With respect to Mr. Hill's arguments they are the fame which he advanced in his Finishing Stroke: Nör need we wonder at his not fcrupling to produce them over again, just as if they had been overlooked by his opponent; for in the first page of his book he fays, "I have not read a fingle page, which treats on the jub ject fince I wrote my FINISHING STROKE." But, if Mr. Hill has not read my anfwer to that piece, fome of our readers have; and they may remember, that the crambe repetita-I mean his fuppofition, that St. Paul and St. John held Dr. Crifp's doctrinal peculiarities, is answered in the Vth Check. Part I, from page 2, to page 9. As for his common plea taken from the objection, Who hath refifted his will? it is anfwered in this book, page 131.

-

He

As Mr. Hill's arguments are the fame, fo are alīb his perfonal charges. After paffing fome compliments upon me as an "able defender" of Mr. Welley's principles, he continues to reprefent me as "proftituting noble endowments to the advancing of a party." affirms [ftill without fhadow of proof] that he has detected many mifreprefentations of facts throughout my. publications." He accufes me of, ufing "unbecoming artifices-much declamation, chicanery, and evafion," and says, Upon thefe accounts I really cannot with any de"gree of fatisfaction, &c. read the works of one, who "I am in continual fufpicion, is endeavouring to mislead

66

me by falfe gloffes and pious frauds."-If I were per mitted to put this argument in plain english, it would run thus I befpatter my opponent's character, therefore his arguments are dangerous and not worth my. notice: I do not find it easy to overthrow one of the many fcriptures, which he has produced against antinomianifm, but I can fet them all afide at a FINISH ING STROKE; for I can fay, "The Shocking misrepre», fentations 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. So here

66

66

the controversy MUST END." FIN. STROKE, p. 40. -When Mr. Hill had explained himfelf fo clearly

about

about his reafon for declining the controversy, is it not furprizing that he should fuffer his bookfeller to get SIX-PENCE for a new pamphlet, "fetting forth Mr. Hill's reafons for declining any farther controverfy relative to Mr. Wefley's principles,"—i. e. to Mr. Wefley's anti-folifidian doctrine, of which I profefs myself the Vindicator.

But another author vindicates thofe principles alfo. It is Mr. Olivers, whom Mr. Hill calls "one Thomas Oliver, alias Olivers." This author, was 25 years ago a mechanic, and [like "one" Peter, "alias" Simon, a fisherman; and "one" Saul, "alias" Paul, a tentmaker] has had the honour of being promoted to the dignity of a preacher of the gofpel; and his talents, as a writer, a logician, a poet, and a compofer of facred mufic, are known to thofe who have looked into his publications. Mr. Hill informs the public why he takes as little notice of this able opponent's arguments as he does of mine : and the "reason" he "Jets forth," is worthy of the caufe which he defends. En argumentum palmarium! I fhall "not," fays he, "the leaft notice of him, or read a line of his compofition, any more than, if I was travelling on the road, I "would ftop to lash, or even order my footman to lash,

66

take

every impertinent little quadruped in a village, that "Should come out and bark at me; but would willingly "let the contemptible animal have the fatisfaction of "thinking he had driven me out of fight." How lordly is this fpeech! How furprizing in the mouth of a good man, who fays to the CARPENTER, My Lord and my God! When the author of "Goliath Slain" dropped it from his victorious pen, had he forgotten the voluntary humility, for which his doctrines of grace are fo confpicuous? or did he come off in triumph from the Slaughter of the gigantic Philiftine?-O ye English Proteftants fhall fuch lordly arguments as thefe, make you fubmit to Geneva-fovereignty? Will you be "lah'd" by fuch ftately logic as this, to the foot of the great image, upon whofe back you fee abfolute Preterition written in fuch large characters? Will you fuffer rea

fen

fon and feripture to be whipped out of the field of controverfy in this defpotic manner? Shall fuch imperial cords as these, bind you to the horns of an altar, where myriads of men are intentionally flain before they are born, and around which injudicious worshippers fo fing their unfcriptural fongs about finished falvation, as to drown the dismal cries of enfured deftruction and finished damnation !

Mr. Hill's performance is closed by "a fhocking, not to say blafphemous confeffion of faith," in Ten articles, which he fuppofes "must inevitably be adopted, if not in exprefs words yet in fubftance, by every Arminian whatsoever," efpecially by Mr. Wefley, Mr. Sellon, and myfelf. As we defire to let true Proteftants fee the depth of our doctrinė, that they may fide with us if we are right, or point out our errors if we are wrong, I defign to produce that creed in the fecond part of this work; frankly adopting what is agreeable to our principles, and returning to Mr. Hill, the errors which his inattention makes him confider as neceffary confequences of our doctrines of grace.

With respect to the three letters, which that gentleman has published to fet forth his reafons for declining the controverfy with me, what are they to the purpose Does not the first of them bear date "July 31, 1773." Now I beg any unprejudiced perfon to decide if a private letter, written in July 31, 1773, can contain a reafonable overture for DECLINING THE CONTROVERSY, when the Finishing Stroke, which was given me publicly, and bears date January 1, 1773, contains (page 40) this explicit and final declining of it.

So

66 HERE the CONTROVERSY MUST END, at least it 66 SHALL END FOR ME. Yon may mifquote, and mifre"prefent whomfoever and whatsoever you please, and 66 you may do it with impunity; I ASSURE YOU, I "hall give MYSELF NO TROUBLE to detect you." If I had received this finishing froke in January, the controversy was "declined" in January on the abovementioned bitter reafon. Mr. Hill cannot then reasonably pretend to have offered to decline it in July, fix

or feven months after this, from feet reafons of brotherly kindness, and love for peace. "But in July Mr. Hill wrote to his bookfeller to fell no more of any of his pamphlets which relate to the Minutes." True: but this was not declining the controversy; and here is the proof: Mr. Hill still profeffes "declining any farther controverfy about the Minutes," and yet in this his last publication, page 11th, he advertises the fale of all the books which he has written against them, from the Paris Converfation to the Finishing Stroke. Therefore, Mr. Hill himself being judge, declining the controverfy and flopping the fale of his books are different things.

Concerning the three letters I fhall only add, that I could with Mr. Hill had published my anfwers to them, that his readers might have seen, I have not been lefs ready to return his private civilities, than to ward off his public strokes. In one of them in particular, I offered to fend him my answer to his Finishing Stroke before it went to the prefs, that he might let me know if in any thing I had misunderstood or mifreprefented him; promifing to alter my manufcript upon any juft animadverfion that he might make upon it; because, after his FINISHING STROKE, he could not make a public reply without breaking his word. And it is to this propofal, that he replies thus in his second letter, "As you intend to introduce my worthless name into your next publication, I muft beg to decline the obliging offer you make of my perufing your manufcript."

With refpect to that gentleman's character, this afterclap does not alter my thoughts of it. I cannot but ftill love and honour him on manyvery many accounts. Tho' his warm attachment to what he calls "the doctrines of grace." [and what we call " the doctrines of limited grace and free wrath"] robs him, from time to time, of part of the moderation, patience, and meekness of witdom, which adorn the complete christian character; I cannot but confider him as a very valuable perfon. I do not doubt but, when the paroxism of his calvinistic zeal shall be over, he will be as great an ornament to the church of England in

the

the capacity of a gentleman, as he is to civil fociety in the capacity of a magiftrate. And juftice, as well as love, obliges me to fay, that in the mean time he is in feveral respects a pattern for all gentlemen of fortune; few equalling him in devoting a large fortune to the relief of the poor, and their leisure hours to the support of what they esteem the truth. Happy would it be for him, and for the peace of the church. if to all his good qualities he always added the ornament of a meek and quiet fpirit; and if he so far fufpected his orthodoxy, as to condefcend to weigh himself in the Scripture-Scales.

THE