the following words inclosed within the marks of the same quotation:" (that is, the commas, which ought to have been set five lines sooner, are set at the end of the paragraph:) "All these expressions demonstrate, that Adam (as well as Christ) was a representative of all mankind; and that what he did in this capacity did not terminate in himself, but affected all whom he represented.'" (Original Sin, p. 268; Dialogues, p. 137.) "Then I could no longer forbear crying out, There is treachery, O Ahaziah!'" (p. 278.)

Treachery! Cui bono? "For what end?" Can any guess? What was I to gain thereby? Of what possible advantage could it be, either to me or to the cause I was defending? What possible view could I have therein? And would I cheat for cheating sake? I was not here talking either of general or particular redemption. I purposely declined entering into the question throughout that whole treatise. Every candid man will therefore naturally suppose, that both the misplacing the commas, and the putting mankind for this kind, were the printer's fault, not mine; a part of those numerous errors of the press, which were occasioned by my absence from it, and the inaccuracy of the corrector.

18. I will not tire either my reader or myself, by citing any more passages of this kind; although the circumstances are so plausibly related, and so strongly amplified, that, upon the first reading of each, I was myself ready to cry out, "Surely this must be true!" I hope the preceding specimen may suffice, and prevent impartial men from judg ing rashly. I shall add but one passage more; but it is a very extraordinary one; such as none can deny to be a home thrust, a blow under the fifth rib::

'My dear sir, let me give you a word of friendly advice. Before you turn Turk, Deist, or Atheist, see that you first become an honest man. They will all disown you, if you go over to their party destitute of common honesty." (p. 277.)

Upon what is this wonderful advice grounded? and this peremptory declaration, that, as I am now, even Turks and Deists, yea, Atheists, would disown me? Why, upon the printer's blunder,-putting mankind for this kind, and setting the commas in the wrong place!

"And is this thy voice, my son David?" Is this thy tender, loving, grateful spirit? No, "the hand of Joab is in all this!" I acknowledge the hand, the heart of William Cudworth. I perceive, it was not an empty boast, (as I was at first inclined to think,) which he uttered to Mr. Pearse, at Bury, before my friend went to paradise," Mr. Hervey has given me full power to put out and put in what I please."

But he too is gone hence; and he knows not whether I am an honest man or no. It cannot be long, even in the course of nature, before I shall follow them.

My race of glory 's run, and race of shame;
And I shall shortly be with them that rest.

I could wish till then to be at peace with all men; but the will of the Lord be done! Peace or war, ease or pain, life or death, is good, so I may but "finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the Gospel of the grace of God." HOXTON-SQUARE, Nov. 16, 1764.

SOME REMARKS

ON

"A DEFENCE OF THE PREFACE TO THE EDINBURGH EDITION OF ASPASIO VINDICATED."

EDINBURGH, May, 1766.

I HAVE neither time nor inclination to write a formal answer to the Reverend Dr. Erskine's tract. My hope of convincing him is lost; he has drunk in all the spirit of the book he has published. But I owe it to God and his children to say something for myself, when I am attacked in so violent a manner, if haply some may take knowledge, that I also endeavour to "live honestly, and to serve God."

1. Dr. Erskine says, " An edition of these Letters has been published in London, from the author's own manuscripts, which puts the authenticity of them beyond doubt." I answer, This is a mistake; impartial men doubt of their authenticity as much as ever. (I mean, not with regard to the Letters in general, but to many particular passages.) And that for two reasons: First, because those passages breathe an acrimony and bitterness which Mr. Hervey in his life-time never showed to any one, and least of all to one he was deeply obliged to. Surely this is not what Dr. E. terms his "Scriptural and animated manner." I hope it was not for this cause that he pronounces this " equal, if not superior, to any one of his controversial pieces published in his life-time." Indeed, I know of no controversial piece at all which he published in his life-time. His "Dialogues," he no more intended for such, than his "Meditations among the Tombs." A Second reason for doubting of their authenticity is that he told his brother, with his dying voice, (I have it under his brother's own hand,) "I desire my Letters may not be published; because great part of them is written in a short hand which none but myself can read."

66

66

2. But the present question lies, not between me and Mr. Hervey, but between Dr. E. and me. He vehemently attacks me for saying, Orthodoxy, or right opinion, is at best but a very slender part of religion, if any part of it at all." He labours to deduce the most frightful consequences from it, and cries, "If once men believe that right opinion is a slender part of religion, if any part of religon, or no part at all, there is scarce any thing so foolish, or so wicked, which Satan may not prompt to." (p. 6.) And what, if, after all, Dr. E. himself believes the very same thing! I am much mistaken if he does not. Let us now fairly make the trial.

I assert, (1.) That, in some cases," right opinion is no part of religion;" in other words, there may be right opinion where there is no religion. I instance in the devil. Has he not right opinions? Dr. E. must, perforce, say, Yes. Has he religion? Dr. E. must say, No. Therefore, here right opinion is no part of religion. Thus far, then, Dr. E. himself believes as I do.

I assert, (2.) In some cases," it is a slender part of religion." Observe, I speak of right opinion, as contradistinguished both from right tempers and from right words and actions. Of this, I say, "It is a slen

der part of religion." And can Dr. E. say otherwise? Surely, no; nor any man living, unless he be brimful of the spirit of contradiction.

"Nay, but I affirm, right tempers cannot subsist without right opinion: The love of God, for instance, cannot subsist without a right opinion of him." I have never said any thing to the contrary: But this is another question. Though right tempers cannot subsist without right opinion, yet right opinion may subsist without right tempers. There may be a right opinion of God, without either love, or one right temper toward him. Satan is a proof of it. All, therefore, that I assert in this matter, Dr. E. must affirm too.

But does it hence follow, "that ignorance and error are as friendly to virtue as just sentiments?" or, that any man may "disbelieve the Bible with perfect innocence or safety?" Does Dr. E. himself think I believe this? I take upon me to say, he does not think so. But why does he talk as if he did? "Because it is a clear consequence from your own assertion." I answer, (1.) If it be, that consequence is as chargeable on Dr. E. as on me; since he must, nolens volens, [willing or unwilling,] assert the same thing, unless he will dispute through a stone wall. (2.) This is no consequence at all: For, admitting "right tempers cannot subsist without right opinions," you cannot infer, therefore, "right opinions cannot subsist without right tempers." Prove this by other mediums, if you can; but it will never be proved by this. However, until this is done, I hope to hear no more of this thread-bare objection.

3. Dr. E. attacks me, Secondly, with equal vehemence, on the head of justification. In various parts of his tract, he flatly charges me with holding justification by works. In support of this charge, he cites several sentences out of various treatises, abridgments of which I have occasionally published within these thirty years. As I have not those abridgments by me now, I suppose the citations are fairly made; and that they are exactly made, without any mistake, either designed or undesigned. I will suppose, likewise, that some of these expressions, gleaned up from several tracts, are indefensible. And what is it which any unprejudiced person can infer from this? Will any candid man judge of my sentiments, either on this or any other head, from a few sentences of other men, (though reprinted by me, after premising, that I did not approve of all their expressions,) or from my own avowed, explicit declarations, repeated over and over? Yet this is the way by which Dr. E. proves, that I hold justification by works! He continually cites the words of those authors as mine, telling his reader, "Mr. Wesley says thus and thus." I do not say so; and no man can prove it, unless by citing my own words. I believe justification by faith alone, as much as I believe there is a God. I declared this in a sermon, preached before the University of Oxford, eight-and-twenty years ago. I declared it to all the world eighteen years ago, in a sermon written expressly on the subject. I have never varied from it, no, not a hair's breadth, from 1738 to this day. Is it not strange, then, that, at this time of day, any one should face me down, (yea, and one who has that very volume in his hands, wherein that sermon on justification by faith is contained,) that I hold justification by works? and that, truly, because there are some expressions in some tracts written by other men, but reprinted by me during a course of years, which seem, at least, to countenance that

doctrine! Let it suffice, (and it will suffice for every impartial man,) that I absolutely, once for all, renounce every expression which contra dicts that fundamental truth, We are justified by faith alone.

"But you have published John Goodwin's Treatisie on Justification."" I have so; but I have not undertaken to defend every expres→ sion which occurs therein. Therefore, none has a right to palm them upon the world as mine. And yet I desire no one will condemn that treatise before he has carefully read it over; and that seriously and carefully; for it can hardly be understood by a slight and cursory readng. And let whoever has read it declare, whether he has not proved every article he asserts, not only by plain express Scripture, but by the authority of the most eminent Reformers. If Dr. E. thinks otherwise, let him confute him; but let no man condemn what he cannot answer. 4. Dr. E. attacks me, Thirdly, on the head of Christian perfection. It is not my design to enter into the merits of the cause. I would only just observe, (1.) That the great argument which Dr. E. brings against it is of no force; and (2.) That he misunderstands and misrepresents my sentiments on the subject.

First. His great argument against it is of no force. It runs thus: "Paul's contention with Barnabas is a strong argument against the attainableness of perfection in this life." (p. 41.) True, if we judge by the bare sound of the English version. But Dr. E. reads the original: Και εγένετο παροξυσμος. It does not say that sharpness was on both sides. It does not say that all or any part of it was on St. Paul's side. Neither does the context prove that he was in any fault at all. Indeed, "he thought it not good to take him with them," who had deserted them before. Now certainly there was no blame in this; neither was there any in his subsequent behaviour. For when Barnabas also departed from it, he went on still in the work. "He went through Syria and Cilicia," as he had proposed, "confirming the Churches."

Secondly. He misunderstands and misrepresents my sentiments on the subject. He says, "Mr. Wesley seems to maintain, that sinless perfection is actually attained by every one born of God." (p. 39.)

I do not maintain this; I do not believe it. I believe Christian perfection, or perfect love, (sinless perfection is an expression which I do not use or contend for,) is not attained by any of the children of God till they are what the Apostle John terms fathers. And this I expressly declare in that very sermon which Dr. E. so largely quotes.

5. Why Dr. E. should quarrel with me concerning natural free-will, I cannot conceive, unless for quarrelling's sake. For it is certain, on this head, if no other, we are precisely of one mind. I believe that Adam before his fall, had such freedom of will, that he might choose either good or evil; but that, since the fall, no child of man has a natural power to choose any thing that is truly good. Yet I know (and who does not ?) that man has still freedom of will in things of an indifferent nature. Does not Dr. E. agree with me in this? O why should we seek occasion of contention!

6. That Michael Servetus was "one of the wildest Anti-trinitarians that ever appeared" is by no means clear. I doubt of it, on the authority of Calvin himself, who certainly was not prejudiced in his favour. For if Calvin does not misquote his words, he was no Anti-trinitarian at all.

Calvin himself gives a quotation from one of his letters, in which he expressly declares, “I do believe the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God. But I dare not use the word Trinity or Person." I dare, and I think them very good words. But I should think it very hard to be burned alive for not using them; especially with a slow fire, made of moist, green wood!

I believe Calvin was a great instrument of God; and that he was a wise and pious man: But I cannot but advise those who love his memory to let Servetus alone. Yet if any one resolves to understand the whole affair, he may see a circumstantial account of it, published some vears since, by Dr. Chandler, an eminent Presbyterian divine in London. 7. Of myself I shall speak a little by and by. But I would now speak of the Methodists, so called, in general. Concerning these, Dr. E. cites the following words, from a little tract, published some years since : -("Advice to the People called Methodists.")

"We look upon ourselves, not as the authors or ring-leaders of a particu lar sect or party, but as messengers of God to those who are Christians in name, but Heathens in heart and life, to call them back to that from which they are fallen, to real, genuine Christianity. We look upon the Methodists, not as any particular party, but as living witnesses, in and to every party, of that Christianity which we preach." (p. 3.)

On this Dr. E. remarks: "If the Methodist teachers confined themselves to preaching, there might be some room for this plea; but hardly, when they form bands and classes;" that is, when they advise those who are "recalled to real Christianity," to watch over each other, lest they fall again into the nominal religion, or no religion, that surrounds them. But how does this alter the case? What, if being jealous, “lest any" of their brethren should again "be hardened through the deceit. fulness of sin," they should "exhort one another," not only weekly, but daily, to cleave to God" with full purpose of heart!" Why might we not plead still, that these are not to "be looked upon as any particula party, but as living witnesses, in and to every party, of that Christianity which we preach?"

What Dr. E. says of the mischievousness of this, and with great plausibility, (p. 27,) depends upon an entire mistake, namely, that the leader of a class acts just like a Romish priest; and that the inquiries made in a class are of the same kind with those made in auricular confession. It all therefore falls to the ground at once, when it is observed, that there is no resemblance at all, either between the leader and the priest, or between the inquiries made by one and by the other.

It is true, that the leader "sees each person once a week, to inquire how their souls prosper;" and that when they meet, "the leader or teacher asks each a few questions relating to the present situation of their minds." So then, that questions are actually asked, yea, and inquiries made, cannot be denied. But what kind of questions and inquiries? None that expose the answerer to any danger; none that they would scruple to answer before Dr. E., or any other person that fears God.

8. "But you form a Church within a Church, whose members in South Britain profess to belong to the Church of England, and those in North Britain to the Church of Scotland; while yet they are inspected and governed by teachers who are sent, continued, or removed by Mr. W." (p. 3.)