from brotherly kindness, when you call Dr. Crisp's Calvinistic mistake, an "execrable slander" of mine?

You

SECTION X. Pages 21, 22, you find fault with my saying, "Is this (Christ's praying for Peter) a proof that he never prayed for Judas?" and you declare, that this "assertion' (you should have said query) "does little honour to the advocacy of Christ." Permit me, sir, to explain myself. Though I believe, with Bishop Latimer, that "Christ shed as much blood for Judas as for Peter," I never said nor believed, as you insinuate, "that Christ took more pains for the salvation of Judas than for that of Peter." cannot justly infer it from my mentioning a matter of fact recorded in scripture, namely, that once our Lord spoke to Judas, when he only looked at Peter; for he had explicitly warned Peter before. Therefore, in either case Christ showed himself void (not of a peculiar regard for Peter's peculiar sincerity, but) of Calvinistic partiality. Again: I am persuaded, that during the day of Judas's visitation, Christ prayed for him, and sincerely too; for if Christ had borne him a grudge, and, in consequence of it, had always made mental reserves, and excepted him, when he prayed for his apostles; would he not have broken the second table of the law? And might he not be proposed as a pattern of inveterate malice, rather than of perfect charity?

You reply, page 22, "If this were the case,” (that is, if our Lord prayed for Judas,) "those words of his, 'I know thou hearest me always,' must be untrue; for when he prayed for Judas, his prayer was rejected." But is your inference just? Christ always prayed with divine wisdom, and according to his Father's will. Therefore he prayed consistently with the eternal decree, that moral agents shall be invited, drawn, and gently moved, but not forced, to obey the gospel. Now, if our Lord prayed conditionally for Judas, (as he certainly did for all his murderers, since they were not all forgiven,) he might say, "I know thou hearest me always;" and yet Judas might, by his perverseness, as a free agent, reject against himself the gracious counsel of God, till he was absolutely given up. Thus our scheme of doctrine, instead of dishonouring Christ's advocacy, represents it in a rational and scriptural

light; while yours, I fear, wounds his character in the tenderest part, and fixes upon him the blot of cunning uncharitableness and profound dissimulation.

SECTION XI. Page 26, you say, "Time would fail me to pretend to enumerate the many gross misrepresentations, &c. However, as you have actually represented me as saying, that the more a believer sins upon earth, the merrier he will be in heaven, I beg you will point out to me where, in the plain easy sense of my words, I have spoken any such thing; or where I have ever used so ludicrous an expression as 'mirth,' &c., when speaking of those pleasures which are at God's right hand for evermore.”

I conclude my antinomian creed thus, Fourth Check, page 91: "Adultery, incest, and murder shall, upon the whole, make me holier upon earth and merrier in heaven." Two lines below, I observe that, "I am indebted to you for all the doctrines, and most of the expressions, of this creed." You have, therefore, no right to say, Where have I used the expression "merry?" for I never said you have used it, though our Lord has, Luke xv. 32. But as you have a right to say, Where is the doctrine? I reply: In your fourth letter, sir; where you tell us, that a grievous fall will make believers sing louder in heaven to all eternity. Now, as louder songs are a certain indication of greater joy, where nothing is done in hypocrisy, I desire even Calvinists to say, if I have wrested "the plain, easy sense of your words," in observing that, according to your scheme, apostates shall be merrier, or, if you please, more joyful, in heaven for their grievous falls on earth.

Page 27. "Now, sir, give me leave to pluck a feather out of your high-soaring wings, &c., by asking you simply, Whence have you taken it?" (this quotation so called.) “Did I ever assert any thing like this? &c. Prove your point, and then I will confess that you are no calumniator of God's people." I answer,

you

1. I did not produce as a quotation the words which allude to: I put them in commas, as expressive of the sentiments of " many good men." How, then, could you think, that you alone are many good men? 2. But you say that you, for one, understand the words of St. John,

66

66

"He that doeth righteousness is righteous," of personal holiness. Now, sir, to prove me a calumniator," you have only to prove that David did righteousness when he defiled Uriah's wife; for you teach us, directly or indirectly, that when he committed that crime he was "undefiled," and continued to be "a man after God's own heart," that is, a righteous man, for "the Lord alloweth the righteous, but the ungodly does his soul abhor." 3. However, if I have mistaken one of the scriptures on which you found your doctrine, I have not mistaken the doctrine itself. What are the words for which you call me a calumniator," and charge me with "horrid perversion, falsehood, and base disingenuity?" Why, I have represented "many good men " as saying, (by the general tenor of one of their doctrines of grace, the absolute perseverance of fallen, adulterous, idolatrous, incestuous believers,) “Let not Mr. Wesley deceive you: he that actually liveth with another man's wife, worships abominable idols, and commits incest with his father's wife, may not only be righteous, but complete in imputed righteousness," &c. This is the doctrine I charge upon "many good men;" and if you, for one, say, "Did I ever assert any thing like this?" I reply, "Yes, sir, in your fourth letter, which is a professed attempt to prove, that believers may, like adulterous David, idolatrous Solomon, and the incestuous Corinthian, go any length in sin without ceasing to stand complete in what I beg leave to call Calvinistic righteousness." Thus, instead of "plucking a feather out of my wings," you wing the arrow which I let fly at your great Diana.

SECTION XII. For brevity's sake, I shall reduce my answer to the rest of your capital charges into plain queries, not doubting but my judicious readers will see their unreasonableness, without the help of arguments.

66

1. Is it right in Mr. Hill to call, pages 34, 35, my extract from Flavel, a "citation," and a quotation," and then to charge me with disingenuity, gross perversion, expunging, &c., because I have not swelled my extract by transcribing all Flavel's book, or because I have taken only what suits the present times, and what is altogether con

sistent? especially when I have observed, Fourth Check, page 48, that, "when Flavel encounters antinomian errors as a disciple of Calvin, his hands hang down, Amalek prevails, and a shrewd logician could, without any magical power, force him to confess, that most of the errors, which he so justly opposes, are the natural consequences of Calvinism?"

2. Is it right in Mr. Hill to charge me, page 57, with "base forgeries;" and to represent me, page 56, as “descending to the poor, illiberal arts of forgery and defamation," because I have presented the public with a parable, in the dress of a royal proclamation, which I produce as a mere "illustration;" because I charge him with indirectly propagating tenets which as necessarily flow from his doctrines of grace, as light does from the sun; and because I have distinguished by commas a creed framed with his avowed principles; although I have added these words, to show that I took the composition of it upon myself?—“You speak, indeed, in the third person, and I in the first, but this alters not the doctrine. Some clauses and sentences

I have added, not to misrepresent and blacken," (for what need is there of blackening the sable mantle of midnight?) "but to introduce, connect, and illustrate your senti

ments."

3. Angry as the pharisees were at our Lord, when he exposed their errors by parables, did they ever charge him with base forgery, because his "illustrations" were not true stories? Is it not strange that this admirable way of defending "the truth" should have been found out by the grand defender of "the doctrines of grace?" Again: if marking with commas a paragraph of our composing, to distinguish it from our own real sentiments, is a crime; is not Mr. Hill as criminal as myself? Does he not, page 31, present the public with a card of his own composing, in which he holds forth the supposed sentiments of many clergymen, and which he distinguishes with commas thus: "The Feathers' Tavern fraternity present compliments to Messrs. J. Wesley and Fletcher," &c.? Shall what passes for wit in the author of "Pietas Oxoniensis," be gross disingenuity and base forgery in the author of the

“Vindication ?” O ye candid Calvinists, partial as your system is, can you possibly approve of such glaring partiality? 4. Is it right in Mr. Hill, to take his leave of me in this abrupt manner, pages 39, 40: "The unfair quotations you have made, and the shocking misrepresentations and calumnies you have been guilty of, will for the future prevent me from looking into any of your books, if you should write a thousand volumes: and this especially under pretence, that I have "shamefully perverted and misrepresented the doctrines of Anthony Burgess,” when I have simply produced a quotation from him, in which there is not a shadow of misrepresentation, as the reader will see by comparing Fourth Check, page 36, with the last paragraph of the twelfth sermon of Mr. Burgess, on grace and assurance.

SECTION XIII.-This perpetual noise about "gross misrepresentations, shameful perversions, interpolations, base forgeries," &c., becomes Mr. Hill as little as any man; his own inaccuracy in quotations equalling that of the most inattentive writer I am acquainted with. Our readers have seen, on what a slender basis he rests his charge of "base forgeries:" I beg leave to show them now, on what solid ground I rest my charge of uncommon inaccuracy; and, not to intrude too long upon their patience, I shall just produce a few instances only out of his "Finishing Stroke."

To produce such instances out of the Review would be almost endless. One, however, Mr. Hill forces me to touch upon a second time. This is the case :-The sword of the Spirit which Mr. Wesley uses is two-edged. When he defends the first gospel axiom against the pharisees, he preaches "salvation, not by the merit of works, but by believing in Christ:" and when he defends the second gospel axiom against the antinomians, he preaches "salvation, not by the merit of works, but by works as a condition." No sooner did the Calvinists see this last proposition at full length in the Minutes, than they took the alarm, fondly imagining that Mr. Wesley wanted to overthrow the protestant doctrine of salvation by faith. To convince them of their mistake, I appealed to Mr. Wesley's works in general, and to the Minutes in particular; two sentences of which evidently show, that he had not the least intention of setting aside faith in Christ, in order to make way for the antichristian merit of works. Accordingly I laid those sentences before my readers, taking special care to show by commas, that I produce two different parts of the Minutes, thus: "Not by the merit of works," but by "believing in Christ." Here is not a shadow of disingenuity; either as to the quotations, for they are fairly taken from the Minutes; or as to the sense of the whole sentences, for fifty volumes, and myriads of