely if you were called first mine ought not to overflow because all tears were wiped from your eyes. That even in this a regard for your happiness ought to take the place of my regard for my own is most certain; but whether I could do what I ought I have great reason to question. I much doubt whether self-love in so trying a circumstance would not be found too strong for a friendship which I even now find to be less disinterested than I hitherto imagined. I used to flatter myself that I had at least the desire to be some way serviceable to Aspasia and Selima, and that this, unmixed with any meaner motive, was the sole principle of many of my actions; but even with this I perceive another principle is interwoven, a desire of recommending myself to their esteem. And if this be a fault, I am much to blame: it is a fault deeply rooted in my nature. But is it a fault to desire to recommend myself to those who so strongly recommend virtue to me ardently to desire their esteem who are so able and willing to make me in some degree worthy of it Tell me, Aspasia; tell me, Selima, if it be a fault that my heart burns within me when I reflect on the many marks of regard you have already shown Your ever obliged and ever faithful CYRUS.

O Aspasia, am I not already betraying myself, needlessly showing my imperfections, to give way to one thought of losing your friendship while I have such an evidence of its sincerity before me I greatly wish I may be able to give a full answer to the question you so obligingly propose; but a direct one I can't give, unless such an one may be deduced from any of the following considerations. To judge whether any action be lawful on the Sabbath [On Sunday observance in the eighteenth century, see Abbey and Overton's The English Church in the Eighteenth Century, ii. 513--19.] or no, we are to consider whether it advances the end for which that was ordained. Now, the end for which the Sabbath was ordained is the attainment of holiness. Whatever therefore tends to advance this end is lawful on this day: whatever does not tend to advance this end is not lawful on this day. Two things we may infer hence: (1) That works of mercy are lawful on this day; for they directly tend to advance this end,' to make us holy as God is holy. (2) That works of necessity are lawful on this day; of which there are two sorts: first, works which we ought to do but cannot do on another day; secondly, works that or works the neglect of which would obstruct this end, for whatever can't be omitted without hindering it do indirectly tend to advance it. One of these, to those who can't perform the offices of religion so well without it, is giving themselves some diversion from it. But of this we may observe that, it being therefore allowed because it tends to advance the end of the day, it is allowable so far and no farther as it does tend to it, to our advance in holiness. It is not enough to say this or that diversion does not obstruct this end; for what does so is allowable on no day: but unless it promotes this particular end, it is not allowable on this day.

The motion and sun together, in our last hundred-and-fifty miles' walk, so thoroughly carried off ail our superfluous humors, that we continue perfectly in health, though it is here a very sickly season. And Mr. Kirkham [When at Stanton on May 22.] assures us, on the word of a priest and a physician, that if we will but take the same medicine once or twice a year we shall never need any other to keep us from the gout. When we were with him, we touched two or three times upon a nice subject, but did not come to any full conclusion. The point debated was, What is the meaning of being ' righteous over much,' or by the more common phrase of being 'too strict in religion' and what danger there was of any of us falling into that extreme [See letter of July 19.] All the ways of being too righteous or too strict which we could think of were these: either the carrying some one particular virtue to so great an height as to make it clash with some others; or the laying too much stress on the instituted' means of grace, to the neglect of the weightier matters of the law; or the multiplying prudential means upon ourselves so far, and binding ourselves to the observance of them so strictly, as to obstruct the end we aimed at by them, either by hindering our advance in heavenly affections in general or by retarding our progress in some particular virtue. Our opponents seemed to think my brother and I in some danger of being too strict in this last sense of laying burdens on ourselves too heavy to be borne, and consequently too heavy to be of any use to us.

That sometimes even a good man falls a prey to the cunning craftiness of these deceivers I can easily believe, having known one (otherwise) strictly virtuous person who was under that infatuation several years. That such an one has nothing to hope for from the terms of the gospel is likewise exceeding plain: seeing exactly equivalent to the words of the Church of England (who did not rashly adopt them in her Liturgy), ' This faith except every man keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly,' are those of the very person they thus outrage, ' He that believeth not shall be damned.' Not that we have authority to apply this general sentence to any one particular offender; because, all sin being a voluntary breach of a known law, none but He who seeth the heart, and consequently how far this breach of His law is voluntary in each particular person, can possibly know which infidel shall perish and which be received to mercy. Whenever you recommend to that all-sufficient mercy any of those that have erred and are deceived, then especially, dear Aspasia, do not forget Your ever obliged CYRUS. The best wishes of Araspe's are yours. Adieu. To Mrs. Pendarves July 19 [1731]. Is it utterly impossible that I should hear a little oftener from dear Aspasia I can't be entirely satisfied till you assure me it is; that you have too many employments of a noble kind, and too many more useful and pleasing entertainments, to allow you a vacant hour to throw away upon me, so often as once a month. So soon as I am assured of this I shall cease to importune you about it; but while I have any hope of success I can't give up a cause the gaining of which would so much add to my happiness.

I can't help being more desirous now than even at other times of hearing from you, because of an imputation that has lately been thrown upon me, which I would fain, if it were possible, remove. I have been charged with being too strict, with carrying things too far in religion, and laying burdens on myself, if not on others, which were neither necessary nor possible to be borne. [See letters of June 11 (to his mother) and Nov. 17.] A heavy charge indeed! To be too strict! That is to blaspheme the law of God as not strict enough. To carry duties too far! Why, what is this but to change holiness itself into extravagance To impose unnecessary burdens! Then am I an hinderer as well as slanderer of the religion I live to recommend; then have I added to the words of God's Book, and He shall add to me all the plagues that are written in it. Do not therefore blame me, Aspasia, for using every means to find whether I am thus guilty or no; and particularly for appealing to the judgment of one who in this is not likely to be prejudiced in my favor. Those among whom chiefly your lot is cast are not accused of too much strictness. Whatever other ill weeds may flourish there, a Court is not a fit soil for this. Give me leave, then, to lay freely before you what my sentiments in this point are, and to conjure you to tell me with the same freedom which of them you disapprove of. My present sense is this: -- I was made to be happy: to be happy I must love God; in proportion to my love of whom my happiness must increase. To love God I must be like Him, holy as He is holy; which implies both the being pure from vicious and foolish passions and the being confirmed in those virtuous and rational affections which God comprises in the word charity. In order to root those out of my soul and plant these in their stead, I must use (1) such means as are ordered by God; (2) such as are recommended by experience and reason.

An account I received some time since from Aspasia (for whose safety you will believe I am sincerely glad [Mrs. Pendarves went to Ireland in September. See letter of Aug. 26.]) so much resembles yours that I have been in some doubt whether you did not speak of the same plan. [See letters of July 29, Aug. 12 and 26, and previous letter.] Whether you did or no, I wish that you have not both much too favorable an opinion of me. I am sure I should of myself, did I think it in my power ' to heal the broken in heart, to use any words that would cure a wounded spirit, or be a medicine for that sickness.' Nor, indeed, have I time to weigh so nice a case thoroughly; do not, then, be surprised, good Selima, if while I dare not wholly decline what you desire, yet I am forced to do it in so imperfect a manner as neither suits the importance of the thing itself nor my obligations to the person that desires it. One that is generous, charitable, and devout, that has an easy fortune and many sincere friends, is yet unhappy; something lurking within poisons all the sweets, nor can she taste any of the goodness she enjoys. She strives against it, but in vain. She spends her strength, but to 'no purpose: her enemy still renews his strength: nature even-- When 'gainst his head her sacred arms she bent Strict watch, and fast severe, and prayer omnipotent. [The Battle of the Sexes, xxxvi., by Samuel Wesley, jun.] Still he pursues her prayer; still he wounds her doubts and scruples of various sorts, so as to make the very ways of pleasantness uneasy and the path of life like that which leads to destruction.

I do not say that she shall immediately be delivered: nor yet are her good dispositions lost; seeing there is a reward for suffering as well as for acting, and blessed are they that endure temptation. God has given them a means of improving their good dispositions, which is not given to the rest of the world; a means which supplies the want of activity and gives them all the advantage of a busy life without the dangers. This is the surest, it is the shortest way, as to all virtue, so particularly to humility, the distinguishing virtue of Christians, the sole inlet to all virtue. Neither do I believe that she will ever be wholly freed either from wandering thoughts in prayer, or perhaps from such as would be wicked were they chosen or voluntarily indulged, but which, when they are not voluntary, are no more voluntary than the beating of the heart or of the arteries. I never heard or read of more than one living person (Mr. De Renty) [Wesley published An Extract of the Life of Monsieur De Renty in1741. He died at Paris on April 24, 1649, aged thirty-seven.] who had quite shook off the weight, and much doubt if of the sons of men now alive there be one who is so highly favored. And perhaps we have scarce another instance of an embodied soul who always did the work of God with cheerfulness. The common lot of humanity seems to be, to be various, more particularly in the things that pertain to God, from whom we are so far estranged by nature. With regard to these even David could sometimes say, 'Why go I so heavily while the enemy oppresses me' His rule it was therefore, as it is ours, to judge of us not by what we feel but by what we do. To his Brother Samuel LINCOLN COLEGE, November 17, 1731.

In one practice for which you blamed your son, I am only concerned as a friend, not as a partner. That, therefore, I shall consider first. Your own account of it was in effect this: 'He frequently went into poor people's houses in the villages about Holt, called their children together, and instructed them in their duty to God, their neighbor, and themselves. He likewise explained to them the necessity of private as well as public prayer, and provided them with such forms as were best suited to their several capacities. And being well apprised how much the success of his endeavors depended on their goodwill towards him, to win upon their affections he sometimes distributed among them a little of that money which he had saved from gaming and the other fashionable expenses of the place.' This is the first charge against him; upon which all that I shall observe is, that I will refer it to your own judgment whether it be fitter to have a place in the catalogue of his faults or of those virtues for which he is 'now numbered among the sons of God.' If all the persons concerned in 'that ridiculous Society, whose follies you have so often heard repeated,' could but give such a proof of their deserving the glorious title [The Holy Club.] which was once bestowed upon them, they would be well contented that their ' lives ' too ' should be counted madness, and their end thought to be without honor.' But the truth is, their title to holiness. stands upon much less stable foundations; as you will easily perceive when you know the ground of this wonderful outcry, which it seems England is not wide enough to contain.

III. Whether, upon the considerations above-mentioned, we may not try to do good to those that are hungry, naked, or sick In particular, whether, if we know any necessitous family, we may not give them a little food, clothes, or physic, as they want Whether we may not give them, if they can read, a Bible, Common Prayer Book, or Whole Duty of Man Whether we may not now and then inquire how they have used them; explain what they don't understand, and enforce what they do Whether we may not enforce upon them more especially the necessity of private prayer and of frequenting the church and sacrament Whether we may not contribute what little we are able toward having their children clothed and taught to read Whether we may not take care that they be taught their Catechism and short prayers for morning and evening IV. Lastly: Whether, upon the considerations above-mentioned, we may not try to do good to those that are in prison In particular, Whether we may not release such well-disposed persons as remain in prison for small sums Whether we may not lend smaller sums to those that are of any trade, that they may procure themselves tools and materials to work with Whether we may not give to them who appear to want it most a little money, or clothes, or physic Whether we may not supply as many as are serious enough to read them with a Bible and Whole Duty of Man Whether we may not, as we have opportunity, explain and enforce these upon them, especially with respect to public and private prayer and the blessed sacrament

The thing that gives offence here is the being singular with regard to time, expense, and company. This is evident beyond exception, from the case of Mr. Smith, [William Smith, Fellow of Lincoln, and apparently one of the Oxford Methodists. On Aug. L x732, Clayton wrote to Wesley (who was then in London, where he was elected a member of the S.P.C.K., and visited William Law at Puthey) that since he had left Oxford no one had attacked Smith and himself. ' I have gone every day to Lincoln, big with expectations to hear of some mighty attack made upon Mr. Smith; but, I thank God, I have always been disappointed: for not one of the Fellows has once so much as tried to shake him or to convert him from the right way, &c.' After his return from Georgia, at Oxford on Feb. 11, 1737, Charles Wesley (see his Journal, i. 68) exhorts 'poor languid Smith' to resume all his rules of holy living.] one of our Fellows, who no sooner began to husband his time, to retrench unnecessary expenses, and to avoid his irreligious acquaintance, but he was set upon, by not only all those acquaintance, but many others too, as if he had entered into a conspiracy to cut all their throats; though to this day he has not advised any single person, unless in a word or two and by accident, to act as he did in any of those instances.

It is true, indeed, that 'the devil hates offensive war most '; and that whoever tries to rescue more than his own soul from his hands, will have more enemies and meet with greater opposition than if he was content with 'having his own life for a prey.' That I try to do this is likewise certain; but I cannot say whether I 'rigorously impose any observances on others ' till I know what that phrase means. What I do is this: when I am entrusted with a person who is first to understand and practice, and then to teach, the law of Christ, I endeavor, by an intermixture of reading and conversation, to show him what that law is--that is, to renounce all insubordinate love of the world, and to love and obey God with all his strength. When he appears seriously sensible of this, I propose to him the means God hath commanded him to use in order to that end; and, a week, or a month, or a year after, as the state of his soul seems to require it, the several prudential means recommended by wise and good men. As to the times, order, measure, and manner wherein these are to be proposed, I depend upon the Holy Spirit to direct me, in and by my own experience and reflection, joined to the advices of my religious friends here and elsewhere. Only two rules it is my principle to observe in all cases: first, to begin, continue, and end all my advices in the spirit of meekness, as knowing that' the wrath ' or severity' of man worketh not the righteousness of God '; and, secondly, to add to meekness longsuffering, in pursuance of a rule which I fixed long since--never to give up any one till I have tried him at least ten years. How long hath God had pity on thee

Now, the gospel we have received does in no wise allow him to be a follower of Christ, to do his duty to God and man, who is constant in public and private prayer and avoids sins of commission. It supposes there are such things as sins of omission too. Nay, it is notoriously evident that in our Lord's account of His own proceedings at the Great Day there is no mention of any other. It is for what they have not done that the unprofitable servants are condemned to utter darkness. O sir, what would it avail in that day could you confront our Lord with five thousand of His own ambassadors protesting with one voice against His sentence, and declaring to those on the left hand that He had never said any such thing: that He condemned them for omitting what He had nowhere required them to do; that they were faithful because they were only unprofitable servants; that they ought to be ranked in the class of good Christians because they had only broken all the positive laws of Christ; that they had done their duty both to God and man, for they had prayed to God and done neither good nor harm to their neighbor. For God's sake, sir, consider, how would this plea sound Would it really be received in arrest of judgment or would the Judge reply, ' Out of thy own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked and slothful servant! Did I require nothing to be done, as well as to be avoided Was an eternal reward promised to no-work Were My positive laws no laws at all Was the pattern I set thee negative only But thou hast done thy duty to God at least, for thou hast prayed to Him!

Did I require nothing to be done, as well as to be avoided Was an eternal reward promised to no-work Were My positive laws no laws at all Was the pattern I set thee negative only But thou hast done thy duty to God at least, for thou hast prayed to Him! What didst thou pray for For My Spirit to help thy infirmities For strength to tread in My steps For power, not only to avoid all sin, but to fulfill all righteousness Didst thou pray that thy righteousness might exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees -- might not rest in externals, but be an inward vital principle Didst thou pray for a clean heart for the renewal of thy mind for a right spirit duly conformed to My image Didst thou pray for a soul continually ardent to do My will on earth as it is done in heaven If thou prayedst for anything short of this, or if praying for this thy heart went not along with thy lips, thou prayedst as a fool or an heathen prayed; and thy prayer itself was the greatest of thy abominations. If thou didst pray for this power which I had promised not to any particular order but to every one of My disciples earnestly desiring it, why went not thy endeavor along with thy prayer Because great men, the chief priests and eiders, said it need not Whom, then, oughtest thou to have believed, Me or them Behold, I had told thee before: obey God rather than men. Thy blood be on thy own head.'

REVEREND SIR, -- I must earnestly beg your immediate advice in a case of the greatest importance. Above two years since, I was entrusted with a young gentleman of good sense, an even generous temper, and pretty good learning. [See letter of June 11, 1731, to his father. Wesley's anxiety about this student and also concerning Richard Morgan shows how faithfully he watched over them. At the end of July Charles Wesley tells his brother Samuel that John had spent the last week 'at London, chiefly in consulting Mr. Law about one of his pupils; but he found time, notwithstanding, to dispatch three sheets of Job while there, and still goes on with much more expedition than my father did while upon the spot.' This letter to Law evidently led to a personal consultation.] Religion he had heard little of; but Mr. Jackson's Practice of Devotion, [Lawrence Jackson (1691-1772), Fellow of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, 1716; Prebendary of Lincoln 1747.] your two treatises, and Thomas Kempis, by the blessing of God, awakened him by degrees to a true notion and serious practice of it. In this he continued sensibly improving till last Lent; at the beginning of which I advised him to do as he had done the year before--viz. to obey the order of the Church, by using such a sort and measure of abstinence as his health permitted and his spiritual wants required. He said ' he did not think his health would permit to use that abstinence which he did the year before.' And, notwithstanding my reply, ' that his athletic habit could be in no danger by only abstaining from flesh and using moderately some less pleasing food,' he persisted in his resolution of not altering his food at all. A little before Easter, perceiving he had much contracted the time he had till then set apart for religious reading, I asked him whether he was not himself convinced that he spent too much time in reading secular authors. He answered he was convinced any time was too much, and that he should be a better Christian if he never read them at all. I then pressed him earnestly to pray for strength, according to that conviction; and he resolved to try for a week.

4. That course of life tends most to the glory of God wherein we can most promote holiness in ourselves and others. I say in ourselves and others, as being fully persuaded that these can never be put asunder. For how is it possible that the good God should make our interest inconsistent with our neighbor's that He should make our being in one state best for ourselves, and our being in another best for the Church This would be making a strange schism in His body; such as surely never was from the beginning of the world. And if not, then whatever state is best on either of these accounts is so on the other likewise. If it be best for others, then it is so for us; if for us, then for them. 5. However, when two ways of life are proposed, I should choose to begin with that part of the question, Which of these have I rational ground to believe will conduce most to my own improvement And that not only because it is every physician's concern to heal himself first, but because it seems we may judge with more ease, and perhaps certainty too, in which state we can most promote holiness in ourselves than in which we can most promote it in others. 6. By holiness I mean not fasting (as you seem to suppose), or bodily austerity, or any other external means of improvement, but the inward temper, to which all these are subservient, a renewal of the soul in the image of God. I mean a complex habit of lowliness, meekness, purity, faith, hope, and the love of God and man. And I therefore believe that, in the state wherein I am, I can most promote this holiness in myself, because I now enjoy several advantages which are almost peculiar to it.

11. To quicken me in making a thankful and diligent use of all the other advantages of this place, I have the opportunity of public prayer twice a day and of weekly communicating. It would be easy to mention many more, and likewise to show many disadvantages, which a person of greater courage and skill than me could scarce separate from a country life. But whatever one of experience and resolution might do, I am very sensible I should not be able to turn aside one of the thousand temptations that would immediately rush upon me. I could not stand my ground, no, not for one month, against intemperance in sleeping, eating, and drinking; against irregularity in study, against a general lukewarmness in my affections and remissness in my actions; against softness and self-indulgence, directly opposite to that discipline and hardship which become a soldier of Jesus Christ. And then, when my spirit was thus dissolved, I should be an easy prey to whatever impertinent company came in my way. Then would the cares of the world and the desire of other things roll back with a full tide upon me. It would be no wonder if, while I preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. I cannot, therefore, but observe that the question does not relate barely to degrees of perfection, but to the very essence and being of it. Agitur de vita et sanguine Turni. [Virgil's Aeneid, xii. 765 (Turni de vita et sanguine certant): ‘They contend about the life and blood of Turnus.'] The point is, whether I shall or shall not work out my salvation, whether I shall serve Christ or Belial.

DEAR BROTHER, -- I presented Job to the Queen on Sunday, and had many good words and smiles. [A folio volume in Latin, entitled Dissertationes in Librum Jobi, by his father, and dedicated by permission to Queen Caroline. John Wesley presented a copy to her Majesty on Oct. 12, 1735. Dr. Clarke (Wesley Family, i. 330) says that Wesley told him that when he was introduced the Queen was romping with her maids of honor. She stopped her play, heard him graciously, and when he presented the book on bended knee she looked at the outside, said ' It is very prettily bound,' and laid it down in a window without opening a leaf. He rose, bowed, and retired. The Queen bowed, smiled, spoke several kind words, and immediately resumed her sport.] Out of what is due to me on that account, I beg you would first pay yourself what I owe you; and if I live till spring, I can then direct what I would have done with the remainder. The uncertainty of my having another opportunity to tell you my thoughts in this life obliges me to tell you what I have often thought of, and that in as few and plain words as I can. Elegance of style is not to be weighed against purity of heart; purity both from the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eye, and the pride of life. Therefore whatever has any tendency to impair that purity is not to be tolerated, much less recommended, for the sake of that elegance. But of this sort (I speak not from the reason of the thing only, nor from my single experience) are the most of the classics usually read in great schools; many of them tending to inflame the lusts of the flesh (besides Ovid, Virgil's Aeneid, and Terence's Eunuch), and more to feed the lust of the eye and the pride of life. I beseech you, therefore, by the mercies of God, who would have us holy, as He is holy, that you banish all such poison from your school; that you introduce in their place such Christian authors as will work together with you in building up your flock in the knowledge and love of God. For assure yourself, dear brother, you are even now called to the converting of heathens as well as I.

To Archibald Hutchinson [6] SAVANNAH, July 23, 1736. By what I have seen during my short stay here, I am convinced that I have long been under a great mistake in thinking no circumstances could make it the duty of a Christian priest to do anything else but preach the gospel. On the contrary, I am now satisfied that there is a possible case wherein a part of his time ought to be employed in what less directly conduces to the glory of God and peace and goodwill among men. And such a case, I believe, is that which now occurs; there being several things which cannot so effectually be done without me; and which, though not directly belonging to my ministry, yet are by consequence of the highest concern to the success of it. It is from this conviction that I have taken some pains to inquire into the great controversy now subsisting between Carolina and Georgia, and in examining and weighing the letters wrote and the arguments urged on both sides of the question. And I cannot but think that' the whole affair might be clearly stated in few words. A Charter was passed a few years since, establishing the bounds of this province, and empowering the Trustees therein named to prepare laws which, when ratified by the King in Council, should be of force within those bounds. The Trustees have prepared a law, which has been so ratified, for the regulation of the Indian trade, requiring that none should trade with the Indians who are within this province till he is licensed as therein specified. Notwithstanding this law, the governing part of Carolina have asserted, both in conversation, in writing, and in the public newspapers, that it is lawful for any one not so licensed to trade with the Creek, Cherokee, or Chicasaw Indians. [See next letter. The Journal (i. 248-50) shows that some Chicasaw Indians were in Savannah for several days, and Wesley had a conference with them.] They have passed an ordinance, not only asserting the same, but enacting that men and money shall be raised to support such traders; and, in fact, they have themselves licensed and sent up such traders, both to the Creek and Chicasaw Indians.

'Having thus attained the end, the means must cease. Hope is swallowed up in love. Sight, or something more than sight, takes place of faith. All particular virtues they possess in the essence, being wholly given up to the divine will, and therefore need not the distinct exercise of them. They work likewise all good works essentially, not accidentally, and use all outward means only as they are moved thereto; and then to obey superiors or to avoid giving offense, but not as necessary or helpful to them. 'Public prayer, or any forms, they need not; for they pray without ceasing. Sensible devotion in any prayer they despise, it being a great hindrance to perfection. The Scripture they need not read; for it is only His letter with whom they converse face to face. And if they do read it now and then, as for expounders, living or dead, reason, philosophy (which only puffs' up, and vainly tries to bind God by logical definitions and divisions), as for knowledge of tongues, or ancient customs, they need none of them, any more than the Apostles did, for they have the same Spirit. Neither do they need the Lord's supper, for they never cease to remember Christ in the most acceptable manner, any more than fasting, since, by constant temperance, they can keep a continual fast. 'You that are to advise them that have not yet attained perfection, press them to nothing, not to self-denial, constant private prayer, reading the Scriptures, fasting, communicating. If they love heathen poets, let them take their full swing in them. Speak but little to them in the meantime of eternity. If they are affected at any time with what you say, say no more; let them apply it, not you. You may advise them to some religious books, but stop there; let them use them as they please, and form their own reflections upon them without your intermeddling. If one who was religious falls off, let him alone. Either a man is converted to God or not: if he is not, his own will must guide him, in spite of all you can do; if he is, he is so guided by the Spirit of God as not to need your direction.

1737 To Sophia Christiana Hopkey [1] February 6, 1737. I find, Miss Sophy, I can't take fire into my bosom, and not be burnt. I am therefore retiring for a while to desire the direction of God. Join with me, my friend, in fervent prayer that He would show me what is best to be done. To John Hutchings [2] SAVANNAH, AMERICA, February 16, 1737. DEAR SIR, --- Mr. Ingham has left Savannah for some months, and lives at an house built for him a few miles hence, near the Indian town. I have now no fellow laborer but Mr. Delamotte, who has taken the charge of between thirty and forty children. There is therefore great need that God should put it into the hearts of some to come over to us and labour with us in His harvest. But I should not desire any to come, unless on the same views and conditions with us--without any temporal wages other than food and raiment, the plain conveniences of life. For one or more in whom was this mind there would be full employment in the province, either in assisting Mr. Delamotte or me while we were present here or in supplying our places when abroad, or in visiting the poor people in the smaller settlements, as well as at Frederica, all of whom are as sheep without a shepherd.

I left two little books (which I want, as well as my shoes) at your house [He left London on the 26th, and returned on May L on account of his brother's health. He found him at Hutton's house (Journal, i. 458), where he had removed from his father's on the 28th (C. Wesley's Journal).] --A. M. Schurman and Corbet. If my brother is gone, you will buy the leathern bags for Mr. Kinchin. [See previous letter. Stephen Kinchin was his brother, for whom he and John Wesley went to Manchester in March, and brought him back to be entered at Oxford.] I think he says they cost but half a guinea. But if it be more, it will be repaid with thanks. The shop at Charing Cross is the place. Stephen Kinchin got hither a day before me. I will send you word before I begin another journey. Commend me to all our friends. Adieu. Pray give our brother Bhler [Bhler left for Carolina on May 4. It was probably a letter for one of Wesley's friends in America.] the enclosed, to be delivered with his own hand. To William Law [6] LONDON, May 14, 1738. REVEREND SIR, -- It is in obedience to what I think to be the call of God that I, who have the sentence of death in my own soul, take upon me to write to you, of whom I have often desired to learn the first elements of the gospel of Christ. If you are born of God, you will approve of the design, though it may be but weakly executed... If not, I shall grieve for you, not for myself. For as I seek not the praise of men, so neither regard I the contempt either of you or of any other. For two years (more especially) I have been preaching after the model of your two practical treatises; and all that heard have allowed that the law is great, wonderful, and holy. But no sooner did they attempt to fulfill it but they found that it is too high for man, and that by doing ' the works of the law shall no flesh living be justified.'

To remedy this, I exhorted them, and stirred up myself, to pray earnestly for the grace of God, and to use all the other means of obtaining that grace which the all-wise God hath appointed. But still, both they and I were more and more convinced that this is a law by which a man cannot live; the law in our members continually warring against it, and bringing us into deeper captivity to the law of sin. Under this heavy yoke I might have groaned till death, had not an holy man, [Peter Bhler. See Law's reply in Journal, viii. 320-3.] to whom God lately directed me, upon my complaining thereof, answered at once: ‘Believe, and thou shalt be saved. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with all thy heart, and nothing shall be impossible to thee. This faith, indeed, as well as the salvation it brings, is the free gift of God. But seek, and thou shalt find. Strip thyself naked of thy own works and thy own righteousness, and fly to Him. For whosoever cometh unto Him, He will in no wise cast out.’

O cease not, ye that are highly favored, to beseech our Lord that He would be with us even to the end, to remove that which is displeasing in His sight, to support that which is weak among us, to give us the whole mind that was in Him, and teach us to walk even as He walked! And may the very God of peace fill up what is wanting in your faith, and build you up more and more in all lowliness of mind, in all plainness of speech, in all zeal and watchfulness; that He may present you to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that ye may be holy and unblameable in the day of His appearing. To Dr. Koker [14] OXON, October 14, 1738. I have delayed writing till now, in hopes I might have had an opportunity of transcribing the papers [Papers brought from Herrnhut. See letter of Nov. 22, p. 268.] you desired before I wrote. But I find I cannot have time for this yet, it having pleased God to give me full employment of another nature. His blessed Spirit has wrought so powerfully, both in London and Oxford, that there is a general awakening, and multitudes are crying out, ‘What must we do to be saved’ So that, till our gracious Master sendeth more laborers into His harvest, all my time is much too little for them. May our blessed Lord repay sevenfold into your bosom the kindness showed to us for His name's sake! That you may be found in Him, not having your own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith, is the earnest prayer of, dear sir, Your unworthy brother in Christ. To his Brother Samuel [15] LONDON, October 30, 1738.

On Monday, Mrs. Cleminger being in pain and fear, we prayed, and our Lord gave her peace. About noon we spent an hour or two in conference and prayer with Miss Molly; and then set out in a glorious storm, but even I had a calm within. We had appointed the little Society at Reading to meet us in the evening; but the enemy was too vigilant. Almost as soon as we went out of town the minister sent or went to each of the members, and, being arguing and threatening, utterly confounded them, so that they were all scattered abroad. Mr. Cennick's own sister did not dare to see us, but was gone out on purpose to avoid it. I trust, however, our God will gather them together again, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. About one in the afternoon on Tuesday I came to Oxford again, and from Mr. Fox's (where all were in peace) I went to Mrs. Compton's. I-found the minister of the parish had been there before me, to whom she had plainly declared the thing as it was - ‘that she never had a true faith in Christ till two in the afternoon on the Tuesday preceding.’ After some other warm and sharp expressions, ‘he told her upon that word he must repel her from the Holy Communion.’ Finding she was not convinced of her error even by that argument, he left her calmly rejoicing in God her Savior. At six in the evening we were at Mr. Fox's Society; about seven at Mrs. Compton's: the power of our Lord was present at both, and all our hearts were knit together in love. The next day we had an opportunity to confirm most, if not all, the souls which had been shaken. In the afternoon I preached at the Castle. We afterwards joined together in prayer, having now Charles Graves added to us, who is rooted and grounded in the faith. We then went to Mr. Gibs's room, where were Mr. Washington and Watson. Here an hour was spent in conference and prayer, but without any disputing. At four in the morning I left Oxford. God hath indeed planted and watered. Oh may He give the increase ! -- I am, &c. To James Hervey [4] LONDON, March 20, 1739.

On Wednesday morning Mr. Chapman [See heading to letter of March 29, 1737.] stayed with us a while, to whom we spake the truth in love. At ten I preached in the meadow again, to, I judge, about two thousand five hundred. At four I offered Jesus Christ as our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption to above three thousand. At seven all the women in band met together, and, having received Mary Cutler into fellowship with them, spent the evening in conference and prayer. At eight the bands of men met at the Society room in Baldwin Street, and received into fellowship with them William Lewis, James Robins, Kenelm Chandler, Anthony Williams, and Thomas Robins. The remainder of the evening was spent in singing, conference, and prayer. Thursday, 12th, we went to pitch on a proper place upon Rose Green, to raise a little place for me to stand on in preaching. At the Societies in the evening there was great power, and many were convinced of sin; but I believe more on Friday evening at both the Societies. On Saturday I waited on one of the clergy of this city, who had sent me word, ‘I was welcome to preach in his church if I would tell nobody of it’; but he had altered his mind, and told me now ‘he could not let me preach.’ [John Gibbs, Vicar of St. Mary Redcliffe 1704-44. See Journal, ii. 179d.] At four I began preaching on the steps at the door of the Poorhouse; four or five hundred of the richer sort were within, and I believe fifteen hundred or two thousand without. About an hour and half I spent with them in prayer and in explaining and applying those words, ‘When they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both.’

Monday, 14th, about five thousand were at the Brickyard, whom I exhorted to be ‘as little children.’ Three mourners were comforted this evening, as was one the night before. Mrs. Labbe (educated as an Anabaptist) was baptized the next day and filled with the Holy .Ghost. At three in the afternoon I preached at Two-Mile-Hill on those words of Isaiah (upon which the book opened) [Here a line is left blank in the letter.] .... Afterwards we went to look out a proper place for the school, and at last pitched on one between the London and Bath Roads. Soon after five I began expounding at the Back Lane on the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees; but, the house being too small, I stood in a little garden at one end of the lane, so that all who were in the lane or at the windows or on the adjoining walls (about a thousand) could hear well. The power of God fell on several of those that heard, one or two of whom were soon comforted; as were three others at the Society in Baldwin Street. About ten, two that had before been comforted, but were in heaviness again, came to Mrs. Grevil. We prayed, and they were again filled with peace and joy in believing. Wednesday, 16th, the rain prevented many from coming to Baptist Mills; but twelve or fifteen hundred stayed. While I was taking occasion from those words of Isaiah, chap. liii. verses 5 and 6, to call poor sinners to Christ, a young man began beating his breast and strongly crying out for mercy. During our prayer God put a new song in his mouth. Some mocked, and others believed, particularly a maid servant of Baptist Mills, who went home full of anguish, and is now full of peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.

Thursday, 24th, we breakfasted at Richard Champion's, [See Journal, ii. 204d; W.H.S. v. 6. R. Champion (1743-91), the founder of the pottery works at. Bristol, where the ‘British China Ware’ was made, was perhaps his son.] where were eight or nine other Quakers. We had a mild conference on justification by faith alone, concluded with prayer, and both met and parted in love. At three I preached again on Priestdown, near Publow, to a larger congregation than before, on ‘The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.’ On Friday I preached (the first time) at the Fishponds, on the edge of Kingswood, about two mile from Bristol, on the same words, to about a thousand souls. The next morning one came to us in deep despair. We prayed together an hour, and he went away in peace. About two thousand (as is usual on Saturdays) were at the Bowling Green, to whom, and to about six thousand on Sunday morning, I farther explained the great law of love. To about two thousand five hundred at Hanham I preached on Isaiah liii. 5-6; at Rose Green, to upwards of ten thousand, on ‘Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.’ At the Society in the evening at Gloucester Lane eleven were cut to the heart and soon after comforted. Monday, 28th, I began preaching in the morning at Weavers’ Hall, where two persons received remission of sins; as did seven in the afternoon at the Brickyard, before several thousand witnesses; and ten at Baldwin-Street in the evening, of whom two were children. On Tuesday in the afternoon I preached at Two-Mile-Hill to about a thousand of the colliers; and at five expounded to about the same number in the Back Lane at John Haydon's door. The next morning a young woman (late a Quaker) was baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost. In the afternoon I (unknowingly) fell in with a famous infidel, [See Journal, ii. 206n.] a champion of the unfaithful in these parts. He was shocked, desired I would pray for him, and promised to pray earnestly himself that God would show him the right way to serve Him.

After expounding to some hundreds in the Back Lane, I went as usual to the schoolroom, where the pains of hell came about three persons, who soon after saw the light of heaven. At Baptist Mills on Wednesday I explained to two thousand or two thousand five hundred, ‘All things are lawful for me; but all things edify not.’ At seven the women bands met, and agreed to defer admitting any new members till the next month and to wait a little longer before they excluded those who had for some time excluded themselves, if haply they might return. At Baldwin Street William Farnell and Richard Hereford were excluded the Society, as being not only unwilling to attend it, but utterly incapable (as yet) of improving by it. I was afterward much enlarged in prayer for Mrs. Grevil. Oh that she could again feel herself a lost sinner! I went on Thursday in the afternoon to preach on the south edge of Kingswood, near a sort of a village called the Cupolas; but the people not having notice, but few came: so that, having used some prayer with them, I promised to come again the next day, and then preached on ‘Believe, and thou shalt be saved.’ Saturday, 30th, Anne Williams (Ant. Williams's wife) was the thirteenth time tapped for the dropsy. She desires to be dissolved and to be with Christ; but gives herself up to Him for life or for death. To about twelve hundred in the Bowling Green I showed many lawful things edify not. At Weavers’ Hall Kitty Deschamps (about fourteen), Prudence Woodward, and five more roared for the very disquietness of their heart, and all, upon prayer, were relieved and sang praise unto our God and unto the Lamb that liveth for ever and ever. Yours in Christ. [Wesley wrote to the Rev. John Oulton (Baptist pastor of Leominster) on July 9 and 28; but these letters have not been preserved. See Journal, ii. 240d, 247d; W.H.S. xi. 118-19. Mr. Oulton's reply to the first letter is given in the Supplement to the Arrninian Magazine, 1797, PP. 25-6.] To Dr. Stebbing [15] July 31, 1739.

Some years since, Mr. Ebenezer Erskine, preaching before the Assembly, reproved them for several faults with all simplicity. This was so resented by many that in a following Assembly he was required to make an open recantation; and, persisting in the charge, the Assembly determined that he, with three other ministers who spoke in his behalf, should be deprived and their livings declared vacant. Four messengers were sent for this purpose; but they returned re infecta, fearing the people lest they should stone them. In another Assembly directions were given to the neighbouring ministers to procure informations concerning the doctrine and behavior of Mr. Erskines [Ebenezer and Ralph] and their adherents, Out of these informations an indictment was formed, to which they were summoned to answer in the next Assembly. Here it was debated whether they should be suffered to come in, and carried by a small majority that they should. The Moderator then spoke to this effect: ‘My reverend brethren, ye are summoned to answer an indictment charging you with erroneous doctrine and irregular practices; but if ye will submit to the Kirk and testify your amendment, we will receive you with open arms.’ Mr. Erskine answered for himself and brethren (they were now increased to eight) to this purpose: ‘Moderator, both you and those that are with you have erred from the faith, and your practices are irregular too; and you have no discipline: therefore you are no Kirk. We are the Kirk, and we alone, who continue in her faith and discipline. And if ye will submit to us and testify your amendment, we will receive ye with open arms.’ None answered a word; so after a short time they withdrew. The Moderator then asked, ‘My reverend brethren, what shall we do’ One replied, ‘Moderator, I must answer you in our proverb --“You have put the cat into the kirn (i.e. churn), and ye must get her out again how you can.”’

1740 To James Huton [1] BRISTOL, March 21, 1740. DEAR JEMMY, -- Where are the books I desired you to send -- Mr. Newman's If they are not sent, I wish you would send with them twenty of the Collection of Prayers [A Collection of Forms of Prayer for Every Day in the Week, 1733. Wesley says: 'In the same year I printed (the first time I ventured to print anything) for the use of my pupils A Collection of forms of Prayer.’ See letter of May 14, 1765.] and twenty (if printed) of the Count's Sermons. [Sixteen Discourses on the Redemption of Man by the Death of Christ. Translated from the High Dutch, 1740.] After my hearing of what Brother Tltschig [Wesley knew John Tltschig intimately in Savannah, and consulted him as to Miss Hopkey. He went with him to Herrnhut. See Journal, i. 478-9n.] said, I had no time to see him before I left London. Therefore I writ it as soon as I thought of it; so that may pass. What you say in your last concerning justification I have no exception to. But what plots you speak of I don't understand. When we can no longer speak freely to one another, I verily think we should not speak at all. But I hope that time will never come.

4. I have heard some of you affirm, on the other hand: (1) That it does imply liberty from the commandments of God, so that one who is saved through faith is not obliged or bound to obey them, does not do anything as a commandment or as a duty. (To support which they have affirmed that there is [ In the answer to this letter, which I received some weeks after, this is explained as follows: ‘All things which are a commandment to the natural man are a promise to all that have been justified. The thing itself is not lost, but the notion which people are wont to have of commandments, duties, &c.’ I reply: 1. If this be all you mean, why do you not say so explicitly to all men 2. Whether this be all, let any reasonable man judge, when he has read what is here subjoined.]* no command in the New Testament but to believe; that there is no duty required therein but that of believing; and that to a believer there is no commandment at all.) (2) That it does imply liberty to conform to the world, [The Brethren answer to this, ‘We believe it much better to discourse out of the newspapers than to chatter about holy things to no purpose.’ Perhaps so. But what is this to the point I believe both the one and the other to be useless, and therefore an abomination to the Lord. This objection, then, stands in full force, the fact alleged being rather defended than denied. The joining in worldly diversions in order to do good (another charge which cannot be denied), I think, would admit of the same defense -- viz. ‘that there are other things as bad.’]* by talking on useless if not trifling subjects; by joining in worldly diversions in order to do good; by putting on of gold and costly apparel, [‘We wear,’ say the Brethren, neither gold nor silver.’ You forget. I have seen it with my eyes. ‘But we judge nobody that does.’ How! Then you must judge both St. Peter and Paul false witnesses before God.

15. In conformity to the Mystics, you likewise greatly check joy in the Holy Ghost by such cautions against sensible comforts as have no title of Scripture to support them. Hence also your brethren here damp the zeal of babes in Christ, talking much of false zeal, and forbidding them to declare what God hath done for their souls, even when their hearts burn within them to declare it, and compared those to uncorked bottles who simply and artlessly speak as of the ability which God giveth. 16. Hence, lastly, it is that you undervalue good works (especially works of outward mercy), never publicly insisting on the necessity of them, nor declaring their weight and excellency. Hence, when some of your brethren have spoken of them, they put them on a wrong foot -- viz. If you find yourself moved, if your heart is free to it, then reprove, exhort, relieve. By this means you wholly avoid the taking up your cross in order to do good; and also substitute an uncertain, precarious inward motion in the place of the plain written Word. Nay, one of your members has said of good works in general (whether works of piety or of charity), ‘A believer is no more obliged to do these works of the law than a subject of the King of England is obliged to obey the laws of the King of France.’ 17. My brethren, whether ye will hear, or whether ye will forbear, I have now delivered my own soul. And this I have chosen to do in an artless manner, that if anything should come home to your hearts the effect might evidently flow, not from the wisdom of man, but from the power of God. To George Whitefield [5] LONDON, August 9, 1740.

I am glad you mentioned the volume of Bishop Bull, [The Huttons had evidently lent Bishop Bull's Teachings of the Spirit to Wesley. See letter of Jan. 1739, and his reference (Journal, ii. 144d) on Feb. 22 - ‘10.30 at James Hutton’s read Bishop Bull upon the teachings of the Spirit.’] for I had quite forgot whose it was. I will look for it, and send it. I desire the continuance of yours and Mr. Hutton’s prayers. Your obliged and affectionate servant. To Mrs. Hutton, In College Street, Westminster. To the Countess of Huntingdon [8] OXFORD, August 1744. MADAM, -- It has been a common remark for many years that poetry, which might answer the noblest purposes, has been prostituted to the vilest, even to confound the distinctions between virtue and vice, good and evil; and that to such a degree that, among the numerous poems now extant in our language, there is an exceeding small proportion which does not more or less fall under this heavy censure. So that a great difficulty lies on those who are not willing, on the one hand, to be deprived of an elegant amusement; nor, on the other, to purchase it at the hazard of innocence or virtue. Hence it is that many have placed a chaste collection of English poems among the chief desiderata of this age. Your mentioning this a year or two ago, and expressing a desire to see such a collection, determined me not to delay the design I had long had of attempting something in this kind. I therefore revised all the English poems I knew, and selected what appeared most valuable in them. Only Spenser’s Works I was constrained to omit, because scarce intelligible to the generality of modern readers.

I shall rejoice if the want of which you complained be in some measure supplied by the following collection; of which this at least may be affirmed, --there is nothing therein contrary to virtue, nothing that can any way offend the chastest ear, or give pain to the tenderest heart. And perhaps whatever is really essential to the most sublime divinity, as well as the purest and most refined morality, will be found therein. Nor is it a small circumstance that the most just and important sentiments are here represented with the utmost advantage, with all the ornaments both of wit and language, and in the clearest, fullest strongest light. I inscribe these poems to you, not only because you was the occasion of their thus appearing in the world, but also because it may be an inducement to many to read them. Your name, indeed, cannot excuse a bad poem; but it may recommend good ones to those who would not otherwise consider whether they were good or bad. And I am persuaded they will not be unacceptable to you, were it only on this account --that many of them describe what a person of quality ought, and what I trust you desire, to be. My heart’s desire and prayer to God for you is that you may never rest short of this: That ‘whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are venerable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are honorable; if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, you may think on these things: and my God shall supply all your need, according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus.’ -- I am Your Ladyship’s obliged and obedient servant for Christ's sake. To Thomas Church [9] LONDON, December 22, 1744. REVEREND SIR, -- Since this was in the press I have seen your Remarks upon my ‘last Journal.’ I will endeavor, as you desire, ‘attentively to consider the points’ therein ‘objected to me.’ In the meantime I am, reverend sir, Your servant for Christ’s sake.

‘They affirmed that there is no commandment in the New Testament but to believe; that no other duty lies upon us; and that, when a man does believe, he is not bound or obliged to do anything which is commanded there.’ (ii. 354-5.) ‘Mr. Stonehouse told me, “No one has any degree of faith till he is perfect as God is perfect.”’ (ii. 345.) ‘You believe there are no degrees in faith.’ (ii. 344.) ‘I have heard Mr. Molther affirm, that there is no justifying faith where there is ever any doubt.’ (ii. 492.) ‘The moment a man is justified, he is sanctified wholly. Thenceforth, till death, he is neither more nor less holy.’ (ii. 489.) ‘We are to grow in grace, but not in holiness.’ (ii. 490.)

7. Let us now weigh these assertions. ‘They’ (that is, ‘the charms oftheir sour behavior’) ‘must be in your eye veryextraordinary.’ -- Do not you stumble at the threshold TheMoravians excel in sweetness of behavior. ‘As they can besufficient to cover such a multitude of errors and crimes.’ Such amultitude of errors and crimes! I believe, as to errors, they holduniversal salvation, and are partly Antinomians, (in opinion,) andpartly Quietists; and for this cause I cannot join with them. Butwhere is the multitude of errors Whosoever knows two or threehundred more, let him please to mention them. Such a multitude ofcrimes too! That some of them have used guile, and are of a closereserved behavior, I know. And I excuse them not. But to thismultitude of crimes I am an utter stranger. Let him prove thischarge upon them who can. For me, I declare I cannot. ‘To keep up the same regard and affection.’ -- Not so. I say, myaffection was not lessened, till after September, 1739, till I hadproof of what I had feared before. But I had not the same degree ofregard for them when I saw the dark as well as the bright side oftheir character. ‘I doubt your regard for them was not lessened tillthey began to interfere with what you thought your province.’ Ifthis were only a doubt, it were not much amiss; but it presentlyshoots up into an assertion, equally groundless: For my regard forthem 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 wasinfluenced herein by a fear of losing my own authority; not by ajust resentment to see the honor of religion and virtue so scandalously trampled upon’ -- Trampled upon!By whom Not by the Moravians: I never sawany such thing among them. But what do you mean by ‘a just resentment’ I hope you do notmean what is commonly called zeal; a flame which often ‘sets onfire 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!

10. ‘But I must observe,’ you say, ‘that you fall not only into inconsistencies, but into direct contradictions. You commend them for “loving one another in a manner the world knoweth not of;” and yet you charge them with being “in the utmost confusion, biting and devouring one another.” You say, “They caution us against natural love of one another; and had well-nigh destroyed brotherly love from among us.”’ ‘You praise them for “using no diversions, but such as become saints;” and for “not regarding outward adorning:” Yet you say they “conform to the world in wearing gold and costly apparel; and by joining in worldly diversions, in order to do good.”’ ‘You call their discipline, “in most respects, truly excellent.” I wish you had more fully explained yourself. I am sure it is no sign of good discipline, to permit such abominations. And you tell themyourself, “I can show you such a subordination as answers all Christian purposes, and yet is as distant from that among you as the heavens are from the earth.”’ ‘You mention it as a good effect of their discipline, that “every one knows and keeps his proper rank.” Soon after; as if it were with a design to confute yourself, you say, “Our brethren have neither wisdom enough to guide, nor prudence enough to let it alone.”’ ‘And now, Sir, how can you reconcile these opposite descriptions’ (pages 21-3). Just as easily as those before, by simplydeclaring the thing as it is. ‘You commend them’(the Moravians) ‘for loving one another [See letter of June 24, 1744.]; and yet charge them with biting and devouring one another’ (Journal, ii. 310, 328) ‘Them’! Whom Not the Moravians; but the English brethren of Fetter-Lane, before their union with the Moravians. Here, then, is no shadow ofcontradiction. For the two sentences do not relate to the same persons. ‘You say, “They had well-nigh destroyed brotherly love fromamong us;” partly by “cautions against natural love.”’ (ii. 494)It is a melancholy truth; so they had. But we had then no connection with them. Neither, therefore, does this contradict their ‘loving one another in a manner the world knoweth not of.’

‘You praise them for using no diversions but such as become saints;’ (ii. 310) ‘and yet say,’ (I recite the whole sentence,) ‘I have heard some of you affirm, that “Christian salvationimplies liberty to conform to the world, by joining in worldly diversions in order to do good”’ (ii. 491). And both these aretrue. The Moravians, in general, ‘use no diversions but such as become saints;’ and yet I have heard some of them affirm, incontradiction to their own practice, that ‘one then mentioned did well, when he joined in playing at tennis in order to do good.’ 11. ‘You praise them for not “regarding outward adorning”’ (ii. 310). So I do, the bulk of the congregation. ‘And yet you say,’ (I again recite the whole sentence,) ‘I have heard some of you affirm,that “Christian salvation implies liberty to conform to the world,by putting on of gold and costly apparel.”’ (ii. 491). I have so.And I blame them the more, because they are condemned by thegeneral practice of their own Church. ‘You call their discipline “in most respects truly excellent” (ii. 310). I could wish you had more fully explained yourself.’ I have,in the Second Journal (ii. 19-56.) ‘It is no sign of good discipline to permit such abominations;’ that is, error in opinion, and guile in practice. True, it is not; nor is it any demonstrationagainst it. For there may be good discipline even in a College ofJesuits. Another fault is, too great a deference to the Count. Andyet, ‘in most respects, their discipline is truly excellent.’ ‘You mention it as a good effect of their discipline, that “every oneknows and keeps his proper rank” (ii. 310). Soon after, as itwere with a design to confute yourself, you say, “Our brethrenhave neither wisdom enough to guide, nor prudence enough to letit alone”’ (ii. 327). Pardon me, Sir. I have no design either toconfute or to contradict myself in these words. The former sentence is spoken of the Moravian brethren; the latter, of the Englishbrethren of Fetter-Lane.

3. ‘Many of those who are perhaps as zealous of good works asyou, think I have allowed you too much. Nay, my brethren, buthow can we help allowing it, if we allow the Scriptures to be fromGod For is it not written, and do not you yourselves believe, “Without holiness no man shall see the Lord” And how then,without fighting about words, can we deny, that holiness is acondition of final acceptance And as to the first acceptance orpardon, does not all experience as well as Scripture prove, that noman ever yet truly believed the gospel who did not first repent Repentance therefore we cannot deny to be necessarily previous tofaith. Is it not equally undeniable, that the running back into willful,known sin (suppose it were drunkenness or uncleanness) stifles thatrepentance or conviction And can that repentance come to anygood issue in his soul, who resolves not to forgive his brother orwho obstinately refrains from what God convinces him is right, whether it be prayer or hearing his word Would you scrupleyourself to tell one of these, “Unto him that hath shall be given; but from him that hath not,” that is, uses it not, “shall be taken eventhat which he hath” Would you scruple to say this But in sayingthis, you allow all which I have said, viz., that previous tojustifying faith, there must be repentance, and, if opportunitypermit, “fruits meet for repentance.” ‘And yet I allow you this, that although both repentance and thefruits thereof are in some sense necessary before justification, yetneither the one nor the other is necessary 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 theword,) he is justified, his sins are blotted out, “his faith is countedto him for righteousness.” But it is not so, at whatever moment herepents, or brings forth any or all the fruits of repentance. Faithalone therefore justifies; which repentance alone does not; muchless any outward work. And consequently, none of these arenecessary to justification, in the same degree with faith.

‘No in the same sense. For none of these has so direct, immediate arelation to justification as faith. This is proximately necessarythereto; repentance remotely, as it is necessary (to faith. And the fruits of repentance still more remotely, as they are necessary [These words (omitted through a printer’s error) are restored by Wesley in his second letter to Mr. Church. See page 255.]) to the increase or continuance of repentance. 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, that faith alone is the proximate condition of justification.’ 4. This is what I hold concerning justification. I am next briefly toobserve what you object. ‘If faith,’ say you, ‘is the sole condition of justification, then it is our sole duty.’ (Remarks, p. 25.) I deny theconsequence. Faith may be, in the sense above described, the sole condition of justification; and yet not only repentance be our dutybefore, but all obedience after, we believe. You go on: ‘If good works are not conditions of ourjustification, they are not conditions of our (final) salvation’ (ibid.). I deny the consequence again. Good works, properly so called, cannot be the conditions of justification; because it is impossible to do any good work before we are justified. And yet, notwithstanding, good works may be, and are, conditions of finalsalvation. For who will say it is impossible to do any good workbefore we are finally saved You proceed: ‘Can we be saved in the contemptuous neglect of repentance, prayer,’ &c. (Page 26.) No, nor justified neither; but while they are previous to faith, these are not allowed to be goodworks. You afterwards argue from my own concessions, thus: ‘Yournotion of true stillness is, “a patient waiting upon God, by lowliness, meekness, and resignation, in all the ways of his holy law, and the works of his commandments.” But how is it possible toreconcile to this, the position, that these duties are not conditions ofour justification If we are justified without them, we may be savedwithout them. This consequence cannot be too often repeated.’ (Ibid.)

‘Was not irreligion and vice already prevailing enough,’ (whether I have increased them, we will consider by and by,) ‘but we must throw snares in people’s way’ God forbid! My whole life is employed in taking those snares out of people's way, which the world and the devil had thrown there. ‘And root out the remains of piety and devotion in the weak and well-meaning’ Of whom speaketh the Prophet this of himself, or of some other man ‘Your own confessions put this beyond all doubt.’ What! that ‘I root out the remains of piety and devotion’ Not so. The sum of them all recited above amounts to this and no more: ‘That while my brother and I were absent from London, many weak men were tainted with wrong opinions, most of whom we recovered at our return; but even those who continued therein did, notwithstanding, continue to live a holier life than ever they did before they heard us preach.’ ‘And you even now hold the principles from which these dangerous consequences do plainly and directly follow.’ But I know not where to find these consequences, unless it be in your title-page. There indeed I read of the very fatal tendency of justification by faith only: ‘The divisions and perplexities of the Methodists, and the many errors relating both to faith and practice, which,’ as you conceive, ‘have already arisen among these deluded people.’ However, you ‘charitably believe, I was not aware of these consequences at first.’ (page 4). No, nor am I yet; though it is strange I should not, if they so naturally succeed that doctrine. I will go a step farther. I do not know, neither believe, that they ever did succeed that doctrine, unless perhaps accidentally, as they might have succeeded any doctrine whatsoever. And till the contrary is proved, those consequences cannot show that these principles are not true.

13. Another consequence which you charge on my preaching justification by faith, is, the introducing the errors of the Moravians. ‘Had the people,’ say you, ‘gone on in a quiet and regular practice of their duty, as most of them did before you deluded them, it would have been impossible for the Moravian tenets to have prevailed among them. But when they had been long and often used to hear good works undervalued, I cannot wonder that they should plunge into new errors, and wax worse and worse.’ (Page 12.) This is one string of mistakes. ‘Had the people gone on in a quiet and regular practice of their duty, as most of them did before you deluded them.’ Deluded them! Into what Into the love of God and all mankind, and a zealous care to keep his commandments. I would to God this delusion (if such it is accounted) may spread to the four corners of the earth! But how did most of them go on before they were thus deluded Four in five, by a moderate computation, even as other baptized Heathens, in the works of the devil, in all the ‘wretchlessness of most unclean living.’ ‘In a quiet and regular practice of their duty!’ What duty the duty of cursing and swearing; the duty of gluttony and drunkenness; the duty of whoredom and adultery; or of beating one another, and any that came in their way In this (not very ‘quiet or regular’) practice did most of those go on before they heard us, who have now ‘put off the old man with his deeds,’ and are ‘holy in all manner of conversation.’ Have these, think you, ‘been long and often used to hear good works undervalued’ Or are they prepared for receiving the Moravian errors, by the knowledge and love of God O Sir, the Moravians know, if you do not, that there is no such barrier under heaven against their tenets as those very people whom you suppose just prepared for receiving them.

8. ‘At the time of the first preaching of the gospel’ (as you justly observe) ‘both Jews and Gentiles were very negligent of internal holiness, but laid great stress on external rites and certain actions, which, if they performed according to the due forms of their respective religions, they doubted not but those works would render them acceptable to God. The Apostles therefore thought they could not express themselves too warmly against so wicked a persuasion, and often declare that we cannot be made righteous by works (that is, not by such outward works as were intended to commute for inward holiness), but “by faith in Christ” (that is, by becoming Christians both in principle and practice).’ 9. I have often thought the same thing; namely, that the Apostles used the expression ‘salvation by faith’ (importing inward holiness by the knowledge of God) in direct opposition to the then common persuasion of salvation by works -- that is, going to heaven by outward works, without any inward holiness at all. 10. And is not this persuasion as common now as it was in the time of the Apostles We must needs go out of the world, or we cannot doubt it. Does not every one of our Churches (to speak a sad truth) afford us abundant instances of those who are as negligent of internal holiness as either the Jews or ancient Gentiles were And do not these at this day lay so great a stress on certain external rites, that, if they perform them according to the due forms of their respective communities, they doubt not but those works will render them acceptable to God You and I therefore cannot express ourselves too warmly against so wicked a persuasion; nor can we express ourselves against it in more proper terms than those the Apostles used to that very end. It cannot be denied that this apostolical language is also the language of our own Church. But I waive this. What is scriptural in any Church, I hold fast; for the rest, I let it go. III. 11. But the main point remains: you think the doctrines I hold are not founded on Holy Writ. Before we inquire into this, I would just touch on some parts of that abstract of them which you have given.

Do you not here quite overlook one circumstance, which might be a key to our whole behavior -- namely, that we no more look upon these filthy abuses which adhere to our Church as part of the building than we look upon any filth which may adhere to the walls of Westminster Abbey as a part of that structure You think, thirdly, ‘that there are other things which we defend and practice, in open contradiction to the orders of the Church of England.’ And this you judge to be a just exception against the sincerity of our professions to adhere to it. Compare what we profess with what we practice, and you will possibly be of another judgment. We profess (1) that we will obey all the laws of that Church (such we allow the Rubrics to be, but not the customs of the Ecclesiastical Courts) so far as we can with a safe conscience: (2) that we will obey, with the same restriction, the bishops as executors of those laws; but their bare will, distinct from those laws, we do not profess to obey at all. Now point out what is there in our practice which is an open contradiction to these professions Is field-preaching Not at all. It is contrary to no law which we profess to obey. The allowing lay preachers We are not clear that this is contrary to any such law. But if it is, this is one of the exempt cases; one wherein we cannot obey with a safe conscience. Therefore, be it right or wrong on other accounts, it is, however, no just exception against our sincerity. The rules and directions given to our Societies which, you say, is a discipline utterly forbidden by the bishops. When and where did any bishop forbid this And if any did, by what law We know not either the man who ever did forbid or the law by which he could forbid it. The ‘allowing persons (for we require none) to communicate at the chapel, in contradiction (you think) to all those Rubrics which require all to attend always on their own parish church and pastor, and to receive only at his table’

6. However, you think there is no occasion now for the expressions used in ancient times, since the persuasions which were common then are now scarcely to be found. For ‘does any Church of England man,’ you ask, ‘maintain anything like this -- that men may commute external works instead of internal holiness’ Most surely: I doubt whether every Church of England man in the nation, yea, every Protestant (as well as Papist) in Europe, who is not deeply sensible that he did so once, does not do so to this day. I am one who for twenty years used outward works, not only as ‘acts of goodness,’ but as commutations (though I did not indeed profess this), instead of inward holiness. I knew I was not holy. But I quieted my conscience by doing such-and-such outward works; and therefore I hoped I should go to heaven, even without inward holiness. Nor did I ever speak close to one who had the form of godliness without the power but I found he had split on the same rock. Abundance of people I have likewise known, and many I do know at this day, who ‘are so grossly superstitious as to think devotion may be put upon God instead of honesty’; as to fancy, going to church and sacrament will bring them to heaven, though they practice neither justice nor mercy. These are the men who make Christianity vile, who, above all others, ‘contribute to the growth of infidelity.’ On the contrary, the speaking of faith working by love, of uniform outward religion springing from inward, has already been the means of converting several Deists and one Atheist (if not more) into real Christians.

17. We are at length come to the real state of the question between the Methodists (so called) and their opponents. ‘Is there perceptible inspiration, or is there not Is there such a thing (if we divide the question into its parts) as faith producing peace, and joy, and love, and inward (as well as outward) holiness Is that faith which is productive of these fruits wrought in us by the Holy Ghost, or not And is he in whom they are wrought necessarily conscious of them, or is he not’ These are the points on which I am ready to join issue with any serious and candid man. Such I believe you to be. If, therefore, I knew on which of those you desired my thoughts, I would give you them freely, such as they are; or (if you desire it) on any collateral question. The best light I have I am ready to impart; and am ready to receive farther light from you. My time, indeed, is so short that I cannot answer your letters so particularly or so correctly as I would. But I am persuaded you will excuse many defects where you believe the design is good. I want to know what, as yet, I know not. May God teach it me by you, or by whom He pleaseth! ‘Search me, O Lord, and prove me! Try out my reins and my heart! Look well if there be error or wickedness in me; and lead me in the way everlasting!’

3. But I may not dismiss this passage yet. It is now my turn to complain of unfair usage; of the exceeding lame, broken, imperfect manner wherein you cite my words. For instance, your citation runs thus: you ‘never knew but one of the Moravian Church affirm that a believer does not grow in holiness.’ Whereas my words are these: ‘I never knew one of the Moravian Church but that single person affirm that a believer does not grow in holiness; and perhaps he would not affirm it on reflection.’ Now, why was the former part of the sentence changed and the latter quite left out Had the whole stood in your tract just as it does in mine, it must have appeared I do not here charge the Moravian Church. I complain also of your manner of replying to the first article of this very paragraph. For you do not cite so much as one line of that answer to which you profess to reply. My words are, ‘You ought not to charge the Moravian Church with the first of these’ errors; ‘since, in the very page from which you quote those words, “There is no justifying faith where there ever is any doubt,” that note occurs (namely, Journal, ii. 492): “In the Preface to the Second Journal the Moravian Church is cleared from this mistake.”’ If you had cited these words, could you possibly have subjoined, ‘I have not charged the Moravian Church with anything, but only repeat after you’ 4. I have now considered one page of your reply in the manner you seem to require. But sure you cannot expect I should follow you thus step by step through an hundred and forty pages! If you should then think it worth while to make a second reply, and to follow me in the same manner, we might write indeed, but who would read I return, therefore, to what I proposed at first -- namely, to touch only on what seems of the most importance, and leave the rest just as it lies.

(4) ‘You praise them for not “regarding outward adorning.”’ So I do, the bulk of the congregation. ‘And yet you say’ (I again recite the whole sentence), ‘“I have heard some of you affirm that Christian salvation implies liberty to conform to the world, by putting on of gold and costly apparel.”’ I have so. And I blame them the more, because ‘they are condemned by the general practice of their own Church.’ To this also you reply not. So I must count this the fourth contradiction which you have charged upon me, but have not proved. (5) ‘You call their discipline “in most respects truly excellent.” I could wish you had more fully explained yourself.’ I have in the Second Journal (Journal, ii. 19-56). ‘It is no sign of good discipline to permit such abominations’ -- that is, error in opinion and guile in practice. True, it is not; nor is it any demonstration against it: for there may be good discipline even in a College of Jesuits. Another fault is too great a deference to the Count. And yet ‘in most respects their discipline is truly excellent.’ You reply, ‘Such excellent discipline, for all that I know, they may have’ (that is, as the Jesuits); ‘but I cannot agree that this is scarce inferior to that of the apostolical age.’ It may be, for anything you advance to the contrary. ‘Here I cited some words of yours, condemning their subordination (page 88), which you prudently take no notice of.’ Yes; I had just before taken notice of their too great deference to the Count. But the contradiction! Where is the contradiction (6) ‘You mention it as a good effect of their discipline that “every one knows and keeps his proper rank.” Soon after, as it were with a design to confute yourself, you say, “Our brethren have neither wisdom enough to guide nor prudence enough to let it alone.”’ I answered, ‘Pardon me, sir. I have no design either to confute or contradict myself in these words. The former sentence is spoken of the Moravian Brethren; the latter, of the English brethren of Fetter Lane, not then united with the Moravians, neither acting by their direction.’ To this likewise you do not reply. Here is, then, a sixth contradiction alleged against me, but not proved.

3. How far I have acted agreeably to the rules and orders of our Church is a farther question. You think I have acted contrary thereto, first, by using extemporary prayer in public. ‘The Church,’ you say, ‘has strongly declared her mind on this point by appointing her excellent Liturgy, which you have solemnly promised to use, and no other.’ I know not when or where. ‘And whoever does not worship God in the manner she prescribes must be supposed to slight and contemn her offices and rules; and therefore can be no more worthy to be called her minister.’ (Page 7.) I do not ‘slight or contemn the offices’ of the Church: I esteem them very highly. And yet I do not at all times worship God even in public in the very terms of those offices. Nor yet do I knowingly ‘slight or contemn her rules’; for it is not clear to my apprehension that she has any rule which forbids using extemporary prayer, suppose, between the Morning and Evening Service. And if I am ‘not worthy to be called her minister’ (which I dare by no means affirm myself to be), yet her minister I am, and must always be, unless I should be judicially deposed from my ministry. Your second argument is this: ‘If you suppose the Scripture enjoins you to use extemporary prayer, then you must suppose our Liturgy to be inconsistent with Scripture, and consequently unlawful to be used.’ That does not follow, unless I supposed the Scripture to enjoin to use extemporary prayer and no other. Then it would follow that a form of prayer was inconsistent with Scripture. But this I never did suppose. Your third argument is to this effect: ‘You act contrary to the rule of the Church. Allow she is in the wrong; yet, while you break her rule, how do you act as her minister’ It ought to be expressed, ‘How are you her minister’ for the conclusion to be proved is that I am not her minister. I answer: (1) I am not convinced, as I observed before, that I do hereby break her rule; (2) if I did, yet should I not cease to be her minister, unless I were formally deprived; (3) I now actually do continue in her communion, and hope that I always shall.

4. You object, farther, that I ‘disobey the governors of the Church.’ I answer, I both do and will obey them in all things where I do not apprehend there is some particular law of God to the contrary. ‘Here,’ you say, ‘you confess that in some things you do not and cannot obey your governors’ (page 8). Did I confess this Then I spoke rashly and foolishly; for I granted more than I can make good. I do certainly apprehend that the law of God requires me both to preach and sometimes to pray extempore. Yet I do not know that I disobey the governors of the Church herein; for I do not know that they have forbidden me to do either. But your ‘behavior and method of teaching is irregular. Have you any warrant from Scripture for preaching’ up and down thus I think I have; I think God hath called me to this work ‘by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery,’ which directs me how to obey that general command, ‘While we have time, let us do good unto all men.’ ‘But we ought to do this agreeably to our respective situations, and not break in upon each other's provinces. Every private man may take upon himself the office of a magistrate, and quote this text as justly as you have done.’ (Page 9.) No; the private man is not called to the office of a magistrate, but I am to the office of a preacher. ‘You was, indeed, authorized to preach the gospel; but it was in the congregation to which you should be lawfully appointed. Whereas you have many years preached in places whereunto you was not lawfully appointed; nay, which were entrusted to others, who neither wanted nor desired your assistance.’ Many of them wanted it enough, whether they desired it or no. But I shall not now debate that point. I rather follow you to the First Part of the Farther Appeal, where this objection is considered.[Works, viii. 117.] 5. ‘Our Church,’ it was said, ‘has provided against this preaching up and down, in the ordination of a priest, by expressly limiting the exercise of the powers then conferred upon him to the congregation where he shall be lawfully appointed thereunto.’

I answered: (1) ‘Your argument proves too much. If it be allowed just as you propose it, it proves that no priest has authority either to preach or administer the sacrament in any other than his own congregation.’ You reply, ‘Is there no difference between a thing’s being done occasionally and its being done for years together’ Yes, a great one; and more inconveniences may arise from the latter than from the former. But this is all wide; it does not touch the point. ‘Still, if our Church does expressly limit the exercise of the sacerdotal powers to that congregation whereunto each priest shall be appointed, this precludes him from exercising those powers at all in any other than that congregation.’ I answered: (2) ‘Had the powers conferred been so limited when I was ordained priest, my ordination would have signified just nothing. For I was not appointed to any congregation at all, but was ordained as a member of that “College of Divines” (so our Statutes express it) “founded to overturn all heresies and defend the catholic faith.”’[Bishop Fleming's object in founding Lincoln College.] You reply, ‘I presume it was expected you should either continue at your college or enter upon some regular cure.’ Perhaps so; but I must still insist that, if my sacerdotal powers had been then expressly limited to that congregation whereunto I should be appointed, my ordination would have signified nothing. I mean, I could never, in virtue of that ordination, have exercised those powers at all; seeing I never was appointed to any single congregation--at least, not till I went to Georgia. I answered: (3) ‘For many years after I was ordained priest this limitation was never heard of. I heard not one syllable of it, by way of objection to my preaching up and down in Oxford or London, or the parts adjacent, in Gloucestershire or Worcestershire, in Lancashire, Yorkshire, or Lincolnshire. Nor did the strictest disciplinarian scruple suffering me to exercise those powers wherever I came.’

You reply, ‘There is great difference between preaching occasionally with the leave of the incumbents, and doing it constantly without their leave.’ I grant there is; and there are objections to the latter which do not reach the former case. But they do not belong to this head. They do not in the least affect this consequence -- ‘If every priest, when ordained, is expressly limited, touching the exercise of the power then received, to that congregation to which he shall be appointed, then is he precluded by this express limitation from preaching, with or without the incumbent's leave, in any other congregation whatever.’ I answered: (4) ‘Is it not, in fact, universally allowed that every priest as such has a power, in virtue of his ordination, to preach in any congregation where the curate desires his assistance’ You reply to this by what you judge a parallel case. But it does not touch the restriction in question. Either this does or does not expressly limit the exercise of the powers conferred upon a priest in his ordination to that congregation whereunto he shall be appointed. If it does not, I am not condemned by this, however faulty I may be on a thousand other accounts. If it does, then is every priest condemned who ever preaches out of the congregation to which he is appointed. Your parallel case is this: ‘Because a man does not offend against the law of the land when I prevail upon him to teach my children,’ therefore ‘he is empowered to seize’ (read, he does not offend against the law of the land in seizing) ‘an apartment in my house, and against my will and approbation to continue therein and to direct and dictate to my family!’ (page II).

An exact parallel indeed! When, therefore, I came to live in St. Luke’s parish, was it just the same thing as if I had seized an apartment in Dr. Buckley's house [This is Dr. Benjamin Bulkeley, whose name was pronounced ‘Buckley.’ He took his degree at Oxford in 1709, and became D.D. in 1731; Assistant Preacher at St. Luke's, Old Street, 1733; Rector of Chingford 1741; Canon of St. Paul's 1742-57. William Nichols, Vicar of St. Giles's, Cripplegate (1732-74), and President of Magdalene College, Cambridge, was also Rector of St. Luke’s, where he evidently had Dr. Bulkeley as his resident helper. See Foster’s Alumni Oxonienses; and letters of March 25, sect. 12, and June 11, sect. 20, 1747.] And was the continuing therein against his will and approbation (supposing it were so) precisely the same as if I had continued in his house, whether he would or no Is the one exactly the same offence against the law of the land as the other Once more. Is the warning sinners in Moorfields to flee from the wrath to come the very same with directing the doctor's family under his own roof I should not have answered this; but that I was afraid you would conclude it was unanswerable. I answered the former objector: (5) ‘Before those words which you suppose to imply such a restraint, were those spoken without any restraint or limitation at all, which I apprehend to convey an indelible character, “Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands.”’ You reply, ‘The question is not whether you are in Orders or not’ (page 12). I am glad to hear it. I really thought it was. ‘But whether you have acted suitably to the directions or rules of the Church of England.’ Not suitably to that rule, if it were strictly to be interpreted of preaching only in a single congregation. But I have given my reasons why I think it cannot be so interpreted. And those reasons I do not see that you have invalidated.

9. Use ever so many exaggerations, still the whole of this matter is: (1) I often use extemporary prayer; (2) wherever I can, I preach the gospel; (3) those who desire to live the gospel, I advise how to watch over each other and to put from them such as walk disorderly. Now, whether these things are, on other considerations, right or wrong, this single point I must still insist on: ‘All this does not prove either that I am no member or that I am no minister of the Church of England.’ Nay, nothing can prove I am no member of the Church, till I either am excommunicated or renounce her communion, and no longer join in her doctrine and in the breaking of bread and in prayer. Nor can anything prove I am no minister of the Church, till I either am deposed from my ministry or voluntarily renounce her, and wholly cease to teach her doctrines, use her offices, and obey her rubrics for conscience’ sake. However, I grant that whatsoever is ‘urged on this head deserves my most serious consideration.’ And whensoever I am convinced that, by taking any methods, more or less different from those I now take, I may better ‘consult the honor of religion, and be able to do more good in the world,’ by the grace of God I shall not persist in these one hour, but instantly choose the more excellent way. IV. 1. What you urge on the head of enthusiasm also, I think, ‘deserves my most serious consideration.’ You may add, ‘and presumption.’ I let it drop once more; because I do not love tautology; and because I look upon presumption to be essential to enthusiasm, and consequently contained therein. I will therefore weigh what you advance concerning it, and explain myself something more at large.

I presume you will allow there is one kind of miracles (loosely speaking) which are not ceased -- namely, tata fed, ‘lying wonders,’ diabolical miracles, or works beyond the virtue of natural causes, wrought by the power of evil spirits. Nor can you easily conceive that these will cease as long as the father of lies is the prince of this world. And why should you think that the God of truth is less active than him, or that He will not have His miracles also -- only, not as man wills, neither when he wills, but according to His own excellent wisdom and greatness 6. But even if it were supposed that God does now work beyond the operation of merely natural causes, yet what impression would this make upon you in the disposition your mind is now in Suppose the trial were repeated, were made again to-morrow. One informs you the next day, ‘While a clergyman was preaching yesterday where I was, a man came who had been long ill of an incurable distemper. Prayer was made for him, and he was restored to perfect health.’

Now, these being removed, where are the Christians, from whom we may properly term England a Christian country the men who have the mind which was in Christ, and who walk as He also walked, whose inmost soul is renewed after the image of God, and who are outwardly holy, as He who hath called them is holy There are doubtless a few such to be found. To deny this would be want of candor. But how few! how thinly scattered up and down! And as for a Christian visible Church, or a body of Christians visibly united together, where is this to be seen Ye different sects, who all declare Lo, here is Christ! or, Christ is there! Your stronger proofs divinely give, And show me where the Christians live! [Published in 1743 at the end of An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion. See Works, viii. 43; Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, v. 480-1.]

You reply: (1) ‘One instance of your misrepresenting and injuring a preacher of our Church I mentioned’ (Second Letter, p. 105). ‘Mentioned’! Well, but did you prove it was an injury or misrepresentation I know not that you once attempted it. (2) You next quote part of a letter [See letter of Dec. 10, 1734, sect24.] from the Third Journal (Journal, ii. 165), wherein, according to your account, the ‘most considerable of our clergy are abused, and at once accused in a very gross manner’ (Second Letter, p. 106). Set down the whole paragraph, and I will prove that this also is naked truth, and no abuse at all. You say (3) ‘You approved of Whitefield’s railing against the clergy’: that is, I say, ‘Mr. Whitefield preached concerning the “Holy Ghost, which all who believe are to receive”; not without a just, though severe, censure of those who preach as if there were no Holy Ghost’ (ii. 238-9). Nor is this railing, but melancholy truth. I have myself heard several preach in this manner. (4) You cite my words: ‘Woe unto you, ye blind leaders of the blind! How long will you pervert the right ways of the Lord’ and add, ‘I appeal to yourself, whether you did not design this reflection against the clergy in general who differ from you.’ No more than I did against Moses and Aaron. 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 justified before God.’ [Works, viii. 224 -5.]

In these points there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. 7. 'As many as receive the light, in them is produced an holy and spiritual birth, bringing forth holiness, righteousness, purity, and all other blessed fruits. By which holy birth, as we are sanctified, so we are justified.' Here is a wide difference between Quakerism and Christianity. This is flat justification by works. Whereas the Christian doctrine is, that 'we are justified by faith'; that 'unto him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness.' The ground of this mistake is the not understanding the meaning of the word 'justification.' For Robert Barclay takes it in the same sense as the Papists do, confounding it with sanctification. So, in page 208 of his Apology, he says in express terms, 'Justification, taken in its proper signification, is making one just, and is all one with sanctification.' 8. 'In whom this holy birth is fully brought forth, the body of sin and death is crucified, and their hearts are subjected to the truth, so as not to obey any suggestion of the evil one; but to be free from actual sinning and transgressing of the law of God, and in that respect perfect.' 9. 'They in whom His grace hath wrought in part to purify and sanctify them may yet by disobedience fall from it and make shipwreck of the faith.' In these propositions there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. The uncommon expression 'This holy birth brought forth' is taken from Jacob Behmen. [See Wesley's Thoughts upon Jacob Behmen (1575-1624) in Works, ix. 509-18.] 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 minister 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.

If this is not lawful, then some law of God forbids it. Can you show me that law If you cannot, then the scrupling this is another plain instance of superstition, not Christianity. 'It is not lawful for a Christian to use superfluities in apparel; as neither to use such games, sports, and plays, under the notion of recreations, as are not consistent with gravity and godly fear.' As to both these propositions, there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. Only observe, touching the former, that the sin of superfluous apparel lies chiefly in the superfluous expense. To make it, therefore, a point of conscience to differ from others as to the shape or colour of your apparel is mere superstition: let the difference lie in the price, that you may have the more wherewith to clothe them that have none. 'It is not lawful for Christians to swear before a magistrate, nor to fight in any case.' Whatever becomes of the latter proposition, the former is no part of Christianity; for Christ Himself answered upon oath before a magistrate. Yea, He would not answer till He was put to His oath, till the high-priest said unto Him, 'I adjure thee by the living God.' Friend, you have an honest heart, but a weak head; you have a zeal, but not according to knowledge. You was zealous once for the love of God and man, for holiness of heart and holiness of life: you are now zealous for particular forms of speaking, for a set of phrases and opinions. Once your zeal was against ungodliness and unrighteousness, against evil tempers and evil works: now it is against forms of prayer, against singing psalms or hymns, against appointing times of praying or preaching; against saying 'you' to a single person, uncovering your head, or having too many buttons upon your coat. Oh what a fall is here! What poor trifles are these, that now wellnigh engross your thoughts! Come back, come back to the weightier matters of the law, to spiritual, rational, scriptural religion. No longer waste your time and strength in beating the air, in vain controversies and strife of words; but bend your whole soul to the growing in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the continually advancing in that holiness without which you cannot see the Lord.

To Mrs. Jones, of Fonmon Castle [3] BRISTOL, February 12, 1748. At my return from Ireland, if not before, I believe the school in Kingswood will be opened. If your son comes there, you will probably hear complaints [See letter of Nov. 7, 1749.]; for the discipline will be exact: it being our view not so much to teach Greek and Latin as to train up soldiers for Jesus Christ. I am obliged now to go the shortest way to Holyhead, my brother being almost impatient for my arrival. I am sorry to hear that Mr. Thomas thinks of leaving Mr. Hodges: I doubt their separation will not be for the furtherance of the gospel. My love and service attend all your family.--I am Your affectionate friend and servant. I have sent a few copies for Miss Molly.[Mrs. Jones's eldest daughter, Mary, who married William Thomas, of Llanbradach, in Glamorganshire.] To Howell Harris [4] HOLYHEAD, February 28, 1748.

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.]

8. But to argue on your own supposition: you say, 'It only shows that novelty, which has a natural tendency to awakening, may, when God pleases, have an efficacious tendency to amending.' Well, then, if the novelty of an indifferent circumstance, such as place, has a natural tendency to awakening, surely we may use it according to its natural tendency, in order to awaken those that sleep in sin I And if God has, in fact, been pleased to use it beyond its natural tendency, to make it efficacious for amending as well as awakening, ought we not to acquiesce, yea, and rejoice therein 9. But are sinners amended Are they saved from their sins Are they truly converted to God Here is, what always must be, the main question. That many are in some sort converted is owned. But to what are they converted 'to the belief of such proofless, incredible stuff as transubstantiation or to the Popish severities of flesh-fasting, celibacies, and other monkeries' Not so. If they are converted at all, they are converted from all manner of wickedness 'to a sober, righteous, and godly life.' Such an uniform practice is true outward holiness. And, wherever this is undeniably found, we ought to believe there is holiness of heart, seeing the tree is known by its fruits. 10. That 'the conversion of sinners to this holiness is no miracle at all' is new doctrine indeed! So new to me that I never heard it before, either among Protestants or Papists. I think a miracle is a work of omnipotence wrought by the supernatural power of God. Now, if the conversion of sinners to holiness is not such a work, I cannot tell what is. I apprehend our Lord accounts it a greater work than giving sight to the blind, yea, or raising the dead; for it was after He had raised Lazarus from the dead that He told His Apostles, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also. And greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto My Father.' Greater outward works they could not do. It remains, therefore, that we understand those solemn words of converting souls to God; which is, indeed, a greater work than any that can be wrought on the body.

While you and I went out at one door, Mr. Grimshaw and Mr. Colbeck went out at the other. The mob immediately closed them in, and tossed them to and fro with the utmost violence, threw Mr. Grimshaw down, and loaded them both with dirt and mire; not one of your friends offering to assist them or call off the blood-hounds from the pursuit. The other quiet, harmless people which followed me at a distance to see what the end would be they treated still worse, not only by your connivance, but by the express order of your deputy. They made them flee for their lives amidst showers of dirt and stones, without any regard to age or sex. Some of them they trampled in the mire, and dragged by the hair, particularly a young man who came with me from Newcastle.[This was William Mackford, a highly respected trustee of the Orphan House at Newcastle. He had come with Wesley from Newcastle, and under his preaching was 'set at liberty' the day this letter was written. See Journal, iii. 372; Stamp's Orphan House, p. 115.] Many they beat with their clubs without mercy. One they forced to leap down (or they would have cast him headlong) from a rock ten or twelve foot high into the river; and even when he crawled out, wet and bruised, they swore they would throw him in again, and he hardly escaped out of their hands. At this time you sat well pleased close to the scene of action, not attempting in the least to hinder them; and all this time you was talking of justice and law. Alas! Suppose we were Dissenters (which I utterly deny, consequently laws against Dissenting conventicles are nothing at all to us); suppose we were Turks or Jews;--still, are we not to have the benefit of the law of our country Proceed against us by law, if you can or dare; but not by lawless violence--not by making a drunken, cursing, swearing, riotous mob both judge, jury, and executioner. This is flat rebellion both against God and the King, as you may possibly find to your cost.

But, before I take any farther step herein, I think myself obliged to make you a fair proposal. If you will promise me under your hand to suppress all mobs at Roughlee and the parts adjacent (as your duty both to God and the King require you to do, even at the hazard of your life); if you will promise to proceed only by law against those you apprehend to act contrary to law (which, indeed, I absolutely deny you to do), nor can it be supposed that none of the lawyers in Leeds, Newcastle, Bristol, or London should find it out (if it were so), but only the Solomons in Pendle Forest;--if I accordingly find a letter from you to this effect when I come to London, directed to the Foundery, near Moorfields, I shall be satisfied and proceed no farther. If not, I shall try another course. Only one piece of advice permit me to give. Do not consult herein with some petty attorney (who will certainly say your cause is good), but with some able barrister-at-law. This is the course I take. The counsel to whom I applied on this very Act of Parliament before I left London were Counsellor Glanville, a barrister of Gray's Inn, [See the next two letters.] and Sir Dudley Rider, the King's Attorney-General.--I am Your real friend. To James Hargrave, Near Colne, In Lancashire. To William Grimshaw [21] LONDON, November 2, 1748. So far as I can judge, the whole costs of information in the King's Bench will be between thirty and forty pounds: part of which should be speedily advanced; because, from the time the cause is first moved here, the counsellors should have their fees paid regularly. 'Tis miserable bad husbandry to starve a cause. Indeed, Mr. Glanville (I apprehend) will return his fees. However, they must be paid (for the present) as duly as those of Sir John Strange. In the end 'tis probable all the costs of suit will fall upon the rioters. The affidavits should be taken and sent without losing one day. The Judges often put off a cause which comes before them at the latter end of a term. Therefore you should not delay; near a fortnight of the term is gone already. To John Bennet LONDON, November 17, 1748.

If you add, ‘But you yourself once styled them thus,’ I grant I did; but I did it in ignorance. I took it on their word; and I now freely and openly testify my mistake. Secondly. I do not admire their doctrine in the particulars that follow: 1. That we are to do nothing in order to salvation, but barely to believe. 2. That there is but one duty now, but one command--to believe in Christ. 3. That Christ has taken away all other commands and duties, having wholly abolished the law. (The sermon Count Zinzendorf preached at Fetter Lane on John viii. 11 places this in a strong light. He roundly began: ‘Christ says, I came not to destroy the law. But He did destroy the law. The law condemned this woman to death; but He did not condemn her. And God Himself does not keep the law. The law forbids lying; but God said, Forty days and Nineveh shall be destroyed; yet Nineveh was not destroyed.’) 4. That there is no such thing as degrees in faith or weak faith; since he has no faith who has any doubt or fear. (How to reconcile this with whith what I heard the Count assert at large, ‘that a man may have justifying faith and not know it,’ I cannot tell.) 5. That we are sanctified wholly the moment we are justified, and are neither more nor less holy to the day of our death. 6. That a believer has no holiness in himself at all; all his holiness being imputed, not inherent. 7. That a man may feel a peace that passeth all understanding may rejoice with joy fun of glory, and have the love of God and of all mankind, with dominion over all sin; and yet all this may be only nature, animal spirits, or the force of imagination. 8. That if a man regards prayer, or searching the Scriptures, or communicating as matter of duty; if he judges himself obliged to do these things, or is troubled when he neglects them, -- he is in bondage, he is under the law, he has no faith, but is still seeking salvation by works. 9. That, therefore, till we believe, we ought to be still - that is, not to pray, search the Scriptures, or communicate.

Will you be so kind as to send word to T. Butts [Thomas Butts had been the Wesleys’ traveling companion. On April 19, 1744, Charles Wesley sent him to Wednesbury with 60, which he had collected for the sufferers in the riots. He traveled with John Wesley in Sept. 1746. On Feb. 8, 1753, proposals were made for devolving all temporal affairs on the Stewards, and a circular was sent out in which Thomas Butts and William Briggs announced that they had been invested with the care of printing and publishing. A letter from Butts to Wesley (Arminian Mag. 1779, p. 258) dated Oct. 31, 1750, on ‘The duty of all to pay their debts,’ shows that he was ‘honest as honesty itself.’ Mrs. Hannah Butts, on whom Charles Wesley wrote some memorial verses, may have been his wife. He seems to have retired about 1759.] that Mr. Williams [Anthony Williams was a Bristol Methodist, at whose house Wesley was a frequent guest in 1739. He may have lent Wesley this money to pay Richard Thyer. See Journal Diary, ii. 175, 181.] of Bristol will draw upon him in a few days for twenty pounds (which I paid Rd. Thyer in full), and that he may call upon you for the money If you still have a desire to make your will, Brother Briggs [William Briggs, of the Customs House had been for some time a Methodist preacher. He was a leader at the Foundry in 1745. See heading to letter of Feb. 25, 1769.] can write it for you. It requires no form of law -- no, nor even stamp paper. But if you apprehend any difficulty, Mr. I'Anson [Wesley’s legal friend and advisor. See W.H.S. v. 230-7.] will rejoice to advise you, either for my sake or your own. My dear, forward the business with Mr. Blisson [Mr. Wesleys trustee. See the next three letters.] and the stating the accounts by Mr. Crook [Mr. Crook was evidently making some account of Mrs. Wesley's affairs. See next letter.] as much as possible. But O let no business of any kind hinder the intercourse between God and your soul! Neither let anything prevent your spending at least one hour a day in private reading, prayer, and meditation. To hear you do this constantly will give a particular satisfaction to him who blesses God that he is Ever Yours.

July 20. -- The Societies both must and shall maintain the preachers we send among them, or I will preach among them no more. The least that I can say to any of these preachers is, ‘Give yourself wholly to the work, and you shall have food to eat and raiment to put on.' And I cannot see that any preacher is called to any people who will not thus maintain him. Almost everything depends on you and me: let nothing damp or hinder us: only let us be alive, and put forth all our strength. July 24. -- As to the preachers, my counsel is, not to check the young ones without strong necessity. If we lay some aside, we must have a supply; and of the two I prefer grace before gifts. [Charles Wesley asks:] Are not both indispensably necessary Has not the cause suffered, in Ireland especially, through the insufficiency of the preachers Should we not first regulate, reform, and bring into discipline the preachers we have before we look for more Should we not also watch and labor, to prevent the mischief which the discarded preachers may occasion July 27. -- What is it that has eaten out the heart of half our preachers, particularly those in Ireland Absolutely idleness; their not bring constantly employed. I see it plainer and plainer. Therefore I beg you will inquire of each, ‘How do you spend your time from morning to evening’ And give him his choice, ‘Either follow your trade, or resolve before God to spend the same hours in reading, &c., [Wesley did his utmost to rouse and help his preachers to cultivate their minds. In Lent 1749 he met seventeen of them at Kingswood, and read lectures to them as he used to do to his pupils at Oxford.] which you used to spend in working.’

So far all are agreed. But what is the stated means of feeding and comforting believers What is the means, as of begetting spiritual life where it is not, so of sustaining and increasing it where it is Here they devide. Some think preaching the law only; other, preaching the gospel only. I think neither the one nor the other; but duly mixing both, in every place, if not in every sermon. I think the right method of preaching is this. At our first beginning to preach at any place, after a general declaration of the love of God to sinners and His willingness that they should be saved, to preach the law in the strongest, the closest the most searching manner possible; only intermixing the gospel here and there, and showing it, as it were, afar off. After more and more persons are convinced of sin, we may mix more and more of the gospel, in order to beget faith, to raise into spiritual life those whom the law hath rain; but this is not to be done too hastily neither. Therefore it is not expedient wholly to omit the law; not only because we may web suppose that many of our hearers are still unconvinced, but because otherwise there is danger that many who are convinced will heal their own wounds slightly: therefore it is only in private converse with a thoroughly convinced sinner that we should preach nothing but the gospel.

If, indeed, we could suppose an whole congregation to be thus convinced, we should need to preach only the gospel; and the same we might do if our whole congregation were supposed to be newly justified. But when these grow in grace and in the knowledge of Christ, a wise builder would preach the law to them again; only taking particular care to place every part of it in a gospel light, as not only a command but a privilege also, as a branch of the glorious liberty of the sons of God. He would take equal care to remind them that this is not the cause but the fruit of their acceptance with God; that other cause, ‘other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, even Jesus Christ’; that we are still forgiven and accepted, only for the sake of what He hath done and suffered for us; and that all true obedience springs from love to Him, grounded on His first loving us. He would labor, therefore, in preaching any part of the law, to keep the love of Christ continually before their eyes; that thence they might draw fresh life, vigor and strength to run the way of His commandments. Thus would he preach the law even to those who were pressing on to the mark. But to those who were careless or drawing back he would preach it in another manner, nearly as he did before they were convinced of sin. To those meanwhile who were earnest but feeble-minded he would preach the gospel chiefly yet variously intermixing more or less of the law, according to their various necessities. By preaching the law in the manner above described, he would teach them how to walk in Him whom they had received. Yea, and the same means (the main point wherein it seems your mistake lies) would both sustain and increase their spiritual life. For the commands are food as well as the promises; food equally wholesome, equally substantial. Thee also, duly applied, not only direct but likewise nourish and strengthen the soul.

The next words which you cite, ‘thrown into great perplexities,’ I cannot find in the page you refer to; neither those that follow. The sum of them is that ‘at that time I did not feel the love of God, but found deadness and wanderings in public prayer, and coldness even at the Holy Communion.’ Well, sir, and have you never found in yourself any such coldness, deadness, and wanderings I am persuaded you have. And yet surely your brain is always cool and temperate! never ‘intoxicated with the heated fumes of spirituous particles’! 13. If you quote not incoherent scraps (by which you may make anything out of anything), but entire connected sentences, it will appear that the rest of your quotations make no more for your purpose than the foregoing. Thus -- although I allow that on May 24 ‘I was much buffeted with temptations; but I cried to God, and they fled away; that they returned again and again; I as often lifted up my eyes, and He sent me help from His holy place’ (Journal, i. 476-7) -- it will only prove the very observation I make myself: ‘I was fighting both under the law and under grace. But then I was sometimes, if not often, conquered; now I was always conqueror.’ That some time after, I ‘was strongly assaulted again, and after recovering peace and joy was thrown into perplexity afresh by a letter, asserting that no doubt or fear could consist with true faith, that my weak mind could not then bear to be thus sawn asunder,’ will not appear strange to any who are not utter novices in experimental religion. No more than that, one night the next year, ‘I had no life or spirit in me, and was much in doubt whether God would not lay me aside and send other laborers into His harvest.’ 14. You add: ‘He owns his frequent relapses into sin for near twice ten years. Such is the case of a person who tells us that he carefully considered every step he took, one of intimate communication with the Deity!’ Sir, I did not tell you that; though, according to custom, you mark the words as mine. It is well for you that forging quotations is not felony.

24. The second passage (written January 24, 1738) is this: ‘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.’ (i. 418.) I am here describing the thoughts which passed through my mind when I was confessedly an unbeliever. But even this implies no skepticism, 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. The third passage (which you tack to the former as if they were one and the same) runs thus: ‘I have not such a peace as excludes the possibility either of doubt or fear. When holy men have told me I had no faith, I have often doubted whether I had or no. And those doubts have made me very uneasy, till I was relieved by prayer and the Holy Scriptures.’ (if. 91.) Speak frankly, sir: does this prove me guilty of skepticism, infidelity, or Atheism What else does it prove Just nothing at all, but the ‘pertinacious confidence’ of him that cites it. 25. You recite more at large one passage more. The whole paragraph stands thus: ‘St. Paul tells us the “fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, temperance.” Now, although by the grace of God in Christ I find a measure of some of these in myself--namely, of peace, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, temperance; yet others I find not. I cannot find in myself the love of God or of Christ. Hence my deadness and wanderings in public prayer. Hence it is that even in the Holy Communion I have rarely any more than a cold attention. Hence, when I hear of the highest instance of God's love, my heart is still senseless and unaffected. Yea, at this moment (October 14, 1738) I feel no more love to Him than one I had never heard of.’ [See letters of Nov. 22, 1758 (to Isaac Lelong), and June 27, 1766.] (ii. 91.)

Upon this you descant: ‘The legislature has at several times made Acts for pressing men. But no matter for this; touch but a Methodist, and all may perish rather than a soldier be pressed. He who had before bound himself not to speak a title of worldly things is now bawling for liberty and property.’ Very lively this! But I hope, sir, you do not offer it by way of argument. You are not so unlearned in the law as not to know that the legislature is out of the question. The legislature six years ago did not appoint press-gangs but legal officers to press men. Consequently this is no proof {and find another if you can) of our undutiful behavior to the civil powers. 32. ‘Another natural consequence,’ you say, ‘of Methodism is their mutual jealousies and envyings, their manifold divisions, fierce and rancorous quarrels, and accusations of one another.’ I shall carefully attend whatever you produce on this head; and if you prove this, I will grant you all the rest. You first cite those words: ‘Musing on the things that were past, and reflecting how many that came after me were preferred before me, I opened my Testament on those words: “The Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness; but Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness”’ (ii. 324). And how does this prove the manifold divisions and rancorous quarrels of the Methodists Your second argument is: ‘Mr. Whitefield told me he and I preached two different gospels'’(his meaning was that he preached particular and I universal redemption); ‘and therefore he would not join with me, but publicly preach against me’ (sect. xix. p. 341, &c.). Well, sir, here was doubtless a division for a time; but no fierce and rancorous quarrel yet. You say, thirdly: ‘They write and publish against each other.’ True; but without any degree either of fierceness or rancor. You assert, fourthly: ‘Mr. Wesley in his sermon on Free Grace opposes the other for the horrible blasphemies of his horrible doctrine.’ Sir, away with your flourishes, and write plain English: I opposed the doctrine of Predestination, which he held; but without any degree either of rancor or fierceness. Still, therefore, you miss the mark.

Who those other ‘forty were that,’ you say, ‘left them’ I know not. Perhaps you may inform me. Upon the whole, all these quotations prove only this: That about eleven years ago Mr. Cennick, falling into predestination, set the Society in Kingswood a-disputing with each other, and occasioned much confusion for some months. But still you have not gone one step toward proving (which is the one point in question) that the Methodists in general were even then ‘all together by the ears,’ and much less that they have been so ever since and that they are so now. However, you fail not to triumph (like Louis le Grand after his victory at Blenheim): ‘What shall we say now Are these the fruits of Methodism’ No, sir. They are the fruits of opposing it. They are the tares sown among the wheat. You may hear of instances of the same kind both in earlier and later ages. You add: ‘This. is bad enough; but it is not the worst. For consider what becomes of those that leave them’ Why, sir, what if ‘their last end be worse than their first’ Will you charge this upon me By the same rule you must have charged upon the Apostles themselves whatever befell those who, having ‘known the way of righteousness,’ afterwards ‘turned back from the holy commandment once delivered to them.’ 36. You conclude this section: ‘Mr. Wesley will probably say, “Must I be answerable for the Moravians, against whom I have preached and written” True, since he and the Moravians quarreled. But who gives them a box on the ear with the one hand and embraces them with the other Who first brought over this wicked generation Who made a Moravian his spiritual guide who fanaticized his own followers and deprived them of their senses whose Societies (by his own confession) run over in shoals to Moravianism forty or fifty at a time Would they have split upon this rock, if they had not been first Methodists Lastly: where is the spawn of Moravianism so strongly working as in the children of Methodism’

37. Your next charge is that 'Methodism has a tendency to undermine morality and good works' (sect. xx. p. I46, &c.). To prove this-- You assert, first: ‘That the Methodists are trained up to wait in quietness for sudden conversion; whence they are naturally led to neglect the means of salvation.’ This is a mistake all over. For neither are they taught to wait in quietness (if you mean any more than patience by that term) for either sudden or gradual conversion; neither do they, in fact, neglect the means. So far from it, that they are eminently exact in the use of them. You assert, secondly: ‘The doctrine of assurance of pardon and salvation, present and future, causes a false security, to the neglect of future endeavors.’ Blunder upon blunder again. That all Christians have an assurance of future salvation is no Methodist doctrine; and an assurance of present pardon is so far from causing negligence, that it is of all others the strongest motive to vigorous endeavors after universal holiness. You assert, thirdly: ‘Impulses and impressions, being made the rule of duty, will lead into dangerous errors.’ Very true; but .the Methodists do not make impulses and impressions the rule of duty. They totally disclaim any other rule of duty than the written Word. You assert, fourthly: ‘A claim of unsinning perfection’ (I mean by perfection the loving God with all our heart) ‘drives some into frenzies, others into despair.’ Sir, I doubt the fact. You assert, fifthly: ‘The Moravian Methodists trample down morality, and multitudes of the Wesleyans have been infected.’ ‘The Moravian Methodists’! You may as well say the Presbyterian Papists. The Moravians have no connection with the Methodists. Therefore, whatever they do (though you slander them too), they and not we are to answer for. The Methodists at present, blessed be God, are as little infected with this plague (of condemning or neglecting good works) as any body of people in England or Ireland. 38. From these loose assertions you proceed to quotations from my writings, every one of which I shall consider, to show that, not in one or two, but in every one, you are a willful prevaricator and false accuser of your neighbor.

49. 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 your 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 favors of Heaven; unsteadiness of temper; unsteadiness in sentiment and practice; art and cunning; giving up inspiration and extraordinary calls; skepticism, infidelity, Atheism; uncharitableness to their opponents; contempt 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 fabric falls to the ground at once, unless you can find some better foundation to support it. (Sects. iii.-vi.; ix., xi.-xv.; xviii.-xxi.)

1753 To Jonathan Pritchard [1] LONDON, January, 16, 1753. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- If there are two preachers in the Round (as I suppose there are now if Jonathan Maskew [See letter of Feb. 22.] is come), then you may tell Mr. Haughton I desire the preaching may be constantly at Chester in the manner I settled it when I was in the country. [Wesley paid his third visit to Chester, on his way to the North, on March 27, 1753. See Journal, iv. 56.] I hope to set out for the North about the beginning of March. I am not yet determined whether I go down toward Newcastle by Chester or endeavor to see you in my return. I hope Sister Roughly, Brother Jones, and all our friends are pressing on and walking in love. Ought I not to have heard something from you rather than from others concerning Sister Barlow of Manchester If she does remove to Chester, I trust it will be for the good of many; for she has both a searching and a healing spirit. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Capiter [2] LONDON February 6, 1753. MY DEAR BROTHER -- It is a constant rule with us that no preacher should preach above twice a day, unless on Sunday or on some extraordinary time; and then he may preach three times. We know nature cannot long bear the preaching oftener than this, and therefore to do it is a degree of self-murder. Those of our preachers who would not follow this advice have all repented when it was too late. I likewise advise all our preachers not to preach above an hour at a time, prayer and all; and not to speak louder either in preaching or prayer than the number of hearers requires. You will show this to all our preachers; and any that desire it may take a copy of it. --I am Your affectionate brother. To Jonathan Maskew [3] LONDON February 22, 1753.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- For the present it does not appear to be necessary for you to enter into any dispute with your instructor. [See letter of Feb. 19, 1755.] But perhaps he would read a short tract; suppose, The Nature and Design of Christianity. [Wesley’s abridgement of the first chapter of William Law’s Practical Treatise upon Christian Perfection (1740, 19 pp.). See Green’s Bibliography, No. 17.] If at any time he should be touched by what he reads, it would then be a seasonable time to speak. I should not advise you by any means to enter upon anything like teaching or exhorting a company of people. If any poor townsman who is sick desires your assistance, you need not scruple to visit him. But farther than this it seems you are not called to go at present. The main point is now to improve your time in private, to keep dose to God in prayer, and to fix your eye on Him in whatever you do. Then the unction of the Holy One will teach you of all things. --I am Your affectionate brother. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] This is the first letter written after his serious illness. Wesley went to The Limes (Blackwell’s house in Lewisham) on November 26, and that evening wrote his own epitaph. He was able to ride on the 29th, and did so every day till January 1. The contrast in the whether at Bristol was striking. At Lewisham his ride was not once hindered, ‘it being always tolerably fair (however it was before) between twelve and one o’clock.’ He returned to London on the 1st and set out for Bristol the next day. The day before he wrote to Blackwell he ‘began drinking the water at the Hot Well, having a lodging at a small distance from it.’ [2] Whilst Wesley was at Bristol, Henry Venn wrote, on his appointment as curate at Clapham, asking for ‘a personal charge, to take heed to feed the flock commuted unto me’ (Arminian Magazine, 1797, p. 569. Furly was Venn’s friend, and also turned to Wesley for counsel He became a steadfast ally and correspondent. He was now twenty-two, and had recently begun his course at Queens’ College (see letter of December 7). The following letter from Mrs. Lefevre would probably be to Furly: Wednesday, March 25, 1754.

I might have drawn up the Queries with more accuracy, had I not considered, as you ‘hoped I would, the impatience in the public for an answer a close one to every point.' I have therefore, as you desired, ‘used all possible speed,’ and yet have ‘taken care to form my Queries in such a manner that they might deserve the utmost attention, and come dose to the point.’ Is it needful to remind you of that frank engagement to the public wherewith you close your letter ‘As soon as these Queries are finished, the Moravians, who expect them with earnest longing, will lose no time in answering them.’ --I am, &c. You see the impropriety of adding my name. To Samuel Furly [2] LONDON March, 20 1755. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Of those things which are lawful in themselves, such only are lawful to me as are sfta, conducive either directly or indirectly to my holiness or usefulness. Many things not conducive directly to either, yet may be so remotely, as the learning of languages or arithmetic. And of this kind are most academical exercises. They remotely (a Hough not directly) conduce to our usefulness in the world; by enabling us to take degrees, or to do other things which are (in the present state of things) necessary as means to higher ends. I wish Mr. Hallifax [Spelt with one l by Wesley.] had a little tract of Bishop Bull’s [Wesley deals more fully with this little tract (which he says ‘was of much service to me’) in the letter of May 13, 1764. For his reference to Bishop Bull see Journal, ii. 470, 473-7d; Works, vii. 455; and letter of Aug. 22, 1744.] entitled A Companion for the Candidates for Holy Orders. I dreamed an odd dream last night, that five-and-twenty persons of Peterhouse in Cambridge were deeply awakened. Fight your way through! -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Lloyd BRISTOL March 20, 1755. DEAR SIR, -- The bearer has behaved extremely well from the very time that he left London. I do not perceive that he is addicted to drinking or any other vice. I am apt to think he would make a good servant. Wishing you the best happiness, I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To Samuel Lloyd Esq, In Devonshire Square, London. To Ebenezer Blackwell MANCHESTER April 9, 1755.

With regard to the steps we have hitherto taken, we have used all the caution which was possible. We have done nothing rashly, nothing without deep and long consideration, hearing and weighing all objection, and much prayer. Nor have we taken one deliberate step of which we as yet see reason to repent. It is true in some things we vary from the rules of our Church; but no father than we apprehend is our bounden duty. It is upon a full conviction of this that we preach abroad, use extemporary prayer, form those who appear to be awakened into Societies, and permit laymen whom we believe God has called to preach. I say permit, because we ourselves have hitherto viewed it in no other light. This we are clearly satisfied we may do: that we may do more we are not satisfied. It is not clear to us that presbyters so circumstanced as we are may appoint or ordain others, but it is that we may direct as well as suffer them to do what we conceive they are moved to by the Holy Ghost. It is true that in ordinary cases both an inward and an outward call are requisite. But we apprehend there is something far from ordinary in the present case. And upon the calmer view of things we think they who are only called of God and not of man have more right to preach than they who are only called of man and not of God. Now, that many of the clergy, though called of man, are not called of God to preach His gospel is undeniable, (1) because they themselves utterly disclaim, nay, and ridicule, the inward call; (2) because they do not know what the gospel is, of consequence they do not and cannot preach it.

If there be any father advices, whether with regard to doctrines or practice, which you judge might be of service to us, they would be thankfully received and considered by, reverend dear sir, Your obliged and affectionate brother and servant. To Samuel Walker LONDON, November 20, 1755. REVEREND AND DEAR SIR, -- I return you many thanks for the welcome letter from Mr. Adam [The reply to the Rev. Thomas Adam (p. 149) is dated Oct. 31. The interval was spent in London, where he stayed until Jan 26.] as well as for your own. I have answered his (which is wrote in a truly Christian spirit), and now proceed to consider yours, after having observed that two of our preachers [Samuel Larwood, John Edwards, Charles Skelton, and John Witford left Wesley. See Journal, iv. 95n; and letters of July 17, 1751, and Aug. 4, 1769.] are gone from us; and none of the remaining (to my knowledge) have at present any desire or design of separating from the Church. Yet I observe, -- 1. Those ministers who truly feared God near an hundred years ago had undoubtedly much the same objections to the Liturgy which some (who never read their Works) have now. [Both his grandfathers were among the sufferers of 1662.] And I myself so far allow the force of several of those objections that I should not dare to declare my assent and consent to that book in the terms prescribed. Indeed, they are so strong that I think they cannot safely be used with regard to any book but the Bible. Neither dare I confine myself wholly to forms of prayer, not even in the church. I use, indeed, all the forms; but I frequently add extemporary prayer either before or after sermon. 2. In behalf of many of the Canons I can say little; of the Spiritual Courts nothing at all. I dare not, therefore, allow the authority of the former or the jurisdiction of the latter. But I am not required to do it. So the difficulty does not lie yet.

1756 To William Law [1] LONDON, January 6, 1756. REVEREND SIR, -- In matters of religion I regard no writings but the inspired. Tauler, Behmen, and an whole army of Mystic authors are with me nothing to St. Paul. In every point I appeal 'to the law and the testimony,' and value no authority but this. At a time when I was in great danger of not valuing this authority enough you made that important observation: ‘I see where your mistake lies. You would have a philosophical religion; but there can be no such thing. Religion is the most plain, simple thing in the world. It is only, “We love Him because He first loved us.” So far as you add philosophy to religion, just so far you spoil it. ‘This remark I have never forgotten since; and I trust in God I never shall.’ But have not you Permit me, sir, to speak plainly. Have you ever thought of it since Is there a writer in England who so continually blends philosophy with religion even in tracts on The Spirit of Prayer and The Spirit of Love, wherein from the titles of them one would expect to find no more of philosophy than in the Epistles of St. John. Concerning which, give me leave to observe in general: (1) That the whole of it is utterly superfluous: a man may be full both of prayer and love, and not know a word of this hypothesis. (2) The whole of this hypothesis is unproved; it is all precarious, all uncertain. (3) The whole hypothesis has a dangerous tendency; it naturally leads men off from plain, practical religion, and fills them with the ‘knowledge’ that ‘puffeth up’ instead of the ‘love’ that ‘edifieth.’ And (4) It is often flatly contrary to Scripture, to reason, and to itself. But over and above this superfluous, uncertain, dangerous, irrational, and unscriptural philosophy, have not you lately grieved many who are not strangers to the spirit of prayer or love, by advancing tenets in religion, some of which they think are unsupported by Scripture, some even repugnant to it Allow me, sir, first to touch upon your philosophy, and then to speak freely concerning these. I. As to your philosophy, the main of your theory respects (1) things antecedent to the creation; (2) the creation itself; (3) Adam in paradise; (4) the fall of man.

(5) To this might be added the numerous figures that occur in the fives of the old patriarchs, prophets, and kings. But it may suffice to add to the preceding only two testimonies more of the manner of our redemption by a proper sacrifice: the one that of St. Paul - ‘Christ hath delivered us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; as it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree’ (Gal. iii. 13); the other of St. Peter - ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ (1 Pet. ii. 24). From all this abundantly appears the substitution of the Messiah in the place of His people, thereby atoning for their sins and restoring them to the favor of God. These are the points which are so vehemently opposed by Socinus and his followers, who rob Christ of the principal part of His priestly office, and leave Him only that of interceding for us by prayer; as if any intercession were worthy of Christ which had not His full satisfaction and propitiatory sacrifice for its foundation. Indeed, these cannot be put asunder, as sufficiently appears from the words cited before - ‘He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors’; where the Holy Ghost closely joins His intercession with His satisfaction made by sacrifice. These and a thousand other solid arguments that might be advanced in proof of this fundamental doctrine overturn all the cavils that flow from corrupt reason, which indeed are weak and thin as a spider’s web.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- If our brethren at Chester purpose ever to prosecute, they cannot have a fairer opportunity; provided they have a sufficient number of witnesses whose depositions will come home to the point, particularly with regard to those words, ‘You shah have no justice from me.’ Those depositions might be drawn up in the country, and sent up to Mr. I’Anson [See letter of Aug. 8, 1752.] in New Palace Yard, Westminster. The sooner the better; for Term will begin shortly. Delay does much hurt in cases of this kind. Do you hear how the Manchester mob is now [In April 1755, when Wesley was there, the mob ‘raged horribly. This, I find, has been their manner for some time. No wonder, since the good Justices encourage them.’ See Journal iv. 111.] --I am Your affectionate brother. Is Brother Moss gone yet into the Bristall Circuit To Samuel Furly LONDON, February 3, 1756. DEAR SAMMY, -- The Serious Thoughts [Serious Thoughts occasioned by the late Earthquake at Lisbon, published in 1755, reached a sixth edition. See Journal, iv. 141.] will be sent as soon as they are reprinted. I sha;; make an addition of eight or ten pages, consisting chiefly of a correct and regular account of the earthquakes at Lisbon and other places. Now is the time to arise and shake yourself from the dust. Now assert your liberty. When you are on the field, you can’t make head against the enemy. But now you may secure armor of proof. You may be stronger every day than the other. Only be instant in prayer. I have an extremely pretty letter from Mr. Dodd. [Wesley’s answer to William Dodd was written two days later, also that to ‘P. V.’ (Richard Tompson).] It is wonderfully civil and peremptory. I purpose to answer him this week, and perhaps P. V. too. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To William Dodd [5] LONDON, February 5, 1756.

As to heresy and schism, I cannot find one text in Scripture where they are taken in the modern sense. I remember no one scripture where heresy signifies error in opinion, whether fundamental or not; nor any where schism signifies separation from the Church, either with or without cause. I wish, sir, you would reconsider this point, and review the scriptures where these terms occur. Yet I would take some pains to recover a man from error and reconcile him to our Church: I mean the Church of England; from which I do not separate yet, and probably never shall. The little church, in the vulgar sense, which I occasionally mentioned at Holymount is that wherein I read prayers, preach, and administer the sacrament every Sunday when I am in London. [West Street.] But I would take much more pains to recover a man from sin. A man who lives and dies in error or in dissent from our Church may yet be saved; but a man who lives and dies in sin must perish. O sir, let us bend our main force against this, against all sin, both in ourselves and those that hear us! I would to God we could a~ agree in opinion and outward worship. But if that cannot be, may we not agree in holiness May we not all agree in being holy, as He that has called us is holy in heart and conversation This h the great desire of, reverend sir, Yours &c. PS.--Perhaps I have not spoke distinctly enough on one point. Orthodoxy, I say, or right opinion, is but a slender part of religion at best, and sometimes no part at all. I mean, if a man be a child of God, holy in heart and life, his right opinions are but the small part of his religion: if a man be a child of the devil, his right opinions are no part of religion, they cannot be; for he that does the works of the devil has no religion at all. [This postscript and the lines in brackets on page 181 were not given in the Arminian Magazine, 1779, 598-601. See letter of Sept. 18, sect. 7.] To Thomas Olivers [5] ATHLOE, July 10, 1756.

I have ordered Betty Duchesne [Wesley buried Elizabeth Duchesne on Dec. 22, 1776. In the Journal, vi. 135, he describes her as ‘a person eminently upright of heart, yet for many years a child of labor and sorrow. For near forty years she was zealous of good works, and at length shortened her days by laboring for the poor beyond her strength.’ Charles Wesley break-fasted with her on Feb. 15, 1759: see his Journal, ii. 259; and letter of Oct. 27, 1758.] to get the things you spoke of, which probably by this time she has done. Therefore you need not delay your return to London. I purposed to have come through Salisbury, but I was so ill [‘For a few days,’ says Wesley (Journal, iv. 186, ‘I was laid up with a flux; but on Sunday, Sept. 5, I crept out again, and preached at Kingswood in the morning and Stokes Croft in the afternoon. Monday, 6, I set out in the machine, and on Tuesday evening came to London.’] that it was judged not safe for me to ride. O make the best of a few days. -- I am Your affectionate friend and Brother. To James Clark [9] LONDON, September 18, 1756. REVEREND SIR, -- Yesterday I received your favor of July 9. As you therein speak freely and openly, I will endeavor to do the same, at which I am persuaded you will not be displeased. 1. Of the words imputed to Mr. Langston I said nothing because he denied the charge, and I had not the opportunity of having the accuser and the accused face to face. 2. That there are enthusiasts among the Methodists I doubt not, and among most other people under heaven; but that they are made such by our doctrine and discipline still remains to be proved. If they are in such spite of our doctrine and discipline, their madness will not be laid to our charge.

In the First Dialogue there are several just and strong observations, which may be of use to every serious reader. In the Second, is not the description often too labored, the language too stiff and affected Yet the reflections on the creation, in the thirty-first and following pages, make abundant amends for this. (I cite the pages according to the Dublin edition, having wrote the rough draught of what follows in Ireland.) Is justification more or less than God's pardoning and accepting a sinner through the merits of Christ That God herein ‘reckons the righteousness and obedience which Christ performed as our own’ (page 39) I allow; if by that ambiguous expression you mean only, as you here explain it yourself, ‘They are as effectual for obtaining our salvation as if they were our own personal qualifications’ (page 41). ‘We are not solicitous as to any particular set of phrases. Only let men be humbled, as repenting criminals at Christ's feet, let them rely as devoted pensioners on His merits, and they are undoubtedly in the way to a blissful immortality’ (page 43). Then, for Christ's sake, and for the sake of the immortal 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. I have had abundant proof that the frequent use of this unnecessary phrase, instead of ‘furthering men's progress in vital holiness,’ has made them satisfied without any holiness at all--yea, and encouraged them to work all uncleanness with greediness. ‘To ascribe pardon to Christ's passive, eternal life to His active, righteousness, is fanciful rather than judicious. His universal obedience from His birth to His death is the one foundation of my hope.’ (Page 45.) This is unquestionably right. But if it be, there is no manner of need to make the imputation of His active righteousness a separate and labored head of discourse. Oh that you had been content with this plain scriptural account, and spared some of the dialogues and letters that follow!

‘The righteousness which justifies us is already wrought out’ (page 151). A crude, unscriptural expression! ‘It was set on foot, carried on, completed.’ Oh vain philosophy! The plain truth is, Christ lived and ‘tasted death for every man’; and through the merits of His life and death every believer is justified. ‘Whoever perverts so glorious a doctrine shows he never believed’ (page 152). Not so. They who ‘turn back as a dog to the vomit’ had once ‘escaped the pollutions of the world by the knowledge of Christ.’ ‘The goodness of God leadeth to repentance’ (page 153). This is unquestionably true; but the nice, metaphysical doctrine of Imputed Righteousness leads not to repentance but to licentiousness. ‘The believer cannot but add to his faith works of righteousness’ (page 154). During his first love this is often true; but it is not true afterwards, as we know and feel by melancholy experience. ‘We no longer obey in order to lay the foundation of our final acceptance’ (page 155). No; that foundation is already laid in the merits of Christ. Yet we obey in order to our final acceptance through His merits; and in this sense by obeying we ‘lay a good foundation that we may attain eternal life.’ ‘“We establish the law”; we provide for its honor by the perfect obedience of Christ’ (page 156). Can you possibly think St. Paul meant this that such a thought ever entered into his mind The plain meaning is, We establish both the true sense and the effectual practice of it; we provide for its being both understood and practiced in its full extent. ‘On those who reject the atonement, just severity’ (page 157). Was it ever possible for them not to reject it If not, how is .it just to cast them into a lake of fire for not doing what it was impossible they should do Would it be just (make it your own case) to cast you into hell for not touching heaven with your hand ‘Justification is complete the first moment we believe, and is incapable of augmentation’ (page 159). Not so: there may be as many degrees in the favor as in the image of God.

‘St. Paul often mentions a righteousness imputed.’ Not a righteousness, never once; but simply, righteousness. ‘What can this be but the righteousness of Christ’ (Page 190.) He tells you himself - ‘To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, faith is imputed for righteousness’ (Rom iv. 5). ‘Why is Christ styled Jehovah our Righteousness’ Because we are both justified and sanctified through Him. ‘My death, the cause of their forgiveness; My righteousness, the ground of their acceptance’ (page 190). How does this agree with page 45 - ‘To ascribe pardon to Christ's passive, eternal life to His active, righteousness, is fanciful rather than judicious.’ ‘He commends such kinds of beneficence only as were exercised to a disciple as such’ (page 195). Is not this a slip of the pen Will not our Lord then commend, and reward eternally, all kinds of beneficence, provided they flowed from a principle of loving faith -- yea, that which was exercised to a Samaritan, a Jew, a Turk, or an heathen Even these I would not term ‘transient bubbles,’ though they do not procure our justification. ‘How must our righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees Not only in being sincere, but in possessing a complete righteousness, even that of Christ.’ (Page 197.) Did our Lord mean this Nothing less. He specifies in the following parts of His sermon the very instances wherein the righteousness of a Christian exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees. ‘He brings this specious hypocrite to the test’ (page 198). How does it appear that he was an hypocrite Our Lord gives not the least intimation of it. Surely He ' loved him,' not for his hypocrisy, but his sincerity! Yet he loved the world, and therefore could not keep any of the commandments in their spiritual meaning. And the keeping of these is undoubtedly the way to, though not the cause of, eternal life. ‘“By works his faith was made perfect”; appeared to be true’ (page 200). No; the natural sense of the words is, ‘By’ the grace superadded while he wrought those ‘works his faith was’ literally ‘made perfect.’ ‘“He that doeth righteousness is righteous”; manifests the truth of his conversion’ (ibid.). Nay; the plain meaning is, He alone is truly righteous whose faith worketh by love.

The merit of Thy death.’ The text cited from Exodus asserts nothing less than that iniquity ‘cleaves to all our holy things till death.’ ‘Sin remains, that the righteousness of faith may have its due honor’ (page 48). And will the righteousness of faith have its due honor no longer than sin remains in us Then it must remain not only on earth and in paradise but in heaven also. ‘And the sanctification of the Spirit its proper esteem.’ Would it not have more esteem if it were a perfect work ‘It’ (sin) ‘ will make us lowly in our own eyes’ (ibid.). What! will pride make us lowly Surely the utter destruction of pride would do this more effectually. ‘It will make us compassionate.’ Would not an entire renewal in the image of God make us much more so ‘It will teach us to admire the riches of grace.’ Yea; but a fuller experience of it, by a thorough sanctification of spirit, soul, and body, will make us admire it more. ‘It will reconcile us to death.’ Indeed it will not; nor will anything do this like perfect love. ‘It will endear the blood and intercession of Christ’ (page 49). Nay; these can never be so dear to any as to those who experience their full virtue, who are ‘filled with the fullness’ of God. Nor can any ‘feel their continual need’ of Christ or ‘rely on Him’ in the manner which these do. ‘The claims of the law are all answered’ (Dialogue 14, p. 57). If so, Count Zinzendorf is absolutely in the right: neither God nor man can claim my obedience to it. Is not this Antinomianism without a mask ‘Your sins are expiated through the death of Christ, and a righteousness given you by which you have free access to God’ (page 59). This is not scriptural language. I would simply say, ‘By Him we have access to the Father.’ There are many other expressions in this Dialogue to which I have the same objection -- namely (1) that they are unscriptural; (2) that they directly lead to Antinomianism. The First Letter contains some very useful heads of self-examination. In the Second I read, ‘There is a righteousness which supplies all that the creature needs. To prove this momentous point is the design of the following sheets.’ (Page 91.)

I have seen such terrible effects of this unscriptural way of speaking, even on those ‘who had once clean escaped from the pollutions of the world,’ that I cannot but earnestly wish you would speak no otherwise than do the oracles of God. Certainly this mode of expression is not momentous. It is always dangerous, often fatal. ‘Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound; that as sin had reigned unto death, so might grace,’ the free love of God, ‘reign through righteousness,’ through our justification and sanctification, ‘unto eternal life’ (Rom. v. 20-1). This is the plain, natural meaning of the words. It does not appear that one word is spoken here about imputed righteousness; neither in the passages cited in the next page from the Common Prayer and the Articles. In the Homily likewise that phrase is not found at all, and the main stress is laid on Christ's shedding His blood. Nor is the phrase (concerning the thing there is no question) found in any part of the Homilies. (Letter 3, P. 93.) ‘If the Fathers are not explicit with regard to the imputation of active righteousness, they abound in passages which evince the substitution of Christ in our stead -- passages which disclaim all dependence on any duties of our own and fix our hopes wholly on the merits of our Savor. When this is the case, I am very little solicitous about any particular forms of expression’ (page 101.) O lay aside, then, those questionable, dangerous forms, and keep closely to the scriptural! ‘The authority of our Church and of those eminent divines’ (Letter 4, p. 105) does not touch those ‘particular forms of expression’; neither do any of the texts which you afterwards cite. As to the doctrine we are agreed. ‘The righteousness of God signifies the righteousness which God-Man wrought out’ (ibid.). No; it signifies God's method of justifying sinners. ‘The victims figured the expiation by Christ’s death; the clothing with skins, the imputation of His righteousness’ (page 107). That does not appear. Did not the one rather figure our justification, the other our sanctification

Almost every text quoted in this and the following letter in. support of that particular form of expression is distorted above measure from the plain, obvious meaning which is pointed out by the context. I shall instance in a few, and just set down their true meaning without any farther remarks. (Page 109.) To ‘show unto man His uprightness,’ to convince him of God's justice in so punishing him. ‘He shall receive the blessing,’ pardon, ‘from the Lord, and righteousness,’ holiness, ‘from the God of his salvation’; the God who saveth him both from the guilt and from the power of sin (page 110). I will ‘make mention of Thy righteousness only.’ Of Thy mercy; so the word frequently means in the Old Testament. So it unquestionably means in that text, ‘In’ or by ‘Thy righteousness shall they be exalted’ (page 11). ‘Sion shall be redeemed with judgment,’ after severe punishment, ‘and her converts with righteousness,’ with the tender mercy of God following that punishment (page 112). ‘In,’ or through, ‘the Lord I have righteousness and strength,’ justification and sanctification; ‘He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation,’ saved me from the guilt and power of sin: both of which are again expressed by, ‘He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness’ (page 113). ‘My righteousness,’ My mercy, ‘shall not be abolished’ (page 114). ‘To make reconciliation for iniquity,’ to atone for all our sins, ‘and to bring in everlasting righteousness,’ spotless holiness into our souls. And this righteousness is not human, but divine. It is the gift and the work of God. (Page 116.) ‘The Lord our Righteousness,’ the author both of our justification and sanctification (page 117). ‘What righteousness shall give us peace at the last day, inherent or imputed’ (Page 127.) Both. Christ died for us and lives in us, ‘that we may have boldness in the day of judgment.’ ‘That have obtained like precious faith through the righteousness,’ the mercy, ‘of our Lord.’ ‘Seek ye the kingdom Of God and His righteousness,’ the holiness which springs from God reigning in you. (Letter 5, p, 131.) ‘Therein is revealed the righteousness of God,’ God's method of justifying sinners (page 132).

‘We establish the law, as we expect no salvation without a perfect conformity to it -- namely, by Christ’ (page 135). Is not this a mere quibble and a quibble which, after all the labored evasions of Witsius [Hermann Witsius (1636-1705), Professor at Utrecht and then at Leyden. His principal work, De Oeconomia Foederurn Dei cum Hominibus, 1677, sought unsuccessfully to mediate between the Orthodox and the Federalists.] and a thousand more, does totally ‘make void the law’ But not so does St. Paul teach. According to him, ‘without holiness,’ personal holiness, ‘no man shall see the Lord’; none who is not himself conformed to the law of God here ‘shall see the Lord’ in glory. This is the grand, palpable objection to that whole scheme. It directly ‘makes void the law.’ It makes thousands content to live and die ‘transgressors of the law,’ because Christ fulfilled it ‘for them.’ Therefore, though I believe He hath lived and died for me, yet I would speak very tenderly and sparingly of the former (and never separately from the latter), even as sparingly as do the Scriptures, for fear of this dreadful consequence. ‘“The gift of righteousness” must signify a righteousness not their own’ (page 138). Yes; it signifies the righteousness or holiness which God gives to and works in them. ‘“The obedience of one” is Christ’s actual performance of the whole law’ (page 139). So here His passion is fairly left out! Whereas His ‘becoming obedient unto death’ -- that is, dying for man --is certainly the chief part, if not the whole, which is meant by that expression. ‘“That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled” in us -- that is, by our representative in our nature’ (ibid.). Amazing! But this, you say, ‘agrees with the tenor of the Apostle’s arguing. For he is demonstrating we cannot be justified by our own conformity to the law.’ No; not here. He is not speaking here of the cause of our justification, but the fruits of it. Therefore that unnatural sense of his words does not at all ‘agree with the tenor of his arguing.’ I totally deny the criticism on das and daa, and cannot conceive on what authority it is founded. Oh how deep an aversion to inward holiness does this scheme naturally create! (Page 140.)

‘The righteousness they attained could not be any personal righteousness’ (page 142). Certainly it was: it was implanted as well as imputed. ‘For “instruction in righteousness,” in the righteousness of Christ’ (page 145). Was there ever such a comment before The plain meaning is, ‘for training up in holiness’ of heart and of life. ‘He shall convince the world of righteousness.’; that I am not a sinner, but innocent and holy (page 146). “That we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” Not intrinsically, but imputatively.’ (Page 148.) Both the one and the other. God through Him first accounts and then makes us righteous. Accordingly ‘“the righteousness which is of God by faith” is both imputed and inherent’ (page 152). ‘My faith fixes on both the meritorious life and atoning death of Christ’ (page 153). Here we clearly agree. Hold, then, to this, and never talk of the former without the latter. If you do, you cannot say, ‘Here we are exposed to no hazard.’ Yes, you are to an exceeding great one, even the hazard of living and dying without holiness. And then we are lost for ever. The Sixth Letter contains an admirable account of the earth and atmosphere, and comprises abundance of sense in a narrow compass, expressed in beautiful language. Gems have ‘a seat on the virtuous fair one’s breast’ (page 177). I cannot reconcile this with St. Paul. He says, ‘Not with pearls’; by a parity of reason, not with diamonds. But in all things I perceive you are too favorable, both to ‘the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eye.’ You are a gentle casuist as to every self-indulgence which a plentiful fortune can furnish. ‘Our Savior’s obedience’ (page 182). Oh say, with the good old Puritans, ‘Our Savior's death or merits’ I We swarm with Antinomians on every side. Why are you at such pains to increase their number ‘My mouth shall show forth Thy righteousness and Thy salvation’; Thy mercy, which brings my salvation (page 194). The Eighth Letter is an excellent description of the supreme greatness of Christ. I do not observe one sentence in it which I cannot cheerfully subscribe to.

The Ninth Letter, containing a description of the sea, with various inferences deduced therefrom, is likewise a masterpiece for justness of sentiment as well as beauty of language. But I doubt whether ‘mere shrimps’ (page 241) be not too low an expression; and whether you might not as well have said nothing of ‘cod, the standing repast of Lent,’ or concerning ‘the exquisite relish of turbot or the deliciousness of sturgeon.’ Are not such observations beneath the dignity of a minister of Christ I have the same doubt concerning what is said of ‘delicately flavored tea, finely scented coffee, the friendly bowl, the pyramid of Italian figs, and the pastacia nut of Aleppo’ (page 264). Beside that, the mentioning these in such a manner is a strong encouragement of luxury and sensuality. And does the world need this The English in particular! Si non insaniunt satis sua sponte, insriga. [Terence's Andria, IV. ii. 9: ‘If they do not rave enough of their own accord, stir them up.’] ‘Those treasures which spring from the imputation of Christ's righteousness’ (Letter 10, p. 271). Not a word of His atoning blood! Why do so many men love to speak of His righteousness rather than His atonement I fear because it affords a fairer excuse for their own unrighteousness. To cut off this, is it not better to mention both together -- at least, never to name the former without the latter ‘Faith is a persuasion that Christ has shed His blood for me and fulfilled all righteousness in my stead’ (page 285). I can by no means subscribe to this definition. There are hundreds, yea thousands of true believers who never once thought one way or the other of Christ’s fulfilling all righteousness in their stead. I personally know many who to this very hour have no idea of it, and yet have each of them a divine evidence and conviction, ‘Christ loved me, and gave Himself for me.’ This is St. Paul's account of faith; and it is sufficient. He that thus believes is justified. ‘It is a sure means of purifying the heart, and never fails to work by love’ (page 287). It surely purifies the heart -- if we abide in it; but not if we ‘draw back to perdition.’ It never fails to work by love while it continues; but if itself fail, farewell both love and good works.

‘Faith is the hand which receives all that is laid up in Christ.’ Consequently, if we make ‘shipwreck of the faith,’ how much soever is laid up in Christ, from that hour we receive nothing. ‘Faith in the imputed righteousness of Christ is a fundamental principle in the gospel’ (Letter 11, p. 288). If so, what becomes of all those who think nothing about imputed righteousness How many who are full of faith and love, if this be true, must perish everlastingly! ‘Thy hands must urge the way of the deadly weapon through the shivering flesh till it be plunged in the throbbing heart’ (page 297). Are not these descriptions far too strong May they not occasion unprofitable reasonings in many readers Ne pueros coram populo Medea trucidet. [Horace’s Ars Poetlea, l. 185: ‘Medea must not slay her children in the presence of the people.’] ‘How can he justify it to the world’ (Page 298.) Not at all. Can this, then, justify his faith to the world ‘You take the certain way to obtain comfort - the righteousness of Jesus Christ’ (page 304). What, without the atonement Strange fondness for an unscriptural, dangerous mode of expression! ‘So the merits of Christ are derived to all the faithful’ (page 306). Rather the fruits of the Spirit, which are likewise plainly typified by the oil in Zechariah's vision. ‘Has the law any demand It must go to Him for satisfaction.’ (Page 310.) Suppose, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’; then I am not obliged to love my neighbor: Christ has satisfied the demand of the law for me. Is not this the very quintessence of Antinomianism ‘The righteousness wrought out by Jesus Christ is wrought out for all His people, to be the cause of their justification and the purchase of their salvation. The righteousness is the cause and the purchase.’ (Page 311.) So the death of Christ is not so much as named! ‘For all His people.’ But what becomes of all other people They must inevitably perish for ever. The die was cast or ever they were in being. The doctrine to pass them by has Consigned their unborn souls to hell, And damned them from their mother's womb! [Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley (Hymns on God's Everlasting Love), iii. 33.]

The great point is to pick out in Bristol (as in all places such acquaintance as have a deep fear of God, a continual consciousness of His presence, and a strong thirst after His whole image. [See letter of June 18.] Such I take most of the leaders of bands to be; and such are many of the poor in the Society, but extremely few of the rich or honorable Methodists are of that number. My dear sister, I have been in pain for you on their account. When I talked with You last, you could relish the simplicity of the gospel, you were athirst for all mankind that was in Christ and wanted to walk just as He walked. O let none persuade you, either by example or advice, to make any, the least, deviation from that good way. Make no abatement; do not soften the plain, rough gospel; do not Measure back your steps to earth again. Be not, either inwardly or outwardly, conformed to this world; but be a Christian altogether. Health you shall have if health be best. And He that gives it will give a blessing with it -- an increase of spiritual as well as of bodily strength, but it is strength to labor not to sit still. And this strength will either increase or decrease in the same proportion with your sense of His love. You may lose this sense either (1) by committing sin; or (2) by omitting duty; or (3) by giving way to pride, anger or any other inward sin; or (4) by not watching unto prayer, by yielding to indolence or spiritual sloth. But it is no more necessary that we should ever lose it than it is necessary we should omit duty or commit sin. Mr. Law, therefore, speaking on this head, betrays deep ignorance both of the Scripture and the inward work of God. You are more liable to receive hurt from his late writings than from any others which I know. I shall write to Sammy [Her brother at Cambridge.] in the morning: it would not have been amiss if you had spoken freely to me concerning him. Why should not you, now you have in some measure broke that natural shyness, speak all that is in your heart to, dear Miss Furly, Your truly affectionate friend and brother. To Ebezezer Blackwell [3]

‘But if repentance and faith would not be valid and acceptable without the righteousness of Christ, then they cannot be necessary qualifications for our justification’ (page 22). I cannot allow the consequence. They are not acceptable without the righteousness or merits of Christ; and yet He Himself has made them necessary qualifications for our justification through His merits. But the grand objection of this gentleman lies against the doctor's next paragraph, the sum of which is: ‘The merits of Christ were never intended to supersede the necessity of repentance and obedience’ (I would say, repentance and faith), ‘but to make them acceptable in the sight of God, and to purchase for them’ (I would add, that obey Him) ‘a reward of immortal happiness.’ I am not afraid to undertake the defense of this paragraph, with this small variation, against Mr. Chapman, Mr. Nyberg, [Laurentius Nyberg, of Haverfordwest, a Moravian minister, and correspondent of James Hutton.] Count Zinzendorf, or any other person whatever; provided only that he will set his name to his work, for I do not love fighting in the dark. And I, as well as Dr. T., affirm that ‘to say more than this concerning Christ’s imputed merits,’ to say more than that ‘they have purchased for us grace to repent and believe, acceptance upon our believing, power to obey, and eternal salvation to them that do obey Him,’--to say more than this ‘is blasphemous Antinomianism,’ such as Mr. Calvin would have abhorred; and does ‘open a door to all manner of sin and wickedness.’ ‘I must likewise affirm that to talk of imputed righteousness in the manner many do at this day is making the imaginary transfer of Christ's righteousness serve as a cover for the unrighteousness of mankind’ (page 26). Does not Mr. Chapman do this at Bristol Does not Mr. Madan at London Let them shudder then, let their blood run cold, who do it; not theirs who tell them that they do so. It is not the latter but the former who 'trample Christ's righteousness underfoot as a mean and vile thing.’

This it had been your wisdom to have done long ago, instead of squabbling for almost these ten years. This it is both your wisdom and your duty to do now; and certainly better late than never. This must be your indispensable duty, till (1) I am an adulterer; (2) you can prove it. Till then I have the same right to claim obedience from you as you have to claim it from Noah Vazeille. [Her son.] Consequently every act of disobedience is an act of rebellion against God and the King, as well as against Your affectionate Husband. To Miss March Editor's Introductory Notes: 1760 [7] LIVERPOOL, March 29, 1760. Having a little longer reprieve, I snatch the opportunity of writing a few lines before we embark. Prayer is certainly the grand means of drawing near to God; and all others are helpful to us only so far as they are mixed with or prepare us for this. The comfort of it may be taken away by wandering thoughts, but not the benefit: violently to fight against these is not the best and speediest way to conquer them; ;but rather humbly and calmly to ask and wait for His help, who will bruise Satan under your feet. You may undoubtedly remain in peace and joy until you are perfected in love. You need neither enter into a dispute, when persons speak wrong, nor yet betray the truth; there is a middle way. You may simply say, 'I believe otherwise; but I think, and let think; I am not fond of contending on this or any other head, lest I receive more hurt than I can do good.' Remember your calling; be A simple follower of the Lamb, And harmless as a little child. To Miss March DUBLIN, April 16, 1760. Eltham is a barren soil indeed. I fear scarce any are to be found there who know anything of the power of religion, and not many that have so much as the form. But God is there, and He can supply every want. Nothing contributes to seriousness more than humility, because it is a preparation for every fruit of the Holy Spirit; and the knowledge of our desperate state by sin has a particular tendency to keep us earnest after deliverance; and that earnestness can hardly consist with levity, either of temper or behaviour.

DEAR SAMMY,--Certainly you cannot remove without giving Mr. Crook a quarter's warning. If you do remove, you need be under no concern about repaying, nor about those you leave behind. Our preachers, when it is needful, must allow them a little more time. [He had been helping the Methodists in the neighbourhood of his curacy. See letters of Nov. 21, 1759, and June 23, 1760. ] How easy it is to puzzle a cause, and to make a thousand plausible objections to any proposition that can be advanced. This makes me quite out of conceit with human understanding and human language. So confused is the clearest apprehension! So ambiguous the most determinate expressions! Lay aside the terms 'Adamic law, 'gospel law,' or any law. The thing is beyond dispute, and you may as well demand a scriptural proof that two and two make four. Adam in Paradise was able to apprehend all things distinctly, and to judge truly concerning them; therefore it was his duty so to do. But no man living is now able to do this; therefore neither is it the duty of any man now living. Neither is there any man now in the body who does or can walk in this instance by that rule which was bound upon Adam. Can anything be more plain than this--that Adam could, that I cannot avoid mistaking Can anything be plainer than this--If he could avoid it, he ought or than this--If I cannot, I ought not I mean it is not my duty: for the clear reason that no one can do the impossible. Nothing in the Sermon or the Law contradicts this. If anything does, it is wrong. Oh what a work might be done in this kingdom if we had six zealous, active, punctual men in it! Be you one.--I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To his Brother Charles Editor's Introductory Notes: 1760 [11] COOLALOUGH, June 23, 1760.

Most of our preachers had very near left off preaching on practical religion. This was, therefore, earnestly recommended to them in the Conference at London. I am glad they followed the advice which was then given, which may be done without neglecting to speak on justification. This I choose to do on Sundays chiefly, and wherever there is the greatest number of unawakened hearers. I thought I had sent to you the answer to those queries which I sent a copy of to the printer in Bristol. But whether you have it or no, do you preach according to your light, as I do according to mine. I am now entering into Cornwall, which I have not visited these three years, and consequently all things in it are out of order. [The previous day at Launceston he had found 'the small remains of a dead, scattered Society; and no wonder, as they have had scarce any discipline and only one sermon in a fortnight.'Next day he had a similar experience at Camelford; but the state of other Societies cheered him. See Journal, iv. 406.] Several persons talk of sharing my burthen, but none does it; so I must wear out one first.--I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To the Editor of the 'London Chronicle' Editor's Introductory Notes: 1760 [13] LONDON, September 17, 1760. SIR,--As you sometimes insert things of a religious nature in your paper, I shall count it a favour if you will insert this. Some years ago I published A Letter to Mr. Law, and about the same time An Address to the Clergy. Of the former Mr. Law gives the following account in his Collection of Letters lately published:

But, in spite of all we could say or do, the cry still continued; 'You have left the Church; you are no ministers or members of it.' I answer, as I did fourteen years ago to one who warmly affirmed this: 'Use ever so many exaggerations, still the whole of the matter is, (1) I often use extemporary prayer; (2) wherever I can, I preach the gospel; (3) those who desire to live according to the gospel, I advise how to watch over each other and to put from them those who walk disorderly.' [See letter of June 17, 1746, sect. III. 9.] Now, whether these things are right or wrong, this single point I must still insist upon: all this does not prove either that I am no member or that I am no minister of the Church of England. Nay, nothing can prove that I am no member of the Church, till I am either excommunicated or renounce her communion, and no longer join in her doctrine and in the breaking of bread and in prayer. Nor can anything prove I am no minister of the Church, till I either am deposed from my ministry or voluntarily renounce her, and wholly cease to teach her doctrines, use her offices, and obey her rubrics. Upon the same principle that I still preach and endeavour to assist those who desire to live according to the gospel, about twelve years ago I published proposals for printing 'A Christian Library: Consisting of Extracts from and Abridgements of the Choicest Pieces of Practical Divinity which have been published in the English Tongue.' And I have done what I proposed. Most of the tracts therein contained were written by members of our own Church; but some by writers of other denominations: for I mind not who speaks, but what is spoken. On the same principle, that of doing good to all men, of the ability that God giveth, I published 'Primitive Physick; or an Easy and Natural Method of Curing most Diseases'; and, some years after, a little tract entitled Electricity made Plain and Useful. On the same principle I printed an English, a Latin, a French, and a short Hebrew Grammar, as well as some of the Classics, and a few other tracts, in usum juventutis Christianae. ['For the use of Christian youth.'] This premised, I now proceed to the queries:--

Finding all other means ineffectual, on Monday the 2nd instant I opened my wife's bureau and took what I found of my own. (No notes, bills, or papers of hers: in saying this, she only does as she uses to do.) Some hours after, she talked like an Empress Queen; on which I told her plainly, 'While you are in this mind I will neither bed nor board with you.' On .... following I found her of a better mind; so on Saturday and Sunday [He was then in London. ] we were together as usual. But if we should live to meet again, and she behaves as she did on that day, I should think it my bounden duty to do as I did then. I judge her case to be proper lunacy; but it is a preternatural, a diabolical lunacy, and therefore at those times (I know what I say) I do not think my life is safe with her. And yet I feel just as much resentment toward her as I do to Sall. Roqt. Peace be with you and yours. To Dr. Green [6] LONDON, April 2, 1761. REVEREND SIR, --I have no desire to dispute, least of all with one whom I believe to fear God and work righteousness. And I have no time to spare. Yet I think it my duty to write a few lines with regard to those you sent to Mr. Bennet.

DEAR SIR, --1. In order to answer the question more clearly which Mr. [Downing [See previous letter.']] has proposed to you, it may be well look a little backward. Some years since, two or three clergymen of the Church of England, who were above measure zealous for all her rules and orders, were convinced that religion is not an external thing, but 'righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost,' and that this righteousness and peace and joy are given only to those who are justified by faith. As soon as they were convinced of these great truths, they preached them; and multitudes flocked to hear. For these reasons, and no others, real or pretended (for as yet they were strictly regular), because they preached such doctrine, and because such multitudes followed them, they were forbid to preach in the churches. Not daring to be silent, they preached elsewhere, in a school, by a river-side, or upon a mountain; and more and more sinners forsook their sins and were filled with peace and joy in believing. 2. But at the same time huge offence was taken at their 'gathering congregations' in so irregular a manner; and it was asked, -- (1) 'Do you judge that the Church with the authority of the State has power to enact laws for her own government?' I answer: If a dispensation of the gospel is committed to me, no Church has power to enjoin me silence. Neither has the State; though it may abuse its power and enact laws whereby I suffer for preaching the gospel. (2) 'Do you judge it your duty to submit to the laws of the Church and State as far as they are consistent with a good conscience?' I do. But 'woe is me if I preach not the gospel': this is not consistent with a good conscience. (3) 'Is it a law of the Church and State that none of her ministers shall gather congregations but by the appointment of the bishop? If any do, does not she forbid her people to attend them? Are they not subversive of the good order of the Church? Do you judge there is anything sinful in such a law?'

I answer: (I) If there is a law that a minister of Christ who is not suffered to preach the gospel in the church should not preach it elsewhere, I do judge that law to be absolutely sinful. (ii) If that law forbids Christian people to hear the gospel of Christ out of their parish church when they cannot hear it therein, I judge it would be sinful for them to obey it. (iii) This preaching is not subversive of any good order whatever. It is only subversive of that vile abuse of the good order of our Church whereby men who neither preach nor live the gospel are suffered publicly to overturn it from the foundation, and in the room of it to palm upon their congregations a wretched mixture of dead form and maimed morality. (4) 'If these premises be allowed.' They cannot be allowed. So, from nothing, nothing follows. 3. It was objected farther, -- (1) 'In every nation there must be some settled order of government, ecclesiastical and civil.' There must; but put civil out of the question. It only tends to puzzle the cause. (2) 'The Scriptures likewise enjoin this.' They do, that all things in the church be done in order. (3) 'There is an ecclesiastical order established in England, and it is a lawful one.' I believe it is in general not only lawful but highly commendable. (4) 'But Mr. [Downing] tells you: " You are born under this Establishment. Your ancestors supported it, and were ennobled on that account." These points, I think, are not very material; but that which follows is. " You have by deliberate and repeated acts of your own engaged yourself to defend it. Your very rank and station constitute you a formal and eminent guardian of it."'

A guardian of what? What is it that you have 'deliberately engaged yourself to defend'? The constitution of the Church of England. And is not her doctrine a main part of this constitution? a far more essential part thereof than any rule of external order? Of this, then, you are a formal guardian; and you have deliberately engaged yourself to defend it. But have you deliberately engaged to defend her orders to the destruction of her doctrine? Are you a guardian of this external circumstance when it tends to destroy the substance of her constitution? And if you are engaged, at all events, to defend her order, are you also to defend the abuse of it? Surely no. Your rank, your station, your honour, your conscience, all engage you to oppose this. (5) 'But how 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, and that in their genuine issue' (or natural tendency) 'are totally subversive of it?' Are the principles of those clergymen a direct renunciation of the established constitution? Are their practices so? Are either the one or the other 'totally subversive of it'? Not so: their fundamental principles are the very principles of the Established Church. So is their practice too; save in a very few points, wherein they are constrained to deviate. Therefore it is no ways inconsistent with your duty to encourage, countenance, and support them; especially seeing they have no alternative. They must either be thus far irregular or destroy their own souls, and let thousands of their brethren perish for lack of knowledge. (6) Nay, but their 'principles and practices are of this character. For (I) They gather congregations and exercise their ministerial office therein in every part of this kingdom, directly contrary to the restraint laid on them at their ordination and to the design of that parochial distribution of duty settled throughout this nation. (ii) They maintain it lawful for men to preach who are not episcopally ordained, and thereby contradict the Twenty-third Article. (iii) They disclaim all right in the bishops to control them in any of these matters, and say that, rather than be so controlled, they would renounce all communion with this Church. (iv) These principles they industriously propagate among their followers.'

MY DEAR BROTHER,--I apprehend, if you will give another careful reading to those four pages, 244-7, [Thoughts on Christian Perfection. See letter of June 23, 1760.] you will find all your objections anticipated or answered. However, I do not think much of answering them over again. Your words are: 'You say, "A mistake is not a sin, if love is the sole principle of action; yet it is a transgression of the perfect law"; therefore perfect love is not the perfect law'! Most sure; for by 'the perfect law' I mean that given to Adam at his creation. But the loving God with all his heart was not the whole of that law: it implied abundantly more; even thinking, speaking, and acting right in every instance, which he was then able, and therefore obliged, to do. But none of his descendants are able to do this; therefore love is the fulfilling of their law. Perhaps you had not adverted to this. The law of love, which is the whole law given to us, is only one branch of that perfect law which was given to Adam in the beginning. His law was far wider than ours, as his faculties were more extensive. Consequently many things might be transgressions of the latter which were not of the former. 'But if ignorance be a transgression of the perfect law.' Whoever said or thought so? Ignorance is not, but mistake is. And this Adam was able to avoid; that kind of ignorance which was in him not constraining him to mistake, as ours frequently does. 'But is "a voluntary transgression of a known law" a proper definition of sin?' I think it is of all such sin as is imputed to our condemnation. And it is a definition which has passed uncensured in the Church for at least fifteen hundred years. To propose any objections that naturally arise is right; but beware you do not seek objections. If you once begin this, you will never have done. Indeed, this whole affair is a strife of words. The thing is plain. All in the body are liable to mistakes, practical as well as speculative. Shall we call them sins or no? I answer again and again, Call them just what you please. To George Merryweather NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 7, 1761.

5. Your fourth argument against justification by faith alone is drawn from the nature of justification. This, you observe, 'implies a prisoner at the bar, and a law by which he is to be tried; and this is not the law of Moses, but that of Christ, requiring repentance and faith, with their proper fruits' (page 16); which now through the blood of Christ are accepted and 'counted for righteousness.' St. Paul affirms this concerning faith, in the 4th chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. But where does he say that either repentance or its fruits are counted for righteousness Nevertheless I allow that the law of Christ requires such repentance and faith before justification as, if there be opportunity, will bring forth the 'fruits of righteousness.' But if there be not, he that repents and believes is justified notwithstanding. Consequently these alone are necessary, indispensably necessary, conditions of our justification. 6. Your last argument against justification by faith alone 'is drawn from the method of God's proceeding at the last day. He will then judge every man "according to his works." If, therefore, works wrought through faith are the ground of the sentence passed upon us in that day, then are they a necessary condition of our justification' (page 19): in other words, 'if they are a condition of our final, they are a condition of our present, justification.' I cannot allow the consequence. All holiness must precede our entering into glory. But no holiness can exist till, 'being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.' 7. You next attempt to reconcile the writings of St. Paul with justification by works. In order to this you say: 'In the first three chapters of his Epistle to the Romans he proves that both Jews and Gentiles must have recourse to the gospel of Christ. To this end he convicts the whole world of sin; and having stopped every mouth, he makes his inference, "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified. We conclude," then, says he, "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." But here arise two questions: first, What are the works excluded from justifying secondly, What is the faith which justifies' (Pages 20-2.)

10. If in speaking on this important point (such at least it appears to me) I have said anything offensive, any that implies the least degree of anger or disrespect, it was entirely foreign to my intention; nor, indeed, have I any provocation: I have no room to be angry at your maintaining what you believe to be the truth of the gospel; even though I might wish you had omitted a few expressions, Quas aut incuria fudit, Aut humana parum cavit natura. [Horace's Ars Poetica, 11. 352-3: 'Such as escaped my notice, or such as may be placed to the account of human infirmity.'] In the general, from all I have heard concerning you, I cannot but very highly esteem you in love. And that God may give you both 'a right judgement in all things, and evermore to rejoice in His holy comfort,' is the prayer of, reverend sir, Your affectionate brother and servant. To Matthew Lowes LONDON, March 11, 1762. DEAR MATTHEW,--I have enclosed that part of the Minutes of the Conference which relates to discipline. On the other paper (which you may read in every Society just before you visit the classes) you will see the design of the General Yearly Collection, [See Works, viii. 335-6.] to which every Methodist in England is to contribute something. If there is any who cannot give an halfpenny in a year, another will give it for him. The Society here has subscribed near &pound;300. Your affectionate friend and brother. [For letter to S. Furly, March 20, see end of vol. viii.] To Thomas Rankin BRISTOL, March 20, 1762. MY DEAR BROTHER,--You should act as an Assistant in Sussex. Therefore see that our Rules be everywhere observed; and spread our books wherever you go, particularly Kempis, Primitive Physick, and Instructions for Children. [See letters of Feb. 20, 1762, and Sept. 21, 1764.] Before eight weeks are ended the Societies will be able to secure you an horse. O be simple! Be a little child before God!--I am Your affectionate brother. Read and pray much. To Mr. Thomas Rankin, At Mr. Barker's, In Sevenoaks, Kent. To Miss March ATHLONE, May 13, 1762.

A little tract wrote by Bishop Bull, entitled A Companion for Candidates for Holy Orders, [Wesley's father says in his Advice to a Young Clergyman: 'Bishop Bull comes next for their subject and way of thinking and arguing: a strong end nervous writer, whose discourses and addresses to his clergy can scarce be too often read' See letter of Feb. 19, 1755.] was of much service to me. In order to be well acquainted with the doctrines of Christianity you need but one book (beside the New Testament)--Bishop Pearson On the Creed. This I advise you to read and master throughly: it is a library in one volume. But above all be much in prayer, and God will withhold no manner of thing that is good!--I am Your affectionate servant. To Mr. Cradock Glascott, Jesus College, Oxon. To the Countess of Huntingdon [11] NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, May 16, 1764.

But the main point between you and me is Perfection. 'This,' you say, 'has no prevalence in these parts; otherwise I should think it my duty to oppose it with my whole strength-- not as an opinion, but as a dangerous mistake, which appears to be subversive of the very foundations of Christian experience, and which has, in fact, given occasion to the most grievous offences.' Just so my brother and I reasoned thirty years ago. 'We think it our duty to oppose Predestination with our whole strength--not as an opinion, but as a dangerous mistake, which appears to be subversive of the very foundations of Christian experience, and which has, in fact, given occasion, to the most grievous offences.' That it has given occasion to such offences I know; I can name time, place, and persons. But still another fact stares me in the face. Mr. Haweis and Mr. Newton hold this, and yet I believe these have real Christian experience. But if so, this is only an opinion; it is not subversive (here is clear proof to the contrary) 'of the very foundations of Christian experience.' It is 'compatible with a love to Christ and a genuine work of grace.' Yea, many hold it at whose feet I desire to be found in the day of the Lord Jesus. If, then, I 'oppose this with my whole strength,' I am a mere bigot still. I leave you in your calm and retired moments to make the application. But how came this opinion into my mind I will tell you with all simplicity. In 1725 I met with Bishop Taylor's Rules of Holy Living and Dying. I was struck particularly with the chapter upon Intention, and felt a fixed intention to give myself up to God. In this I was much confirmed soon after by the Christian Pattern, and longed to give God all my heart. This is just what I mean by Perfection now: I sought after it from that hour.

6. You proceed to give as punctual an account of us tanquam intus et in cute nosses [Persius' Satires, iii. 30 (adapted): 'As if you had the most intimate knowledge of us.']: 'They outstripped, if possible, even Montanus for external sanctity and severity of discipline' (page 22). 'They condemned all regard for temporal concerns; they encouraged their devotees to take no thought for any one thing upon earth, the consequence of which was a total neglect of their affairs and an impoverishment of their families' (page 23). Blunder all over! We had no room for any discipline, severe or not, five-and-twenty years ago, unless college discipline; my brother then residing at Christ Church and I at Lincoln College. And as to our 'sanctity' (were it more or less), how do you know it was only external Was you intimately acquainted with us I do not remember where I had the honour of conversing with you. Or could you (as the legend says of St. Pachomius [Pachomius founded seven monasteries in the Theban desert.]) 'smell an heretic ten miles' off And how came you to dream, again, that we 'condemned all regard for temporal concerns, and encouraged men to take no thought for any one thing upon earth' Vain dream! We, on the contrary, severely condemn all who neglect their temporal concerns and who do not take care of everything on earth wherewith God hath entrusted them. The consequence of this is that the Methodists (so called) do not 'neglect their affairs and impoverish their families,' but by diligence in business 'provide things honest in the sight of all men': insomuch that multitudes of them, who in time past had scarce food to eat or raiment to put on, have now 'all things needful for life and godliness,' and that for their families as well as themselves. 7. Hitherto you have been giving an account of two wolflings only; but now they are grown into perfect wolves. Let us see what a picture you draw of them in this state, both as to their principles and practice.

After premising that it is our bounder duty to labour after a right judgement in all things, as a wrong judgement naturally leads to wrong practice, I say again, Right opinion is at best but a very slender part of religion (which properly and directly consists in right tempers, words, and actions), and frequently it is no part of religion: for it may be where there is no religion at all; in men of the most abandoned lives; yea, in the devil himself. And yet this does not prove that I 'separate reason from grace,' that I 'discard reason from the service of religion.' I do continually 'employ it to distinguish between right and wrong opinions.' I never affirmed 'this distinction to be of little consequence,' or denied 'the gospel to be a reasonable service' (page 158). But 'the Apostle Paul considered right opinions as a full third part at least of religion: for he says, " The fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth." By goodness is meant the conduct of particulars to the whole, and consists in habits of social virtue; and this refers to Christian practice. By righteousness is meant the conduct of the whole to particulars, and consists in the gentle use of Church authority, and this refers to Christian discipline. By truth is meant the conduct of the whole, and of particulars to one another, and consists in orthodoxy or right opinion; and this refers to Christian doctrine.' (Page 159.) My objections to this account are, first, it contradicts St. Paul; secondly, it contradicts itself. First. It contradicts St. Paul. It fixes a meaning upon his words foreign both to the text and context. The plain sense of the text, taken in connexion with the context, is no other than this: (Eph. v. 9) 'The fruit of the Spirit' (rather 'of the light,' which Bengelius proves to be the true reading--opposite to 'the unfruitful works of darkness' mentioned verse 11) 'is,' consists, 'in all goodness, kindness, tenderheartedness' (iv. 32)--opposite to 'bitterness, wrath, anger, clamour, evil-speaking' (verse 31); 'in all righteousness,' rendering unto all their dues--opposite to 'stealing' (verse 28); 'and in all truth,' veracity, sincerity--opposite to 'lying' (verse 25).

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.

Yet I must touch upon one or two parts of it. 'An enthusiast thinks he is dispensed with in breaking, nay that he is authorized to break, the common laws of morality.' Does every enthusiast Then I am none; for I never thought any such thing. I believe no man living is authorized to break, or dispensed with in breaking, any law of morality. I know whoever (habitually) breaks one of the least of these 'shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.' 'Can any but an enthusiast believe that he may use guile to promote the glory of God' Yes, ten thousand that are no enthusiasts firmly believe thus. How few do we find that do not believe it! that do not plead for officious lies! How few will subscribe to St. Augustine's declaration (to which I assent with my whole heart), 'I would not tell a wilful lie to save the souls of the whole world!' But to return: "'The wisdom from above is without partiality and without hypocrisy." Partiality consists in dispensing an unequal measure in our transactions with others; hypocrisy, in attempting to cover that unequal measure by prevarication and false presences.' The former of these definitions is not clear; the latter neither clear nor adequate to the defined. But let this pass. My partiality is now the point. What are the proofs of it (1) 'His followers are always the children of God, his opposers the children of the devil' (page 220). Neither so, nor so. I never affirmed either one or the other universally. That some of the former are children of God and some of the latter children of the devil I believe. But what will this prove

This is the fact; let any judge of it as they please. And that such a change was then wrought appears, not from their shedding tears only, or falling into fits, or crying out (these are not the fruits, as you seem to suppose, whereby I judge), but from the whole tenor of their life, till then many ways wicked, from that time holy and just and good.' 'Nay, he is so convinced of its being the work of God, that the horrid blasphemies which ensued he ascribes to the abundance of joy which God had given to a poor mad woman' (page 234). Do I ascribe those blasphemies to her joy in God No; but to her pride. My words are: 'I met with one who, having been lifted up with the abundance of joy which God had given her, had fallen into such blasphemies and vain imaginations as are not common to men. In the afternoon I found another instance, nearly, I fear, of the same kind-- one who set her private revelations (so called) on the selfsame foot with the written Word.' (Page 235.)

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.

'Having now established the fact' (wonderfully established!), 'we may inquire into the fitness of it. There were two causes of the extraordinary operations of the Holy Spirit--one to manifest His mission (and this was done once for all), the other to comfort and instruct the Church.' (Page 110.) 'At His first descent on the Apostles, He found their minds rude and uninformed, strangers to all heavenly knowledge, and utterly averse to the gospel. He illuminated their minds with all necessary truth. For, a rule of faith not being yet composed' (No! Had they not 'the Law and the Prophets') 'some extraordinary infusion of His virtue was still necessary. But when this rule was perfected, part of this office was transferred upon the Sacred Canon; and His enlightening grace was not to be expected in such abundant measure as to make the recipients infallible guides.' (Page 112.) Certainly it was not. If this is all that is intended, no one will gainsay. 'Yet modern fanatics pretend to as high a degree of divine communications as if no such rule were in being' (I do not); 'or, at least, as if that rule needed the farther assistance of the Holy Spirit to explain His own meaning.' This is quite another thing. I do firmly believe (and what serious man does not) omnis scriptura legi debet eo Spiritu quo scripta est: 'We need the same Spirit to understand the Scripture which enabled the holy men of old to write it.' 'Again, the whole strength of human prejudices was then set in opposition to the gospel, to overcome the obstinacy and violence of which nothing less than the power of the Holy One was sufficient. At present, whatever prejudices may remain, it draws the other way.' (Page 113.) What, toward holiness toward temperance and chastity toward justice, mercy, and truth Quite the reverse. And to overcome the obstinacy and violence of the heart-prejudices which still lie against these, the power of the Holy One is as necessary now as ever it was from the beginning of the world. 'A farther reason for the ceasing of miracles is the peace and security of the Church. The profession of the Christian faith is now attended with ease and honour.' 'The profession,' true; but not the thing itself, as 'all that will live godly in Christ Jesus' experience.

Her Collects are full of petitions to the same effect. 'Grant that we may daily be renewed by Thy Holy Spirit' (Collect for Christmas Day). 'Grant that in all our sufferings here, for the testimony of Thy truth, we may by faith behold the glory that shall be revealed, and, being filled with the Holy Ghost, may love and bless our persecutors' (St. Stephen's Day). 'Send Thy Holy Ghost, and pour into our hearts that most excellent gift of charity' (Quinquagesima Sunday). 'O Lord, from whom all good things do come, grant to us Thy humble servants that by Thy holy inspiration we may think those things that are good, and by Thy merciful guidance may perform the same' (Fifth Sunday after Easter). 'We beseech Thee, leave us not comfortless, but send to us the Holy Ghost to comfort us' (Sunday after Ascension Day). 'Grant us by the same Spirit to have a right judgement in all things, and evermore to rejoice in His holy comfort' (Whit Sunday). 'Grant us, Lord, we beseech Thee, the Spirit to think and do always such things as be rightful' (Ninth Sunday after Trinity). 'O God, forasmuch as without Thee we are not able to please Thee, mercifully grant that Thy Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts' (Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity). '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' (Communion Office). 'Give Thy Holy Spirit to this infant (or this person), that he may be born again. Give Thy Holy Spirit to these persons' (N.B. already baptized), 'that they may continue Thy servants.' 'Almighty God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these persons by water and the Holy Ghost, strengthen them with the Holy Ghost the Comforter, and daily increase in them the manifold gifts of Thy grace' (Office of Confirmation). From these passages it may sufficiently appear for what purposes every Christian, according to the doctrine of the Church of England, does now receive the Holy Ghost. But this will be still more clear from those that follow; wherein we may likewise observe a plain, rational sense of God's 'revealing' Himself to us, of the 'inspiration' of the Holy Ghost, and of a believer's 'feeling' in himself the 'mighty working' of the Spirit of Christ:--

'It is the office of the Holy Ghost to sanctify; which the more it is hid from our understanding' (that is, the particular manner of His working), 'the more it ought to move all men to wonder at the secret and mighty workings of God's Holy Spirit, which is within us. For it is the Holy Ghost that doth quicken the minds of men, stirring up godly motions in their hearts. Neither does He think it sufficient inwardly to work the new birth of men, unless He does also dwell and abide in them. "Know ye not," saith St. Paul, "that ye are the temples of God, and that His Spirit dwelleth in you Know ye not that your bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost, which is within you" Again he saith, "Ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit." For why "The Spirit of God dwelleth in you." To this agreeth St. John: "The anointing which ye have received" (he meaneth the Holy Ghost) "abideth in you" (I John ii. 27). And St. Peter saith the same: "The Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you." Oh what comfort is this to the heart of a true Christian, to think that the Holy Ghost dwelleth in him! "If God be with us," as the Apostle saith, "who can be against us" He giveth patience and joyfulness of heart in temptation and affliction, and is therefore worthily called "the Comforter" (John xiv. 16). He doth instruct the hearts of the simple in the knowledge of God and His Word; therefore He is justly termed "the Spirit of truth" (John xvi. 13). And (N.B.) where the Holy Ghost doth instruct and teach, there is no delay at all in learning.' (Ibid.) From this passage I learn (1) that every true Christian now 'receives the Holy Ghost' as the Paraclete or Comforter promised by our Lord (John xiv. 16); (2) that every Christian receives Him as 'the Spirit of all truth' (promised John xvi. 13) to 'teach him all things'; and (3) that the anointing mentioned in the First Epistle of St. John 'abides in every Christian.' 'In reading of God's Word, he profiteth most who is most inspired with the Holy Ghost' (Homily on Reading the Scripture, Part I.).

MY DEAR BROTHER,--To suppose a combination, does not avail; to prove it, would cast them at once. You are in the right to lose no time; what is to be done should be done as soon as possible. Delays are never more dangerous than in law proceedings.[See letters of Dec. 20, 1766, and Oct. 6, 1767.] I have no knowledge of Mr. Dunning [John Dunning (1731-83), first Baron Ashburton 1782; Solicitor-General 1768-70. Sir Fletcher Norton (1716-89); Attorney-General 1763, Speaker of the House of Commons 1770, Baron Grantley of Markenfield 1782. Attacked by Junius in Letter 39.] or Sir Fletcher Norton. Only I have lately retained Sir Fletcher in the behalf of Miss Lewen's executors. Peace be with your spirit!--I am Your affectionate brother. To his Brother Charles LONDON, February 12, 1767. DEAR BROTHER,--What I mean is, Bishop Lowth is sometimes hypercritical and finds fault where there is none. Yet doubtless his is the best English Grammar that is extant. [In June 1770 Wesley 'looked over Dr. Priestley's English Grammar. I wonder he would publish it after Bishop Lowth's' (Journal, v. 370).] I never saw Hermes; the author of it is a rooted Deist. I won't complain of the preaching too often at Bath. Pray do you take two things upon yourself: (1) Let punctual notice be given on Sunday, March 8, in the chapel [See Journal, v. 198.] of my preaching there on Tuesday evening, March 10. (2) That notice be given at Bristol on the same Sunday of my preaching at the New Room on Wednesday the 11th, at seven in the evening, and afterwards meeting the Society, at which I desire all who can to be present. On Thursday, Friday, and Saturday I purpose meeting the classes. Pray take care that Brother Henderson [Richard Henderson, then Assistant at Bristol.] wants nothing. Sickness is an expensive thing.

What, indeed, has hindered I want to consider this. And must we not first say, Nos consules ['We who are the chiefs.'] If we were more holy in heart and life, and more throughly devoted to God, would not all the preachers catch our spirit and carry it with them throughout the land Is not the next hindrance the littleness of grace (rather than of gifts) in a considerable part of our preachers They have not the whole mind which was in Christ; they do not steadily walk as He walked. And therefore the hand of the Lord is stayed; though not altogether; though He does work still, but not in such a degree as He surely would were they holy as He that hath sent them is holy. Is not the third hindrance the littleness of grace in the generality of the people Therefore they pray little and with little fervency for a general blessing; and therefore their prayer has little power with God. It does not, as once, shut and open heaven. Add to this, that as there is much of the spirit of the world in their hearts, so there is much conformity to the world in their lives. They ought to be both burning and shining lights; but they neither burn nor shine. They are not true to the rules they profess to observe; they are not holy in all manner of conversation. Nay, many of them are salt that has lost its savour, the little savour they once had. Wherewith, then, shall the rest of the land be seasoned What wonder that their neighbours are as unholy as ever But what can be done to remedy this I wish you would give an attentive reading to the Minutes of the last Conference, and see if it will not be worth our while to enforce them with our might. We have weight enough, and can force them. I know not who can or will when we are gone. Let us now fix things on as firm a foundation as possible, and not depend upon seeing another Conference. Richard Bourke, John Dillon, and one or two more in this kingdom are truly devoted men; so are a few of the preachers in England. Si sic omnes! ['Oh that the rest were likeminded!'] What would be able to stand before them

And how can we expect it to be otherwise For do we not naturally catch their spirit with whom we converse And what spirit can we expect them to be of, considering the preaching they sit under Some happy exceptions I allow; but, in general, do men gather grapes of thorns Do they gather constant, universal self-denial, the patience of hope, the labour of love, inward and outward self-devotion, from the doctrine of Absolute Decrees, of Irresistible Grace, of Infallible Perseverance Do they gather these fruits from Antinomian doctrine or from any that borders upon it Do they gather them from that amorous way of praying to Christ or that way of preaching His righteousness I never found it so. On the contrary, I have found that even the precious doctrine of Salvation by Faith has need to be guarded with the utmost care, or those who hear it will slight both inward and outward holiness. I will go a step farther: I seldom find it profitable for me to converse with any who are not athirst for perfection and who are not big with earnest expectation of receiving it every moment. Now, you find none of these among those we are speaking of, but many, on the contrary, who are in various ways directly or indirectly opposing the whole work of God; that work, I mean, which God is carrying on throughout the kingdom by andres agraumatoi kai idiwtai.[ Acts iv. 13: 'unlearned and ignorant men.'] In consequence of which His influence must in some measure be withdrawn from them. Again, you have for some time conversed a good deal with the genteel Methodists. Now, it matters not a straw what doctrine they hear, whether they frequent the Lock or West Street. They are (almost all) salt that has lost its savour, if ever they had any. They are throughly conformed to the maxims, the spirit, the fashions, and customs of the world. Certainly, then, Nunquam ad eos homines ibis quin minor homo redebis. [A Kempis's Imitation, i. 20: 'One said, As oft as I have gone among men, I returned home less a man.']

To Peggy Dale [12] LIVERPOOL, April 7, 1768. MY DEAR PEGGY,--I do not well understand what letter you mean. I have answered (if I do not forget) every letter which I have received. And I commonly answer either of you [Herself or Miss Molly Dale.] within a day or two. In this respect I do not love to remain in your debt. In others I must always be so; for I can never pay you the affection I owe. Accept of what little I have to give. Mr. Law does well to insist on those sister graces, lowliness, meekness, and resignation. [A Serious Call to a Holy Life, xvi.- xxii.] These one would most importunately ask of God. And, indeed, without them love is only a name. Let your faith thus work by love, and it will make you fruitful in every good temper and word and work. I hope to be at Glasgow on Wednesday the 19th instant; at Aberdeen the 28th; at Edinburgh May 5; at Newcastle on Friday, May 20. Peace be with your spirit!--I am, my dear Peggy, Your affectionate brother. To Robert Costerdine [13] KENDAL, April 13, 1768. MY DEAR BROTHER,--If the debt of Colne house were given at Leeds Conference, it will be taken in of course. If it were not, I will lay Mr. Shaw's paper before the ensuing Conference. On Monday, June 27, I hope to be at Pateley Bridge (coming from Tadcaster, where I expect to preach at noon--one might meet me at Tadcaster); Tuesday, 28th, at Skipton; Wednesday, 29th, at Otley; Saturday, July 2nd, Keighley. You may have the three volumes. Do not spare to speak when you visit the classes again, and many will enlarge their subscription. --I am Yours affectionately. To Ann Bolton May 9, 1768. MY DEAR SISTER,--How far are you from holiness Nay, rather think how near you are to it! You are no farther from it than you are from faith, than you are from Christ. And how far is He from you Is He not nigh Is He not just now knocking at the door of your heart Hark! The Master calleth you! Thou dead soul, hear the voice of the Son of God, and live! What saith He to you Woman, be of good cheer! Thy sins are forgiven thee.--I am, my dear Nancy, Your affectionate brother. To his Brother Charles

July 5, 1768. I am more inclined to congratulate you than to condole with you upon your present situation. Many circumstances concurred to expose you to the greatest of all dangers-- that of being generally commended. It is therefore a peculiarly gracious providence whereby this danger is turned aside, and that without any particular fault or even imprudence on your part. You may now experience the truth of that fine reflection, 'Nothing is more profitable for us than to suffer reproach for a good action done with a single eye.' Nevertheless you cannot be excused from speaking plain to Sarah Crosby and A[nn Foard]; and the sooner this is done the better, lest their want of judgement should produce more ill effects. Certainly you should labour to convince them that they were altogether in a fault. In any wise they should have spoke to you first; then, if you had not satisfied them, they might have gone farther. But what can be done for the poor young woman I am afraid lest she should be turned out of the way. You will hardly need that tract for a time, as you have Mr. Brainerd's Life. There is a pattern of self-devotion and deadness to the world! But how much of his sorrow and pain had been prevented, if he had understood the doctrine of Christian Perfection! How many tears did he shed because it was impossible to be freed from sin! As you have not the same outward trials which many have, it is highly needful you should have some inward ones; although they need not be either many or long. If you walk closely with God, He is able to give any degree of holiness, either by pleasure or pain. S[ally] [Sarah Ryan died on Aug. 17.] continues with you a little longer to quicken you in the way. Why should not a living Christian be exactly of the same spirit with a dying Christian, seeing the difference between her life and ours is nothing when compared to eternity

I suppose a copy of the strange account of Eliz. Hobson [For the account of Elizabeth Hobson's apparitions, see letter of Sept. 12, 1782, to a Quaker.] was sent you from Newcastle from my papers. Not long after, the former half of these papers, eight pages out of sixteen, was taken away, none can tell how to this day. What I could remember, I wrote down again. But I question whether my memory served me as to every circumstance, and must therefore ask of you a copy of what was lost. If you please, Mr. Thompson [William Thompson was at this time Wesley's Assistant in Edinburgh.] can transcribe it for me. The thing is now brought, I hope, to a final issue. She has met him at Boyldon Hill, when he took his leave with, 'I shall see you no more, in time or eternity.' How much happiness is it for us that we hope to see each other both in time and in eternity! 'Nor shorter space true love can satisfy.' That you may be daily more athirst both for holiness and glory is the prayer of, my dear Lady, Your affectionate servant. I am now setting my face toward Bristol. To George Merryweather BRISTOL, September 26, 1768. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I have appointed Richard Boardman [Boardman was Assistant in the Dales, and took the place of Rowell at Yarm.] to supply (for the present at least) the place of Jacob Rowell. I desire John Heslop [Heslop was second preacher at Yarm in 1767. He had evidently been paying attention to a lady there. See letter of Oct.1.] may preach at Yarm no more. Quietly let him sink into nothing. And the less he preaches in other places the better till he comes again to his senses. Indeed, if anything of so notorious a kind occurs, I will thank any steward for preventing such a preacher from doing any more hurt till he has an answer from me.--I am, with love to Sister Merryweather, Your affectionate brother. To Jane Hilton [26] BRISTOL, September 30, 1768. Indeed, Jenny, you hardly deserve to hear from me. What, put me off with a letter of two lines! See that you make me amends by the length of your next; or else I will be angry at you, if I can.

MY DEAR BROTHER,--When you seek God with fasting added to prayer, you cannot seek His face in vain. This has been exceedingly blessed in various parts, and the revival of God's work has begun at the very time. You would do well to have several meetings of this kind as well as frequent meetings for prayer. Undoubtedly the visits paid you by Dr. Conyers, by Mr. Venn, and Mr. King [John King, Rector of Pertonhall, Beds (1752-1800), Cowper's schoolfellow. See Journal, v. 61, 63n.] were so many answers to prayer; and He will not withhold from you any manner of thing that is good. It is by patient continuance in well doing, in using all the grace which is already given you, that you are to seek the whole gift of God, the entire renewal of your soul, the full deliverance from sin. And do not think it far off: this is the voice of unbelief. He is nigh that sanctifieth: only believe, and feel Him near. This is what you should continually insist on, the nearness of the promise. And, indeed, if it is to be received by naked faith, by consequence it may be received now.-- I am, dear George, Your affectionate brother. To Jane Hilton [32] LONDON, November 26, 1768. MY DEAR SISTER,--There seems to have been a particular providence in Hannah Harrison's coming to Beverley, especially at that very time when a peace-maker was so much wanting; and it was a pledge that God will withhold from you no manner of thing that is good. The words of our Lord Himself show us what we are to expect from 'those of our own household.' But all this likewise shall be for good. 'It is given to you to suffer' for Him; and all will turn to your profit, that you may be more largely a partaker of His holiness. Do you feel, when you are tried in a tender point, no temper contrary to love Grief there may be; but is there no resentment or anger Do you feel invariable calmness of spirit Do you perceive nothing but pity and tender goodwill both at the time and afterwards Write to me of the trials you meet with. You may always direct to London, and the letter will come safe. Expect more faith and love daily. Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Rankin LONDON, December 1, 1768.

You never 'take up too much of my time.' To converse with you even in this imperfect way is both agreeable and useful to me. I love your spirit, and it does me good. I trust God will still give you that hunger and thirst after righteousness till you are satisfied therewith. And who knows how soon--I am, my dear Lady, Your ever affectionate servant. To Mrs. Crosby CHESTER, March 18, 1769. MY DEAR SISTER,--The westerly winds detain me here, I care not how long: good is the will of the Lord. When I am in Ireland, you have only to direct to Dublin and the letter will find me. I advise you, as I did Grace Walton [See letter of Sept. 8, 1761, to her.] formerly, (1) Pray in private or public as much as you can. (2) Even in public you may properly enough intermix short exhortations with prayer; but keep as far from what is called preaching as you can: therefore never take a text; never speak in a continued discourse without some break, about four or five minutes. Tell the people, 'We shall have another prayer-meeting at such a time and place.' If Hannah Harrison [See letters of Nov. 26, 1768, and March 31, 1781 (to Lancelot Harrison).] had followed these few directions, she might have been as useful now as ever. As soon as you have time, write more particularly and circumstantially; and let Sister Bosanquet do the same. There is now no hindrance in the way; nothing to hinder your speaking as freely as you please [His wife was not near to open his letters.] to, dear Sally, Your affectionate brother. To John Valton DUBLIN, March 23, 1769,

What is the difference between 'the frame of my mind and the state of my soul'? Is there the difference of an hair's breadth? I will not affirm it. If there be any at all, perhaps it is this: the frame may mean a single, transient sensation; the state, a more complicated and lasting sensation, something which we habitually feel. By frame some may mean fleeting passions; by state, rooted tempers. But I do not know that we have any authority to use the terms thus or to distinguish one from the other. He whose mind is in a good frame is certainly a good man as long as it so continues. I would therefore no more require you to cease from judging of your state by your frame of mind than I would require you to cease from breathing. Unless you deal very closely with those committed to your care, you will not give an account of them with joy. Advices and admonitions at a distance will do little harm or good. To those who give in to dress you might read or recommend the Advice to the Methodists on that head. It would be proper to go to the root of the matter once or twice; then to let it sleep, and after a few weeks try again. A Methodist using fine or gay apparel must suffer loss in her soul, although she may retain a little life; but she never will attain an high degree either of holiness or happiness. [See Works, xi. 466-77; and letter of Feb. 26, 1776.] To Joseph Thompson [19] BRISTOL, September 23, 1770. DEAR JOSEPH,--You are in the right. The most proper time for making the division is in the Quarter Day. I can confide in your prudence as well as impartiality in greater things than these. Be diligent in the books everywhere and exact in every point of discipline.--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Richard Locke BRISTOL, October 4, 1770. Your last gave me a good deal of satisfaction. I am glad your mind is more settled, [See letter of Sept. 14.] and hope you will not rest till you are not only almost but altogether a Christian.

You judge rightly: perfect love and Christian liberty are the very same thing; and those two expressions are equally proper, being equally scriptural. 'Nay, how can they and you mean the same thing? They say you insist on holiness in the creature, on good tempers, and sin destroyed.' Most surely. And what is Christian liberty but another word for holiness? And where is this liberty or holiness if it is not in the creature? Holiness is the love of God and man, or the mind which was in Christ. Now, I trust, the love of God is shed abroad in your heart by the Holy Ghost which is given unto you. And if you are holy, is not that mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus? 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."'

I find no such sin as legality in the Bible: the very use of the term speaks an Antinomian. I defy all liberty but liberty to love and serve God, and fear no bondage but bondage to sin. Sift that text to the bottom, and it will do the business of poor H--and all his disciples: 'God sent His own Son in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.' Justitia legis, justitia legalis! ['The righteousness of the law is legal righteousness.'] Here is legality indeed! I am glad you come a little nearer the good old Emperor's advice, Thn twn bibliwn diyan ripte. [Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, II. sect. 3: 'Throw away that thirst for books.' See letter of March 14, 1756] That thirst is the symptom of an evil disease; and crescit indulgens sibi dirus hydrops. [Horace's Odes, II. ii. 13; 'His own indulgence makes the dreadful dropsy grow.'] What is the real value of a thing but the price it will bear in eternity? Let no study swallow up or entrench upon the hours of private prayer. Nil tanti. ['Nothing is of so much importance.'] Simplify both religion and every part of learning as much as possible. Be all alive to God, and you will be useful to men!--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Marston LONDON, December 14, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--If I live till spring, and should have a clear, pressing call, I am as ready to embark for America [See letters of Feb. 21, 1770 (to Whitefield), and July 13, 1771 (to Miss March).] as for Ireland. All places are alike to me; I am attached to none in particular. Wherever the work of our Lord is to be carried on, that is my place for to-day. And we live only for to-day; it is not our part to take thought for to-morrow. You expect to fight your way through. But I think the preachers understand you and can receive your report; and so do most of your sisters. What forces, then, can Satan raise up against you? You can speak to me without reserve; for you know I love you much.

14. You proceed: They pretend to be as free from sin as Jesus Christ' (page 6). You bring three proofs of this: (1) Mr. Wesley, in his answer to a divine of our Church, says, "Jesus Christ stands as our regeneration, to help us to the same holy, undefiled nature which He Himself had; and if this very life and identical nature is not propagated and derived on us, He is not our Saviour"' (page 7). When I heard you read these words, I listened and studied, and could not imagine where you got them. I knew they were not mine: I use no such queer language; but did not then recollect that they are Mr. Law's words in his Answer to Dr. Trapp, an extract from which I have published. [Joseph Trapp, D.D., preached four sermons, mainly against Law's Serious Call, in 1739. Wesley published an extract from Law's Answer in 1748. See Green's Bibliography, No. 118.] But be they whose they will, they by no means imply that we are to be as righteous as Christ was,' but that we are to be (which St. Peter likewise affirms) partakers of the divine nature.' (2) A preacher of yours declared he was as free from sin as Christ ever was.' I did not hear him declare it: pray did you If not, how do you know he declared it at all, Nay, but another declared he believed it was impossible for one whom he named to sin, for the Spirit of God dwelt in him bodily' (page 8). Pray, sir, did you hear this yourself Else the testimony is nothing worth. Hearsay evidence will not be admitted by any court in the kingdom. What you say of that good man Mr. Whitefield, now with God, I leave with Mr. H-- 's remark: I admire your prudence, though not your generosity; for it is much safer to cudgel a dead man than a living one.'

MY DEAR SISTER,--Perhaps we may see a new accomplishment of Solomon's words, 'He that reproveth a man shall afterward find more favour than he who flattereth with his tongue. But, be that as it may, I have done my duty; I could no otherwise have delivered my own soul. And no offence at all would have been given thereby had not pride stifled both religion and generosity. [See letter of March 8.] But the letter is now out of date; it is mentioned no more: there is a more plausible occasion found-- namely, those eight terrible propositions which conclude the Minutes of our Conference. [The Minutes for 1770, which gave occasion to Fletcher to write his Checks to Antinomianism.] At the instance of some who were sadly frightened thereby, I have revised them over and over; I have considered them in every point of view; and truly, the more I consider them, the more I like them, the more fully I am convinced, not only that they are true, agreeable both to Scripture and to sound experience, but that they contain truths of the deepest importance, and such as ought to be continually inculcated by those who would be pure from the blood of all men. Joseph Benson is a good man and a good preacher. But he is by no means clear in his judgement. The imagination which he has borrowed from another good man, 'that he is not a believer who has any sin remaining in him,' is not only an error, but a very dangerous one, of which I have seen fatal effects. Herein we divided from the Germans near thirty years ago; and the falseness and absurdity of it is shown in the Second Journal and in my sermon on that subject. [The Lord our Righteousness. See Works, v. 234-46.] Your experience reminds me of these lines: So many tender joys and woes Have o'er my quivering soul had power! Plain life with heightening passions rose, The boast or burthen of an hour. [Gambold, in Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, i. 8.] They who feel less, certainly suffer less; but the more we suffer, the more we may improve; the more obedience, the more holiness, we may learn by the things we suffer. So that, upon the whole, I do not know if the insensible ones have the advantage over us.

There cannot be a more proper phrase than that you used, and I well understand your meaning; yet it is sure you are a transgressor still--namely, of the perfect, Adamic law. But though it be true all sin is a transgression of this law, yet it is by no means true on the other hand (though we have so often taken it for granted) that all transgressions of this law are sin: no, not at all--only all voluntary transgressions of it; none else are sins against the gospel law. Although we have 'faith's abiding impression, realizing things to come'; yet as long as we are in the body we have but an imperfect, shadowy knowledge of the things of eternity. For now we only see them in a glass, a mirror, which gives us no more than a shadow of them; therefore we see them darkly, or in a riddle, as St. Paul speaks. The whole invisible world is as yet a riddle to us; and it seems to be in this sense that some writers speak so much of the night or darkness of faith--namely, when opposed to sight; that is, to the view of things which we shall have when the veil of flesh and blood is removed. Those reasonings concerning the measure of holiness (a curious, not useful question) are not inconsistent with pure love, but they tend to damp it; and were you to pursue them far, they would lead you into unbelief. What you feel is certainly a degree of anger, but not of sinful anger. There ought to be in us (as there was in our Lord) not barely a perception in the understanding that this or that is evil, but also an emotion of mind, a sensation or passion suitable thereto. This anger at sin, accompanied with love and compassion to the sinner, is so far from being itself a sin, that it is rather a duty. St. Paul's word is, 'not easily provoked' to any paroxysm of anger: neither are you; nevertheless, I suppose there is in you, when you feel a proper anger at sin, an hurrying motion of the blood and spirits, which is an imperfection, and will be done away. To Ann Bolton ROOSKY, June 8, 1771.

MY DEAR LADY,--I commend you for meddling with points of controversy as little as possible. It is abundantly easier to lose our love in that rough field than to find truth. This consideration has made me exceedingly thankful to God for giving me a respite from polemical labours. I am glad He has given to others both the power and the will to answer them that trouble me; so that I may not always be forced to hold my weapons in one hand while I am building with the other. I rejoice likewise not only in the abilities but in the temper of Mr. Fletcher. He writes as he lives. I cannot say that I know such another clergyman in England or Ireland. He is all fire; but it is the fire of love. His writings, like his constant conversation, breathe nothing else to those who read him with an impartial eye. And although Mr. Shirley scruples not to charge him with using subtilty and metaphysical distinctions, yet he abundantly clears himself of this charge in the Second Check to Antinomianism. ['A Second Check to Antinomianism; occasioned by a Late Narrative, in three letters to the Hon. and Rev. Author (Walter Shirley), was published at the end of 1771.] Such the last letters are styled, and with great propriety; for such they have really been. They have given a considerable check to those who were everywhere making void the law through faith; setting 'the righteousness of Christ' in opposition to the law of Christ, and teaching that 'without holiness any man may see the Lord.' Notwithstanding both outward and inward trials, I trust you are still on the borders of perfect love. For the Lord is nigh! See the Lord thy Keeper stand Omnipotently near! Lo I He holds thee by thy hand, And banishes thy fear! You have no need of fear. Hope unto the end! Are not all things possible to him that believeth Dare to believe! Seize a blessing now! The Lord increase your faith! In this prayer I know you join with, my dear Lady, Your ever affectionate servant. To Mary Stokes LONDON, February 11, 1772.

If Mr. F-- does come, it will be for good. It does not follow, 'You felt nothing; therefore neither did your hearers.' In haste. Adieu. To John Mason LONDON, March 22, 1772. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I hope Mr. Wagner [Wagner writes to him about a packet from Liverpool to Dublin in March 1778, and Wesley seems to have stayed with him at Liverpool in 1786. See Journal, vi. 182, vii. 154d.] and you are upon good terms. He is an amiable man, and would be exceeding useful were it not for ill advisers. When there is occasion, talk to him freely. He has a friendly heart. It is of great use to meet the leaders of the bands in Liverpool. [Mason had evidently moved from Whitehaven to Liverpool.] This should never be neglected. I am inclined to think the best time for it would be from two to three on Sunday in the afternoon. Then you might set an example to the Society by going to church immediately after. This is of no small importance. For whoever leaves the Church will leave the Methodists. Everywhere strongly and explicitly preach perfection. Then your word will profit.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Philothea Briggs LIVERPOOL, March 23, 1772. If useless words or thoughts spring from evil tempers, they are properly evil, otherwise not; but still they are contrary to the Adamic law: yet not to the law of love; therefore there is no condemnation for them, but they are matter of humiliation before God. So are those (seemingly) unbelieving thoughts; although they are not your own, and you may boldly say, 'Go, go, thou unclean spirit; thou shalt answer for these, and not I.' To Ann Bolton CONGLETON, March 25, 1772.

Nothing is sin, strictly speaking, but a voluntary transgression of a known law of God. Therefore every voluntary breach of the law of love is sin; and nothing else, if we speak properly. To strain the matter farther is only to make way for Calvinism. There may be ten thousand wandering thoughts and forgetful intervals without any breach of love, though not without transgressing the Adamic law. But Calvinists would fain confound these together. Let love fill your heart, and it is enough!--I am, dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mary Stokes YARM, June 16, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--That remedy mentioned in the Primitive Physick (the manna dissolved in a decoction of senna) hardly ever fails to relieve in the severest bilious colic within twelve or fourteen minutes. Warm lemonade (so stupid are they who forbid acids in these cases) frequently gives ease in half a minute. And I have known this to take place in such inveterate complaints as would yield to no other remedy. We are sure the means which our blessed Lord uses to conform us to His image are (all circumstances considered) the very best; for He cannot but do all things well: therefore, whenever it pleases Him to send affliction, then affliction is best. Yet we must not imagine He is tied down to this, or that He cannot give any degree of holiness without it. We have reason to believe from the earliest records that St. Paul suffered a thousand times more than St. John. And yet one can hardly doubt but St. John was as holy as he or any of the Apostles. Therefore stand ready for whatsoever our Lord shall send; but do not require Him to send you affliction. Perhaps He will take another way; He will overpower your whole soul with peace and joy and love; and thereby work in you a fuller conformity to Himself than you ever experienced yet. You have; hold fast there. All's alike to me, so I In my Lord may live and die. --I am Yours affectionately To Philothea Briggs WHITBY, Saturday, June 20, 1772. MY DEAR PHILLY,--About this day se'nnight I expect to be at York; this day fortnight at Keighley, Yorkshire; this day three weeks at Leeds; and the two following Saturdays at Epworth, near Thorne, Yorkshire.

MY DEAR SISTER,--Having finished for the present my business at Leeds, [Where the Conference met on the 4th.] I am come thus far on my journey to Bristol. But I must take Haverfordwest in the way thither; so that I do not expect to be there till the 30th instant. How many blessings may you receive in the meantime, provided you seek them in the good old way wherein you received the Lord Jesus Christ! So walk in Him still. Beware of striking into new paths! of being wise above that is written! Perhaps we may find sweetness in the beginning; but it would be bitterness in the latter end. O my sister, my friend, I am afraid for you! I doubt you are stepping out of the way. When you enter into your closet and shut the door and pray to your Father who seeth in secret, then is the time to groan to Him who reads the heart the unutterable prayer. But to be silent in the congregation of His people is wholly new, and therefore wholly wrong. A silent meeting was never heard of in the Church of Christ for sixteen hundred years. I entreat you to read over with much prayer that little tract A Letter to a Quaker. [See letters of Feb. 10, 1748, and March 17, 1771 (to her).] I fear you are on the brink of a precipice, and you know it not. The enemy has put on his angel's face, and you take him for a friend. Retire immediately! Go not near the tents of those dead, formal men called Quakers! Keep close to your class, to your band, to your old teachers; they have the words of eternal life! Have any of them offended you Has any stumbling-block been laid in your way Hide nothing from, my dear Molly, Yours in true affection. Ten days hence I expect to be at Haverfordwest. To Mary Bishop PEMBROKE, August 22, 1772. DEAR MISS BISHOP,--Such a degree of sickness or pain as does not affect the understanding I have often found to be a great help. It is an admirable help against levity as well as against foolish desires; and nothing more directly tends to teach us that great lesson, to write upon our heart, 'Not as I will, but as Thou wilt.'

DEAR TOMMY,--Six pounds lie in John Johnson’s hands. Let it be paid into the hands of Ezekiel Saunderson and Jas. Stewart. Let the forms and desk at Belfast be finished immediately. Out of what remains you may pay Brother Stewart what is due to him from the Society--I suppose about thirty shillings.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ann Boron [11] CORK, May 2, 1773. I have, indeed, often grieved on your account, but it was for your sufferings. And yet I constantly saw the wise end of your sufferings, that you might be more largely a partaker of His holiness. Indeed, you have reason to be satisfied with our Lord’s disposal of you, and to praise Him for all His dispensations. Even those circumstances which are not joyous but grievous yet work together for good. At first this does not always appear; but in a little while light springs out of darkness. It is no wonder you should many times be at a loss how to express what you feel. The language of men is too weak to describe the deep things of God. But sometimes one word may express much. One of our preachers that sometime since labored in this town, though full of faith and love, could find no utterance till he just said ‘Peace! Peace!’ and died [This may have been John Dillon, who labored at Cork in 1786 and died in 1770]. You make me amends for not answering me before on that head by doing it so distinctly now. That is the danger, lest on such an occasion we should not be so fully recollected. But in this and all things His grace is sufficient for us--sufficient to make us more than conquerors, especially when we give ourselves to prayer for this very thing before the trial comes. In most parts of this kingdom there is such a thirst after holiness as I scarce ever knew before. Several here in particular who enjoy it themselves are continually encouraging others to press after it. And two of our traveling preachers who for some years disbelieved it are now happy witnesses of if. I hope you do not forget poor Ally Eden. She has need of comfort; so we will not reprove her. Yours most affectionately. To Mary Bishop LIMERICK, May 9, 1773.

MY DEAR SISTER,--Your late conversation was exceeding pleasant to me. I had sometimes been almost inclined to think that your affection was lessened; but now I believe it is not. I trust your love is not grown cold. This gave me much satisfaction, though I could not but be concerned at seeing you so encumbered with worldly business. Surely it will not be so always. But God's time is best! Two or three of those little things I have sent you :-- With peaceful mind thy race of duty run: God nothing does, or suffers to be done, But what thou wouldst thyself, if thou couldst see Through all events of things as well as He. Let thy repentance be without delay: If thou defer it to another day, Thou must repent for a day more of sin, While a day less remains to do it in. Nor steel nor flint alone produces fire, Nor spark arises till they both conspire: Nor faith alone, nor works without it right; Salvation rises when they both unite. If gold be offered thee, thou does not say, ‘To-morrow I will take it, not to-day’: Salvation offered, why art thou so cool To let thyself become to-morrows fool Prayer and thanksgiving is the vital breath That keeps the spirit of a man from death: For prayer attracts into the living soul The life that fills the universal whole; And giving thanks is breathing forth again The praise of Him who is the life of men. Two different painters, artists in their way, Have drawn religion in her full display. To both she sat: one gazed at her all o’er; The other fixed upon her features more. Hervey has figured her with every grace That dress could give; but Law has hit her face. The specious sermons of a learned man Are little else than flashes in the pan. The mere haranguing upon what they call Morality is powder without ball: But he who preaches with a Christian grace Fires at your vices and the shot takes place. Faith, Hope, and Love were questioned what they thought Of future glory, which Religion taught. Now Faith believed it firmly to be true, And Hope expected so to find it too: Love answered, smiling with a conscious glow, Believe! Expect! ! I know it to be so.’

Although there may be some use in teaching even very young children to 'say their prayers daily,' yet I judge it to be utterly impossible to teach any to 'practice prayer' till they are awakened. For what is prayer but the desire of the soul expressed in words to God, either inwardly or outwardly How, then, will you teach them to express a desire who feel no desire at all When, therefore, Madame Guyon talks in that manner, it often makes me afraid that both she and her teacher, Archbishop Fenelon, talked by rote of the things they knew not. Both of them had an amazing genius, but I doubt full little experience. It is exceeding certain neither his nor her writings are likely to do us any solid service. We have all the gold that is in them without the dross, which is often not only useless but dangerous. Let you and I keep the good old way: In doing and bearing The will of our Lord, We still are preparing To meet our reward. Go on steadily in this path: there is none better. By patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory and honor and immortality. You shall reap if you faint not.--I am, my dear Philly, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Bennis [18] BRISTOL, September 10, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--When two or three agree to seek God by fasting and prayer, it cannot be that their labor should be in vain; especially if they add their endeavors to their prayers for the increase of the work of God. I hope you will encourage every preacher to visit the whole Society in order from house to house: dinner or drinking tea does not answer the same intention. This may and ought to be done over and above. I thought you had been in more danger of being hurt by worldly abundance than worldly care. But we cannot stand under either one or the other unless we be endued with power from on high, and that continually from hour to hour, or rather from moment to moment. Yet distress is not sin; we may be grieved, and still resigned. And this is acceptable with God. In all these cases you should remember that observation never to be let slip,-- With even mind thy course of duty ran: God nothing does, or surfers to be done,

There are excellent things in most of the Mystic writers. As almost all of them lived in the Romish Church, they were lights whom the gracious providence of God raised up to shine in a dark place. But they do not give a dear, a steady, or an uniform light. That wise and good man Professor Francke [August Hermann Francke (1663-1727) was professor at Halle 1692, and founded his famous Orphanage there in 1695] used to say of them, ‘ They do not describe our common Christianity, but every one has a religion of his own.’ It is very true: so that if you study the Mystic writers, you will find as many religions as books; and for this plain reason, each of them makes his own experience the standard of religion. Madame Guyon was a good woman and is a fine writer, but very far from judicious. Her writings will lead any one who is fond of them into unscriptural Quietism. They strike at the root, and tend to make us rest contented without either faith or works. It is certain the Scripture by ‘ prayer’ almost always means vocal prayer. And whosoever intermits this for any time will neither pray with the voice nor the heart. It is therefore our wisdom to force ourselves to prayer-- to pray whether we can pray or no. And many times while we are so doing the fire will fall from heaven, and we shall know our labor was not in vain.--I am, my dear Miss Bishop, Yours affectionately. PS.--It is on Wednesday sennight (the 29th inst.) that I purpose to preach at Bath (in my return from Bradford) at twelve o’clock. To John Valton [23] BRISTOL, September 20, 1773.

MY DEAR SISTER.--Elizabeth Harper was frequently in clouds too; and in that case it is the best way to stand still: you can do nothing but simply tell all your wants to Him that is both able and willing to supply them. I enclose James Perfect's letter, on purpose that you may talk with him. He has both an honest heart and a good understanding; but you entirely mistake his doctrine. He preaches salvation by faith in the same manner that my brother and I have done, and as Mr. Fletcher (one of the finest writers of the age) has beautifully explained it. None of us talk of being accepted for our works; that is the Calvinist slander. But we all maintain we are not saved without works, that works are a condition (though not the meritorious cause) of final salvation. It is by faith in the righteousness and blood of Christ that we are enabled to do all good works; and it is for the sake of these that all who fear God and work righteousness are accepted of Him. It is far better for our people not to hear Mr. Hawksworth. Calvinism will do them no good. As to the rest, I refer to my enclosure to Mr. M'Donald, with whom I wish you to have some conversation. Be not discouraged: I really believe God will visit poor Waterford in love. Do you go on. Bear up the hands that hang down; by faith and prayer support the tottering knee; reprove, encourage. Have you appointed any days of fasting and prayer Storm the throne of grace, and persevere therein, and mercy will come down.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Benson LONDON, March 4, 1774. DEAR JOSEPH,--I am glad you have been at Greenock, and think it highly expedient that you should follow the blow. Meantime let Brother Broadbent supply Glasgow and Billy Thompson Edinburgh. I think with you that it is no great matter if Dunbar be left for a season. When you have been three or four weeks at Greenock and Port Glasgow, Brother Broadbent should change with you. But I agree with you the harvest cannot be large till we can preach abroad.

For the present you must not go out of town or be from the Foundery on Tuesday or Thursday evenings. But what think you Could you be my clerk for a twelvemonth (as much longer as you please). Instead of the f22 a year which you have for Sister Atlay and you, I would willingly give you fifty.--I am, with love to Sister Atlay, Yours affectionately. To Mr. Atlay, At the Foundery) London. To his Brother Charles WHITEHAVEN, May 6, 1774. DEAR BROTHER,--With or without Mr. Southcote, he need not print nonsense, which he has done in an hundred places. I will give nothing and spend nothing out of it--not a shilling; and what is paid can but be repaid. Nothing is hereby embezzled. Duty is all I consider. Trouble and reproach I value not. And I am by no means clear that I can with a good conscience throw away what I think the providence of God has put into my hands. Were it not for the Chancery suit, I should not hesitate a moment. My complaint increases by slow degrees, much the same as before. It seems I am likely to need a surgeon every nine or ten weeks. Mr. Hey, of Leeds, vehemently advises me never to attempt what they call a radical cure. You did tell me Mr. D[avies] had accepted of your mare. But surely there are more mares in the kingdom! I never said a word of 'publishing it after my death.' I judged it my duty to publish it now; and I have as good a fight to believe one way as any man has to believe another. I was glad of an opportunity of declaring myself on the head. I beg Hugh Bold to let me think as well as himself, and to believe my judgement will go as far as his. I have no doubt of the substance both of Glanvill's and Cotton Mather’s narratives. Therefore in this point you that are otherwise-minded bear with me. Veniam petimusque damusque vicissim. Remember, I am, upon full consideration and seventy years’ experience, just as obstinate in my opinion as you in yours. Don't you think the disturbances in my father’s house were a Cock Lane story Peace be with you and yours! To Mrs. Savage [11] WHITEHAVEN, May 6, 1774.

DEAR HARRY,--When I read over in Ireland The Fool of Quality, I could not but observe the deign of it, to promote the religion of the heart, and that it was well calculated to answer that design; the same thing I observed a week or two ago concerning Juliet Grenville. Yet there seemed to me to be a few passages both in the one and the other which might be altered to the better; I do not mean so much with regard to the sentiments, which are generally very just, as with regard to the structure of the story, which seemed here and there to be not quite clear. I had at first a thought of writing to Mr. Brooke himself, but I did not know whether I might take the liberty. Few authors will thank you for imagining you are able to correct their works. But if he could bear it and thinks it would be of any use, I would give another reading to both these works, and send him my thoughts without reserve just as they occur. I admired Miss Brooke for her silence; her look spake, though not her tongue. If we should live to meet again, I should be glad to hear as well as see her--I am Yours. To Francis Wolfe YORK, July 10, 1774. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I had set you down for Bristol the next year. But last night I received a letter from John Murlin, and another from Tommy Lewis, desiring he might be there. Pray tell T. Lewis they will have him and two other new preachers, and that I am seeking for an housekeeper. Explicitly press the believers to go on to perfection!--I am, with love to Sister Wolfe, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Wolfe, At the New Room, Bristol. To Ann Bolton [18] LEEDS, July 13, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--At all hazards get an electric machine. It is your bounden duty. You are no more at liberty to throw away your health than to throw away your life. If you disperse the small tracts among the poor people round Finstock, it will continue and deepen their awakening. Your removal from Witney was sufficient to cause slackness among the people. I hope Brother Taylor will recover, if he be plainly and yet tenderly dealt with.

To Him commend thy cause, His ear attends the softest prayer. To Miss March REIGATE, November 30, 1774. You are in the safer extreme. When I formerly removed from one college to another, I fixed my resolution not to be hastily acquainted with any one; indeed, not to return any visit unless I had a reasonable hope of receiving or doing good therein. This my new neighbors generally imputed to pride; and I was willing to suffer the imputation. I 'sum up the experience' of persons, too, in order to form their general character. But in doing this we take a different way of making our estimate. It may be you chiefly regard (as my brother does) the length of their experience. Now, this I make little account of; I measure the depth and breadth of it. Does it sink deep in humble, gentle love Does it extend wide in all inward and outward holiness If so, I do not care whether they are of five or five-and-thirty years’ standing. Nay, when I look at Miss Betsy Briggs or Miss Philly Briggs, I am ready to hide my face: I am ashamed of having set out before they were born. Undoubtedly Miss Johnson is deep in grace, and lives like an angel here below. Yet some things in her character I do not admire; I impute them to human frailty. Many years ago I might have said, but I do not now, Give me a woman made of stone, A widow of Pygmalion. And just such a Christian one of the Fathers, Clemens Alexandrinus describes; but I do not admire that description now as I did formerly. I now see a Stoic and a Christian are different characters; and at some times I have been a good deal disgusted at Miss Johnson's apathy. When God restores our friends to us, we ought to rejoice; it is a defect if we do not. In that and several other instances I take knowledge of Sarah Ryan's littleness of understanding: and this, as well as our temper, we ought to improve to the utmost of our power; which can no otherwise be done than by reading authors of various kinds as well as by thinking and conversation. If we read nothing but the Bible, we should hear nothing but the Bible; and then what becomes of preaching

MY DEAR SISTER,--I do not see any valid objection against inoculation either from prudence or religion. But I wonder to hear you talk of preparation. It is now quite out of use. Experience has shown in ten thousand instances that all preparation is needless, if not hurtful. Only the preparation of the heart, prayer, and self-devotion, this is now peculiarity needful. I commend you and your dear nieces (whom I love for your sake and for their own) to Him that is able to save both their souls and bodies; and am, my dear sister. Your very affectionate brother. To Miss Ball, At Mr. Thos. Ball’s, In High Wycombe. To Thomas Rutherford [33] LONDON, December 24, 1774. DEAR TOMMY,--I think you acted exactly right with regard to Peter Mill. If we live till another Conference, I purpose transplanting him into England. I judge he will be an useful preacher. My new coachman is dead; so Joseph Bradford cannot persuade himself to leave me. And your Scots are such terrible critics that few of our preachers care to venture among them. I do not despair of Mrs. Greig yet. She is not incurable. I am glad you are gone to Aberdeen. Take care of the country Societies.--I am, dear Tommy, Yours affectionately. To Miss March LONDON, December 27, 1774. A few minutes I spent with Miss M---- when she was in town two or three years ago. She seemed to be of a soft, flexible temper, and a good deal awakened. From her letters I should judge that she had still many convictions and strong desires to be a real Christian. At the same time it is plain she is surrounded with hindrances and is sometimes persuaded to act contrary to her conscience. It is extremely difficult to advise a person in such circumstances what to do. Methinks the first thing I would advise her to, at all events, is, 'Do nothing against your conscience. 2. At a proper opportunity, after praying for courage, tell your lady you scruple such and such things. And I doubt not but she will take effectual care that no one shall press you on those heads.' Leaving her place is the last step to be taken if she finds she cannot save her soul therein.

CLONES, May 29, 1775. MY DEAR SISTER,--I was particularly glad to hear from you at this time, as I wanted to know how you was going on and whether you was the person concerning whom one of our preachers warily asked my advice. Whether you should part with your house and things pertaining to it is a very important question. The answering of this depends upon many circumstances which I am not yet acquainted with. But necessity has no law. It must be done, if your income will not otherwise answer the expenses. The last day of June I hope to be in Dublin, and the end of July in England. If I have a ready passage, probably I may have an opportunity of hiding myself a day or two with you '; but I do not desire any of the preachers to come to me till I send for them. If they do, I shall run away. I will not be in a crowd. Probably you know whether Mr. Saunderson is at Knares-borough. If he is, pray take up a cross for me. Write to him in my name, and tell him I desire him without delay or excuse to return to Bristol; otherwise he will disoblige me for ever.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To his Brother Charles LONDONDERRY, June 2, 1775. DEAR BROTHER,--I thought it strange that poor S. F. should leave me nine hundred pounds in debt. But it is stranger still that John Atlay should have paid sixteen hundred out of nine, and that I am an hundred and sixty pounds in debt notwithstanding! Mr. Wathen's method of radical cure I shall hardly try I am very easy, and that is enough. I am persuaded Billy Baynes's eye is single; therefore he will be useful. Our other friend should have known his own mind. We parted only for four pounds a year. I am exceeding glad that T. Rankin does not print till his papers have passed through our correction. I was afraid he would not have been so patient. Just what I thought at first, I think still of American affairs. If a blow is struck, I give America for lost, and perhaps England too. Our part is to continue instant in prayer. Sammy will not only be better but quite well if you do not kill him with kindness.

MY DEAR BROTHER,--I rejoice to hear that God has made Mr. Crook's labor of love profitable to some of you, and cannot blame you for desiring to have him with you a little longer.' I will write to Mr. Mason, the Assistant at Whitehaven, that Mr. Crook is coming to be a third preacher in that circuit. The three preachers may then visit the Isle month by month; so that you will have Mr. Crook one month in three. They will all teach you that religion is holy tempers and holy lives, and that the sum of all is love.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Alexander Hume, In Peeltown, Isle of Man. To John Fletcher LONDON, October 6, 1775. DEAR SIR,--I came hither a quarter of an hour ago. Your answer to Mr. Shirley will, I trust, do great good. I cannot but hope it will be of service to himself; for, to say the truth, he does not seem to be sensible that he has done anything amiss. He does not appear to have the least conception of having injured me. I was going to print an edition of your letters here; but I will wait till your Sixth Letter comes, to which I think it will be exceeding proper to annex that you wrote to me. I shall now be here and hereabouts for some months. The Lord give you a right judgement in all things, and evermore to rejoice in His holy comfort--I am, dear sir, Yours most affectionately. To his Brother Charles RAMSBURY PARK, October 17, 1775. DEAR BROTHER,--It takes time to set people's heads right; but we must despair of nothing. I have cast my bread upon the waters, and should have been content though there had been no present fruit. Some hours this morning I devote to 'Americanus.' What is material I shall endeavor to answer. It is well if I can give as good an account of everything else as of my change of judgement.

Having this occasion, I take the liberty to mention to your Lordship a thing of another nature. The nation is already involved in many troubles. And we know not how many more may follow. Are we able to extricate ourselves out of them all If we have so much wisdom and strength that we need no help from man, are we quite sure that we need no help from God I know your Lordship is not of that opinion. But if we need it, why are we ashamed to ask for it to ask for it in the manner our forefathers did, in solemn public fasting and prayer What if others fast for strife and contention! Is that any reason that we should not do it from a better motive Why may not the people of England as well as the people of Nineveh seek His help who hath all power in heaven and in earth

But I must lay one burthen more upon you (if a labor of love may be termed so); observe, I speak in your ear! Sister Snowden is good-natured, but is a consummate slut: explain with her largely on this head; convince her that it is both a sin and a shame. She came into a clean house at Stroud; let her take care to keep it clean for the honor of God--for the honor of her husband--for the honor of her country!--I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate brother. If Christopher Walker is willing to go into Gloucestershire, you may take his place in Nottinghamshire. To Isaac Andrews SCARBOROUGH, June 24, 1776. You misunderstood me. I never said or thought that every one who lives and died a Calvinist is damned. I believe thousands who lived and died in that opinion are now in Abraham's bosom. And yet I am persuaded that opinion has led many thousands to hell.--I am Yours affectionately. To Mr. Isaac Andrews, At Mr. Farrens, In Hunt Street, Mile End, Newtown. To James Barry WHITBY, June 24, 1776. DEAR JAMES,--The writer (I forget his name) does not say the local preachers talked blasphemy, but that several of them talk nonsense and that some of them speak against perfection. This must not be suffered. Fix a regular plan for the local preachers, and see that they keep it. You cannot be too exact in this and every other part of discipline.' This, however, I expect. You will see the fruit of your labor.--I am, with love to Sister Barry, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. James Barry, At the Preaching- house, In Barnard Castle. To Elizabeth Ritchie DONCASTER, July 15, 1776. MY DEAR BETSY,--I suppose you wait for my writing first. Nay, I hope this is the case; otherwise I should be afraid that you were fallen ill again. How is your health And how is your mind Do you find as near and as constant a communion with God as ever Are you always happy Does no circumstance interrupt or deaden your spirit of prayer Do you feel nothing contrary to resignation Can you say with your whole heart-- Determined all Thy will to obey, Thy blessings I restore; Give, Lord, or take Thy gifts away, I praise Thee evermore.

DEAR JOSEPH,--Undoubtedly Bishop Newton's book on the Prophecies is well written. [Thomas Newton, Bishop of Bristol 1761-82, Dean of St. Paul's 1768, See letter of March 10, 1763.] And he is certainly a man of sense and of considerable learning. This he has shown in what he writes on the Revelation. But with regard to the passage you mention I cannot agree with him at all. I believe the Romish antichrist is already so fallen that he will not again lift up his head in any considerable degree. The Bishop of Rome has little more power now than any other of the Italian Princes. I therefore concur with you in believing his tyranny is past never to return. But there is no comparison, either as to sense, learning, or piety, between Bishop Newton and Bengelius. The former is a mere child to the latter. I advise you to give another serious and careful reading .to that extract from his comment on the Revelation which concludes the Notes. There you have one uniform consistent [view] far beyond any I ever saw. And I verily believe the more deeply you consider it the more you will admire it. Does any one deny that a kite is bigger than a lark, or that Ogilvie has written a larger book than Virgil? And certainly there are larger magazines than ours; but it does not follow that they are better. Ours is reduced to half the price, and will contain forty-eight pages, which is the usual number for sixpence. We are called to propagate Bible religion through the land--that is, faith working by love, holy tempers and holy lives. Let us do it with our might!--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Miss March [26] NEAR LONDON, December 10, 1777.

MY DEAR SISTER, - It is no great matter whether those doubts arose in your mind by conversing with Mr. Hilton, [See letter of Nov. 16, 1777.] by reading (his oracle) Mr. Law's later works, or by your own reasoning. But certainly the subject is of the last importance, and deserves our most serious consideration. Indeed, nothing in the Christian system is of greater consequence than the doctrine of Atonement. It is properly the distinguishing point between Deism and Christianity. 'The scriptural scheme of morality,' said Lord Huntingdon, [Francis, Earl of Huntingdon, son of Lady Huntingdon, was a freethinker.] 'is what every one must admire; but the doctrine of Atonement I cannot comprehend.' Here, then, we divide. Give up the Atonement, and the Deists are agreed with us. This point, therefore, deserves to be more largely considered than my time will permit. But it is the less needful now because I have done it already in my letter to Mr. Law; to which I beg you will give a serious reading, whether you have read it before or no. It is in the nineteenth volume of the Works. [See letter of Jan. 6, 1756, sect. II. 2, 3, to William Law.] But it is true I can no more comprehend it than his lordship; perhaps I might say than the angels of God, than the highest created understanding. Our reason is here quickly bewildered. If we attempt to expatiate in this field, we 'find no end, in wandering mazes lost.' But the question is (the only question with me; I regard nothing else), What saith the Scripture It says, 'God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself'; that 'He made Him, who knew no sin, to be a sin-offering for us.' It says, 'He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities.' It says, 'We have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He is the atonement for our sins.'

Before I read it I cannot but mention a little remark which I have frequently made. There are many good-natured creatures among the Methodists who dearly love to make matches; and we have many other good-natured creatures who dearly love to make authors. Whereas it is the glory of the Methodists to have few authors. And a young man can hardly be too slow in this matter. To save her postage I write a line or two in yours to poor Sister Bastable. [The widow of Cornelius Bastable, See letter of Dec. 15, 1763.] Peace be with your spirits! - I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Corn. Bayley, At the New Room, In Bristol. To William Church [15] WALLINGFORD, October 13, 1778. DEAR BILLY, - The soul and the body make a man; the spirit and discipline make a Christian. Let John Watson [Watson was his superintendent.] and you agree together, and be exact in this wherever you go. Insist upon the observance of all the Society rules, and on the observance of all, even the least, of the band rules by all who meet in band. I give, for instance, no band tickets to any woman who wears either ruffles or an high-crowned cap. If any will not lay aside these rather than lose that blessed means of improvement, she is not worthy of it. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Bradburn [16] LONDON, October 17, 1778. DEAR SAMMY, - I think you judge exactly right. You are called to obey me as a son in the gospel. But who can prove that you are called so to obey any other person What I require, according to the twelfth Rule of an Helper, of John Hampson and you is that each of you in his turn spend four weeks, and no more, first at Cork and then at Bandon. When, therefore, you have been four weeks at Bandon, I desire you to return straight to Cork. And if John Hampson will not then go to Bandon, I will order one that will. Pray show this letter to Mr. Mackrill, [One of the Cork leaders and stewards.] whom I beg to assist you in this matter.

The Friday following the full moon is the watch-night, the next Sunday but one the lovefeast. Pass smoothly over the perverseness of those you have to do with, and go straight forward. It's abundantly sufficient that you have the testimony of a good conscience toward God. - I am, with tender love to Betsy, dear Sammy, Yours affectionately. To Mary Bishop [17] LONDON, October 18, 1778. MY DEAR MISS BISHOP, - I am not unwilling to write to i you even upon a tender subject, because you will weigh the matter fairly. And if you have a little prepossession (which who has not), yet you are willing to give it up to reason. The original Methodists were all of the Church of England; and the more awakened they were, the more zealously they adhered to it in every point, both of doctrine and discipline. Hence we inserted in the first Rules of our Society, 'They that leave the Church leave us.' And this we did, not as a point of prudence, but a point of conscience. We believe it utterly unlawful to separate from the Church unless sinful terms of communion were imposed; just as did Mr. Philip Henry, [The favorite pupil of Busby at Westminster School preached as a Nonconformist 1672-81. See letter of June 14, 1786.] and most of those holy men that were contemporary with them. 'But the ministers of it do not preach the gospel.' Neither do the Independent or Anabaptist ministers. Calvinism is not the gospel; nay, it is farther from it than most of the sermons I hear at church. These are very frequently un-evangelical; but those are anti-evangelical. They are (to say no more) equally wrong; and they are far more dangerously wrong. Few of the Methodists are now in danger from imbibing error from the Church ministers; but they are in great danger of imbibing the grand error - Calvinism from the Dissenting ministers. Perhaps thousands have done it already, most of whom have drawn back to perdition. I see more instances of this than any one else can do; and on this ground also exhort all who would keep to the Methodists, and from Calvinism, 'Go to the church, and not to the meeting.'

ABERDEEN, June 13, 1779. DEAR TOMMY, - I think it the safest way not to permit any Dissenting teacher to preach in any of our preaching-houses. [Carlill was Assistant in Oxfordshire. See letter of Jan. 23, 1778.] We have suffered so much by this already that we ought to beware of it for the time to come. I am glad to hear that poor John Taylor has recovered his ground. Now let him watch and pray that he may no more enter into temptation. It will be some time before I shall be able to fix the stations of the preachers. - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Carlill, At Mr. Morris's, In Withey, Oxfordshire. To Samuel Bardsley [8] EDINBURGH, June 19, 1779. DEAR SAMMY, - I suppose John Atlay has paid the money. He is cautious to an extreme. I hear what angry men say or write; but I do not often regard it. Lemonade will cure any disorder of the bowels (whether it be with or without purging) in a day or two. You do well to spread the prayer-meetings up and down. They seldom are in vain. Honest Andrew Dunlop [The Assistant at Limerick.] writes me word that the book money is stolen. Pray desire him to take care that the knave does not steal his teeth. - I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Samuel Bradburn EDINBURGH, June 19, 1779. DEAR SAMMY, - I hear what angry men say or write, but I do not often regard it. I think Sister Ward and Malenoir counsel you well. I love you the better for loving them. You do well to spread the prayer-meetings up and down. They seldom are in vain. - I am, with kind love to my dear Betsy, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Samuel Bradburn [9] EPWORTH, July 10, 1779.

DEAR SAMMY, - It is the judgment of many that, since the time of the Invincible Armada, Great Britain and Ireland were never in such danger from foreign enemies as they are at this day. Humanly speaking, we are not able to contend with them either by sea or land. They are watching over us as a leopard over his prey, just ready to spring upon us. They are mighty and rage horribly: but the Lord that dwelleth on high is mightier; and now is the time, at this awful crisis, for the inhabitants of the land to learn righteousness. I make no doubt but you improve the important opportunity and lift up your voice like a trumpet. Who knoweth but God may be entreated of us as He was for Nineveh Our brethren in various parts of England have set apart an hour in a week for prayer (namely, from eight till nine on Sunday evening) in behalf of our King and country. Should not the same thing be done in Ireland too particularly at Cork and Bandon. Those who have not opportunity of meeting at the time may pray part of the hour in private. Meantime there is a text for: you: 'I will not destroy it for ten's sake.' - I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Duncan McAllum EPWORXH, July 10, 1779. DEAR DUNCAN, - This is the circumstance which puzzles the case: who can preach in Erse but you Cannot you, then, think of any preacher, whom you love, and who is a zealous, active man Inverness should by all means be a circuit by itself, including as many towns as you please, north and south. I wish you would think of it, and send me the plan to London. Did not Sister Anderson receive my letter I wonder she did not answer. Joseph Moore utterly denies he ever offered her marriage. [Inverness was separated from Aberdeen at the Conference of 1779, and McAllum made superintendent. Moore was the second preacher at Edinburgh. He desisted from traveling at this Conference.] I desired her to tell me the very words he spoke or wrote.-I am, dear Duncan, Yours affectionately. To Mr. Duncan McAllum, At Mr. John Watson's, Slater, Inverness. To John Bredin [10] LONDON, July 24, 1779.

You cannot be too diligent in restoring the bands. No Society will continue lively without them. But they will again fly in pieces if you do not attend to them continually. [See letter of Oct. 24, 1788.] I go to Ireland in spring. I shall not . . . otherwise I shall. Your friend and brother. To Edwal. Jackson, In Barnard Castle, County Durham. To a Friend CITY ROAD, January 25, 1781. DEAR SIR, -- Yesterday, looking over the Monthly Review for last October, at page 307, I read the following words: Sir William's vindication [Lieut-General Sir William Howe had criticized Galloway’s Letters to a Nobleman, and cast serious reflections upon him. See Green’s Bibliography, No. 352; and letters of June 8, 1780, and Aug. 18, 1790.] (of his own conduct) is not a feeble attempt to rescue his reputation from the obloquy thrown upon it. Mr. Galloway’s book is here answered paragraph by paragraph, and several misrepresentations of important facts and circumstances proved. I cannot quite agree with this. I think (1) no unjust obloquy has been thrown upon it; (2) that his vindication is a very feeble attempt to justify his conduct; (3) that he has not answered in a satisfactory manner any one paragraph of Mr. Galloway’s book; and (4) that he has not proved any misrepresentation of any one important fact or circumstance. I think also that the account he gives of Mr. Galloway is a very feeble attempt to blacken his character; for a full confutation whereof I refer the candid reader to his own answer. As to the scurrility Sir William speaks of, I see not the least trace of it in anything Mr. G. has published. He is above it. He is no ‘venal instrument of calumny’; he abhors calumny as he does rebellion. But let him answer for himself; read only the tracts here referred to, and then condemn him if you can. -- I am, dear sir, Yours, &c. PS. -- I have been frequently attacked by the Monthly Reviewers, but did not answer because we were not on even ground; but that difficulty is now over: whatever they object in their Monthly Review I can answer in my monthly Magazine; and I shall think it my duty so to do when the objection is of any importance. To Samuel Bardsley NEAR LONDON, February 10, 1781.

MY DEAR MISS LOXDALE, -- As it has pleased God to restore you in a measure to what you enjoyed once, I make no doubt but He will restore all which you then had, and will add to it what you never had yet. There is no end of His mercies. He will give ‘exceeding abundantly beyond all that you are able to ask or think.’ If that sickness you mention came (as is the case with some) only at the time of private prayer, I should incline to think it was preternatural, a messenger of Satan permitted to buffet you. But as you find it likewise at other times, when you feel any vehement emotion of mind, it seems to be (partly at least) a natural effect of What is called weakness of nerves. But even in this case the prayer of faith will not fail to the ground. You may ask with resignation; and if it be best, this cup will be removed from you. You have, indeed, reason to rejoice over your sister. Is she not given you in answer to prayer And have you not encouragement even from this very thing to expect that more of your family will be given you Those are true words, when in His own strength you wrestle with God, -- My powerful groans Thou canst not bear, Nor stand the violence of my prayer, My prayer omnipotent. You remind me of what occurred when my dear Hetty Roe first mentioned you to me. I almost wondered I should feel so much regard for one I had never seen! But I can taste your spirit, and rejoice to find that you are so near, my dear Miss Loxdale, to Yours in tender affection. To Mary Bishop NEAR LEEDS, July 17, 1781. MY DEAR SISTER, -- When the school began at Publow, [See letter of May 21 to her.] it was in all respects a school after my own heart, conducted exactly on the same principles as that of Miss Bosanquet at Leytonstone. But it declined from its original simplicity, I know not how, by slow and insensible degrees indeed, so insensible that I hardly know what to blame, and so know not how to cure it.

I wish you to retain a close acquaintance with Mr. -----. He is an upright man. And I am in hopes we may now set his head right [See letters of July 12, 1782, and Nov. 21, 1783, to her.]; as he that confounded his interests is gone to another world. There is no danger of your taking any step that is materially wrong if you continue instant in prayer. But I know so little of the thing you refer to that I can say little about it. Only do not expect that any creature will increase your happiness any farther than it increases your knowledge and love of God. -- I am, my dear Nancy, Yours affectionately. To Thomas Rutherford [3] LONDON, July 29, 1782. DEAR TOMMY, -- I doubt not but the work of God will revive in Dublin; for Brother Blair and you will not only preach the full Methodist doctrine, but enforce our discipline in every point and preach abroad at every opportunity. Pray tell Richard Calent I thank him for his letter. I have a letter likewise from George Pellet, of Eyre Court, and am glad to hear his daughter is so well married. Now I speak a word to you in your ear. Thomas Bethell [See letter of Oct. 19.] has been basely used. James Deaves is deeply prejudiced against him, and has prejudiced many others. Do all you can by little and little to remove that prejudice. He is a downright honest man, and ‘a troublesome man’ only to mongrel Methodists. I thank nobody for hindering his prayer-meeting, which was a direct affront to me. Give him the note which I have enclosed. -- I am, with love to Sister Rutherford, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Nuttal LONDON, July 31, 1782.

To William Robarts BRISTOL, September 19, 1782. Strange! Have you not an estate Does it bring you in nothing Have you not a large trade Do you gain nothing thereby Then how can you avoid ‘laying up treasures on earth’ I want to know: I desire to justify you. To this Robarts replies: REVERAND SIR, -- In this respect I know nobody but you that condemns me; my heart, my God does not. I therefore need no justification. I have already spoke and wrote, but to no avail; therefore desire to be silent till you can cast one glance of charity, at least of candor, though I am not worthy of your address or subscription. I hope you will for this once admit the name of your once esteemed W. R. [See letter of Aug. 3, 1783.] To Joseph Taylor BRISTOL, September 24, 1752. DEAR JOSEPH, -- Joseph Andrew writes to me about his keeping the books still. I answer, ‘It was determined at the Conference that the books all over England should be kept by the Assistant in each circuit.’ [See letters of Sept. 9.] I believe he has discharged this office well; but I believe you will discharge it better. You do not expect to do your duty without giving offence Recommend the Magazines, Kempis, and the Primitive Physick in earnest. And take care of the bands and the children. -- I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Joseph Taylor, At the Preaching- house, In St. Ives, Cornwall. To Penelope Newman BRISTOL, October 1, 1782. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I have often been concerned at your being cooped up in a corner; now you are likely to have a wider field of action. Only the danger will be lest, when you have more opportunity, you should have less desire of doing good. This is the case of many pious persons when they marry, and I do not wonder at it. I should rather wonder it is not the case of all. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Hester Ann Roe [11] BRISTOL, October 1, 1782.

I am glad Brother Blair [Andrew Blair, his new colleague.] and you converse freely together: it will preserve you from many snares. There can be no properer person for a trustee than Andrew Laffan. [One of Whitefield’s converts at Cork in 1751. Wesley appointed him a steward in 1785, and stayed with him in 1787. See Journal, vii. 74d, 271n; Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 83, 399, 429; and letter of Feb. 9, 1789.] I have hope that Robert Blake [See letters of Dec. 31, 1782 (to Yewdall), and Feb. 23, 1783.] will be more useful than ever. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Cricket [5] LONDON, February 10, 1783. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Many years ago the Society at Barnard Castle, as large as that at Derry, was remarkably dead. When Samuel Meggot (now with God) came to them, he advised them to keep a day of fasting and prayer. A flame broke out and spread through all the circuit [In 1763. See his account in Journal, v. I7-19; and letter of July 30, 1775.]; nor is it extinguished to this day. I advise you to do the same at Derry. On Sunday morning reprove strongly their unfaithfulness and unfruitfulness, and desire all that fear God to humble themselves with fasting on the Friday following. I am much inclined to hope a flame will break out in Londonderry likewise. But you must immediately resume the form at least of a Methodist Society. I positively forbid you or any preacher to be a leader; rather put the most insignificant person in each class to be the leader of it. And try if you cannot persuade three men, if no more, and three women to meet in band. Hope to the end! You shall see better days. -- I am Yours affectionately. PS.--The plainer you speak the more good you will do. Derry will bear plain speaking. I am just as well as I was forty years ago. To Ellen Gretton DEPTFORD, February 16, 1783.

MY DEAR SISTER, -- Hitherto God has helped us. As the weather last night was exceeding rough, the captain did not think advisable to sail; for which I was not sorry. We expect to sail this morning, as it seems the storm is over; and probably we shall see Helvoetsluys to-morrow. Sally and my other companions are in perfect health, and are all in good spirits; knowing that they are under His protection whom the winds and the seas obey. -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother.

MY DEAR SISTER, -- It gives me much pleasure to find you are still happy in God, leaning upon your Beloved. [See letter of Aug. 4, 1787.] O may you increase therein more and more 1 May you be more and more holy, and you will be more and more happy. This I long for, even your perfection, your growing up in all things into Him that is our Head. O may you never endeavor Loves all-sufficient sea to raise By drops of creature happiness! I send you a little book or two by Mr. Clarke. If I could be of any service to you in anything, it would be an unspeakable satisfaction to, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Howton [7] BRISTOL, October 3, 1783. MY DEAR SISTER, -- There will never be any trouble about the child, whether anything is paid or not; you need not be apprehensive of any demand upon that account. Those which I saw at your house were a company of lovely children both in their persons and in their behavior. Some of them I am in hopes of meeting there again if I should live till spring. The account you gave of that sick maiden is very remarkable; and her spirit must, I trust, influence others. It is the glory of the people called Methodists that they condemn none for their opinions or modes of worship. They think and let think, and insist upon nothing but faith working by love.--I am, with love to Sister Price, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Howton, At Mrs. Price’s Boarding-school, Worcester. To the Preachers in America [8] BRISTOL, October 3, 1783. DEAR BROTHER, -- 1. Let all of you be determined to abide by the Methodist doctrine and discipline published in the four volumes of Sermons and the Notes upon the New Testament, together with the Large Minutes of the Conference. 2. Beware of preachers coming from Great Britain or Ireland without a full recommendation from me. Three of our traveling preachers have eagerly desired to go to America; but I could not approve of it by any means, because I am not satisfied that they thoroughly like either our discipline or our doctrine. I think they differ from our judgment in one or both. Therefore, if these or any other come without my recommendation, take care how you receive them.

MY DEAR BETSY, -- I love to see anything that comes from you, although it be upon a melancholy occasion. Nothing can be done in the Court of King's Bench till the latter end of next week at the soonest, and till then I am trying all milder means which may possibly avail. If nothing can be done this way, we can but fight at Sharp’s. But prayer and fasting are of excellent uses; for if God be for us, who can be against us Probably I may visit you this winter. -- I always am, dear Betsy, Yours most affectionately. To Thomas Longley [11] LONDON, November 5, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- What you mention is an exceeding odd case. I hardly remember the like. I refer Samuel Edwards wholly to you. If you cannot trust him, he must go home. If you can, you may receive him again as a fellow laborer -- that is, if he is sensible of his fault, of his very uncommon pride and stubbornness and unadvisableness, contrary both to religion and to reason. But you can’t receive him unless he promises for the time to come to take your advice or reproof, not as an affront, not as ‘trampling him under-foot,’ but as a favor and an act of real kindness. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Longley, At Mr. M. Dobinson’s, In Derby. To Mrs. Barton LONDON, Noveraber 6, 1783.

Therefore you and my dear Sarah have great need to weep over him. But have you not also need to weep for yourselves For have you given God your hearts Are you holy in heart Have you the kingdom of God within you righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost the only true religion under heaven O cry unto Him that is mighty to save for this one thing needful! Earnestly and diligently use all the means which God hath put plentifully into your hands! Otherwise I should not at all wonder if God permits you also to be given up to a strong delusion. But whether you were or were not, whether you are Protestant or Papist, neither you nor he can ever enter into glory, unless you are now cleansed from all pollution of flesh and spirit, and perfect holiness in the fear of God! - I am, dear Charles, Your affectionate Uncle. To James Rogers ABEEDEEN, May 5, 1784. DEAR JEMMY, - All letters to any part of Scotland must go through Edinburgh. Therefore it is sufficient to direct thither till the 15th instant, and then to Newcastle-on-Tyne. I objected to nothing in that sermon but a few tart expressions concerning the clergy. When these are altered, I believe it will be of use; and the more of them you can sell the better. You have done well in restoring the meetings at five in the morning. These are the glory of the Methodists. My kind love to Hetty Roe. [Whom he married on Aug. 19. See letters of June 5, 1783 (to John Valton), and Nov. 7, 1784.] - I am, dear Jemmy, Your affectionate brother and friend. To William Black [13] INVENESS, May 11, 1784.

DEAR ADAM, - I do not remember ever to have seen that letter from Norwich, else I should certainly have answered it. If you build at St. Austell, take care that you do not make the house too small. And pray let those directions be observed which are given in the Large Minutes of the Conference. It gives me pleasure to hear that the work of the Lord so prospers in your hands. It will do so as long as you do not shun to declare the whole counsel of God. There is one part of it which seems to be almost forgotten by the Methodists throughout the three kingdoms-that is, the Christian duty of fasting; and yet our Lord annexes a peculiar promise even to secret fasting: 'The Father that seeth in secret, He shall reward thee openly.' You might begin to recommend this by reading to every Society the sermon concerning fasting. [See Works, v. 344-60.] The blessing would soon follow. - I am, dear Adam, Yours affectionately. To Robert Carr Brackenbury LONDON, February 15, 1785.

MY DEAR SISTER, - I sailed from Dublin Bay on Monday morning, came into Holyhead Bay about noon, and on Friday in the afternoon (stopping only a few hours at Chester) was brought safe to London. After the Conference (at which I should be glad to see Mr. Pugh or Mr. Dodwell, or both [Mrs. Christian was a friend of William Dodwell and John Pugh, for whom see letter of Aug. 14, 1782,]) I shall with God's help visit the West of England. The gravel may be easily prevented by eating a small crust of bread the size of a walnut every morning, fasting. But your nervous disorders will not be removed without-constant exercise. If you can have no other, you should daily ride a wooden horse, which is only a double plank nine or ten feet long, properly placed upon two tressels. This has removed many distempers and saved abundance of lives. [See letters of March 13, 1788 and Aug. 18, 1790.] I should advise you likewise to use nettle tea (six or eight leaves) instead of foreign tea for a month, and probably you will see a great change. No person will hereafter be present at any Conference but whom I invite by name to come and confer with me. So we will have no more contention there. [The contention seems to have been due to the omission of certain names from the Deed of Declaration. See letter of July 8 to Thomas Wride.] - I am, with love to Brother Christian, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. Our Conference begins on Tuesday the 26th instant; but the first two days only traveling preachers are present. To Arthur Keene LONDON, July 31, 1785.

After we have observed a day of fasting and prayer, I have known the most violent commotions quelled at once. But doubtless all probable means are to be used. One in particular it might be worth while to attempt - namely, to soften the spirit of that angry magistrate. [See letter of Nov. 24.] God has the hearts of all men in His hand; and if the heart of that warrior was once turned, then those who have hitherto been encouraged by him would vanish away like smoke. It is not improbable but your answer to that scandalous libel may be one means of abeting his prejudice. - I am, dear sir, Your very affectionate friend and brother. To Mary Cooke [8] BRISTOL, September 24, 1785.

My best service attends Mr. L----, who I hope will be holier and happier by means of his late union. He certainly will if Mrs. L---- and he provoke one another to love and to good works. I do not despair of having the pleasure to wait on them at the Devizes. My best wishes wait likewise on Miss S----. I hope you two are one. Indeed, I am, my dear Miss Cooke, Yours in tender affection. To John McKersey and James Byron [17] LONDON, December 14, 1785. If you do not choose to obey me, you need not: I will let you go when you please and send other preachers in your place. If you do choose to stay with me, never sing more than twice, once before and once after sermon. I have given Mr. Wride directions concerning the singers; pray assist him in seeing these directions observed. You are young; I am in pain for you. Follow his advice. He is older and wiser than you. You would do well to meet the children and the select society, though it be a cross. I will thank you if you will do all you can to strengthen Mr. Wride's hands. Beware of strengthening any party against him. Let you three be one. Nothing will give greater satisfaction than this to Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Wride LONDON, December 14, 1785. DEAR TOMMY, - Have patience with the young men, and they will mend upon your hands. But remember! soft and fair goes far. For twenty years and upwards we had good morning congregations at Norwich; but they might begin at six till Lady Day. I desire Brother Byron [See W.H.S. i. 140-5; and previous letter.] to try what he can do: better days will come. I pray let that doggerel hymn be no more sung in our chapel. [See letter of Oct. 8.] If they do not soon come to their senses at Norwich, I will remove you to Colchester Be mild! Be serious! - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Editor of the 'Gentleman's Magazine' CITY ROAD, December 24, 1785. MR. URBAN, - If you will insert the following in your Magazine, you will oblige your humble servant.

MY DEAR SISTER, - You do well to write. I am well pleased to hear you do not let go the blessing which God has given you. See that you hold fast the beginning of your confidence steadfast unto the end. And you know there are still greater blessings behind I There is no end of His goodness. If any of our brethren in Sligo ['I presume it was to Sarah M'Kim, of Sligo' (C. H. Crookshank).] will give you a guinea, he may receive it again of Mr. Rogers in Dublin. - I am, dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To the Mayor of Liverpool [2] BRISTOL, July 29, 1786. SIR, - Some preachers in connection with me have thought it their duty to call sinners to repentance even in the open air. If they have violated any law thereby, let them suffer the penalty of that law. But if not, whoever molests them on that account will be called to answer it in His Majesty's Court of King's Bench. I have had a suit already in that court, with a magistrate (Heap), and if I am forced to it am ready to commence another. - I am, sir, Your obedient servant. To Mr. Torry BRISTOL, July 30, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - We [Conference met in Bristol on July 25 and closed on Aug. 1.] entirely disapprove of such a division of the Hull Circuit as has been sent to us. We totally reject the thought of a preacher staying a fortnight together in one place. There is no precedent of this in England, nor shall be as long as I live. I have desired those of our Brethren who are acquainted with this and the neighboring county to draw up a Methodist Plan. [The following is the Plan, with the original spelling: Hull, Wednesday. Shorley, Thursday. Wo'thering, Week Friday. Ross or Remswell, Saturday. Paterington, Sunday. Melton, Munday. Cave, Tuesday. Gilberdike, Wednesday. Laxton, Thursday. Esterington, Friday. Newbold, Saturday. Beverley, Sunday & Munday. Theton, Tuesday. Hull, he that is in Hull. Skitby, Tuesday. Cottingham, Wednesday. Newland, Thursday. Hasel, Friday. Pocklington, Saturday & Sunday. Br. Wilton,} Munday. Grimston,} Tuesday. Acklam, Wednesday. Bugthorp, Thursday. Fankioss, Friday. Assalby, Saturday. Howden, Sunday noon. Spanden, Sunday night. Hoggerthorp, Munday. Seetown, Tuesday. Holm, Wednesday & Thursday. Numberaura, Friday. Shipton, Saturday. Weigton, Sunday noon & night. Drifteld, Monday. Gatton, Tuesday. Frodingham, Wednesday. Nafferton, Thursday. Reeston, Friday.

But I really think it would be the most Christian and the most prudent way to conclude this matter amicably. I should advise you not to force the course of the river, but to let the Valle parish alone. Shake off the dust of your feet against them, and go where you are welcome. The main point seems to be to remove the prejudice of the Batlift. If possible, this should be done by fair means. Law is the last and the worst means, though it is sometimes necessary. But I should expect far more from prayer. I will order Mr. Atlay to-day to send the books. Peace be with your spirits ! -- I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Funnell November 24, 1787. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Whatever assistance I can give those generous men who join to oppose that execrable trade I certainly shall give. I have printed a large edition of the Thoughts on Slavery, [See letter in Aug. to Thomas Clarkson.] and dispersed them to every part of England. But there will be vehement opposition made, both by slave-merchants and slave-holders; and they are mighty men. But our comfort is, He that dwelleth on high is mightier. --I am Your affectionate brother. To Alexander Suter [15] LONDON, November 24, 1787. My DEAR BROTHER, -- It was an idle thing to send cassocks into Scotland, where the ministers do not use them. But a cassock may be easily made into a gown only adding to it a yard or two of stuff. As we have not yet made a precedent of any one that was not ordained administering baptism, it is better to go slow and sure. Our Sunday schools at Bolton contain upward of eight hundred children, and are all taught by our own brethren without pay. I love Sunday schools much. They have done abundance of good. I will give you Instructions and Tokens for Children. We are just now printing a large edition. O be zealous for God! -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev. Mr. Al. Suter, Aberdeen. To Francis Asbury [16] LONDON, November 25, 1787.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You are in the right. You can have nothing at all to do with the chapel upon those terms. [Yewdull was at Musselburgh. See letter of Nov. 1.] Nay, a dovecote above it would be an insufferable nuisance, as it would fill the whole place with fleas. ‘What is to be done then’ Why, continue instant in prayer, and God will show what you are to do. But he that believeth doth not make haste. I cannot advise you to set about building an house unless you could find one or two responsible men who would engage themselves to finish the building in such a manner for an hundred and fifty pounds. Otherwise I think you would be more bold than wise. -- I am, with kind love to Mrs. Yewdull, Your affectionate brother.

I do not know (unless it unfits us for the duties of life) that we can have too great a sensibility of human pain. Me-thinks I should be afraid of losing any degree of this sensibility. I had a son-in-law (now in Abraham's bosom) who quitted his profession, that of a surgeon, for that very reason; because he said it made him less sensible of human pain. [Was this Noah Vazeille] And I have known exceeding few persons who have carried this tenderness of spirit to excess. I recollect but one who was constrained to leave off in a great measure visiting the sick because he could not see any one in pain without fainting away. Mr. Charles Perronet was the first person I was acquainted with who was favored with the same experience as the Marquis De Renty ['I bear in me ordinarily an experimental verity and a plenitude of the most Holy Trinity, which exalts me to a simple view of God.' (Wesley's Extract of the Life of Monsieur De Renty). See letter of Oct. 3, 1731.] with regard to the ever-blessed Trinity, Miss Ritchie was the second, Miss Roe (now Mrs. Rogers) the third. I have as yet found but a few instances; so that this is not, as I was at first apt to suppose, the common privilege of all that are 'perfect in love.' [Compare letters of June 11 1777 (to Hannah Ball), and July 4, 2787, and Lady Maxwell's letters to Alexander Mather in her Life, pp. 359-61.] Pardon me, my dear friend, for my heart is tenderly concerned for you, if I mention one fear I have concerning you, lest, on conversing with some, you should be in any degree warped from Christian simplicity. O do not wish to hide that you are a Methodist! Surely it is best to appear just what you are. I believe you will receive this as a proof of the sincerity with which I am, my dear Lady, Your ever affectionate servant. To Ann Bolton BRECON, August 15, 1788.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- To-morrow evening I am to set out for London. So I still creep up and down, as I would fain do a little work before the night cometh wherein no man can work. I commend you much for not suffering your daughter to go you know not where. What would it profit her to gain a thousand pounds and then lose her soul which could scarce fail to be the consequence of placing her in an ungodly family. I do not know anything in Bristol that would suit; but very probably I may find something in London. I should be glad if I could have a conversation with Mr. Cowper. I verily think there would be no great difference between us. [See letters of July 22 and Dec. 6 to Churchey.] September 27, LONDON. I think it is a pity to burn the poems. There are many good lines in them. [See letter of Aug. 8 to him.] So there are in the Dedication, which I thought I had sent you with the rest. I will send two of the Prayer-Books by the first opportunity. Peace be with you and yours.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Chutehey, Near the Hay, Brecon. To Lady Maxwell [18] LONDON, September 30, 1788. My DEAR LADY, -- For many years a great person professed and I believe had a great regard for me. [The Countess of Huntingdon.] I therefore believed it my duty to speak with all freedom, which I did in a long letter. But she was so displeased that she said to a friend, 'I hate Mr. Wesley above all the creatures upon earth.' I now believe it my duty to write freely to you. Will it have the same effect Certainly I would not run the hazard, did I not regard your happiness more than your favor. Therefore I will speak. May God enable you not only to pardon it, but to profit thereby! Indeed, unless you profit by it, I do not expect you to forgive. Be pleased to observe I do not affirm anything; I only beg you calmly to consider, Would it be fight for me to propagate a doctrine which I believed to be false particularly if it were not only false but dangerous to the souls of men, frequently hindering their growth in grace, stopping their pursuit of holiness

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It does not appear to me that you have taken any wrong step with regard to North Shields. I think (as you do) that our friend whom you mention is prejudiced in favor of those warm men. As to T. Gibson, you are a little prejudiced against him. He is not a turbulent man. But he sees blots, and would fain cure them if he could. I pray, talk with him alone. You do not know him. However, for the present, the General Stewards may stand as they are. But see that they do their duty.--I am, with love to Sister Mill, dear Peter, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Mill, At the Orphan House, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. To Mrs. Charles Wesley CITY ROAD, December 21, 1788. 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 Sarah Mallet LONDON, December 26, 1788.

DEAR SAMMY, -- You are a compassionate man; and when you undertake a good work you do it with your might. For God's sake, for the gospel's sake, and for my sake, put a full stop to this vile affair, the prosecution of poor Sally Brown. [She probably met in Bower's class. Wesley's Diary has several entries. See Journal Index; and letter of Sept. 20, 1789.] If it is not stopped, I shall be under a necessity of excluding from our Society not only Eliz. Sharp but Joseph Bowers also. She would not dare to proceed thus without his connivance, if not encouragement. He can stop her if he will. She will not break with him. I will not enter into merits of the case at all. (That I have done already.) But I insist upon this. All of them are or were members of our Society. Therefore they were not at liberty to go to law with each other, but are under an obligation to stand to the decision of me or the Assistant. I pray, spare no pains. Put a full end to the business, that the scandal may be removed. Peace be with you and yours! -- I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Jonathan Crowther [23] CORK, May 20, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- 'Sessions!' 'elders!' We Methodists have no such customs, neither any of the Churches of God that are under my care. I require you, Jonathan Crowther, immediately to disband that session (so called) at Glasgow. Discharge them from meeting any more. And if they will leave the Society, let them leave it. We acknowledge only preachers, stewards, and leaders among us, over whom the Assistant in each circuit presides. You ought to have kept to the Methodist plan from the first. Who had any authority to vary from it If the people of Glasgow or any other place are weary of us, we will leave them to themselves. But we are willing to continue their servants, for Christ's sake, according to our own discipline, but no other. -- I am, dear Jonathan, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Armstrong LIMERICK, May 14, 1789.

5. About the year 1744 a clergyman offered me a chapel in West Street, Seven Dials (formerly a French church), and I began to officiate there on Sunday mornings and evenings. We did the same (my brother and I alternately) soon after at the French church in Spitalfields as soon as it came into our hands. This we continued from that time; and no one in England ever thought or called it leaving the Church. It was never esteemed so by Archbishop Potter, with whom I had the happiness of conversing freely; nor by Archbishop Secker, who was throughly acquainted with every step we took; as was likewise Dr. Gibson, then Bishop of London; and that great man Bishop Lowth. Nor did any of these four venerable men ever blame me for it in all the conversations I had with them. Only Archbishop Potter once said, 'Those gentlemen are irregular; but they have done good, and I pray God to bless them.' 6. It may be observed that all this time, if my brother or I were ill, I desired one of our other preachers, though not ordained, to preach in either of the chapels after reading part of the Church Prayers. This both my brother and I judged would endear the Church Prayers to them; whereas, if they were used wholly to extemporary prayer, they would naturally. contract a kind of contempt if not aversion to forms of prayer: so careful were we from the beginning to prevent their leaving the Church. 7. It is true Bishop Gibson once said (but it was before I had ever seen him), 'Why do not these gentlemen leave the Church' The answer was very ready: 'Because they dare not; they do not leave the Church because they believe it is their duty to continue therein.'

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Your letter has given me great satisfaction. My fears are vanished away. I am persuaded Brother Wray, Stretton, and you will go on hand in hand, and that each of you will take an equal share in the common labor. I do so myself. I labor now just as I did twenty or forty years ago. By all means proceed by common consent, and think not of separating from the Church of England. I am more and more confirmed in the judgment which our whole Conference passed on that head in the year 1758. -- I am, my dear brother, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Samuel Bardsley [20] NORTHAMPTON, November 25, 1789. DEAR SAMMY, -- Yours of the 21st instant was sent to me hither. You have done exceedingly well to take the upper room. If need be, we will help you out. Let us have no law if it be possible to avoid it: that is the last and the worst remedy. Try every other remedy first. It is a good providence that the Mayor at Bideford is a friendly man. Prayer will avail much in all cases. Encourage our poor people to be instant in prayer. Take care of poor Michael; and do not forget, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To Hannah Ball [21] LONDON, November 26, 1789.

MANCHESTER, April 4, 1790. DEAR TOMMY, -- I did not approve of Dr. Coke's making collections either in yours or any other circuit. I told him so, and I am not well pleased with his doing it. It was very ill done. It is exceeding probable that sea-bathing will be of use to Brother Simpson; especially if he be temperate in all things, particularly in that which one hardly knows how to name. [William Simpson was Taylor's colleague in Hull.] I do not know what you mean concerning talking 'about the Church.' I advise all our brethren that have been brought up in the Church to continue there; and there I leave the matter. The Methodists are to spread life among all denominations; which they will do till they form a separate sect. -- I am, with love to Sister Taylor, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Printer LIVERPOOL, April 8, 1790. SIR, -- It is a melancholy consideration that there is no country in Europe, or perhaps in the habitable world, where the horrid crime of self-murder is so common as it is in England! One reason of this may be that the English in general are more ungodly and more impatient than other nations. Indeed, we have laws against it, and officers with juries are appointed to inquire into every fact of the kind. And these are to give in their verdict upon oath whether the self-murderer was sane or insane. If he is brought in insane, he is excused, and the law does not affect him. By this means it is totally eluded; for the juries constantly bring him in insane. So the law is not of the least effect, though the farce of a trial still continues. This morning I asked a coroner, 'Sir, did you ever know a jury bring in the deceased felo-de-se' He answered, 'No, sir; and it is a pity they should.' What, then, is the law good for If all self-murderers are mad, what need of any trial concerning them

But it is plain our ancestors did not think so, or those laws had never been made. It is true every self-murderer is mad in some sense, but not in that sense which the law intends. This fact does not prove him mad in the eye of the law. The question is, Was he mad in other respects If not, every juror is perjured who does not bring him infelo-de-se. But how can this vile abuse of the law be prevented and this execrable crime effectually discouraged By a very easy method. We read in ancient history that at a certain period many of the women in Sparta murdered themselves. This fury increasing, a law was made that the body of every woman that killed herself should be exposed naked in the streets. The fury ceased at once. Only let a law be made and rigorously executed that the body of every self-murderer, lord or peasant, shall be hanged in chains, and the English fury will cease at once. [The letter appeared in a London paper.] To George. Sykes [15] LIVERPOOL, April 8, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- What says our Lord 'Let the dead bury their dead; but preach thou the gospel.' O refuse not Him that speaketh, but take up thy cross and follow Him! -- I am Your affectionate brother. To his Niece Sarah Wesley [16] BOLTON, April 11, 1790. MY DEAR SALLY, -- Persons may judge I am not so well as I was once because I seldom preach early in the morning. But I have been no otherwise indisposed than by the heat and dryness of my mouth, which usually begins between one and two and ends between seven and eight. [See letter of June 1 to Henry Moore.] In other respects I am no worse but rather better than I was six months ago. How much care must we take of these houses of clay that they sink not into the dust before the time! All the advice which the art of man can give, my sister will hear from Dr. Whitehead. But, indeed, in most chronical cases vain is the help of man!

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I concur in the judgment of my brother that the using of the form of prayer will tend to unite our people to the Church [Charles Wesley's view. The fourth Sunday they were to take the Sacrament at Church.] rather than to separate them from it, especially if you earnestly insist on their going to church every fourth Sunday. I am very indifferent concerning the preaching-house, and shall not concern myself about it any more. I have lost 10 by it already, although to no purpose. If anything more is done concerning it, it must be done by the people at Sarum themselves. I am, with love to Sister Thom, dear Billy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Dr. Pretyman Tomline, Bishop of Lincoln [22] HULL, June 26, 1790. MY LORD, -- It may seem strange that one who is not acquainted with your Lordship should trouble you with a letter. But I am constrained to do it; I believe it is my duty both to God and your Lordship. And I must speak plain; having nothing to hope or fear in this world, which I am on the point of leaving.

MY DEAR SALLY, -- Will it not be best for you to spend a little time at Margate [She went there. See next letter.] as soon as possible I hope to be in town on Saturday, October 3. And before the end of October you should be at the City Road, if not [already gone] to Twickenham. I believe sea-bathing will brace your nerves; but I pray [you not to drink] sea-water. [See letter of Sept. 8, 1788.] If you look into the Primitive Physick, you will see what] is the diet-drink [In the Primitive Physick under the head of 'Scorbutick Sores' is given a drink to be taken 'fasting and at four in the afternoon.' This is probably the 'diet-drink' to which he refers. It is called 'a diet-drink' in the later editions. See W.H.S. iv. 72.] therein prescribed for scorbutic sores; though your disorder is not come so far, I expect it would thoroughly purify your blood in a month's time. I shall be right glad to see Mr. Galloway. [For Joseph Galloway, see letter of Aug. 18.] A few such acquaintance as him and Miss Galloway I wish you to have. I wish you was likewise acquainted with that lovely woman Mrs. Wolff [Mrs. Wolff, of Balham. From their house Wesley went home to City Road to die.]; 'the perfect pattern of true womanhood.' Peace be with all your spirits ! -- My dear Sally, adieu! To Miss Wesley, In Chesterfield Street, Marybone, London. To his Niece Sarah Wesley LONDON, October 5, 1790.

I wish you would inform me of your present outward and inward state. Have you all things that are needful for the body Do your brethren and sisters treat you with tender affection or with coldness Are the preachers free and loving to you Is your soul as much alive as ever Are the consolations of the Holy One small with you, or are they as frequent and as plentiful as ever Write as particularly as you can to Yours most affectionately. To the Custom House [17] CITY ROAD, November 14, 1790. GENTLEMEN, -- Two or three days ago Mr. Ireland sent me as a present two dozen of French claret, which I am ordered to drink during my present weakness. At the White Swan it was seized. Beg it may be restored to Your obedient servant. Whatever duty comes due I will see duly paid. To Richard Whatcoat [18] [November, 1790.] The work (of the Lord) in Virginia far exceeds anything I have heard or read of since the primitive times! There seems to be a general expectation of great things in the Church of God throughout our Connection in these kingdoms. You, my brother, I trust, are all alive to bring sinners to Jesus Christ, and to spend and be spent in the glorious cause of the Anointed. O 'tis worth living for! Give my love to the preachers in your district. Your brother in Christ. To Adam Clarke LONDON, November 26, 1790.

Reading this morning a tract wrote by a poor African, I was particularly struck by that circumstance, that a man who has a black skin, being wronged or outraged by a white man, can have no redress; it being a law in all our Colonies that the oath of a black against a white goes for nothing. What villainy is this! That He who has guided you from youth up may continue to strengthen you in this and all things is the prayer of, dear sir, Your affectionate servant.

that both alleged what was true; that in a point of so little importance the Apostles varied themselves; some of them observing it on the fourteenth day of the moon, and others not. But, be this as it may, it can be no proof, either that Polycarp was not a holy man, or that he was not favoured with the extraordinary, as well as ordinary, gifts of the Spirit. 9. With regard to the narrative of his martyrdom, you affirm, “It is one of the most authentic pieces in all primitive antiquity.” (Page 124.) I will not vouch for its authenticity; nor therefore for the story of the dove, the flame forming an arch, the fragrant smell, or the revelation to Pionius. But your attempt to account for these things is truly curious. You say, “An arch of flame round his body is an appearance which might easily happen, from the common effects of wind. And the dove said to fly out of him, might be conveyed into the wood which was prepared to consume him.” (Page 229.) How much more naturally may we account for both, by supposing the whole to be a modern fiction, wrote on occasion of that account mentioned by Eusebius, but lost many ages ago! But whatever may be thought of this account of his death, neither does this affect the question, whether during his life he was endued with the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost. 10. There is one of those whom you style apostolic Fathers yet behind, of whom you talk full as familiarly as of the rest: I mean, Hermas: “To whom,” you say, “ some impute the fraud of forging the Sibylline books.” (Page 37.) It would not have been amiss, if you had told us, which of the ancients, whether Christian, Jew, or Heathen, ever accused him of this. If none ever did, some will be apt to think it is giving a person but hard measure, to bring an accusation against him which never was heard of till sixteen hundred years after his death.

6. Without this I cannot but doubt, whether they can long maintain their cause; whether, if they do not obey the loud call of God, and lay far more stress than they have hitherto done on this internal evidence of Christianity, they will not, one after another, give up the external, and (in heart at least) go over to those whom they are now contending with; so that in a century or two the people of England will be fairly divided into real Deists and real Christians. And I apprehend this would be no loss at all, but rather an advantage to the Christian cause; nay, perhaps it would be the speediest, yea, the only effectual, way of bringing all reasonable Deists to be Christians. 7. May I be permitted to speak freely? May I, without offence, ask of you that are called Christians, what real loss would you sustain in giving up your present opinion, that the Christian system is of God? Though you bear the name, you are not Christians: You have neither Christian faith nor love. You have no divine evidence of things unseen; you have not entered into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. You do not love God with all your heart; neither do you love your neighbour as yourself. You are neither happy nor holy. You have not learned in every state therewith to be content; to rejoice evermore, even in want, pain, death; and in every thing to give thanks. You are not holy in heart; superior to pride, to anger, to foolish desires. Neither are you holy in life; you do not walk as Christ also walked. Does not the main of your Christianity lie in your opinion, decked with a few outward observances? For as to morality, even honest, heathen morality, (O let me utter a melancholy truth!) many of those whom you style Deists, there is reason to fear, have far more of it than you. 8. Go on, gentlemen, and prosper. Shame these nominal Christians out of that poor superstition which they call Christianity. Reason, rally, laugh them out of their dead, empty forms, void of spirit, of faith, of love.

§ So many are granted to particular churches in Rome, for the benefit of pilgrims. | So those that upon his motion took up arms against the Albigenses, had by an indulgence the promise of an eternal reward. Baron. ad A. D. 1179, n. 7. "| So Pope Alexander VI. granted to those that recited this prayer to the blessed Virgin, and St. Ann her mother, 30,000 years' indulgence. RoMAN CATECHISM, AND REPLY. 97 REPLY. The scandal given by them was so notorious, that order was given by the Council of Trent for reforming the abuses of them; but when the Fathers thought fit not to dis cover those abuses, and only forbad wicked gain, (Sess. 25, Decret. de Indulg.,) they left a large scope for making a gain of them. And two of the Popes under whom that Council sat, viz., Paul III., and Julius III., (A Bull of Indulgence to the Fraternity of the Altar, Paris, 1550, v. B. Taylor's Defence, Part II., l. 2, p. 8) proceeded in the same course as their predecessors, if they did not exceed them; for by their Bulls, there is granted to all such of the Fraternity of the Holy Altar, as visit the Church of St. Hilary of Chartres, during the six weeks of Lent, 775,700 years of pardon, besides fourteen or fifteen plenary indulgences. And since that, Urban VIII., (Bullar. to 3., p. 74) and Clement X., (A.D. 1671. Bull upon the Canonization of five Saints,) have granted by their indulgence a plenary remission of sins. Q. 19. Upon what pretence or reason is the doctrine and practice of indulgences founded ? A. Upon works of supererogation,” that is, the overplus of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints, which is a treasury, (Concil. Trid. Sess., 21, c. 9) committed to the Church’s custody,t and to be disposed of as she sees meet. (Bellarm. Ibid. c. 3.) REPLY. “The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us;” (Rom. viii. 18;) so 2 Cor. iv. 17. “Every one of us shall give an account of himself to God.” (Rom. xiv.

8.) REPLY. We honour this blessed Virgin as the mother of the holy Jesus, and as she was a person of eminent piety; but we do not think it lawful to give that honour to her which belongs not to a creature, and doth equal her with her Redeemer. Q. 39. Have they not some singular forms of devotion to l:er ? A. Yes; for apprehending her to be in glory superior to all created beings, they offer a service to her, beyond what they give either to angels or saints. Q. 40. After what manner do they apply themselves to her? A. According to some Missals, they ask her to command her Son, by the right and authority of a mother; (Missal. Paris. Anno 1520, folio 65;) or, as it is in the Breviaries used at this day, “Show thyself a mother.” (Brev. Rom. Fest. Assump.) They pray to her, that she would loose the bands of the guilty, bring light to the blind, would make them mild and chaste, and cause their hearts to burn in love to Christ. (Officium B. M. in the hymn called Planctus B. M., Antwerp, 1641.) In a book printed lately in London, the author saith, that “whatever gifts are bestowed upon us by Jesus, we receive them by the mediation of Mary; no one being gracious to Jesus that is not devoted to Mary; that the power of Mary in the kingdom of Jesus is suitable to her maternity; and though the condition of some great sinners may be so deplor able, that the limited excellency and merits cannot effectually bend the mercies of Jesus to relieve them; yet such is the acceptableness of the mother of Jesus to Jesus, that whoso ever is under the verge of her protection, may confide in her intercession to Jesus;” that the person devoted to her, is to beg of her to accompany him as his “sacred guide, advocate, and champion, against the assaults of sin and sensuality.” (Contemplations of the Life and Glory of Holy Mary, &c., pp. 7-9, 14. Printed anno 1685.) Much after the fore-cited manner did the Council of Con stance invoke the blessed Virgin, as other Councils used to do the Holy Ghost, calling her the “mother of grace, the fountain of mercy;” and they call on her for “light from heaven.” REPLY.

2, 11.) REPLY. It is said that Christ instituted the matter and form of confirmation from the authority of Pope Fabian; (pars 4, q. 3, m. 2, n. 3, & q. 9, m. l;) but Alexander Ales saith, it was ordained by the Meldensian Council. (Catech. Rom., ibid., n. 6, 12, et Bellarminus de Confirm., c. 2.) And indeed the Roman Catechism, after some pretence to divine institution, thinks it safest to resolve it into the authority of the Church. Q. 61. What ceremonies are used in confirmation? A. (1.) In the anointing, the Bishop dips the tip of his finger in the chrism, and, making a cross, saith, “I sign thee,” &c. (Pontific. de Confirm.) (2.) After confirmation, he strikes the person slightly on the cheek, that he may remember he is to suffer all injuries for the name of Christ, with patience and courage. (Catech., n. 25.) (3.) Then the person to be confirmed, setting his foot upon the right foot of the godfather, (Pontific., ibid.,) is to have his head bound with a clean head-band for some days more or less, with reverence to the holy chrism; which done, the band is to be preserved in the sacrarium, or other clean place, till the following Ash-Wednesday, to be burnt to holy ashes. (Pastorale.) REPLY. Whether we consider the far-fetched significations of these ceremonies or the virtue put in them, the abuse is intolerable; as, for instance, that in consecration of the chrism, the Bishop blows upon it, to signify the descent of the Holy Ghost for the sanctification of it, (Bellarm. de Confirm., l. 2, c. 13, sec. Tertio habet, ) and that it hath a power of sanctification as the instrument of God. (Ibid., sec. Quarta caremonia.) So the Bishop prays in the consecration of it, that God “in bestowing spiritual grace upon this ointment, would pour out the fulness of sanctification, and that it may be to all that are to be anointed with it, for the adoption of sons by the Holy Spirit. Amen.” (Pontif Rom.) Q. 62. WHAT is the eucharist? A. It is a sacrament wherein is truly, really, and substan tially contained whole Christ, God-Man, body and blood, 118 RoMAN CATECHIsM, AND REPLY. bones and nerves, (Catech. Rom., par. 2, c. 4, n. 33,) soul and divinity, under the species or appearance of bread and wine. (Concil. Trid, Sess.

Corp. Ch.) And whosoever holds it unlawful or idolatrous so to do, is accursed. (Concil. Trid, ibid., Can. 6.) REPLY. We freely own that Christ is to be adored in the Lord’s supper; but that the elements are to be adored, we deny. If Christ is not corporally present in the host, they grant their adoration to be idolatry. (Coster. Enchir., c. 8, n. 10.) And that he is not corporally present anywhere but in heaven, we are taught, Acts i. 11, iii. 21, whither he went, and where he is to continue till his second coming to judgment. Q. 73. What are the ceremonies used in the mass? A. The ceremonies in the mass respect either things, actions, or words. Among the things, are garments, places, time, vessels, cloths, incense, lights, &c. (Bellarmin. Doctr. Trid. de Sacr. Miss.) Q. 74. What are the garments used by the Priest in the mass, and what is their signification? A. (1.) The amice, or white veil, which he puts over his head, signifies mystically, either the divinity of Christ covered under his humanity, or the crown of thorns; and morally, contemplation, or hope. In putting it on, he saith, “Put on, O Lord, the helmet of salvation upon my head, that I may overcome all diabolical temptations.” (2.) The alb, or long white garment, signifies mystically, the white robe put on our Saviour; and morally, faith and innocency. In putting it on, he saith, “Make me white, O Lord, and cleanse my heart, that, being whitened in the blood of the Lamb, I may enjoy everlasting gladness.” (3.) The girdle signifies mystically, the cords wherewith our Saviour was bound; and morally, (being turned up on both sides,) the two means to preserve chastity, namely, fasting and prayer. When he puts it about him, he prays, “Gird me, O Lord, with the girdle of purity, and quench in my loins the humour of lust, that there may remain in me the virtue of continency and chastity.” The like account is given of the maniple, vestment, and stole, and of the divers colours of the furniture used in the several seasons, in the “Manual of the Poor Man’s Devotion,” chap. Of the Orna ments of the Mass. REPLY. The Council of Trent saith, that the ceremonies of the mass, such as mystical benedictions, lights, incensings, garments, &c., are from Apostolical tradition; (Sess. 22, c.

(Epist. 5.) And in this large sense he calls the sign of the cross a sacrament; (in Psalm. cxli.,) and others give the same name to washing the feet, (Cypr. de Lotione Pedum,) and many other mysteries. But then matrimony doth no more confer grace, than wash ing the feet, or using the sign of the cross; which Bellar mine, after all the virtue he ascribes to it, will not allow to be properly and truly a sacrament. (De Imag., l. 2, c. 30, sec. Dices ergo.) Q. 88. May those that are in holy orders marry, or those that are married be received into orders in the Church of Rome? A. No; these that are married may not be admitted; (Concil. Later. 1, Can. 21, et Later. 2, Can. 6;) those that are admitted may not marry; and those that, being admitted, do marry, are to be separated. Q. 89. If marriage is a sacrament, and so confers grace, how comes it to be denied to those that are in holy orders? (Catech. Rom., par. 2, c. 8, n. 17.) A. Those in holy orders are the temple of God, and it is a shameful thing that they should serve uncleanness. (Later. Concil. 2, Can. 6.) REPLY. The Apostle, on the contrary, saith, “Marriage is honourable in all; ” (Heb. xiii. 4;) and gives a hard character of that doctrine which forbids it. (1 Tim. iv. 1-3.) And how lawful it was, the direction of the Apostle about it (1 Tim. iii. 2) doth show. And how convenient it is, is manifest from the mischiefs attending the prohibition of it in the Romish Church, which wise men among themselves have lamented. (Polyd. Virgil. de Invent, l. 3, c. 4, et Cassander Consult, art. 23.) I MIGHT have added the Fifth Section about the juris diction which the Church of Rome challenges over Princes, and about their canonization of saints, their consecration of Agnus Deis and beads, &c., and the use these and the like are applied to. 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.

They abstained from all appearance of evil; they overcame evil with good. If their enemy hungered, they fed him; if he thirsted, they gave him drink; and, by patiently con tinuing so to do, “heaped coals of fire upon his head,” and melted his hardness into love. In fine, it was their meat and drink to do the will of their Father which was in heaven. And hence whatsoever they did, whether in word or deed, they did all to the glory of God. Let every Clergyman of our Church live thus, and in a short time there will not be a Papist in the nation. 9. As to the preaching of the Apostles, with regard to the matter of it, they preached Jesus, “the Author and Finisher of our faith,” having “determined not to know anything, save Jesus Christ and him crucified.” They preached Jesus Christ as “of God made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” They declared, “Other foundation” of morality, religion, holiness, happiness, “can no man lay.” All they spoke, either in public or private, centred in this one point, “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.’’ More particularly, they preached that “a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law;” that “to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness.” 10. They preached farther, that “except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God;” except he be “born from above,” born not only of water, but “of the Holy Ghost;” and that “the ” present “kingdom of God is not meats and drinks,” lies not in externals of any kind, “but righteousness,” the image of God on the heart, “peace,” even a peace that passeth all understanding, “and joy in the Holy Ghost,” whereby they rejoiced with “joy unspeakable and full of glory.” They declared “that he that is ” thus “born of God doth not commit sin;” that “he that is begotten of God, keepeth himself, and the wicked one toucheth him not;” but that as Christ who hath called him is holy, so is he holy in all manner of conversation. 11.

2. The Church of Rome teaches, that “good works truly merit eternal life.” This is flatly contrary to what our Saviour teaches: “When ye have done all those things that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: We have done that which was our duty to do.” (Luke xvii. 10.) A command to do it, grace to obey that command, “and a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory,” must for ever cut off all pretence of merit from all human obedience. 3. That a man may truly and properly merit hell, we grant; although he never can merit heaven. But if he does merit hell, yet, according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, he need never go there. For “the Church has power to grant him an indulgence, which remits both the fault and the punishment.” Some of these indulgences extend only to so many days; some, to so many weeks; but others extend to a man’s whole life; and this is called a plenary indulgence. These indulgences are to be obtained by going pilgrimages, by reciting certain prayers, or (which is abundantly the most common way) by paying the stated price of it. Now, can anything under heaven be imagined more horrid, more execrable than this? Is not this a manifest prostitution of religion to the basest purposes? Can any possible method be contrived, to make sin more cheap and easy % Even the Popish Council of Trent acknowledged this abuse, and condemned it in strong terms; but they did not in any degree remove the abuse which they acknowledged. Nay, two of the Popcs under whom the Council sat, Pope Paul III., and Julius III., pro ceeded in the same course with their predecessors, or rather exceeded them; for they granted to such of the Fraternity of the Holy Altar as visited the Church of St. Hilary of Chartres during the six weeks of Lent, seven hundred and seventy-five thousand seven hundred years of pardon. 4.

A more dangerous error in the Church of Rome is, the for bidding the Clergy to marry. “Those that are married may not be admitted into orders: Those that are admitted may not marry : And those that, being admitted, do marry, are to be separated.” The Apostle, on the contrary, says, “Marriage is honour able in all;” (Heb. xiii. 4;) and accuses those who “forbid to marry,” of teaching “doctrines of devils.” How lawful it was for the Clergy to marry, his directions concerning it show. (1 Tim. iv. 1, 3.) And how convenient, yea, necessary, in many cases it is, clearly appears from the innumerable mischiefs which have in all ages followed the prohibition of it in the Church of Rome; which so many wise and good men, even of her own communion, have lamented. I have now fairly stated, and calmly considered, most of the particular doctrines of the Church of Rome. Permit me to add a few considerations of a more general nature. That many members of that Church have been holy men, and that many are so now, I firmly believe. But I do not know, if any of them that are dead were more holy than many Protestants who are now with God; yea, than some of our own country, who were very lately removed to Abraham's bosom. To instance only in one : (Whom I mention the rather, because an account of his life is extant :) I do not believe that many of them, of the same age, were more holy than Thomas Walsh. And I doubt if any among them, living now, are more holy than several Protestants now alive. But be this as it may: However, by the tender mercies of God, many members of the Church of Rome have been, and are now, holy men, notwithstanding their principles; yet I fear many of their principles have a natural tendency to undermine holiness; greatly to hinder, if not utterly to destroy, the essential branches of it,-to destroy the love of God, and the love of our neighbour, with all justice, and mercy, and truth. I wish it were possible to lay all prejudice aside, and to consider this calmly and impartially. I begin with the love of God, the fountain of all that holiness without which we cannot see the Lord.

“5. God out of his infinite love hath so loved the world that he gave his only Son, to the end that whosoever believeth on him might have everlasting life. And he enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world, as he tasted death for every man. “6. The benefit of the death of Christ is not only extended to such as have the distinct knowledge of his death and sufferings, but even unto those who are inevitably excluded from this knowledge. Even these may be partakers of the benefit of his death, though ignorant of the history, if they suffer his grace to take place in their hearts, so as of wicked men to become holy.” In these points there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. “7. As many as receive the light, in them is produced a holy and spiritual birth, bringing forth holiness, righteous ness, purity, and all other blessed fruits. By which holy birth, as we are sanctified, so we are justified.” Here is a wide difference between Quakerism and Chris tianity. This is flat justification by works. Whereas, the Christian doctrine is, that “we are justified by faith;” that “unto him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness.” The ground of this mistake is, the not understanding the meaning of the word justification. For Robert Barclay takes it in the same sense as the Papists do, confounding it with sanctification. So in page 208 of his “Apology,” he says, in express terms, “Justification, taken in its proper signification, is making one just; and is all one with sanctification.” “8. In whom this holy birth is fully brought forth, the body of sin and death is crucified, and their hearts are subjected to the truth, so as not to obey any suggestion of the evil one; but to be free from actual sinning and transgressing of the law of God, and, in that respect, perfect. “9. They in whom his grace hath wrought in part to purify and sanctify them, may yet by disobedience fall from it, and make shipwreck of the faith.” In these propositions there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. The uncommon expression, “This holy birth brought forth,” is taken from Jacob Behmen.

Paul was not ignorant of his character, still he calls 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 lan guage 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 av, as, or n N ; 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.” If this is not lawful, then some law of God forbids it. Can you show me that law? If you cannot, then the scrupling this is another plain instance of superstition, not Christianity. “It is not lawful for a Christian to use superfluities in apparel; as neither to use such games, sports, and plays, under the notion of recreations, as are not consistent with gravity and godly fear.” As to both these propositions, there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. Only observe, touching the former, that the sin of superfluous apparel lies chiefly in the superfluous expense. To make it therefore a point of conscience to differ from others, as to the shape or colour of your apparel, is mere superstition; let the difference lie in the price, that you may have the more wherewith to clothe them that have none.

To make it therefore a point of conscience to differ from others, as to the shape or colour of your apparel, is mere superstition; let the difference lie in the price, that you may have the more wherewith to clothe them that have none. “It is not lawful for Christians to swear before a Magistrate, nor to fight in any case.” Whatever becomes of the latter proposition, the former is no part of Christianity; for Christ himself answered upon oath before a Magistrate. Yea, he would not answer till he was put to his oath; till the High Priest said unto him, “I adjure thee by the living God.” Friend, you have an honest heart, but a weak head; you have a zeal, but not according to knowledge. You was zealous once for the love of God and man, for holiness of heart and holiness of life. You are now zealous for particular forms of speaking, for a set of phrases, and opinions. Once your zeal was against ungodliness and unrighteousness, against evil tempers and evil works. Now it is against forms of prayer, against singing psalms or hymns, against appointing times of praying or preaching; against saying you to a single person, uncovering your head, or having too many buttons upon your coat. O what a fall is here ! What poor trifles are these, that now well-nigh engross your thoughts | Come back, come back, to the weightier matters of the law, to spiritual, rational, scriptural religion. No longer waste your time and strength in beating the air, in vain controversies and strife of words; but bend your whole soul to the growing in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the continually advancing in that holiness, without which you cannot see the Lord. CoNCERNING baptism I shall inquire, what it is; what benefits we receive by it; whether our Saviour designed it to remain always in his Church; and who are the proper subjects of it. I. 1. What it is. It is the initiatory sacrament, which enters us into covenant with God. It was instituted by Christ, who alone has power to institute a proper sacrament, a sign, seal, pledge, and means of grace, perpetually obligatory on all Christians. We know not, indeed, the exact time of its insti tution; but we know it was long before our Lord’s ascension.

201 expressly forbidden them to do this; and that on pain of death. But surely there is a difference between the Jews offering their sons and daughters to devils, and Christians offering theirs to God. On the whole, therefore, it is not only lawful and innocent, but meet, right, and our bounden duty, in conformity to the uninterrupted practice of the whole Church of Christ from the earliest ages, to consecrate our children to God by baptism, as the Jewish Church were commanded to do by circumcision. November 11, 1756. THE MORAVIAN BRETHREN, (so CALLED,) AND THE REv. MR. JoHN AND CHARLEs wFSLEY.” As those who are under the direction of Count Zinzendorf (vulgarly called Mora vian Brethren) are the most plausible, and therefore far the most dangerous, of all the Antinomians now in England, I first endeavour to guard such as are simple of heart against being taken by those cunning hunters. THE difference between the Moravian doctrine and ours (in this respect) lies here: They believe and teach,-- “1. That Christ has done all which was necessary for the salvation of all mankind. “2. That, consequently, we are to do nothing, as necessary to salvation, but simply to believe in him. “3. That there is but one duty now, but one command, viz., to believe in Christ. “4. That Christ has taken away all other commands and duties, having wholly ‘abolished the law; that a believer is therefore ‘free from the law, is not obliged thereby to do or omit anything; it being inconsistent with his liberty to do anything as commanded. “5. That we are sanctified wholly the moment we are justi fied, and are neither more nor less holy to the day of our death; entire sanctification, and entire justification, being in one and the same instant. “6. That a believer is never sanctified or holy in himself, but in Christ only; he has no holiness in himself at all, all his holiness being imputed, not inherent. “7.

One jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till heaven and earth pass.” “Therefore a believer is free from the law.” That he is “free from the curse of the law,” we know ; and that he is “free from the law,” or power, “ of sin and death: ” But where is it written that he is free from the law of God? “He is not obliged thereby to do or omit anything, it being inconsistent with his liberty to do anything as commanded.” So your liberty is a liberty to disobey God; whereas ours is a liberty to obey him in all things: So grossly, while we “establish the law,” do you “make void the law through faith !” “5. We are sanctified wholly the moment we are justified, and are neither more nor less holy to the day of our death; entire sanctification and entire justification being in one and the same instant.” Just the contrary appears both from the tenor of God’s word, and the experience of his children. “6. A believer is never sanctified or holy in himself, but in Christ only. He has no holiness in himself at all; all his holiness being imputed, not inherent.” Scripture holiness is the image of God; the mind which was in Christ; the love of God and man; lowliness, gentleness, temperance, patience, chastity. And do you coolly affirm, that this is only imputed to a believer, and that he has none at all of this holiness in him? Is temperance imputed only to him that is a drunkard still ; or chastity, to her that goes on in whoredom? Nay, but a believer is really chaste and temperate. And if so, he is thus far holy in himself. Does a believer love God, or does he not? If he does, he has the love of God in him. Is he lowly, or meek, or patient at all? If he is, he has these tempers in himself; and if he has them not in himself, he is not lowly, or meek, or patient. You cannot therefore deny, that every believer has holiness in, though not from, himself; else you deny, that he is holy at all; and if so, he cannot see the Lord.

You cannot therefore deny, that every believer has holiness in, though not from, himself; else you deny, that he is holy at all; and if so, he cannot see the Lord. And indeed, if holiness in general be the mind which was in Christ, what can any one possibly mean by, “A believer is not holy in himself, but in Christ only? that the mind which was in Christ is in a believer also; but it is in Him,-- not in himself, but in Christ !” What a heap of palpable self-contradiction, what senseless jargon, is this! “7. If a man regards prayer, or searching the Scriptures, or communicating, as matter of duty; if he judges himself obliged to do these things, or is troubled when he does them not, he is ‘in bondage,’ he has no faith at all, but is seeking salvation by the works of the law.” Thus obedience with you is a proof of unbelief, and disobe dience a proof of faith ! What is it, to put darkness for light, and light for darkness, if this is not? THAT to the height of this great argument, I may assert eternal Providence, And justify the ways of God with man.-MILTON. 1. I AM inclined to believe, that many of those who enjoy the “faith which worketh by love,” may remember some time when the power of the Highest wrought upon them in an eminent manner; when the voice of the Lord laid the mountains low, brake all the rocks in pieces, and mightily shed abroad his love in their hearts, by the Holy Ghost given unto them. And at that time it is certain they had no power to resist the grace of God. They were then no more able to stop the course of that torrent which carried all before it, than to stem the waves of the sea with their hand, or to stay the sun in the midst of heaven. 2. And the children of God may continually observe how his love leads them on from faith to faith; with what tenderness He watches over their souls; with what care He brings them back if they go astray, and then upholds their going in his path, that their footsteps may not slide.

68. That one who is a true believer, or, in other words, one who is holy or righteous in the judgment of God himself, may nevertheless finally fall from grace, appears, (1.) From the word of God by Ezekiel: “When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity: In his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.” (xviii. 24.) Do you object, “This chapter relates wholly and solely to the Jewish Church and nation ?”* I answer, Prove this. Till then, I shall believe that many parts of it concern all mankind. If you say, (2.) “The righteousness spoken of in this chap ter was merely an outward righteousness, without any inward principle of grace or holiness:” I ask, How is this consistent with the thirty-first verse: “Cast away from you all your trans gressions whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit?” Is this a “merely outward righteous ness, without any inward principle of grace or holiness?” 69. Will you add, “But admitting the person here spoken of to be a truly righteous man, what is here said is only a supposition?” That I flatly deny. Read over the chapter again; and you will see the facts there laid down to be not barely supposed, but expressly asserted. That the death here mentioned is eternal death, appears from the twenty-sixth verse: “When a righteous man turn eth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them,”--here is temporal death; “for his iniquity that he hath done he shall die.” Here is death eternal. If you assert, “Both these expressions signify the same thing, and not two different deaths,” you put a palpable force upon the text, in order to make the Holy Ghost speak nonsense. “‘Dying in his iniquity,’” you say, “is the same thing as “dying for his iniquity.’” Then the text means thus: “When he dieth in them, he shall die in them.” A very deep discovery ! But you say, “It cannot be understood of eternal death; because they might be delivered from it by repentance and reformation.” And why might they not by such repentance as is mentioned in the thirty-first verse be delivered from eternal death?

Here you see the Jews, who never had the gospel, are said to put it away.” How ! Are you sure they “never had what they are here said to put away?” Not so: What they put away, it is undeniable, they had, till they put it away; namely, “the word of God spoken” by Paul and Barnabas. This instance, therefore, makes full against you. It proves just the reverse of what you cited it for. But you object further: “Men may have a good con science, in some sense, without true faith.” I grant it, in a restrained, limited sense; but not a good conscience, simply and absolutely speaking. But such is that of which the Apostle here speaks, and which he exhorts Timothy to “hold fast.” Unless you apprehend that the holding it fast likewise “rather supposes he never had it.” “But the faith here mentioned means only the doctrine of faith.” I want better proof of this. It remains, then, one who has the faith which produces a good conscience may yet finally fall. 71. Thirdly. Those who are grafted into the good olive tree, the spiritual, invisible Church, may nevertheless finally fall. For thus saith the Apostle: “Some of the branches are broken off, and thou art grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive-tree. Be not high-minded, but fear: If God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he spare not thee. Behold the good ness and severity of God! On them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: Otherwise thou shalt be cut off.” (Rom. xi. 17, &c.) We may observe here, (1.) The persons spoken to were actually ingrafted into the olive-tree. (2.) This olive-tree is not barely the outward, visible Church, but the invisible, consisting of holy believers. So the text: “If the first fruit be holy, the lump is holy; and if the root be holy, so are the branches.” And “because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.” (3.) Those holy believers were still liable to be cut off from the invisible Church, into which they were then grafted. (4.) Here is not the least intimation of their being ever grafted in again.

And when the Apostle Paul presses men to believe, it is as much as if he had bid them not to work.” Friend.--Let Paul be permitted to answer for himself. In the twenty-sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, he relates how our Lord sent him “to open the eyes of the Gentiles,-- that they might receive remission of sins.” (Verses 17, 18.) “Whereupon,” saith he, “I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision; but showed--to the Gentiles, that they should repent, and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.” Observe: He “obeyed the heavenly vision,” by teaching the Gentiles, before they were justified, before they had “received forgiveness of sins,” to “repent and do works meet for repent ance.”. So far was he from “bidding them not to work,” while he was “pressing them to believe.” Ant.--You are got to your “carnal reasoning” again. Friend.--Carnal reasoning, I perceive, is a cant term, which you use when you know not what else to say. But I have not done with this instance yet. Did St. Paul, indeed, preach to those Heathens according to the instructions given him from heaven, or did he not? Ant.--Without doubt, he did; otherwise he would have been “disobedient unto the heavenly vision.” Friend.--How then say you that a Minister of Christ ought to preach nothing but “Believe, believe?” and, that to tell men of doing anything, is “preaching the law?” Do you not herein condemn, not only the great Apostle, but also Him that sent and commanded him “thus to preach?” Ant.--Why, surely, you would not have us to be “under the law !” Friend.--I fear you know not what that expression means. St. Paul uses it thrice in his Epistle to the Romans, five times in that to the Galatians, and in one passage of his former Epistle to the Corinthians; where he declares in what sense he was himself “under the law,” and in what sense he was not. “Unto them that are under the law,” (that still adhere to the whole Jewish dispensation,) “I became as under the law,” (I conformed to their ceremonies,) “that I might gain them that are under the law . But unto them that are without the law,” (unto the Gentiles or Heathens,) “as without the law: Being,” meantime, “not without law to God, but under the law to Christ.” (1 Cor. ix.

ix. 20, 21.) It is plain, therefore, the Apostle was “under the law” of Christ, though he was not “under the law” of ceremonies. Ant.--But does not St. Paul say to the believers at Rome, “Ye are not under the law, but under grace?” Friend.--He does; and his meaning is, “Ye are not under the Jewish, but the gracious Christian, dispensation:” As also in the next verse, where he says, “We are not under the law, but under grace.” 270 DIALOGUE BETW s, EN Ant.--But what does he mean, when he says to the Galatians, “Before faith came, we were kept under the law?” Friend.--Doubtless he means, we were kept under the Jewish dispensation, till we believed in Christ. (iii. 19.) And so we read in the next chapter, “When the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made under the law,” (the Jewish dispensation,) “to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons;” (verses 4, 5;) might serve God, without fear, in righteousness and holiness, with a free, loving, child-like spirit. Ant.--You cannot persuade me to this; I know better. The law of works (the moral law, as you call it) is nothing to me. “From any demand of the law, no man is obliged to go one step, to give away one farthing, to eat, or omit one morsel. For what did our Lord do with the law He abolished it.” Friend.--However, ought not we, after we believe in him, to obey all the commandments of Christ? Ant.--Obey law / works / commandments / O what “legal ness is in your spirit !” So, I suppose, “your comforts vanish away when you are not assured that you obey all Christ’s commandments !” On the contrary, “a spiritual man beholdeth justifying grace in believing, without his obedience to commands for external worship and good works.” Friend.--But how does this agree with numberless texts of Scripture? in particular, with those words of our Lord, “Think not that I am come to destroy” (or abolish) “the law: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. v.

v. 17, &c.) Ant.--I tell you plainly, I will not reason. Friend.--That is as much as to say, “I will not be con vinced: I love darkness rather than light.” Ant.--No; it is you that are in darkness. I was so till a few weeks since. But now my eyes are opened. I see my liberty now. Now I am free. I was in bondage long enough. Friend.--What are you free from ? Ant.--From sin, and hell, and the devil, and the law. Friend.--You put the law of God in goodly company. But how came you to be free from the law 7 % % Ant.--Christ made me free from it. Friend.--What I from his own law? Pray, where is that written? Ant.--Here, Galatians iii. 13: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” Friend.--What is this to the purpose? This tells me, that “Christ hath redeemed us” (all that believe) “from the curse,” or punishment, justly due to our past transgressions of God’s law, But it speaks not a word of redeeming us from the law, any more than from love or heaven. But what do you mean by bondage? Ant--Why, the being bound to keep the law. Friend.--You have no tittle of Scripture for this. Bond age to fear and bondage to sin are mentioned there; and bondage to the ceremonial law of Moses: But, according to your sense of the word, all the angels in heaven are in bondage. , Ant.--Well, I am not bound. St. Paul himself says to believers, “Why are ye subject to ordinances?” (Col. ii. 20.) Friend.--True; that is, Why are you Christian believers subject to Jewish ordinances? such as those which are mentioned in the very next verse, “Touch not, taste not, handle not.” Ant.--Nay, that is not all. I say, “Outward things do nothing avail to salvation.” This is plain; for “if love to God, and love to our neighbour, and relieving the poor, be altogether unprofitable and unavailable either to justification or salvation; then these outward works, in submitting to outward ordinances, are much less available.” Friend.--Do you speak of the ordinances of Christ? Ant.--I do.

Ant.--I do. “They bring in the most dangerous kind of Popery, and pervert the pure gospel of Christ, who persuade men, that if they do not submit to the ordinances of the Lord Jesus, he will not confess them before his Father.” And I affirm, “it is better not to practise outward ordinances at all, than to practise them on these gospel-destroying principles, to the ruining of our souls.” Friend.--What scripture do you produce for this? Ant.--I wish you would not build so much upon the letter: It is your letter-learning too makes you talk of inherent righteousness. * Friend.--Do you say then, a believer has no inherent righteousness? Ant.--That I do. I say, “God will save us to the utmost, without any righteousness or holiness of our own.” To look for inherent righteousness, “is to deny the Spirit, and trample under foot the blood of the covenant. Believers have not any inherent righteousness in them. Our righteousness is nothing but the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.” Friend.--Now, I believe that Christ by his Spirit works righteousness in all those to whom faith is imputed for righteousness. Ant.--“By no means; all our righteousness is in Christ. It is wholly imputed, not inherent. We are always righteous in Christ, but never righteous in ourselves.” Friend.--Is not, then, every believer righteous or holy? Ant.--Doubtless; but he is holy in Christ, not in himself. Friend.--Does he not live a holy life; and is he not holy of heart 2 Ant.--Most certainly. Friend.--Is he not, by plain consequence, holy in himself? Ant.--No, no, in Christ only; not holy in himself: He has no holiness at all in himself. Friend.--Has he not in him the love of God, and of his neighbour; yea, the whole image of God? Ant.--He has. But this is not gospel holiness. Friend.--What vain jangling is this ! You cavil at the name, while you allow the whole thing I contend for. You allow, a believer is holy both in heart and life. This is all I mean by inherent righteousness or holiness. Ant.--But I tell you, this is not gospel holiness. Gospel holiness is faith. Friend.--Stand to this, and you still give up the whole cause. For, on your supposition, I argue thus:--Faith is holiness or righteousness: But faith is in every believer: Therefore, holiness or righteousness is in every believer. Ant.--Alas, alas! I pity you.

Friend.--You went on: “On the contrary, we believe that the blood shed upon the cross has put away and blotted out all our sins.” Why, who believes otherwise? If you mean only, that Christ then put away the punishment of all our sins, who believe in him; what a marvellous discovery is this ! I pray, whom doth this arguing reprove? Ant.--It reproves you, who deny that “an everlasting righteousness was then brought in.” Friend.--I do not deny it: No more than you understand it. But I ask, in what sense was it “brought in ?” What was it brought into? Was it then first brought into the world? You cannot say this, without saying that all who went out of the world before that hour were lost. Or was it brought into the souls of believers? Then believers have an inward or inherent righteousness. You had better, therefore, let this text alone. It will do no service at all to your cause. Ant.--I see plain you are as blind as a beetle still. I am afraid your head-knowledge will destroy you. Did not I tell you, “Our hearts and consciences are made perfectly clean by our believing; and that in this consists true purity of soul, and not in habitual qualities? Thus we are made per fectly holy.” And though “the vile, sinful body continually disposes the mind to evil,” yet “the blood of Christ makes us free from sin, and, as it were, destroys the connexion.” Friend.--Destroys the connexion of what? I doubt you have stumbled upon another word which you do not under stand. But whether you understand yourself or no, it is sure I do not understand you. How can my mind at the same time it is “continually disposed to evil,” be “free from sin, perfectly clean, perfectly holy?” Ant.--O the dulness of some men ' I do not mean really holy, but holy by imputation. I told you plainly, the holi ness of which we speak is not in us, but in Christ. “The fruits of the Spirit, (commonly called sanctification,) such as love, gentleness, longsuffering, goodness, meekness, temper ance, neither make us holy before God, nor in our own consciences.” Friend.--I know these cannot atone for one sin. This is done by the blood of Christ alone: For the sake of which, God forgives, and works these in us by faith.

This is done by the blood of Christ alone: For the sake of which, God forgives, and works these in us by faith. Do I reach your meaning now? Ant.-No, no; I wonder at your ignorance. I mean, “we are not made good or holy by any inward qualities or dispo sitions: But being made pure and holy in our consciences, by believing in Christ, we bear forth, inwardly and outwardly, the fruits of holiness.” Now, I hope, you understand me. Friend.--I hope not. For, if I do, you talk as gross nonsense and contradiction as ever came out of the mouth of man. Ant.--How so? Friend.--You say, “We are not made good or holy by any inward qualities or dispositions.” No | are we not made good by inward goodness? (observe, we are not speaking of justification, but sanctification;) holy, by inward holiness? meek, by inward meekness? gentle, by inward gentleness? And are not all these, if they are anything at all, “inward qualities or dispositions?” Again: Just after denying that we have any inward holi ness, you say, “We are made holy in our consciences, and bear forth, inwardly and outwardly, the fruits of holiness.” What heaps of self-contradictions are here ! Ant.--You do not take me right. I mean, these inward dispositions “are not our holiness. For we are not more holy, if we have more love to God and man, nor less holy, if we have less.” Friend.--No ! Does not a believer increase in holiness, as he increases in the love of God and man? Ant.--I say, No. “The very moment he is justified, he is wholly sanctified. And he is neither more nor less holy, from that hour, to the day of his death. Entire justification and entire sanctification are in the same instant. And neither of them is thenceforth capable either of increase or decrease. Friend.--I thought we were to grow in grace! Ant.--“We are so; but not in holiness. The moment we are justified, we are as pure in heart as ever we shall be. A new-born babe is as pure in heart as a father in Christ. There is no difference.” Friend.--You do well to except against Scripture and reason. For till a man has done with them, he can never swallow this. I understand your doctrine now, far better than I like it.

I understand your doctrine now, far better than I like it. In the main, you are talking much and saying nothing; labouring, as if you had found out the most important truths, and such as none ever knew before. And what does all this come to at the last? A mere, empty “strife of words.” All that is really uncommon in your doctrine is a heap of broad absurdities, in most of which you grossly contradict yourselves, as well as Scripture and common sense. In the meantime, you boast and vapour, as if “ye were the men, and wisdom should die with you.” I pray God to “humble you, and prove you, and show you what is in your hearts l” “Do we then make void the law through faith ? God forbid : Yea, we establish the law.” (Romans iii. 31.) FRIEND.--WELL met ! You have had time to consider. What think you of our last conference? ANTINoMIAN.--I think, “the giving of scandalous names has no warrant from Scripture.” (Mr. Cudworth's Dialogue, p. 2.) Friend.--Scandalous names 1 Ant.--Yes; you called me Antinomian. But “our Saviour bids me not return railing for railing.” (Ibid.) Friend.--St. Peter does, and that is all one. But how is that a scandalous name? I think it is properly your own; for it means, “one that speaks against the law.” And this you did at that time very largely. But pray what would you have me call you? Ant.--“A Preacher of God’s righteousness.” (Ibid., page 1.) Friend.--What do you call me then? Ant.--“A Preacher of inherent righteousness.” (Ibid.) Friend.--That is, in opposition to God’s righteousness. So you mean, a Preacher of such righteousness as is inconsistent with that righteousness of God which is by faith. Ant.--True: For, “I plainly perceive you know but one sort of righteousness, that is, the righteousness of inherent qualities, dispositions, and works. And this is the reason why the language of the Holy Ghost seems foolishness unto you; even because the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.” (Ibid., pages 11, 12.) Friend.--Are you absolutely sure that this is the reason why I do not think or speak as you do? Ant.--The thing itself speaks: “Thou hast forgotten the Lord, and hast trusted in falsehood.

If not, spare your labour; for they are quite foreign to the present question. Ant.--However, that is not foreign to the present ques tion, which you said the other day; viz., that “Christ has only redeemed us from the punishment due to our past transgressions.” (Ibid.) Friend.--I neither said so, northought so. You either care lessly or wilfully misrepresent my words. On your quoting that text, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,” I replied in these terms: “What is this to the pur pose? This tells me that Christ hath redeemed us (all that believe) from the curse or punishment justly due to our past transgressions of God's law. But it speaks not a word of redeeming us from the law, any more than from love or heaven.” (First Dialogue, page 271.) Ant.--Past transgressions ! “Then who must redeem us from those which are to come, since there remains no more sacrifice for sin?” (Cudworth’s Dialogue.) Friend.--The same Jesus Christ, by the same merit of that one sacrifice, then applied to the conscience when we believe, as you yourself have often asserted. But whatever punish ment he redeems us from, that punishment supposes sin to precede; which must exist first, before there is any possibility of its being either punished or pardoned. Ant.--You have a strange way of talking. You say, “We are forgiven for the sake of the blood of Christ.” (Ibid., page 5.) Friend.--And do not you? Ant.--No ; I say, “We have forgiveness in his blood, and not merely for the sake of it.” Friend.--You are perfectly welcome so to say. Ant.--Well, enough of this. Let me ask you another question. Do you affirm, that salvation is “conditional?” (Ibid.) Friend.--I affirm, “He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.” And can you or any other deny this? If not, why do you fight about a word? especially after I have told you, “Find me a better, and I will lay this aside.” Ant.--“Then this faith leaves you just in the same state it found you; that is, still having the condition to perform.” (Ibid., page 5.) Friend.--Not so; for faith itself is that condition. Ant.--Nay, “faith is only necessary in order to receive forgiveness or salvation; not to procure it by way of condi tion.” (Ibid.) Friend.--Enough, enough. You grant all that I desire.

You grant all that I desire. If you allow that “faith is necessary in order to receive forgiveness or salvation,” this is the whole of what I mean by terming it a condition. A procuring or meritorious cause is quite another thing. Ant.--But you say that “faith is not true faith, unless it be furnished with love.” (Ibid., page 6.) Friend.--Furnished with love! Where did you pick up that awkward phrase? I never used it in my life. But I say, you have not true faith, unless your faith “worketh by iove;” and that though “I have all faith, so that I could even remove mountains, yet if I have no love I am nothing.” Ant.--Will you answer me one question more? Is not a believer free from the law P Friend.--He is free from the Jewish ceremonial law; that is, he does not, and need not, observe it. And he is free from the curse of the moral law; but he is not free from observing it. He still walks according to this rule, and so much the more, because God has written it in his heart. 280 SECON to DIALOGUE BETWEEN Ant.--But St. Paul says, “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” (Ibid., page 8.) Friend.--He is so. He put an end to the Mosaic dispen sation, and established a better covenant, in virtue whereof “faith is counted for righteousness to every one that believeth.” Ant.--But still “as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse,” (Gal. iii. 10,) are they not? Friend.--They are; as many as still “seek to be justified by the works of the law;” that is, by any works antecedent to, or independent on, faith in Christ. Ant.--“But does not the Apostle say farther, ‘Ye are become dead to the law?’ (Rom. vii. 4.)” (Ibid.) Friend.--You are so, as to its condemning power, if you truly believe in Christ. For “there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.” But not as to its directing power; for you “walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” You “love him, and keep his commandments.” Ant.--That is not all. I maintain, “a believer is entirely free from the law.” (Ibid.) Friend.--By what scripture do you prove that? Ant.--By Gal. iv.

iv. 4, 5: “God sent forth his Son, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.” Friend.--The plain meaning of this I mentioned before: “‘God sent forth his Son, made under the law,’ (the Jewish dispensation,) ‘to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons; ’ might ‘serve God without fear, in righteousness and holiness, with a free, loving, child-like spirit.” (First Dialogue, page 270.) Ant.--So you say, “Christ was made only under the Jewish dispensation, to redeem the Jews from that dispen sation.” (Cudworth's Dialogue, pages 8, 9.) Friend.--I do not say so. By inserting “only” you quite pervert my words. You cannot deny, that Christ “was made under the Jewish dispensation.” But I never affirmed, He was “made under it only to redeem the Jews from that dispensation.” Ant.--Was he made “under the moral law” at all? Friend.--No doubt he was. For the Jewish dispensation included the moral, as well as ceremonial, law. Ant.--Then the case is plain. “If he was under the moral law, we are redeemed from the moral law.” (Ibid.) Friend.--That does not follow. “He redeemed them that were under” this, as well as the ceremonial, “law.” But from what did he redeem them? Not “from the law;” but “from guilt, and sin, and hell.” In other words, He redeemed them from the “condem nation of this law,” not from “obedi ence to it.” In this respect they are still, “not without law to God, but under the law to Christ.” (1 Cor. ix. 21.) Ant.--“‘Under the law to Christ !” No. The Greek word is swowo; Xpis?, in a law to Christ; that is, the law of love and liberty.” (Ibid.) Friend.--Very true. This is the exact thing I mean. You have spoken the very thought of my heart. Ant.--It may be so. But “a believer is free from the law of commandments,” call it moral, or what you please. Friend.--Do you mean only, that he obeys the law of Christ, by free choice, and not by constraint? that he keeps the com mandments of God, out of love, not fear? If so, you may tri umph without an opponent. But if you mean, he is free from obeying that law, then your liberty is a liberty to disobey God. Ant.--God forbid.

Ant.--God forbid. It is “a liberty to walk in the Spirit, and not fulfil the lust (or desire) of the flesh.” (Ibid., page 8.) Friend.--Why, this is the thing I am contending for. The very thing I daily assert is this, that Christian liberty is a liberty to obey God, and not to commit sin. Ant.--But how do you understand those words of St. Paul, that Christ “blotted out the hand-writing of ordi. nances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way?” (Col. ii. 14.) Friend.--I understand them of the Jewish ordinances; as it is plain St. Paul himself did, by the inference he immediately draws: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink,” (the ordinances touching these being now “taken out of the way,”) “ or in respect of an holy-day,” (once observed,) “ or of the new moon, or of the’’ (Jewish) “Sabbaths.” (Verse 16.) Ant.--But how could the “hand-writing” of these “ordi nances” be said to be “against us,” or to be “contrary to us?” Friend.--I will not insist on the criticism of those who render the words, “over against us,” as alluding to that “hand-writing on the wall” which appeared “over against King Belshazzar.” The words of St. Peter suffice, which will bear no dispute, who, speaking of these same ordinances, calls them “a yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear.” (Acts xv. 5, 10.) Ant.--You must then understand those words of our Lord, of the moral law alone: “Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matt. v. 17, 18.) But I say, our Lord has fulfilled every jot and tittle of this law too. Friend.--I grant he has. But do you infer from thence, “therefore he has destroyed the law?” Our Lord’s arguing is the very reverse of yours.

But do you infer from thence, “therefore he has destroyed the law?” Our Lord’s arguing is the very reverse of yours. He mentions his coming to “fulfil the law,” as an evident proof that he did not come to “destroy” or “take it away.” But suppose you could get over the former verse, what can you do with the following?--“Verily I say unto you, One jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till heaven and earth pass;” or, which comes to the same thing, “till all be fulfilled.” The former evasion will do you no service with regard to this clause. For the word “all” in this does not refer to the law, but to heaven and earth and “all things” therein: The original sentence running thus: Ews ay wravia ysvara. Nor indeed is the word 'yevnrx well rendered by the ambiguous word “fulfilled,” which would easily induce an English reader to suppose it was the same word that was ren dered so just before; it should rather be translated accom plished, finished, or done; as they will be in the great and terrible day of the Lord, when the “earth and the heaven shall flee from his face, and there shall be no place found for them.” Ant.--But why did you say, my account of sanctification was crude and indigested? (First Dialogue, page 273.) Friend.--Let me. hear it again. If it be better digested than it was, I shall rejoice. Ant.--“Our minds are either defiled and impure, or pure and holy. The question is, Which way is a defiled and impure mind to be made a good one? You say, “By love, meekness, gentleness.’ I say, By believing in Christ. By this, my conscience becomes purged and clean, as though I had not committed sin. And such a purged conscience bears forth the fruit of love, meekness, gentleness, &c. It is therefore absurd to say, We are made good by goodness, meek by meekness, or gentle by gentleness. We are only denominated so from these fruits of the Spirit.” (Cudworth’s Dialogue, page 10.) Friend.--You have mended the matter a little, and not much. For, 1. “The question,” say you, “is, Which way is a defiled and impure mind to be made a good one?” Nothing less.

xviii. 24.) That this is to be understood of eternal death appears from the twenty-sixth verse: “When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them;” (here is temporal death;) “for his iniquity that he hath done he shall die.” (Here is death eternal.) It appears farther from the whole scope of the chapter, which is to prove, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” (Verse 4.) If you say, “The soul here means the body,” I answer, That will die whether you sin or no. 6. Again, thus saith the Lord: “When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness,” (yea, or to that promise as absolute and unconditional,) “and commit iniquity, all his righteousness shall not be remembered; but for the iniquity that he hath committed shall he die.” (xxxiii. 13.) Again: “When the righteous turneth from his righteous ness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby.” (Verse 18.) Therefore, one who is holy and righteous in the judgment of God himself may yet so fall as to perish everlastingly. 7. “But how is this consistent with what God declared elsewhere: ‘If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments,--I will visit their offences with the rod, and their sin with scourges. Nevertheless, my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my truth to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. I have sworn once by my holiness, that I will not fail David.’” (Psalm lxxxix. 30-35.) I answer, There is no manner of inconsistency between one declaration and the other. The Prophet declares the just judgment of God against every righteous man who falls from his righteousness. The Psalmist declares the old loving kindnesses which God sware unto David in his truth. “I have found,” saith he, “David, my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him. My hand shall hold him fast, and my arm shall strengthen him. His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.” (Verses 20, 21, 29.) It follows: “But if his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments;--nevertheless, my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my truth to fail.

(2.) This olive-tree is not barely the outward visible Church, but the invisible, consisting of holy believers. So the text: “If the firstfruit be holy, the lump is holy; and if the root be holy, so are the branches.” (Verse 16.) And, “Because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.” (3.) These holy believers were still liable to be cut off from the invisible Church, into which they were then grafted. (4.) Here is not the least intimation of those who were so cut off being ever grafted in again. Therefore, those who are grafted into the good olive-tree, the spiritual invisible Church, may nevertheless so fall from God as to perish everlastingly. 13. “But how does this agree with the 29th verse, “The gifts and calling of God are without repentance?’” The preceding verse shows: “As touching the election” (the unconditional election of the Jewish nation) “they are beloved for the fathers' sake;” for the sake of their fore fathers. It follows: (In proof of this, that “they are beloved for the fathers' sake,” that God has still blessings in store for the Jewish nation :) “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;” for God doth not repent of any blessings he hath given them, or any privileges he hath called them to. The words here referred to were originally spoken with a peculiar regard to these national blessings. “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent.” (Numb. xxiii. 19.) 14. “But do not you hereby make God changeable? Whereas ‘with Him is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James i. 17.)” By no means. God is unchange ably holy: Therefore, he always “loveth righteousness and hateth iniquity.” He is unchangeably good: Therefore he pardoneth all that “repent and believe the gospel.” And he is unchangeably just : Therefore, he “rewardeth every man according to his works.” But all this hinders not his resisting, when they are proud, those to whom he gave grace when they were humble. Nay, his unchangeableness itself requires, that, if they grow high-minded, God should cut them off; that there should be a proportionable change in all the divine dispensations toward them. 15.

But this cannot be allowed by any who impartially search the Scriptures. They cannot allow, without clear and particular proof, that any one of those texts which related primarily to the Apostles (as all men grant) belong to any but them. W. 21. 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 again entangled therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.” (2 Peter ii. 20, 21.) That the knowledge of the way of righteousness, which they had attained, was an inward, experimental knowledge, is evident from that other expression,-they had “escaped the pollutions of the world;” an expression parallel to that in the preceding chapter, verse 4: “Having escaped the corruption which is in the world.” And in both chapters, this effect is ascribed to the same cause; termed in the first, “the knowledge of Him who hath called us to glory and virtue;” in the second, more explicitly, “the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” And yet they lost that experimental knowledge of Christ and the way of righteousness; they fell back into the same pollutions they had escaped, and were “again entangled therein and overcome.” They “turned from the holy com mandment delivered to them,” so that their “latter end was worse than their beginning.” Therefore, 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. 22. And this is perfectly consistent with St. Peter's words, in the first chapter of his former Epistle: “Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.” Undoubtedly, so are all they who ever attain eternal salva tion. It is the power of God only, and not our own, by which we are kept one day or one hour. VI. 23. Sixthly.

You say of Mr. Hervey, “He shuts up our access to the divine righteousness, by holding forth a preliminary human one as necessary to our enjoying the benefit of it.” (Page 4.) Again: “You set men to work to do something, in order to make their peace with God.” (Page 9.) This is an absolute slander, founded on that poor pretence, that he supposes those who repent and believe, and none but those, to “enjoy the benefit of Christ's righteousness.” And has he not the warrant of Christ himself for so doing,--“Repent ye, and believe the gospel?” If this is “teaching man to acquire a righteousness of his own,” the charge falls on our Lord himself. You say, 2. “As to that strange something which you call faith, after all you have told us about it, we are at as great a loss to tell distinctly what it is, as when you began.” (Ibid.) This is another slander. You are at no loss (as will presently appear) to tell what Mr. Hervey means by faith. Whether it be right or wrong, his account of it is as clear and distinct as any that ever was given. You say, 3. “The popular Preachers” (so you term Arch bishop Tillotson, Dr. Lucas, Crisp, Doddridge, Watts, Gill; Mr. Guthrie, Boston, Erskine, Willison; Mr. Flavel, Marshal; Mr. Griffith Jones, Hervey, Romaine, Whitefield, Wesley) “never tell us what they mean by faith, but by some laboured circumlocutions.” (Page 282.) This is a third palpable slander, as your own words prove: “They say, Faith is a real persuasion that Christ hath died for me.” (Page 5.) Are you not here told what they mean by faith; and that without any circumlocution at all? You confute your own slander still farther, by adding three more: 4. “They make a pious resolve the ground of our acceptance with God.” (Page 360.) No, never. Not one of the writers you have named ever did, or does so now. 5. “The faith they talk of, is only a timid resolve, joined with a fond conjecture.” Or, 6. “It is a fond presumptuous wish, greatly embarrassed with doubts and difficulties.” (Page 404.) Slander all over. We make the righteousness and blood "300 ANSWER TO LETTERS To of Christ the only ground of our acceptance with God.

They are no part of the meritorious cause; but they are the conditions of it. This and no other is “the doctrine of Scripture, and of the Church of England l’” Both the Scripture and “our Church allow, yea, insist on these qualifications or condi tions.” (Page 21.) “But if repentance and faith would not be valid and acceptable without the righteousness of Christ, then they cannot be necessary qualifications for our justification.” (Page 22.) I cannot allow the consequence. They are not acceptable without the righteousness or merits of Christ; and yet he himself has made them necessary qualifications for our justification through his merits. But the grand objection of this gentleman lies against the Doctor’s next paragraph; the sum of which is: “The merits of Christ were never intended to supersede the necessity of repentance and obedience,” (I would say, repentance and faith,) “but to make them acceptable in the sight of God, and to purchase for them” (I would add, that obey him) “a reward of immortal happiness.” I am not afraid to undertake the defence of this paragraph, with this small variation, against Mr. Chapman, Mr. Nyberg, Count Zinzendorf, or any other person whatever; provided only that he will set his name to his work; for I do not love fighting in the dark. And I, as well as Dr. T., affirm, that “to say more than this concerning Christ’s imputed merits,” to say more than, that “they have purchased for us grace to repent and believe, acceptance upon our believing, power to obey, and eternal salvation to them that do obey him;”--to say more than this “is blasphemous Antinomianism,” such as Mr. Calvin would have abhorred; and does “open a door to all manner of sin and wickedness.” “I must likewise affirm, that to talk of imputed righteous ness in the manner many do at this day, is making the imaginary transfer of Christ's righteousness serve as a cover for the unrighteousness of mankind.” (Page 26.) Does not Mr. Ch-p-n do this at Bristol? Does not Mr. M-rd--n, at London? Let them shudder then, let their blood run cold, who do it; not theirs who tell them that they do so.

His very words are, “If you have not these, to pretend to any other feelings is vain and delusive.” I say so too. Meantime, he is undoubtedly sensible, that there is a “consolation in love;” a “peace that passeth all under standing,” and a “joy that is unspeakable and full of glory.” Nor can we imagine him to deny, that these must be felt, inwardly felt, wherever they exist. Upon the whole, I cannot but observe, how extremely difficult it is, even for men who have an upright intention, and are not wanting either in natural or acquired abilities, to understand one another: And how hard it is to do even justice to those whom we do not throughly understand; much more to treat them with that gentleness, tenderness, and brotherly kindness, with which, upon a change of circumstances, we might reasonably desire to be treated ourselves. O when shall men know whose disciples we are, by our “loving one another, as He hath loved us!” The God of love hasten the time ! I am, Dear Sir, Your affectionate servant, oN 1. A TRACT has lately been published in my name, con cerning the imputed righteousness of Christ. This calls me to explain myself upon that head; which I will do with all the clearness I can. But I quarrel with no man for thinking or speaking otherwise than I do: I blame none for using those expressions which he believes to be scriptural. If he quarrels with me for not using them, at least not so frequently as himself, I can only pity him, and wish him more of “the mind which was in Christ.” 2. “The righteousness of Christ” is an expression which I do not find in the Bible. “The righteousness of God” is an expression which I do find there. I believe this means, First, the mercy of God; as 2 Peter i. 1 : “Them that have obtained like precious faith with us, through the righteous ness of God.” How does it appear that “the righteousness CHRIST's 1MPUTED RIGHTEoUsNEss. 313 of God” here, means either more or less than his mercy? “My mouth shall show forth thy righteousness and thy salvation;” thy mercy in delivering me. “I will make mention of thy righteousness only. Thy righteousness, O God, is very high.” (Psalm lxxi.

Thy righteousness, O God, is very high.” (Psalm lxxi. 15, &c.) Here the “righte ousness of God” is expressly mentioned; but I will not take upon me to say, that it means the righteousness or mercy of the Son, any more than of the Holy Ghost. 3. I believe this expression means, Secondly, God’s method of justifying sinners. So Rom. i. 17: “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for therein is the righteousness of God,” his way of justifying sinners, “revealed.” “Now the righteousness of God is manifested; even the righteousness of God which is by faith;” (unless righteousness here also means mercy;) “Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of the sins that are past; that he might be just, and yet the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” (iii. 21, &c.) “They being ignorant of God’s righteousness,” (method of justifying sinners,) “and going about to establish their own righteousness,” (a method of their own opposite to his,) “have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” (x. 3.) 4. Perhaps it has a peculiar meaning in 2 Cor. v. 21: “He made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in ” (or through) “him;” that we might be justified and sanctified, might receive the whole blessing of God, through him. 5. And is not this the natural meaning of Phil. iii. 8, 9: “That I may win Christ, and be found in him,” grafted into the true vine, “not having my own righteousness,”--the method of justification which I so long chose for myself, “which is of the law; but the righteousness which is of God”--the method of justification which God hath chosen--“by faith?’” 6. “But is not Christ termed “our righteousness?’” He is: “This is the name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness.” (Jer. xxiii. 6.) And is not the plain, indisputable meaning of this scripture, He shall be what he is called, the sole Purchaser, the sole meritorious Cause, both of our justification and sanctification? 7. Nearly related to this is the following text: “Jesus Christ is made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and 314 Thou GHTS ON sanctification, and redemption.” (1 Cor. i.

i. 30.) And what does this prove, but that he is made unto us righteousness, or justification, just as he is made unto us sanctification? In what sense? He is the sole Author of one, as well as of the other, the Author of our whole salvation. 8. There seems to be something more implied in Romans x. 3. Does it not imply thus much “Christ is the end of the law”--not only of the Mosaic dispensation, but of the law of works, which was given to Adam in his original per fection--“for righteousness to every one that believeth;” to the end that “every one who believeth” in him, though he have not kept, and cannot keep, that law, may be both accounted and made righteous. 9. Accordingly, frequent mention is made, in Scripture, of “faith counted for righteousness.” So Genesis xv. 6: “He” (Abraham) “believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness:” A text repeated, with but little variation, over and over in the New Testament: “To him that worketh not, but believeth on him who justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” (Rom. iv. 5.) Thus it was that “Noah became heir of the righteousness,” the justification, “which is by faith.” (Heb. xi. 7.) Thus also “the Gentiles,” when the Jews fell short, “attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith.” (Rom. ix. 30.) But that expression, “the righteousness of Christ,” does not occur in any of these texts. 10. It seems, righteousness in the following texts means neither more nor less than justification: “If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” (Gal. ii. 21.) “If there had been a law which could have given life,” spiritual life, or a title to life eternal, “then righteousness should have been by the law;” (iii. 21;) though some may think it here includes sanctification also; which it appears to do, Rev. xix. 8: “The fine linen is the righteousness of the saints.” 11. “But when St. Paul says, (Rom. v. 18) ‘By the righte ousness of one,’ (called in the following verse, ‘the obedience of one, even his “obedience unto death, his dying for us,) ‘the free gift came, does he not mean the righteousness of Christ?” Undoubtedly he does. But this is not the question. We are not inquiring what he means, but what he says.

We are not inquiring what he means, but what he says. We are all agreed as to the meaning, but not as to the expression, “the imputing the righteousness of Christ,” which I still say, cHRIST's IMPUTED RIGHTEoUsNEss. 315 I dare not insist upon, neither require any one to use, because I cannot find it in the Bible. If any one can, he has better eyes than me; and I wish he would show me where it is. 12. Now, if by “the righteousness of Christ” we mean anything which the Scripture does not mean, it is certain we put darkness for light. If we mean the same which the Scripture means by different expressions, why do we prefer this expression to the scriptural? Is not this correcting the wisdom of the Holy Ghost, and opposing our own to the perfect knowledge of God? 13. I am myself the more sparing in the use of it, because it has been so frequently and so dreadfully abused; and because the Antinomians use it at this day to justify the grossest abominations. And it is great pity that those who love, who preach, and follow after, holiness, should, under the notion of honouring Christ, give any countenance to those who continually make him “the minister of sin,” and so build on his righteousness as to live in such ungodliness and unrighteousness as is scarce named even among the Heathens. 14. And doth not this way of speaking naturally tend to make Christ the minister of sin? For if the very personal obedience of Christ (as those expressions directly lead me to think) be mine the moment I believe, can anything be added thereto? Does my obeying God add any value to the perfect obedience of Christ? On this scheme, then, are not the holy and unholy on the very same footing? 15. Upon the whole, I cannot express my thoughts better than in the words of that good man, Mr. Hervey: “If people may be safe and their inheritance secure without any know ledge of these particularities, why should you offer to puzzle their heads with a few unnecessary terms? We are not very solicitous as to the credit or the use of any particular set of phrases.

We are not very solicitous as to the credit or the use of any particular set of phrases. Only let men be humbled as repenting criminals at the Redeemer's feet; let them rely as devoted pensioners on his precious merits; and they are undoubtedly in the way to a blissful immortality.” (Dialogues, vol. i., p. 43. Dublin edition.) DUBLIN, April 5, 1762. To whEREIN ALL THAT 1s PERson AL, IN LETTERs JUST TURL1s HEn, UNDER THE NAME of THE REv. MR. HERVEY, 1s ANswen ED. 1. PERHAPs I should not have submitted, at least not so soon, to the importunity of my friends, who have long been soliciting me to abridge and publish the ensuing treatise, had not some warm people published a tract, entitled, “The Scrip ture Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness Defended.” I then judged it absolutely incumbent upon me to publish the real Scripture doctrine. And this I believed I could not either draw up or defend better than I found it done to my hands by one who, at the time he wrote this book, was a firm and zealous Calvinist. This enabled him to confirm what he advanced by such authorities, as well from Calvin himself, as from his most eminent followers, as I could not have done, nor any who had not been long and critically versed in their writings. 2. A greater difficulty was, to know what notice I ought to take of Mr. Hervey’s treatise, wrote, as the Leeds publisher says, with a “becoming and well-tempered tartness.” The case was peculiar. My acquaintance with Mr. Hervey com menced about thirty years ago, when I was a Fellow, and he was a Commoner, of Lincoln College in Oxford. At my request he was permitted, as was Mr. Whitefield some time after, to make one of a little company who used to spend the evenings together, in reading the Holy Scriptures. And I rejoiced in having many opportunities of assisting him both in his studies and in his Christian warfare; which he acknowledged in very strong terms, by a letter now in my hands, wrote not long after the publication of his “Medita tions among the Tombs.” In my answer to this, I told him frankly, there were one or two passages in that book, which, if I had seen before it was printed, I should have advised him not to insert.

A consider ABLE time since, I sent you a few hasty thoughts which occurred to me on reading the “Dialogues between Theron and Aspasio.” I have not been favoured with any answer. Yet upon another and a more careful perusal of them, I could not but set down some obvious reflections, which I would rather have communicated before these Dialogues were published. In the First Dialogue there are several just and strong observations, which may be of use to every scrious reader. In the Second, is not the description often too laboured? the language too stiff and affected? Yet the reflections on the creation, in the thirty-first and following pages, make abundant amends for this. (I cite the pages according to the Dublin edition, having wrote the rough draught of what follows in Ireland.) Is justification more or less than God’s pardoning and accepting a sinner through the merits of Christ? That God herein “reckons the righteousness and obedience which Christ performed as our own,” (page 39,) I allow; if by that ambiguous expression you mean only, as you here explain it yourself, “They are as effectual for obtaining our salvation, as if they were our own personal qualifications.” (Page 41.) “We are not solicitous as to any particular set of phrases. Only let men be humbled, as repenting criminals at Christ's feet, let them rely as devoted pensioners on his merits, and they are undoubtedly in the way to a blissful immor tality.” (Page 43.) Then, for Christ's sake, and for the sake of the immortal 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. I have had abundant proof, that the frequent use of this unnecessary phrase, instead of “furthering men's progress in vital holiness,” has made them satisfied without any holiness at all; yea, and encou raged them to work all uncleanness with greediness. “To ascribe pardon to Christ's passive, eternal life to his active, righteousness, is fanciful rather than judicious. His universal obedience from his birth to his death is the one foundation of my hope.” (Page 45.) This is unquestionably right.

that such a thought ever entered into his mind? The plaih meaning is, We establish both the true sense and the effectual practice of it: We provide for its being both understood and practised in its full extent. “On those who reject the atonement, just severity.” (Page 157.) Was it ever possible for them not to reject it? If not, how is it just to cast them into a lake of fire for not doing what it was impossible they should do? Would it be just (make it your own case) to cast you into hell for not touching heaven with your hand? “Justification is complete the first moment we believe, and is incapable of augmentation.” (Page 159.) Not so: There may be as many degrees in the favour as in the image of God. “St. Paul often mentions a righteousness imputed:” Not a righteousness, never once; but simply, righteousness. “What can this be, but the righteousness of Christ?” (Page 190.) He tells you himself, “To him that believeth on him that justi fieth the ungodly, faith is imputed for righteousness.” (Rom. iv. 5.) “Why is Christ styled Jehovah our Righteousness?” Because we are both justified and sanctified through Him. “My death, the cause of their forgiveness; my righteous mess, the ground of their acceptance.” (Page 191.) How does this agree with page 45?--“To ascribe pardon to Christ's passive, eternal life to his active, righteousness, is fanciful rather than judicious.” “He commends such kinds of beneficence only, as were exer cised to a disciple as such.” (Page 195.) Is not this a slip of the pen? Will not our Lord then commend, and reward eternally, all kinds of beneficence, provided they flowed from a principle of loving faith? yea, that which was exercised to a Samaritan, a Jew, a Turk, or a Heathen? Even these I would not term “transient bubbles,” though they do not procure our justification. “How must our righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees? Not only in being sincere, but in possessing a complete righteousness, even that of Christ.” (Page 197.) Did our Lord mean this? Nothing less. He specifies, in the following parts of his Sermon, the very instances wherein the righteousness of a Christian exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees. “He brings this specious hypocrite to the test.” (Page 198.) How does it appear that he was an hypocrite?

The Ninth Dialogue proves excellently well, that we cannot be justified by our works. But have you throughly considered the words which occur in the 270th page? “O children of Adam, you are no longer obliged to love God with all your strength, nor your neighbour as yourselves. Once indeed I insisted on absolute purity of heart; now, I can dispense with some degrees of evil desire. Since Christ has fulfilled the law for you, you need not fulfil it. I will connive at, yea, accommodate my demands to, your weakness.” I agree with you, that “this doctrine makes the Holy One of God a minister of sin.” And is it not your own Is not this the very doctrine which you espouse throughout your book? I cannot but except to several passages also in the Tenth Dialogue. I ask, first, “Does the righteousness of God ever mean,” as you affirm, “the merits of Christ?” (Page 291.) I believe, not once in all the Scripture. It often means, and particularly in the Epistle to the Romans, God’s method of justifying sinners. When, therefore, you say, “The righteousness of God means, such a righteousness as may justly challenge his acceptance,” (page 292,) I cannot allow it at all; and this capital mistake must needs lead you into many others. But I follow you step by step. “In order to entitle us to a reward, there must be an imputation of righteousness.” (Ibid.) There must be an interest in Christ; and then “every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labour.” “A rebel may be forgiven, without being restored to the dignity of a son.” (Page 293.) A rebel against an earthly King may; but not a rebel against God. In the very same moment that God forgives, we are the sons of God. Therefore this is an idle dispute. For pardon and acceptance, though 324 PR EFACE To they may be distinguished, cannot be divided. The words of Job which you cite are wide of the question. Those of Solomon prove no more than this, (and who denies it?) that justification implies both pardon and acceptance. “Grace reigneth through righteousness unto eternal life;” (page 295;) that is, the free love of God brings us through justification and sanctification to glory.

“Your sins are expiated through the death of Christ, and a righteousness given you by which you have free access to God.” (Page 59.) This is not scriptural language. I would simply say, “By him we have access to the Father.” There are many other expressions in this Dialogue to which I have the same objection; namely, 1. That they are unscrip tural; 2. That they directly lead to Antinomianism. The First Letter contains some very useful heads of self examination. In the Second, I read, “There is a righteous ness which supplies all that the creature needs. To prove this momentous point is the design of the following sheets.” (Page 91.) I have seen such terrible effects of this unscriptural way of speaking, even on those “who had once clean escaped from the pollutions of the world,” that I cannot but earnestly wish you would speak no otherwise than do the oracles of God. Certainly this mode of expression is not momentous. It is always dangerous, often fatal. “Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound; that as sin had reigned unto death, so might grace,” the free love of God, “reign through righteousness,” through our justifi cation and sanctification, “unto eternal life.” (Rom. v. 20, 21.) This is the plain, natural meaning of the words. It does not appear that one word is spoken here about imputed righteousness; neither in the passages cited in the next page from the Common Prayer and the Articles. In the Homily likewise that phrase is not found at all, and the main stress is laid on Christ's shedding his blood. Nor is the phrase (concerning the thing there is no question) found in any part of the Homilies. (Letter 3, page 93.) “If the Fathers are not explicit with regard to the imputa tion of active righteousness, they abound in passages which evince the substitution of Christ in our stead; passages which disclaim all dependence on any duties of our own, and fix our hopes wholly on the merits of our Saviour. When this is the case, I am very little solicitous about any particular forms of expression.” (Page 101.) O lay aside then those questionable, dangerous forms, and keep closely to the scriptural ! “The authority of our Church, and of those eminent Divines,” (Letter 4, p.

“The authority of our Church, and of those eminent Divines,” (Letter 4, p. 105,) does not touch those “particular forms of expression;” neither do any of the texts which you afterwards cite. As to the doctrine, we are agreed. “The righteousness of God signifies the righteousness which God-Man wrought out.” (Ibid.) No; it signifies God’s method of justifying sinners. “The victims figured the expiation by Christ’s death; the clothing with skins, the imputation of his righteousness.” (Page 107.) That does not appear. Did not the one rather figure our justification; the other, our sanctification ? Almost every text quoted in this and the following letter in support of that particular form of expression is distorted above measure from the plain, obvious meaning which is pointed out by the context. I shall instance in a few, and just set down their true meaning without any farther remarks. (Page 109.) To “show unto man his uprightness;” to convince him of God’s justice in so punishing him. “He shall receive the blessing,” pardon, “from the Lord, and righteousness,” holiness, “from the God of his salva tion;” the God who saveth him both from the guilt and from the power of sin. (Page 110.) I will “make mention of thy righteousness only:” Of thy mercy; so the word frequently means in the Old Testament. So it unquestionably means in that text, “In’’ or by “thy righteousness shall they be exalted.” (Page 111.) “Sion shall be redeemed with judgment,” after severe punishment, “and her converts with righteousness,” with the tender mercy of God following that punishment. (Page 112.) 330 PREFACE To “In,” or through, “the Lord I have righteousness and strength,” justification and sanctification; “he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation,” saved me from the guilt and power of sin; both of which are again expressed by, “He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness.” (Page 113.) “My righteousness,” my mercy, “shall not be abolished.” (Page 114.)• “To make reconciliation for iniquity,” to atone for all our sins, “and to bring in everlasting righteousness,” spotless holiness into our souls. And this righteousness is not human, but divine. It is the gift and the work of God. (Page 116.) “The Lord our Righteousness;” the author both of our justification and sanctification. (Page 117.) “What righteousness shall give us peace at the last day, inherent or imputed?” (Page 127.) Both.

(Page 117.) “What righteousness shall give us peace at the last day, inherent or imputed?” (Page 127.) Both. Christ died for us and lives in us, “that we may have boldness in the day of judgment.” “That have obtained like precious faith through the righteousness,” the mercy, “of our Lord.” “Seek ye the kingdom of God and his righteousness,” the holiness which springs from God reigning in you. (Letter 5, p. 131.) “Therein is revealed the righteousness of God,” God’s method of justifying sinners. (Page 132.) “We establish the law, as we expect no salvation without a perfect conformity to it, namely, by Christ.” (Page 135.) ls not this a mere quibble? and a quibble which, after all the laboured evasions of Witsius and a thousand more, does totally “make void the law P” But not so does St. Paul teach. According to him, “without holiness,” personal holiness, “no man shall see the Lord;” none who is not himself conformed to the law of God here, “shall see the Lord” in glory. This is the grand, palpable objection to that whole scheme. It directly “makes void the law.” It makes thousands content to live and die “transgressors of the law,” because Christ fulfilled it “for them.” Therefore, though I believe he hath lived and died for me, yet I would speak very tenderly and sparingly of the former, (and never separately from the latter,) even as sparingly as do the Scriptures, for fear of this dreadful consequence. “‘The gift of righteousness’ must signify a righteousness not their own.” (Page 138.) Yes, it signifies the righteous ness or holiness which God gives to, and works in, them. “‘The obedience of one’ is Christ’s actual performance of the whole law.” (Page 139.) So here his passion is fairly left out! Whereas his “becoming obedient unto death,” that is dying for man, is certainly the chief part, if not the whole, which is meant by that expression. “‘That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us; that is, by our representative in our nature.” (Ibid.) Amazing ! But this, you say, “agrees with the tenor of the Apostle’s arguing. For he is demonstrating, we cannot be justified by our own conformity to the law.” No; not here. He is not speaking here of the cause of our justification, but the fruits of it.

He is not speaking here of the cause of our justification, but the fruits of it. Therefore, that unnatural sense of his words does not at all “agree with the tenor of his arguing.” I totally deny the criticism on 8.xxioavvm and Bixaloux, and cannot conceive on what authority it is founded. O how deep an aversion to inward holiness does this scheme naturally create 1 (Page 140.) “The righteousness they attained could not be any personal righteousness.” (Page 142) Certainly it was: It was implanted as well as imputed. “For ‘instruction in righteousness, in the righteousness of Christ.” (Page 145.) Was there ever such a comment before? The plain meaning is, “for training up in holiness” of heart and of life. “He shall convince the world of righteousness;” that I am not a sinner, but innocent and holy. (Page 146.) “‘That we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Not intrinsically, but imputatively.” (Page 148.) Both the one and the other. God, through him, first accounts and then makes us righteous. Accordingly, “‘The righteousness which is of God by faith, is both imputed and inherent.” (Page 152.) “My faith fixes on both the meritorious life and atoning death of Christ.” (Page 153.) Here we clearly agree. Hold then to this, and never talk of the former without the latter. If you do, you cannot say, “Here we are exposed to no hazard.” Yes, you are to an exceeding great one; even the hazard of living and dying without holiness. And then we are lost for ever. The Sixth Letter contains an admirable account of the earth and atmosphere, and comprises abundance of sense in a narrow compass, expressed in beautiful language. 332 PREFACE to Gems have “a seat on the virtuous fair one’s breast.” (Page 177.) I cannot reconcile this with St. Paul. He says, “Not with pearls;” by a parity of reason, Not with diamonds. But in all things I perceive you are too favourable, both to “the desire of the flesh, and the desire of the eye.” You are a gentle casuist as to every self-indulgence which a plentiful fortune can furnish. “Our Saviour’s obedience.” (Page 182.) O say, with the good old Puritans, “Our Saviour's death or merits!” We swarm with Antinomians on every side. Why are you at such pains to increase their number?

Why are you at such pains to increase their number? “My mouth shall show forth thy righteousness and thy salva tion;” thy mercy, which brings my salvation. (Page 194.) The Eighth Letter is an excellent description of the supreme greatness of Christ. I do not observe one sentence in it, which I cannot cheerfully subscribe to. The Ninth Letter, containing a description of the sea, with various inferences deduced therefrom, is likewise a masterpiece, for justness of sentiment, as well as beauty of language. But I doubt whether “mere shrimps” (page 241) be not too low an expression; and whether you might not as well have said nothing of “cod, the standing repast of lent;” or concerning “the exquisite relish of turbot, or the deliciousness of sturgeon.” Are not such observations beneath the dignity of a Minister of Christ? I have the same doubt concerning what is said of “delicately flavoured tea, finely scented coffee, the friendly bowl, the pyramid of Italian figs, and the pastacia-nut of Aleppo.” (Page 264) Beside that the mentioning these in such a manner is a strong encouragement of luxury and sensuality. And does the world need this? The English in particular ! Si non insaniunt satis sua sponte, instiga.* “Those treasures which spring from the imputation of Christ's righteousness.” (Letter 10, p. 271.) Not a word of his atoning blood | Why do so many men love to speak of his righteousness, rather than his atonement? I fear, because it affords a fairer excuse for their own unrighteousness. To cut off this, is it not better to mention both together? at least, never to name the former without the latter? “Faith is a persuasion that Christ has shed his blood for me, and fulfilled all righteousness in my stead.” (Page 285.) I * This quotation from Terence is thus translated by Colman : “If he raves not of himself enough, Do irritate him.”-EDIT. can by no means subscribe to this definition. There are hundreds, yea, thousands of true believers, who never once thought one way or the other of Christ's fulfilling all righteousness in their stead. I personally know many who, to this very hour, have no idea of it; and yet have each of them a divine evidence and conviction, “Christ loved me, and gave himself for me.” This is St. Paul’s account of faith; and it is sufficient.

(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.

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. I have had abundant proof, that the frequent use of this unnecessary phrase, instead of furthering men's progress in vital holiness, has made them satisfied without any holiness at all.” Is the speaking earnestly on such a subject “idle pomp?” Are not the souls of men at stake? And most certainly the whole sentence is at as great a distance from levity as from profaneness. 11. I am accused, Sixthly, of acting in a manner unworthy a gentleman, a Christian, or a man of sense. “I am quite ashamed of your meanness,” (strong words !) “ and grieved at your uncharitable rashness;” in naming three men, the fellows of whom, I hope, are not to be found in England. “How unworthy is such a proceeding either of the gentleman, the Christian, or the man of sense !” (Page 186.) I am not conscious of either meanness, rashness, or uncharit ableness in this matter. But I am willing to refer it to the judgment of any who know the men and their communication. 12. I am accused, Seventhly, of impudence. “Harmless enough, I must own; but what follows is not quite so modest.” (Page 201.) “Your last daring innovation.” Affirming that the word usually rendered righteousness does sometimes mean mercy. I dare not say otherwise. I must affirm this still, both of the Hebrew and Greek word. “Everybody knows that the particle beth signifies in, and everybody but Mr. Wesley would blush to assert the contrary.” (Page 220.) I never asserted the contrary, nor did I ever deny, that the particle sy likewise signifies in. Yet I affirm that both the former and the latter have several other significations.- 13. I am accused, Eighthly, of denying justification by faith, and of being an enemy to the righteousness of Christ. “We have liberty to look upon ourselves as justified with out any works of our own.” (True; but not without faith.) “This you would supersede and abolish.” (Page 261.) The whole tenor of my writing, preaching, and conversa tion clears me of this charge. “Why should you be so averse to the righteousness of God our Saviour?” (Page 227.) Far, very far from it.

“Why should you be so averse to the righteousness of God our Saviour?” (Page 227.) Far, very far from it. I admire, love, and embrace it, as the ground of all my hope, as the only foundation of every blessing, in time and in eternity. “Why should you ransack all the stores of your learning and knowledge, to exclude this glorious truth from the Bible?” I do just the contrary. I use whatever knowledge God has given me, to defend that glorious truth, “Jesus Christ is made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sancti fication, and redemption.” 14. The Ninth accusation is short: You are an heretic, and your doctrine poisonous. “You scarce distinguish yourself by this language from an heretic. You may rank with the Arian and Socinian.” (Page 140.) What is this language? The saying, “The free love of God brings us through justification and sanctification to glory.” True; neither do I distinguish myself from a Jew, by saying, “There is one God.” Does it follow, that I may rank with Jews? that I am a Jew too? “Such errors are extremely pernicious. They are like poison mixed with food.” (Page 120.) Let those errors be pointed out and proved. I shall then willingly retract them.- 15. I am- accused, Tenthly, with being an Antinomian. “‘Do you then establish the law?’ Are not you the Antinomian P” (Page 143.) I should not imagine Mr. Hervey was in earnest here, but that I read in another place,-- “It is one of your leading errors, that you form low, scarty apprehensions of God’s law.” (Page 69.) What apprehensions I form of God’s law, any one may see in the second and third volumes of my Sermons; wherein, after explaining all the particular branches of it contained in our Lord's Sermon on the Mount, I say of it in general, Vol. V., p. 438:-- “This law is an incorruptible picture of the High and Holy One that inhabiteth eternity. It is He whom in his essence no man hath seen or can see, made visible to men and angels. It is the face of God unveiled; God manifested to his creatures, as they are able to bear it.

It is the face of God unveiled; God manifested to his creatures, as they are able to bear it. It is the heart of God disclosed to man; yea, in some sense, we may apply to his law what the Apostle says of his Son, it is ‘the streaming forth or out beaming of his glory, the express image of his person.’ “What is the law but divine virtue and wisdom, assuming a visible form? What is it but the original ideas of truth and good, which were lodged in the uncreated mind from eternity, now drawn forth and clothed with such a vehicle, as to appear even to human understanding? “The law of God is a copy of the eternal mind, a transcript of the divine nature; yea, it is the fairest offspring of the ever lasting Father, the brightest efflux of his essential wisdom, the visible beauty of the Most High.” Are these low and scanty apprehensions of God’s law? Or are any such found in the preceding sermons? Can any one form higher apprehensions of it? If not, let this accusation sink for ever. 16. I am accused, in the Eleventh place, for teaching Popish doctrine : “Mr. Wesley, setting aside pardon and reconciliation, together with the one perfect righteousness that procures them,” (I set aside neither the one or the other,) “ascribes all to the love of God. This notion may pass current at Rome, but not among the Protestant Churches.” (Page 101.) “This was the doctrine established by the Council of Trent.” (But it is not mine.) “This is still maintained in the con clave of Rome.” (Page 117.) But it is not maintained by me, nor any of my friends. We teach quite the contrary. “I acquit you from the charge of being a Jesuit or a Papist;” (so far, so good;) “but nobody, I apprehend, can acquit your principles from halting between Protestantism and Popery:” (No more than the principles of all who believe that “Christ tasted death for every man:”) “You have stolen the unhallowed fire, and are infected with the leaven of Antichrist. You have adopted papistical tenets,” (I know not which, and should be glad any one would inform me,) “and are listening to ‘the mother of abominations’ more than you are aware.” (Page 118.) But let it be observed, the holding universal redemption is no proof of this.

It effectually tears up all desire of it, all endeavour after it. It forbids all such exhortations as might excite those desires, or awaken those endeavours. Nay, it makes men afraid of personal holiness, afraid of cherishing any thought of it, or motion toward it, lest they should deny the faith, and reject Christ and his righteousness: So that, instead of being “zealous of good works,” they are a stink in their nostrils. And they are infinitely more afraid of “the works of God,” than of “the works of the devil.” 9. Here is wisdom | though not the wisdom of the saints, but wisdom from beneath. Here is the masterpiece of Satan': Farther than this he cannot go. Men are holy, without a grain of holiness in them holy in Christ, however unholy in themselves; they are in Christ, without one jot of the mind that was in Christ; in Christ, though their nature is whole in them. They are “complete in him,” though they are, in themselves, as proud, as vain, as covetous, as passionate as ever. It is enough : They may be unrighteous still, seeing Christ has “fulfilled all righteousness.” 10. “O ye simple ones, how long will ye love simplicity?” How long will ye “seek death in the error of your life?” “Know ye not,” whoever teacheth you otherwise, “that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?” “Be not deceived; ” although there are many lie in wait to deceive, and that under the fair pretence of exalting Christ; --a pretence which the more easily steals upon you, because “to you he is precious.” But as the Lord liveth, “neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” “Such” indeed “were some of you.

Wesley's sermon on Jeremiah xxiii. 6, have a very evangelical appearance, yet all their excellency vanisheth away, when we are told in the same sermon, that the righteousness he contends for is not the divine righteousness of Christ, but his human righteousness. When we consider the express words of the text, ‘The Lord our Righteousness,” one might wonder (if anything is to be wondered at that Mr. Wesley affirms) how he could possibly fall into an error, which at once not only destroys the meritorious efficacy of the Redeemer’s righteousness, but undermines the virtue of his atoning blood.” This is home; Mr. Hill has broke my head sadly. But he will soon give me a plaster: “How ever, if Mr. Wesley will acknowledge, that by Christ’s human righteousness, he means that mediatorial righteous ness which was wrought by God in the human nature, I entirely acquiesce with him on the point.” This is truly marvellous! Why, what could Mr. Wesley mean beside? So this error proves to be no error at all ! And “all MR. HILL's REVIEw. 385 the excellency” which “vanisheth away,” appears again in statu quo ! But we are not come to the end of the note yet; it contains another dreadful objection: “Mr. Wesley is unwilling” (truly I am) “to be ranked among the Diabolonians, and therefore, with more prudence than candour, has left the whole passage concerning the election-doubters out of the ‘Holy War.” And if Mr. Hill had omitted it too, it would have been no more an impeachment of his prudence, than it was of my candour, to omit, in all the tracts I abridged, whatever I dis approved of. This was what I professed at my setting out: “I have endeavoured” (these are my very words) “to preserve a consistency throughout, that no part might contradict any other. But in order to this, I have been obliged to omit the far greatest part of several authors. And in a design of this nature, I apprehend myself to be at full liberty so to do.” (Preface, p. 5.) The “abridged Bunyan” is not therefore “the counterfeit Bunyan.” This is a flourish of Mr. Hill's pen. 19. This instance sets nothing against nothing, the “Christian Library” against John Goodwin. 20.

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

By his sufferings alone the law was satisfied.” Undoubtedly it was. Therefore, although I believe Christ fulfilled God's law, yet I do not affirm he did this to purchase redemption for us. This was done by his dying in our stead. 30. “Verses of Charles Let him answer. Wesley.” 31, 32, 33. “Title to Life.” John Goodwin: Nothing. “Christian Library.” No thing. 34. “The righteousness of Ditto. Christ is imputed to every one that believes.” Here follows another thundering note: “When Mr. Wesley preached this sermon, he told the congregation, ‘It was the same doctrine which Mr. Romaine, Mr. Madan, and Mr. Whitefield preached.” So it was; Mr. Whitefield did, Mr. MR. HILL's REview. 387 Romaine and Mr. Madan do, preach the doctrine contained in that sermon; namely, that “we are justified, sanctified, and glorified, merely for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered for us.” But did I say, this was all the doctrine which they preached ? No; and no man in his senses could under stand me so. I did not therefore “impose on the credulity of my hearers, by making them believe” any more than was strictly true. But “did they ever hold the tenets pleaded for in the books published by Mr. Wesley?” Whether they did or no is out of the present question; they did, and do, hold the doctrine contained in that sermon, “Mr. Wesley knows, they from their hearts subscribe to Mr. Hervey’s Eleven Letters.” I hope not; from any that do, I expect no more mercy than from a mad dog. “But if he had constantly preached that doctrine, how came so many to testify their surprise at that discourse?” Because God set it home upon their hearts. Hence it appeared new, though they had heard it over and over. “How came they to press the printing of it, in order to stop the mouths of gainsayers?” Because they judged it would affect others as it affected them; though I never thought it would. “Lastly: If Mr. Wesley had con stantly maintained this doctrine, why must poor John Bunyan be embowelled, to make him look like Mr. Wesley?” No.; his Calvinism is omitted, to make him like the authors going before him; “to preserve a consistency throughout the work;” which still is not done as I could wish.

Wesley?” No.; his Calvinism is omitted, to make him like the authors going before him; “to preserve a consistency throughout the work;” which still is not done as I could wish. However, those that are fond of his bowels may put them in again, and swallow them as they would the trail of a woodcock. 35. “They to whom the “The nice, metaphysical doc. righteousness of Christ is trine of imputed righteousness, imputed (I mean, who truly instead of furthering men in believe) are made righteous holiness, makes them satisfied by the Spirit of Christ.” without any holiness at all.” I have known a thousand instances of this. And yet “they who truly believe in Christ are made righteous by his Spirit.” Where is the contradiction between these propositions? 36. “Christian Library.” Nothing. 37. “Christ is now the Baxter's Aphorisms go for righteousness of all that truly nothing. Richard Baxter is believe.” not John Wesley. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43. Nothing. Nothing against 44. “To all believers, the Goodwin : Nothing. righteousness of Christ is imputed.” We have now examined four-and-forty witnesses; but still have no proof that I contradict myself, either with regard to the covenant, election, and perseverance, or the imputed righte ousness of Christ. With regard to this, the thing, that we are justified merely for the sake of what Christ has done and suf fered, I have constantly and earnestly maintained above four and-thirty years. And I have frequently used the phrase, hoping thereby to please others “for their good to edification.” But it has had a contrary effect, since so many improve it into an objection. Therefore, I will use it no more, unless it occur in an hymn, or steal upon me unawares; I will endeavour to use only such phrases as are strictly scriptural. And I will advise all my brethren, all who are in connexion with me throughout the three kingdoms, to lay aside that ambiguous, unscriptural phrase, which issoliable to be misinterpreted, and to speak in all instances, this in particular, “as the oracles of God.” “Suffering the penalty is not Suffering the penalty is all the all the law requires.” law requires. (Page 132.) 45. “So says the ‘Christian So says John Goodwin. Library.” But this does not prove that I contradict myself. St. Paul speaks of the law as St. Paul does not speak of the a person.

Paul does not speak of the a person. law as a person. (P. 138.) 46. “The law is here spoken “This way of speaking of of as a person, to which, as to the law as a person injured, an husband, life and death are and to be satisfied, seems ascribed.” hardly defensible.” There is no contradiction here. I do affirm, St. Paul speaks of the law “as a person to which, as an husband, life and death are ascribed.” But I deny, that he speaks of it “as a person injured, and to be satisfied.” For a twofold justification. Against a twofold justification. 47. “Mr. F. affirms, justi- “The justification spoken fication is twofold.” of by St. Paul to the Romans, and in our Articles, is one and no more.” (Page 133.) MR. HILL’s REVIEw. 389 Most true. tion. (Matt. xii. 37.) And yet our Lord speaks of another justifica Now, I think one and one make two. For a justified state. 48. “The state of a justified person is inexpressibly great and glorious.” Against a justified state. (Page 139.) “Does not talking of a justified or sanctified state tend to mislead men?” It frequently does. But where is the contradiction? They who are once justified are justified for ever. 49. “Christian Library.” They who are justified may become total apostates. Nothing. Works are a condition of jus tification. (Page 134.) 50. “Salvation (that is, glory) is not by the merit of works, but by works as a condition.” This proposition does not speak of justification: So it is nothing to the purpose. Works are not a condition of justification. I believe no good works can be previous to justifica tion; nor, consequently, a condition of it. 51. “If a man could be holy before he was justified, it would set his justification aside.” “Whoever desires to find favour with God, should “cease from evil, and learn to do well.’ Whoever repents, should do “works meet for repentance.’ And if this is not in order to find favour, what does he do them for?” 52. “Thou canst do no thing but sin till thou art justified.” 53. “We allow that God justifies the ungodly, him that to that hour is full of all evil, void of all good; and him that worketh not, that till that mo ment worketh no goodness.” All this I believe still. “But Mr. W.

W. says, Whoever desires to find favour with God should “cease from evil and learn to do well,’” &c. Does not the Bible say so? Who can deny it? “Nay, but Mr. W. asks, “If this be not in order to find favour, what does he do them for?’” And I ask it again. Let Mr. H., or any one else, give me an answer. So, if there is any contradiction here, it is not I contradict myself, but Isaiah and our Lord that contradict St. Paul. Against justification by the For justification by the act of act of believing. believing. 54. “But do not you put “The faith which is said to faith in the room of Christ be imputed to Abraham for and his righteousness? No; righteousness, is faith pro I take particular care to put perly taken; and not the each of these in its proper righteousness of Christ ap place.” prehended by faith.” This is putting “each of these in its proper place.” The righteousness of Christ is the meritorious cause of our justification: That is its proper place. Faith in Him that gave himself for us is the condition of justification: That is its proper place. I am justified through the righteousness of Christ, as the price; through faith, as the condition. I do not say, neither does Goodwin, Faith is that for which we were accepted; but we both say, Faith is that through which we are accepted. We are justified, we are accepted of God, for the sake of Christ, through faith. Now, certainly, there is no contra diction in this, unless a contradiction to Mr. H.’s notions. 55. “Although we have “That which is the condi faith, hope, and love, yet we tion of justification is not the must renounce the merit of righteousness of Christ.” all, as far too weak to deserve Most true; otherwise we our justification; for which confound the condition with we must trust only to the the meritorious cause spoken merits of Christ.” of in the opposite column. Justification by faith alone is articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae.* All who do not hold it must perish ever lastingly. Justification by faith alone is not articulus stantis vel ca dentis ecclesiae. Some may doubt of it, yea, deny it, and yet not perish everlastingly. (Page 127.) * A doctrine without which there can be no Christian Church. MR.

MR. HILL's REVIEw. 391 56. “Of this may be affirm ed, (what Luther affirms of justification by faith,) that it is articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae, the pillar of that faith of which alone cometh salvation; that faith which unless a man keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he “A pious Churchman who has not clear conceptions of justification by faith may be saved; yea, a Mystic, (Mr. Law, for instance,) who denies justification by faith. If so, the doctrine of justification by faith is not articulus stan tis vel cadentis ecclesiae.” shall perish everlastingly.” It is certain here is a seeming contradiction; but it is not a real one. For these two opposite propositions do not speak of the same thing. The latter speaks of justification by faith; the former, of trusting in the righteousness or merits of Christ; justification by faith is only mentioned incidentally in a parenthesis. Now, although Mr. Law denied justification by faith, he might trust in the merits of Christ. It is this, and this only, that I affirm, (whatever Luther does,) to be articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae. Mr. W. is a Calvinist in the Mr. W. has leaned too much point of justification. toward Calvinism in this Apoint. 57. “I think on justifica tion just as I have done these seven-and-twenty years, and just as Calvin does.” “We have leaned too much toward Calvinism.” (Page 141.) But not in this point; not as to justification by faith. We still agree with him, that the merits of Christ are the cause, faith the condition, of justification. 58. “I have occasionally Goodwin. Nothing. used those expressions, ‘im puted righteousness, the ‘righteousness of Christ, and the like. But I never used them in any other sense than that wherein Calvin does.” 59. “Mr. W. does approve the expression, ‘Why me?’” My brother uses it in an hymn. “Mr. W. does not approve the expression, ‘Why me?’” “Mr. F.says, Mr. W. doubts concerning it.” (Page 140.) This proof halts on both feet. “But why did not Mr. W. strike out of Mr. F.'s manuscript the honourable expres sions concerning himself?” Because he thought them a proper counterbalance to the contumelious expressions of Mr. H. Our sin is imputed to Christ, and Christ’s righteousness to us. 60, 61, 62. “Christian Li brary.” Our sin is not imputed to Christ, nor Christ’s righte ousness to us.

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.

It follows, “They are not condemned for sins of infirmity, as they are usually called. Perhaps it were advisable rather to call them infirmities, that we may not seem to give any countenance to sin, or to extenuate it in any degree, by thus coupling it with infirmity. But, if we must use such an ambiguous and dangerous expression, by sins of infirmity I would mean, such involuntary failings as the saying a thing we believe true, though in fact it prove to be false; or the hurting our neighbour without knowing or designing it, perhaps when we designed to do him good.” (Ibid., p. 92.) What pretence has Mr. H. from these words to flourish away upon my “strange divinity;” and to represent me as giving men a handle to term gross sins innocent infirmities? But now comes the main point: “It is more difficult to determine concerning those which are usually styled sins of surprise: As when one who commonly in his patience possesses his soul, on a sudden or violent temptation, speaks or acts in a manner not consistent with the royal law of love.” (For instance: You have the gout. A careless man treads on your foot. You violently push him away, and, it may be, cry out, “Get away! Get you out of my sight!”) “Perhaps it is not easy to fix a general rule concerning transgressions of this nature. We can MR. HILL's REVIEW. 401 not say either that men are, or that they are not, condemned for sins of surprise in general.” (Pages 152, 153.) “Reader,” says Mr. H., “let me beg thee to weigh well the foregoing words.” I say so too. I go on : “But it seems, whenever a believer is overtaken in a fault, there is more or less condemnation, as there is more or less concur rence of his will. Therefore, some sins of surprise bring much guilt and condemnation. For in some instances our being surprised may be owing to some culpable neglect, or to a sleepiness of soul, which might have been prevented or shaken off before the temptation came. The falling even by surprise, in such an instance, exposes the sinner to condemnation, both from God and his own conscience.

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.

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.

However, to prove his point, Mr. Hill goes on : “This doctrine” (of the “The use of the term” (the “imputed righteousness of “imputed righteousness of Christ”) “I have constantly Christ”) “is not scriptural; believed and taught for near it is not necessary; it has eight-and-twenty years.” done immense hurt.”e “‘It has done immense hurt, says Mr. W.; ‘but here is no contradiction.’ Whether there be or not, there is a plain concession from Mr. W. himself, that he has been preaching a doctrine for eight-and-twenty years together, which has done immense hurt.” Let this (one instance out of an hundred) be a specimen of Mr. Hill's fairness ! The whole strength of the argument depends on the artful jumbling of two sentences together, and inserting two or three little words into the latter of them. My words are: “We no more deny the phrase” (of “imputed righteousness”) “than the thing.” (Remarks, p. 383.) “This doctrine I have believed and taught for near eight and-twenty years.” (Ibid.) These distinct sentences Mr. Hill is pleased to thrust together into one, and to mend thus: “This doctrine (of the imputed righteousness of Christ) I have constantly believed and taught for near eight-and twenty years.” And here, says Mr. H., is a “plain concession from Mr. 428 REMARKs on MR. HILL’s W. himself, that he has been preaching a doctrine for twenty-eight years together, which has done immense hurt.” No, the doctrine which I believe has done immense hurt, is that of the imputed righteousness of Christ in the Antinomian sense. The doctrine which I have constantly held and preached is, that faith is imputed for righteousness. And when I have either in that sermon or elsewhere said, that “the righteousness of Christ is imputed to every believer,” I mean, every believer is justified for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered. Yet still I think, “there is no use in contending for that particular phrase.” And I say still, “I dare not insist upon it, because I cannot find it in the Bible.” To contradict this, Mr. H. cites these words: “‘This...is fully consistent with our being justified, through the imputation of Christ's righteousness.” Mr. W.’s notes on Romans iv. 9.” Mr. H.

H. adds: “These two, taken together, produce the following conclusion, that it is perfectly consist ent to say, that we are justified by that which cannot be found in the Bible.” (Farrago, p. 24.) That note runs thus: “‘Faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness.’ This is fully consistent with our being justified through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ: That is, our being pardoned, and accepted of God, for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered. For though this, and this alone, be the meritorious cause of our acceptance with God, yet faith may be said to be ‘imputed to us for righteousness,’ as it is the sole condition of our acceptance.” Now, is there any shadow of contradiction in this? or of our being justified by that which cannot be found in the Bible? 26. “Mr. W. frequently puts the expression, “imputed righteousness,’ in the mouth of a whole congregation. Yet he says, “I dare not require any to use it.’” Hence Mr. Hill deduces these two conclusions:-- (1) “That Mr. W. gives out such doctrines as he dares not require any others to believe.” (Page 25.) By what logic is this deduced? We are not speaking of doctrines at all, but simply of a particular expression. And that expression is not “imputed righteousness,” but “the imputed righteousness of Christ.” (2.) “That a whole congregation may have words in their mouths, and yet be all silent.” Well inferred again! But did I say, “A whole congrega tion had those words in their mouths?” I did not either say or suppose it; any more than that they were all silent. “Will Mr. W. be ingenuous enough to tell me, whether he did not write this when he was last in a certain country, which abounds with crassa ingenia?”* I will. I did not write this in the fogs of Ireland, but in the clear air of Yorkshire. 27. The two next propositions Mr. Hill quotes, are, “They to whom the righteousness of Christ is imputed,” (I mean, who truly believe,) “are made righteous by the Spirit of Christ; are renewed in the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness.” “The nice, metaphysical doctrine of imputed righteous ness” (if it is not carefully guarded) “leads not to repent ance, but to licentiousness.

Hill quotes, are, “They to whom the righteousness of Christ is imputed,” (I mean, who truly believe,) “are made righteous by the Spirit of Christ; are renewed in the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness.” “The nice, metaphysical doctrine of imputed righteous ness” (if it is not carefully guarded) “leads not to repent ance, but to licentiousness. I have known a thousand instances of this.” And where is the contradiction between these propositions? “It is just this,” says Mr. Hill, “that the doctrine of imputed righteousness makes those who believe it both holy and unholy.” (Page 26.) Unfold the propositions a little more, and then let any man judge. The First means just this: They whom God justifies, for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered, (whether they ever heard of that phrase, “imputing the righteousness of Christ,” or not,) are sanctified by his Spirit; are renewed in the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness. The Second means: I have known very many who so rested in the doctrine of the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, that they were quite satisfied without any holiness at all. Now, where is the contradiction? But my inserting in my own sentence those explanatory words, “I mean, who truly believe,” Mr. H. calls an interpola tion; and supposes I “mean to make a distinction between faith in Christ, and faith in the righteousness of Christ.” I mean just what I have said again and again, particularly in the note above cited. And this is the very thing which John Goodwin means, as he declares over and over. Mr. W. “winds up this point of imputed righteousness with a resolution which astonishes me, that “he will never * Persons of dull understandings.-EDIT. 430 REMARKs on MR. HILL’s more use the phrase, the imputed righteousness of Christ, unless it occur to him in a hymn, or steal upon him unawares.’” This is my resolution. I repeat once more what I said in the “Remarks:” “The thing, that we are justified merely for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered, I have con stantly and earnestly maintained above four-and-thirty years. And I have frequently used the phrase, hoping thereby to please others ‘for their good to edification. But it has had a contrary effect, since so many improve it into an objection.

W. asks, If this be not in order to find favour, what does he do them for?’ And I ask it again. Let Mr. Hill, or any one else, give me an answer. So if there is any contradiction here, it is not I contradict myself, but Isaiah and our Lord that contradict St. Paul.” (Remarks, pages 389, 390.) Mr. Hill replies: “Then a man may do works in order to find favour, and yet such works cannot be called good.” You may call them so, if you please; but be not angry with me, if I do not. I still believe, no good works can be done before justification. Yet I believe, (and that without the least self contradiction,) that final salvation is “by works as a condi tion.” And let any one read over the twenty-fifth chapter of St. Matthew, and deny it if he can. Is Justification by Faith articulus stantis vel cadentis Ecclesiae? 32. In the beginning of the year 1738, I believed it was so. Soon after I found reason to doubt. Since that time I have not varied. “Nay, but in the year 1763 you say, ‘This is the name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness. A truth this, of which may be affirmed, (what Luther affirms of a truth nearly connected with it, justification by faith,) it is articulus stantis vel cadentis Ecclesiae.* It is certainly the pillar and ground of that faith of which alone cometh salvation.’” (Farrago, page 15.) I answered: “It is certain, here is a seeming contradiction; but it is not a real one; for these two opposite propositions do not speak of the same thing. The latter speaks of justification by faith; the former, of trusting in the righteousness or merits * A doctrine without which there can be no Christian Church. of Christ. (Justification by faith is only mentioned inci. dentally in a parenthesis.) Now, although Mr. Law denied justification by faith, he might trust in the merits of Christ. It is this, and this only, that I affirm (whatever Luther does) to be articulus stantis vel cadentis Ecclesiae.” (Remarks, page 391.) But Mr.

I deny the fact; let him produce his evidence. The perfection I hold is so far from being contrary to the doctrine of our Church, that it is exactly the same which every Clergyman prays for every Sunday: “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.” I mean neither more nor less than this. In doctrine, therefore, I do not dissent from the Church of England. 14. However, “he renounces the discipline of the Church.” (Page 15.) This objection too I have answered at large, in my Letters to Dr. Church,-another kind of opponent than Mr. Rowland Hill; a gentleman, a scholar, and a Christian; and as such he both spoke and wrote. 15. “He falsely says, Almost all who were educated at Trevecka, except those that were ordained, and some of them too, disclaimed the Church, nay, and spoke of it upon all occasions with exquisite bitterness and contempt.” This is a terrible truth. If Lady Huntingdon requires it, I can procure affidavits, both concerning the time and place. 16. “He professes he stands in no need of Christ's righteousness.” (Page 23.) I never professed any such thing. The very sermon referred to, the fifth in the first volume, proves the contrary. But I flatly deny that sense of imputed righteousness which Mr. Hill contends for. 17. “He expressly maintains the merit of good works, in order to justification.” (Page 24.) Neither expressly nor implicitly. I hope Mr. Hill has not read Mr. Fletcher's Checks, nor my sermons on the subject. If he has not, he has a poor excuse for this assertion: If he has, he can have no excuse at all. 18. “He contradicts himself concerning Enoch and Elijah. See his Notés, the former edition.” (Page 28.) Wisely directed ! for Mr. Hill knew the mistake was corrected in the next edition. 19. “He is ever raising malicious accusations against the lives and doctrines of all Calvinists, whether Churchmen or Dissenters, throughout all the kingdom.” (Page 29.) Thousands of Calvinists know the contrary, both Church men and Dissenters. 20.

John; ” (polite ) “and probably in a much better manner. Erase half a dozen lines, and I defy any one to discover whether the lying apostle of the Foundery be a Jew, a Papist, a Pagan, or a Turk.” (Page 4.) “Else I should have treated his trumpery with the silence and contempt it deserves. But to see Mr. Whitefield scratched out of his grave by the claws of this designing wolf.” (there is a metaphor for you!) “is enough to make the very stones cry out, or (which would be a greater miracle still) redden even a Wesley's forehead with a blush.” (Page 5.) I think it would be a greater miracle still to make a wolf blush. “The dictatorial Mr. John lyingly maintains argument enough for the gaping dupes whom he leads by the nose.” (Page 6.) “He and his lay lubbers go forth to poison the minds of men.” (Page 11.) Are not then the lay lubbers and the gaping dupes just fit for each other? But who are these lay lubbers? They are “Wesley's ragged legion of preaching tinkers, scavengers, draymen, and chimney-sweepers.” (Page 21.) 3. “No man would do this, unless he were as unprincipled as a rook, and as silly as a jackdaw.” y“His own people say, ‘He is a very poor preacher;’ and that most of his laymen, raw and ignorant as they are, preach much more to the purpose. Indeed, the old gentleman has lost his teeth. But should he not then cease mumbling with his gums?” (Page 25.) “Why do they not keep the shatter-brained old gentleman locked up in a garret?” (Page 36) 4. “I doubt not but for profit' sake he would profess himself a stanch Calvinist.” (Page 16.) “The Rev. Mr. John, Mr. Whitefield’s quondam under strapper.” (Ibid.) How sadly then did he mistake, when he so often subscribed himself, “Your dutiful, your obliged and affectionate, son l’’ 454 ANswer. To MR. RowLAND HILL's IMPosTURE, &c. “Mark the venom that now distils from his graceless pen.” “The venomous quill of this gray-headed enemy to all righteousness.” (Pages 17, 19.) 5.

Hereby, however, he showed that he set an higher value on the gift, than on the money which he would have parted with for it. But you do not; you set a far higher value on the money than on the gift; insomuch that you do not desire, you will not accept of, the gift, unless the money accompany it ! The Bishop said, when you was ordained, “Receive thou the Holy Ghost.” But that was the least of your care. Let who will receive this, so you receive the money, the revenue of a good benefice. While you minister the word and sacraments before God, he gives the Holy Ghost to those who duly receive them: So that, “through your hands,” likewise, “the Holy Ghost is,” in this sense, “given” now. But you have little concern whether he be or not; so little, that you will minister no longer, he shall be given no more, either through your lips or hands, if you have no more money for your labour. O Simon, Simon what a saint wert thou, compared to many of the most honourable men now in Christendom | Let not any either ignorantly or wilfully mistake me. I would not “muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn.” I know the spiritual “labourer,” too, “is worthy of his reward;” and that, if “we sow unto” our flock “spiritual things,” it is meet that we “reap of their carnal things.” I do not therefore blame, no, not in any degree, a Minister's taking a yearly salary; but I blame his seeking it. The thing blamable is the having it in his view, as the motive, or any part of the motive, for entering into this sacred office. Hic nigra succus loliginis, hac est AErugomera." If preferment, or honour, or profit was in his eye, his eye was not single. And our Lord knew no medium between a single and an evil eye. The eye, therefore, which is not single is evil. It is a plain, adjudged case. He then that has any other design in undertaking or executing the office of a Minister than purely this, to glorify God and save souls, his eye is not single.

Unconsecrated bells were rung without scruple, and unconsecrated vestments worn. But some of them remained still ; the consecration of churches and churchyards in particular; and many scrupled the performing divine service in an unconsecrated church, and could not consent that their bodies should be buried in unconsecrated ground. 3. Accordingly, the consecrating of churches and church yards has been practised in England ever since. But it is a thing purely indifferent, being neither forbidden nor established by law. The case is different in Ireland. While the Earl of Strafford was Lord Lieutenant of that kingdom, a law was made for the consecration, not only of churches, but of churchyards also. And a form of consecration for both was inserted in the Common Prayer-Book, which is used at this day; much resembling that which Archbishop Laud used in the consecration of St. Katherine Creed's church, in London. 4. But such a law has never passed in England, much less been inserted in our Common Prayer-Book. However, such consecration has been generally practised, though not autho rized by the legislature. “Is it then illegal?” That word is capable of a twofold meaning. It may mean, either, without any law in its favour, or, against law. I do not conceive it to be illegal in the latter sense. Perhaps it is in the former: I do not know any law that enjoins or even permits it. 5. And certainly, as it is not enjoined by the law of the land, so it is not enjoined by the law of God. Where do we find one word in the New Testament enjoining any such thing? Neither do I remember any precedent of it in the purest ages of the Church. It seems to have entered, and gradually spread itself, with the other innovations and super stitions of the Church of Rome. “Do you think it, then, a superstitious practice?” Perhaps it is not, if it be practised as a thing indifferent. But if it be done as a necessary thing, then it is flatly superstitious. 6. For this reason I never wished that any Bishop should consecrate any chapel or burial-ground of mine. Indeed, I should not dare to suffer it; as I am clearly persuaded the thing is wrong in itself, being not authorized either by any law of God, or by any law of the land.

Indeed, I should not dare to suffer it; as I am clearly persuaded the thing is wrong in itself, being not authorized either by any law of God, or by any law of the land. In consequence of which, I conceive, that either the clerk or the sexton may as well consecrate the church or the churchyard, as the Bishop. 7. With regard to the latter, the churchyard, I know not who could answer that plain question: “You say, this is consecrated ground, so many feet broad, and so many long. But pray how deep is the consecrated ground?”--“Deep ! What does that signify?” O, a great deal: For if my grave be dug too deep, I may happen to get out of the consecrated ground: And who can tell what unhappy consequences may follow from this? 8. I take the whole of this practice to be a mere relic of Romish superstition. And I wonder that any sensible Protestant should think it right to countenance it; much more, that any reasonable man should plead for the necessity of it ! Surely, it is high time now that we should be guided, not by custom, but by Scripture and reason. DUMFRIEs, May 14, 1788.

Thoughts, Addresses, Prayers, Letters G r and R a pids G-6 Michig an This edition of the complete and unabridged THE WoRks of JoHN WESLEY is reproduced by the photo offset process from the authorized edition published by the Wesleyan Conference Office in London, England, in 1872. Lithographed in the United States of America * * - * * - , , conTENTs I. Page. Serious Thoughts occasioned by the late Earthquake at Lisbon. . . . . . . . . . . . .• • • - - - - - - - • • * * * * * * * I Free Thoughts on the Present State of Public Affairs: In a Letter to a Friend. . . . .• - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . 14 Thoughts upon Liberty . . . . . . . . . . . .• * * * * * * * * * * 3 * Thoughts concerning the Origin of Power . . . . . . . . . . . 4G, Thoughts on the Present Scarcity of Provisions . . . . . . . £3 Thoughts upon Slavery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 A Call" Addrcss to our American Colonies. . . . . . . . . . . 80 :Some Observations on Liberty : Occasioned by a late Tract 90 A Seasonable Address to the more serious part of the Inhabitants of Great Britain, respecting the Unhappy Contcst between us and our American Brethren : With an occasional Word interspersed to those of a different Complexion. By a Lover of Peace . . . . . . } | {} State Univers, uy of iowa X. Page. A Calm Address to the Inhabitants of England . . . . . . . 129 A Serious Address to the People of England, with regard to the State of the Nation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 A Compassionate. Address to the Inhabitants of Ireland. . 149 How far is it the Duty of a Christian Minister to Preach Politics 2 . . . . .

. .• * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27. But can anything be done to open the eyes, to restore the senses, of an infatuated nation? Not unless the still renewed, still operating cause of that infatuation can be removed. But how is it possible to be removed, unless by restraining the licentiousness of the press? And is not this remedy worse than the disease? Let us weigh this matter a little. There was an ancient law in Scotland, which made leasing-making a capital crime. By leasing-making was meant, telling such wilful lies as tended to breed dissension between the King and his subjects. What pity but there should be such a law enacted in the present session of Parliament! By our present laws, a man is punishable for publishing even truth to the detriment of his neighbour. This I would not wish. But should he not be punished, who publishes palpable lies? and such lies as manifestly tend to breed dissension between the King and his subjects? Such, with a thousand more, was that bare-faced lie of the King’s bursting out into laughter before the city Magistrates ! Now, does not the publisher of this lie deserve to lose his ears more than a com mon knight of the post? And if he is liable to no punishment for a crime of so mischievous a nature, what a grievous defect is in our law ! And how loud does it call for a remedy 28. To return to the point whence we set out. You see whence arose this outcry for liberty, and these dismal com plaints that we are robbed of our liberty echoing through the land. It is plain to every unprejudiced man, they have not the least foundation. We enjoy at this day throughout these kingdoms such liberty, civil and religious, as no other king dom or commonwealth in Europe, or in the world, enjoys; and such as our ancestors never enjoyed from the Conquest to the Revolution. Let us be thankful for it to God and the King ! Let us not, by our vile unthankfulness, yea, our denial that we enjoy it at all, provoke the King of kings to take it away. By one stroke, by taking to himself that Prince whom we know not how to value, He might change the scene, and put an end to our civil as well as religious liberty.

Then they have a right to choose their own Governors; an indefeasible right; a right inherent, insepar able from human nature. “But in England, at least, they are excluded by law.” But did they consent to the making of that law If not, by your original supposition, it can have no power over them. I therefore utterly deny that we can, consistently with that supposition, debar either women or minors from choosing their own Governors. 13. But suppose we exclude these by main force, (which it is certain we are able to do, since though they have most votes they have least strength,) are all that remain, all men of full age, the people? Are all males, then, that have lived one-and-twenty years allowed to choose their own Governors? “Not at all; not in England, unless they are freeholders, unless they have forty shillings a year.” Worse and worse. After depriving half the human species of their natural rights for want of a beard; after depriving myriads more for want of a stiff beard, for not having lived one-and-twenty years; 50 ThouGHTS CoNCER NING you rob others (probably some hundred thousands) of their birthright for want of money! Yet not altogether on this account neither; if so, it might be more tolerable. But here is an Englishman who has money enough to buy the estates of fifty freeholders, and yet he must not be numbered among the people because he has not two or three acres of land I How is this? By what right do you exclude a man from being one of the people because he has not forty shillings a year; yea, or not a groat? Is he not a man, whether he be 1 rich or poor? Has he not a soul and a body? Has he not the nature of a man; consequently, all the rights of a man, all that flow from human nature; and, among the rest, that of not being controlled by any but by his own consent. 14. “But he is excluded by law.” By what law? by a law of his own making? Did he consent to the making of it? Before this law was passed, was his consent either obtained or asked ? If not, what is that law to him? No man, you aver, has any power over another but by his own consent.

Indeed, an eminent distiller near London, hearing this, warmly replied, “Nay, my partner and I generally distil but a thousand quarters a week.” Perhaps so. And suppose five-and-twenty distillers, in and near the town, consume each only the same quantity: Here are five and-twenty thousand quarters a week, that is, above twelve hundred and fifty thousand a year, consumed in and about London | Add the distillers throughout England, and have we not reason to believe, that (not a thirtieth or a twentieth part only, but) little less than half the wheat produced in the kingdom is every year consumed, not by so harmless a way as throwing it into the sea, but by converting it into deadly poison; poison that naturally destroys not only the strength and life, but also the morals, of our countrymen? It may be objected, “This cannot be. We know how much corn is distilled by the duty that is paid. And hereby it appears, that scarce three hundred thousand quarters a year are distilled throughout the kingdom.” Do we know certainly, how much corn is distilled by the duty that is paid? Is it indisputable, that the full duty is paid for all the corn that is distilled? not to insist upon the multitude of private stills, which pay no duty at all. I have myself heard the servant of an eminent distiller occasionally aver, that for every gallon he distilled which paid duty, he distilled six which paid none. Yea, I have heard distillers themselves affirm, “We must do this, or we cannot live.” It plainly follows, we cannot judge, from the duty that is paid, of the quantity of corn that is distilled. “However, what is paid brings in a large revenue to the King.” Is this an equivalent for the lives of his subjects? Would His Majesty sell an hundred thousand of his subjects yearly to Algiers for four hundred thousand pounds? Surely no. Will he then sell them for that sum, to be butchered by their own countrymen? “But otherwise the swine for the Navy cannot be fed.” Not unless they are fed with human flesh ! Not unless they are fatted with human blood O, tell it not in Constantinople, that the English raise the royal revenue by selling the flesh and blood of their countrymen I 4. But why are oats so dear?

As to the punishments inflicted on them, says Sir Hans Sloane, “they frequently geld them, or chop off half a foot: After they are whipped till they are raw all over, some put pepper and salt upon them; some drop melted wax upon their skin; others cut off their ears, and constrain them to broil and eat them. For rebellion,” (that is, asserting their native liberty, which they have as much right to as to the air they breathe,) “they fasten them down to the ground with crooked sticks on every limb, and then applying fire, by degrees, to the feet and hands, they burn them gradually upward to the head.” 9. But will not the laws made in the plantations prevent or ThiOUGHTS UPON SLAVERY. 69 redress all cruelty and oppression? We will take but a few of those laws for a specimen, and then let any man judge: In order to rivet the chain of slavery, the law of Virginia ordains: “That no slave shall be set free upon any pretence whatever, except for some meritorious services, to be adjudged and allowed by the Governor and Council; and that where any slave shall be set free by his owner, otherwise than is herein directed, the Churchwardens of the parish, wherein such Negro shall reside for the space of one month, are hereby authorized and required to take up and sell the said Negro by public outcry.” 10. Will not these lawgivers take effectual care to prevent cruelty and oppression? The law of Jamaica ordains: “Every slave that shall run away, and continue absent from his master twelve months, shall be deemed rebellious.” And by another law, fifty pounds are allowed to those who kill or bring in alive a rebellious slave. So their law treats these poor men with as little cere mony and consideration, as if they were merely brute beasts! But the innocent blood which is shed in consequence of such a detestable law, must call for vengeance on the murderous abettors and actors of such deliberate wickedness. 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 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 1) “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 lawmakers to £xpect 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 inquire, 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. 1 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 differ ence 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? Where is the justice of inflicting the severest evils on those that have done us no wrong? of depriving those that never injured us in word or deed, of every comfort of life?

Men of understanding allow that the glory of England was full as high in Queen Elizabeth’s time as it is now; although our riches and trade were then as much smaller, as our virtue was greater. But, Secondly, it is not clear that we should have either less money or trade, (only less of that detestable trade of man-stealing,) if there was not a Negro in all our islands, or in all English America. It is demonstrable, white men, inured to it by degrees, can work as well as them; and they would do it, were Negroes out of the way, and proper encouragement given them. However, Thirdly, I come back to the same point: Better no trade, than trade procured by villany. It is far better to have no wealth, than to gain wealth at the expense of virtue. Better is honest poverty, than all the riches bought by the tears, and sweat, and blood, of our fellow-creatures. 8. “However this be, it is necessary, when we have slaves, to use them with severity.” What, to whip them for every petty offence, till they are all in gore blood? to take that opportunity of rubbing pepper and salt into their raw flesh? to drop burning sealing-wax upon their skin? to castrate them ? to cut off half their foot with an axe? to hang them on gibbets, that they may die by inches, with heat, and hunger, and thirst? to pin them down to the ground, and then burn them by degrees, from the feet to the head? to roast them alive? When did a Turk or a Heathen find it necessary to use a fellow-creature thus? I pray, to what end is this usage necessary? “Why, to prevent their running away; and to keep them constantly to their labour, that they may not idle away their time: So miser ably stupid is this race of men, yea, so stubborn, and so wicked.” Allowing them to be as stupid as you say, to whom is that stupidity owing? Without question, it lies altogether at the door of their inhuman masters; who give them no means, no opportunity, of improving their understanding; and, indeed, leave them no motive, either from hope or fear, to attempt any such thing.

For they inherit all the right which their ancestors had of enjoying all the privileges of Englishmen.” They do inherit all the privileges which their ancestors had; but they can inherit no more. Their ancestors left a country where the representatives of the people were elected by men particularly qualified, and where those who wanted that qualification were bound by the decisions of men whom they had not deputed. You are the descendants of men who either had no votes, or resigned them by emigration. You have therefore exactly what your ancestors left you; not a vote in making laws, nor in choosing legislators; but the happiness of being protected by laws, and the duty of obeying them. What your ancestors did not bring with them, neither they nor their descendants have acquired. They have not, by aban doning their right in one legislature, acquired a right to consti tute another; any more than the multitudes in England who have no vote, have a right to erect a Parliament for themselves. 7. However, the “colonies have a right to all the privi leges granted them by royal charters, or secured to them by provincial laws.” The first clause is allowed: They have certainly a right to all the privileges granted them by royal charters; provided those privileges be consistent with the British constitution. But as to the second there is a doubt: Provincial laws may grant privileges to individuals of the province; but surely no province can confer provincial privileges on itself! They have a right to all which the King has given them; but not to all which they have given themselves. 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.

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. 13, lays several duties on rum, sugar, and molasses imported into North-America. 10. All that impartially consider what has been observed, must readily allow that the English Parliament has an undoubted right to tax all the English colonies. But whence then is all this hurry and tumult? Why is America all in an uproar?

Worse and worse! After depriving half the human species of their natural right for want of a beard; after having deprived myriads more for want of a stiff beard, for not having lived one-and-twenty years; you rob others, many hundred thou sands, of their birthright for want of money ! Yet not alto gether on this account neither; if so, it might be more tolerable. But here is an Englishman who has money enough to buy the estates of fifty freeholders, and yet he must not be numbered among the people, because he has not two or three acres of land How is this? By what right do you exclude a man from being one of the people, because he has not forty shillings a year; yea, or not a groat? Is he not a man, whether he be rich or poor? Has he not a soul and a body? Has he not the nature of a man; consequently, all the rights of a man, all that flow from human nature; and, among the rest, that of not being controlled by any but by his own consent? “But he that has not a freehold is excluded by law.” By a law of his own making? Did he consent to the making of it? If he did not, what is that law to him ? No man, you aver, has any power over another, but by his own consent: Of consequence, a law made without his consent is, with regard to him, null and void. You cannot say other wise, without destroying the supposition, that “none can be governed but by his own consent.” 26. See now to what your argument comes. You affirm, all power is derived from the people; and presently exclude one half of the people from having any part or lot in the matter. At another stroke, suppose England to contain eight millions of people, you exclude one or two millions more. At a third, suppose two millions left, you exclude three-fourths of these; and the poor pittance that remains, by I know not what figure of speech, you call the people of England ! 27.

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.

However, little as it was, they bore it not without huge indignation, and strong marks of resentment. And whenever a matter of this kind came before an American jury, (which could not but frequently be the case,) it was easy to foresee the event. The officer was sure to have his labour for his pains; for they were too good patriots to condemn their countrymen I By this means the customs of North-America, which ought to have brought in so considerable a sum as would have gone far toward defraying the expense of the government, were reduced to a very small pittance. 9. In consideration of this, the English Government a few years ago thought it equitable to lay a small duty upon the stamps in America, in order, if not to bear themselves harm less, yet to lessen their burden. Immediately a cry arose, as if all America was just going to be swallowed up. It was echoed across the Atlantic Ocean, from America to England. The patriots (so they styled themselves) in England eagerly joined the cry, and spared no labour and no expense to pro pagate it throughout the nation. Do you suppose they did this out of stark love and kindness to the poor, ruined Americans? No such matter. They understood the case too well; they knew they cried before they were hurt. But they laid hold on this as a fair occasion to throw an aspersion on those that were in power, being very willing, and supposing themselves very worthy, to supply their place. However, the Ministry finding the clamour increasing, and the storm spreading on both sides the ocean, were persuaded to give way to the torrent. They did so; and the Stamp Act was repealed. 10. The American leaders now apprehending that they had a sufficient number of fast friends in England, began to entertain higher designs; the New-England men in particular. They had no longer anything to fear from Canada, which the English had conquered for them. And they had nothing to fear from England, when they judged their allies were growing stronger and stronger. They therefore paved the way for the execution of their favourite scheme; first, by diligently cultivating the republican motions which they had received from their forefathers; and then by speaking and writing in the most contemptuous and reproachful manner of the English Government. 11.

What Minister is permitted to follow his own conscience in the execution of his office? to put man in mind to be “subject to principalities and powers?” to “fear God and honour the King?” Who is suffered (whatever his conscience may dictate) to “pray for the King, and all that are in authority?” There is no civil liberty. No man hath any security, either for his goods, or for his person; but is daily liable to have his goods spoiled or taken away, without either law or form of law, and to suffer the most cruel outrage as to his person, such as many would account worse than death. And there is no legal method wherein he can obtain redress for whatever loss or outrage he has sustained. 20. Do not you observe, wherever these bawlers for liberty govern, there is the vilest slavery? No man there can say that his goods are his own. They are absolutely at the dis posal of the mob, or the Congress. No man can say that his tongue is his own. If he say a word for the King, what will follow * No man can say that his body is his own. He may be imprisoned whenever our lords the Congress please. They are as absolute as the Emperor of Morocco: Their will is the sole law. No man can say his life is his own. Those who have the disposal of his substance, who have the disposal of his liberty, have the disposal of his life also. And of this they have given recent proofs. It is true, they do not themselves cut throats; they do not soil their own fingers; but their friends the mob are always ready. Thus is real liberty, in all its branches, given up for that poor shadow, independency! a phantom which does not, in fact, exist in any civilized nation under heaven It never did, and never will, being wholly inconsistent with the very idea of government. And to what a condition are these poor colonies brought, by quitting the substance for the shadow ! “Do you ask,” says a gentleman who writes from Philadelphia, “what is the present state of these provinces? You may see it upon Ezekiel's roll; such is the condition of this country: “It is written within and without, lamentation, and mourning, and woe.’” ThE INHABITANTS OF ENGLAND. 137 21.

O let your heart be toward him; seek him from the heart | Fear sin, more than want, more than death. And cry mightily to Him who bore your sins, till you have bread to eat that the world knoweth not of; till you have angels' food, even the love of God shed abroad in your heart; till you can say, “Now I know that my Redeemer liveth, that he hath loved me, and given himself for me; and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God!” I. “WHAT is smuggling?” It is the importing, selling, or buying of run goods; that is, those which have not paid the duty appointed by law to be paid to the King. 1. Importing run goods. All smuggling vessels do this with an high hand. It is the chief, if not the whole, business of these to bring goods which have not paid duty. 2. Next to these are all sea Captains, Officers, sailors, or passengers, who import anything without paying the duty which the law requires. 3. A third sort of smugglers are all those who sell anything which has not paid the duty. 4. A fourth sort, those who buy tea, liquors, linen, hand kerchiefs, or anything else which has not paid duty. II. “But why should they not? What harm is there in it 2 * 1. I answer, open smuggling (such as was common a few years ago, on the southern coasts especially) is robbing on the highway; and as much harm as there is in this, just so much there is in smuggling. A smuggler of this kind is no honester than an highwayman. They may shake hands together. 2. Private smuggling is just the same with picking of pockets. There is full as much harm in this as in that. A smuggler of this kind is no honester than a pickpocket. These may shake hands together. 3. But open smugglers are worse than common highway men, and private smugglers are worse than common pick pockets. For it is undoubtedly worse to rob our father than one we have no obligation to. And it is worse still, far worse, to rob a good father, one who sincerely loves us, and is at that very time doing all he can to provide for us and to make us happy.

us freely and willingly to please thee, in the constant exercise of righteousness and mercy, temperance and charity, meek ness and patience, truth and fidelity; together with such an humble, contented, and peaceable spirit, as may adorn the religion of our Lord and Master. Yea, let it ever be the joy of our hearts to be righteous, as thou art righteous; to be merciful, as thou, our heavenly Father, art merciful; to be “holy, as thou who hast called us art holy, in all manner of conversation;” to be endued with thy divine wisdom, and to resemble thee in faithfulness and truth. O that the example of our blessed Saviour may be always dear unto us, that we may cheerfully follow him in every holy temper, and delight to do thy will, O God. Let these desires, which thou hast given us, never die or languish in our hearts, but be kept always alive, always in their vigour and force, by the perpetual inspirations of the Holy Ghost. Accept, likewise, of our thanks, for thy merciful preserva tion of us all this day. We are bold again to commit ourselves unto thee this night. Defend us from all the powers of darkness; and raise up our spirits, together with our bodies, in the morning, to such a vigorous sense of thy continued goodness, as may provoke us all the day long to an unwearied diligence in well-doing. And the same mercies that we beg for ourselves, we desire. for the rest of mankind; especially for those who are called by the name of Christ.

for the rest of mankind; especially for those who are called by the name of Christ. O that every one of these may do his duty with all fidelity; that Kings may be tender-hearted, as the fathers of their countries; and all their subjects may be dutiful and obedient to them, as their children; that the Pastors of thy Church may feed their flocks with true wisdom and understanding, and the people all may submit unto them, and follow their godly counsels; that the rich and mighty may have compassion on the poor and miserable; and all such distressed people may bless the rich, and rejoice in the pros perity of those that are above them Give to husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants, the grace to behave themselves so in their several relations, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things, and may receive of him a crown of glory; in whose holy name and words we continue to beseech thy grace and mercy towards us and all thy people everywhere, saying, “Our Father,” &c. O God, blessed for ever, we thank and praise thee for all thy benefits, for the comforts of this life, and our hope of everlasting salvation in the life to come. We desire to have a lively sense of thy love always possessing our hearts, that may still constrain us to love thee, to obey thee, to trust in thee, to be content with the portion thy love allots unto us, and to rejoice even in the midst of all the troubles of this life. Thou hast delivered thine own Son for us all. How shalt thou not with him also freely give us all things? We depend upon thee especially for the grace of thy Holy Spirit. O that we may feel it perpetually bearing us up, by the strength of our most holy faith, above all the temptations that may at any time assault us; that we may keep ourselves unspotted from the world, and may still cleave to thee in righteousness, in lowliness, purity of heart, yea, the whole mind that was in Christ. Let thy mighty power enable us to do our duty towards thee, and towards all men, with care, and diligence, and zeal, and perseverance, unto the end.

Keep my hands from picking and stealing, my tongue from evil speaking, lying, and slandering; keep my body in temperance, soberness, and chastity; that I may not covet any person's goods, but learn and labour to get my own living, and to do my duty in the state of life wherein it shall please thee to place me. Direct me so to pass through things temporal, that I may not finally lose the things which are eternal, but at last be received into thy presence, where is fulness of joy, and be seated at thy right hand, where are pleasures for evermore, through Jesus Christ my Saviour. Amen. “Our Father,” &c. O Lord God, the gracious Giver of all good things, I praise and adore thee for thy goodness, which has been so plentiful towards me an unworthy child of man. Thou hast in thy mercy, not only preserved me this day from all dangers, but bestowed upon me all things needful, for which I desire entirely to praise thy fatherly goodness, and with angels and sarchangels, and all the company of heaven, to laud and magnify thy holy name. Bless, then, the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me, praise his holy name; for the Lord is gracious, and his mercy is everlasting towards them that fear him. And now, Lord, I most humbly implore thy fatherly goodness to forgive me whatever has this day, in my heart or life, offended the eyes of thy glory. O Lamb of God, Son of the Father, that takest away the sins of the world, receive my prayer. Prevent me, O Lord, in all my doings for the time to come, and further me with thy continual help, that, in all my thoughts, words, and works, I may continually glorify thy holy name. Grant me thy grace, that I may follow thy blessed saints in all righteousness and holy living, that I may at last come to be a partaker with them of glory everlasting. Do thou enable me, gracious Lord, to adorn thy gospel in all holy conversation, and to do whatever I do to the glory of thy name. Cleanse the thoughts of my heart, by the inspira tion of thy Holy Spirit, that I may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy name.

An odd incident followed: A few months after, the Bishop died of a cancer in his mouth. Perhaps some may think this was a just retribution for silencing such a Prophet, on such an occasion I I am not ashamed to acknowledge this is my own sentiment; and I do not think it any breach of charity to suppose that an action, so unworthy a Christian Bishop, had its punishment in this world. 9. When he returned from London in the same year, he was more frequently invited to preach in several of the neighbouring churches. And before his quitting the country he gave me a few printed papers, entitled, “A Christmas-box for Journey men and Apprentices.” I mention it the rather because I suppose this was the first thing which he ever published. 10. It was in the beginning of June, 1759, that he returned the last time from London to Tern-Hall; and being now less frequently called to public duty, he enjoyed his beloved retirement, giving himself up to study, meditation, and prayer, and walking closely with God. Indeed his whole life was now a life of prayer; and so intensely was his mind fixed upon God, that I have heard him say, “I would not move from my seat, without lifting up my heart to God.” Wherever we met, if we were alone, his first salute was, “Do I meet you praying?” And if we were talking on any point of divinity, when we were in the depth of our discourse, he would often break off abruptly, and ask, “Where are our hearts now 7” If ever the misconduct of an absent person was mentioned, his usual reply was, “Let us pray for him.” ll. It was, as I remember, about the close of this summer, that he was frequently desired, sometimes to assist, at other times to perform the whole service for, Mr. Chambers, then Vicar of Madeley. On these occasions it was, that he con tracted such an affection for the people of Madeley, as nothing could hinder from increasing more and more to the day of his death. While he officiated at Madeley, as he still lived at the Hall, ten miles distant from it, a groom was ordered to get a horse ready for him every Sunday morning.

10. “These seasons generally terminated in this: Being convinced that to be “filled with the Holy Ghost’ was a better qualification for the ministry of the gospel than any classical learning, (though that too may be useful in its place,) after speaking awhile in the school-room, he used frequently to say, “As many of you as are athirst for this fulness of the Spirit, follow me into my room.” On this, many of us have instantly followed him, and there continued till noon, wrestling like Jacob for the blessing, praying one after another, till we could bear to kneel no longer. This was not done once or twice, but many times. And I have sometimes seen him on these occasions, once in particular, so filled with the love of God, that he could contain no more; but cried out, ‘O my God, withhold thy hand, or the vessel will burst.” But he afterwards told me, he was afraid he had grieved the Spirit of God; and that he ought rather to have prayed that the Lord would have enlarged the vessel, or have suffered it to break; that the soul might have no farther bar or inter ruption to its enjoyment of the supreme good.” This is certainly a just remark. The proper prayer on such an occasion would have been, Give me the enlarged desire, And open, Lord, my soul, Thy own fulness to require, And comprehend the whole ! Stretch my faith's capacity Wider, and yet wider still ; Then with all that is in thee My ravish'd spirit fill ! 11. “Such was the ordinary employment of this man of God while he remained at Trevecka. He preached the word of life to the students and family, and as many of the neighbour's as desired to be present. He was ‘instant in season, out of season;’ he ‘reproved, rebuked, exhorted, with all long suffering. He was always employed, either in discovering; some important truth, or exhorting to some neglected duty, or administering some needful comfort, or relating some useful anecdote, or making some profitable remark or observation upon anything that occurred. And his devout soul, always burning with love and zeal, led him to intermingle prayer with all he said.

Yet I must own, I have known many fully equal to Mr. Whitefield, both in holy tempers and holiness of conversation; but one equal herein to Mr. Fletcher I have not known, no, not in a life of fourscore years. 6. However, having chosen, at least for the present, this narrow field of action, he was more and more abundant in his ministerial labours, both in public and private; not con tenting himself with preaching, but visiting his flock in every corner of his parish. And this work he attended to, early and late, whether the weather was fair or foul; regarding neither heat nor cold, rain nor snow, whether he was on horse back or on foot. But this farther weakened his constitution; which was still more effectually done by his intense and uninterrupted studies; in which he frequently continued with out scarce any intermission, fourteen, fifteen, or sixteen hours a day. But still he did not allow himself such food as was necessary to sustain nature. He seldom took any regular meals, except he had company; otherwise, twice or thrice in four-and-twenty hours, he ate some bread and cheese, or fruit. Instead of this, he sometimes took a draught of milk, and then wrote on again. When one reproved him for not affording himself a sufficiency of necessary food, he replied, “Not allow myself food | Why, our food seldom costs my housekeeper and me together less than two shillings a week.” 7. “On the tenth of May, 1774,” says Mr. Vaughan, to whom we are indebted for several of the preceding anecdotes, “he wrote to me thus: ‘My brother has sent me the rent of a little place I have abroad, eighty pounds, which I was to receive from Mr. Chauvet and Company, in London. But instead of sending the draught for the money, I have sent it back to Switzerland, with orders to distribute it among thc poor. As money is rather higher there than here, that mite will go farther abroad than it would in my parish.’” 8. To show in how great a degree he was disengaged from Wealth, honour, pleasure, or what else This short-enduring world could give, Mr.

- (4.) All our blessings, temporal, spiritual, and eternal, depend on his intercession for us, which is one branch of his priestly office, whereof therefore we have always equal need. (5.) The best of men still need Christ in his priestly office, to atone for their omissions, their short-comings, (as some not improperly speak,) their mistakes in judgment and practice, and their defects of various kinds. For these are all deviations from the perfect law, and consequently need an atonement. Yet that they are not properly sins, we apprehend may appear from the words of St. Paul, “He that loveth, hath fulfilled the law; for love is the fulfilling of the law.” (Rom. xiii. 10.) Now, mistakes, and whatever infirmities necessarily flow from the corruptible state of the body, are noway contrary to love; nor therefore, in the f$cripture sense, sin. “To explain myself a little farther on this head: (1) Not only sin, properly so called, (that is, a voluntary trans gression of a known law,) but sin, improperly so called, (that is, an involuntary transgression of a divine law, known or unknown,) needs the atoning blood. (2.) I believe there is no such perfection in this life as excludes these involuntary trans gressions which I apprehend to be naturally consequent on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality. (3.) Therefore sinless perfection is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself (4.) I believe, a person filled with the love of God is still liable to these involuntary transgressions. (5.) Such transgressions you may call sins, if you please: I do not, for the reasons above-mentioned. “Q. What advice would you give to those that do, and those that do not, call them so? “A. Let those that do not call them sins, never think that themselves or any other persons are in such a state as that they can stand before infinite justice without a Mediator. This must argue either the deepest ignorance, or the highest arrogance and presumption. “Let those who do call them so, beware how they confound these defects with sins, properly so called. “But how will they avoid it? How will thesebe distinguished from those, if they are all promiscuously called sins?

About the same time, five or six honest enthusiasts foretold the world was to end on the 28th of February. I immediately withstood them, by every possible means, both in public and private. I preached expressly upon the subject, both at West-Street and Spitalfields. I warned the society, again and again, and spoke severally to as many as I could; and I saw the fruit of my labour. They made exceeding few converts: I believe scarce thirty in our whole society. Never theless, they made abundance of noise, gave huge occasion of offence to those who took care to improve to the uttermost every occasion against me, and greatly increased both the number and courage of those who opposed Christian perfection. 23. Some questions, now published by one of these, induced a plain man to write the following “QUERIEs, humbly proposed to those who deny perfection to be attainable in this life. “(1.) Has there not been a larger measure of the Holy Spirit given under the Gospel, than under the Jewish dispensation? If not, in what sense was the Spirit not given before Christ was glorified? (John vii. 39.) “(2.) Was that “glory which followed the sufferings of Christ,” (1 Peter i. 11,) an external glory, or an internal, viz., the glory of holiness? “(3.) Has God anywhere in Scripture commanded us more than he has promised to us? “(4.) Are the promises of God respecting holiness to be fulfilled in this life, or only in the next? “(5.) Is a Christian under any other laws than those which God promises to ‘write in our hearts?’ (Jer. xxxi. 31, &c.; Heb. viii. 10.) “(6.) In what sense is ‘the righteousness of the law fulfilled in those who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit?’ (Romans viii. 4.) “(7.) Is it impossible for any one in this life to ‘love God with all his heart, and mind, and soul, and strength?’ And is the Christian under any law which is not fulfilled in this love? “(8) Does the soul's going out of the body effect its purification from indwelling sin? “(9.) If so, is it not something else, not ‘the blood of Christ which cleanseth it ‘from all sin P’ “(10.) If his blood cleanseth us from all sin, while the soul and body are united, is it not in this life?

His body was then no clog to the mind; it did not hinder his apprehending all things clearly, judging truly concerning them, and reasoning justly, if he reasoned at all. I say, if he reasoned; for possibly he did not. Perhaps he had no need of reasoning, till his corruptible body pressed down the mind, and impaired its native faculties. Perhaps, till then, the mind saw every truth that offered as directly as the eye now sees the light. “Consequently, this law, proportioned to his original powers, required that he should always think, always speak, and always act precisely right, in every point whatever. He was well able so to do: And God could not but require the service he was able to pay. “But Adam fell; and his incorruptible body became corruptible; and ever since, it is a clog to the soul, and hinders its operations. Hence, at present, no child of man can at all times apprehend clearly, or judge truly. And where either the judgment or apprehension is wrong, it is impossible to reason justly. Therefore, it is as natural for a man to mistake as to breathe; and he can no more live without the one than without the other: Consequently, no man is able to perform the service which the Adamic law requires. “And no man is obliged to perform it; God does not require it of any man: For Christ is the end of the Adamic, as well as the Mosaic, law. By his death, he hath put an end to both; he hath abolished both the one and the other, with regard to man; and the obligation to observe either the one or the other is vanished away. Nor is any man living bound to observe the Adamic more than the Mosaic law.” “In the room of this, Christ hath established another, namely, the law of faith. Not every one that doeth, but every one that believeth, now receiveth righteousness, in the full sense ·of the word; that is, he is justified, sanctified, and glorified. “Q. 2. Are we then dead to the law 7 “A. We are ‘dead to the law, by the body of Christ’ given for us; (Rom. vii. 4;) to the Adamic as well as Mosaic law. We are wholly freed therefrom by his death; that law expiring with him. “Q. 3.

3. How, then, are we ‘not without law to God, but under the law to Christ?” (1 Cor. ix. 21.) “A. We are without that law; but it does not follow that we are without any law : For God has established another law in its place, even the law of faith: And we are all under this law to God and to Christ; both our Creator and our Redeemer require us to observe it. “Q. 4. Is love the fulfilling of this law? * I mean, it is not the condition either of present or future salvation. “A. Unquestionably it is. The whole law under which we now are, is fulfilled by love. (Rom. xiii. 9, 10.) Faith working or animated by love is all that God now requires of man. He has substituted (not sincerity, but) love, in the room of angelic perfection. “Q. 5. How is ‘love the end of the commandment?” (1 Tim. i. 5.) “A. It is the end of every commandment of God. It is the point aimed at by the whole and every part of the Christian institution. The foundation is faith, purifying the heart; the end love, preserving a good conscience. “Q. 6. What love is this? “A. The loving the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength; and the loving our neighbour, every man, as ourselves, as our own souls. “Q. 7. What are the fruits or properties of this love? “A. St. Paul informs us at large, love is long-suffering. It suffers all the weaknesses of the children of God, all the wickedness of the children of the world; and that not for a little time only, but as long as God pleases. In all, it sees the hand of God, and willingly submits thereto. Meantime, it is kind. In all, and after all, it suffers, it is soft, mild, tender, benign.

In all, and after all, it suffers, it is soft, mild, tender, benign. ‘Love envieth not; it excludes every kind and degree of envy out of the heart: ‘love acteth not rashly, in a violent, headstrong manner, nor passes any rash or severe judgment: It ‘doth not behave itself indecently; is not rude, does not act out of character: “Seeketh not her own’ ease, pleasure, honour, or profit: ‘Is not provoked; expels all anger from the heart: ‘Thinketh no evil; casteth out all jealousy, sus piciousness, and readiness to believe evil: “Rejoiceth not in iniquity; yea, weeps at the sin or folly of its bitterest enemies: “But rejoicethin the truth; in the holiness and happiness of every child of man. ‘Love covereth all things, speaks evil of no man; ‘believeth all things’ that tend to the advantage of another's character. It ‘hopeth all things,’ whatever may extenuate the faults which cannot be denied; and it ‘endureth all things’ which God can permit, or men and devils inflict. This is ‘the law of Christ, the perfect law, the law of liberty.” “And this distinction between the ‘law of faith’ (or love) and ‘the law of works, is neither a subtle nor an unnecessary distinction. It is plain, easy, and intelligible to any common understanding. And it is absolutely necessary, to prevent a ChRISTIAN PERFECTION. 4.17 thousand doubts and fears, even in those who do “walk in love.” “Q. 8. But do we not “in many things offend all, yea, the best of us, even against this law? “A. In one sense we do not, while all our tempers, and thoughts, and words, and works, spring from love. But in another we do, and shall do, more or less, as long as we remain in the body. For neither love nor the ‘unction of the Holy One makes us infallible: Therefore, through unavoidable defect of understanding, we cannot but mistake in many things. And these mistakes will frequently occasion something wrong, both in our temper, and words, and actions. From mistaking his character, we may love a person less than he really deserves. And by the same mistake we are unavoidably led to speak or act, with regard to that person, in such a manner as is contrary to this law, in some or other of the preceding instances. “Q. 9. Do we not then need Christ, even on this account? “A.

“A. The holiest of men still need Christ, as their Prophet, as ‘the light of the world.” For he does not give them light, but from moment to moment: The instant he withdraws, all is darkness. They still need Christ as their King; for God does not give them a stock of holiness. But unless they receive a supply every moment, nothing but unholiness would remain. They still need Christ as their Priest, to make atonement for their holy things. Even perfect holiness is acceptable to God only through Jesus Christ. “Q. 10. May not, then, the very best of men adopt the dying Martyr's confession: ‘I am in myself nothing but sin, dark ness, hell; but thou art my light, my holiness, my heaven?’ “A. Not exactly. But the best of men may say, ‘Thou art my light, my holiness, my heaven. Through my union with thee, I am full of light, of holiness, and happiness. But if I were left to myself, I should be nothing but sin, darkness, hell.’ “But to proceed: The best of men need Christ as their Priest, their Atonement, their Advocate with the Father; not only as the continuance of their every blessing depends on his death and intercession, but on account of their coming short of the law of love. For every man living does so. You who feel all love, compare yourselves with the preceding description. Weigh yourselves in this balance, and see if you are not wanting in many particulars. “Q. 11. But if all this be consistent with Christian perfec tion, that perfection is not freedom from all sin; seeing ‘sin is the transgression of the law :’ And the perfect transgress the very law they are under. Besides, they need the atone ment of Christ; and he is the atonement of nothing but sin. Is, then, the term sinless perfection, proper? “A. It is not worth disputing about. But observe in what sense the persons in question need the atonement of Christ. They do not need him to reconcile them to God afresh; for they are reconciled. They do not need him to restore the favour of God, but to continue it. He does not procure pardon for them anew, but “ever liveth to make intercession for them;’ and ‘by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” (Heb. x.

“Some are wanting in temperance. They do not steadily use that kind and degree of food, which they know, or might know, would most conduce to the health, strength, and vigour of the body: Or they are not temperate in sleep; they do not rigorously adhere to what is best both for body and mind; otherwise they would constantly go to bed and rise early, and at a fixed hour: Or they sup late, which is neither good for body nor soul: Or they use neither fasting nor abstinence: Or they prefer (which are so many sorts of intemperance) that preaching, reading, or conversation, which gives them transient joy and comfort, before that which brings godly sorrow, or instruction in righteousness. Such joy is not sanctified; it doth not tend to, and terminate in, the crucifixion of the heart. Such faith doth not centre in God, but rather in itself. “So far all is plain. I believe you have faith, and love, and joy, and peace. Yet you who are particularly concerned know each for yourself, that you are wanting in the respects above-mentioned. You are wanting either in long-suffering, gentleness, or goodness; either in fidelity, meekness, or temperance. Let us not, then, on either hand, fight about words. In the thing we clearly agree. “You have not what I call perfection; if others will call it so, they may. However, hold fast what you have, and earnestly pray for what you have not. “Q. 29. Can those who are perfect grow in grace? “A. Undoubtedly they can; and that not only while they are in the body, but to all eternity. “Q. 30. Can they fall from it? “A. I am well assured they can; matter of fact puts this beyond dispute. Formerly we thought, one saved from sin could not fall; now we know the contrary. We are sur rounded with instances of those who lately experienced all that I mean by perfection. They had both the fruit of the Spirit, and the witness; but they have now lost both. Neither does any one stand by virtue of anything that is implied in the nature of the state. There is no such height or strength of holiness as it is impossible to fall from. If there be any that cannot fall, this wholly depends on the promise of God. “Q. 31.

This may steal upon you in a thousand forms, so that you cannot be too watchful against it. Take heed of everything, whether in principle or practice, which has any tendency thereto. Even that great truth, that “Christ is the end of the law, may betray us into it, if we do not consider that he has adopted every point of the moral law, and grafted it into the law of love. Beware of thinking, ‘Because I am filled with love, I need not have so much holiness. Because I pray always, therefore I need no set time for private prayer. Because I watch always, therefore I need no particular self-examination.’ Let us ‘magnify the law, the whole written word, ‘and make it honourable. Let this be our voice: “I prize thy com mandments above gold or precious stones. O what love have I unto thy law ! all the day long is my study in it. Beware of Antinomian books; particularly the works of Dr. Crisp and Mr. Saltmarsh. They contain many excellent things; and this makes them the more dangerous. O be warned in time : Do not play with fire. Do not put your hand on the hole of a cockatrice den. I entreat you, beware of bigotry. Let not your love or beneficence be confined to Methodists, so called, only; much less to that very small part of them who seem to be renewed in love; or to those who believe yours and their report. O make not this your Shibboleth ! Beware of stillness; ceasing in a wrong sense from your own works. To mention one instance out of many: “You have received,” says one, ‘a great blessing. But you began to talk of it, and to do this and that; so you lost it. You should have been still.” “Beware of self-indulgence; yea, and making a virtue of it, laughing at self-denial, and taking up the cross daily, at fasting or abstinence. Beware of censoriousness; thinking or calling them that anyways oppose you, whether in judgment or prac tice, blind, dead, fallen, or ‘enemies to the work. Once more, beware of Solifidianism; crying nothing but, ‘Believe, believe!’ and condemning those as ignorant or legal who speak in a more scriptural way.

But what is the stated means of feeding and comforting believers? What is the means, as of begetting spiritual life where it is not, so of sustaining and increasing it where it is?f Here they divide. Some think, preaching the law only; others, preaching the gospel only. I think, neither the one nor the other; but duly mixing both, in every place, if not in every sermon. I think, the right method of preaching is this: At our first beginning to preach at any place, after a general declaration of the love of God to sinners, and his willingness that they should be saved, to preach the law, in the strongest, the closest, the most searching manner possible; only intermix ing the gospel here and there, and showing it, as it were, afar off. After more and more persons are convinced of sin, we may mix more and more of the gospel, in order to “beget faith,” to raise into spiritual life those whom the law hath slain; but this is not to be done too hastily neither. There fore, it is not expedient wholly to omit the law; not only because we may well suppose that many of our hearers are still unconvinced; but because otherwise there is danger, that many who are convinced will heal their own wounds slightly; therefore, it is only in private converse with a thoroughly convinced sinner, that we should preach nothing but the gospel. If, indeed, we could suppose a whole congregation to be thus convinced, we should need to preach only the gospel: And the same we might do, if our whole congregation were supposed to be newly justified. But when these grow in grace, and in the knowledge of Christ, a wise builder would c preach the law to them again; only taking particular care to" place every part of it in a gospel light, as not only a com mand, but a privilege also, as a branch of the glorious liberty of the sons of God.

But when these grow in grace, and in the knowledge of Christ, a wise builder would c preach the law to them again; only taking particular care to" place every part of it in a gospel light, as not only a com mand, but a privilege also, as a branch of the glorious liberty of the sons of God. He would take equal care to remind them, that this is not the cause, but the fruit, of their acceptance with God; that other cause, “other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, even Jesus Christ;” that we are still forgiven and accepted, only for the sake of what he hath done and suffered for us; and that all true obedience springs from love to him, grounded on his first loving us. He would labour, therefore, in preaching any part of the law, to keep the love of Christ continually before their eyes; that thence they might draw fresh life, vigour, and strength, to run the way of his commandments. Thus would he preach the law even to those who were pressing on to the mark. But to those who were careless, or drawing back, he would preach it in another manner, nearly as he did before they were convinced of sin. To those, meanwhile, who were earnest, but feeble-minded, he would preach the gospel chiefly; yet variously intermixing more or less of the law, according to their various necessities. By preaching the law in the manner above described, he would teach them how to walk in Him whom they had received. Yea, and the same means (the main point wherein, it seems, your mistake lies) would both sustain and increase their spiritual life. For the commands are food, as well as the promises; food equally wholesome, equally substantial. These, also, duly applied, not only direct, but likewise nourish and strengthen, the soul. Of this you appear not to have the least conception; therefore, I will endeavour to explain it. I ask, then, Do not all the children of God experience, that when God gives them to see deeper into his blessed law, whenever he gives a new degree of light, he gives, likewise, a new degree of strength ? Now I see, he that loves me, bids me do this; and now I feel I can do it, through Christ strengthening Ine.

Now I see, he that loves me, bids me do this; and now I feel I can do it, through Christ strengthening Ine. Thus light and strength are given by the same means, and frequently in the same moment; although sometimes there is a space between. For instance: I hear the command, “Let your communication be always in grace, meet to ..minister grace to the hearers.” God gives me more light into this command. I see the exceeding height and depth of it. At the same time I see (by the same light from above) how far I have fallen short. I am ashamed; I am humbled before God. I earnestly desire to keep it better; I pray to him that hath loved me for more strength, and I have the petition I ask of him. Thus the law not only convicts the unbeliever, and enlightens the believing soul, but also conveys food to a believer; sustains and increases his spiritual life and strength. And if it increases his spiritual life and strength, it cannot but increase his comfort also. For, doubtless, the more we are alive to God, the more we shall rejoice in him; the greater measure of his strength we receive, the greater will be our consolation also. And all this, I conceive, is clearly declared in one single passage of Scripture: “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey, and the honey-comb.” They are both food and medicine; they both refresh, strengthen, and mourish the soul. Not that I would advise to preach the law without the gospel, any more than the gospel without the law. Undoubtedly, both should be preached in their turns; yea, both at once, or both in one: All the conditional promises are instances of this. They are law and gospel mixed together. According to this model, I should advise every Preacher continually to preach the law; the law grafted upon, tempered by, and animated with, the spirit of the gospel.

MELVILL-House, May 20, 1784. Sunday.--Love of God and Simplicity: Means of which are, Prayer and Meditation. 1. HAve I been simple and recollected in everything I said or did? Have I (1.) been simple in everything, that is, looked upon God, my Good, my Pattern, my one Desire, my Disposer, Parent of Good; acted wholly for Him; bounded my views with the present action or hour? (2) Recol lected? that is, has this simple view been distinct and unin terrupted? Have I, in order to keep it so, used the signs agreed upon with my friends, wherever I was ? Have I done anything without a previous perception of its being the will of God? or without a perception of its being an exercise or a means of the virtue of the day? Have I said anything without it? 2. Have I prayed with fervour? at going in and out of church? in the church? morning and evening in private? Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, with my friends, at rising? before lying down? on Saturday noon? all the time I am engaged in exterior work in private? before I go into the place of public or private prayer, for help therein? Have I, wherever I was, gone to church morning and even ing, unless for necessary mercy? and spent from one hour to three in private? Have I, in private prayer, frequently stopped short and observed what fervour? Have I repeated it over and over, till I adverted to every word? Have I at the beginning of every prayer or paragraph owned I cannot pray? Have I paused before I concluded in his name, and adverted to my Saviour now interceding for me at the right hand of God, and offering up these prayers? 3. Have I duly used ejaculations? that is, have I every hour prayed for humility, faith, hope, love, and the particular virtue of the day? considered with whom I was the last hour, what I did, and how 7 with regard to recollection, love of man, humility, self-denial, resignation, and thankfulness? considered the next hour in the same respects, offered up all I do to my Redeemer, begged his assistance in every particular, and commended my soul to his keeping? Have I done this deliberately, not in haste, seriously, not doing anything else the while, and fervently as I could? 4.

Now, the question is not whether these Rubrics ought to be observed, (you take this for granted in making the objec tion,) but whether in fact they have been observed by you, or me, most. Many can witness I have observed them punctu ally, yea, sometimes at the hazard of my life; and as many, I fear, that you have not observed them at all, and that several of them you never pretended to observe. And is it you that are accusing me for not observing the Rubrics of the Church? What grimace is this ! “O tell it not in Gath ! Publish it not in the streets of Askelon | * 82. With regard to the Canons, I would, in the first place, desire you to consider two or three plain questions: First. Have you ever read them over? Secondly. How can these be called the Canons of the Church of England, seeing they were never legally established by the Church, never regularly confirmed in any full Convocation? Thirdly. By what right am I required to observe such Canons as were never legally established? And then I will join issue with you on one question more, viz., Whether you or I have observed them most. To instance only in a few: “Canon 29.--No person shall be admitted godfather or godmother to any child, before the said person hath received the holy communion. “Can. 59.--Every Parson, Vicar, or Curate, upon every Sunday and holiday, before Evening Prayer, shall, for half an hour, or more, examine and instruct the youth and igno rant persons of his parish. “Can. 64.--Every Parson, Vicar, or Curate, shall declare to the people every Sunday, whether there be any holidays or fasting-days the week following. “Can. 68.--No Minister shall refuse or delay to christen any child that is brought to the church to him upon Sundays or holidays to be christened, or to bury any corpse that is brought to the church or church-yard.” (N.B. Inability to pay fees does not alter the case.) “Can.

Tell me, or thou shalt never go, “Thy prayer is heard, it shall be so : " The word hath passed thy lips, -and I Shall with thy people live and die. Let the righteous smite me friendly, and reprove me. Psalm crli. 5. IN a former treatise I declared, in the plainest manner I could, both my principles and practice; and answered some of the most important, as well as the most common, objections to each. But I have not yet delivered my own soul. I believe it is still incumbent upon me to answer other objections, par ticularly such as have been urged by those who are esteemed religious or reasonable men. These partly relate to the doctrines I teach, partly to my manner of teaching them, and partly to the effects which are sup posed to follow from teaching these doctrines in this manner. I. 1. I will briefly mention what those doctrines are, before I consider the objections against them. Now, all I teach respects either the nature and condition of justification, the nature and condition of salvation, the nature of justifying and saving faith, or the Author of faith and salvation. 2. First: The nature of justification. It sometimes means our acquittal at the last day. (Matt. xii. 37.) But this is alto gether out of the present question; that justification whereof our Articles and Homilies speak, meaning present forgiveness, pardon of sins, and, consequently, acceptance with God; who therein “declares his righteousness” (or mercy, by or) “for the remission of the sins that are past;” saying, “I will be merciful to thy unrighteousness, and thine iniquities I will remember no more.” (Rom. iii. 25; Heb. viii. 12.) I believe the condition of this is faith : (Rom. iv. 5, &c.:) 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. Good works follow this faith, but cannot go before it: (Luke vi. 43.) Much less can sanctification, which implies a con timued course of good works, springing from holiness of heart. But it is allowed, that entire sanctification goes before our justification at the last day. (Heb. xii. 14.) It is allowed, also, that repentance, and “fruits meet for repentance,” go before faith. (Mark i. 15; Matthew iii.

But this I say, faith by itself saved him. But works by themselves never justified any man. “Good works go not before in him which shall afterwards be justified. But good works do follow after when a man is first justified.” (Homily on Fasting. Part I.) 8. From the whole tenor then of her Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies, the doctrine of the Church of England appears to be this: (1.) That no good work, properly so called, can go before justification. (2.) That no degree of true sanctification can be previous toit. (3.) That as the meritorious cause of justification is the life and death of Christ, so the condition of it is faith, faith alone. And, (4.) That both inward and outward holiness are consequent on this faith, and are the ordinary, stated condition of final justification. 9. And what more can you desire, who have hitherto opposed justification by faith alone, merely upon a principle of conscience; because you was zealous for holiness and good works? Do I not effectually secure these from contempt at the same time that I defend the doctrines of the Church? I not only allow, but vehemently contend, that none shall ever enter into glory who is not holy on earth, as well in heart, as “in all manner of conver sation.” I cry aloud, “Let all that have believed, be careful to maintain good works; ” and, “Let every one that nameth the name of Christ, depart from all iniquity.” I exhort even those who are conscious they do not believe: “Cease to do evil, learn to do well: The kingdom of heaven is at hand; ” therefore, “repent, and bring forth fruits meet for repentance.” Are not these directions the very same in substance which you yourself would give to persons so circumstanced? What means then this endless strife of words? Or what doth your arguing prove P 10. Many of those who are perhaps as zealous of goodworks as you, think I have allowed you too much. Nay, my brethren, but how can we help allowing it, if weallow the Scriptures to be from God? For is it not written, and do not you yourselves believe, “Without holiness no man shall see the Lord?” And how then, without fighting about words, can we deny that holiness is a con dition of final acceptance?

And, (2.) That at what time soever faith is given, holiness commences in the soul. For that instant “the love of God” (which is the source of holiness) “is shed abroad in the heart.” But it is objected by the author of “The Notions of the Methodists disproved,” “St.James says, “Can faithsave him?” I answer, Such a faithasis without works cannot “bring a man to heaven.” But this is quite beside the present question. You object, (2) “St. Paul says that “faith made perfect by love, St. James, that “faith made perfect by works, is the condition of salvation.” You mean final salvation. I say so too: But this also is beside the question.- You object, (3) “That the belief of the gospel is called the obedience of faith.” (Rom. i. 5.) And, (4.) that what Isaiah terms believing, St. Paul terms obeying. Suppose I grant you both the one and the other, what will you infer? You object, (5.) That in one scripture our Lord is styled, “The Saviour of them that believe;” and in another, “The Author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him.” (6.) That to the Galatians St. Paul writes, “Neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love;” and to the Corinthians, “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping the command ments of God.” And hence you conclude, “There are several texts of Scripture wherein unbelief and disobedience are equivalently used.” Very true; but can you conclude from thence that we are not “saved by faith alone?” 11. You proceed to answer some texts which I had quoted. The first is Ephesians ii. 8: “By grace ye are saved through faith.” “But,” say you, “faith does not mean here that grace especially so called, but includes also obedience.” But how do you prove this? That circumstance you had forgot; and so run off with a comment upon the context; to which I have no other objection, than that it is nothing at all to the question. Indeed, some time after, you add, “It is plain then that good works are always, in St. Paul’s judgment, joined with faith;” (so undoubtedly they are; that is, as an effect is always joined with its cause;) “and therefore we are not saved by faith alone.” I cannot possibly allow the consequence.

For” now every one of them may truly say, “The law,” or power, “of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,” given unto me for his sake, “hath made me free from the law,” or power, “of sin and death. For that which the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,” did, when he “ con demned,” crucified, put to death, destroyed, “sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh, mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.” (Verses 1-5.) Is it not evident, that the Apostle is here describing a true. Christian, a holy believer?--in opposition, not particularly to a Jew, much less to the Jewish law, but to every unholy man, to all, whether Jews or Gentiles, “who walk after the flesh?” He goes on: “For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: For it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot. please God.” (Verses 6-8.) The opposition between a holy and unlıoly man is still glar ing and undeniable. But can any man discern the least glim mering of opposition between the Christian and the Jewish law? The Apostle goes on: “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that. raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit which dwelleth in you. Therefore, bre thren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

and that your hearing is vain, unless the same power be present to heal your soul, and to give you a faith which “standeth not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God?” 14. “Another passage that,” your Lordship thinks, “has been misapplied by enthusiasts, but was really peculiar to the times of the Apostles, is 1 John ii. 20, 27: ‘Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.--But theanointing which ye have received of him abideth in you : And ye need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. And even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.’ Here the Apostle arms the true Christians against seducers, by an argument drawn from ‘the unction from the Holy One,” that was in, or rather, among them; that is, from the immediate inspiration of some of their Teachers.” (Pp. 35, 37.) Here it rests upon your Lordship to prove, as well as affirm, oF REASON AND RELIGION. 9I (1.) That ev should be translated among : (2.) That this “unction from the Holy One” means the inspiration of some of their Teachers. The latter your Lordship attempts to prove thus:-- “The inspired Teachers of old were set apart for that office, by an extraordinary effusion of the Holy Ghost: Therefore, “‘The unction from the Holy One here means such an effusion.” (P. 38.) I deny the consequence; so the question is still to be proved. Your Lordship's second argument is drawn from the twenty sixth verse of the fourteenth chapter of St. John's Gospel. Proposed in form, it will stand thus:-- “If those words, “He shall teach you all things, relate only to a miraculous gift of the Holy Ghost, then these words, ‘The same anointing teacheth you of all things, relate to the same miraculous gift : “But those words relate only to a miraculous gift : “Therefore these relate to the same.” I conceive, it will not be very easy to make good the conse quence in the first proposition. But I deny the minor also: The contradictory whereto, I trust, has appeared to be true.

Stephen’s Day.) “Send thy Holy Ghost, and pour into our hearts that most excellent gift of charity.” (Quinquagesima Sunday.) “O. Lord, from whom all good things do come, grant to us, thy humble servants, that by thy holy inspiration we may think those things that are good, and by thy merciful guidance may perform the same.” (Fifth Sunday after Easter.) “We beseech thee, leave us not comfortless, but send us the Holy Ghost to comfort us.” (Sunday after Ascension Day.) “Grant us by the same Spirit to have a right judgment in all things, and evermore to rejoice in his holy comfort.” (Whit-Sunday.) (N.B. The Church here teaches all Christians to claim the Comforter, in virtue of the promise made, John xiv.) “Grant us, Lord, we beseech thee, the Spirit, to think and do always such things as be rightful.” (Ninth Sunday after Trinity.) “O God, forasmuch as without thee we are not able to please thee; mercifully grant that thy Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts.” (Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity.) “Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Ol' R EASON AND RELIGION. 103 Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy name.” (Communion Office.) “Give thy Holy Spirit to this infant, (or this person,) that he may be born again.-Give thy Holy Spirit to these persons,” (N.B. already baptized,) “that they may continue thy servants. “Almighty God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these persons by water and the Holy Ghost; strengthen them with the Holy Ghost the Comforter, and daily increase in them the manifold gifts of thy grace.” (Office of Confirmation.) From these passages it may sufficiently appear, for what purposes every Christian, according to the doctrine of the Church of England, does now “receive the IIoly Ghost.” But this will be still more clear from those that follow ; wherein the reader may likewise observe a plain, rational sense of God’s revealing himself to us, of the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and of a believer's feeling in himself “the mighty working” of the Spirit of Christ:-- 25. “God gave them of old grace to be his children, as he doth us now.

30. The first inference easily deduced from what has been said, is, that we are not false prophets. In one sense of the word, we are no prophets at all; for we do not foretel things to come. But in another, (wherein every Minister is a prophet,) we are; for we do speak in the name of God. Now, a false pro phet (in this sense of the word) is one who declares as the will of God what is not so. But we declare (as has been shown at large) nothing else as the will of God, but what is evidently con tained in his written word, as explained by our own Church. Therefore, unless you can prove the Bible to be a false book, you cannot possibly prove us to be false prophets. The text which is generally cited on this occasion is Matthew vii. 15. But how unhappily chosen In the preceding chap ters, our Lord had been describing that “righteousness which exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees,” and without which we cannot “enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Even the life of God in the soul; holiness of heart, producing all holiness of conversation. In this, he closes that rule which sums up the whole, with those solemn words, “Enter ye in at the strait gate; ” (such indeed is that of universal holiness;) “for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction.” The gate of hell is wide as the whole earth; the way of unholiness is broad as the great deep. “And many there be which go in thereat; ” yea, and excuse themselves in so doing, “because strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” It follows, “Beware of false prophets;” of those who speak as from God what God hath not spoken; those who show you any other way to life, than that which I have now shown. So that the false prophets here spoken of are those who point out any other way to heaven than this; who teach men to find a wider gate, a broader way, than that described in the foregoing chapters. But it has been abundantly shown that we do not. Therefore (whatever we are beside) we are not false prophets.

of it?” If not, are they not all “liable to the penalties of the several statutes made before that time against unlawful assemblies?” How can they escape? Have they “qualified themselves for holding these separate assemblies, according to the tenor of that Act?” Have, then, “the several members thereof taken the oaths to the government?” And are the “doors of the places wherein they meet always open at the time of such meetings?” I presume you know they are not; and that neither “the per sons nor places are so qualified as that Act directs.” How then come “the Bishops and Clergy to countenance and encourage” unlawful assemblies? If it be said, “They meet in a private, inoffensive way;” that is nothing to the point in hand. If those meetings are unlawful in themselves, all their inoffensiveness will not make them lawful. “O, but they behave with modesty and decency.” Very well; but the law ! What is that to the law There can be no solid defence but this: They are not Dissenters from the Church; therefore they cannot use, and they do not need, the Act of Toleration. And their meetings are not seditious; therefore the statute against seditious meetings does not affect them. The application is obvious. If our meetings are illegal, so are theirs also. But if this plea be good (as doubtless it is) in the one case, it is good in the other also. 8. You propose another objection to our manner of preach ing, in the second part of the “Observations.” The substance of it I will repeat, and answer as briefly as I can :-- “They run up and down from place to place, and from county to county;” that is, they preach in several places. This is undoubtedly true. “They draw after them confused multitudes of people;” that is, many come to hear them. This is true also. “But they would do well to remember, God is not the author of confusion or of tumult, but of peace.” I trust we do: Nor is there any confusion or tumult at all in our largest congregations; unless at some rare times, when the sons of Belial mix therewith, on purpose to disturb the peace able worshippers of God.

To the same head may be referred the objection some time urged, by a friendly and candid man, viz., “That it was unlawful to use extemporary prayer, because there was a Canon against it.” It was not quite clear to me, that the Canon he cited was against extemporary prayer. But supposing it were, my plain answer would be, “That Canon I dare not obey; because the law of man binds only so far as it is consistent with the word of God.” The same person objected my not obeying the Bishops and Governors of the Church. I answer, I both do and will obey them, in whatsoever I can with a clear conscience. So that there is no just ground for that charge,--that I despise either the rules or the Governors of the Church. I obey them in all things where I do not apprehend there is some particular law of God to the contrary. Even in that case, I show all the deference I can : I endeavour to act as inoffensively as possible; and am ready to submit to any penalty which can by law be inflicted upon me. Would to God every Minister and member of the Church were herein altogether as I am ! VII. 1. I have considered the chief objections that have lately been urged against the doctrines I teach. The main arguments brought against this manner of teaching have been considered also. It remains, to examine the most current objections, concerning the effects of this teaching. Many affirm, “that it does abundance of hurt; that it has had very bad effects; insomuch that if any good at all has been done, yet it bears no proportion to the evil.” But, to come to particulars: “First, then, you are disturb ers of the public peace.” What, do we either teach or raise sedition? Do we speak evil of the ruler of our people? Or do we stir them up against any of those that are put in authority under him? Do we directly or indirectly promote faction, mutiny, or rebellion? I have not found any man in his senses yet, that would affirm this. “But it is plain, peace is broke, and disturbances do arise, in consequence of your preaching.” I grant it. But what would you infer? Have you never read the Bible?

“Suppose ye that I am come to send peace upon earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five divided in one house, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law against the daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law.” (Luke xii. 51-53.) “And the foes of a man shall be they of his own household.” (Matt. x. 36.) Thus it was from the very beginning. For is it to be sup posed that a heathen parent would long endure a Christian child, or that a heathen husband would agree with a Chris tian wife? unless either the believing wife could gain her husband; or the unbelieving husband prevailed on the wife to renounce her way of worshipping God; at least, unless she would obey him in going no more to those societies, or con venticles, (etaptat) as they termed the Christian assemblies? 4. Do you think, now, I have an eye to your case? Doubt less I have ; for I do not fight as one that beateth the air. “Why have not I a right to hinder my own wife or child from going to a conventicle? And is it not the duty of wives to obey their husbands, and of children to obey their parents?” Only set the case seventeen hundred years back, and your own conscience gives you the answer. What would St. Paul have said to one whose husband forbade her to follow this way any more? What directions would our Saviour have given to him whose father enjoined him not to hear the gospel? His words are extant still: “He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me. And he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.” (Matt. x. 37.) Nay more, “If any man cometh to me, and hateth not,” in compari son of me, “his father, and mother, and wife, and children, yea, and his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke xiv. 26.) “O, but this is not a parallel case! For they were Heathens; but I am a Christian.” A Christian | Are you so? Do you understand the word?

They all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.” (lvi. 10, 11.) Little better were those of whom the Prophets that followed have left us so dreadful an account: “Both Prophet and Priest are profane; yea, in my house have I found their wickedness, saith the Lord. And from the Prophets of Jeru salem is profaneness gone forth into all the land.” (Jer. xxiii. 11, 15) “Her Priests have violated my law, and have pro faned my holy things: They have put no difference between the holy and the profane, and I am profaned among them.” (Ezekiel xxii. 26.) “If I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of Hosts unto you, O Priests, that despise my name!” (Malachii. 6) Yea, some of them were fallen into the grossest sins: “The company of Priests,” saith Hosea, “commit lewdness: There is the whoredom of Ephraim, Israel is defiled.” (vi. 9, 10.) “I have seen also in the Prophets of Jerusalem,” saith God by Jeremiah, “an horrible thing: They commit adultery, and walk in lies.” (xxiii. 14.) 18. And those who were clear of this, were deeply covetous; “Who is there among you that would shut the doors for nought? Neither do ye kindle fire on my altar for nought. have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of Hosts.” (Malachi i. 10.) “The Priests of Zion teach for hire, and the Prophets thereof divine for money. Yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say, Is not the Lord among us?” (Micah iii. 11.) “Thus saith the Lord, The Prophets bite with their teeth, and cry, Peace; and he that putteth not into their mouths, they even prepare war against him.” (iii. 5.) Therefore, “the word of the Lord came unto Ezekiel, saying, Prophesy against the shep herds of Israel, and say, Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool; but ye feed not the flock.

Does one Captain in fifty? Does one in five hundred? May we not go farther yet? Are there five Captains of vessels now in London, who have not, at one time or another, by this very oath, which they knew to be false when they took it, incurred the guilt of wilful perjury? 11. The oath which all Officers of His Majesty's Customs take, at their admission into the office, runs thus: “I do swear to be true and faithful in the execution, to the best of my knowledge and power, of the trust committed to my charge and inspection, in the service of His Majesty’s Customs; and that I will not take or receive any reward or gratuity, directly or indirectly, other than my salary, or what is or shall be allowed me from the Crown, or the regular fees established by law, for any service done or to be done in the execution of my employment in the Customs, on any account whatsoever. So help me God.” On this it may be observed, (1.) That there are regular fees, “established by law,” for some of these officers: (2.) That the rest do hereby engage not to take or receive “any reward or gratuity, directly or indirectly,” other than their salary or allowance from the Crown, “on any account whatsoever.” How do the former keep this solemn engagement? they whose fees are “established by law?” Do they take those established fees, and no more? Do they not “receive any farther gratuity,” not “on any account whatsoever?” If they do, they are undeniably guilty of wilful perjury. And do the latter take no fees at all? Do they receive “no reward or gratuity, for any service done, or to be done, in the execution of their employment?” Do they not take any money, “directly or indirectly, on any account whatsoever?” Every time they do receive either more or less, they also are flatly forsworn. Yet who scruples either the one or the other? either the taking a larger fee than the law appoints; or the taking any fee, large or small, which is offered, even where the law appoints none at all? What innumerable perjuries, then, are here committed, over and over, day by day! and without any remorse; without any shame; without any fear either of God or man | 12. I will produce but one instance more.

I appeal to a Judge for the recovery of it. How astonishing is it that this Judge himself cannot give me what is my right, and whatevidently appears so to be, unless I first give, perhaps, one half of the sum to men I neversaw beforein my life! 22. I have hitherto supposed that all causes, when they are decided, are decided according to justice and equity. But is it so P Ye learned in the law, is no unjust sentence given in your Courts? Have not the same causes been decided quite opposite ways? one way this term, just the contrary the next? Perhaps one way in the morning, (this I remember an instance of) and another way in the afternoon. How is this? Is there no justice left on earth; no regard for right or wrong? Or have causes been puzzled so long, that you know not now what is either wrong or right; what is agreeable to law, or contrary to it? I have heard some of you frankly declare, that it is in many cases next to impossible to know what is law, and what is not. So are your folios of law multiplied upon you, that no human brain is able to contain them; no, nor any consistent scheme or abstract of them all. But is it really owing to ignorance of the law (this is the most favourable supposition) that so few of you scruple taking fees on either side of almost any cause that can be conceived; and that you generally plead in the manner you do on any side of any cause; rambling to and fro in a way so abhorrent from common sense, and so utterly foreign to the question? I have been amazed at hearing the pleadings of some eminent Coun sel; and when it has fallen out that the Pleader on the other side understood only the common rules of logic, he has made those eminent men appear either such egregious knaves, if they could help it, or such egregious blockheads, if they could not, that one would have believed they would show their face there no more. Meantime, if there be a God that judgeth righteously, what horrid insults upon him are these ! “Shall I not visit for these things, saith the Lord? Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?” 23.

But great, inexpressi bly great, as this is, it is perhaps the least part of our work. To “seek and save that which is lost; ” to bring souls from Satan to God; to instruct the ignorant; to reclaim the wicked; to convince the gainsayer; to direct their feet into the way of peace, and then keep them therein; to follow them step by step, lest they turn out of the way, and advise them in their doubts and temptations; to lift up them that fall; to refresh them that are faint; and to comfort the weak-hearted; to administer various helps, as the variety of occasions require, according to their several necessities: These are parts of our office; all this we have undertaken at the peril of our own soul. A sense of this made that holy man of old cry out, “I marvel if any ruler in the Church shall be saved; ” and a greater than him say, in the fulness of his heart, “Who is sufficient for these things?” 35. But who is not sufficient for these things, for the taking care of a parish, though it contain twenty thousand souls, if this implies no more than the taking care to preach there once or twice a week; and to procure one to read Prayers on the other days, and do what is called the parish duty ? Is any trade in the nation so easy as this? Is not any man sufficient for it, without any more talents, either of nature or grace, than a small degree of common understanding? But Q | what manner of shepherds are those who look no farther into the nature of their office, who sink no deeper into the import ance of it, than this ! Were they not such as these concerning whom “the word of the Lord came unto Ezekiel, saying, Wo be to the shepherds that feed themselves | should not the shepherds feed the flock? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool; but ye feed not the flock.

(3.) That one branch of Christian liberty is, liberty from obeying the commandments of God. (4.) That it is bondage to do a thing because it is com manded, or forbear it because it is forbidden. (5.) That a believer is not obliged to use the ordinances of God, or to do good works. (6.) That a Preacher ought not to exhort to good works; not unbelievers, because it is hurtful; not believers, because it is needless. Q. 21. What was the occasion of St. Paul's writing his Epistle to the Galatians? A. The coming of certain men amongst the Galatians, who taught, “Except ye be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” Q. 22. What is his main design therein? A. To prove, (1.) That no man can be justified or saved by the works of the law, either moral or ritual. (2.) That every believer is justified by faith in Christ, without the works of the law. Q. 23. What does he mean by “the works of the law?” (Galatians ii. 16, &c.) A. All works which do not spring from faith in Christ. Q. 24. What, by being “under the law?” (Gal. iii. 23.) A. Under the Mosaic dispensation. Q. 25. What law has Christ abolished? A. The ritual law of Moses. Q. 26. What is meant by liberty? (Gal. v. 1.) A. Liberty, (l.) From that law. (2.) From sin. ON TUESDAY MoRNING, June 26th, wAs considERED THE WITH regard to which, the questions asked, and the sub stance of the answers given, were as follows: Q. 1. What is it to be sanctified? A. To be renewed in the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness. Q. 2. Is faith the condition, or the instrument, of sanctifi cation? A. It is both the condition and instrument of it. When we begin to believe, then sanctification begins. And as faith increases, holiness increases, till we are created anew. Q. 3. What is implied in being a perfect Christian? A. The loving the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our mind, and soul, and strength. (Deut. vi. 5, xxx. 6; Ezek. xxxvi. 25-29.) Q. 4. Does this imply that all inward sin is taken away? A. Without doubt; or how could we be said to be saved “from all our uncleannesses?” (Ver. 29.) Q. 5.

No : We have been continually straitened for time. Hence, scarce anything has been searched to the bottom. To remedy this, let every Conference last nine days, con cluding on Wednesday in the second week. Q. 3. What may we reasonably believe to be God’s design in raising up the Preachers called Methodists? A. Not to form any new sect; but to reform the nation, particularly the Church; and to spread scriptural holiness over the land. * This tract, which is usually denominated, “The Large Minutes,” contains the plan of discipline as practised in the Methodist Connexion during the life of Mr. Wesley. As its title intimates, it underwent several alterations and enlargements from the year 1744 to 1789, when the last revision took place. It is here reprintel from a copy which bears the date of 1791,-the year in which Mr. Wesley died,--colla'ed with the edition of 1789-EDIT. Q. 4. What was the rise of Methodism, so called? A. In 1729, two young men, reading the Bible, saw they could not be saved without holiness, followed after it, and incited others so to do. In 1737 they saw holiness comes by faith. They saw likewise, that men are justified before they are sanctified; but still holiness was their point. God then thrust them out, utterly against their will, to raise a holy people. When Satan could no otherwise hinder this, he threw Calvinism in the way; and then Antinomianism, which strikes directly at the root of all holiness. Q. 5. Is it advisable for us to preach in as many places as we can, without forming any societies? A. By no means. We have made the trial in various places; and that for a considerable time. But all the seed has fallen as by the highway side. There is scarce any fruit remaining. Q. 6. Where should we endeavour to preach most? A. (1.) Where there is the greatest number of quiet and willing hearers. (2.) Where there is most fruit. Q. 7. Is field-preaching unlawful? A. We conceive not. We do not know that it is contrary to any law either of God or man. Q. 8. Have we not used it too sparingly? A. It seems we have; (1.) Because our call is, to save that which is lost. Now, we cannot expect them to seek us. Therefore we should go and seek them.

(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.

Let him that is zealous for God and the souls of men begin now. (1.) Where there are ten children in a society, meet them at least an hour every week. (2.) Talk with them every time you see any at home. (3.) Pray in earnest for them. (4.) Diligently instruct and vehemently exhort all parents at their own houses. (5.) Preach expressly on education, particularly at Mid summer, when you speak of Kingswood. “But I have no gift for this.” Gift or no gift, you are to do it; else you are not called to be a Methodist Preacher. Do it as you can, till you can do it as you would. Pray earnestly for the gift, and use the means for it. Particularly, study the “Instructions” and “Lessons for Children.” Q. 34. Why are not we more holy? Why do not we live in eternity; walk with God all the day long? Why are we not all devoted to God; breathing the whole spirit of Missionaries? A. Chiefly because we are enthusiasts; looking for the end, without using the means. To touch only upon two or three instances: Who of you rises at four in summer; or even at five, when he does not preach? Do you recommend to all our societies the five o’clock hour for private prayer? Do you observe it, or any other fixed time? Do not you find by experience, that any time is no time? Do you know the obligation and the benefit of fasting P How often do you practise it? The neglect of this alone is sufficient to account for our feebleness and faintness of spirit. We are continu ally grieving the Holy Spirit of God by the habitual neglect of a plain duty Let us amend from this hour. Q. 35. But how can I fast, since it hurts my health? A. There are several degrees of fasting which cannot hurt your health. I will instance in one: Let you and I every Friday (beginning on the next) avow this duty throughout the nation, by touching no tea, coffee, or chocolate in the morning but (if we want it) half a pint of milk or water-gruel. Letus dine on potatoes, and (if we need it) eat three or four ounces of flesh in the evening. At other times let us eat no flesh-suppers: These exceedingly tend to breed nervous disorders.

At other times let us eat no flesh-suppers: These exceedingly tend to breed nervous disorders. Q. 36. What is the best general method of preaching? A. (1.) To invite. (2.) To convince. (3.) To offer Christ. (4.) To build up; and to do this in some measure in every Sermon. ..Q. 37. Are there any smaller advices relative to preaching, which might be of use to us? A. Perhaps these: (1.) Be sure never to disappoint a con gregation, unless in case of life or death. (2.) Begin and end precisely at the time appointed. (3.) Let your whole deportment before the congregation. be serious, weighty, and solemn. (4.) Always suit your subject to your audience. (5.) Choose the plainest texts you can. (6.) Take care not to ramble; but keep to your text, and make out what you take in hand. (7.) Be sparing in allegorizing or spiritualizing. (8.) Take care of anything awkward or affected, either in your gesture, phrase, or pronunciation. (9.) Sing no hymns of your own composing. (10.) Print nothing without my approbation. (11.) Do not usually pray above eight or ten minutes (at most) without intermission. (12.) Frequently read and enlarge upon a portion of the Notes. And let young Preachers often exhort, without taking a text.- (13.) In repeating the Lord's Prayer, remember to say “hal lowed,” not hollowed ; “trespass against us ; ” “amen.” (14) Repeat this prayer aloud after the Minister, as often as he repeats it. (15.) Repeat after him aloud every confession, and both the doxologies in the Communion-Service. (16.) Always kneel during public prayer. (17.) Everywhere avail yourself of the great festivals, by preaching on the occasion, and singing the hymns, which you should take care to have in readiness. (18.) Avoid quaint words, however in fashion, as object, originate, very, high, &c. (19.) Avoid the fashionable impropriety of leaving out the w in many words, as honor, vigor, &c. This is mere childish affectation. (20.) Beware of clownishness, either in speech or dress. Wear no slouched hat. (21.) Be merciful to your beast. Not only ride moderately, but see with your own eyes that your horse be rubbed, fed, and bedded. Q. 38. Have not some of us been led off from practical preaching by what was called preaching Christ? A. Indeed we have.

Indeed we have. The most effectual way of preaching Christ, is to preach him in all his offices, and to declare his law as well as his gospel, both to believers and unbelievers. Let us strongly and closely insist upon inward and outward holiness, in all its branches. Q. 39. How shall we guard against formality in public wor ship; particularly in singing? A. (1.) By preaching frequently on the head. (2.) By taking care to speak only what we feel. (3.) By choosing such hymns as are proper for the congregation. (4.) By not sing ing too much at once; seldom more than five or six verses. (5.) By suiting the tune to the words. (6.) By often stopping short, and asking the people, “Now, do you know what, you said last? Did you speak no more than you felt 7” Is not this formality creeping in already, by those complex tunes, which it is scarcely possible to sing with devotion? Such is, “Praise the Lord, ye blessed ones:” Such the long quavering hallelujah annexed to the morning-song tune, which I defy any man living to sing devoutly. The repeating the same words so often, (but especially while another repeats different words, the horrid abuse which runs through the modern church-music) as it shocks all common sense, so it necessarily brings in dead formality, and has no more of reli gion in it than a Lancashire hornpipe. Besides, it is a flat contradiction to our Lord’s command, “Use not vain repeti tions.” For what is a vain repetition, if this is not? What end of devotion does it serve? Sing no anthems. (7.) Do not suffer the people to sing too slow. This natu rally tends to formality, and is brought in by them who have either very strong or very weak voices. (8.) In every large society let them learn to sing; and let them always learn our own tunes first. (9.) Let the women constantly sing their parts alone. Let no man sing with them, unless he under stands the notes, and sings the bass, as it is pricked down in the book. (10.) Introduce no new tunes till they are perfect in the old. (11.) Let no organ be placed anywhere, till pro posed in the Conference.

Hook, a very eminent and a zealous Papist. When I asked him, “Sir, what do you do for public worship here, where you have no Romish service?” he answered, “Sir, I am so fully convinced it is the duty of every man to worship God in public, that I go to church every Sunday. If I cannot have such worship as I would, I will have such worship as I can.” But some may say, “Our own service is public worship.” Yes; but not such as supersedes the Church Service; it pre supposes public prayer, like the sermons at the University. If it were designed to be instead of the Church Service, it 322 MINUTES or would be essentially defective; for it seldom has the four grand parts of public prayer, deprecation, petition, interces sion, and thanksgiving. If the people put ours in the room of the Church Service, we hurt them that stay with us, and ruin them that leave us; for then they will go nowhere, but lounge the Sabbath away without any public worship at all. Q. 46. Nay, but is it not our duty to separate from the Church, considering the wickedness both of the Clergy and the people? A. We conceive not ; (1.) Because both the Priests and the people were full as wicked in the Jewish Church; and yet it was not the duty of the holy Israelites to separate from them. (2.) Neither did our Lord command his disciples to separate from them; he rather commanded the contrary. (3.) Hence it is clear that could not be the meaning of St. Paul’s words: “Come out from among them, and be ye separate.” Q. 47. But what reasons are there why we should not separate from the Church? A. Among others, those which were printed above twenty years ago, entitled, “Reasons against a Separation from the Church of England.” We allow two exceptions: (1) If the parish Minister be a notoriously wicked man. (2.) If he preach Socinianism, Arianism, or any other essentially false doctrine. Q. 48. Do we sufficiently watch over our Helpers?- A. We might consider those that are with us as our pupils; into whose behaviour and studies we should inquire every day. Should we not frequently ask each, Do you walk closely with God? Have you now fellowship with the Father and the Son?

50. How shall we try those who think they are moved by the Holy Ghost to preach P A. Inquire, (1.) Do they know God as a pardoning God? Have they the love of God abiding in them? Do they desire and seek nothing but God? And are they holy in all manner of conversation? (2.) Have they gifts (as well as grace) for the work? Have they (in some tolerable degree) a clear, sound understanding? Have they a right judgment in the things of God? Have they a just conception of salvation by faith? And has God given them any degree of utterance? Do they speak justly, readily, clearly? (3.) Have they fruit? Are any truly convinced of sin, and converted to God, by their preaching? As long as these three marks concur in any one, we believe he is called of God to preach. These we receive as sufficient proof that he is “moved thereto by the Holy Ghost.” Q. 51. What method may we use in receiving a new Helper? A. A proper time for doing this is at a Conference after solemn fasting and prayer. Every person proposed is then to be present; and each of them may be asked,--Have you faith in Christ? Are you “going on to perfection?” Do you expect to be “perfected in love” in this life? Are you groaning after it? Are you resolved to devote yourself wholly to God and to his work? Do you know the Methodist plan? Have you read the “Plain Account?” the “Appeals?” Do you know the Rules of the Society? of the Bands? Do you keep them? Do you take no snuff, tobacco, drams? Do you constantly attend the church and sacrament? Have you read the “Min utes of the Conference?” Are you willing to conform to them? Have you considered the Rules of a Helper; especially the First, Tenth, and Twelfth? Will you keep them for conscience sake? Are you determined to employall your time in the work of God? Will you preach every morning and evening; endeavouring not to speak too long, or too loud 7 Will you diligently in struct the children in every place? Will you visit from house to house? Will you recommend fasting, both by precept and example? Are you in debt? Are you engaged to marry? (N.B.

A. I think this would be throwing money away; (1.) Because this form was drawn up by three eminent Counsellors: But, (2.) It is the way of almost every Lawyer to blame what another has done. Therefore, you cannot at all infer, that they think a thing wrong, because they say so. (3.) If they did in reality think it wrong, this would not prove it was so. (4.) If there was (which I do not believe) some defect therein, who would go to law with the body of Methodists? But, (5.) If they did, would any Court in England put them out of possession; espe cially when the intent of the deed was plain and undeniable? Q. 63. Is anything farther advisable with regard to building? A. (1.) Build all preaching-houses, where the ground will permit, in the octagon form. It is best for the voice, and, on many accounts, more commodious than any other. (2.) Why should not any octagon House be built after the model of Yarm? any square House, after the model of Bath or Scarborough? Can we find any better model? (3.) Let the roof rise only one-third of its breadth: This is the true proportion. (4.) Have doors and windows enough; and let all the windows be sashes, opening downward. (5.) Let there be no Chinese 332 MINUTEs. OF paling, and no tub-pulpit, but a square projection, with a long seat behind. (6.) Let there be no pews, and no backs to the seats, which should have aisles on each side, and be parted in the middle by a rail running all along, to divide the men from the women; just as at Bath. (7.) Let all preaching-houses be built plain and decent; but not more expensive than is absolutely unavoidable: Otherwise the necessity of raising money will make rich men necessary to us. But if so, we must be dependent upon them, yea, and governed by them. And then farewell to the Methodist discipline, if not doctrine too. (8.) Wherever a preaching-house is built, see that lodgings for the Preachers be built also. Q. 64. Is there any exception to the rule, “Let the men and women sit apart?” A. In those galleries where they have always sat together, they may do so still. Butlet them sit apart everywhere below, and in all new-erected galleries. Q. 65.

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 com municate: That is the devil.’” (Ibid. p. 329.) “They affirmed that there is no commandment in the New Testament but to believe; that no other duty lies upon us; and that, when a man does believe, he is not bound or obliged to do anything which is commanded there.” (Ibid. p. 275.) “Mr. St-told me, “No one has any degree of faith till he is perfect as God is perfect.’” (Ibid. p. 270.) “You believe there are no degrees in faith.” (Ibid.) “I have heard Mr. Molther affirm, that there is no justify ing faith where there is ever any doubt.” (Ibid. p. 328.) “The moment a man is justified, he is sanctified wholly. Thenceforth, till death, he is neither more nor less holy.” (Ibid. p. 324.) “We are to growin grace, but not in holiness.” (Ibid. p. 325.) 2. I have frequently observed that I wholly disapprove of a these positions: “That there are no degrees in faith; that in order to attain faith we must abstain from all the ordinances of God; that a believer does not grow in holiness; and that he is not obliged to keep the commandments of God.” But I must also observe, (1.) That you ought not to charge the Moravian Church with the first of these; since in the very page from which youquote those words, “There is no justifying faith where there is ever any doubt,” that note occurs: “In the preface to the Second Journal, the Moravian Church is cleared from this mistake.” (2.) That with respect to the ordinances of God, their practice is better than their principle. They do use them themselves, I am a witness; and that with reverence and godly fear. Those expressions, however, of our own countrymen are utterly indefensible; as I think are Mr. Molther's also; who was quickly after recalled into Germany. The great fault of the Moravian Church seems to lie in not openly disclaiming all he had said; which in all probability they would have done, had they not leaned to the same opinion. 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.

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.

“But I must observe,” you say, “that you fall not only into inconsistencies, but into direct contradictions. You com mend them for “loving one another in a manner the world know eth not of;’ and yet you charge them with being “in the utmost confusion, biting and devouring one another.’ You say, ‘They caution us against natural love of one another; and had well migh destroyed brotherly love from among us.” “You praise them for “using no diversions, but such asbecome saints; and for ‘not regarding outward adorning:” Yet you say they ‘conform to the world in wearing gold and costly apparel; and by joining in worldly diversions, in order to do good.’ “You call their discipline, ‘in most respects, truly excellent.” I wish you had more fully explained yourself. I am sure it is no sign of good discipline, to permit such abominations. And you tell them yourself, ‘I can show you such a subordination as answers all Christian purposes, and yet is as distant from that among you as the heavens are from the earth.” “You mention it as a good effect of their discipline, that “every one knows and keeps his proper rank. Soon after, as if it were with a design to confute yourself, you say, ‘Our brethren have neither wisdom enough to guide, nor prudence enough to let it alone.’ “And now, Sir, how can you reconcile these opposite descrip tions?” (Ibid. pp. 21, 22.) Just as easily as those before, by simply declaring the thing as it is. “You commend them.” (the Moravians) “for loving one another; and yet charge them with biting and devouring one another.” (Vol. I. pp. 245,256.) Them / Whom ? Not the Moravians; but the English bre thren of Fetter-Lane, before their union with the Moravians. Here, then, is no shadow of contradiction. For the two sen tences do not relate to the same persons. “You say, ‘They had well-nigh destroyed brotherly love from among us; partly by ‘cautions against natural love.” (Ibid. p. 330.) It is a melancholy truth; so they had. But we had then no connexion with them. Neither, therefore, does this contradict their “loving one another in a manner the world knoweth not of.” “You praise them for using no diversions but such as become saints;” (Ibid. p.

p. 245;) “and yet say,” (Irecite the whole sen tence,) “I have heard some of you affirm, that “Christian salvation implies liberty to conform to the world, by joining in worldly diversions in order to do good.” (Ibid. p. 327.) And both these are true. The Moravians, in general, “use no diversions but such as become saints;” and yet I have heard some of them affirm, in contradiction to their own practice, that “one then mentioned did well, when he joined in playing at tennis in order to do good.” 11. “You praise them for not ‘regarding outward adorn ing.” (Ibid. p. 245.) So I do, the bulk of the congregation. “And yet you say,” (I again recite the whole sentence,) “I have heard some of you affirm, that “Christian salvation im plies liberty to conform to the world, by putting on of gold and costly apparel.” (Ibid. p. 327.) I have so. And I blame them the more, because they are condemned by the general practice of their own Church. “You call their discipline “in most respects truly excellent.’ (Ibid. p. 245.) I could wish you had more fully explained yourself.” I have, in the Second Journal. (Ibid. pp. 115 147.) “It is no sign of good discipline to permit such abomi nations;” that is, error in opinion, and guile in practice. True, it is not; nor is it any demonstration against it. For there may be good discipline even in a College of Jesuits. Another fault is, too great a deference to the Count. And yet, “in most respects, their discipline is truly excellent.” “You mention it as a good effect of their discipline, that “every one knows and keeps his proper rank. (Ibid. p. 245.) Soon after, as it were with a design to confute yourself, you say, ‘Our brethren have neither wisdom enough to guide, nor prudence enough to let it alone.” (Ibid. p. 255) Pardon me, Sir. I have no design either to confute or to contradict myself in these words. The former sentence is spoken of the Moravian brethren; the latter, of the English brethren of Fetter-Lane. 12.

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 repentance.* 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, that faith alone is the proximate condition of justification.” 4. This is what I hold concerning justification. I am next briefly to observe what you object. “If faith,” say you, “is the sole condition of justification, then it is our sole duty.” (Remarks, p. 25.) I deny the consequence. Faith may be, in the sense above described, the sole condition of justification; and yet not only repentance be our duty before, but all obedi ence after, we believe. . You go on : “If good works are not conditions of our justi fication,they are not conditions of our (final) salvation.” (Page 25.) I deny the consequence again. Good works, properly so called, cannot be the conditions of justification; because it * See this glaring misprint of one of the earliest editions corrected by Mr. Wes ley himself in a subsequent part of this volume, page 428.--EDIT. is impossible to do any good work before we are justified. And yet, notwithstanding, good works may be, and are, conditions of final salvation. For who will say it is impossible to do any good work before we are finally saved? You proceed: “Can we be saved in the contemptuous neg lect of repentance, prayer,” &c.? (Page 26.) No, nor justified neither; but while they are previous to faith, these are not allowed to be good works. You afterwards argue from my own concessions, thus: “Your notion of true stillness is, ‘a patient waiting upon God, by lowliness, meekness, and resignation, in all the ways of his holy law, and the works of his commandments. But how is it possible to reconcile to this, the position, that these duties are not conditions of our justification? If we are justified without them, we may be saved without them.

“Was not irreligion and vice already prevailing enough in the nation, but we must--throw snares in people’s way, and root out the remains of piety and devotion, in the weak and well-meaning? That this has been the case, your own con fessions put beyond all doubt. And you even now hold and teach the principles from which these dangerous consequences do plainly and directly follow.” (Page 3.) “Was not irreligion and vice already prevailing enough,” (whether I have increased them, we will consider by and by,) “but we must throw snares in people’s way?” God forbid! My whole life is employed in taking those snares out of people's way, which the world and the devil had thrown there. “And root out the remains of piety and devotion in the weak and well-meaning?” Of whom speaketh the Prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? “Your own confessions put this beyond all doubt.” What! that “I root out the remains of piety and devotion?” Not so. The sum of them all recited above amounts to this and no more: “That while my brother and I were absent from London, many weak men were tainted with wrong opinions, most of whom we recovered at our return; but even those who continued therein did, notwith standing, continue to live a holier life than ever they did before they heard us preach.” “And you even now hold the principles from which these dangerous consequences do plainly and directly follow.” But I know not where to find these con sequences, unless it be in your title-page. There indeed I read of the very fatal tendency of justification by faith only: “The divisions and perplexities of the Methodists, and the many errors relating both to faith and practice, which,” as you con ceive, “have already arisen among these deluded people.” However, you “charitably believe, I was not aware of these consequences at first.” (Remarks, p. 4.) No, nor am I yet; though it is strange I should not, if they so naturally suc ceed that doctrine. I will go a step farther. I do not know, neither believe, that they ever did succeed that doctrine, unless perhaps accidentally, as they might have succeeded any doctrine whatsoever. And till the contrary is proved, those conse quences cannot show that these principles are not true. 13.

13. Another consequence which you charge on my preaching justification by faith, is, the introducing the errors of the Mora vians. “Had the people,” say you, “gone on in a quiet and regular practice of their duty, as most of them did before you deluded them, it would have been impossible for the Moravian tenets to have prevailed among them. But when they had been long and often used to hear good works undervalued, I cannot wonder that they should plunge into new errors, and wax worse and worse.” (Page 12.) This is one string of mistakes. “Had the people gone on in a quiet and regular practice of their duty, as most of them did before you deluded them.” Deluded them Into what? Into the love of God and all mankind, and a zealous care to keep his commandments. I would to God this delusion (if such it is accounted) may spread to the four corners of the earth ! But how did most of them go on before they were thus deluded ? Four in five, by a moderate computation, even as other baptized Heathens, in the works of the devil, in all the “wretchlessness of most unclean living.” “In a quiet and re gular practice of their duty!” What duty? the duty of cursing and swearing; the duty of gluttony and drunkenness; the duty of whoredom and adultery; or of beating one another, and any that came in their way? In this (not very “quiet or regular”) practice did most of those go on before they heard us, who have now “put off the old man with his deeds,” and are “holy in all manner of conversation.” Have these, think you, “been long and often used to hear good works undervalued?” Or are they prepared for receiving the Moravian errors, by the knowledge and love of God? O Sir, the Moravians know, if you do not, that there is no such barrier under heaven against their tenets as those very people whom you suppose just prepared for receiving 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.

It is now my turn to complain of unfair usage; of the exceeding lame, broken, imperfect manner wherein you cite my words. For instance, your citation runs thus: You“never knew but one of the Mora vian Church affirm, that a believer does not grow in holiness.” Whereas my words are these: “I never knew one of the Mora vian Church, but that single person, affirm, that a believer does not grow in holiness; and perhaps he would not affirm it on reflection.” Now, why was the former part of the sentence changed, and the latter quite left out? Had the whole stood in your tract just as it does in mine, it must have appeared I do not here charge the Moravian Church. I complain also of your manner of replying to the first article of this very paragraph. For you do not cite so much as one line of that answer to which you profess to reply. My words are, “You ought not to charge the Moravian Church with the first of these” errors, “since in the very page from which you quote those words, “There is no justifying faith where there ever is any doubt,’ that note occurs, (viz., Vol. I. p. 328,) “In the preface to the Second Journal, the Moravian Church is cleared from this mistake.” If you had cited these words, could you possibly have subjoined, “I have not charged the Moravian Church with anything; but only repeat after you?” 4. I have now considered one page of your reply, in the man ner you seem to require. But sure you cannot expect I should follow you thus, step by step, through a hundred and forty pages! If you should then think it worth while to make a second reply, and to follow me in the same manner, we might write indeed, but who would read? I return therefore to what I proposed at first, viz., to touch only on what seems of the most importance, and leave the rest just as it lies. 5. You say, “With regard to subtlety, evasion, and disguise, you now would have it thought, that you only found this ‘in many of them; not in all, nor in most.” (Page 80) “You now would have it thought !” Yes, and always, as well as now.

(4) “You ‘praise them for not regarding outward adorn ing.’” So I do, the bulk of the congregation. “And yet you say,” (I again recite the whole sentence,) “‘I have heard some of you affirm that Christian salvation implies liberty to conform to the world, by putting on gold and costly apparel.’” I have so; and I blame them the more, because “they are condemned by the general practice of their own Church.” To this also you reply not. So I must count this the fourth contradiction which you have charged upon me, but have not proved. (5) “You call their discipline, in most respects, truly excel lent. I could wish you had more fully explained yourself. “I have, in the Second Journal, Vol. I. pp. 115-147. It is no sign of good discipline to permit such abominations; that is, error in opinion, and guile in practice. “True; it is not; nor is it any demonstration against it: For there may be good discipline even in a college of Jesuits. Another fault is, too great a deference to the Count. And yet, in most respects, their discipline is truly excellent.’” You reply, “Such excellent discipline, for all that I know, they may have; ” (that is, as the Jesuits;) “but I cannot agree that this is scarce inferior to that of the apostolical age.” It may be, for anything you advance to the contrary. “Here I cited some words of yours, condemning their subordination, (page 88,) which you prudently take no notice of.” Yes; I had iust before taken notice of their too great deference to the Count. But, the contradiction | Where is the contradiction? (6) “You mention it as a good effect of their discipline, that “every one knows and keeps his proper rank. Soon after, as it were with a design to confute yourself, you say, ‘Our brethren have neither wisdom enough to guide, nor prudence enough to let it alone.’” I answered, “Pardon me, Sir, I have no design either to confute or contradict myself in these words. The for mer sentence is spoken of the Moravian brethren; the latter, of the English brethren of Fetter-Lane, not then united with the Moravians, neither acting by their direction.” To this likewise you do not reply. Here is then a sixth contradiction, alleged against me, but not proved. 13.

They may be wrong, or they may be right, for all you know. Therefore, when you are first supposing that I have told you my notions, and them assigning the reasons of them, what can be said, but that you imagine the whole matter? 3. How far I have acted agreeably to the rules and orders of our Church, is a farther question. You think I have acted contrary thereto, First, by using extemporary prayer in public. “The Church,” you say, “has strongly declared her mind on this point, by appointing her excellent Liturgy, which you have solemnly promised to use, and no other.” I know not when or where. “And whoever does not worship God in the manner she prescribes must be supposed to slight and contemn her offices and rules; and therefore can be no more worthy to be called her Minister.” (Ibid. p. 7.) I do not “slight or contemn the offices” of the Church: I esteem them very highly. And yet I do not, at all times, wor ship God, even in public, in the very terms of those offices. Nor yet do I knowingly “slight or contemn her rules:” For it is not clear to my apprehension, that she has any rule which forbids using extemporary prayer, suppose between the Morning and Evening Service. And if I am “not worthy to be called her Minister,” (which I dare by no means affirm myself to be,) yet her Minister I am, and must always be, unless I should be judicially deposed from my ministry. Your Second argument is this: “If you suppose the Scrip ture enjoins you to use extemporary prayer, then you must suppose our Liturgy to be inconsistent with Scripture; and, consequently, unlawful to be used.” That does not follow ; unless I supposed the Scripture to enjoin, to use extemporary prayer and no other. Then it would follow, that a form of prayer was inconsistent with Scripture. But this I never did suppose. Your Third argument is to this effect: “You act contrary to the rule of the Church. Allow she is in the wrong; yet, while you break her rule, how do you act as her Minister?” It ought to be expressed, “How are you her Minister?” for the conclusion to be proved is, that I am not her Minister.

Allow she is in the wrong; yet, while you break her rule, how do you act as her Minister?” It ought to be expressed, “How are you her Minister?” for the conclusion to be proved is, that I am not her Minister. I answer, (1.) I am not convinced, as I observed before, that I do hereby break her rule. (2.) If I did, yet should I not cease to be her Minister, unless I were formally deprived. (3.) I now actually do continue in her communion, and hope that I always shall. 4. You object farther, that I “disobey the governors of the Church.” I answer, I both do, and will, obey them in all things, where I do not apprehend there is some particular law of God to the contrary. “Here,” you say, “you confess that in some things you do not, and cannot obey your governors.” (Page 8.) Did I confess this? Then I spoke rashly and foolishly; for I granted more than I can make good. I do certainly apprehend that the law of God requires me, both to preach, and, some times, to pray extempore. Yet I do not know that I disobey the governors of the Church herein: For I do not know that they have forbidden me to do either. But your “behaviour and method of teaching is irregular. Have you any warrant from Scripture for preaching” up and down thus? I think I have; I think God hath called me to this work “by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery,” which directs me how to obey that general command, “While we have time, let us do good unto all men.” “But we ought to do this agreeably to our respective situa tions, and not break in upon each other's provinces. Every private man may take upon himself the office of a Magistrate FARTHER EXPLAINED. 439an and quote this text as justly as you have done.” (Page 9.) No; the private man is not called to the office of a Magistrate; but I am to the office of a Preacher. “You was, indeed, authorized to preach the gospel; but it was in the congregation to which you should be lawfully appointed.

“You was, indeed, authorized to preach the gospel; but it was in the congregation to which you should be lawfully appointed. Whereas you have many years preached in places whereunto you was not lawfully appointed; nay, which were entrusted to others, who neither wanted nor desired your assistance.” Many of them wanted it enough, whether they desired it or no. But I shall not now debate that point. I rather follow you to the First Part of the “Farther Appeal,” where this objection is considered. 5. “Our Church,” it was said, “has provided against this preaching up and down, in the ordination of a Priest, by expressly limiting the exercise of the powers then conferred upon him to the congregation where he shall be lawfully appointed thereunto.” I answered, (1.) “Your argument proves too much. If it be allowed just as you propose it, it proves that no Priest, has authority either to preach or administer the sacrament in any other than his own congregation.” (Farther Appeal, p. 117.) You reply, “Is there no difference between a thing’s being done occasionally, and its being done for years together?” Yes, a great one; and more inconveniences may arise from the latter than from the former. But this is all wide : It does not touch the point. Still, if our Church does expressly limit the excrcise of the sacerdotal powers to that congregation whereunto each Priest shall be appointed, this precludes him from exercising those powers at all, in any other than that congregation. I answered, (2.) “Had the powers conferred been so limited when I was ordained Priest, my ordination would have signified just nothing. For I was not appointed to any congregation at all; but was ordained as a member of that ‘College of Divines,” (so our Statutes express it,) ‘founded to overturn all heresies, and defend the catholic faith.’” You reply, “I presume it was expected you should either continue at your College, or enter upon some regular cure.” Perhaps so; but I must still insist, that if my sacerdotal powers had been then expressly limited to that congregation whereunto I should be appointed, my ordination would have signified nothing. I mean, I could never, in virtue of that ordination, have exercised those powers at all; seeing I never was appointed to any single congregation, at least not till I went to Georgia.

I mean, I could never, in virtue of that ordination, have exercised those powers at all; seeing I never was appointed to any single congregation, at least not till I went to Georgia. I answered, (3.) “For many years after I was ordained Priest, this limitation was never heard of. I heard not one syllable of it, by way of objection to my preaching up and down in Oxford or London, or the parts adjacent; in Glouces tershire or Worcestershire; in Lancashire, Yorkshire, or Lincolnshire. Nor did the strictest disciplinarian scruple suffering me to exercise those powers wherever I came.” You reply, “There is great difference between preaching occasionally, with the leave of the incumbents, and doing it constantly without their leave.” I grant there is; and there are objections to the latter, which do not reach the former case. But they do not belong to this head. They do not in the least affect this consequence,--“If every Priest, when ordained, is expressly limited, touching the exercise of the power then received, to that congregation to which he shall be appointed; then is he precluded by this express limitation from preaching, with or without the incumbent’s leave, in any other congrega tion whatever.” I answered, (4) “Is it not, in fact, universally allowed, that every Priest, as such, has a power, in virtue of his ordination, to preach in any congregation, where the Curate desires his assistance?” You reply to this by what you judge a parallel case. But it does not touch the restriction in question. Either this does, or does not, expressly limit the exercise of the powers conferred upon a Priest in his ordination to that congregation whereunto he shall be appointed. If it does not, I am not condemned by this, however faulty I may be on a thousand other accounts. If it does, then is every Priest condemned whoever preaches out of the congregation to which he is appointed. Your parallel case is this: “Because a man does not offend against the law of the land, when I prevail upon him to teach my children;” therefore “he is impowered to seize” (read, he does not offend against the law of the land in seizing) “an apart ment in my house, and against my will and approbation to conti nue therein, and to direct and dictate to my family!” (Page 11.) An exact parallel indeed!

Your parallel case is this: “Because a man does not offend against the law of the land, when I prevail upon him to teach my children;” therefore “he is impowered to seize” (read, he does not offend against the law of the land in seizing) “an apart ment in my house, and against my will and approbation to conti nue therein, and to direct and dictate to my family!” (Page 11.) An exact parallel indeed! When, therefore, I came to live in St. Luke's parish, was it just the same thing as if I had seized an apartment in Dr. Buckley's house? And was the continuing therein against his will and approbation (supposing it were so) precisely the same, as if I had continued in his house, whether he would or no? Is the one exactly the same offence against the law of the land as the other? Once more. Is the warning sinners in Moorfields to flee from the wrath to come, the very same with directing the Doctor’s family under his own roof? I should not have answered this, but that I was afraid you would conclude it was unanswerable. I answered the former objector, (5.) “Before those words which you suppose to imply such a restraint, were those spoken without any restraint or limitation at all, which I apprehend to convey an indelible character, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a Priest in the church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands.’” You reply, “The question is not, whether you are in orders or not.” (Ibid. p. 12.) I am glad to hear it. I really thought it was. “But whether you have acted suitably to the directions or rules of the Church of England.” Not suitably to that rule, if it were strictly to be interpreted, of preaching only in a single congregation. But I have given my reasons why I think it cannot be so interpreted. And those reasons I do not see that you have invalidated. I would only add, If I am in orders, if I am a Minister still, and yet not a Minister of the Church of England, of what Church am I a Minister? Whoever is a Minister at all is a Minister of some particular Church.

15.) I do say so still. I cannot have a greater regard to any human rules, than to follow them in all things, unless where I apprehend there is a divine rule to the contrary. I dare not renounce communion with the Church of England. As a Minister, I teach her doctrines; I use her offices; I conform to her Rubrics; I suffer reproach for my attachment to her. As a private member, I hold her doctrines; I join in her offices, in prayer, in hearing, in communicating. I expect every reasonable man, touching these facts, to believe hisown eyes and ears. But if these facts are so, how dare any man of common sense charge me with renouncing the Church of England? 9. Use ever so many exaggerations, still the whole of this matter is, (1.) I often use extemporary prayer. (2.) Wherever I can, I preach the gospel. (3.) Those who desire to live the gospel, I advise how to watch over each other, and to put from them such as walk disorderly. Now, whether these things are, on other considerations, right or wrong, this single point I must still insist on : “All this does not prove, either that I am no member, or that I am no Minister, of the Church of England. Nay, nothing can prove, I am no member of the Church, till I either am excommunicated, or renounce her communion, and no longer join in her doctrine, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayer. Nor can anything prove, I am no Minister of the Church, till I either am deposed from my ministry, or voluntarily renounce her, and wholly cease to teach her doctrines, use her offices, and obey her Rubrics for conscience sake. However, I grant, that whatsoever is “urged on this head deserves my most serious consideration.” And whensoever I am convinced, that by taking any methods, more or less dif ferent from those I now take, I may better “consult the honour of religion, and be able to do more good in the world,” by the grace of God I shall not persist in these one hour, but instantly choose the more excellent way. IV. 1.

“But you seem to desire to have it believed, that an extra ordinary blessing attended your prayers. Whereas, if the cir cumstances could be particularly inquired into, most probably it would appear, that either the fury of the distemper was abated, or the persons you visited were seized with it in a more favourable degree, or were, by reason of a good constitution, more capable of going through it. Neither do I believe that they would have failed of an equal blessing and success had they had the assistance and prayers of their own parish Ministers.” There, Sir; now I have done as you require; I have quoted our whole remark. But does all this prove, that I “boast of curing bodily distempers by prayer, without the use of any other means?” If you say, Although it does not prove this, it proves that “you seem to desire to have it believed, that an extraordinary blessing attended your prayers;” and this is another sort of enthusiasm: It is very well: So it does not prove the conclusion you designed; but it proves another, which is as good | 11. The two last instances of my enthusiasm which you bring, (Remarks, pp. 72, 73.) I had summed up in two lines, thus: “At two several times, being ill and in violent pain, I prayed to God, and found immediate ease.” (Answer, p. 412.) But since you say, I “must not hope to escape so; these instances must once more be laid before me particularly;” (Second Letter, p. 140;) I must yield to necessity, and set them down from the beginning to the end:-- “Saturday, March 21. I explained in the evening the thirty-third chapter of Ezekiel; in applying which, I was seized with such a pain in my side, I could not speak. I knew my remedy, and immediately kneeled down. In a moment the pain was gone.” (Vol. I. p. 304.) “Friday, May 8. I found myself much out of order: How ever, I made shift to preach in the evening. But on Saturday my bodily strength failed, so that for several hours I could scarce lift up my head. Sunday, 10. I was obliged to lie down most part of the day, being easy only in that posture.

What manner of lives do they lead now? And if you do not find, (1.) That three in four of these were, two years ago, notoriously wicked men; (2.) That the main doc trines they have heard since, were, “Love God and your neigh bour, and carefully keep his commandments;” and, (3.) That they have since exercised themselves herein, and continue so to do;--I say, if you, or any reasonable man, who will be at the pains to inquire, does not find this to be an unquestionable fact, I will openly acknowledge myself an enthusiast, or what soever else you shall please to style me. Only one caution I would give to such an inquirer: Let him not ask the colliers of Coleford, “Were not the generality of you, before you followed these men, serious, regular, well disposed people?” Were you not “offended at the profaneness and debauchery of the age?” And “was it not this disposition which at first made you liable to receive these impressions?” (Second Letter, p. 103.) Because if he talk thus to some of those who do not yet “follow these men,” perhaps he will not live to bring back their answer. 9. But will this, or a thousand such instances as this, “stop the mouths of all adversaries at once?” O'Sir, would one expect such a thought as this in one that had read the Bible? What, if you could convert as many sinners as St. Paul himself?

Bold, vehement asseverations will not pass upon them for legal evi dence: Nor indeed on any reasonable men. They can distin guish between arguing and calling names: The former be comes a gentleman and a Christian: But what is he who can be guilty of the latter? 9. You assert, Lastly, that any who choose a Methodist Clergyman for their Lecturer, “put into that office, which should be held by a Minister of the Church of England, an enemy, who undermines not only the legal establishment of that Church, but also the foundation of all religion.” (Page 13.) Once more we must call upon you for the proof; the proof of these two particulars, First, that I, John Wesley, am “an enemy to the Church; and that I undermine not only the legal establishment of the Church of England, but also the very foun dation of all religion.” Secondly. That “Mr. V-- is an enemy to the Church, and is undermining all religion, as well as the establishment.” 10. Another word, and I have done: Are there “certain qualifications required of all Lecturers, before they are by law permitted to speak to the people?” (Page 14.) And is a subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles of religion one of these qualifications? And is a person who does not “conform to such subscription” disqualified to be a Lecturer? or, who “has ever held or published anything contrary to what the Church of England maintains?” Then certainly you, Dr. John Free, are not “permitted by law to speak to the people;” nei ther are you “qualified to be a Lecturer” in any church in London or England, as by law established. For you flatly deny and openly oppose more than one or two of those Articles. You do not in anywise conform to the subscription you made before you was ordained either Priest or Deacon. You both hold and publish (if you are the author and publisher of the tract before me) what is grossly, palpably “contrary to what the Church of England maintains,” in her Homilies as well as Articles; those Homilies to which you have also sub scribed, in subscribing the Thirty-sixth Article. You have sub cribed them, Sir; but did you ever read them? Did you ever read so much as the three first Homilies?

This you know in your own conscience; for you know I speak of myself during the whole time, as having no faith at all. Conse quently, the “rising and fallings.” I experienced then have nothing to do with those “doubts and fears which many go through, after they have by faith received remission of sins.” The next words which you cite, “thrown into great per plexities,” I cannot find in the page you refer to, neither those that follow. The sum of them is, that “at that time I did not feel the love of God, but found deadness and wanderings in public prayer, and coldness even at the holy communion.” Well, Sir, and have you never found in yourself any such coldness, deadness, and wanderings? I am persuaded you have. And yet surely your brain is always cool and temperate! never “intoxicated with the heated fumes of spirituous particles !” 13. If you quote not incoherent scraps, (by which you may make anything out of anything,) but entire connected sen tences, it will appear that the rest of your quotations make no more for your purpose than the foregoing. Thus, although I allow, that on May 24, “I was much buffeted with tempta tions; but I cried to God, and they fled away; that they re turned again and again; I as often lifted up my eyes, and he sent me help from his holy place;” (Vol. I. p. 103;) it will only prove the very observation I make myself: “I was fight ing both under the law and under grace. But then I was some times, if not often, conquered; now I was always conqueror.” That sometime after, I “was strongly assaulted again, and after recovering peace and joy, was thrown into perplexity afresh by a letter, asserting that no doubt or fear could con sist with true faith; that my weak mind could not then bear to be thus sawn asunder,” will not appear strange to any who are not utter novices in experimental religion. No more than that, one night the next year, “I had no life or spirit in me, and was much in doubt, whether God would not lay me aside, and send other labourers into his harvest.” 14. You add, “He owns his frequent relapses into sin, for near twice ten years.

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. The third passage (which you tack to the former, as if they were one and the same) runs thus: “I have not such a peace as excludes the possibility either of doubt or fear. When holy men have told me I had no faith, I have often doubted whether I had or no. And those doubts have made me very uneasy, till I was relieved by prayer and the Holy Scrip tures.” (Vol. I. p. 162.) Speak frankly, Sir: Does this prove me guilty of scepticism, infidelity, or Atheism? What else does it prove? Just nothing at all, but the “pertinacious confidence” of him that cites it. 25. You recite more at large one passage more. The whole paragraph stands thus: “St. Paul tells us, ‘The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, temperance. Now, although, by the grace of God in Christ, I find a measure of some of these in myself, viz., of peace, longsuffering, gentle ness, meekness, temperance; yet others I find not. I cannot find in myself the love of God or of Christ. Hence my dead mess and wanderings in public prayer. Hence it is that, even in the holy communion, I have rarely any more than a cold attention. Hence, when I hear of the highest instance of God’s love, my heart is still senseless and unaffected. Yea, at this moment, (October 14, 1738.) I feel no more love to Him, than one I had never heard of.” (Vol. I. p. 162.) To any who knew something of inward religion I should have observed, that this is what serious Divines mean by desertion. But all expressions of this kind are jargon to you. So, allow ing it to be whatever you please, I ask only, Do you know how long I continued in this state? how many years, months, weeks, or days? If not, how can you infer what my state of mind is now, from what it was above eleven years ago?

You go on: “Under this head may, not improperly, be considered their undutiful behaviour to the civil powers.” What proof have you of this? Why, a single sentence, on which I laid so little stress myself, that it is only inserted by way of parenthesis, in the body of another sentence: “Ye learned in the law, what becomes of Magna Charta, and of English liberty and property? Are not these mere sounds, while, on any pretence, there is such a thing as a press-gang suffered in the land?” Upon this you descant: “The legislature has, at several times, made Acts for pressing men. But no matter for this; touch but a Methodist, and all may perish, rather than a soldier be pressed. He who had before bound himself not to speak a tittle of worldly things is now bawling for liberty and property.” Very lively this! But I hope, Sir, you do not offer it by way of argument. You are not so unlearned in the law, as not to know, that the legislature is out of the question. The legis lature, six years ago, did not appoint press-gangs, but legal officers to press men. Consequently, this is no proof (and find another if you can) of our undutiful behaviour to the civil powers. 32. “Another natural consequence,” you say, “of Method ism, is their-mutual jealousies and envyings, their manifold divisions, fierce and rancorous quarrels, and accusations of one another.” (Vol. I. p. 252.) I shall carefully attend whatever you produce on this head: And if you prove this, I will grant you all the rest. You First cite those words: “Musing on the things that were past, and reflecting how many that came after me were preferred before me, I opened my Testament on those words: ‘The Gen tiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness; but Israel, which followed after the law of righ teousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.’” And how does this prove the manifold divisions and rancorous quarrels of the Methodists? Your Second argument is: “Mr. Whitefield told me, he and I preached two different gospels;” (his meaning was, that he preached particular, and I universal, redemption;) “and therefore he would not join with me, but publicly preach against me.” (Section xix. p.

The most material part of it is this: “Saturday, 28. I read the follow ing paper at Kingswood : “For their scoffing at the word and Ministers of God, for their backbiting and evil-speaking, I declare the persons above-mentioned to be no longer members of this society.’” (Ibid. p. 301.) “And we had great reason to bless God, that, after fifty two were withdrawn, we have still upwards of ninety left.” (Ibid. p. 302.) Who those other “forty were, that,” you say, “left them,” I know not. Perhaps you may inform me. Upon the whole, all these quotations prove only this: That about eleven years ago, Mr. C., falling into predestination, set the society in Kingswood a disputing with each other, and occasioned much confusion for some months. But still you have not gone one step toward proving, (which is the one point in question,) that the Methodists in general were, even then, “all together by the ears; ” and much less, that they have been so ever since, and that they are so now. However, you fail not to triumph, (like Louis le Grand, after his victory at Blenheim,) “What shall we say now? Are these the fruits of Methodism?” No, Sir. They are the fruits of opposing it. They are the tares sown among the wheat. You may hear of instances of the same kind, both in earlier and later ages. You add, “This is bad enough; but it is not the worst. For consider, what becomes of those that leave them 7” Why, Sir, what, if “their last end be worse than their first?” Will you charge this upon me? By the same rule, you must have charged upon the Apostles themselves whatever befel those who, having “known the way of righteousness,” afterwards “turned back from the holy commandment once delivered to them.” 36. You conclude this section: “Mr. Wesley will probably say, “Must Ibe answerable for the Moravians, against whom I have preached and written?” True, since he and the Mora vians quarrelled. But who gives them a box on the ear with the one hand, and embraces them with the other? Who first brought over this wicked generation ? Who made a Moravian his spiritual guide? Who fanaticized his own followers, and de prived them of their senses?

47 in general being thoroughly apprized of, and fully guarded against, them. So much for your modest assertion, that the Methodists in general are “all together by the ears; ” the very reverse of which is true. They are in general in perfect peace. They enjoy in themselves “the peace of God, which passeth all understanding.” They are at peace with each other; and, as much as lieth in them, they live peaceably with all men. 37. Your next charge is, that “Methodism has a tendency to undermine morality and good works.” (Section xx. p. 146, &c.) To prove this you assert, (1.) “That the Methodists are trained up to wait in quietness for sudden conversion; whence they are naturally led to neglect the means of salva tion.” This is a mistake all over. For neither are they taught to wait in quietness (if you mean any more than patience by that term) for either sudden or gradual conver sion; neither do they, in fact, neglect the means. So far from it, that they are eminently exact in the use of them. You assert, (2) “The doctrine of assurance of pardon and salvation, present and future, causes a false security, to the neglect of future endeavours.” Blunder upon blunder again. That all Christians have an assurance of future sal vation, is no Methodist doctrine; and an assurance of pre sent pardon is so far from causing negligence, that it is of all others the strongest motive to vigorous endeavours after universal holiness. You assert, (3.) “Impulses and impressions being made the rule of duty, will lead into dangerous errors.” Very true: But the Methodists do not make impulses and impres sions the rule of duty. They totally disclaim any other rule of duty than the written word. You assert, (4.) “A claim of unsinning perfection” (I mean by perfection, the loving God with all our heart) “drives some into frenzies, others into despair.” Sir, I doubt the fact. You assert, (5) “The Moravian Methodists trample down morality, and multitudes of the Wesleyans have been in fected.” The Moravian Methodists 1 You may as well say, the Presbyterian Papists. The Moravians have no connexion with the Methodists. . Therefore, whatever they do, (though you slander them too,) they and not we are to answer for.

and that I immediately subjoin to the latter clause, “We talked largely with her, and she was humbled to the dust, under a deep sense of the advantage Satan had gained over her.” You quote, Fifthly, a part of the following sentence, to prove that I “undermine morality and good works:” “His judgment concerning holiness is new. He no longer judges it to be an outward thing, to consist either in doing no harm, in doing good, or in using the ordinances of God.” (And yet how strongly do I insist upon all these! Sir, do not you know this?) “He sees it is the life of God in the soul, the image of God fresh stamped on the heart.” It is so. Sir, can you deny it? What then will you prove by this? You quote, Sixthly, part of these words:-- “They speak of holiness as if it consisted chiefly, if not wholly, in these two points: First, the doing no harm : Secondly, the doing good, as it is called; that is, the using the means of grace, and helping our neighbour.” (Vol. I. p. 225.) And this you term, “disparaging good works!” Sir, these things, considered barely as to the opus operatum, are not good works. There must be something good in the heart, before any of our works are good. Insomuch that, “though I give all my goods to feed the poor, and have not ” this, “it profiteth me nothing.” You observe, by the way, “The Mystic divinity was once the Methodists’ doctrine.” Sir, you have stepped out of the way, only to get another fall. The Mystic divinity was never the Methodists’ doctrine. They could never swallow either John Tauler or Jacob Behmen; although they often advised with one that did. 39. You say, Seventhly, “I do not find that Mr. Wesley has ever cited those express passages of St. James.” Sir, what if I had not? (I mean in print.) I do not cite every text from Genesis to the Revelation. But it happens I have. Look again, Sir; and, by and by, you may find where. You say, Eighthly, “Mr. Wesley affirms, that the condition of our justification is faith alone, and not good works.” Most certainly I do. And I learned it from the Eleventh and Twelfth Articles, and from the Homilies of our Church. If you can confute them, do.

I cannot think you yourselves would use such methods of convincing us, if we think amiss. Christians of all denominations, can you reconcile this to our royal law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self?” O tell it not in Gath ! Let it not be named among those who are enemies to the Christian cause; lest that worthy name whereby we are called be still more blasphemed among the Heathen I To NORWICH, November 4, 1758. REvEREND SIR, 1. TILL to-day I had not a sight of your sermon, “On the Pretended Inspiration of the Methodists.” Otherwise I should have taken the liberty, some days sooner, of sending you a few lines. That sermon, indeed, only repeats what has been often said before, and as often answered. But as it is said again, I believe it is my duty to answer it again. Not that I have any acquaintance with Mr. Cayley or Osborn: I never exchanged a word with either. However, as you lump me and them toge ther, I am constrained to speak for myself, and once more to give a reason of my hope, that I am clear from the charge you bring against me. 2. There are several assertions in your sermon which need not be allowed; but they are not worth disputing. At present, therefore, I shall only speak of two things: (1.) Your account of the new birth; and, (2) “The pretended inspiration” (as you are pleased to term it) “of the Methodists.” 3. Of the new birth, you say, “The terms of being regene. rated, of being born again, of being born of God, are often used to express the works of gospel righteousness.” (Pages 10, 11.) I cannot allow this. I know not that they are ever used in Scripture to express any outward work at all. They always express an inward work of the Spirit, whereof baptism is the 90 LETTER. To outward sign. You add, “Their primary, peculiar, and precise meaning signifies” (a little impropriety of expression) “our redemption from death, and restoration to eternal life, through the grace of God.” (Page 13.) It does not, unless by death you mean sin; and by eternal life, holiness. The precise mean ing of the term is, “a new birth unto righteousness,” an in ward change from unholy to holy tempers.

So much for your account of the new birth. I am, in the Second place, to consider the account you give of “the pretended inspiration” (so you are pleased to term it) “of the Methodists.” “The Holy Ghost sat on the Apostles with cloven tongues as of fire;--and signs and wonders were done by their hands.” ThE REV. M.R. POTTER, 9I (Pages 16, 17, 18.) Wonders indeed! sick by a word, a touch, a shadow !-- For they healed the They spake the dead alive, and living dead. “But though these extraordinary operations of the Spirit have been long since withdrawn, yet the pretension to them still subsists in the confident claim of the Methodists.” This you boldly affirm, and I flatly deny. I deny that either I, or any in connexion with me, (for others, whether called Methodists, or anything else, I am no more concerned to answer than you are,) do now, or ever did, lay any claim to “these extraordinary operations of the Spirit.” 7. But you will prove it. They “confidently and presump tuously claim a particular and immediate inspiration.” (Ibid.) I answer, First, so do you, and in this very sermon, though you call it by another name. By inspiration, we mean that inward assistance of the Holy Ghost, which “helps our infirmi ties, enlightens our understanding, rectifies our will, comforts, purifies, and sanctifies us.” (Page 14.) Now, all this you claim as well as I; for these are your own words. “Nay, but you claim a particular inspiration.” So do you; do not you expect Him to sanctify you in particular? “Yes; but I look for no imme diate inspiration.” You do; you expect He will immediately and directly help your infirmities. Sometimes, it is true, He does this, by the mediation or intervention of other men; but at other times, particularly in private prayer, he gives that he', directly from himself. “But is this all you mean by particulai, immediate inspiration?” It is; and so I have declared a thou sand times in private, in public, by every method I could devise. It is pity, therefore, that any should still undertake to give an account of my sentiments, without either hearing or reading what I say. Is this doing as we would be done to? 8. I answer, Secondly, there is no analogy between claiming.

“To what purpose could any further inspiration serve?” Answer yourself: “To enlighten the understanding, and to rectify the will.” Else, be the Scriptures ever so complete, they will not save your soul. How, then, can you imagine it is unnecessary; and that “the supposed need of it is injurious to the written word?” And when you say yourself, “The Spirit is to teach us all things, and to guide us into all truth;” judge you, whether this is “to explain, or to supply, the written word.” “O, He does this by the written word.” True; but also “by his holy inspiration.” So the compilers of our Liturgy speak; who, therefore, according to you, are guilty of “wicked presumption, with which Satan filled their hearts, to lie of the Holy Ghost.” 18. These, also, are the men upon whom you fall in the fol lowing warm words:--“The power of enthusiasm over an heated imagination may be very great. But it must be under the ferment of that old, sour leaven, hypocrisy, to rise to that daring height.” I think not: I think they were neither hypo crites nor enthusiasts, though they teach me to pray for, and consequently to expect, (unless I am an hypocrite indeed,) “God’s holy inspiration,” both in order to “think the things that be good,” and also “perfectly to love him, and worthily to magnify his holy name.” 19. You go on: “They boast that their heart is clean, and their spirit right within them.” Sir, did you ever read Morn ing Prayer on the tenth day of the month? You then said, “Make me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.” Did you mean what you said? If you did not, you was guilty of the grossest hypocrisy. If you did, when did you expect God would answer that prayer? when your body was in the grave? Too late 1 Unless we have clean hearts before we die, it had been good we had never been born. 20. “But they boast they are pure from sin, harmless, and undefiled.” So, in a sound sense, is every true believer. “Nay, they boast that their bodies are a living sacrifice, holy, accept able to God.” Sir, is not yours? Are not your soul and body such a sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God?

Are not your soul and body such a sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God? As the Lord God liveth, before whom we stand, if they are not, you are not a Christian. If you are not a holy, living sacrifice, you are still “dead in trespasses and sins.” You are an “alien from the commonwealth of Israel, without” Christian “hope, without God in the world !” 21. You add, “Thus have I exposed their boasted claim to a particular and immediate inspiration.” (Page 30.) No, Sir, you have only exposed yourself; for all that we claim, you allow. “I have shown what a miserable farce is carrying on, beneath the mask of a more refined holiness.” No tittle of this have you shown yet; and before you attempt again to show any thing concerning us, let me entreat you, Sir, to acquaint yourself better with our real sentiments. Perhaps you may then find, that there is not so wide a difference as you imagined between you and, Reverend Sir, Your servant for Christ’s sake, November 7, 1758. RECTOR OF ST. MICHAEL’s, WooD-STREET: 1. IN the Tract which you have just published concerning the people called Methodists, you very properly say, “Our first care should be, candidly and fairly to examine their doctrines. For, as to censure them unexamined would be unjust; so to do the same without a fair and impartial examination would be ungenerous.” And again: “We should, in the first place, carefully and candidly examine their doctrines.” (Page 68.) This is undoubtedly true. But have you done it? Have you ever examined their doctrines yet? Have you examined them fairly? fairly and candidly? candidly and carefully? Have you read over so much as the Sermons they have published, or the “Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion?” I hope you have not; for I would fain make some little excuse for your uttering so many senseless, shameless falsehoods. I hope you know nothing about the Methodists, no more than I do about the Cham of Tartary; that you are ignorant of the whole affair, and are so bold, only because you are blind. Bold enough ! Throughout your whole Tract, you speak satis pro imperio,"-- as authoritatively as if you was, not an Archbishop only, but Apostolic Vicar also; as if you had the full papal power in your hands, and fire and faggot at your beck!

DoWNES. 99 And yet I will not say, this ignorance is blameless. For ought you not to have known better? Ought you not to have taken the pains of procuring better information, when it might so easily have been had 7 Ought you to have publicly advanced so heavy charges as these, without knowing whether they were true or no? 6. You proceed to give as punctual an account of us, tan quam intus et in cute nosses : * “They outstripped, if pos sible, even Montanus, for external sanctity and severity of discipline.” (Page 22.) “They condemned all regard for tem poral concerns. They encouraged their devotees to take no thought for any one thing upon earth; the consequence of which was, a total neglect of their affairs, and an impoverish ment of their families.” (Page 23.) Blunder all over ! We had no room for any discipline, severe or not, five-and-twenty years ago, unless college discipline; my brother then residing at Christ Church, and I at Lincoln College. And as to our “sanctity,” (were it more or less,) how do you know it was only external 7 Was you intimately acquainted with us? I do not remember where I had the honour of conversing with you. Or could you (as the legend says of St. Pabomius) “smell an heretic ten miles” off? And how came you to dream, again, that we “condemned all regard for temporal concerns, and encouraged men to take no thought for any one thing upon earth?” Vain dream ! We, on the contrary, severely condemn all who neglect their temporal concerns, and who do not take care of everything on earth wherewith God hath entrusted them. The consequence of this is, that the Meth odists, so called, do not “neglect their affairs, and impoverish their families; ” but, by diligence in business, “provide things honest in the sight of all men.” Insomuch, that multitudes of them, who, in time past, had scarce food to eat or raiment to put on, have now “all things needful for life and godli ness;” and that for their families, as well as themselves. 7. Hitherto you have been giving an account of two wolf lings only; but now they are grown into perfect wolves. Let us see what a picture you draw of them in this state, both as to their principles and practice.

Your Fourth argument against justification by faith alone, is drawn from the nature of justification. This, you observe, “implies a prisoner at the bar, and a law by which he is to be tried; and this is not the law of Moses, but that of Christ, requiring repentance and faith, with their proper fruits;” (page 16;) which now, through the blood of Christ, are accepted and “counted for righteousness.” St. Paul affirms this concerning faith, in the fourth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. But where does he say, that either repentance or its fruits are counted for righteousness? Nevertheless, I allow that the law of Christ requires such repentance and faith before justification, as, if there be opportunity, will bring forth the “fruits of right eousness.” But if there be not, he that repents and believes is justified notwithstanding. Consequently, these alone are neces sary, indispensably necessary, conditions of our justification. 6. Your Last argument against justification by faith alone “is drawn from the method of God’s proceeding at the last day. He will then judge every man ‘according to his works. If, therefore, works wrought through faith are the ground of the sentence passed upon us in that day, then are they a necessary condition of our justification; ” (page 19;) in other words, “if they are a condition of our final, they are a condition of our present, justification.” I cannot allow the consequence. All holiness must precede our entering into glory. But no holiness can exist, till, “being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.” 7. You next attempt to reconcile the writings of St. Paul with justification by works. In order to this you say, “In the three first chapters of his Epistle to the Romans, he proves that both Jews and Gentiles must have recourse to the gospel of Christ. To this end he convicts the whole world of sin; and having stopped every mouth, he makes his inference, ‘There fore, by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified. We conclude, them, says he, “a man is justified by faith, with out the deeds of the law. But here arise two questions: First, What are the works excluded from justifying? Secondly, What is the faith which justifies?” (Pages 20, 21, 22.) “The works excluded are heathem and Jewish works, set up as meritorious.

For it may be where there is no religion at all; in men of the most abandoned lives; yea, in the devil himself. And yet this does not prove that I “separate reason from grace; ” that I “discard reason from the service of religion.” I do continually “employ it to distinguish between right and wrong opinions.” I never affirmed “this distinction to be of little consequence,” or denied “the gospel to be a reasonable service.” (Page 158.) But “the Apostle Paul considered right opinions as a full third part, at least, of religion. For he says, “The fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth. By goodness is meant the conduct of particulars to the whole, and consists in habits of social virtue; and this refers to Christian practice. By righteousness is meant the conduct of the whole to particulars, and consists in the gentle use of BiSHOP OF GLOUCESTER. 127 church authority; and this refers to Christian discipline. By truth is meant the conduct of the whole, and of particulars to one another, and consists in orthodoxy or right opinion; and this refers to Christian doctrine.” (Page 159.) My objections to this account are, First, It contradicts St. Paul; Secondly, It contradicts itself. First. It contradicts St. Paul. It fixes a meaning upon his words, foreign both to the text and context. The plain sense of the text, taken in connexion with the context, is no other than this: (Eph. v. 9:) “The fruit of the Spirit” (rather, “of the light,” which Bengelius proves to be the true reading, opposite to “the unfruitful works of darkness,” mentioned verse 11) “is,” consists, “in all goodness, kind ness, tender-heartedness,” (iv. 32,)--opposite to “bitterness, wrath, anger, clamour, evil-speaking; ” (verse 31;) “in all righteousness,” rendering unto all their dues,--opposite to “stealing; ” (verse 28;) “ and in all truth,” veracity, sin cerity,-opposite to “lying.” (Verse 25.) 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.

“But take the affair from the beginning. He began to sus pect 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 7 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 BiSHOP OF GLOUCESTER, 147 -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 differ ent Preachers;” (page 250;) and particularly for his giving Mr. Whitefield the talents which I have not. 6. What farther proof of hypocrisy? Why, “he had given innumerable flirts of contempt in his Journals against human learning.” (Pages 252, 253.) Where? I do not know. Let the passages be cited; else, let me speak for it ever so much, it will prove nothing. “At last he was forced to have recourse to what he had so much scorned, I mean, prudence.” (Page 255.) All a mistake. I hope never to have recourse to false prudence; and true prudence I never scorned. “He might have met Mr. Whitefield half way; but he was too formidable a rival. With a less formidable one he pur sues this way. “I laboured, says he, ‘to convince Mr. Gr--,’” (my assistant, not rival,) “‘that he had not done well, in confuting, as he termed it, the sermon I preached the Sunday before. I asked, Will you meet me half way?” (The words following put my meaning beyond all dispute:) “I will never publicly preach against you. Will not you against me?” Here we see a fair invitation to Mr. Gr-- to play the hypocrite with him.” (Ibid.) Not in the least.

For they rise at any hour of the night when they awake, and, after eating and drinking as much as they can, go to sleep again. Hence we could not but remark what is the religion of nature, properly so called, or that religion which flows from natural reason, unas sisted by Revelation.’” (Page 290.) I believe this dispute may be cut short by only defining the term. What does your Lordship mean by natural religion ? a system of principles? But I mean by it, in this placc, men’s natural manners. These certainly “flow from their natural passions and appe tites,” with that degree of reason which they have. And this, in other instances, is not contemptible; though it is not sufficient to teach them true religion. II. I proceed to consider, in the Second place, what is advanced concerning the operations of the Holy Spirit. “Our blessed Redeemer promised to send among his follow ers the Holy Ghost, called ‘the Spirit of Truth’ and ‘the Comforter, which should co-operate with man, in establishing his faith, and in perfecting his obedience; or, in other words, should sanctify him to redemption.” (Page 2.) Accordingly, “the sanctification and redemption of the world, man cannot frustrate nor render ineffectual. For it is not in his power to make that to be undone, which is once done and perfected.” (Page 337.) 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 Polish exorcist, than I can believe the tale of an hundred people talking without tongues, on the credit of Dr. Middleton. “The other gifts of the Spirit St.

“Having now established the fact,” (wonderfully estab lished!) “we may inquire into the fitness of it. There were two causes of the extraordinary operations of the Holy Spirit,--one to manifest his mission, (and this was done once for all,) the other to comfort and instruct the Church.” (Page 110.) “At his first descent on the Apostles, he found their minds rude and uninformed, strangers to all heavenly knowledge, and utterly averse to the gospel. He illuminated their minds with all necessary truth. For a rule of faith not being yet com posed,” (No! Had they not “the Law and the Prophets?”) “some extraordinary infusion of his virtue was still necessary. But when this rule was perfected, part of this office was trans ferred upon the sacred Canon; and his enlightening grace was not to be expected in such abundant measure, as to make the recipients infallible guides.” (Page 112.) Certainly it was not. If this is all that is intended, no one will gainsay. “Yet modern fanatics pretend to as high a degree of divine communications, as if no such rule were in being;” (I do not;) “or, at least, as if that rule needed the further assistance of the Holy Spirit to explain his own meaning.” This is quite ano ther thing. I do firmly believe, (and what serious man does not?) omnis scriptura legi debet eo Spiritu quo scripta est: “We need the same Spirit to understand the Scripture, which enabled the holy men of old to write it.” “Again, the whole strength of human prejudices was then set in opposition to the gospel, to overcome the obstinacy and violence of which, nothing less than the power of the Holy One was sufficient. At present, whatever prejudices may remain, it draws the other way.” (Page 113.) What, toward holiness? toward temperance and chastity? toward justice, mercy, and truth? Quite the reverse. And to overcome the obstinacy and violence of the heart-prejudices which still lie against these, the power of the Holy One is as necessary now, as ever it was from the beginning of the world. “A further reason for the ceasing of miracles is, the peace and security of the Church. The profession of the Christian faith is now attended with ease and honour.” The profession, true; but not the thing itself, as “all that will live godly in Christ Jesus” experience.

Stephen’s Day.) “Send thy Holy Ghost, and pour into our hearts that most excellent gift of charity.” (Quinquagesima Sunday.) “O Lord, from whom all good things do come, grant to us thy humble servants, that by thy holy inspiration we may think those things that are good, and by thy merciful guidance may perform the same.” (Fifth Sunday after Easter.) “We beseech thee, leave us not comfortless, but send to us the Holy Ghost to comfort us.” (Sunday after Ascension Day.) “Grant us by the same Spirit to have a right judgment in all things, and evermore to rejoice in his holy comfort.” (Whit-unday.) “Grant us, Lord, we beseech thee, the Spirit to think and do always such things as be rightful.” (Ninth Sunday after Trinity.) “O God, forasmuch as without thee we are not able to please thee, mercifully grant that thy Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts.” (Nineteenth Sun day after Trinity.) “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.” (Communion Office.) “Give thy Holy Spirit to this infant, (or this person,) that he may be born again. Give thy Holy Spirit to these per sons,” (N. B. already baptized,) “that they may continue thy servants.” “Almighty God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these persons by water and the Holy Ghost, strengthen them with the Holy Ghost the Comforter, and daily increase in them the manifold gifts of thy grace.” (Office of Confirmation.) From these passages it may sufficiently appear for what pur poses every Christian, according to the doctrine of the Church of England, does now receive the Holy Ghost. But this will be still more clear from those that follow; wherein we may likewise observe a plain rational sense of God’s “revealing” himself to us, of the “inspiration” of the Holy Ghost, and of a believer's “feeling” in himself the “mighty working” of the Spirit of Christ. “God gave them of old, grace to be his children, as he doth us now. But, now by the coming of our Saviour Christ, we have received more abundantly the Spirit of God in our hearts.” (Homily on Faith.

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? What room is there to talk of our being renewed in “knowledge” or “holiness, after the image wherein we were created,” if we never have lost that image * if we are as knowing and holy now, nay, far more so, than Adam was immediately after his creation ? If, therefore, we take away this foundation, that man is by nature foolish and sinful, “fallen short of the glorious image of God,” the Christian system falls at once; nor will it deserve so honourable an appella tion, as that of a “cunningly devised fable.” 5. In considering this confutation of the Christian system, I am under some difficulty from Dr. Taylor's manner of writing. It is his custom to say the same thing (sometimes in different, sometimes in nearly the same words) six or eight, perhaps twelve or fif teen times, in different parts of his book. Now, I have accustomed myself, for many years, to say one and the same thing once only. However, to comply with his manner as far as possible, I shall add, at proper inter vals, extracts from others, expressing nearly the same sentiments which I have before expressed in my own words. 6.

The writings of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Jeremiah, leave us noroom to think that they were reformed by those calamities. Nor was there any lasting reformation in the time of Ezra, or of Nehemiah and Malachi; but they were still, as their forefathers had been, “a faithless and stub born generation.” Such were they likewise, as we may gather from the books of Maccabees and Josephus, to the very time when Christ came into the world. 11. Our blessed Lord has given us a large description of those who were then the most eminent for religion: “Ye devour,” says he, “widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayers. Ye make” your proselytes “twofold more the children of hell than yourselves. Ye neglect the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith. Ye make 202 THE DocTRINE OF clean the outside of the cup, but within are full of extortion and excess. Ye are like whited sepulchres, outwardly beautiful, but within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damna tion of hell!” (Matt. xxiii. 14, &c.) And to these very men, after they had murdered the Just One, his faithful follower declared, “Ye stiff-necked, and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye.” (Acts vii. 51.) And so they continued to do, until the wrath of God did indeed “come upon them to the uttermost;” until eleven hundred thousand of them were destroyed, their city and temple levelled with the dust, and above ninety thousand sold for slaves, and scattered into all lands. 12. Such in all generations were the lineal children of Abra ham, who had so unspeakable advantages over the rest of man kind; “to whom pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises:” Among whom, therefore, we may reasonably expect to find the greatest eminence of knowledge and virtue. If these then were so stupidly, brutishly ignorant, so desperately wicked, what can we expect from the heathen world, from them who had not the knowledge either of his law or promises? Certainly we cannot expect to find more goodness among them.

Is the King of France, or the republic of Holland, at liberty to violate their most solemn treaties at pleasure, provided they give up to the King of England the Ambassador, or General, by whom that treaty was made? What would all Europe have said of the late Czar, if, instead of punctually performing the engagements made with the Porte when in his distress, he had only given up the persons by whom he transacted, and immediately broke through them all? There is therefore no room to say, Modo Punica scripta supersint, Non minus infamis forte Latina fides. “Perhaps, if the Carthaginian writings were extant, Roman faith would be as infamous as Punic.” We need them not. In vain have they destroyed the Carthaginian writings; for their own sufficiently testify of them; and fully prove that in perfidy the natives of Carthage could not exceed the senate and people of Rome. 14. They were as a nation aa top you, void of natural affection, even to their own bowels. Witness the universal custom which obtained for several ages in Rome, and all its dependencies, (as it had done before through all the cities of Greece,) when in their highest repute for wisdom and virtue, of exposing their own new-born children, more or fewer of them, as every man pleased, when he had as many as he thought good to keep; throwing them out to perish by cold and hunger, unless some more merciful wild beast shortened their pain, and provided them a sepulchre. Nor do I remember a single Greek, or Roman, of all those that occasionally mention it, ever complaining of this diabolical custom, or fixing the least touch of blame upon it. Even the tender mother in Terence, who had some compassion for her helpless infant, does not dare to acknowledge it to her husband, without that re markable preface, Ut miserè superstitiosae sumus omnes; “As we women are all miserably superstitious.” 15. I would desire those gentlemen who are so very severe upon the Israelites for killing the children of the Canaanites, at their entrance into the land of Canaan, to spend a few thoughts on this.

1. Such is the state with regard to knowledge and virtue, wherein, according to the most authentic accounts, mankind was from earliest times, for above four thousand years. Such nearly did it continue, during the decline, and since the destruction, of the Roman empire. But we will wave all that is past, if it only appears that mankind is virtuous and wise at this day. This, then, is the point we are at present to consi der: Are-men in general now wise and virtuous? Our ingenious countryman, Mr. Brerewood, after his most careful and laborious inquiries, computes, that, supposing that part of the earth which we know to be inhabited were divided into thirty equal parts, nineteen of these are Heathen still; and of the remaining eleven, six are Mahometan, and only five Christian. Let us take as fair and impartial a survey as we can of the Heathens first, and then of the Mahometans and Christians. 2. And, First, of the Heathens. What manner of men are these, as to virtue and knowledge, at this day? Many of late, who still bear the Christian name, have entertained very honourable thoughts of the old Heathens. They cannot be lieve them to have been so stupid and senseless as they have been represented to be; particularly with regard to idolatry, in worshipping birds, beasts, and creeping things; much less can they credit the stories told of many nations, the Egyp tians in particular, Who are said to Have set the leek they after pray'd to. But if they do not consider who they are that transmit to us these accounts, namely, both those writers who, they profess to believe, spake “as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” and those whom perhaps they value more, the most credible of their contemporary Heathens; if, I say, they forget this, do they not consider the present state of the heathen world? Now, allowing the bulk of the ancient Heathens (which itself is not easily proved) to have had as much understanding as the modern, we have no pretence to suppose they had more. What therefore they were, we may safely gather from what they are; we may judge of the past by the present.

It is not without cause, that a ship has been called, “a floating hell.” What power, what form, of religion is to be found in nine out of ten, shall I say, or ninety-nine out of a hundred, either of our merchantmen, or men-of-war? What do the men in them think or know about religion? What do they practise; either sailors or marines? I doubt whether any heathen sailors, in any country or age, Greek, Roman, or Barbarian, ever came up to ours, for profound ignorance, and barefaced, shameless, shocking impiety. Add to these, out of our renowned metropolis, the whole brood of porters, draymen, carmen, hackney-coachmen, and I am sorry to say, Noblemen and Gentlemen’s footmen, (together making up some thousands,) and you will have such a collection of knowing and pious Christians as all Europe cannot exceed ! “But all men are not like these.” No; it is pity they should. And yet how little better are the retailers of brandy or gin, the inhabitants of blind alehouses, the oyster-women, fish wives, and other good creatures about Billingsgate, and the various clans of pedlars and hawkers that patrol through the streets, or ply in Rag-fair, and other places of public resort | These, likewise, amount to several thousands, even within the Bills of Mortality. And what knowledge have they? What religion are they of ? What morality do they practise? “But these have had no advantage of education, many of them scarce being able to write or read.” Proceed we, then, to those who have had these advantages, the officers of the Excise and Customs. Are these, in general, men of reason, who think with clearness and connexion, and speak perti nently on a given subject? Are they men of religion; sober, temperate, fearing God and working righteousness; having a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man? How many do you find of this kind among them? men that fear an oath; that fear perjury more than death; that would die rather than neglect any part of that duty which they have sworn to perform; that would sooner be torn in pieces, than suffer any man, under any pretence, to defraud His Majesty of his just right?

men that fear an oath; that fear perjury more than death; that would die rather than neglect any part of that duty which they have sworn to perform; that would sooner be torn in pieces, than suffer any man, under any pretence, to defraud His Majesty of his just right? How many of them will not be deterred from doing their duty either by fear or favour, regard no threatenings in the execution of their office, and accept no bribes, called presents? These only are wise and honest men. Set down all the rest as having neither religion nor sound reason. “But surely tradesmen have.” Some of them have both ; and in an eminent degree. Some of our traders are an honour to the nation. But are the bulk of them so 7 Are a vast majority of our tradesmen, whether in town or country, I will not say religious, but honest men? Who shall judge whether they are or no? Perhaps you think St. Paul is too strict. Let us appeal then to Cicero, an honest Heathen. Now, when he is laying down rules of honesty between man and man, he proposes two cases: 1. Antisthenes brings a ship load of corn to Rhodes, at a time of great scarcity. The Rhodians flock about him to buy. He knows that five other ships laden with corn will be there to-morrow. Ought he to tell the Rhodians this, before he sells his own corn? “Undoubtedly he ought,” says the Heathen; “otherwise, he makes a gain of their ignorance, and so is no better than a thief or a robber.” 2. A Roman Nobleman comes to a Gentleman to buy his house, who tells him, “There is another going to be built near it, which will darken the windows,” and, on that ac count, makes a deduction in the price. Some years after, the Gentleman buys it of him again. Afterward he sues the Nobleman for selling it without telling him first that houses. were built near, which darkened the windows. The Noble man pleads, “I thought he knew it.” The Judge asks, “Did you tell him or not?” and, on his owning he did not, determines, “This is contrary to the law, Ne quid dolo malo. fiat, Let nothing be done fraudulently,” and sentences him immediately to pay back part of the price.

Of these, there fore, I would only ask, “Are they all moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon them that office and ministry?” If not, they do not “enter by the door into the sheep-fold;” they are not sent of God. Is their “eye single?” Is it their sole intention, in all their ministrations, to glorify God, and to save souls? Otherwise, “the light which is in them is darkness.” And if it be, “how great is that darkness l’’ Is their “heart right with God?” Are their “affections set on things above, not on things of the earth?” Else, how will they themselves go one step in the way wherein they are to guide others? Once more: “Are they holy in all manner of conversation, as He who hath called them is holy?” If not, with what face can they say to the flock, “Be ye follow ers of me, as I am of Christ?” 12. We have now taken a cursory view of the present state of mankind in all parts of the habitable world, and seen, in a general way, what is their real condition, both with regard to knowledge and virtue. But because this is not so pleasing a icture as human pride is accustomed to draw ; and because those who are prepossessed with high notions of their own beauty, will not easily believe thatit is taken from the life; I shall endeavour to place it in another view, that it may be cer tainly known whether it resembles the original. I shall desire every one who is willing to know mankind, to begin his inquiry at home. First, let him survey himself; and then go on, step by step, among his neighbours. I ask, then, First, Are you throughly pleased with your self? Say you, Who is not? Nay, I say, Who is? Do you observe nothing in yourself which you dislike, which you cannot cordially approve of? Do you never think too well of yourself? think yourself wiser, better, and stronger than you appear to be upon the proof? Is not this pride? And do you approve of pride? Was you never angry without a cause, or farther than that cause required? Are you not apt to be so? Do you approve of this? Do not you frequently resolve against it, and do not you break those resolutions again and again?

Now, how is this to be accounted for, that, in so long a tract of time, no one nation under the sun has been able, by whole some laws, or by any other method, to remove this grievous evil; so that, their children being well educated, the scale might at length turn on the side of reason and virtue? These are questions which I conceive will not easily be answered to the satisfaction of any impartial inquirer. But, to bring the matter to a short issue: The first parents who educated their children in vice and folly, either were wise and virtuous themselves, or were not. If they were not, their vice did not proceed from education; so the supposition falls to the ground: Wickedness was antecedent to bad education. If they were wise and virtuous, it cannot be supposed but they would teach their children to tread in the same steps. In mowise, therefore, can we account for the present state of mankind from example or education. 2. Let us then have recourse to the oracles of God.

(5.) Was not every wilful, impenitent trans gressor, during this whole time, subject to death everlasting? Neither can I allow that unnatural interpretation of, “Them who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgres sion;” “Had not sinned against law, making death the pe nalty of their sin, as Adam did.” (Page 42.) Do not the words obviously mean, “Had not sinned by any actual sin, as Adam did?” Nay, “the Sodomites and Antediluvians are no objection to this.” That is strange indeed! But how so? “Because extraordinary interpositions come under no rule, but the will of God.” What is that to the purpose? Their sins were actually punished with death, “during that space wherein,” you say, “mankind were not subject to death for their trans gression.” They were subject to death for their transgressions, as God demonstrated by those extraordinary interpositions. You add, “That law, ‘Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, makes death the penalty of mur der.” (Page 43.) It does; and thereby overthrows your whole assertion. “No; for, (1.) It was not enacted till the year of the world 1657.” Well, and if it had been enacted only the year before Moses was born, it would still have destroyed your 252 ThE DOCTRINE OF argument. But, (2) “It is given as a rule for Magistrates in executing justice, and not as a declaration of the penalty of sin to be inflicted by God himself.” What then? What does it matter, whether the penalty annexed by God were inflicted by God or man? However, I suppose this punishment on the Antediluvians, and on Sodom and Gomorrah, was “inflicted by God himself.” But, (3) “None of these were made mortal by those sins.” Certainly, infallibly true! And yet the case of any of these abundantly proves, that the law was in force from Adam to Moses, even according to your own definition of it: “A rule of duty with the penalty of death annexed, as due to the transgressor from God.” 13. You affirm, (6.) “The consequences of Adam’s sin answer those of Christ's obedience; but not exactly: ‘Not as the offence, so is the free gift.

This is not “what God sees fit it should be.” “It is his power alone that forms it.” Yes, that forms us men; but not that forms us sinful men. “To say, The nature he gives is the object of his wrath, is little less than blasphemy.” As he gave it, it is not the object of his wrath; but it is, as it is defiled with sin. “Far was it from the Apostle to depreciate our nature.” True, our original nature; but never did man more deeply depreciate our present corrupt nature. “His intent is to show the Ephesians they were children of wrath, through the sins in which they walked.” Yea, and through “the desires of the flesh and the mind,” mentioned immediately before; “through the vanity of their mind;” through “the blindness of their hearts, past feeling, alienated from the life of God.” Is he “not here speaking of their nature, but of the vicious course of life they had led?” (Page 111.) “He well understood the worth of the human nature;”--he did, both in its original and in its present state;--“and elsewhere shows it was endowed, even in the Heathens, with light and power sufficient to know God, and obey his will.” In what Heathens, in Europe, Asia, Africa, or America, is nature now endowed with this light and power? I have never found it in any Heathen yet; and I have con versed with many, of various nations. On the contrary, I have found one and all deeply ignorant of the very end of their existence. All of them have confirmed what a heathen Meeko (or Chief) told me many years ago: “He that sitteth in heaven knoweth why he made man; but we know nothing.” “But St. Paul says, “When the Gentiles which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, they are a law to themselves. This supposes, they might have done them “by nature, or their natural powers.” But how does it appear, that, “by nature,” here means, By their mere “natural powers?” It is certain they had not the written law; but had they no supernatural assistance?

This supposes, they might have done them “by nature, or their natural powers.” But how does it appear, that, “by nature,” here means, By their mere “natural powers?” It is certain they had not the written law; but had they no supernatural assistance? Is it not one God “who works in ” us and in them, “both to will and to do?” They who, by this help, do the things contained in the law, we grant, “are not the objects of God’s wrath.” “Again: He affirms, the Gentiles had light sufficient to have seen God’s eternal power and Godhead.” (Rom. i. 19 -21.) They had; but how does it appear that this was the merely natural light of their own unassisted reason? If they had assistance from God, and did not use it, they were equally without excuse. “Nay, if their nature was corrupt, and therefore they did not glorify God, they had a fair excuse.” (Page 112.) True, if God had not offered them grace to balance the corruption of nature: But if he did, they are still without excuse; because they might have con quered that corruption, and would not. Therefore we are not obliged to seek any other sense of the phrase, “By nature,” than, “By the nature we bring into the world.” However, you think you have found another: “By nature, may signify really and truly. Thus St. Paul calls Timothy, ‘yvmatov tekvov, “his own, genuine son in the faith; not to signify he was the child of the Apostle, but that he was a real imitator of his faith. 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.

The comely order of this house is all turned into confusion; the beauties of holiness into noisome impurities; the house of prayer into a den of thieves: Thieves of the worst kind; for every lust is a thief, and every theft is sacri lege. The noble powers which were designed and dedicated to divine contemplation and delight in God, are alienated to the service of the most despicable idols, and employed in the vilest embraces: To behold and admire lying vanities; to indulge and cherish lust and wickedness. “There is not now a system, an entire table, of coherent truths to be found, or a frame of holiness: but some shivered parcels. And if any with great toil and labour apply them selves to draw out here one piece, and there another, and set them together; they serve rather to show, how exquisite the divine workmanship was in the original composition, than to the excellent purposes for which the whole was at first designed. Some pieces agree, and own one another; but how soon are our inquiries nonplussed and superseded! How many attempts have been made, since that fearful fall and ruin of this fabric, to compose again the truths of so many several kinds into their distinct orders, and make up frames of science or useful know ledge And after so many ages, nothing is finished in any kind. Sometimes truths are misplaced; and what belongs to one kind is transferred to another, where it will not fitly match; some times falsehood inserted, which shatters or disturbs the whole frame. And what with much fruitless pains is done by one hand, is dashed in pieces by another; and it is the work of a following age, to sweep away the fine-spun cobwebs of a for mer. And those truths which are of greatest use, though not most out of sight, are least regarded; their tendency and design are overlooked, or they are so loosened and torn off, that they cannot be wrought in, so as to take hold of the soul, but hover as faint, ineffectual motions that signify nothing. “Its very fundamental powers are shaken and disjointed, and their order toward one another confounded and broken; so that what is judged considerable, is not considered; what is recom mended as lovely and eligible, is not loved and chosen.

And this ‘new man,” this new life, is “after the image,’ that is, agreeable to the nature, ‘of God.’” (Page 179.) As you advance no proof of this perfectly new interpreta tion, I leave it to shift for itself. To disprove the common interpretation, you add, “Adam could not be originally created in righteousness and true holi ness; because habits of holiness cannot be created without our knowledge, concurrence, or consent. For holiness in its nature implies the choice and consent of a moral agent, without which it cannot be holiness.” (Page 180.) What is holiness? Is it not essentially love? the love of God, and of all mankind? love producing “bowels of mercies, humbleness of mind, meekness, gentleness, long-suffering?” And cannot God shed abroad this love in any soul without his concurrence, antecedent to his knowledge or consent? And supposing this to be done, will love change its nature? Will it be no longer holiness? This argument can never be sus tained, unless you would play upon the word habits. Love is holiness wherever it exists. And God could create either men or angels, endued from the very first moment of their existence with whatsoever degree of love he pleased. You “think, on the contrary, it is demonstration that we cannot be righteous or holy, we cannot observe what is right, without our own free and explicit choice.” I suppose you mean, practise what is right. But a man may be righteous before he does what is right; holy in heart before he is holy in life. The confounding these two, all along, seems to be the ground of your strange imagination, that Adam “must choose to be righteous, must exercise thought and reflection, ibefore he could be righteous.” Why so? “Because righteous mess is the right use and application of our powers.” Here is your capital mistake. No, it is not; it is the right state of our powers. It is the right disposition of our soul, the right temper of our mind. Take this with you, and you will no more dream that “God could not create man in righteous mess and true holiness;” or that “to talk of wanting that righteousness in which Adam was created, is to talk of nothing we want.” (Page 181.) On Romans ii.

Yet this no way contradicts, what is matter of daily experience, that we have a natural propensity to evil. Nay, the latter of these texts strongly confirms it; for if there be no such propensity, how comes “foolishness” (that is, wickedness, in the language of Solomon) to be “bound in the heart of a child?” of every child, of children in general, as the phrase manifestly imports? It is not from education here: It is sup posed to be antecedent to education, whether good or bad. “O, foolishness means only strong appetite.” (Page 193.) Yes, 296 ThE DOCTRINE OF strong appetite to evil; otherwise it would not call for “the rod of correction,” or need to be “driven far from him.” “Objection 6. Might not Adam's posterity be said to sin in him, as Levi is said to ‘pay tithes in Abraham?’ (Heb. vii. 9.)” If the querist means, not to prove a doctrine already proved, but only to illustrate one expression by another, your answer, that “it is a bold figure,” (page 195) does not at all affect him. It is so; but still it may be pertinently cited to illustrate a similar expression. “Objection 7. “But there is a law in our members which wars against the law of our minds, and brings us into captivity to the law of sin and death.’ (Rom. vii. 23.) And does not this prove, that we come into the world with sinful propensities?” (Page 199.) You answer, (1) “If we come into the world with them, they are natural; but if natural, necessary; and if necessary, then no sin.” (Page 200.) If the consequence were good, with regard to what is so natural and necessary as to be irresistible, yet certainly it is not good with regard to those propensities which we may both resist and conquer. You answer, (2.) “The Apostle does not in this chapter speak of any man as he comes into the world, but as he is afterward depraved and corrupted by his own wicked choice.” Where is the proof? How does it appear that he does not speak of men corrupted both by choice and by nature?

How does it appear that he does not speak of men corrupted both by choice and by nature? You answer, (3.) “He does not speak of himself, or any regenerate man, but of a Jew under the power of sin.” (Ibid.) Nay, your argument proves, he does not speak of any Jew; for in order to prove, “the Apostle does not speak of himself,” you say, “The persons of whom he speaks were, ‘before the commandment came, that is, before they came under the law, “once without the law. But the Apostle never was ‘without the law.’” No, nor any Jew. “For he was born and continued ‘under the law till he was a Christian.” So did all the Jews as well as he,--“ and therefore it cannot be true, that he,” or any Jew whatever, “was ‘without the law” before he came under it.” So you have clearly proved, that the Apostle does not in this passage speak of any Jew at all. But why do you think he does speak of Jews? may, of them only? It “appears,” you say, “from verse 1, ‘I speak to them that know the law. For the Gentiles never were “under the law.” Yes, they were: All the Gentiles who were “convinced of sin” were “under the law” in the sense here spoken of, under the condemning power of the law “written in their hearts;” for transgressing which they were under the wrath of God. And this whole chapter, from verses 7 to 24, describes the state of all those, Jews or Gentiles, who saw and felt the wickedness both of their hearts and lives, and groaned to be delivered from it. Many passages in your paraphrase on the former part of this chapter are liable to much exception; but as they do not imme diately touch the point in question, Ipass on tothe latter part: “Verse 14: I am ‘ carnal, sold under sin.” He means a willing slavery.” (Page 216.) Quite the contrary; as appears from the very next words: “For that which I do, I allow not: For what I would, I do not; but what I hate, that I do.” “What I hate;” not barely, “what my reason disapproves;” but what I really detest and abhor, yet cannot help.

Verse 21: “I find then that when I would do good,” when I choose and earnestly desire it, I cannot; “evil is present with me;” as it were, gets in between. “Verse 22: “For I delight in the law of God, after the inward man: My mind, my conscience approves it. “Verse 23: “But I see another law in my members, which warreth against the law in my mind: Another principle of action, which fights against my reason and conscience, ‘and bringeth me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members: Which captivates and enslaves me to the principle of wickedness.” (Page 219.) (Strange language for you to use !) “Seated in the lusts of the flesh:” Seated indeed in all my tempers, passions, and appetites, which are the several members of “the old man.” “‘O wretched man that I am I who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Verse 24.) He is under the power of such passions as his own reason disapproves, but is too weak to conquer; and, N. B., being a Jew, he stands condemned to eternal death by the law. How shall such a wretched Jew be delivered from sinful lusts, and the curse of the law P” Did, then, none but a Jew ever cry out, under the burden of sin, “Wretched man that I am?” Are none but Jews “under the power of such passions as their own reason disapproves, but is too weak to conquer?” And does the law of God condemn to eternal death no sinners beside Jews? Do not Christians also (in the wide sense of the word) groan to be delivered “from the body of this death?” With what truth, with what sense, can you restrain this passage to a Jew any more than to a Turk? I cannot but observe, upon the whole, the question is, Does not Rom. vii. 23, show that we come into the world with sinful propensities?

“Is thine eye evil, because he is good?” The premises them being gone, what becomes of the con clusion: “So that the being ‘born into God’s peculiar kingdom depends upon a right use and application of our life and being, and is the privilege only of those wise men whose spirits attain to a habit of true holiness?” This stands without any proof at all. At best, therefore, it is extremely doubtful. But it must appear extremely absurd to those who believe, God can create spirits both wise and holy; that he can stamp any creature with what measure of holiness he sees good, at the first moment of its existence. The occasion of your running into this absurdity seems to be, that you stumbled at the very threshold. In the text under consideration, our Lord mentions two things,--the “new birth,” and the “kingdom of God.” These two your imagina tion blended into one; in consequence of which you run on with “born into his kingdom,” (a phrase never used by our Lord, nor any of his Apostles,) and a heap of other crude expressions of the same kind, all betraying that confusedness of thought which alone could prevent your usual clearness of language. Just in the same manner you go on: “Our first parents in Paradise were to form their minds to an habitual subjection to the law of God, without which they could not be received into his spiritual kingdom.” (Pages 252,253.) This runs upon the same mistaken supposition, that God could not create them boly. Certainly he could and did; and from the very moment that they were created, their minds were in subjection to the law of God, and they were members of his spiritual kingdom. “But if Adam was originally perfect in holiness,” (say, per fectly holy, made in the moral image of God,) “what occasion was there for any farther trial?” That there might be room for farther holiness and happiness. Entire holiness does not exclude growth; nor did the right state of all his faculties entitle him to that full reward which would have followed the right use of them. “Upon the whole, regeneration, or gaining habits of holiness, takes in no part of the doctrine of original sin.” (Page 254.) But regeneration is not “gaining habits of holiness;” it is quite a different thing.

You say, “If what was lost by “the disobedience of one’ person might afterward be recovered by “the obedi ence’ of another, then matters would have stood upon an equal footing.” (Page 113.) And this is, indeed, the truth. For “all that was lost to us by Adam’s ‘disobedience’ is fully recovered by Christ’s “obedience; however we denominate the relation in which the one and the other stands to us.” In this we agree; but not in what follows: “By law, in the fifth of the Romans, as in several other places, the Apostle does not mean, barely a rule of duty; but such a rule, with the penalty of death threatened to every transgression of it. Such was the law given by Moses;” that is, “a rule, to every transgression of which the penalty of death was threatened.” (Pages 114, 115.) Not so; there were a thousand transgres sions of it, to which death was not threatened. Observe: By death, we now mean temporal death, according to the whole tenor of your argument. “But is it not said, ‘Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the law to do them?’” It is. But whatever this curse implied, it did not imply temporal death. For a man might neglect to do many “things written in the law,” and yet not be punish able with death. Neither can I agree with your interpretation of Rom. vii. 9: “‘I was alive without the law once;’ namely, before the giv ing of the law at Mount Sinai. The Jew was then alive; that is, because he was not then under the law, he was not slain by his sin. His sin was not so imputed to him as to subject him to death. “But when the commandment came,’ with the penalty of death annexed, “sin revived,’--acquired full life and vigour,”--(How so? One would have expected just the contrary !) “‘ and I died;’ that is, was a dead man in law, upon the first transgression I committed.” (Page 116.) Beside many other objections to this strange interpretation, an obvious one is this: It supposes every transgression punish able with death. But this is a palpable mistake: Therefore, all that is built on this foundation falls to the ground at once. Upon the whole: Whatever objections may lie against Dr.

ii. 15: “Christ abolished the enmity, to make” (or create) “in himself of twain one new man.” Does this only mean one new profession? It evidently means one Church, both of Jews and Gentiles. You prove it, 2. From Col. iii. 8-12; where “the Apostle tells the Colossian Christians, that ‘now’ they were obliged to “put off anger, and “to put on bowels of mercies;’ to admit the Christian spirit into their hearts, and to practise Christian duties; for this reason, because they “had put off the old man, and ‘had put on the new. This shows ‘the new man’ was something they might have “put on, and yet be defective in personal, internal holiness.” True; defective so far, as still to want more; more “bowels of mercies, meekness, long-suf fering.” But this does not show, that the “new man” does not mean the principle both of internal and external holiness. The consciousness of having received this is a strong motive both to depart from evil, and to labour after a continual increase of every holy and heavenly temper; therefore, here likewise, “the putting off the old and the putting on the new man” does not mean an outward profession, but a real, inward change; a renewal of soul “in righteousness and true holiness.” You prove it, 3. From Eph. iv. 22, 24: “Here,” you say, “he considers ‘the putting off the old and ‘putting on the new man’ as a duty. They had done it by profession, and therefore were obliged to do it effectually.” They had done it effectually. So the whole tenor of the Apostle's words implies: “Ye have not so learned Christ; if so be,” rather, seeing that, “ye have been taught by him;--that ye put off the old man; --and be renewed in the spirit of your mind;--and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” (Eph. iv. 20-24.) The Apostle here manifestly speaks, not of a lesson they had not learned, but of one which God had taught them already; and thence exhorts them to walk worthy of the blessing they had received, to be “holy in all manner of conversation.” But, 4. “‘The putting on the new man’ is one thing, and the creating him is another.

8.) 3. “The word of the Lord is right.” (Psalm xxxiii. 4.) “The ways of the Lord are right.” (Hosea xiv. 9.) 4. “Be glad and rejcice, ye righteous.” (Psalm xxxii. 11.) “Rejoice in the Lord, O ye righteous.” (Psalm xxxiii. 1.) In the very same sense it occurs in numberless places. As the word is there fore properly applied to God himself, to his word, his provi dences, and his people, (in all which cases it must necessarily mean righteous,) we cannot lightly depart from this its proper signification. But you think there is a necessity of departing from it here; because “to say, God created Adam righteous, is to affirm a contradiction, or what is inconsistent with the very nature of righteousness. For a righteousness wrought in him without his knowledge or consent, would have been no righteousness at all.” (Page 161.) You may call it by any name you like better. But we must use the old name still; as being persuaded that the love of God, governing the senses, appetites, and passions, however or whenever it is wrought in the soul, is true, essential righteousness. Nay, “righteousness is right action.” Indeed it is not. Here (as we said before) is your fundamental mistake. It is a right state of mind; which differs from right action, as the cause does from the effect. Righteousness is, properly and directly, a right temper or disposition of mind, or a complex of all right tempers. For want of observing this, you say, “Adam could not act before he was created. Therefore he must exist, and use his intellectual powers, before he could be righteous.” “But, according to this reasoning,” as Dr. Jennings observes, “Christ could not be righteous at his birth.” You answer, “He ex isted before he was made flesh.” I reply, He did,--as God. But the man Christ Jesus did not. Neither, therefore, did he use his intellectual powers. According to your reasoning, then, the man Christ Jesus could not be righteous at his birth. The Doctor adds: “Nay, according to this reasoning, God could not be righteous from eternity? because he must exist be fore he was righteous.” (Jennings's Windication.) You answer: “My reasoning would hold even with respect to God, were it true that he ever did begin to exist.

because he must exist be fore he was righteous.” (Jennings's Windication.) You answer: “My reasoning would hold even with respect to God, were it true that he ever did begin to exist. But neither the existence nor the holiness of God was prior to each other.” (Taylor's Sup plement, p. 162.) Nay, but if his existence was not prior to his holiness, if he did not exist before he was holy, your assertion, that every being must exist before it is righteous, is not true. Besides, (to pursue your reasoning a little farther,) if “God did always exist,” yet unless you can prove that he always acted, it will not clear your argument. For let him exist millions of ages, he could not be righteous (according to your maxim) before he acted right. One word more on this article: You say, “My reasoning would hold good, even with respect to God, were it true that he ever did begin to exist.” Then I ask concerning the Son of God, Did he ever begin to exist? If he did not, he is the one, eternal God; (for there cannot be two eternals; ) if he did, and your reasoning hold good, when he began to exist he was not righteous. “But St.John saith, “He that doeth righteousness is right eous.’” Yes, it appears he is, by his doing or practising “righteousness.” “But where doth the Scripture speak one word of a righteousness infused into us?” Where it speaks of “the love of God” (the essence of righteousness) “shed abroad in our hearts.” And cannot God, by his almighty power, infuse any good tempers into us? You answer, “No;--no being whatever can do for us that which cannot be at all if it be not our own choice, and the effect of our own industry and exercise. But all good tempers are the effect of our own industry and exer cise; otherwise they cannot be at all.” 344 ThE DOCTRINE OF Nay, then, it is certain they cannot be at all. For neither lowliness, meekness, long-suffering, nor any other good tem per, can ever be the effect of my own industry and exercise. But I verily believe they may be the effect of God's Spirit, working in me whatsoever pleaseth him. See Isaiah xxvi. 12.

12. You add: “The thing cannot exist, unless we choose; because our choosing to do what is right, is the very thing which is to exist.” No; the thing which is to exist is, a right state of mind. And it is certain, God can give this to any creature, at the very first moment of its existence. Nay, it may be questioned, whether God can create an intelligent being in any other state. “But a habit is gained by repeated acts. Therefore, habits of righteousness could not be created in man.” Mere play ing upon words! He could be, he was, created full of love. Now, whether you call this a habit or no, it is the sum of all righteousness. “But this love is either under the government of my will, or it is not.” It is. The love of God which Adam enjoyed was under the government of his will. “But if so, it could be righteous only so far as applied to right action in heart and life.” (Pages 164, 165.) Stop here. The love of God is righteousness, the moment it exists in any soul; and it must exist before it can be applied to action. Accordingly, it was righteousness in Adam the moment he was created. And yet he had a power either to follow the dictates of that love, (in which case his righteousness would have endured for ever,) or to act contrary thereto; but love was righteousness still, though it was not irresistible. “I might add, Adam’s inclination to sin (for he could not sin without a sinful inclination) must be so strong as to over come his (supposed) inbred propensity to holiness; and so malignant, as to expel that principle at once, and totally. Consequently, the supposed original righteousness was con sistent with a sinful propensity, vastly stronger and more malignant than ever was or can be in any of his posterity; who cannot sin against such resistance, or with such dreadful consequences. Thus, original righteousness in Adam proves far worse than original sin in his posterity.” (Page 166.) I have set down your argnment at large, that it may appear in its full strength. Now, let us view it more closely: “Adam cculd not sin without a sinful inclination.” The sentence is ambiguous.

Now, let us view it more closely: “Adam cculd not sin without a sinful inclination.” The sentence is ambiguous. Either it may mean, “Adam could not choose ill, without some sinful temper preceding;” and in this sense it is false; or, “He could not commit outward sin, without first inclining, that is, choosing so to do.” 2. “This his sinful in clination (or temper) was so strong as to overcome his inbred propensity to holiness.” It was not any sinful inclination (in this sense) which overcame his propensity to holiness; but strong temptation from without: How strong we know not, and the circumstances of it we know not. 3. “This his sinful inclination was so malignant, as to expel that principle at once, and totally.” Not by any sinful inclination, but by yielding to temptation, he did lose the love and image of God. But that this was totally and at once, we have no authority to affirm. 4. “Consequently, original righteousness in Adam was consistent with a sinful propensity, vastly stronger, and more malignant, than ever was or can be in any of his posterity.” It was consistent with no sinful propensity at all, but barely with a power of yielding to temptation. It declined in the same proportion, and by the same degrees, as he did actually yield to this. And when he had yielded entirely, and eaten the fruit, original righteousness was no more. Therefore, the Fifth proposition, “Thus original righteousness proves to be far worse than original sin,” is flourish. What a figure does this fair argument make, now it is turned inside out ! From all this it may appear, that the doctrine of original righteousness (as well as that of original sin) hath a firm foun dation in Scripture, as well as in the attributes of a wise, holy, and gracious God. As you do not offer any new argument in your conclusion, I need not spend any time upon it. You subjoin Remarks on Dr. Watts's Additions to his book. Some of these deserve a serious consideration: 1. Either the new-created man loved God supremely, or not. If he did not, he was not innocent ; since the very law and light of nature require such a love to God. If he did, he stood disposed for every act of obedience. And this is true holiness of heart.

How could a wise, just, and good God place his creature in such a state as that the scale of evil should preponderate? Although it be allowed, he is, in a measure, free still; the other scale does not “fly up, and kick the beam.” 3. Notwithstanding all the cavils which have been raised, yet if those two texts (Eph. iv. 24; Col. iii. 10) are considered together, their obvious meaning will strike an honest and unbiassed reader, the new man, or the principle of true reli gion in the heart, is created by God after his moral image, in that righteousness and true holiness wherein man was at first created. You answer, “I have endeavoured to prove the contrary; and he does not offer to point out any one mistake in my inter pretations.” (Page 189.) I have pointed out more than one. 4. If these are the qualifications with which such a new made creature should be endued; and these the circumstances, wherein, from the wisdom, justice, and goodness of God, we should expect him to be situated ; then, by a careful survey of what man is now, compared with what he should be, we may easily determine, whether man is at present such a creature as the great and blessed God made him at first. You answer in abundance of words, the sum of which is this: “Our circumstances are, on the whole, far better than Adam’s were; for he was under that severe law, ‘Transgress and die.’” (Page 190.) He was so; but this does not prove the point still; balancing this single disadvantage (if such it was; for even that may be disputed) with the numerous advantages he was possessed of, with the holiness and happiness which he enjoyed, and might have enjoyed for ever, it does by no means appear that the present circumstances of mankind in general are better than Adam’s were. 5. God did not give Noah dominion over the brute creatures in so ample a manner as he did to Adam. Fear indeed fell on the brutes; but this does not sufficiently preserve man from their outrage. In the innocent state, no man would have been poisoned or torn by serpents or lions as now.

“O, by his own choice; as Seth was righteous.” Well; afterwards, both wicked Cain and good Seth begat sons and daughters. Now, was it not just as probable, one should infect his children with goodness, as the other with wickedness? How came, then, Cain to transmit vice, any more than Seth to transmit virtue? If you say, “Seth did transmit virtue; his posterity was vir tuous until they mixed with the vicious offspring of Cain,” I answer, (1.) How does that appear? How do you prove that all the posterity of Seth were virtuous? But, (2.) If they were, why did not this mixture amend the vicious, rather than corrupt the virtuous? If our nature is equally inclined to virtue and vice, vice is no more contagious than virtue. How, then, came it totally to prevail over virtue, so that “all flesh had corrupted themselves before the Lord?” Con tagion and infection are nothing to the purpose; seeing they might propagate good as well as evil. Let us go one step farther: Eight persons only were saved from the general deluge. We have reason to believe that four, at least, of these were persons truly virtuous. How then came vice to have a majority again among the new inhabitants of the earth ? Had the nature of man been inclined to neither, virtue must certainly have had as many votaries as vice. Nay, suppose man a reasonable creature, and supposing virtue to be agreeable to the highest reason, according to all the rules of probability, the majority of man. kind must in every age have been on the side of virtue. 8. Some have reckoned up a large catalogue of the instances of divine goodness, and would make this as evident a proof that mankind stands in the favour of God, as all the other instances are of a universal degeneracy of man, and the anger of God against them. But it is easy to reply, The goodness of God may incline him to bestow a thousand bounties upon criminals; but his justice and goodness will not suffer him to inflict misery in such a universal manner, where there has been no sin to deserve it either in parents or children. You answer: “There is more than enough sin among man kind, to deserve all the sufferings God inflicts upon them.

Does it not demand, that every sense, appetite, and passion, should be perfectly sub ject to reason? Now, is there a man on earth, who can say, ‘I am able by my natural powers to do this?’” (Page 50.) “Even the outward temptations to which man is exposed, are evidently too strong to be effectually and constantly re sisted by his now enfeebled reason and conscience; while at the same time, his will, his appetites, and passions, have a powerful propensity to comply with them.” (Page 51.) “Now, would a just, a wise, and a merciful God have formed intellectual creatures in such awretched state, with powers and capacities so much below their duties, that they break his law daily and continually, and are notable to help it?” (Page 52.) “Should it be said, ‘God cannot require more than we are able to perform: 'You have an answer in your own bosom; for you know and feel God does require this, even by the law he has written in your heart; yet you feel you are not able to perform it, untie or cut the knot how you may. “Should it be said again, “God pities and pardons feeble creatures:” I answer, (1.) According to the covenant of grace, he does, but not according to the law of creation. But, (2) Did God make some of his noblest creatures so feeble in their original state, as continually to offend, and want pardon? Did he give them such a law as should never, never be fulfilled by any one of them? Would a God who adjusts the proportion of all things with the exactest wisdom, give a law to his crea tures so disproportionate to their original powers, that, even in the state of their creation, they are under a necessity of breaking it, and stand in need of daily forgiveness?

“I answer, (3.) Though the bulk of mankind were happy in the present constitution of things, this gives no manner of satisfaction to any one individual who is unhappy without any demerit: The advantage of the majority is no reason at all why any one innocent should suffer. If any one, therefore, man or child, and much more, if numbers of them, have more pain than pleasure, they must be involved in some guilt, which may give just occasion to their misery.” (Page 79.) “12. To enforce this, after the survey of these pains and sorrows, let us consider what are the pleasures of the bulk of mankind. Cast a glance at the sports of children, from five to fifteen years of age. What toys and fooleries are these! Would a race of wise and holy beings waste so many years of early life in such wretched trifles? And as for our manly years, what are the greatest part of the delights of men, but silly and irrational, if not grossly sinful? What are the pleaaures even of the rich and great, to relieve them under the common sorrows of life? If they be not luxury and intemperance, are they not furniture and equipage, finery of dress and gay appearances? to shine in silks of various dye, and blaze in the splendour of gold and jewels? Now, would wise and holy creatures have made this the matter of their joy and pleasure: ‘My coat is gayer than yours, and I have more glittering things about me than you have P’” (Pages 80, 81.) “Others call for cards, or dice, to divert their trouble, and pass away their time. How inexpressibly trifling are these sports, if mere diversion be sought therein But if the design be gain, how is the game mingled with uneasy fears, with the working of various passions, which, in case of disappointment and loss, often break out into wrath and fury! “Again: What multitudes drench themselves in gross sensualities as their chief delight ! They make a god of their belly, till they overload nature, and make haste to disease and death. They drown their cares and their senses together; or they bury them in sensual impurities.” (Page 82.) “Others release themselves from the troubles of life, by gadding abroad, and mixing with impertinent company.

They drown their cares and their senses together; or they bury them in sensual impurities.” (Page 82.) “Others release themselves from the troubles of life, by gadding abroad, and mixing with impertinent company. Some delight in wanton jests, in foolish merriment, in mean and trifling conversation; a little above the chattering of monkeys in a wood, or the chirping of crickets upon a hearth. Nay, perhaps it is their diversion to rail at their neighbours, to murder the reputation of the absent. This is their mirth and recreation; these their reliefs against the common miseries of human life l’’ (Page 83.) “But would a race of innocent beings fly to such mean and foolish, or criminal, refuges from pain as these? Would they pursue such vain or vile delights? Would they become rivals to the beasts of the field, or sport themselves, as devils do, in accusing their fellow-creatures? Surely, if we survey the very pleasures, as well as the sorrows, of the bulk of mankind, we may learn from thence, that we are by no means such creatures as we were originally created. “13. I need add but one more proof of the general ruin of human nature. We are all posting to the grave. Every one of us are succeeding our neighbours, into some unknown, invisible world. And we all profess to believe this. Yet how exceeding few are solicitous about this great and awful futurity | Though we are exposed to so many sins and miseries in this life, and are hastening visibly and hourly to the end of it, yet how few are there that make any careful preparation for a better state than this! What multitudes are daily running down into darkness, speeding to an endless duration in an unknown country, without any earnest inquiries about the manner of exist ence there! They walk over the busy stage of life, they toil and labour, or play and trifle awhile here, and then plunge into a strange unseen world, where they will meet with a just and holy God, whose wisdom will assign them a place and portion suited to their own character. Now, were men indeed wise and holy, could they remain so ignorant and thoughtless of that state into which they are all hastening?

v. 1-3, 5: “In the day that God cre ated man, in the likeness of God made he him:--And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years’ after his loss of the image of God, ‘and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image;’ that is, his own sinful and mortal image. “It is not to be supposed, that Moses, in this brief history of the first generations of men, should so particularly repeat ‘the image and likeness of God in which Adam was created, unless he had designed to set the comparison in a fair light, 378 The DOCTRINE OF between Adam’s begetting a son in his own sinful and mortal *mage, whereas he himself was created in God’s holy and immortal image.” (Page 162.) “4. God was pleased to put the man whom he had made upon a trial of his obedience for a season. He placed him in a garden of Eden, (or pleasure,) and gave him a free use of all the creatures; only forbidding him to eat of the fruit of one tree,--‘the tree of the kncwledge of good and evil.” “For in the day,” said he, ‘that thou eatest of it, thou shalt surely die.’ In which threatening were doubtless included all evils,--death spiritual, temporal, and eternal.” (Page 163.) “5. As Adam was under a law whose sanction threatened death upon disobedience, so doubtless God favoured him with a covenant of life, and a promise of life and immortality upon his obedience.” (Page 164) “6. Adam broke the law of his maker, lost his image and his favour, forfeited the hope of immortality, and exposed him self to the wrath of God, and all the punishment which he had threatened; in consequence of which he was now painfully afraid of Him in whom he before delighted, and foolishly endeavoured to ‘hide himself from the presence of the Lord.’” (Page 168.) “7. Adam, after his sin, propagated his kind according to the law of nature;--not in the moral image or likeness of God; not “in righteousness and true holiness;' but in his own sinful likeness; with irregular passions, corrupt appetites and inclina tions. To this degeneracy Job manifestly refers in those expressions: ‘What is man, that he should be clean? or the son of man, that he should be righteous? Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?

Adam was the head of all mankind, who became sinful and mortal through his sin; Christ was the head of all believers, who obtain pardon and life through his righteousness. To prove this headship of Adam, the Apostle says, “Until the law,’ (that is, from the creation till the law of Moses,) “sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed where there is no law; that is, where there is no law or constitution of duty or penalty at all. Yet, saith he, “Death reigned from Adam to Moses:” Yet sin was imputed, and pun ished by death, even upon all mankind, both small and great, before the law given by Moses. The inference is, therefore, there was some law or constitution during all the time from Adam to Moses, in virtue of which sin was imputed to man kind, and death accordingly executed upon them. Now, what law or constitution could this be, beside that which said to Adam, as a representative of his whole posterity, ‘In the day thou sinnest thou shalt die?’” (Pages 177, 178.) “2. The Apostle carries his argument yet farther: ‘Sin was imputed, and death reigned, or was executed, “even upon those who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgres sion;' who had not broken an express command, as Adam had done. This manifestly refers to infants;--death reigned over them; death was executed upon them. And this must be by some constitution which, in some sense, imputed sin to them who had not committed actual sin: For without such a con stitution, sin would never have been imputed, nor death executed on children. “Yet, 3. Death did not come upon them as a mere natural effect of their father Adam’s sin and death, but as a proper and legal punishment of sin; for it is said, his sin brought “con demnation’ upon all men. (Verse 18.) Now, this is a legal term, and shows that death is not only a natural but a penal evil, and comes upon infants as guilty and condemned;--not for their own actual sins, for they had none; but for the sin of Adam, their legal head, their appointed representative.” (Page 179.) “In the eighteenth verse the expression is very strong: “By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to con demnation.

Whereas no such calamity could ever have befallen innocent Adam, or his innocent offspring.” (Page 187.) “The ‘image of God,” in which Adam was created, consisted eminently in righteousness and true holiness. But that part of the ‘image of God’ which remained after the fall, and remains in all men to this day, is the natural image of God, namely, the spiritual nature and immortality of the soul; not excluding the political image of God, or a degree of dominion over the creatures still remaining. But the moral image of God is lost and defaced, or else it could not be said to be ‘renewed.” It is then evident, that the blessing given to Adam in innocency, 382 Tii E DOCTRINE OF and that given to Noah after the flood, differ so widely, that the latter was consistent with the condemnation or curse for sin, and the former was not. Consequently, mankind does not now stand in the same favour of God, as Adam did while he was innocent.” (Pages 188, 189.) “Thus it appears that the holy Scriptures, both in the Old and New Testaments, give us a plain and full account of the conveyance of sin, misery, and death, from the first man to all his offspring.” APosTACY FROM GoD 7 A GENERAL survey of THE FOLLIES AND MISERLEs “UPoN a just view of human nature, from its entrance into life, till it retires behind the curtain of death, one would be ready to say concerning man, ‘Is this the creature that is so superior to the rest of the inhabitants of the globe, as to require the peculiar care of the Creator in forming him? Does he deserve such an illustrious description, as even the heathen poet has given us of him?” Sanctius his animal, mentisque capacius alte Deerat adhuc, et quod dominari in catera posset. Natus homo est / sive hunc divino semine cretum Ille opifex rerum mundi melioris origo Finzit in effigiem moderantúm cuncta deorum. Pronaque cum spectent animalia caetera terram; Os homini sublime dedit; calumque tueri Jussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere vultus. A creature of a more exalted kind Was wanting yet; and then was man design'd: Conscious of thought, of more capacious breast, For empire form’d, and fit to rule the rest.

If those children had been guiltless in the eye of God, could this have been their portion? In short, can we suppose the wise, and right eous, and merciful God would have established and continued such a constitution for that propagation of mankind which should naturally place so many millions of them so early in such dismal circumstances if there had not been some dread ful and universal degeneracy spread over them and their fathers, by some original crime, which met and seized them at the very entrance into life?” (Page 420.) “THIs doctrine has been attended with many noisy contro versies in the Christian world. Let us try whether it may not be set in so fair and easy a light as to reconcile the sentiments of the contending parties.” (Page 427.) “When a man has broken the law of his country, and is punished for so doing, it is plain that sin is imputed to him; his wickedness is upon him; he bears his iniquity; that is, he is reputed, or accounted guilty; he is condemned and dealt with as an offender.” (Page 428.) “On the other hand, if an innocent man, who is falsely accused, is acquitted by the court, sin is not imputed to him, but righteousness is imputed to him; or, to use another phrase, his ‘righteousness is upon him.’ “Or if a reward be given a man for any righteous action, this righteous act is imputed to him. “Farther: If a man has committed a crime, but the Prince pardons him, then he is justified from it; and his fault is not imputed to him.” (Page 429.) “But if a man having committed treason, his estate is taken from him and his children, then they “bear the iniquity of their father, and his sin is imputed to them also. “If a man lose his life and estate for murder, and his children thereby become vagabonds, then the blood of the person murdered is said to be upon the murderer, and upon his children also. So the Jews: ‘His blood be on us and on our children;’ let us and our children be punished for it !

“I answer: 2. Sin is taken either for an act of disobedience to a law, or for the legal result of such an act; that is, the guilt, or liableness to punishment. Now, when we say, The sin of a traitor is imputed to his children, we do not mean, that the act of the father is charged upon the child; but that the guilt, or liableness to punishment, is so transferred to him, that he suffers banishment or poverty on account of it.” (Pages 432, 433,434.) “In like manner, righteousness is either particular acts of obedience to a law, or the legal result of those actions; that is, a right to the reward annexed to them. “And so when we say, The righteousness of him that has performed some eminent act of obedience is imputed to his children, we do not mean, that the particular act of the father is charged on the child, as if he had done it; but that the right to reward, which is the result of that act, is transferred to his children. “Now, if we would but thus explain every text of Scripture wherein either imputed sin, or imputed righteousness, is men tioned, (whether in express words, or in the plain meaning of them,) weshould find them all easy and intelligible.” (Page435.) “Thus we may easily understand how the obedience of Christ is imputed to all his seed; and how the disobedience of Adam is imputed to all his children.” (Page 436.) “To confirm this, I would add these three remarks:-- “1. There are several histories in Scripture, where expres sions of the same import occur. “So Gen. xxii. 16: “Thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies, because thou hast obeyed my voice.” Here Abraham’s obedience, that is, the result of it, is imputed to his posterity. “So Num. xxv. 13: ‘God gave to Phinehas and his seed after him the covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God,” and slew the criminals in Israel. This was so imputed to his children, that they also received the reward of it.” (Page 437.) “Thus the sin of Achan was so imputed to his children, that they were all stoned on account of it. (Joshua vii. 24.) In like manner, the covetousness of Gehazi was imputed to his posterity, (2 Kings v.

24.) In like manner, the covetousness of Gehazi was imputed to his posterity, (2 Kings v. 27) when God by his Prophet pronounced that the leprosy should cleave unto him and to his seed for ever.” (Page 438.) “2. The Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, use the words sin and iniquity, (both in Hebrew and Greek,) to signify, not only the criminal actions themselves, but also the result and consequences of those actions; that is, the guilt or liableness to punishment; and sometimes the punish ment itself, whether it fall upon the original criminal, or upon others on his account.” (Page 439.) “In the same manner, the Scriptures use the word righteous ness, not only for acts of obedience, but also the result of them; that is, justification, or right to a reward. A moderate study of some of those texts where these words are used may convince us of this. 396 ThE DOCTRINE OF “So Job xxxiii. 26: “God will render to a man his righteousness, that is, the reward of it. “Sow to yourselves in righteousness, till the Lord come and rain righteousness upon you:’ (Hosea x. 12:) That is, till he pour down the rewards, or fruits, of it upon you. “I might add here, that, in several places of St. Paul’s Epistles, righteousness means justification, in the passive sense of the word.” (Page 440.) “So Rom. x. 4: ‘Christ is the end of the law for righteous ness to every one that believeth;’ that is, in order to the justification of believers. . ‘With the heart man believeth unto righteousness;' (verse 10;) that is, so as to obtain jus tification. “‘If righteousness, that is,justification, ‘come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” (Gal. ii. 21.) This particularly holds where the word Aoyugouai, or impute, is joined with righteousness. As Rom. iv. 3: Abraham ‘believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness.’ ‘His faith is counted to him for righteousness.” (Rom. iv.5.) It is not avrt or varep, for or instead of righteousness; but evs Bucatoavvmw, ‘in order to justification, or acceptance with God. “And in other places of Scripture, a work, whether good or evil, is put for the reward of it: ‘The work of a man will he render unto him;’ (Job xxxiv. 11;) that is, the recompence of it. So St.

6, it is joined and is the same with pure. In the same sense it is taken, (to mention but a few out of many texts which might be produced,) Prov. x. 29: “The way of the Lord is strength to the upright; but destruc tion shall be to the workers of iniquity.’ ‘The integrity of the upright shall guide them; but the perverseness of trans gressors shall destroy them. (xi. 3.) ‘The righteousness of the upright shall deliver them; but transgressors shall be taken in their own naughtiness.” (Verse 6.) ‘By the blessing of the upright the city is exalted. (Verse 11.) ‘The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord; but the prayer of the upright is his delight.” (xv.8.) “A wicked man hardeneth his face; but as for the upright, he directeth his way.” (xxi. 29.) From all these texts it manifestly appears, that uprightness, as applied to man, is the very same with righteousness, holi ness, or integrity of heart and conversation.” (Pages 5, 6.) “When, therefore, Solomon says, God “made man upright,’ the plain, undeniable meaning is, God at first formed man righteous or holy; although “they have sought out many inventions.” They, --this refers to Adam, which is both a singular and a plural noun: They, our first parents, and with them their posterity, have sought out many inventions;’ many contrivances, to offend God, and injure themselves. These ‘many inventions’ are opposed to the uprightness, the simplicity of heart and integrity, with which our first parents, and mankind in them, were originally made by God.” (Page 7.) “The doctrine of the text then is, that God, at his creation, ‘made man upright, or righteous; not only rational, and a free agent, but holy. Therefore, to maintain, that ‘man neither was, nor could be, formed holy, because none can be holy, but in consequence of his own choice and endeavour, is bold indeed! To prove the contrary, and justify Solomon’s assertion, I offer a few plain arguments.” (Page 8.) “1. Moses, in his account of the creation, writes, “And God said, Let us make man in our own image. Now, that righte ousness or holiness is the principal part of this image of God, appears from Eph. iv. 22, 24, and Col. iii. 9, 10.

9, 10. On which passages I observe, (1.) By ‘the old man’ is not meant a heathenish life, or an ungodly conversation; but a corrupt nature. For the Apostle elsewhere speaks of our ‘old man,’ as ‘crucified with Christ;’ and here distinguishes from it their ‘former conversation,’ or sinful actions, which he calls ‘the deeds of the old man.’ (2.) By ‘the new man’ is meant, not a new course of life; (as the Socinians interpret it;) but a principle of grace, called by St. Peter, ‘The hidden man of the heart, and a ‘divine nature. (3.) To put off ‘the old man’ (the same as to ‘crucify the flesh”) is, to subdue and mortify our corrupt nature; to “put on the new man’ is, to stir up and cultivate that gracious principle, that new nature. ‘This,” saith the Apostle, ‘is created after God, in righteous ness and true holiness.’ It is created: Which cannot pro perly be said of a new course of life; but may of a ‘new nature. It is ‘created after God; or, ‘in his image and likeness, mentioned by Moses. But what is it to be “created after God,” or ‘in his image?’ It is to be “created in righte ousness and true holiness;’ termed ‘knowledge, the practical knowledge of God. (Col. iii. 10.) But if ‘to be created after God, or ‘in his image and likeness, is ‘to be created in righteousness and true holiness, and if that principle of right eousness and holiness by which we are ‘created unto good works, is a ‘new man,” a “divine nature; it is easy to infer, that man was at first created ‘righteous’ or ‘holy.’” (Pages 9, 10.) “2. All things, as at first made by God, ‘were very good.’ Nor indeed could he make them otherwise. Now, a rational being is not good, unless his rational powers are all devoted to God. The goodness of man, as a rational being, must lie in a devotedness and consecration to God. Consequently, man was at first thus devoted to God: Otherwise he was not good. But this devotedness to the love and service of God is true righteous ness or holiness. This righteousness then, this goodness, or uprightness, this regular and due state or disposition of the human mind, was at first natural to man. It was wrought into his nature, and concreated with his rational powers.

It was wrought into his nature, and concreated with his rational powers. A rational creature, as such, is capable of knowing, loving, serving, living in communion with, the Most Holy One. Adam at first either did or did not use this capacity; either he knew and loved God, or he did not. If he did not, he was not ‘very good, no, nor good at all: If he did, he was upright, righteous, holy.” (Page 12.) “3. When God vested man with dominion over the other creatures, how was he qualified for exercising that dominion,' unless he had in himself a principle of love and obedience to the Supreme Governor? Did not God form the creatures obedient to man, to confirm man in his loving obedience to God; Or did he create them with a disposition to depend on and obey man as their lord, and not create man with a disposition to obey and live dependent on the Lord of all? But this disposition is uprightness. Therefore God “made man upright.’” (Page 13.) “4. Either man was created with principles of love and obe dience, or he was created an enemy to God. One of these must be: For as all the duty required of man, as a rational being, is summarily comprised in love, a supreme love to God, and a sub ordinate love to others, for his sake; so there can be no me dium between a rational creature's loving God, and not loving, which is a degree of ‘enmity’ to him. Either, O man, thou lovest God, or thou dost not: If thou dost, thou art holy or righteous; if thou dost not, thou art indisposed to serve him in such a manner, and with such a frame of spirit, as he re quires. Then thou art an enemy to God, a rebel against his authority. But God could not create man in such a state, in a state of enmity against himself. It follows, that man was created a lover of God, that is, righteous and holy.” (Page 14.) “In a word: Can you prove, either that man was not ‘created after God,” or that this does not mean, being ‘created in righteousness and true holiness?’ Was not man, as all crea tures, good in his kind? And is a rational creature good, unless all its powers are devoted to God?

The words added, ‘In the day thou eatest thereofthou shalt surely die, or literally, “In dying thou shalt die, mean, not only, ‘Thou shalt certainly die, but, ‘Thou shalt suffer every kind of death:” Thy soul as well as thy body shall die. And, indeed, if God made manupright or holy; if man at first enjoyed the life of God, including holiness joined with blessedness; and if the miserable state of the soul (as well as the dissolution of the body) is in the Scripture termed ‘death;’ it plainly follows, that the original threatening includes nothing less than a loss of man’s original uprightness, of his title to God’s favour, and happy life of communion with God.” (Pages 26, 27.) “The words mean, farther, “Thou shalt instantly die;’ as soon as ever thou eatest. And so he did. For in that instant his original righteousness, title to God’s favour, and communion with God being lost, he was spiritually dead, ‘dead in sin; his soul was dead to God, and his body liable to death, temporal and eternal.” (Pages 28, 29.) “And as there is a threatening of death expressed in these words, so a promise of life is implied. The threatening death only in case of disobedience, implied, that otherwise he should not die. And even since the fall, the law of God promises life to obedience, as well as threatens death to disobedience; since the tenor of it is, “Do this and live: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’” (Page 30.) “Now, a law given by God with a promise of life and a threatening of death, consented to by man, is evidently a cove nant. For what is a covenant, but a mutual agreement of two or more parties on certain terms? Now, in this sense God covenanted with man, and man covenanted with God. God gave a law, promising life in case of obedience, threat ening death in case of disobedience. And man accepted of the terms. Here, therefore, was a real covenant.” (Page 31.) “But, to guard this against objections, I add:-- “1. We do not affirm, that God visibly appeared, and form ally treated with Adam, as one man with another. Without so formal a procedure, God could, and doubtless did, signify to him, on what terms he was to expect life or death.” (Page 32.) “2.

But if so, and if wherever ‘flesh” is opposed to ‘the Spirit, it implies sinful corruption, then it is evident, to be ‘born of the flesh, is to be the sinful offspring of sinful parents, so as to have need of the renewing influ ences of the Holy Spirit, on that account, even from our birth. “If to ‘walk after the flesh, as opposed to “walking after the Spirit,” is to follow our sinful inclinations; if to ‘be in the flesh, opposed to “being in the Spirit, is to be in a state of sin; if ‘the flesh” and ‘the Spirit” are two contrary prin ciples, which counteract each other; (Gal. v. 16, 17;) if ‘the works of the flesh, and the lusts of the flesh, are opposed to ‘the Spirit” and ‘the fruit of the Spirit;’ then, “to be born of the flesh” must signify more than barely to be born of a woman. Had Adam transmitted a pure nature to his de scendants, still each of them would have been born of a woman; but they would have had no necessity of being ‘born of the Spirit, or renewed by the Holy Ghost. “But what is that corruption of nature which the Scrip ture terms flesh 2 There are two branches of it: 1. A want of original righteousness: 2. A natural propensity to sin. “1. A want of original righteousness. God created man righteous; holiness was connatural to his soul; a principle of love and obedience to God. But when he sinned he lost this principle. And every man is now born totally void both of the knowledge and love of God. “2. A natural propensity to sin is in every man. And this is inseparable from the other. If man is born and grows up without the knowledge or love of God, he is born and grows up propense to sin; which includes two things,'--an aversion to what is good, and an inclination to what is evil. “We are naturally averse to what is good. ‘The carnal mind is enmity against God. Nature does not, will not, cannot, submit to his holy, just, and good law. Therefore, ‘they that are in the flesh cannot please God. Being averse to the will, law, and ways of God, they are utterly indisposed for such an obedience as the relation between God and man indispensably requires.

Again: “By the disobedience of one, the same, ‘many are constituted sinners. Therefore, when our Lord says, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, he means, not only that we and our parents are ‘mortal, but that all man kind derive spiritual as well as temporal death from their first father.” “1. SIN is “a transgression of the law;’ of that law of God to which a rational creature is subject. “Righteousness’ is a fulfilment of, or conformity to, that law. This is the proper scriptural sense of the words. But as sin involves the creature in guilt, that is, a liableness to punishment, the same words are often used to denote either sin itself, or guilt and punishment. On the other hand, righteousness denotes, not only a fulfilling of the law, but also a freedom from guilt and punishment; yea, and sometimes all the rewards of righteousness.” (Pages 1,2...) “Accordingly, to impute sin, is either to impute sin itself, or guilt on the account of it. To impute sin itself to a person, is to account him a transgressor of the law, to pronounce him such, or to treat him as a transgressor. To impute guilt to a person, is to account him obnoxious to a threatened punish ment, to pronounce him so, or to inflict that punishment. So, to impute righteousness, properly so called, is to account him a fulfiller of the law, to pronounce him so to be, and to treat him as righteous. And to impute righteousness, as opposed to guilt, is to account, to pronounce, and to treat him as guiltless. “Thus much is agreed. But the point in question is, “Does God impute no sin or righteousness but what is per sonal?” Dr. Taylor positively asserts, he does not. I under take to prove that he does; that he imputes Adam’s first sin to all mankind, and our sins to Christ.” (Page 5.) “l. God imputes Adam’s first sin to all mankind. I do not mean that the actual commission of it was imputed to any beside himself; (it was impossible it should;) nor is the guilt of it imputed to any of his descendants, in the full latitude of it, or in regard to its attendant circumstances. It consti tutes none of them equally guilty with him.

It consti tutes none of them equally guilty with him. Yet both that sin itself, and a degree of guilt on account of it, are imputed to all his posterity; the sin itself is imputed to them, as included in their head. And on this account, they are reputed guilty, are ‘children of wrath, liable to the threat ened punishment. And this cannot be denied, supposing, (1.) Man’s original righteousness: (2.) Adam’s being the federal head of all mankind.” (Page 6.) “(1.) Man’s original righteousness has been largely proved. Let me add only an argument ad hominem. Supposing (not granting) that the Son of God is no more than the first of creatures, either he was originally righteous, or he was not. If he was not, then time was when he was not ‘the Holy One of God;’ and possibly he never might have been such, no, nor righteous at all; but instead of that, as ungodly, guilty, and wretched, as the devil himself is. For the best creature is (Dr. Taylor grants) alterable for the worst; and the best, when corrupted, becomes the worst. Again: If the Son of God was a mere creature, and as such made without righteousness, (which every creature must be, according to Dr. Taylor,) then he was not, could not be, at first as righteous, as like God, as the holy angels are now, yea, or as any holy man on earth is. But if these suppositions are shockingly absurd; if the Son of God could not have become as bad as the devil; if he never was unrighteous; if he was not originally less holy than angels and men are now; then the assertion, ‘that righteous ness must be the effect of a creature's antecedent choice and endeavour, falls to the ground.” (Pages, 7, 9, 10.) “But the Hebrew word jasher, Dr. Taylor says, “does not generally signify a moral character. This is one of the numer ous critical mistakes in this gentleman’s books. Of the more than one hundred and fifty texts in which jasher, or the sub stantive josher, occurs, there are very few which do not confirm our interpretation of Ecclesiastes vii.29. “But jasher is applied to various things not capable of moral action. It is; and what then? Many of these applications are neither for us, nor against us.

Unto whom, with God the Father, and the sanctifying, comforting Spirit, be ascribed all praise for ever !” (Page 83.) “THE phrase, original sin, so far as we can discover, was first used in the fourth century. The first who used it was either St. Chrysostom, or Hilary, some of whose words are these: ‘The Psalmist says, Behold, I was conceived in iniqui ties, and in sins did my mother conceive me. He acknow ledges that he was born under original sin and the law of sin.” Soon after Hilary’s time, St. Augustine, and other Christian writers, brought it into common use.” (Pages 2, 3.) “The scriptural doctrine of original sin may be comprised in the following propositions:-- “I. Man was originally made righteous or holy. “II. That original righteousness was lost by the first sin. “III. Thereby man incurred death of every kind; for," “IV. Adam’s first sin was the sin of a public person, one whom God had appointed to represent all his descendants. “W. Hence all these are from their birth ‘children of wrath,’ void of all righteousness, and propense to sin of all sorts. “I add, WI. This is not only a truth agreeable to Scripture and reason, but a truth of the utmost importance, and one to which the Churches of Christ, from the beginning, have borne a clear testimony.” (Page 8.)- “I. Man was originally made righteous or holy; formed with such a principle of love and obedience to his Maker as disposed and enabled him to perform the whole of his duty with ease and pleasure. This has been proved already; and this wholly over turns Dr. Taylor's fundamental aphorism, ‘Whatever is natural is necessary, and what is necessary is not sinful. For if man was originally righteous or holy, we may argue thus: It was at 416 ThE DOCTRINE OF first natural to man to love and obey his Maker; yet it was not necessary; neither as necessary is opposed to voluntary or free; (for he both loved and obeyed freely and willingly;) nor, as necessary means unavoidable; (this is manifest by the event;) no, nor as necessary is opposed to rewardable; for had he continued to love and obey, he would have been rewarded with everlasting happiness.

For if man was originally righteous or holy, we may argue thus: It was at 416 ThE DOCTRINE OF first natural to man to love and obey his Maker; yet it was not necessary; neither as necessary is opposed to voluntary or free; (for he both loved and obeyed freely and willingly;) nor, as necessary means unavoidable; (this is manifest by the event;) no, nor as necessary is opposed to rewardable; for had he continued to love and obey, he would have been rewarded with everlasting happiness. Therefore that assertion, ‘What ever is natural is necessary, is palpably, glaringly false; consequently, what is natural, as well as what is acquired, may be good or evil, rewardable or punishable.” (Page 10.) “II. Man’s original righteousness was lost by the first sin. Though he was made righteous, he was not made immutable. He was free to stand or fall. And he soon fell, and lost at once both the favour and image of God. This fully appears, 1. From the account which Moses gives of our first parents, where we read, (1.) ‘The eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;’ (Gen. iii.;) that is, they were conscious of guilt, and touched with a pungent sense of their folly and wickedness. They began to find their naked ness irksome to them, and to reflect on it with sinful emotions of soul. (2.) Immediately they were indisposed for com munion with God, and struck with such a dread of him as could not consist with true love. (Verse 8.) (3.) When questioned by God, how do they prevaricate, instead of con fessing their sin, and humbly imploring forgiveness! which proves, not only their having "inned, but their being as yet wholly impenitent. (4.) The judgment passed upon them was a proof of their being guilty in the sight of God. Thus was man’s original righteousness lost; thus did he fall both from the favour and image of God.” (Pages 14, 15.) “This appears, 2. From the guilt which inseparably attends every trangression of the divine law. I say, every transgres sion; because every sin virtually contains all sin; for ‘whoso ever keepeth the whole law, and offendeth in one point, he is guilty of all.” Every single offence is a virtual breach of all the commands of God.

And I believe you have moral endowments which are infinitely more valuable and more amiable than all these. For (if I am not greatly deceived) you bear “good-will to all men.” And may not I add, you fear God? O what might not you do with these abilities! What would be too great for you to attempt and effect! Of what service might you be, not only to your own countrymen, but to all that bear the Christian name ! How might you advance the cause of true, primitive, scriptural Christianity; of solid, rational virtue; of the deep, holy, happy, spiritual religion, which is brought to light by the gospel ! How capable are you of recommending, not barely morality, (the duty of man to man,) but piety, the duty of man to God, even the “worshipping him in spirit and in truth !” How well qualified are you to explain, enforce, defend, even “the deep things of God,” the nature of the kingdom of God “within us;” yea, the interiora regni Dei !” (I speak on supposition of your having the “unction of the Holy One,” added to your other qualifications.) And are you, whom God has so highly favoured, among those who serve the opposite cause? If one might transfer the words of a man to Him, might not one conceive Him to say, Kat av et exeuvov; scal av, Texvov;t Are you disserving the cause of inward religion, labouring to destroy the inward kingdom of God, sapping the foundations of all true, spiritual worship, advancing morality on the ruins of piety? Are you among those who are overthrow ing the very foundations of primitive, scriptural Christianity? which certainly can have noground to stand upon, if the scheme lately advanced be true. What room is there for it, till men repent? know themselves? Without this can they know or love God? O why should you block up the way to repentance, and, consequently, to the whole religion of the heart? “Let a man be a fool,” says the Apostle, “that he may be wise.” But you tell him, he is wise already; that every man is by nature as wise as Adam was in paradise. He gladly drinks in the soothing sound, and sleeps on and takes his rest.

I am grieved for you, who surely desire to teach them the way of God in truth. O'Sir, think it possible, that you may have been mistaken that you may have leaned too far, to what you thought the better extreme! Be persuaded once more to review your whole cause, and that from the very foundation. And in doing so, you will not disdain to desire móre than natural light. O that “the Father of glory may give unto you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation : * May He “enlighten the eyes of your understanding, that you may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints l’” March 24, 1757. BECAUSE of the unspeakable importance of throughly under standing this great foundation of all revealed religion, I subjoin one more extract, relating both to the original and the present state of man:-- “God “made man upright. By man we are to understand our first parents, the archetypal pair, the root of mankind. This man was made right, (agreeable to the nature of God, whose work is perfect) without any imperfection, corruption, or principle of corruption, in his body or soul. He was made upright; that is, straight with the will and law of God, with out any irregularity in his soul. God made him thus; he did not first make him, and then make him righteous: But in the very making of him he made him righteous; righteousness was concreated with him. With the same breath that God breathed into him a living soul, he breathed into him a righteous soul. “This righteousness was the conformity of all the faculties and powers of his soul to the moral law; which implied three things: “First. His understanding was a lamp of light. He was made after God’s image, and, consequently, could not want knowledge, which is a part thereof. And a perfect knowledge of the law was necessary to fit him for universal obedience, see ing no obedience can be according to the law, unless it proceed from a sense of the command of God requiring it. It is true, Adam had not the law writ on tables of stone; but it was writ ten upon his mind.

He had also an executive power, answerable to his will ; a power to do the good which he knew should be done, and which he inclined to do; even to fulfil the whole law of God. If it had not been so, God would not have required perfect obedience of him. For to say that “the Lord gathereth where he hath not strewed, is but the blasphemy of a slothful servant. “From what has been said it may be gathered, that man's original righteousness was universal, and natural, yet mutable. “1. It was universal, both with respect to the subject of it, the whole man; and the object of it, the whole law: It was diffused through the whole man; it was a blessed leaven that leavened the whole lump. Man was then holy in soul, body, and spirit: While the soul remained untainted, the members of the body were consecrated vessels and instruments of righteousness. A combat between reason and appetite, nay, the least inclination to sin, was utterly inconsistent with this uprightness in which man was created; and has been invented to veil the corruption of man’s nature, and to obscure the grace of God in Christ Jesus. And as this righteousness spread through the whole man, so it respected the whole law. There was nothing in the law but what was agreeable to his reason. and will. His soul was shapen out in length and breadth, to the commandment, though exceeding broad; so that his origi mal righteousness was not only perfect in parts, but in degrees. “2. As it was universal, so it was natural to him. He was created with it. And it was necessary to the perfection of man, as he came out of the hand of God; necessary to con stitute him in a state of integrity. Yet, “3. It was mutable: It was a righteousness which might be lost, as appears from the sad event. His will was not indifferent to good and evil: God set it towards good only, yet did not so fix it, that it could not alter: it was movable to evil, but by man himself only. “Thus was man made originally righteous, being ‘created in God’s own image,’ (Gen. i. 27,) which consists in ‘knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.’ (Col. iii. 10; Eph. iv. 24.) All that God made ‘was very good, according to their several natures.

“Without me,’ that is, separate from me, ‘ye can do nothing; nothing truly and spiritually good. To evidence this, consider, “(1.) How often do men see the good they should choose, and the evil they should refuse; and yet their hearts have no more power to comply with their light, than if they were arrested by some invisible hand! Their consciences tell them the right way; yet cannot their will be brought up to it. Else, how is it, that the clear arguments on the side of virtue do not bring men over to that side? Although heaven and hell were but a may be, even this would determine the will to holiness, could it be determined by reason. Yet so far is it from this, that men ‘knowing the judgment of God, that they who do such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.’ “(2.) Let those who have been truly convinced of the spirituality of the law, speak, and tell if they then found themselves able to incline their hearts toward it. Nay, the more that light shone into their souls, did they not find their hearts more and more unable to comply with it? Yea, there are some who are yet in the devil’s camp that can tell from their own experience, light let into the mind cannot give life to the will, or enable it to comply therewith. “Secondly. There is in the unrenewed will an averseness to good. Sin is the natural man’s element; and he is as loath to part with it, as the fishes are to come out of the water. He is sick; but utterly averse to the remedy: He loves his disease, so that he loathes the Physician. He is a captive, a prisoner, and a slave; but he loves his conqueror, gaoler, and master: He is fond of his fetters, prison, and drudgery, and has no liking to his liberty. For evidence of this averseness to good in the will of man,-- “Consider, 1. The untowardness of children. How averse are they to restraint ! Are they not ‘as bullocks unaccus tomed to the yoke ’’ Yea, it is far easier to tame young bullocks to the yoke, than to bring young children under dis cipline.

Ye are ‘enemies to God in your mind.’ Ye are not as yet reconciled to him. The natural enmity is not slain, though perhaps it lies hid, and ye do not perceive it. Every natural man is an enemy to God, as he is revealed in his word, --to an infinitely holy, just, powerful, and true Being. In effect, men are naturally “haters of God;’ and if they could, they would certainly make him another than what he is. “To convince you of this, let me propose a few queries: (1.) How are your hearts affected to the infinite holiness of God? If ye are not “partakers of his holiness, ye cannot be reconciled to it. The Heathens, finding they were not like God in holiness, made their gods like themselves in filthiness; and thereby discovered what sort of a god the natural man would have. God is holy. Can an unholy creature love his unspotted holiness? Nay, it is ‘the righteous” only that can “give thanks at the remembrance of his holiness.” God is light: Can creatures of darkness, and that walk in darkness, rejoice therein? Nay, “every one that doeth evil hateth the light.” For what communion hath light with darkness? (2.) How are your hearts affected to the justice of God? There is not a man who is wedded to his sins, but would be content with the blood of his body to blot that letter out of the name of God. Can the malefactor love his condemning judge; or an unjustified sinner a just God? No, he cannot. And hence, since men cannot get the doctrine of his justice blotted out of the Bible, yet it is such an eye-sore to them, that they strive to blot it out of their minds; they ruin themselves by presuming on his mercy, “ saying in their heart, The Lord will not do good, neither will he do evil.” (3.) How are ye affected to the omniscience and omnipresence of God? Men naturally would ratherhave a blind idol, than an all-seeing God; and therefore do what they can, as Adam did, to ‘hide themselves from the presence of the Lord.’ They no more love an omni present God, than the thief loves to have the judge witness to his evil deeds. (4.) How are ye affected to the truth of God?

They kindly entertain his enemies, and will never absolutely resign themselves to his government. Thus you see the natural man is an enemy to Jesus Christ in all his offices. “3. Ye are enemies to the Spirit of God: He is the Spirit of holiness. The natural man is unholy, and loves to be so; and therefore “resists the Holy Ghost. The work of the Spirit is to ‘convince the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.’ But O, how do men strive to ward off these convictions, as they would a blow that threatened their life! If the Spirit dart them in, so that they cannot avoid them, does not the heart say, ‘Hast thou found me, O mine enemy?’ And indeed they treat him as an enemy, doing their utmost to stifle their convictions, and to murder these harbingers that come to prepare the way of the Lord into the soul. Some fill their hands with business, to put convictions out of their head, as Cain, who fell to building a city. Some put them off with fair promises, as Felix did; some sport or sleep them away. And how can it be other wise? For it is the work of the Holy Spirit to subdue lusts, and burn up corruption. How then can he whose lusts are dear as his life fail of being an enemy to Him? “Lastly. Ye are enemies to the law of God. Though the matural man ‘desires to be under the law,’ as a covenant of works; yet as it is a rule of life, he ‘is not subject to it, neither indeed can be.’ For, (1.) Every natural man is wedded to some sin, which he cannot part with. And as he cannot bring up his inclinations to the law, he would fain bring down the law to his inclinations. And this is a plain, standing evidence of the enmity of his heart against it. (2.) The law, set home on the awakened conscience in its spirituality, irritates corruption. It is as oil to the fire, which, instead of quenching, makes it flame the more. “When the commandment comes, sin revives.” What reason can be assigned for this, but the natural enmity of the heart against the holy law P.

“When the commandment comes, sin revives.” What reason can be assigned for this, but the natural enmity of the heart against the holy law P. We conclude then, that the unregenerate are heart-enemies to God, his Son, his Spirit, and his law; that there is a natural contrariety, opposition, and enmity in the will of man, to God himself and his holy will. “Fifthly. The unrenewed will is wholly perverse, in refer ence to the end of man. Man is a merely dependent being; having no existence or goodness originally from himself; but all he has is from God, as the first cause and spring of all per fection, natural and moral. Dependence is woven into his very nature; so that, should God withdraw from him, he would sink into nothing. Since then whatever man is, he is of Him, surely whatever he is, he should be to Him; as the waters which came out of the sea return thither again. And thus man was cre ated looking directly to God, as his last end; but, falling into sin, he fell off from God, and turned into himself. Now, this infers a total apostasy and universal corruption in man; for where the last end is changed, there can be no real goodness. And this is the case of all men in their natural state: They seek not God, but themselves. Hence though many fair shreds of morality are among them, yet ‘there is none that doeth good, no, not one. For though some of them “run well, they are still off the way; they never aim at the right mark. Whithersoever they move, they cannot move beyond the circle of self. They seek themselves, they act for themselves; their natural, civil, and religious actions, from whatever spring they come, do all run into, and meet in, this dead sea. “Most men are so far from making God their end in their natural and civil actions, that he is not in all their thoughts. They eat and drink for no higher end, than their own pleasure or necessity. Nor do the drops of sweetness God has put into the creatures raise their souls toward that ocean of delights that are in the Creator. And what are the natural man’s civil actions, such as buying, selling, working, but fruit to himself?

By his sin he stripped himself of his original righteousness and corrupted himself. We were in him repre sentatively, as our moral head; we were in him seminally, as our natural head. Hence we fell in him; (as Levi ‘paid tithes’ when ‘in the loins of Abraham;’) “by his disobe dience’ we ‘were made sinners;’ his first sin is imputed to us. And we are left without that original righteousness. which, being given to him as a common person, he cast off. And this is necessarily followed, in him and us, by the cor ruption of our whole nature; righteousness and corruption being two contraries, one of which must always be in man. And Adam, our common father, being corrupt, so are we;. for, ‘who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?’ “It remains only to apply this doctrine. And First, for information: Is man’s nature wholly corrupted? Then, 1. No wonder the grave opens its devouring mouth for us as soon as the womb has cast us forth. For we are all, in a spiritual sense, dead-born; yea, and ‘filthy,' (Psalm xiv. 3,) noisome, rank, and stinking, as a corrupt thing; so the word imports. Let us not complain of the miseries we are exposed to at our entrance, or during our continuance, in the world. Here is the venom that has poisoned all the springs of earthly enjoyments. It is the corruption of human nature, which brings forth all the miseries of life. “2. Behold here, as in a glass, the spring of all the wicked mess, profaneness, and formality in the world. Every thing acts agreeable to its own nature; and so corrupt man acts corruptly. You need not wonder at the sinfulness of your own heart and life, nor at the sinfulness and perverseness of others. If a man be crooked, he cannot but halt; and if the clock be set wrong, how can it point the hour right? “3. See here why sin is so pleasant, and religion such a bur den, to men: Sin is natural; holiness not so. Oxen cannot feed in the sea, nor fishes in the fruitful field. A swine brought into a palace would prefer the mire. And corrupt nature tends ever to impurity. “4. Learn from hence the nature and necessity of regene ration. (1.) The nature: It is not a partial, but a total, change.

That we “must be baptized with the Holy Ghost,” implies this and no more, that we cannot be “renewed in righteousness and true holiness” any otherwise than by being over-shadowed, quickened, and animated by that blessed Spirit. “Our fall is nothing else but the falling of our soul from its heavenly body and spirit, into a bestial body and spirit. Our redemption” (you mean, our new birth) “is nothing else but the regaining our first angelic spirit and body.” (Ibid.) What an account is here of the Christian redemption How would Dr. Tindal have smiled at this ! Where you say, “Re demption is nothing else but the life of God in the soul,” you allow an essential part of it. But here you allow it to be no thing else but that which is no part of it at all; nothing else but a whim, a madman’s dream, a chimera, a mere non-entity! “This,” (angelic spirit and body,) “in Scripture, is called our ‘new’ or ‘inward man.’” (Ibid.) The “inward man” in Scripture means one thing, the “new man” another. The former means, the mind, opposed to the body: “Though our outward man,” our body, “perish, yet the inward man,” the mind or soul, “is renewed day by day.” (2 Cor. iv. 16.) The latter means, universal holiness: “Put off the old man, which is corrupt; and put on the new man, which, after God, is created in righteousness and true holiness.” (Eph. iv. 22, 24.) But neither does the one nor the other ever mean “this angelic spirit and body.” You yourself know better what the new birth is. You describe it better, though still with amazing queerness of language, where you say, - “Man hath the light and water of an outward nature to quench the wrath of his own life, and the light and meekness of Christ, as a seed born in him, to bring forth anew the image of God.” But it is not strange, that you speak so confusedly and darkly, as you generally do, of the new birth, seeing you seem to have no conception of that faith whereby we are born again. This abundantly appears from your frank declaration, “We are neither saved by faith, nor by works.” (Spirit of Prayer, Part II., p. 36.) Flatly contrary to the declaration of St.

Surely not. There is an intermediate state between that of “babes in Christ,” and that of fathers. You yourself are very sensible there is, although you here speak as if there were not. You go on : “People who have long dwelt in this fervour are frighted when coldness seizes upon them;” (page 174;) that is, when they lose it, when their love grows cold. And certainly, well they may, if this fervour was to bring them to “fulness of faith, purity of love, and absolute resignation.” Well they may be affrighted, if that fervour be lost before “it has done its work.” Indeed, they might be affrighted when it is not lost, if that which follows be true : “Fervour is good, and ought to be loved; but distress and coldness are better. It brings the soul nearer to God than the fervour did.” (Pages 175, 176.) The fervour, you said, brought the soul to “its highest union with God in this life.” Can coldness do more? Can it bring us to an union higher than the highest? To explain this, you say, “The fervour made the soul delight in God. But it was too much an own delight. It was a fancied self-holiness, and occasioned rest and satisfaction in itself, in a spiritual self.” (Page 175.) Either fervour does bring us to purity of love, and absolute resignation, or not. To say it does not, contradicts what you said before: To say, it does, contra dicts what you say now. For if it does, we cannot say, “Cold ness does the work which fervour did in a higher degree.” I should not insist so long on these glaring inconsistencies, were not thedoctrine you are here labouring to support abso lutely inconsistent with that of St. Paul, and naturally pro ductive of the most fatal consequences. St. Paul asserts, the present kingdom of God in the soul is “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” He continually teaches, that these, which God hath joined, man ought not to put asunder; that peace and joy should never be separated from righteousness, being the divine means both of preserving and increasing it; and that we may, yea, ought, to rejoice ever more, till the God of peace sanctifies us wholly.

But I see nothing extra ordinary either in his life or in his death. I have known many, both men and women, who were far more exemplary in their lives, and far more honoured of God in their death. I allow he wrote many truths; but none that would have appeared at all extraordinary, had he thrown aside his hard words, and used plain and common language. What some seem most to admire in his writings, is what I most object to; I mean his philosophy and his phraseology. These are really his own; and these are quite new ; therefore, they are quite wrong. I totally object to his blending religion with philosophy; and as vain a philosophy as ever existed: Crude, indigested; supported neither by Scripture nor reason, nor anything but his own ipse dixit.- I grant, Mr. Law, by taking immense pains, has licked it into some shape. And he has made it hang tolerably together. But still it admits of no manner of proof. And all he writes concerning religion is what very many have said before him, and in a far better manner. To his whole scheme I object, 1. The whole foundation of it is wrong; the very attempt to explain religion, which is the most simple thing in the world, by an abstruse, complicated, philosophical theory, is "the most absurd thing that can be conceived. I pray, consider but one argument against it. Either St. Paul and St. John knew this theory, or they did not. Mr. Law supposes, they did not know it; but that Jacob knew more than them both. I verily think this needs no confuta tion. Let him believe it that can. But if they did know it, how did they dare to conceal any part of the counsel of God? Upon the theory itself I shall only repeat a very little of what I observed in my printed “Letter to Mr. Law: ”-- “All that can be conceived,” says Mr. Law, quoting from Jacob, “is God, or nature, or creature.” Is nature created or not created ? It must be one or the other; for there is no medium. If not created, it is God. If created, is it not a creature? How then can these be three, -God, nature, and creature; since nature must coin cide either with God or creature?

Law never understood a page of him.” 4. The whole of Behmenism, including both phrase and sense, is useless. It stuns and astonishes its admirers. It fills their heads, but it does not change their hearts. It makes no eminent Christians. For many years I have dili gently inquired concerning the grand patrons of it. And I have found none of them who were burning and shining lights; none who adorned the doctrine of God our Saviour. 5. But it is not barely useless; it is mischievous, and that in a high degree. For it strikes at the root of both internal and external religion, (suppose Mr. Law understood it,) by sapping the foundation of justification by faith. For Jacob affirms, “God was never angry at sinners.” But, if so, he was never reconciled to them. His wrath was never turned away, if it never existed. And, admitting this, there is no place for justification; nor, consequently, for faith in a pardoning God, which is the root of both inward and outward holiness. More particularly, it strikes at the root of humility, tending to make men admire themselves, and despise others. Never was a more melancholy proof of this than Mr. Law, who seri ously believed himself the most knowing man in the kingdom, and despised all that contradicted him, even in the tenderest manner, as the mire in the streets. It strikes at the root of charity, inspiring into its strictest votaries deep censorious ness toward the world in general, and an inexpressible bitter ness toward all who do not receive their new apostle. This may be observed in all the authors of the memoirs, though, in other respects, good men; and in all I have conversed with in my life who were thorough Behmenists. Above all, it strikes at the root of external religion, by destroying zeal for good works; by laying little stress on either works of piety or mercy, and still less upon Christian 514 SPECIMEN OF BEHMEN’s society; it particularly tends to make all men of sense and learning bury their talent in the earth, the natural effect of continually declaiming, in a loose and indiscriminate manner, against reason and learning. It strikes at the root of all revealed religion, by making men think meanly of the Bible; a natural effect of thinking Behmen more highly illuminated than any or all of the Apostles.

The shock was so violent that it threw people down on their knees or their faces, as they were running about for shelter; the ground heaved and swelled like a rolling sea; and several houses, still standing were shuffled and moved some yards out of their places; a whole street is said to be twice as broad now as before. In many places the earth would crack, and open and shut quick and fast, of which openings, two or three hundred might be seen at a time; in some whereof the people were swallowed up; others the closing earth caught by the middle, and squeezed to death; and in that manner they were left buried with only their heads above ground; some heads the dogs ate! The Minister of the place, in his account, saith, that such was the desperate wickedness of the people, that he was afraid to continue among them; that on the day of the earthquake some sailors and others fell to breaking open and rifling warehouses, and houses deserted, while the earth trembled under them, and the houses fell upon them in the act; that he met many swearing and blaspheming; and that the common harlots, who remained still upon the place, were as drunken and impudent as ever. While he was running towards the Fort, a wide open place, to save himself, he saw the earth open and swallow up a multitude of people; and the sea mounting in upon them over the fortifications, it likewise destroyed their large burying-place, and washed away the carcases out of their graves, dashing their tombs to pieces. The whole harbour was covered with dead bodies, floating up and down without burial! As soon as the violent shock was over, he desired all people to join with him in prayer. Among them were several Jews, who kneeled and answered as they did, and were heard even to call upon Jesus Christ. After he had spent an hour and an half with them in prayer, and exhortations to repentance, he was desired to retire to some ship in the harbour, and, passing over the tops of some houses which lay level with) the water, got first into a canoe, and then into a long-boat, which put him on board a ship.