1. That performance does not do my sermon justice, for, page 51, Mr. Hill quotes me so: "They," good works, hearers can testify, that it perfectly agrees with Mr. Wesley's well-known doctrine. But what does Mr. Hill? Biassed by his system, he tampers with my quotations; he takes off the two commas after the word "works;" he overlooks the two commas before the word "believing!" he, inadvertently I hope, throws my two distinct quotations into one; and by that means adds to them the words "but by," which I had particularly excluded. When he has thus turned my two just quotations into one that is false, he is pleased to put me in the Geneva pillory for his own mistake; and as his doctrines of grace teach him to kill two birds with one stone, he involves Mr. Wesley in my gratuitous disgrace, thus: "Forgeries of this kind have long passed for no crime with Mr. Wesley; I did not think you would have followed him in these ungenerous artifices." Review, page 27.

Upon the remonstrance I made about this strange way of proceeding; (see note, Fourth Check, pages 41, 42); I hoped that Mr. Hill would have hanged down his head a moment, and dropped the point for ever. But no: he must give a 66 finishing stroke," and drive home the nail of his rash accusation, by calling my remarks upon his mistake, "attempts to vindicate that most shameful false quotation, he," Mr. Fletcher, "has twice made from the Minutes." Log. Wesl., page 35. And to prove that my attempts have been unsuccessful, he produces passages out of a newspaper, which represent "his Majesty "- "stealing bread"-"her Majesty "" committed to the house of correction." To this I answer, that if such unconnected quotations, of which I only give here the substance, were properly distinguished by commas; if they were separated by intervening words; and if they did not in the least misrepresent the author's sense; it would be great injustice to call them either "a most shameful false quotation," or a "forgery." Now these three particulars meet in my two quotations from the Minutes:-1. They are both properly distinguished with commas. 2. They are parted by intervening words. And, 3. They do not in the least misrepresent Mr. Wesley's meaning. Whereas, to say nothing more of the commas expunged in the Review, no word intervenes between Mr. Hill's supposed quotations out of the papers; and they form a shameful misrepresentation of the publisher's meaning.

O! but as the quotations from the Minutes are linked, they "speak a language directly opposite to that of the Minutes themselves." So says Mr. Hill, without producing the shadow of a proof. But upon the arguments of the Five Checks, I affirm that the two gospel axioms, or my linked quotations and the Minutes, agree as perfectly with each other, as those propositions of St. Paul, to which they answer: By grace ye are saved, through faith." Therefore, "work out your salvation with fear."

From this redoubled stroke of Mr. Hill, I am tempted to think, that, like justice, Logica Genevensis has a covering over her eyes; but, alas! for a very different reason. Like her also she has a balance in her left hand; but it is to weigh out and vend her own assertions as proofs. And like her, she holds a sword in her right hand; but alas! it is often to wound brotherly love, and stab evangelical truth. Bring her into the field of controversy, and she will at once cut down Christ's doctrine as

dreadful heresy. Set her in the judgment-seat to pass sentence over good works, and over honest men, that do not bow at her shrine; and without demur she will pronounce, that the former are dung, and that the latter are knaves.

હ are declarative of our free justification:" whereas my manuscript runs thus: "They are the declarative cause of our free justification," viz., in the day of trial and of judgment. The word "cause" here is of the utmost importance to my doctrine, powerfully guarding the Minutes and undefiled religion. Whether it is left out, because it shows at once the absurdity of pretending that my old sermon “is the best confutation of Mr. Wesley's Minutes," or because Mr. Hill's copier omitted it first, is best known to Mr. Hill himself.

2. I say, Fourth Check, pages 141, 142, "To vindicate what I beg leave to call God's honesty, permit me to observe first, that I had rather believe, Joseph told once a 'gross untruth,' than to suppose that God perpetually equivocates." For undoubtedly of two evils I would choose the least, if a cogent dilemma obliged me to choose either. But this is not the case here; the dilemma is not forcible; for in the next lines I show, that Joseph, instead of “ telling a gross untruth," only spake the language of brotherly kindness. However, without paying any regard to my vindication of Joseph's speech, Mr. Hill catches at the conditional words, "I had rather believe:" just as if I had said, "I do actually believe," he turns them into a peremptory declaration of my faith, and three times represents me as asserting what I never said nor believed. Thus, page 38, "Your wonderful assertion, that Joseph told his brethren a gross untruth." Again: "Still you declare it to be your opinion, that Joseph told his brethren a gross untruth." Once more, page 39, "The repeated words of inspiration you venture to call gross untruth." Solomon says, "Who can stand before envy?" And I ask, Who can stand before Mr. Hill's inattention? I am sure neither I nor Mr. Wesley. At this rate he can undoubtedly find a "blasphemy" in every page, and a "farrago" in every book.

ness.

3. Take another instance of the same want of exactI say, Fourth Check, pages 30, 31, "I never thought Mr. Whitefield was clear in the doctrine of our Lord, ‘In the day of judgment by thy words shalt thou be justified;' for if he had seen it in a proper light, he would instantly

have renounced Calvinism." This passage Mr. Hill quotes thus, in italics and commas, page 23, " You never thought him clear in our Lord's doctrine, for if he had, he would have renounced his Calvinism." The inaccuracy of this quotation consists in omitting those important words of our Lord, "In the day of judgment," &c. By this omission the sense of the preceding clause is left indefinite, and I am represented as saying, that Mr. Whitefield was not clear in any doctrine of our Lord, no, not in that of the fall, repentance, salvation by faith, the new birth, &c. This one mistake of Mr. Hill is sufficient to make me pass for a mere coxcomb in all the Calvinistic world.

4. It is by the like inattention, that Mr. Hill prejudices also against me the friends of Mr. Wesley. In the Fourth Check, page 134, after having answered an objection of the Rev. Mr. Hill against Mr. Wesley, I produce that objection again for a fuller answer, and say, "But supposing that Mr. Wesley had not properly considered, &c., what would you infer from thence? &c. Weigh your argument, &c., and you will find it is wanting." Then I immediately produced Mr. Hill's objection in the form of an argument, thus: "Twenty-three, or, if you please, three years ago, Mr. Wesley wanted clearer light," &c. Now what I evidently produce as a supposition, and as the Rev. Mr. Hill's own argument unfolded, in order to answer it, my opponent fathers upon me, thus:" The following are your own words: 'Three years ago, Mr. Wesley wanted clearer light,'" &c. True, they are my own words; but to do me justice, Mr. Hill should have produced them as I do, namely as a supposition, and as the drift of his brother's objection in order to show its frivolousness. This is partly such a mistake as if Mr. Hill said, The following are David's own words, "Tush! there is no God."

However, he is determined to improve his own oversight; and he does it by asking, page 17, "What then is become of thousands of Mr. Wesley's followers, who died before this clearer light came?" An argument this, by which the most ignorant papists in my parish perpetually defend their

tion of all "celebrated ministers," and of all their congregations; and that, upon so glaring a mistake, he should represent me as making them "all go to hell together?"

SECTION XIV. O ye pious Calvinists, whether ye fill our celebrated pulpits, or attend upon them that do, far from sending you "all to hell together," as you are told I do, I exult in hope of meeting you all together in heaven: I lie not; I speak the truth in Him that shall justify us by our words: even now I enjoy a foretaste of heaven in lying at your feet in spirit; and my conscience bears me witness, that though I try to detect and oppose your mistakes, I sincerely love and honour your persons. My regard for you, as zealous defenders of the first gospel axiom, is unalterable. Though your mistaken zeal should prompt you to think or say all manner of evil against me, because I help Mr. Wesley to defend the second, I am determined to offer you still the right hand of fellowship: and if any of you should honour me so far as to accept it, I shall think myself peculiarly happy; for, next to Jesus and truth, the esteem and love of good men is what I consider as the most invaluable blessings. A desire to recover the interest I once had in the brotherly kindness of some of you, has, in part, engaged me to clear myself from the mistaken charges of calumny and forgery, by which my hasty opponent has prejudiced you against me and my Checks. If you find that he has defended your cause with carnal weapons, hope, with me, that precipitation and too warm a zeal for your doctrines, have misled him, and not malice or disingenuity.

Hope it also, ye anti-Calvinists, considering that if St. James and St. John, through mere bigotry and impatience of opposition, were once ready to command fire from heaven to come down upon the Samaritans, it is no wonder that Mr. Hill, in an unguarded moment, should have commanded the fire of his Calvinistic zeal to kindle against Mr. Wesley and me. As you do not unchristian now the two rash apostles for a sin of which they immediately repented, let me beseech you to confirm

your love towards Mr. Hill, who has, probably, repented already of the mistakes into which his peculiar sentiments have betrayed his good nature and good breeding.

to "

SECTION XV. I return to you, honoured sir, and beg you would forgive me the liberty I have taken, to lay before the public what I should have been glad to have buried in eternal oblivion; but your "Finishing Stroke” has been so heavy and desperate, as to make this addition Logica Genevensis" necessary to clear up my doctrine, to vindicate my honesty, to point out the mistaken author of the " Farrago," and to give the world a new specimen of the arguments by which your system must be defended, when reason, conscience, and scripture (the three most formidable batteries in the world) begin to play upon its ramparts.

66

You earnestly entreat" me in your postscript, to publish a manuscript sermon on Rom. xi. 5, 6, that I preached about eleven years ago in my church, in defence of the first gospel axiom. You are pleased to call it three times “excellent ;" and you present the public with an extract from it, made up of some unguarded passages, detached from those that in a great degree guard them, explain my meaning, confirm the doctrine of the Checks, and sap the foundation of your mistakes. As I am not less willing to defend free grace, than to plead for faithful obedience, I shall gladly grant your request, so far, at least, as to send my old sermon into the world with additions in brackets, just as I preached it again last spring; assuring you that the greatest addition is in favour of free grace. By thus complying with your "earnest entreaty," I shall show my respect, meet you half-way, gratify the curiosity of our readers, and yet give them a specimen of what appears to me a free, guarded gospel.

That discourse will be the principal piece of " An Equal Check to Pharisaism and Antinomianism," which I have prepared for the press. Upon the plan of the doctrines it contains, I do not despair to see moderate Calvinists, and unprejudiced anti-Calvinists, acknowledge their mutual orthodoxy, and embrace one another with mutual forbearance.