Ii.

put away, which have hitherto made that desire ineffectual) above all things under heaven.

II.

1. Your second charge is, “That I hold, in common with them, principles from which their errors naturally follow.” You mean justification by faith alone. To set things in the clearest light I can, I will first observe what I hold, and what you object; and then inquire what the consequences have been.

First. As to what I hold. My latest thoughts upon justification are expressed in the following words: —

“Justification sometimes means our acquittal at the last day. But this is out of the present question; that justification whereof our Articles and Homilies speak, meaning present pardon and acceptance with God; who therein declares his righteousness and mercy, by or for the remission of the sins that are past. “I believe, the condition of this is faith: I mean, not only, that without faith we cannot be justified; but also, that, as soon as any one has true faith, in that moment he is justified.

“Good works follow this faith, but cannot go before it. Much less can sanctification, which implies a continued course of good works, springing from holiness of heart. But — entire sanctification goes before our justification at the last day.

“It is allowed, that repentance, and ‘fruits meet for repentance,’ go before faith. Repentance absolutely must go before faith; fruits meet for it, if there be opportunity. By repentance I mean, conviction of sin, producing real desires and sincere resolutions of amendment; and by ‘fruits meet for repentance,’ forgiving our brother, ceasing from evil, doing good, using the ordinances of God, and, in general, obeying him according to the measure of grace which we have received. But these I cannot, as yet, term good works, because they do not spring from faith and the love of God.” (Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion,)

2. “Faith, in general, is a divine, supernatural elegcov (evidence or conviction) of things not seen, not discoverable by our bodily senses, as being either past, future, or spiritual. Justifying faith implies, not only a divine elegcov that God ‘was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,’ but a sure trust and confidence that Christ died for my sins, that he loved me, and gave himself for me. And the moment a penitent sinner thus believes, God pardons and absolves him.” (Ibid.)

Now, it being allowed, that both inward and outward holiness are the stated conditions of final justification, 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 conversation.” 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?

3. “Many of those who are perhaps as zealous of good works as you, think I have allowed you too much. Nay, my brethren, but how can we help allowing it, if we allow 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 know then, without fighting about words, can we deny, that holiness is a condition of final acceptance? And as to the first acceptance or pardon, does not all experience as well as Scripture prove, that no man ever yet truly believed the gospel who did not first repent? Repentance therefore we cannot deny to be necessarily previous to faith. Is it not equally undeniable, that the running back into wilful, known sin (suppose it were drunkenness or uncleanness) stifles that repentance or conviction? And can that repentance come to any good issue in his soul, who resolves not to forgive his brother? or who obstinately refrains from what God convinces him is right, whether it be prayer or hearing his word? Would you scruple yourself 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 even that which he hath?’ Would you scruple to say this? But in saying this, you allow all which I have said, viz., that previous to justifying faith, there must be repentance, and, if opportunity permit, ‘fruits meet for repentance.’

“And yet I allow you this, that although both repentance and the fruits thereof are in some sense necessary before justification, yet neither 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 the word,) he is justified, his sins are blotted out, ‘his faith is counted to him for righteousness.’ But it is not so, at whatever moment he repents, or brings forth any or all the fruits of repentance. Faith alone therefore justifies; which repentance alone does not; much less any outward work. And consequently, none of these are necessary to justification, in the same degree with faith.

“No in the same sense. For none of these has so direct, immediate a relation to justification as faith. This is proximately necessary thereto; repentance remotely, as it is necessary to the increase or continuance of repentance. f39 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 obedience after, we believe.

You go on: “If good works are not conditions of our justification, 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 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 neglect of repentance, prayer,” etc.? (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. This consequence cannot be too often repeated.” (Page 26.)

Let it be repeated ever so often, it is good for nothing. For, far other qualifications are required in order to our standing before God in glory, than were required in order to his giving us faith and pardon. In order to this, nothing is indispensably required, but repentance, or conviction of sin. But in order to the other it is indispensably required, that we be fully “cleansed from all sin;” that the “very God of peace sanctify us wholly,” even to to oloklhron hmwn, “our entire body, soul, and spirit.” It is not necessary, therefore, (nor indeed possible,) that we should, before justification, “patiently wait upon God, by lowliness, meekness, and resignation, in all the ways of his holy law.” And yet it is necessary, in the highest degree, that we should thus wait upon him after justification: Otherwise, how shall we be “meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light?”

5. Soon after, you add: “In the passages last cited, you plead for the necessity of a good life: But in others, the force of your principles shows itself. An answer approved by you, is, ‘My heart is desperately wicked; but I have no doubt or fear; I know my Savior loves me, and I love him.’ Both these particulars are impossible, if the Scripture be true.” (Page 29.) You amaze me! Is it possible you should be ignorant that your own heart is desperately wicked? Yet I dare not say, either that God does not love you, or that you do not love him.

“Again: You say, you described the state of those who have forgiveness of sins, but not a clean heart;” (page 30;) not in the full, proper sense. Very true; but even then they had power over both inward and outward corruptions; far from being, as you suppose, “still wedded to their vices, and resolved to continue in them.”

“In another place, after having observed that ‘sin does remain in one that is justified, though it has not dominion over him,’ you go on: ‘But fear not, though you have an evil heart; yet a little while, and you shall be endued with power from on high, whereby ye may purify yourselves, even as he is pure.’ Sinners, if they believe this, may be quite secure, and imagine they have nothing to fear, though they continue in their iniquities. For God’s sake, Sir, speak out. If they that have an evil heart have not, who has reason to fear?” (Page 31.) All who have not dominion over sin; all who continue in their iniquities. You, for one, if any sin has dominion over you. If so, I testify against you this day, (and you will not be quite secure, if you believe me,) “The wrath of God abideth on you!”

“What do you mean by, ‘sin remains in one that is justified?’ that he is guilty of any known, wilful, habitual sin?” (Page 32.) Judge by what is gone before: — I mean the same as our Church means by, “sin remains in the regenerate.”

6. You proceed to another passage, which in the Journal stands thus: — “After we had wandered many years in the new path of salvation by faith and works, about two years ago it pleased God to show us the old way of salvation by faith only. And many soon tasted of this salvation, being justified freely, having peace with God, ‘rejoicing in hope of the glory of God,’ and having ‘his love shed abroad in their hearts.”’ (Vol. I.) Thus I define what I mean by this salvation, viz., “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”

But you object, “Here you deny the necessity of good works in order to salvation.” (Remarks, p. 33.) I deny the necessity, nay, possibility, of good works, as previous to this salvation; as previous to faith or those fruits of faith, “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” This is my real sentiment, not a slip of my pen, neither any proof of my want of accuracy.

7. “I shall now,” you say, “consider the account you give, in this Journal, of the doctrine of justification.” (Remarks, p.30.)

I will recite the whole, just as it stands, together with the occasion of it: — “In the afternoon I was informed how many who cannot, in terms, deny it, — explain justification by faith. They say,

(1.) Justification is two-fold; the first in this life, the second at the last day.

(2.) Both these are by faith alone, that is, by objective faith, or by the merits of Christ, which are the object; of our faith.’ And this, they say, is all that St. Paul and the Church mean by, ‘we are justified by faith only.’ But they add,

(3.) ‘We are not justified by subjective faith alone, that is, by the faith which is in us. But good works also must be added to this faith, as a joint condition both of the first and second justification.’ “In flat opposition to this, I cannot but maintain, (at least, till I have clearer light,)

(1.) That the Justification which is spoken of by St. Paul to the Romans, and in our Articles, is not two-fold. It is one, and no more. It is the present remission of our sins, or our first acceptance with God.

(2.) It is true, that the merits of Christ are the sole cause of this our justification. But it is not true, that this is all which St. Paul and our Church mean by our being justified by faith only; neither is it true, that either St. Paul or the Church mean, by faith, the merits of Christ. But,

(3.) By our being justified by faith only, both St. Paul and the Church mean that the condition of our justification is faith alone, and not good works; inasmuch as all works done before justification have in them the nature of sin.

Lastly. That faith which is the sole condition of justification, is the faith which is wrought in us by the grace of God. It is a sure trust which a man hath, that Christ hath loved him and died for him.” (Vol. I.)

8. To the first of these propositions you object, “that justification is not only two-fold, but manifold. For a man may possibly sin many times, and as many times be justified or forgiven.” (Remarks, pp. 37-39.) I grant it. I grant also, that justification sometimes means a state of acceptance with God. But all this does not in the least affect my assertion, that “that justification which is spoken of by St. Paul to the Romans, and by our Church in the Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Articles, is not our acquittal at the last day, but the present remission of our sins.” You add, “You write in other places so variously about this matter, that I despair to find any consistency. Once you holden ‘a degree of justifying faith short of the full assurance of faith, the abiding witness of the Spirit, or the clear perception that Christ abideth in him;’ and yet you afterwards ‘warned all not to think they were justified before they had a clear assurance, that God had forgiven their sins.’ What difference there is between this clear assurance, and the former full assurance and clear perception, I know not.” (Page 40.)

Let us go on step by step, and you will know. “Once you holden ‘a degree of justifying faith, short of the full assurance of faith, the abiding witness of the Spirit, or the clear perception that Christ abideth in him.’” And so I hold still, and have done for some years. “And yet you afterwards warned all not to think they were justified before they had a clear assurance that God had forgiven their sins.” I did so. “What difference there is between this clear assurance, and that full assurance and clear perception, I know not.” Sir, I will tell you. The one is an assurance that my sins are forgiven, clear at first, but soon clouded with doubt or fear. The other is such a plerophory or full assurance that I am forgiven, and so clear a perception that Christ abideth in me, as utterly excludes all doubt and fear, and leaves them no place, no, not for an hour. So that the difference between them is as great as the difference between the light of the morning and that of the mid-day sun.

9. On the second proposition you remark,

(1.) That I “ought to have said, the merits of Christ are (not the sole cause, but) the sole meritorious cause of this our justification.” (Page 41.)

(2.) That “St. Paul and the Church, by justifying faith, mean, faith in the gospel and merits of Christ.” The very thing; so I contend, in flat opposition to those who say they mean only the object of this faith. Upon the third proposition, “By our being justified by faith only, both St. Paul and the Church mean, that the condition of our justification is faith alone, and not good works;” you say, “Neither of them mean any such thing. You greatly wrong them, in ascribing so mischievous a sentiment to them.” (Ibid.) Let me beg you, Sir, to have patience, and calmly to consider,

(1.) What I mean by this proposition. Why should you any longer run as uncertainly, and fight as one that beateth the air?

(2.) What is advanced touching the sentiments of the (Church, in the tract referred to above. Till you have done this, it would be mere loss of time to dispute with you on this head.

I wave, therefore, for the present, the consideration of some of your following pages. Only I cannot quite pass over that (I believe, new) assertion, “that the Thirteenth Article, entitled, ‘Of Works done before Justification,’ does not speak of works done before justification, but of works before grace, which is a very different thing!” (Page 45.) I beseech you, Sir, to consider the Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Articles, just as they lie, in one view: And you cannot but see that it is as absolutely impossible to maintain that proposition, as it is to prove that the Eleventh and Twelfth Articles speak not of justification, but of some very different thing.

10. Against that part of the fourth proposition, “Faith is a sure trust which a man hath, that Christ loved him and died for him,” you object, “This definition is absurd; as it supposes that such a sure trust can be in one who does not repent of his sins.” (Page 48.) I suppose quite the contrary, as I have declared over and over; nor, therefore, is there any such danger as you apprehend.

But you say, “There is nothing distinguishing enough in this to point out the true justifying faith.” (Ibid.) I grant it; supposing a man were to write a book, and say this of it, and no more. But did you ever see any treatise of mine, wherein I said this of faith, and no more? nothing whereby to distinguish true faith from false? Touching this Journal, your own quotations prove the contrary. Yea, and I everywhere insist, that we are to distinguish them by their fruits, by inward and outward righteousness, by the peace of God filling and ruling the heart, and by patient, active joy in the Holy Ghost.

You conclude this point: “I have now, Sir, examined at large your account of justification; and, I hope, fully refuted the several articles in which you have comprised it.” (Page 49.) We differ in our judgment. I do not apprehend you have refuted any one proposition of the four. You have, indeed, amended the second, by adding the word meritorious; for which I give you thanks.

11. You next give what you style, “the Christian scheme of justification;” (page 50;) and afterwards point out the consequences which you apprehend to have attended the preaching justification by faith; the Third point into which I was to inquire.

You open the cause thus: “The denying the necessity of good works, as the condition of justification, directly draws after it, or rather includes in it, all manner of impiety and vice. It has often perplexed and disturbed the minds of men, and in the last century occasioned great confessions in this nation. These are points which are ever liable to misconstructions, and have ever yet been more or less attended with them. And it appears from what you have lately published, that since you have preached the doctrine, it has had its old consequences, or rather worse ones; it has been more misunderstood, more perverted and abused, than ever.” (Pages 1, 2.) “The denying the necessity of good works, as the condition of justification, draws after it, or rather includes in it, all manner of impiety and vice.” Here stands the proposition; but where is the proof? Till that appears, I simply say, It does not.

“It has often perplexed and disturbed the minds of men.” And so have many other points in St. Paul’s Epistles.

“But these are points which are ever liable to misconstructions; and have ever yet, more or less, been attended with them.” And what points of revealed religion are those which are not ever liable to misconstructions? Or of what material point can we say, that it has not ever yet, more or less, been attended with them?

“In the last century it occasioned great confessions in this nation.” It occasioned! No; in no wise. It is demonstrable, the occasions of those confessions were quite of another kind.

“And it appears, that since you have preached the doctrine, it has had its old consequences, or rather worse. It has been more misunderstood, more perverted and abused, than ever.” What! worse consequences than regicide, (which, you say, was the old one,) and making our whole land a field of blood? Or has it been more perverted and abused than when (in your account) it overturned the whole frame both of Church and State?

12. You go on: “The terms of the gospel are, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. But when we undervalue either of these terms, we involve the consciences of the weak in fatal perplexities; we give a handle to others to justify their impieties; we confirm the enemies of religion in their prejudices.” (Remarks, p. 2.) All this I grant. But it affects not me. For I do not undervalue either faith or repentance.

“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 confessions 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, 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 risen 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 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. But “complaints,” you say, “of their errors, come very ill from you, because you have occasioned them.” Nay, if it were so, for that very cause they ought to come from me. If I had occasioned an evil, surely I am the very person who ought to remove it as far as I can; to recover, if possible, those who are hurt already, and to caution others against it.

14. On some of those complaints, as you term them, you remark as follows: — “Many of those who once knew in whom they had believed” (these are my words) “were thrown into idle reasonings, and thereby filled with doubts and fears.” (Page 13.) “This,” you add, “it is to be feared, has been too much the case of the Methodists in general. — Accordingly we find, in this Journal, several instances, not barely of doubts and fears, but of the most desperate despair. This is the consequence of resting so much on sensible impressions. — Bad men may be led into presumption thereby; an instance of which you give, Vol. I. p. 295.” That instance will come in our way again: “Many of those who once knew in whom they had believed were thrown,” by the Antinomians, “into idle reasonings, and thereby filled with doubts and fears. This,” you fear, “has been the case with the Methodists in general.” You must mean, (to make it a parallel case,) that the generality of the people now termed Methodists were true believers till they heard us preach, but were thereby thrown into idle reasonings, and filled with needless doubts and fears. Exactly contrary to truth in every particular. For,

(1.) They lived in open sins till they heard us preach, and, consequently, were no better believers than their father the devil.

(2.) They were not then thrown into idle reasonings, but into serious thought how to flee from the wrath to come. Nor,

(3.) Were they filled with needless doubts and fears, but with such as were needful in the highest degree, such as actually issued in repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. “Accordingly, we find in this Journal several instances of the most desperate despair. (Ibid.)”

Then I am greatly mistaken. But I will set down at length the several instances you refer to: —

“I was a little surprised, in going out of the room, at one who catched hold of me, and said abruptly, ‘I must speak with you, and will. I have sinned against light and against love.’ (N. B. She was soon after, if not at that very time, a common prostitute.) ‘I have sinned beyond forgiveness. I have been cursing you in my heart, and blaspheming God, ever since I came here. I am damned: I know it: I feel it: I am in hell: I have hell in my heart.’ I desired two or three who had confidence in God, to join in crying to him on her behalf. Immediately that horrible dread was taken away, and she began to see some dawnings of hope.” (Ibid..)

“The attention of all was soon fixed on poor L—–– S—––. One so violently and variously torn of the evil one did I never see before. Sometimes she laughed till almost strangled; and then broke out into cursing and blaspheming; then stamped, and struggled with incredible strength, so that four or five could scarce hold her; then cried out, ‘O eternity, eternity! O that I had no soul! O that I had never been born!’ At last she faintly called on Christ to help her; and the violence of her pangs ceased.” (Ibid.)

It should be remembered, that from that time to this, her conversation has been as becometh the gospel.

“Thursday, December 25, I met with such a case as I do not remember either to have known or heard of before: L—— S——, (the same person,) after many years’ mourning, (long before she heard of us,) was filled with peace and joy in believing. In the midst of this, without any discernible cause, such a cloud suddenly overwhelmed her, that she could not believe her sins were ever forgiven at all, nor that there was any such thing as forgiveness of sins. She could not believe that the Scriptures were true; that there was any heaven, or hell, or angel, or spirit, or any God. One more I have since found in the same state: But observe, neither of these continued therein; nor did I ever know one that did. So sure it is that all faith is the gift of God, which the moment he withdraws, the evil heart of unbelief will poison the whole soul.” (Ibid.) Which of these is an “instance of the most desperate despair?” Surely the most desperate of any, yea, the only one which is properly said to be desperate at all, is that which produces instant self-murder; which causes a poor wretch, by a sin which he cannot repent of, to rush straight through death into hell. But that was not the case in any of these instances; in all which we have already seen the end of the Lord.

15. That I “raise separate societies against the Church,” (Remarks, p. 14,) is a charge which I need not examine till the evidence is produced. You next cite a Moravian’s words to me: (an Englishman joined with the Moravians:) “You have eyes full of adultery, and cannot cease from sin; you take upon you to guide unstable souls, and lead them in the way of damnation” and remark, “This is only returning some of your own treatment upon yourself. Here also you set the pattern.” At what time and place, when and where, were “such abuses as these thrown out by me against our Universities, and against our regular Clergy, not the highest or the worthiest excepted?” I am altogether clear in this matter, as often as it has been objected: Neither do I desire to receive any other treatment from the Clergy, than they have received from me to this day. You have a note at the bottom of this page which runs thus: “See pages 71, 77, and 73, f40 where some Methodists said they had heard both your brother and you many times preach Popery.”

I am afraid you advance here a wilful untruth, purely ad rnovendam invidiam. f41or you cannot but know,

(1.) That there is not one word of preaching Popery, either in page 71 or 77. And

(2.) That when Mr. C. and two other Predestinarians (as is related page 73) affirmed they had heard both my brother and me many times preach Popery, they meant neither more nor less thereby than the doctrine of universal redemption.

16. You proceed: “Kingswood you call your own house: And when one Mr. C. opposed you there, you reply to him, ‘You should not have supplanted me in my own house, stealing the hearts of the people.’ The parochial Clergy may call their several districts their own houses, with much more propriety than you could call Kingswood yours. And yet how have you supplanted them therein, and labored to steal the hearts of the people! You have suffered by the same ways you took to discharge your spleen and malice against your brethren.

“Your brother’s words to Mr. C. are, — ‘Whether his doctrine is true or false, is not the question. But you ought first to have fairly told him, I preach contrary to you. Are you willing, notwithstanding, that I should continue in your house, gainsaying you? Shall I stay here opposing you, or shall I depart?’ Think you hear this spoken to you by us. What can you justly reply? — Again, if Mr. C. had said thus to you, and you had refused him leave to stay; I ask you, whether in such a case he would have had reason to resent such a refusal? I think you cannot say he would. And yet how loudly have you objected our refusing our pulpits to you!” (Remarks, page 15.)

So you judge these to be exactly parallel cases. It lies therefore upon me to show that they are not parallel at all; that there is, in many respects, an essential difference between them.

(1.) “Kingswood you call your own house.” So I do, that is, the school-house there. For I bought the ground where it stands, and paid for the building it, partly from the contribution of my friends, (one of whom contributed fifty pounds,) partly from the income of my own Fellowship. No Clergyman therefore can call his parish his own house with more propriety than I can call this house mine.

(2.) “Mr. C. opposed you there.” True; but who was Mr. C.? One I had sent for to assist me there; a friend that was as my own soul; that, even while he opposed me, lay in my bosom. What resemblance then does Mr. C., thus opposing me, bear to me opposing (if I really did) a parochial Minister?

(3.) “You said to Mr. C., ‘You should not have supplanted me in my own house, stealing the hearts of the people.’ Yet you have supplanted the Clergy in their own houses.” What, in the same manner as Mr. C. did me? Have I done to any of them as he has done to me? You may as justly say I have cut their throats! Stealing the hearts of their people. Nor are these their people in the same sense wherein those were mine, viz., servants of the devil brought, through my ministry, to be servants and children of God. “You have suffered by the same ways you took to discharge your spleen and malice against your brethren.” To discharge your spleen and malice! Say, your muskets and blunderbusses: I have just as much to do with one as the other.

(4.) “Your brother said to Mr. C., ‘You ought to have told my brother fairly, I preach contrary to you. Are you willing I should continue in your house, gainsaying you? Shall I stay here opposing you, or shall I depart?’ Think you hear this spoken to you by us. What can you justly reply?” I can justly reply, Sir, Mr. C.’s case totally differs from yours. Therefore it makes absolutely nothing to your purpose.

17. A farther consequence (you think) of my preaching this doctrine, is, “the introducing that of absolute predestination. And whenever these errors,” say you, “gain ground, there can be no wonder, that confusion, presumption, and despair, many very shocking instances of all which you give us among your followers, should be the consequences.” (Remarks, p. 52.) You should by all means have specified a few of those instances, or, at least, the pages where they occur. Till this is done, I can look upon this assertion as no other than a flourish of your pen.

To conclude this head: You roundly affirm, once for all, “The grossest corruptions have ever followed the spreading of this tenet. The greatest heats and animosities have been raised thereby. The wildest errors have been thus occasioned. And in proportion to its getting ground, it has never failed to perplex the weak, to harden the wicked, and to please the profane. Your Journal is a proof that these terrible consequences have of late prevailed, perhaps more than ever.” (Page 51.) Suppose that Journal gives a true account of facts, (which you seem not to deny,) could you find there no other fruits of my preaching, than these terrible ones you here mention?

O who so blind, as he that will not see!

18. But that we may not still talk at large, let us bring this question into as narrow a compass as possible. Let us go no farther as to time, than seven years last past; as to place, than London and the parts adjoining; as to persons, than you and me, Thomas Church preaching one doctrine, John Wesley the other. Now then, let us consider with meekness and fear, what have been the consequences of each doctrine.

You have preached justification by faith and works, at Battersea, and St. Ann’s, Westminster; while I preached justification by faith alone, near Moorfields, and at Short’s Gardens. I beseech you then to consider, in the secret of your heart, how many sinners have you converted to God? By their fruits we shall know them. This is a plain rule. By this test let them be tried. How many outwardly and habitually wicked men have you brought to uniform habits of outward holiness? It is an awful thought! Can you instance in a hundred? in fifty? in twenty? in ten? If not, take heed unto yourself and to your doctrine. It cannot be that both are right before God.

Consider now (I would not speak, but I dare not refrain) what have been the consequences of even my preaching the other doctrine. By the fruits shall we know those of whom I speak; even the cloud of witnesses, who at this hour experience the gospel I preach to be the power of God unto salvation. The habitual drunkard, that was, is now temperate in all things. The whoremonger now flees fornication. He that stole, steals no more, but works with his hands. He that cursed or swore, perhaps at every sentence, has now learned to serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice unto him with reverence. Those formerly enslaved to various habits of sin, are now brought to uniform habits of holiness. These are demonstrable facts. I can name the men, with their several places of abode. One of them was an avowed Atheist for many years; some were Jews; a considerable number