undermine morality and good works," (p. 146, &c.) To prove this you assert, "1.. That the Methodists are trained up to wait in quietness for sudden conversion; whence they are naturally led, to neglect the means of salvation." This is a mistake all over. For neither are they taught to wait in quietness (if you mean any more than patience by that term) for either sudden or gradual conversion: neither do they, in fact, neglect the means. So far from it, that they are eminently exact in the use of them.

You assert, 2. "The doctrine of assurance of pardon and salvation, present and future, causes a false security, to the neglect of future endeavours." Blunder upon blunder again. That all Christians have an assurance of future salvation, is no Methodist doctrine: and an assurance of present pardon, is so far from causing negligence, that it is of all others the strongest motive to vigorous endeavours after universal holiness.

You assert, 3. "Impulses and impressions, being made the rule of duty, will lead into dangerous errors." Very true. But the Methodists do not make impulses and impressions the rule of duty. They totally disclaim any other rule of duty, than the written word.

You assert, 4." A claim of unsinning perfection," (I mean by perfection, the loving God with all our heart) "drives some into phrensies, others into despair." Sir, I doubt the fact.

You assert, 5. "The Moravian Methodists trample down morality, and, multitudes of the Wesleyans have been infected." The Moravian Methodists! You may as well say the Presbyterian Papists. The Moravians have no connexion with the Methodists. Therefore whatever they do (though you slander them too) they and not we are to answer for. The Methodists, at present, blessed be God, are as little infected with this plague (of condemning or neglecting good works) as any body of people in England or Ireland.

38. From these loose assertions you proceed to quotations from my writings, every one of which I shall consider, to show that not in one or two, but in every one you are a wilful prevaricator and false accuser of your neighbour.

You say, first, "The Moravians."-Hold, good Sir! You are out of the way already. You well know, the Moravians are to answer for themselves. Our present question concerns the Methodists only. You say, secondly, "A general temptation prevails among the societies of Methodists, of leaving off good works,” (Fourth Journal, Vol. I. p. 318.) Sir, you are wrong again. The societies of Methodists are not there spoken of: but the single society of Fetterlane. Among these only that temptation then prevailed.

You quote, thirdly, as my words, "The poor, confused, shattered society, had erred from the faith." My own words are, I told the poor, confused, shattered society, wherein they had erred from the faith" (ibid.) Namely, with regard to the ordinances: not in general, as your way of expressing it naturally imports. Nor had all the society erred even in this point. Many of them were still unshaken.

You quote, fourthly, "A woman of Deptford spoke great words and true. She ordered Mr Humphreys to leave off doing good." What then must every honest man think of you, when he observes, that one half of the sentence (which you thus artfully put together) stands in another page, and at a considerable distance from the other? And that I immediately subjoined to the latter clause, "we talked largely with her, and she was humbled to the dust, under a deep sense of the advantage Satan had gained over her."

You quote fifthly, a part of the following sentence, to prove that I "undermine morality and good works."

"His judgment concerning holiness is new. He no longer judges it to be an outward thing, to consist either in doing no harm, in doing good, or in using the ordinances of God." (And yet how strongly do insist upon all these: Sir, do not you know this?) "He sees, it is the life of God in the soul, the image of God fresh stamped on the heart." It is so. Sir, can you deny it? What then will you prove by this?

You quote, sixthly, part of these words: " They speak of holiness, as if it consisted chiefly if not wholly, in these two points, first, the doing no harm, secondly, the doing good (as it is called) i. e. the using the means of grace, and helping our neighbour,” (Fourth Journal, Vol. I.) And this you term "disparaging good works!" Sir, these things, considered barely as to the opus operatum, are not good works. There must be something good in the heart before any of our works are good. Insomuch that, though I give all my goods to feed the poor, and have not' this, it profiteth me nothing.'

You observe, by the way, "the Mystic Divinity was once the Methodists' doctrine." Sir, you have stepped out of the way, only to get another fall. The Mystic divinity was never the Methodists' doctrine. They never could swallow either John Tauler or Jacob Behme although they often advised with one that did.

39. You say, seventhly, "I do not find, that Mr. Wesley has ever eited those express passages of St. James." Sir, what if I had not! (I mean in print) I do not cite every text from Ge esis to the Revelation. But it happens I have. Look again, Sir; and by and by you will find where.

You say, eighthly, " Mr. Wesley affirms, that the condition of our justification, is faith alone and not good works." Most certainly I do. And I learned it from the 11th and 12th articles, and from the homilies of our Church. If you can confute them, do. But I subscribe to them, both with my hand and heart.

You say, ninthly, "Give me leave to make a remark. The Methodists wandered many years, in the new path of salvation by faith and works, which was the time too of their highest glory and popularity. During this time, they were seducing their disciples into the most destructive errors." Excuse me, Sir. While they preached salvation by faith and works, they had no disciples at all; (unless you term a few pupils such) nor had they any popularity at

all. They then enjoyed (what they always desired) a quiet, retired life. But whatever disciples we had, they were not "seduced by us into" the error of justification by works. For they were in it, before ever they saw our face, or knew there were such men in the world.

You say, tenthly," Mr. Wesley only contends, that it is possible to use them without trusting in them." Not in that page; because the proposition I am confuting is, 'It is not possible to use them, without trusting in them,' Fourth Journal, p. 304.

You added, "And now, are not such disparaging expressions (a mere possibility of using them, without trusting in them) a great discouragement to practice?" O Sir, when will you deviate into truth? Dare you affirm, without any regard to God or man, "Mr. Wesley only contends for a mere possibility of using the means, without trusting in them ?"

To go no farther than the very first page you refer to, (ibid.) my express words are these:

I believe the way to attain faith is, to wait for Christ, in using all the means of grace.'

Because I believe these do ordinarily convey God's grace (even) to unbelievers.' Is this "contending only for a mere possibility of using them without trusting in them?"

Not only in this, and many other parts of the Journals, but in a sermon written professedly on the subject, I contend, that all the ordinances of God are the stated channels of his grace to man; and that it is our bounden duty to use them all, at all possible opportunities. So that to charge the Methodists in general, or me in particular, with undervaluing or disparaging them, shows just as much regard for justice and truth, as if you were to charge us with Mahometanism.

40. Tedious as it is to wade through so many dirty pages, I will follow you, step by step, a little farther. Your eleventh proof that we "undermine morality and good works," is drawn from the following passage: I know every one under the law is even as I was, for near twice ten years. Every one, when he begins to see his fallen state, and to feel the wrath of God abiding on him, relapses into the sin that most easily besets him, soon after repenting of it. Sometimes he avoids, and at many other times he cannot persuade himself to avoid the occasions of it. Hence his relapses are frequent, and of consequence his heart is hardened more and more. Nor can he, with all his sincerity, avoid any one of these four marks of hypocrisy, till being justified by faith, he hath peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.' Third Journal, Vol. I. p. 280.

But to any one

You, Sir, are no competent judge in the cause. who has experienced what St. Paul speaks in his seventh chapter to the Romans, I willingly submit this whole question. You know by experience, that if anger was the sin that did so easily beset you, you relapsed into it (for days, or months, or years) soon after repenting of it. Sometimes you avoided the occasions of it: at other times

i

you did not. Hence your relapses were frequent, and your heart was hardened more and more. And yet all this time you were sincerely striving against sin, you could say, without hypocrisy, The thing which I do, I allow not; the evil which I would not, that I do. To will is even now present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not.

But the Jesuits, you think, "could scarcely have granted salvation upon easier terms. Have no fear, ye Methodists." Sir, I do not grant salvation (as you call it) upon so easy terms. I believe a man in this state, is in a state of damnation. "Have no fear!" say you? Yea, but those who are thus under the law, are in fear all the day long. "Was there ever so pleasing a scheme?" Pleasing with a vengeance! As pleasing as to be in the belly of hell. So totally do you mistake the whole matter, not knowing what you speak, nor whereof you affirm.'

You are indeed somewhat pitiable in speaking wrong on this head, because you do it in ignorance. But this plea cannot be allowed, when you gravely advance that trite, thread-bare objection concerning the Lord's Supper, without taking any notice, that I have answered it again and again, both to Mr. Church and to the late Lord Bishop of London.

41. Your thirteenth proof is this: "Mr. Wesley has taught us, that infirmities are no sins." Sir, you have taught me to wonder at nothing you assert: else I should wonder at this. The words, I suppose you refer to, stand, in The Sermon on Salvation by Faith; (though you do not choose, for a plain reason, to show your reader where they may be found,) He that is by faith born of God sinneth not; 1. By any habitual sin: nor, 2. By any wilful sin; nor, 3. By any sinful desire; for he continually desireth the holy and perfect will of God; nor, 4. Doth he sin by infirmities, whether in act, word, or thought. For his infirmities have no concurrence of his will, and without this, they are not properly sins.' And this you seriously declare, "is a loop-hole to creep out of every moral and religious obligation!"

In the same paragraph you say, I have strongly affirmed, that "all our works and tempers are evil continually: that our whole heart is altogether corrupt and abominable, and consequently our whole life, (First Journal, Vol. I. p. 172;) all our works, the most specious of them, our righteousness, our prayers, needing an atonement. themselves," (Second Journal, p. 190.) I do strongly affirm this. But of whom? In all these places, but the last, of myself only. In every one, but this, I speak in the singular number, and of myself, when confessedly an unbeliever. And of whom do I speak in that last place? Of unbelievers, and them only. The words are, All our tempers and works, in our natural state, are only evil continually.'

Now, Sir, where is your "loop-hole to creep out?" If you have none, I fear every impartial man will pass sentence upon you, that you have no regard either to "moral or religious obligations." VOL. 8.-U u

I have now weighed every argument you have brought, to prove "that the Methodists undermine morality and good works." A grievous charge indeed! But the more inexcusable is he, who advances it, but is not able to make it good, in any one single instance. Pardon my pertness, Sir, in not barely affirming (that is your manner) but proving this: nay, and in telling you, that you cannot make amends to God, to me, or to the world, without a retraction as public as your calumny.

42. You add, "How the case stands in fact, as to the number of converts among the Methodists, and real reformation of life to the certain and known duties of the gospel, is matter of difficult determination." Not at all. What is easier to be determined, than 1. That A. B. of Exeter or Tiverton, was for many years a notorious drunkard, common swearer, or sabbath-breaker? 2. That he is not so now; that he is "really reformed" from drunkenness, swearing, sabbath-breaking, to sobriety, and the other "certain and known duties of the gospel ?"

"But from what inquiry you can make, there is no reason to think them, for the generality, better than their neighbours." Better than their neighbours! Why are they no worse than their neighbours? Then what have you been doing all this time? But whether they are better or worse than their neighbours, they are undeniably better than themselves: I mean, better than they were before they heard this preaching, in the "certain and known duties of the gospel." But you desire us to "consider their black art of calumny; their uncharitableness; their excessive pride and vanity; their skepticism, doubts, and disbelief of God and Christ; their disorderly practices and contempt of authority; their bitter envying and inveterate broils among themselves; their coolness for good works." Sir, we will consider all these, when you have proved them. Till then, this is mere brutum fulmen.

43. You proceed. "If we take Mr. Wesley's own account, it falls very short of any considerable reformation." You mean; if we take that part of his account, which you are pleased to transcribe. Atticam elegantiam! But let any impartial man read my whole account, and then judge. However hence you infer, that "the new reformers have made but a slow and slight progress in the reformation of manners.' As a full answer to this, I need only transcribe a page or two from the last Appeal.

'God begins a glorious work in our land. You set yourself against it with your might; to prevent its beginning where it does not yet appear, and to destroy it wherever it does. In part you prevail. You keep many from hearing the word that is able to save their souls. Others who have heard it, you induce to turn back from God, and to list under the Devil's banner again. Then you make the success of your own wickednesss an excuse for not acknowledging the work of God! You urge, "That not many sinners were reformed! And that some of those are now as bad as ever.”