No; not here. He is not speaking here of the cause of our justification, but the fruits of it. Therefore, that unnatural sense of his words does not at all" agree with the tenor of his arguing."

I totally deny the criticism on δικαιοσύνη and δικαίωμα, and cannot conceive on what authority it is founded. O how deep an aversion to inward holiness does this scheme naturally create! (p. 140.)

"The righteousness they attained could not be any personal righteousness." (p. 142.) Certainly it was: it was implanted as well as imputed.

"For instruction in righteousness,' in the righteousness of Christ." (p. 145.) Was there ever such a comment before? The plain meaning is, "for training up in holiness" of heart and of life.

"He shall convince the world of righteousness;" that I am not a sinner, but innocent and holy. (p. 146.)

"That we might be made the righteousness of God in him.' Not intrinsically, but imputatively." (p. 148.) Both the one and the other. God, through him, first accounts and then makes us righteous. Accordingly,

"The righteousness which is of God by faith' is both imputed and inherent." (p. 152.)

"My faith fixes on both the meritorious life and atoning death of Christ." (p. 153.) Here we clearly agree. Hold then to this, and never talk of the former without the latter. If you do, you cannot say, "Here we are exposed to no hazard." Yes, you are to an exceeding great one; even the hazard of living and dying without holiness. And then we are lost for ever.

The Sixth Letter contains an admirable account of the earth and atmosphere, and comprises abundance of sense in a narrow compass, expressed in beautiful language.

Gems have "a seat on the virtuous fair one's breast." (p. 177.) I cannot reconcile this with St. Paul. He says, "Not with pearls ;" by a parity of reason, Not with diamonds. But in all things I perceive you are too favourable, both to "the desire of the flesh, and the desire of the eye." You are a gentle casuist as to every self-indulgence which a plentiful fortune can furnish.

"Our Saviour's obedience." (p. 182-) O say, with the good old Puritans, "Our Saviour's death or merits!" We swarm with Antinomians on every side. Why are you at such pains to increase their number?

"My mouth shall show forth thy righteousness and thy salvation;" thy mercy, which brings my salvation. (p. 194.)

The Eighth Letter is an excellent description of the supreme greatness of Christ. I do not observe one sentence in it, which I cannot cheerfully subscribe to.

The Ninth Letter, containing a description of the sea, with various inferences deduced therefrom, is likewise a masterpiece, for justness of sentiment, as well as beauty of language. But I doubt whether "mere shrimps" (p. 241) be not too low an expression; and whether you might not as well have said nothing of "cod, the standing repast of Lent;" or concerning "the exquisite relish of turbot, or the deliciousness of sturgeon." Are not such observations beneath the dignity of a minister

of Christ? I have the same doubt concerning what is said of "delicately flavoured tea, finely scented coffee, the friendly bowl, the pyramid of Italian figs, and the pastacia nut of Aleppo." (p. 264.) Beside that the mentioning these in such a manner is a strong encouragement of luxury and sensuality. And does the world need this? The English in particular! Si non insaniunt satis sua sponte, instiga. [If they are not mad enough of themselves, incite them.]

"Those treasures which spring from the imputation of Christ's righteousness." (Letter 10, p. 271.) Not a word of his atoning blood! Why do so many men love to speak of his righteousness, rather than his atonement? I fear, because it affords a fairer excuse for their own unrighteousness. To cut off this, is it not better to mention both together? at least, never to name the former without the latter?

"Faith is a persuasion that Christ has shed his blood for me, and fulfilled all righteousness in my stead." (p. 285.) I can by no means subscribe to this definition. There are hundreds, yea, thousands, of true believers, who never once thought one way or the other of Christ's fulfilling all righteousness in their stead. I personally know many who, to this very hour, have no idea of it; and yet have each of them a divine evidence and conviction, "Christ loved me, and gave himself for me." This is St. Paul's account of faith; and it is sufficient. He that thus believes is justified.

"It is a sure means of purifying the heart, and never fails to work by love." (p. 287.) It surely purifies the heart,-if we abide in it; but not if we "draw back to perdition." It never fails to work by love while it continues; but if itself fail, farewell both love and good works.

"Faith is the hand which receives all that is laid up in Christ." Consequently, if we make "shipwreck of the faith," how much soever is laid up in Christ, from that hour we receive nothing, dolandi ferer

"Faith in the imputed righteousness of Christ is a fundamental principle in the Gospel." (Letter 11, p. 288.) If so, what becomes of all those who think nothing about imputed righteousness? How many who are full of faith and love, if this be true, must perish everlastingly!

"Thy hands must urge the way of the deadly weapon through the shivering flesh, till it be plunged in the throbbing heart." (p. 297.) Are not these descriptions far too strong? May they not occasion unprofitable reasonings in many readers?

Ne pueros coram populo Medea trucidet.

[Medea should not kill her children before the people.]

"How can he justify it to the world?" (p. 298) Not at all. Can this then justify his faith to the world?

"You take the certain way to obtain comfort,-the righteousness of Jesus Christ." (p. 304.) What, without the atonement? Strange fondness for an unscriptural, dangerous mode of expression!

"So the merits of Christ are derived to all the faithful." (p. 306.) Rather, the fruits of the Spirit; which are likewise plainly typified by the oil in Zechariah's vision.

1

"Has the law any demand? It must go to him for satisfaction." (p. 310.) Suppose, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;" then I am not obliged to love my neighbour: Christ has satisfied the de

mand of the law for me. Is not this the very quintessence of Antinomianism?

"The righteousness wrought out by Jesus Christ is wrought out for all his people, to be the cause of their justification, and the purchase of their salvation. The righteousness is the cause and the purchase." (p. 311.) So the death of Christ is not so much as named! "For all his people." But what becomes of all other people? They must inevitably perish for ever. The die was cast or ever they were in being. The

doctrine to pass them by has

Consign'd their unborn souls to hell,

And damn'd them from their mother's womb!

I could sooner be a Turk, a Deist, yea, an Atheist, than I could believe this. It is less absurd to deny the very being of God, than to make him an almighty tyrant.

"The whole world and all its seasons are rich with our Creator's goodness. His tender mercies are over all his works." (p. 318.) Are they over the bulk of mankind? Where is his goodness to the non-elect? How are his tender mercies over them? "His temporal blessings are given to them." But are they to them blessings at all? Are they not all curses? Does not God know they are? that they will only increase their damnation? Does not he design they should? And this you call goodness! This is tender mercy!

"May we not discern pregnant proofs of goodness in each individual object?" (p. 321.) No; on your scheme, not a spark of it, in this world or the next, to the far greater part of the work of his own hands.

"Is God a generous benefactor to the meanest animals, to the lowest reptiles? And will he deny my friend what is necessary to his present comfort, and his final acceptance?" (p. 334.) Yea, will he deny it to any soul that he has made? Would you deny it to any, if it were in your power?

But if you loved whom God abhorr❜d,

The servant were above his Lord.

"The wedding garment' here means holiness." (p. 337.)

"This is his tender complaint, They will not come unto me!' " (p. 340.) Nay, that is not the case; they cannot. He himself has decreed, not to give them that grace without which their coming is impossible.

"The grand end which God proposes in all his favourable dispensations to fallen man is, to demonstrate the sovereignty of his grace." Not so to impart happiness to his creatures is his grand end herein. Barely to demonstrate his sovereignty is a principle of action fit for the great Turk, not the most high God.

"God hath pleasure in the prosperity of his servants. He is a boundless ocean of good." (p. 341.) Nay, that ocean is far from boundless, if it wholly passes by nine tenths of mankind.

"You cannot suppose God would enter into a fresh covenant with a rebel." (p. 342.) I both suppose and know he did. "God made the new covenant with Christ, and charged him with the performance of the conditions." I deny both these assertions, which are the central point wherein Calvinism and Antinomianism meet. "I have made a covenant with my chosen ;'" namely, with "David my servant." So God himself explains it.

“He will wash you in the blood which atones, and invest you with the righteousness which justifies." (p. 362.) Why should you thus continually put asunder what God has joined?

"God himself at the last day pronounces them righteous, because they are interested in the obedience of the Redeemer." (p. 440.) Rather, because they are washed in his blood, and renewed by his Spirit.

Upon the whole. I cannot but wish that the plan of these Dialogues had been executed in a different manner. Most of the grand truths or Christianity are herein both explained and proved with great strength and clearness. Why was any thing intermixed which could prevent any serious Christian's recommending them to all mankind? any thing which must necessarily render them exceptionable to so many thousands of the children of God? In practical writings, I studiously abstain from the very shadow of controversy. Nay, even in controversial, I do not knowingly write one line, to which any but my opponent would object. For opinions, shall I destroy the work of God? Then am I a bigot indeed. Much more, if I would not drop any mode of expression, rather than offend either Jew or Gentile, or the Church of God.

I am, with great sincerity, dear Sir,

Your affectionate brother and servant,

JOHN WESLEY.

3. After waiting near two years, and receiving no answer to the second any more than the first Letter, in 1758 I printed "A Preservative against Unsettled Notions in Religion." I designed this at first only for the preachers who were in connection with me. But I was afterward induced to think it might be of use to others that were under my care. I designed it for these, and these alone, though I could not help its falling into other hands. Accordingly, I said, "My design in publishing the following Tracts, is not to reclaim but to preserve." To preserve those to whom I had frequently and strongly recommended Mr. Hervey's Dialogues, from what I disapproved of therein, I inserted the above Letter; and that without any addition, as intending it only "for those who already knew the truth," whom I wished to preserve from every thing wrong, while they profited by what was admirably right, in his Dialogues. No wonder therefore that those notes (as Mr. Hervey remarks in the same page) "have rather the air of a caveat than a confutation." I never intended them for a confutation; and even when I sent them to the press, I designed them merely as a caveat to my friends against imbibing truth and error together.

4. A considerable time after, I was much surprised by an information, that Mr. Hervey "was going to publish against me." I immediately wrote a short letter to him, which his friends may easily find among his papers. It was to this effect, and, so far as I can recollect, nearly in these words:

"After waiting above a year for an answer to my last letter, I printed it in the close of a larger treatise. If you have any thing to object to me, I expect, that, as a gentleman and a Christian, you will behave to me as I did to you. Send me the letter first. And if I do not give you 、a satisfactory answer in a year, then publish it to all the world." I am inclined to believe, this prevented the publication of these papers during

his life. And with his dying breath, (I have it under his brother's hand,) he desired they might not be published at all. How comes it then to be done now? I suppose, through the zeal of those who are so vehemently attached to their own opinions, that they would sacrifice all things to them; and who may sincerely believe, that the bringing any reproach upon me would be "doing God service."

5. In this prefatory discourse, I do not intend to "answer Mr. Hervey's book." Shall my hand be upon that saint of God? No; let him rest in Abraham's bosom. When my warfare is accomplished, may I rest with him till the resurrection of the just! Nor do I intend to say any thing on those questions, whether Christ was the Mediator of the new covenant, or one of the contracting parties, or both the Mediator and a contracting party; neither indeed on any point of Calvinism: herein I think and let think. I do not design to contend about the phrase imputed righteousness; nor yet about the sense of it. I cannot explain this more fully or clearly than it is done in the ensuing Tract. I purpose only to speak a little on the personal accusations which are brought against me; and I doubt not but I shall convince all impartial men that I am clear of the things laid to my charge.

6. The chief of these are twelve. I might reckon many more; but they are all reducible to one or other of these. Each of these accusa tions is frequently repeated, and in great variety of language. But I shall be easily excused for citing only a few out of numerous passages to the same effect.

The first is, that I "assert things without proof." This is undoubtedly true. In the letter before us, I touch upon many things, without once attempting to prove them. For I designed only, (1.) To warn a friend, and give him matter for farther consideration. (2.) To guard others from slipping into mistakes. Therefore Mr. Hervey need not have said, "Never did I meet with a person who seemed so totally ignorant, that there is a wide difference between saying and proving." (p. 236.) I am not ignorant of this; and so my friend would have found, had he favoured me with a private answer. It would then have lain upon me to prove what I had barely said before.

7. I am accused, secondly, of being self-sufficient, positive, magisterial. "Mr. Wesley, cased in his own self-sufficiency, esteems all these evidences as mere nothings. Reason, grammar, precedents are eclipsed by his bare negative." (p. 246.)

I know not which way this can be inferred from any thing I have spoken to Mr. Hervey.

"Mr. Wesley replies, with the solemnity of a censor, and the authority of a dictator, No." (p. 90.)

I am not conscious, that, in making that reply, I assumed any authority at all.

"Here I see nothing but the usual argument, the master's ipse dixit.” (p. 139.)

Love might have seen the friend, not the master, taking the liberty which he had been entreated to take.

"Strange! That a man of ordinary discernment should offer to obtrude apon the public such a multitude of naked, unsupported, magisterial asser