friend." Popery is about midway between protestantism and such worshippers. Who are they?" I answer, They are the orthodox opposers of the Minutes, the truly honourable the Countess of Huntingdon, the Rev. Mr. Shirley, the Rev. Mr. Madan, and all the congregations that use their hymns; for they all agree to sing,

"Thou hast the righteousness supplied

By which we merit heaven."

See Lady Huntingdon's hymns, Bristol edition, page 399, and the Rev. Mr. Madan's collection, which you frequently use, hymn 25, page 27, last stanza. Come then, dear sir, while Mr. Madan shakes hands with his venerable father, Mr. Wesley, permit the vindicator of the Minutes to do the same with the author of Pietas Oxoniensis, and let us lovingly follow Scotus and Baxter, singing, "Christ hath the righteousness supplied, by which we merit heaven."

If you say, True, but it is of "God's own mere favour, rich grace, and undeserved bounty in his dear Son," I answer, We are agreed; and, beforehand, I subscribe an hundred such clauses, being fully persuaded of the truth of Mr. Wesley's proposition, when explained according to the analogy of faith: "There is no original merit, but in the blood and obedience of Christ; and no derived merit, or" (if you dislike that word out of the Lock chapel) “no derived rewardableness, but that which we are supplied with through the Spirit of Christ and the blood of his cross." If Mr. Wesley meant any more by the saying you have quoted, he will permit me to use his own words, and say, that he "leaned too much toward Calvinism.”

I cannot better close the subject of merit, and requite your quotation from Dr. Willet, than by transcribing a third passage from the pious and judicious Mr. Baxter :

"We are agreed on the negative: 1. That no man or angel can merit of God in proper commutative justice, giving him somewhat for his benefits that shall profit him, or to which he had no absolute right. 2. No man can merit any thing of God upon the terms of the law of innocency, but punishment. 3. Nor can he merit any thing of God by the law of grace, unless it be supposed first to be a free gift, and merited by Christ.

"And affirmatively we are, I think, agreed: 1. That God governs us by a law of grace, which hath a promise, and gives by way of reward. 2. That God calls it his justice, to reward men according to his law of grace. Heb. xi. 6; 2 Tim. iv. 8. 3. That this supposes, that such works as God rewards have a moral aptitude for that reward, which chiefly consists in these things,-that they spring from the Spirit of God, that their faultiness is pardoned through the blood and merits of Christ, that they are done in love and to the glory of God, and that they are presented to God by Jesus Christ. 4. That this moral aptitude is called in scripture, ağıa, that is, 'worthiness,' or 'merit;' so that thus far, 'worthiness' or 'merit' is a And, 5. That this worthiness' or scripture phrase. 'merit' is only in point of paternal, governing justice, according to the law of grace, ordering that which, in itself, is a free gift merited by Christ.

"All orthodox Christians hold the fore-described doctrine of merit in sense, though not in words; for they that deny merit, confess the rewardableness of our obedience, and acknowledge that the scripture useth the term 'worthy,' and that agios and asia may be translated, 'meriting' and 'merit,' as well as 'worthy' and 'worthiness." This is the same thing, in other words, which the ancient Christians meant by merit. When godly persons earnestly extol holiness, saying that the righteous is more excellent than his neighbour,' and yet deny all merit, reviling all that assert it, they do but show that they understand not the word, and think others also misunderstand it; and so we are reproaching one another, where we are agreed and know it not like the woman who turned away her servant upon the controversy, Whether the house should be swept with a besom or with a broom.

"The partial teachers are the cause of this, while, instead of opening the doctrine, and showing in what sense we have or have not any worthiness or merit, they, without distinction, cry down merit, and reproach those that do otherwise. And if they do but say, 'Such a man speaks for merit and free will,' that they sufficiently rendered him odious to their followers, when yet all sober Christians, in

all ages, have been for merit and free will in a sound sense. And is not this to be adversaries to truth and love, and peace ?

"I formerly thought, that though we agree in the thing, it is best to omit the name, because the papists have abused it; and I think so still in such companies, where the use of it not understood will scandalize men, and do more harm than good. But in other cases, I now think it better to keep the word: 1. Lest we seem to the ignorant to be of another religion than all the ancient churches were.* 2. Lest we harden the papists, Greeks, and others, by denying sound doctrine in terms, which they will think we deny in sense. And, 3. Because our penury of words is such, that, for my part, I remember no other word so fit to substitute instead of merit,' 'desert,' or 6 6 worthiness.' The word 'rewardableness' is long and harsh; but it is nothing else that we mean."-BAXTER's End of Doctrinal Controversies, page 294.

I am glad that my honoured opponent, in the beginning of his fourth letter, does Mr. Wesley the justice to admit of the explanation I have given of that misunderstood assertion, "All who are convinced of sin undervalue themselves." Had you done otherwise, sir, you would have shown "judgment without mercy." Nevertheless, you still think that explanation forced; while many believe it not only natural, and agreeable to Mr. Wesley's whole plan of doctrine, but so solid that no arguments can overthrow it. If you turn to the Second Check, page 331, you will see more clearly, that you do Mr. Wesley no favour in dismissing this article of the Minutes.

But you prepare to attack the next with the utmost vigour. "A part of the Minutes, which you esteem most contrary to sound doctrine, is," say you, "that we are every hour and every moment pleasing or displeasing to God,

"It is a great advantage to the papists," says our judicious author, "that many protestants wholly disclaim the word merit,' and 'mply deny the merit of gospel obedience. For hereupon the teachers show their scholars, that all the fathers speak for merit, and tell them, that the protestant doctrine is new and heretical, as being contrary to all the ancient doctors; and when their scholars see it with their eyes, no won der if they believe it, to our dishonour."

a

according to the whole of our inward tempers and outward behaviour," &c. And it is, I own, diametrically opposite to the favourite sentiment which you thus express: "Though I believe that David's sin displeased the Lord, must I therefore believe that David's person was under the curse of the law?" (I suppose you mean "under God's displeasure;" for of this Mr. Wesley speaks, nor does he mention "the curse of the law” in all the Minutes.) You boldly answer, "Surely, no: like Ephraim, he was still pleasant child: though he went on frowardly," in adultery and murder, "he did not lose the character of the man after God's own heart." My dear sir, you might as well have advanced at once that unguarded proposition of Dr. Crisp, "God does no longer stand displeased, though a believer do sin often; no sin can possibly do him any hurt." Is this what you call "sound doctrine?" And is that the worst part of the Minutes, which opposes such a dangerous tenet? Then how excellent must the other parts be! Indeed, sir, their vindicator could say nothing stronger to demonstrate their soundness, seasonableness, and importance. But let us consider your arguments; and that with such care as the importance of the subject requires.

I. "David's sin displeased the Lord," but not "his person." This is what you must mean, if you oppose Mr. Wesley's proposition. I like your shifting the terms; it is a sign that you are a little ashamed the world should see the good doctor's scheme without some covering. Erubuisti, salva res est. 1. Your intimation, that the Lord was not displeased at David's person bears hard upon the equity and veracity of God. David commits adultery and murder in Jerusalem, and Claudius in Rome. God sees them, and says, agreeably to your scheme, "They are both guilty of the same crimes, and both impenitent; but David is a Jew, an elect, a sheep, and therefore, though he sins against ten times more light than the other, I am not at all displeased at him. But Claudius is an heathen, a reprobate, a goat, and my anger smokes against him; he shall surely die." If this is God's method, how can he make the following appeal? "O house of Israel, are not

my ways equal? Are not your ways unequal?" “The soul that sinneth it shall die:" "Wherefore, turn ye, why will ye die, O house of Israel?" See Ezekiel xviii., and Second Check, page 353.

66

2. Your distinction is overthrown by scripture; for we read, (Gen. xxxviii. 10,) that "the thing which Onan did displeased the Lord." True," might you say upon your scheme, "this is the very thing I assert; this mode of speech shows that God was angry at Onan's sin, and not at his person." But this would be a great mistake, honoured sir; for the sacred historian adds immediately, "Wherefore God slew him also." He showed his heavy displeasure at his person by punishing him with death, as well as his brother Er, "who was wicked in the sight of the Lord."

3. But if you will not believe Mr. Wesley, when he declares, that "God is displeased at the persons of the righteous, the moment they do those things which displease him," believe at least the oracles of God: "God's anger was kindled against Moses: "(Exod. iv. 14:) "The Lord was very angry against Aaron," (Deut. ix. 20,) and with all Israel; witness those awful words, "Let me alone, that I may consume them in a moment." Isaiah, whom you allow to be an elect, says, "Thou wast angry with me;" God himself says, “I was angry with my people;" (Isaiah xlvii. 6;) and David, who frequently deprecates God's wrath in his penitential psalms, observes, that "his anger smokes against the sheep of his pasture," when they go astray. Psalm lxxiv. 1.

4. The new testament inculcates this doctrine as well as the old. St. Paul, having reminded the believers of Ephesus, that "no whoremonger or covetous person hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God,” subjoins this seasonable caution : "Let no man deceive you" no, not those good men, Dr. Crisp and the author of Pietas Oxoniensis: "for because of these things the wrath of God cometh upon the children of disobedience." "Impossible!" say those orthodox protestants; "you may be 'children of disobedience,' not only unto whoredom and covetousness. but unto adultery and murder,