Letter 4.

LETTER 4.

HONOURED AND REVEREND SIR, — If the three first propositions of the Minutes are Scriptural, Mr. Wesley may well begin the remaining part, by desiring the preachers in his connection to emerge, along with him, from under the noisy billows of prejudice, and to struggle quite out of the muddy streams of Antinomian delusions which have so long gone over our heads, and carried so many souls down the channels of vice, into the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone. Well may he entreat them to “review the whole affair.”

And why should this modest request alarm any one? Though error dreads a revisal, truth, you know, cannot but gain by it.

Mr. Wesley says in this REVIEW,

“I. Who is now accepted of God? He that now ‘believes in Christ with a loving, obedient heart.’”

Excellent answer! Worthy of St. Paul and St. James; for it sums up in one line the epistles of both. In the FIRST part of it, (“he that now believes in Christ,”) you see St. Paul’s Gospel calculated for lost sinners, who now fly from the Babel of self righteousness and sin, and find “all things” in Christ “ready” for their reception. And in the SECOND part, (“with a loving and obedient heart,”) you see the strong bulwark raised by St. James to guard the truth of the Gospel against the attacks of Antinomian and Laodicean professors. Had he said, “He that shall believe the next hour is now accepted,” he would have bestowed upon present unbelief the blessing that is promised to present faith. Had he said, “He that believed a year ago is now accepted of God,” he would have Opened the kingdom of heaven to apostates, contrary to St. Paul’s declarations to the Hebrews. He therefore very properly says, “He that now believes:” for it is written, “He that believeth,” (not he that shall believe, or he that did believe,) “hath everlasting life.”

What fault can you then find with Mr. Wesley here? Surely you cannot blame him for proposing Christ as the object of the Christian’s faith, or for saying that the believer hath a loving and obedient heart; for he speaks of the accepted man, and not of him who comes for acceptance. Multitudes, alas! rest satisfied with an unloving, disobedient faith; a faith that engages only the head, but has nothing to do with the heart; a faith that works by malice instead of “working by love;” a faith that pleads for sin in the heart, instead of purifying the heart from sin; a faith that St. Paul explodes, 1 Corinthians 13:2, and that St. James compares to a carcass, James 2:28. There is no need that Mr. Wesley should countenance such a faith by his Minutes. Too many, alas! do it by their lives; and, God grant none may do it by their sermons! Whoever does, sir, it is not you: for you tell us in yours, [page 150], that “Christ is to be found only by living faith; even a faith that worketh by love; even a faith that layeth hold of Christ by the feet, and worshippeth him;” the very faith of Mary Magdalene, who certainly had a loving and obedient heart, for our Lord testified that “she loved much,” and ardent love cannot but be zealously obedient. There is not then the least shadow of heresy, but the very marrow of the Gospel in this article. Let us see whether the second is equally defensible. “II. But who among those that never heard of Christ? He that feareth God and worketh righteousness, according to the light he has.”

And where is the error here? Did not St. Peter begin his evangelical sermon to Cornelius by these very words, prefaced by some others that make them remarkably emphatical? “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him.” Surely, sir, you will never insist upon a formal recantation of a plain scripture.

FIRST OBJECTION, But perhaps you object to those words which Mr. Wesley has added to St. Peter’s declaration, “according to the light he hath.”

ANSWER. What, should it be “according to the light he has not?” Are not there people enough among us who follow the wicked servant that intimated his Lord “was a hard and austere man, reaping where he had not sown, and gathering where he had not strewed?” Must Mr. Wesley increase the number? Or would you have him insinuate that God is more cruel than Pharaoh, who granted the poor Israelites daylight, if he allowed them no straw to make bricks; that he requires a heathen to work without any degree of light, without a day of visitation, in the Egyptian darkness of a merely natural state. And that he will then damn and torment him everlastingly, either for not doing, or for marring his work? O sir, like yourself, Mr. Wesley is too evangelical to entertain such notions of the God of love.

“At this rate,” say some, “a heathen may be saved without a Saviour. His fearing God and working righteousness will not go for the blood and righteousness of Christ.” Mr. Wesley has no such thought. Whenever a heathen is accepted, it is merely through the merits of Christ; although it is in consequence of his fearing God and working righteousness. “But how comes he to see that God is to be feared, and that righteousness is his delight?” Because a beam of our Sun of righteousness shines in his darkness. All is therefore of grace; the light, the works of righteousness done by that light, and acceptance in consequence of them. How much more evangelical is this doctrine of St. Peter than that of some divines, who consign all the heathens by millions to hell torments because they cannot explicitly believe in a Saviour whose name they never heard? Nay, and in whom it would be the greatest arrogancy to believe, if he never died for them? Is it not possible that heathens should, by grace, reap some blessings through the second Adam, though they know nothing of his name and obedience unto death; when they, by nature, reap so many curses through Adam the first; to whose name and disobedience they are equally strangers? If this is a heresy it is such a one as does honour to Jesus and humanity.

SECOND OBJECTION. “Mr. Wesley, by allowing the possibility of a righteous heathen’s salvation, goes point blank against the eighteenth article of our Church, which he has solemnly subscribed.” ANSWER. This assertion is groundless. Mr. Wesley, far from presuming to say that a heathen “can be saved by the law or sect that he professes, if he frames his life according to the light of nature,” cordially believes that all the heathens who are saved, attain salvation through the name, that is, through the merits and Spirit of Christ; by framing their life, not according to I know not what light naturally received from fallen Adam, but according to the supernatural light which Christ graciously affords them in the dispensations they are under.

THIRD OBJECTION. “However, if he does not impugn the eighteenth article, he does the thirteenth, which says, that ‘works done before justification, or before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his Spirit, forasmuch as they proceed not from faith in Christ, are not pleasant to God, yea, have the nature of sin.’”

Nay, this article does not affect Mr. Wesley’s doctrine; for he constantly maintains that if the works of a Melchisedec, a Job, a Plato, a Cornelius, are accepted, it is only because they follow the general justification above mentioned, (which is possibly what St. Paul calls the “free gift that comes upon all men to justification of life,” Romans 5:18,) and because they proceed FROM “the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit,” they are not therefore done BEFORE that grace and inspiration, as are the works which the article condemns.

FOURTH OBJECTION. “But ‘all that is not of faith is sin, and without faith it is impossible to please God.’”

ANSWER. True: therefore, “he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” Cornelius had undoubtedly this faith, and a degree of it is found in all sincere heathens. For Christ, the Light of men, visits all, though in a variety of degrees and dispensations. He said to the carnal Jews that believed not on him, “Yet a little while the light is with you; walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you. While ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of the light.” All the heathens that are saved are then saved by a lively faith in Jesus, “the Light of the world;” or to use our Lord’s own words, by “believing in the light” of their dispensation, before the day of their visitation is past, before total “darkness comes upon them,” even the night when “no man can work.”

FIFTH OBJECTION, “But if heathens can be saved without the Gospel, what need is there of the Christian dispensation?”

ANSWER,

(1.) None of them were ever saved without a beam of the internal light of the Gospel, which is preached “in en every creature under heaven,” Colossians 1:23.

(2.) The argument may be retorted. If sinners could be saved under the patriarchal dispensation, what need was there of the Mosaic? If under the Mosaic, what need of John’s baptism? If under the baptism of John, what need of Christianity? Or to answer by a comparison: If we see our way by starlight, what need is there of moonshine? If by moonshine, what need of the dawn of day? If by the dawn of day, what need of the rising sun?

The brightness of Divine dispensations, like the light of the righteous, “shines more and more unto the perfect day.” And though a heathen may be saved in his low dispensation, and attain unto a low degree of glory, which the apostle compares to the shining of a star, (“for in my Father’s house,” says Christ, “there are many mansions,”) yet it is an unspeakable advantage to be saved from the darkness attending his uncomfortable dispensation, into the full enjoyment of the “life and immortality brought to light by the explicit Gospel.” Well might then the angel say to Cornelius, who was already accepted according to his dispensation, that Peter should “tell him words whereby he should be saved;” saved from the weakness, darkness, bondage, and tormenting fears attending his present state, into that blessed state of light, comfort, liberty, power, and glorious joy, where “he that is feeble is as David, and the house of David as God, or as the angel of the Lord.”

Having thus briefly answered the objections that are advanced against St. Peter’s and Mr. Wesley’s doctrine, proceed we to the third query, in the review of the whole affair.

“III. Is this the same with, he that is sincere? Nearly, if not quite.” In the name of charity where is the error of this answer? Where the shadow of heresy? Do you suppose by — he that is sincere, Mr. Wesley means “a carnal, unawakened wretch who boasts of his imaginary sincerity?” No, sir, he means “one who, in God’s account, and not barely in his own, sincerely and uprightly follows the light of his dispensation.” Now, if you expose Mr. Wesley as guilty of heresy, for using this word once, what protests will you enter against St. Paul for using it over and over? How will you blame him for desiring the Ephesians, (according to the beautiful reading of our margin,) to “be sincere in love!” alhqeuonev en agaph. Or, for wishing nothing greater to his dear Philippians, than that they might be “sincere in the day of Christ!” O, sir, to fear, and much more, to love the Lord “in sincerity,” is a great and rare thing! Ephesians 6:24. We find every where too much of the “old leaven of malice,” and too little of “the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth,” 1 Corinthians 5:8. Think not therefore that Mr. Wesley betrays the cause of God, because he thinks that “to be sincere,” and to “fear God and work righteousness,” are expressions nearly, if not quite synonymous.

But you do not perhaps find fault with Mr. Wesley for setting accepted heathens too low, but too high, by giving them the character of being sincere. For you know that our translators render the Hebrew word µymt sometimes “sincere,” at other times “upright, undefiled,” and most commonly” perfect.” As in these sentences, “Noah was a perfect man, Job was a perfect man,” &c. May not then Mr. Wesley secretly bring in his abominable doctrine of PERFECTION, under the less frightful expression of sincerity? Of this more by and by.

In the meantime, I shall close my vindication of the second and third query by the sentiments of two unquestionable Protestants on the present subject. The one is Mr. Henry, in his comment on St. Peter’s words’ “God,” says he, “never did, nor ever will reject an honest Gentile who fears God, and worships him. and works righteousness: that is, is just and charitable toward all men, who lives up to the light he has, in a sincere devotion and regular conversation. Wherever God finds an upright man, he will be found an upright God, Psalm 18:25. And those that have not the knowledge of Christ, and therefore cannot have an explicit regard to him, may yet receive grace for his sake, ‘ to fear God and work righteousness;’ and wherever God gives grace to do so, as he did to Cornelius, he will, through Christ, accept the work of his own hands.” Here, sir, you have the very doctrine of Mr. Wesley quite down to the heretical word sincere. The other divine, sir, is yourself. You tell us in your sermon on the same text, that “we cannot but admire and adore God’s universal tenderness and pity for every people and nation under heaven, in that ‘ he willeth not the death of any single sinner,’ but accepteth every one into Gospel covenant with him, ‘who feareth him and worketh righteousness,’ according to the light imparted to him.”

Now, sir, where is the difference between your orthodoxy and Mr. Wesley’s heresy? He asserts, God accepts “him that fears God and works righteousness according to the light he has” Mr. Henry says, “him that lives up to the light he has ‘“ and you, sir, “him who feareth God and worketh righteousness according to the light imparted to him.” If Mr. Wesley must share the fate of Shadrach for his heresy, I doubt Mr. Henry will have that of Meshech, and you, of Abednego; for you are all three in the same honourable condemnation.

But Mr. Wesley, foreseeing that some will be offended at St. Peter’s evangelical declaration concerning the acceptance of sincere heathens who work righteousness, proposes and answers the following objection: — “IV. Is not this salvation by works? Not by the merit of works, but by works as a condition.”

In the former part of this answer Mr. Wesley freely grants all you can require to guard the Gospel against the Popish doctrine of making satisfaction for sin, and meriting salvation by works: for he maintains, that, though God accepts the heathen who work righteousness, yet it is not through the merit of his works, but solely through that of Christ. Is not this the very doctrine of our Church, in her eleventh article, which treats of justification? “We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works, or deservings.” Does not the opposition of the two sentences, and the explanatory word deservings, evidently show that “works meet for repentance” are not excluded from being in the sinner that comes to be justified, but from having any merit or worth to purchase his justification?

Our Church expresses herself more fully on this head in the homily on salvation, to which the article refers. “St. Paul,” says she, “declares nothing [necessary] on the behalf of man concerning his justification, but only a true and lively faith; and yet [observe] that faith does not shut out repentance, hope, love, [of desire when we are coming, love of delight when we are come,] dread, and the fear of God to be joined with it in every man that is justified; but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying: so that though they be all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not altogether.” This is agreeable to St. Peter’s doctrine, maintained by Mr. Wesley. Only “faith in Christ” for CHRISTIANS, and “faith in the light of their dispensation” for HEATHENS, is necessary in order to acceptance. But though FAITH ONLY justifies, yet it is never alone; for “repentance, hope, love of desire, and the fear of God,” necessarily accompany this faith if it is true and living. Our Church, therefore, is not at all against works proceeding from, or accompanying faith in all its stages. She grants, that whether FAITH seeks or finds its object, whether it longs for, or embraces it, it is still a lively, active, and working grace. She is only against the vain conceit that WORKS have any hand in meriting justification or purchasing salvation, which is what Mr. Wesley likewise opposes. If you say, that “his heresy does not consist in exploding the merit of works in point of salvation, but in using that legal expression, salvation by works as a condition;” I answer, that as I would not contend for the word trinity, because it is not in the Bible; no, nor yet for the word perfection, though it is there; neither would I contend for the expression, salvation by works, as a condition: but the thing Mr. Wesley means by it is there in a hundred different turns and modes of expression. Therefore it is highly worth contending for: and so much the more, as it is, next to the doctrine of the atonement, the most important part of “the faith once delivered unto the saints.”

Any candid person acquainted with Mr. Wesley’s principles, (and for such only the Minutes were written,) cannot but see that he meant absolutely nothing but what our Saviour means in these and like scriptures; namely, that salvation is suspended on a variety of things which divines call by various names, and which Mr. Wesley, with a majority of them, chooses to call conditions. “Except ye repent, ye shall all perish. Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Here repentance and conversion are conditions of eternal salvation. “If ye believe not, ye shall die in your sins; for this is the work of God, [the work that God requires and approves,] that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” Here the work of faith is the condition. “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life,” and “may enter in through the gates of the city.” And here it is doing God’s commandments.

St. Paul, the evangelical Paul, says the same thing in a variety of expressions: “If any man love not the Lord Jesus, let him be anathema.” If love, the noblest work of the heart, does not take place, the fearful curse will: — “If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die;” but “if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” Spiritual mortification is here the condition. “Without holiness no man shall see the Lord.” Here holiness is the condition. “Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor thieves, nor revilers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” Here ceasing from fornication, drunkenness, &.c, is the same condition.

St. John is in the same condemnation as Mr. Wesley, for he declares, “There shall in no wise enter into the New Jerusalem any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie.” Here the condition is, not working abomination, &.c. “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer,” and “ye know that no murderer hath eternal life.” Here the condition is, ceasing from hatred, the murder of the heart. St. Peter is equally deep in the heresy. In a variety of expressions he describes the misery and fatal latter end of those “who escape the pollution of the world, through the knowledge of the Lord Jesus, and are again entangled therein,” through the non-performance of this condition, “If ye do these things, ye shall never fall.”

As for St. James, I need not quote him. You know that, when Luther was in his heat, he could have found it in his heart to tear this precious epistle from among the sacred books, and burn it as an epistle of straw. He thought the author of it was an enemy to free grace, an abettor of Popish tenets, an antichrist. It is true, the scales of prejudice fell at last from his eyes; but, alas! it was not till he had seen the Antinomian boar lay waste the Lord’s flourishing vineyard all over Protestant Germany. Then was he glad to draw against him St. James’s despised sword; and I shall be happily mistaken, sir, if you are not obliged one day to make use of the heretical .Minutes, as he did of the epistle of straw.

If any still urge, “I do not love the word condition;” I reply, it is no wonder; since thousands so hate the thing that they even choose to go to hell rather than perform it. But let an old worthy divine, approved by all but Dr. Crisp’s disciples, tell you what we mean by condition. “An antecedent condition,” says Mr. Flavel, in his Discourse of Errors, “signifies no more than an act of ours; which, though it be neither perfect in any degree, nor in the least meritorious of the benefit conferred, nor performed in our own natural strength; is yet, according to the constitution of the covenant required of us, in order to the blessings consequent thereupon, by virtue of the promise: and consequently, benefits and mercies granted in this order are, and must be, suspended by the donor, till it be performed” Such a condition we affirm faith to be, with all that faith necessarily implies.

When Dr. Crisp, in the last century, represented all the sober Puritan divines as legal, they answered, “The covenant, though conditional, is a dispensation of grace. There is grace in giving ability to perform the condition, as well as in bestowing the benefits. God’s enjoining the one in order to the other makes not the benefit to be less of grace; but it is a display of God’s wisdom, in conferring the benefit suitable to the nature and condition of men in this life, who are here in a state of trial; yea, the conditions are but a meetness to receive the blessings.”

“The reason,” added they, “why we use the word condition, is, because it best suits with man’s relation to God, in his present dealings with us as his subjects on trial for eternity. Christ, as a priest, has merited all: but, as a priestly king, he dispenseth all; he enjoins the conditions in order to the benefits, and makes the benefits motives to our compliance with the conditions. He treats with men as his subjects, whom he will now rule, and hereafter judge. Now, what word is so proper to express the duties as enjoined means of benefit, as the word conditions? The word conditions is of the same nature as terms of the Gospel. There are few authors of note, even of any persuasion, that scruple using this word in our sense; as Ames, Twisse, Rutherford, Hooker, Norton, Preston, Owen, synod of New England, the assembly of divines, &c. And none have reason to scruple it, except such as think we are justified before we are born.” — See “Gospel Truth Vindicated,” by Williams, against Dr. Crisp.

If all the Protestant divines who have directly or indirectly represented REPENTANCE and FAITH as conditions of present salvation; and HOLINESS OF HEART AND LIFE as conditions of eternal glory, as things sine quibus non, without which salvation and glory neither can nor will follow. If all those divines, I say, are guilty of heresy, ninety-nine out of a hundred are heretics, and none of them deeper in the heresy than yourself. In your Sermons, [page 39], clearing yourself of the slander that “you do not preach up, recommend, and insist on the necessity of good works;” you add, “I not only preach this or that part of the moral law, but I preach the whole moral law; and I tell you plainly, that if you do not perform the whole will of God, you cannot be finally saved.” Then you add, “Surely, they who contend for the doctrine of good works will be satisfied with this, or they are very unreasonable,” Indeed, sir, Mr. Wesley is quite satisfied with it; I only wonder what in the world can make you so dissatisfied with his Minutes; for he never gave Antinomianism a more legal thrust. And as you make works so absolutely necessary to eternal salvation, so do you make a law work a universal prerequisite of the present salvation. Speaking of the fear and dread that seize a sinner under convictions of sin, you say, [page 111], “This inward shock of perturbation must pass upon the soul of every returning sinner more or less, before he can possibly be rendered a proper object of Divine grace and mercy.” Hold, sir, you go one step beyond Mr. Wesley; for he steadily maintains, that if the sinner was not a proper object of Divine grace BEFORE he feels the inward shock you speak of, he would never be shocked and return.

Do not all unprejudiced persons see, that what Mr. Wesley calls condition, others call way, means, or terms, &c? And that you have as little reason to pick a quarrel with him as to raise a body of men against a quiet traveller for calling a certain sum a guinea, whereas you think it more proper to call it one pound one, — twenty-one shillings, — forty-two sixpences, — or sixty-three groats. O, sir, what reason have we to be ashamed of our chicaneries; and to beseech the Lord that they may not stumble the weak, and harden infidels!

How justly does Mr. Wesley ask next: —

“V. What have we then been disputing about for these thirty years? I am afraid, about words.”

Pardon me sir, if here also I cannot, with you, cry heresy! Far from doing it, I admire the candour of an aged servant of God, who, instead of stiffly holding, and obstinately maintaining an old mistake, comes down as a little child, and freely acknowledges it before a respectable body of preachers, whose esteem it is his interest to secure. O how many are there that look upon Mr. Wesley as a rotten threshold, and themselves as pillars in the temple of God, who would not own themselves mistaken for the world! He says, “I am afraid we have disputed about words:” perhaps he might have said, “I am very sure of it.” How many disputes have been raised these thirty years among religious people, about those works of the heart which St. Paul calls “repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ!” Some have called them the only way or method of receiving salvation, others the means of salvation, others the terms of it. Some have named them duties or graces necessary to salvation, others conditions of salvation, others parts of salvation, or privileges annexed to it; while others have gone far round about, and used I know not what far-fetched expressions and ambiguous phrases to convey the same idea. I say the same idea; for if all maintain that although repentance and works meet for it, and faith working by love, are not meritorious, they are nevertheless absolutely necessary; that they are a thing sine qua non, all are agreed; and that if they dispute, it must be, as Mr. Wesley justly intimates, about words. A comparison will at once make you sensible of it. A physician tells me that the way, the only way or method in which we live, is by abstaining from poison, and taking proper food. “No,” says another, “you should say, that abstaining from poison and taking proper food are the MEANS by which our life is preserved.” “You are quite mistaken,” says a third, “rejecting poison and eating are the TERMS God hath fixed upon for our preservation.” “No,!’ says a fourth, “they are duties without the performance, or blessings, without the receiving of which we must absolutely die.” “I believe, for my part,” says another, “that Providence hath engaged to preserve our life, on condition that we should forbear taking poison, and eat proper food.” “You are all in the wrong, you know nothing at all of the matter,” says another, who applauds himself much for his wonderful discovery, “turning from poison and receiving nourishment are the exercises of a living man; therefore they must absolutely be called parts of his life, or privileges annexed to it. You quite take away people’s appetite, and clog their stomach, by calling them duties, terms, conditions. Only call them PRIVILEGES, and you will see nobody will touch poison, and all will eat most heartily.” While they are all neglecting their food, and taking the poison of this contention, he that hath mentioned the word condition, starts up and says, “Review the whole affair; take heed of your assertions; I am afraid we dispute about words.” Upon this all rise against him, all accuse him of robbing the Preserver of men of his glory, or holding a tenet injurious to the very fundamental principles of our constitution. Let us leave them to the uneasy workings of their unaccountable panic, to consider the next article of the Minutes.

“VI. As to merit itself, of which we have been so dreadfully afraid: We are rewarded according to our works, yea, because of our works. How does this differ from, for the sake of our works? And how differs this from secundum merita operum? ‘as our works deserve?’ Can you split this hair? I doubt, I cannot.”

If Mr. Wesley meant that we are saved by the merit of works, and not by the alone merits of Christ, you might exclaim against his proposition as erroneous; and I would echo back your exclamation. But as he flatly denies it, No. 4, in those words, “not by the merit of works,” and has constantly asserted the contrary for above thirty years, we cannot, without monstrous injustice, fix that sense upon the word merit in this paragraph. Divesting himself of bigotry and party spirit, he generously acknowledges truth, even when it is held forth by his adversaries: an instance of candour worthy of our imitation! He sees that God offers and gives his children, here on earth, particular rewards for particular instances of obedience. He knows that when a man is saved meritoriously by Christ, and conditionally by (or if you please, upon the terms of) the work of faith, the patience of hope, and the labour of love, he shall particularly be rewarded in heaven for this work. And he observes, that the Scriptures steadily maintain, “we are recompensed according to our works, yea, because of our works.” The former of these assertions is plain from the parable of the talents, and from these words of our Lord, Matthew 16:27, “The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, and reward every man according to his work:” UNBELIEVERS according to the various degrees of demerit belonging to their vile works, (for some of them shall comparatively be “beaten with few stripes;”) and BELIEVERS according to the various degrees of excellence found in their good works; for as “one star differeth from another star in glory, so also is the resurrection of the righteous dead.”

The latter assertion is not less evident from the repeated declarations of God: “BECAUSE thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world,” Revelation 3:10. “BECAUSE Phinehas was zealous for his God,” in killing Zimri and Cosbi, “behold! give unto him my covenant of peace, and he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood.” And again: “BECAUSE thou hast done this, and hast not withheld thy son, by myself have I sworn that in blessing I will bless thee, because thou hast obeyed my voice.” Now, says Mr. Wesley, “How differs this from, ‘I will bless thee, for the sake of thy obedience to my voice?’ And how differs this from secundum merita obedientiœ? ‘as thy obedience deserves?’”

And by comparing the difference of these expressions to the splitting of a hair, or to a metaphysical subtilty, he very justly insinuates that we have been too dreadfully afraid of the word merit. Surely, sir, you will not divest yourself of the candour that belongs to a Christian, to put on the bitter zeal of a bigot. You will not run, for fear of Popery, into the very spirit of it, by crying, Heresy! heresy! before you have maturely considered the question’ or, if you have done so once, you will do it no more. And if Mr. Wesley should ever propose again “the splitting of a hair,” I hope you will remember that equity (to say nothing of brotherly love) requires you to split the hair first yourself, before you can with decency stir up people far and near against him, for modestly doubting whether he can do it or no. But suppose some are determined to cry heresy! whenever they see the word merit; I hope others will candidly weigh what follows in the balance of unprejudiced reason.

If we detach from the word merit the idea of “obligation on God’s part to bestow any thing upon creatures who have a thousand times forfeited their comforts and existence;” if we take it in the sense we fix to it in a hundred cases: for instance, this, “A master may reward his scholars according to the merit of their exercises, or he may not; for the merit of the best exercise can never bind him to bestow a premium for it, unless he has promised it of his own accord.” If we take, I say, the word merit in this simple sense, it may be joined to the word good works, and bear an evangelical meaning.

To be convinced of it, candid reader, consider, with Mr. Wesley, that “God accepts and rewards no work but so far as it proceeds from his own grace through the Beloved.” Forget not that Christ’s Spirit is the savour of each believer’s salt, and that he puts excellence into the good works of his people, or else they could not be good. Remember, he is as much concerned in the good tempers, words, and actions of his living members, as a tree is concerned in the sap, leaves, and fruit of the branches it bears, John 15:5. Consider, I say, all this; and tell us whether it can reflect dishonour upon Christ and his grace, to affirm that “as his personal merit, — the merit of his holy life and painful death, — ’opens the kingdom of heaven to all believers,’ so the merit of those works which he enables his members to do, will determine the peculiar degrees of glory graciously allotted to each of them.”

I own, I believe there is such a dignity in every thing in which the Son of God has a hand, that the Father, who is always well pleased with him and his works, cannot but look upon it with peculiar complacency. Even a “cup of water given in his dear name,” that is, by the efficacy of his loving Spirit, hath that in it which “shall in no wise lose its reward;” for it has something of the love of the God-man, Jesus Christ, which merits all the approbation and smiles of the Father.

In our well-meant zeal against Popery we have been driven to an extreme, and have not done good works justice. “I am the Vine,” says Jesus, “and ye are the branches: he that abideth in me bringeth forth much fruit. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit.” What! is the Father glorified in the fruit of believers? And shall this fruit be represented to us always grub-eaten, and rotten at the core? Do we honour either the Vine or the husbandman, while one hour we speak wonders of the Vine and its fruit, and the next represent the branches and their fruit as full of deadly poison? O God of mercy and patience, forgive us, for we know not what we do! We even think we do thee service. O give us genuine, and save us from voluntary humility!

Believer, let not the virtue of thy Saviour’s righteousness, the only good thing that is in thee, be evil spoken of. “Thou art grafted upon the good olive tree; be not high minded, but fear;” fear to be cut off like the branch that “beareth not fruit.” But be not afraid to suck the balmy sap, till the peaceful olive ripens in thy soul, and drops the oil of joy that makes a cheerful countenance. Thou art “married to Christ, that henceforth thou shouldest bring forth fruit unto God.” O let not thy mistaken brethren discourage thee from doing all the good that thy heart and hand find to do, and that “with all thy might!”

I write these allusions as they occur to my mind, to raise thy thoughts above spiritual sloth and barrenness of heart, by showing thee, through a Scriptural glass, something of thy Husband’s glory, and of the excellence of the “labour of love,” wherein thou hast the honour of being “a worker together with him.” Let not what I say puff thee up, but encourage thee to “be steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as thou knowest thy labour shall not be in vain in the Lord.” Remember thou hast nothing to boast of, but much reason to be humbled. If thy works are compared to a rose, the colour, odour, and sweetness are Christ’s; the aptness to fade, and the thorns are thine. If to a burning taper, the snuff and smoke come from thee; the bright and cheering light from thy Bridegroom. The excellence and merit of the performance flow from him; the flaws and imperfections from thee. Nevertheless, the whole work is as truly thine, as grapes are truly the fruit of the branch that bore them. And yet, “as the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no more canst thou, except thou abide in Christ; for without him thou canst do nothing.”

Having thus cautioned thee against the Popish abuse of Mr. Wesley’s doctrine of the excellence of works, and shown thee the evangelical use that a real Protestant should make of it; I return to the word “merit, of which we have been so dreadfully afraid.” Let a comparison help thee to understand how a believer may use it in a very harmless sense. The king promises rewards for good pictures, to miserable foundlings, whom he has charitably brought up, and graciously admitted into his royal academy of painting. Far from being masters of their art, they can of themselves do nothing but spoil canvass, and waste colours by making monstrous figures. But the king’s son, a perfect painter, by his father’s leave, guides their hands; and, by that mean, good pictures are produced, though not so excellent as they would have been had not he made them by their stiff and clumsy hands. The king, however, approves of them, and fixes the reward of each picture according to its peculiar merit. If thou say, “that the poor foundlings, owing all to his majesty, and the prince having freely guided their hands, themselves merit nothing; because, after all they have done, they are miserable daubers still, and nothing is properly theirs but the imperfections of the pictures, and therefore the king’s reward, though it may be of promise, can never be of debt;” I grant, I assert it. But if thou sayest, “The good pictures have no merit,” I beg leave to dissent from thee, and tell thee thou speakest as unadvisedly for the king, as Job’s friends did for God. For if the pictures have absolutely no merit, dost not thou greatly reflect upon the king’s taste and wisdom in saying that he rewards, them? In the name of common sense, what is it he rewards? The merit or demerit of the work?

But this is not all: if the pictures have no merit, what hath the king’s son been doing? Hath he lost all his trouble in helping the novices to sketch and finish them? Shall we deny the excellence of his performance because they were concerned in it? Shall we be guilty of this glaring partiality any longer? No: some Protestants will dare to judge righteous judgment, and acknowledging there is merit where Christ puts it, and where God rewards it, they will give “honour to whom honour is due,” even to him “that worketh all the good in all” his creatures.

For my part, I entirely agree with the author of the Minutes, and thank him for daring to break the ice of prejudice and bigotry among us, by restoring works of righteousness to their deserved glory, without detracting from the glory of “the Lord our righteousness.” I am as much persuaded that the grace of Christ merits in the works of his members, though they themselves merit nothing but hell, as I am persuaded that gold in the ore hath its intrinsic worth, though it is mixed with dust and dross, which are good for nothing. As there is but one Mediator, one prevailing Intercessor “between God and us,” even “the man Christ Jesus;” and, nevertheless, his Spirit in us “maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered:” so there is but one man whose works are truly meritorious; but when he works in us by his Spirit, our works cannot, (so far as he is concerned in them,) but be in a sense meritorious; because they are his works. Real Protestant, if thou deniest this, thou maintainest an antichristian proposition, namely, that Christ has lost his power of meriting. Herein I must dissent from thee, nor will the cry, “Heresy! Popery!” make me give up this fundamental truth of Christianity, that “Jesus is the same,” the very same deserving Lord, “yesterday, to-day, and for ever.” In this evangelical view of things, the Redeemer is much exalted by the doctrine of the “merit” of good works; and believers are still left in their native dust to cry out,” Not unto us, not unto us, but to thy name give we the praise!” In the light of this precious truth we see and admire the endearing contest that is always carried on between God’s loving kindness and the humble gratitude of believers. God says, “Well done, good and faithful servants! reap what ye have sown:” and they answer, “Lord, THY pound hath gained all; thou hast wrought all our works in us.” God says, “They shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy:” and they reply, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, and hath washed us from our sins in his own blood.” Christ crowns faith by this gracious declaration, “Thy faith hath saved thee.” And believers, in their turn, crown Christ by this true confession, “Not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to thy mercy thou hast saved us; for thou hast quickened us by thy Spirit, when we were dead in sin; yea, thou didst redeem us unto God by thy blood,” hundreds of years before we had done any one good work. In a word, they justly give God all the glory of their salvation, agreeable to the first axiom in the Gospel plan; and God graciously gives them all the reward, according to the second.

And now, is it not a pity, that any good men should be so far biassed by the prejudice of their education, or influenced by the spirit of their party, as to account this delightful, harmonizing view of evangelical truths, “a dreadful heresy?” Is it not pity, that, by so doing, they should expose their prepossession, strengthen the hands of Antinomians, harden the hearts of Papists, deprive their Saviour of part of the honour due to him, leave seeming contradictions in the Scriptures unexplained, and trample under foot, as unworthy of their Protestant orthodoxy, a powerful motive to obedience, by which neither Moses nor Jesus was above being influenced? For the one “looked to the recompense of reward;” and the other, “for the joy that was set before him, both despised the shame, and endured the cross.”

It may not be amiss to illustrate what has been advanced upon the merit or rewardableness of works, by Scriptural instances of old and modern saints who have pleaded it before God. David speaks thus in the eighteenth psalm: — “The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me: I was upright before him, therefore hath he recompensed me according to my righteousness,” &c. And in the one hundred and nineteenth psalm, having mentioned his spiritual comforts, he says, “This I had, because I kept thy precepts.” Another instance, no less remarkable, is that of Hezekiah, who prayed thus in his sickness, “Remember now, O Lord, I beseech thee, how I have walked before thee in truth, and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight!”

We see instances of this boldness in the New Testament also: “We have left all to follow thee,” said once the disciples of our Lord, and “what shall we have” for this sacrifice? Jesus, instead of blaming their question, simply told them they should have “a hundred fold” for all they had left, and made it a standing rule of distribution for all the Church. St. John, legal St. John, is not ashamed to say, that “if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God, and whatsoever we ask we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.” He even exhorts the elect lady to “look to herself that she might not lose the things that she had wrought, but receive a full reward.” And the evangelical Apostle Paul desires the Hebrews “not to cast away their confidence, which,” says he, “hath great recompense of reward;” and charges the Colossians to see “that none beguiled them of their reward, in a voluntary humility.”

From these and the like scriptures, I conclude, that those who have a clear witness they have done what God commanded, may, without “heresy,” humbly demand the promised reward: which they can never do without this idea, that, according to the tenor of the Gospel covenant, they are fit subjects for it.

I know some will take the alarm; and, to save the ark, which they think totters by this doctrine, will affirm, that “in the above mentioned passages, David personates Christ; and Hezekiah the Pharisee.” But this is contradicting the whole context, to say nothing of all sober commentators. Mr. Henry tells us, that David, in these verses, “reflects with comfort upon his own integrity, and rejoiceth, like St. Paul, ‘in the testimony of his own conscience, that he had had his conversation in godly sincerity.’” And he informs us, that the psalmist lays down in this psalm “the rules of God’s government, that we may know, not only what God expects from us, but what we may expect from him.” With regard to Hezekiah, it is plain his prayer was heard; a strong proof that it was inspired by the Spirit of Jesus, and not that of the Pharisee.

But if you reject, sir, the testimony of David and Hezekiah because they were Jews, receive, at least, that of “real Protestants;” for which we need only go as far as Bath or Talgarth parish; there we shall find chapels, where the Protestants have agreed together to ask rewards as solemnly as ever David and Hezekiah did. In the Hymns you have revised for another edition, and by that means made your own with respect to the doctrine, one is calculated to “welcome a messenger of Jesus’s grace.” and all the congregation sings,

Give reward of grace and glory

To thy faithful labourer there.

What, sir, do you allow the labours of a minister to be of such dignity, and his faithfulness to have such uncommon merit, that a thousand people can boldly ask God a reward for him, and that not only of gifts and temporal blessings, but of grace; and not of grace only, but of glory too? You have in those two lines the very quintessence of the three grand heresies of the Minutes, “faithfulness, works, and merit.” Permit me to add one passage more, [from page 312], of Baxter’s Methodus Theologiœ Christianæ. “The word merit, rightly explained, is not amiss. All the fathers of the primitive Church have made use of it without opposition, to the best of my remembrance. It may be used by believers who do not make it a cloak for error; by wise men who will not be offended at it, and by those who want to defend the truth, and convey clearer ideas in the explanation of things intricate. There is no word that fully conveys the same idea; that which comes nearest to it is dignity, and suspicious persons will not like it much better. We have three words in the New Testament that come very near it, axiov, misqov, and dicaiov, and they occur pretty frequently there. We render them worthy, reward, and just; and the abuse which Papists make of them ought not to make us reject their use. The English word worthy conveys no other idea than that of the Latin word meritum, taken actively; nor has the word reward any other signification than the word meritum, taken passively; therefore, they who can put a candid sense upon the words worthy, and reward, should do the same with regard to the word merit.” Having explained and vindicated the sixth article of the Minutes, 1 proceed to the

“VII. The grand objection to one of the preceding propositions is drawn from matter of fact. God does, in fact, justify those who, by their own confession, neither ‘feared God, nor wrought righteousness.’ Is this an exception to the rule? It is a doubt, if God make any exception at all. But how are we sure that the person in question never did ‘fear God and work righteousness?’ His own saying so is not proof: for we know how all that are convinced of sin undervalue themselves in every respect.”

Do you think, sir, the “heresy” of this proposition consists in intimating that God does, in fact, justify those who fear him, and not those who make absolutely no stop in the downward road of open sin and flagrant iniquity? If it does, I am sure the sacred writers are heretics to a man. See the account we have of conversions in the Scripture; please to remember what Mr. Wesley means by justification, and then answer the following questions: —

Did not the prodigal son “come to himself,” repent, and return to his father, before he received the kiss of peace? Did not the woman that was a sinner forsake her wicked course of life before our Lord said to her, “Go in peace, thy sins are forgiven thee?”

Again: was not the woman of Samaria convinced of sin, yea, of “all that ever she did,” before our Lord revealed himself to her, to enable her to believe unto justification? Did not Zaccheus evidence his fear of God, yea, and “work righteousness,” by hearty offers of restitution, before Christ testified that he was “a son of Abraham?” Did not St. Paul express his fear of God, and readiness to work righteousness, when he cried out, “Lord, what wouldst thou have me to do?” Yea, did he not produce “fruit meet for repentance,” by praying three days and three nights, before Ananias was sent to direct him “how to wash away his sins?” Did not the eunuch and Cornelius fear God? Did not David himself, whom the apostle mentions as a grand instance of justification without the merit of works, fear God from his youth? And when he had wrought folly in Israel, was he not humbled for his sin, before he was washed from it? Did he not confess his crime, and say, “I have sinned,” before Nathan said by Divine commission, “The Lord hath put away thy sin?”

Does not St. Paul himself carry Mr. Wesley’s “heresy” so far as to say, “Whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent?” Acts 13:26. Must we so understand Romans 4:5, as to make him contradict, point blank, his own declarations, his own experience, and the account of all the above mentioned conversions? Certainly not. Those words, “God justifies the ungodly, and him that worketh not, but believeth in Jesus,” when candidly explained, agree perfectly with Mr. Wesley’s doctrine.

(1.) By “the ungodly,” the apostle does not mean “the wicked that does not forsake his way;” but the man who, before he believed to justification, was ungodly, and still remains ungodly in the eye of the law of works, needing daily forgiveness by grace, even after he is made godly in a Gospel sense.

(2.) By “him that worketh not” St. Paul does not mean a lazy, indolent wretch, who, without any reluctance, follows the stream of his corrupt nature; but “a penitent,” who, whatever works he does, has no dependence upon them, esteems them as nothing, yea, “as dung and dross in comparison of the excellency of Christ;” and, in short, one who does not work to merit or purchase his justification, but comes to receive that invaluable blessing as a free gift.

(3.) That this is the meaning of the apostle is evident from his adding, that he who “worketh not,” yet “believeth.” For if he took the word “worketh not,” in an absolute sense, he could never make it agree with “believing,” which is certainly a work, yea, a work of our noblest part; for “with the heart man believeth to righteousness.” Add to this, sir, that justifying faith, as I observed before never comes without her fore-runner, conviction; nor conviction of sin without suitable tempers or inward works. “There is nothing,” says Dr. Owen, “that I will more firmly adhere to in this whole doctrine, than the necessity of convictions previous to true believing; — as also displacency, sorrow, fear, a desire of deliverance, With other necessary effects of true convictions.” St. Paul, therefore, is consistent with himself, and Mr. Wesley with St. Paul.

Again if God justify sinners merely as “ungodly,” and people that “work not” why should he not justify all sinners; for they are all ungodly, and there is “none of them that does good, no, not one?” Why did not the Pharisee, for example, go to his house justified as well as the publican? You will probably answer, that “he was not convinced of sin.” Why, sir, this is just what Mr. Wesley maintains. Express yourself in St. Peter’s words, “He did not fear God;” or in those of John the Baptist, “He did not bring forth fruits meet for repentance.”

Should some ask, “What works meet for repentance did the woman caught in adultery do, before our Lord justified her?” I would ask, in my turn, how do they know that the Lord justified her? Do they conclude it from those words, “Neither do I condemn thee?” Does not the context show, that as the Pharisees had not condemned her to be stoned, according to the Mosaic law, neither would our Lord take upon himself to pass sentence upon her, according to his declaration on another occasion, “I am not sent to condemn the world, but that the world through me might be saved?” This by no means implies, that the world is justified in St. Paul’s sense, Romans 5:1. But supposing she was justified, how do you know that our Lord’s’ words, writing, looks, and grace, had not brought her to godly shame and sorrow, that is, to “the fear of God,” and “the working of internal righteousness,” before he gave her the peace that passes all understanding?

After all, Mr. Wesley says, with modesty and wisdom, “It is a doubt whether God makes any exception at all:” and it lies upon you to show there is in these words any thing contrary to the humility of the true Christian, and orthodoxy of the sound divine. But please to remember, that if you judge of orthodoxy according to the works of Dr. Crisp, we will take the liberty to appeal to the word of God.

But you make, perhaps, Mr. Wesley’s heresy in this proposition consist in his refusing to take the word of persons convinced of sin, when they say they never “feared God nor wrought righteousness.” “For we know,” says he, “how all that are convinced of sin, undervalue themselves in every respect.”

Had Mr. Wesley imagined that some Christian friends (O my God, deliver me from such friendship!) would leave no stone unturned to procure a copy of his Minutes, in order to find some occasion against him, he would probably have worded this with more circumspection. But he wrote for real friends; and he knew such would at once enter into his meaning, which is, that “persons deeply convinced of sin are apt, very apt, to form a wrong judgment both of their state and performances, and to think the worst of themselves in every respect, that is, both with regard to what Divine grace does in them, and by them.”

And this is so obvious a truth, that he must be a novice indeed in Christian experience who doubts of it for a moment; and a great lover of disputing, who will make a man an offender for so true an assertion. Do not we daily see some, in whom the arrows of conviction stick fast, who think they are as much past recovery as Satan himself? Do not we hear others complain, “they grow worse and worse,” when they only discover more and more how bad they are by nature? And are there not some, who bind upon themselves heavy burdens of their own making, and when they cannot bear them, are tormented in their consciences with imaginary guilt; while others are ready to go distracted through groundless fears of having committed the sin against the Holy Ghost? In a word, do we not see hundreds, who, when they have reason to hope well of their state, think there is no hope for them? In all these respects do they not act like Jonah in the whale’s belly, and complain, “I am cast out of thy sight?” And have not they need to encourage themselves in their God, and say, “Why art thou cast down, O my soul?”

But let your conscience speak, sir, on this matter. When some deep mourners have complained to you of their misery, danger, and desperate state, did you never drop a word of comfort to this effect — “You undervalue yourselves; you write too bitter things against yourselves; your case is not so bad as your unbelieving fears represent it: God’s thoughts are not as your thoughts. Many, like the foolish virgins, think themselves sure of heaven, when they stand on the brink of hell; and many think they are just dropping into it, who are not far from the kingdom of God.” Yea, and as it is with real seekers, so it is with real believers. Did not they undervalue, yea, degrade themselves, by the remains of their unbelief; or, which is the same, did they live up to their dignity, and every where consider themselves as “members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven,” “what manner of persons,” yea, what angels “would they be in all holy conversation!”

Sometimes their light shines with peculiar lustre, like Moses’ face, and they “know it not.” Thousands “see their good works, and glorify their Father who is in heaven;” but the matter is hid from them: they complain, perhaps, that they are the most unprofitable of all his children. Let me instance in one particular: St. Paul, Mr. Whitefield, and thousands of the brightest stars of the Church, have called themselves both “the chief of sinners,” and “the least of all saints.” Now, as in a chain there is but one link that can be called the first, or the last; so in the very nature of things, there can be but one man in the immense file of Christ’s soldiers, that is actually “the chief of sinners,” and “the least of all saints.” If a thousand believers, therefore, say, those two appellations belong to themselves, it is evident that at least nine hundred and ninety-nine undervalue themselves. For my part, I cannot but think they suit me ten thousand times better than they did St. Paul. I must therefore insolently think myself a less sinner and a greater saint than him; or of necessity believe that he, and “all that are partakers of the same convincing grace,” undervalue themselves in every respect. One more. article remains, and if it does not contain “the dreadful heresy,” which hitherto we have looked for in vain, the Minutes are, from first to last, Scripturally orthodox, and you have given Churchmen and dissenters a false alarm.

“VIII. Does not talking of a justified and sanctified state tend to mislead men? Almost naturally leading them to trust in what was done in one moment? whereas we are every hour, and every moment, pleasing or displeasing to God, according to our works — according to the whole of our inward tempers and outward behaviour.”

To do this proposition justice, and prevent misunderstandings, I must premise some observations.

1. Mr. Wesley is not against persons talking of justification and sanctification in a Scriptural sense: for when he “knows the tree by the fruits,” he says himself to his flocks, as St. Paul did to the Corinthians, “Some of you are sanctified and justified.” Nor does he deny that God justifies a penitent sinner in a moment, and that in a moment “he can manifest himself” unto his believing people “as he does not to the world, and give them an inheritance among them that are sanctified, through faith in Jesus.” His objection respects only the idea entertained by some, and countenanced by others, that when God forgives us our sins, he introduces us into a state where we are unalterably fixed in his blessed favour, and for ever stamped with his holy image; so that it matters no longer whether the tree is barren or not, whether it produces good or bad fruit; it was set at such a time, and therefore it must be a “tree of righteousness” still. A conclusion directly contrary to the words of our Lord and his beloved disciple: “By their fruits ye shall know them. He that sinneth is of the devil. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, [much more that beareth evil fruit,] my Father taketh away.”

2. Permit me, sir, to observe also, that Mr. Wesley has many persons in his societies, (and would to God there were none in ours:) who profess they were justified or sanctified in a moment; but instead of trusting in the living God, so trust to what was done in that moment, as to give over “taking up their cross daily, and watching unto prayer with all perseverance.” The consequences are deplorable; they slide back into the spirit of the world; and their tempers are no more regulated by the meek, gentle, humble love of Jesus. Some inquire with the heathens, “What shall we eat, and what shall we drink,” to please ourselves? Others evidently “love the world, lay up treasures on earth,” or ask, “wherewith shall we be fashionably clothed?” Therefore “the love of the Father is not in them.” And not a few are “led captive by the devil at his will;” influenced by his unhappy suggestions, they harbour bitterness, malice, and revenge; none is in the right but themselves, and “wisdom shall die with them.”

Now, sir, Mr. Wesley cannot but fear it is not well with persons who are in any of these cases. Though every body should join to extol them as “dear children of God,” he is persuaded that “Satan has beguiled them as he did Eve;” and he addresses them as our Lord did the angel of the Church of Sardis, “I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead, [or dying:] repent, therefore, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die; for I have not found thy works perfect before God.” Mr. Wesley hath the word of prophecy, which he thinks more sure than the opinion of a world of professors; and, according to that word, he sees that “they who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God,” and that God’s Spirit does not lead into the vanities of the world, or indulgences of fleshly lusts, any more than into the pride or malice of Satan. Nor does he think that those are not “under the law” who can merrily laugh at the law, and pass jests upon Moses, the venerable servant of God. But with St. Paul he asserts, that when people are “under grace, and not under the law, sin hath not dominion over them.” With our Lord he declares, “He who committeth sin, is the servant of sin;” and with his prophet, that “God is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity” with the least degree of approbation. In short, he believes that God, being unchangeable in his holiness, cannot but always “love righteousness and hate iniquity;” and that, as the heart is continually working either iniquity or righteousness, and as God cannot but be pleased at the one, and displeased at the other, he is continually pleased or displeased with us, according to the workings of our hearts, and the fruits which they outwardly produce.

Perhaps you object to the word “every moment.” But why should you, sir? If it be not every moment, it is never. If God do not approve holiness, and disapprove sin every moment, he never does it, for he changes not. If he do it only now and then, he is such a one as ourselves; for even wicked men will approve righteousness and condemn unrighteousness by fits and starts. I may every moment harbour malice in my heart, and so commit internal murder. If God winks at this one instant, why not two? And so on to days, months, and years? Does the duration of moral evil constitute sin? May not I be guilty of the greatest enormity in the twinkling of an eye? And is it not the ordinary property of the most horrid crimes, such as robbery and adultery, that they are soon finished?

Do not say, sir, that this doctrine sets aside “salvation by faith.” It is highly consistent with it. He that, in God’s account, does the best works, has the most faith, most of the sap of eternal life that flows from the heavenly Vine. And he that has most faith has most of Christ’s likeness, and is of course most pleasing to God, who cannot be pleased but with Christ and his living image. On the other hand he that in God’s account does the worst works, and has the worst tempers, has most unbelief. He that has most unbelief, is most “like his father, the devil;” and must consequently be most displeasing to him that accepts us “in the Beloved,” and not “in the wicked one.”

Having premised these observations, I come closer to the point, and assert that if we are not every moment pleasing or displeasing to God, according to the works of our hearts and hands, you must set your seal to the following absurdities: —

(1.) “God is angry with the wicked all the day,” and yet there are moments in which he is not angry at them.

(2.) Lot pleased God as much in those moments in which he got drunk and committed incest with his daughters, as in the day he exercised hospitality toward the disguised angels.

(3.) David did not displease God more when he committed adultery with Bathsheba, and imbrued his hands in her husband’s blood, than when he danced before the ark, or composed the 103d Psalm.

(4.) Solomon was as acceptable to God in the moment when “his wives turned away his heart after other gods,” as when he chose wisdom, and his speech pleased the Lord, when he went after the goddess Ashtaroth, and built a high place to bloody Moloch, as when he represented our Melchisedec, and dedicated the temple.

(5.) Again: you must set your seal to these propositions of Dr. Crisp: “From the time thy transgressions were laid upon Christ, thou ceasest to be a transgressor to the last hour of thy life; so that now thou art not an idolater, thou art not a thief, &c; thou art not a sinful person, whatsoever sin thou committest.” Again: “God does no longer stand offended nor displeased, though a believer, after he is a believer, do sin often; except he will be offended where there is no cause to be offended, which is blasphemy to speak.” Yet again: “It is thought that elect persons are in a damnable, estate in the time they walk in excess of riot; let me speak freely to you that the Lord has no more to lay to the charge of an elect person, yet in the height of iniquity, and in the excess of riot, and committing all the abominations that can be committed.” “There is no time but such a person is a child of God.”

(6.) In short, sir, you must be of the sentiment of the wildest Antinomian I ever knew, who, because he had once a bright manifestation of pardon, not only concludes that he is safe, though he lives in open sin, but asserts God would no more be displeased with him for whoring and stealing, than for praying and receiving the sacrament.

Again: It is an important truth, that we may please God for a time, and yet afterward displease him. St. Paul mentions those who, by putting away a good conscience, “concerning faith made shipwreck,” and therefore pleased God no longer, “seeing that without faith it is impossible to please him.”

Of this the Israelites are a remarkable instance. “They did all drink of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ. Yet with many of them God was not well pleased.” Then comes the proof of the Divine displeasure; for “they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now,” adds the apostle, “these things happened unto them for examples, and they are written for our admonition, that we should not lust after evil things, and tempt Christ as they did. Therefore, let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest,” after their example, “he fall” into wilful sin, the Divine displeasure, and utter destruction.

Our Lord teaches the same doctrine, both by parables and positive assertions. He gives us the history of a man to whom his lord and king compassionately “forgave a debt of ten thousand talents.” This ungrateful wretch, by not forgiving his fellow servant who owed him a hundred pence, forfeited his own pardon, and drew upon himself the king’s heaviest displeasure; “for he was wroth, and delivered him to. the tormentors till he should pay all that was due to him;” and to the eternal overthrow of Dr. Crisp’s fashionable tenets, our Lord adds, “So likewise shall my Father do unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.” Agreeably to this, he assured his disciples that his Father “pruneth every branch in him that beareth fruit, and taketh away every one that beareth not fruit;” and to show how far this displeasure may proceed, he observes that such a barren branch is “cast forth, is withered, gathered, cast into the fire, and burned.”

Here, sir, I might add all those scriptures that testify the possibility of falling away from the Divine favour. I might bring the alarming instances of those apostates who once “tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,” and afterward “fell from their steadfastness, lost their reward, became enemies to God by wicked works, hated the light” which they rejoiced in, because it reproved their evil deeds; “trod under foot the Son of God, forgot they were washed from their old sins, and counted the blood of Christ, wherewith they were sanctified, an unholy thing.” But I refer you, sir, to the two John Goodwins of the age, the Rev. Mr. Wesley and the Rev. Mr. Sellon, who have so cut down and stripped the Crispian orthodoxy, that some people think it actually lies without either root, bark, or branches, exposed to the view of those who have courage enough to see and think for themselves.

Should all they have advanced to show that “we are every hour and every moment pleasing or displeasing to God, according to our internal and external works,” have no weight with you, let me conclude by producing the testimony of two respectable divines, against whom you will not enter a protest.

The one is the rector of Loughrea. You tell us, sir, in your sermons, [page 88], that the acceptance of Cornelius “was not absolutely final and decisive;” and you add, “So long as we continue in the flesh, we are doubtless in a probationary state. Even after Cornelius had been endued with the Holy Ghost, had he wilfully done despite to the Spirit of grace, he might have” [not only displeased God, which is all Mr. Wesley asserts in this proposition, but] “fallen as deep into perdition as ever Judas did.” I know one, sir, who was burned as “a dreadful heretic,” that did not go farther in this heresy than you do. And that is good Bishop Latimer, my second witness. He not only affirmed that “Christ shed as much blood for Judas as he did for Peter,” but roundly asserted, “We may one time be in the book, and another out; as it appeareth by David, who was written in the book of life; but when he sinned with a high hand, [which, by the by, we may do every moment,] he, at the same time, was out of the favour of God, until he had repented; out of Christ, who is the book in which all believers are written.” (Latimer’s Sermon on the Third Sunday after Epiphany.)

Thus, sir, have I looked out for “the heresy,” the dreadful heresy, of Mr. Wesley’s Minutes, by bringing all the propositions they contain to the touchstone of Scripture and common sense; but, instead of finding it, I have found the very marrow of the Gospel of Christ, so far as it is opposed to Dr. Crisp’s Antinomian Gospel; which at this time would overflow our little Sion, if God did not sit above the water floods, and say to the proudest billows of error, “Hitherto shall ye come, and no farther.” I have showed that the Minutes contain nothing but what is truly Scriptural, and nothing but what the best Calvinist divines have themselves directly or indirectly asserted; except perhaps the sixth proposition concerning the merit of works; and with respect to this, I hope I have demonstrated, upon rational and evangelical principles, that Mr. Wesley, far from “bringing in a damnable heresy,” has done the Gospel justice, and Protestantism service, by candidly giving up an old prejudice, equally contrary to Scripture and good sense, a piece of bigotry which hath long hardened the Papists against the doctrine of “salvation by the merit of Christ,” and hath added inconceivable strength to the Antinomian delusion among us. One difficulty remains, and that is, to account for your attacking Mr. Wesley, though you could not wound him without stabbing yourself. Reserving my reflections upon this amazing step for another letter, I remain your astonished servant, in the bonds of a peaceful Gospel,