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 shew 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 concur rence 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. 250;✈

all our works, the most specious of them, our righteousness, our prayers, needing an atonement themselves," Second Journal, p. 273.) 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."

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 neighs bours." 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 scepticism, 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.

48. 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 wickedness 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 ???

'Whose fault is this? Is it ours? Or your own? Why have not thousands more been reformed? Yea, for every one who is now turned to God, why are there not ten thousand? Because you and your associates laboured so heartily in the cause of hell: because you and they spared no pains, either to prevent or to destroy the work of God. By using all the power and wisdom you had, you hindered thousands from hearing the gospel, which they might have

is

found to be the power of God unto salvation. Their blood upon your heads. By inventing, or countenancing, or retailing lies, some refined, some gross and palpable, you hindered others from/profiting by what they did hear. You are answerable to God for these souls also. Many who began to taste the good word and run the way of God's commandments, by various methods you prevailed on to hear it no more. So they soon drew back to perdition. But know, that for every one of these also, God will require an account of you in the day of judgment!

'And yet in spite of all the malice, and wisdom, and strength, not only of men, but of principalities and powers,' of the rulers of the darkness of this world,' of the ' wicked spirits in high places; there are thousands found, who are turned from dumb idols to serve the living and true God.' What a harvest then might we have seen before now, if all who say they are 'on the Lord's side,' had come, as in all reason they ought, to the help of the Lord against the mighty?' Yea, had they only not opposed the work of God, had they only refrained from his messengers, might not the trumpet of God have been heard long since, in every corner of our land? And thousands of sinners in every county, been brought to fear God and honour the king?"

44. Without any regard to this, your next assertion is, That the Methodists are "carrying on the work of popery,' (Sect. 21, p. 164, &c.) This also being a charge of a very high nature, I shall particularly consider whatever you advance in defence of it.

Your first argument is, "They have a strain of Jesuitical sophistry, artifice, and craft, evasion, reserve, equivocation, and prevarication." So you say. But you do not so much as aim at any proof.

Your second argument is, "Mr. Wesley says, where a Methodist was receiving the sacrament, God was pleased to let him see a crucified Saviour." Sir, Mr. W. does not say this. It is one that occasionally wrote to him. But if he had, what would you infer? That he is a papist? Where is the conséquence? Why, you say, "was not this as

*

good an argument for transubstantiation, as several produced by the papists?" Yes, exactly as good as either their arguments or yours. That is, just good for nothing. Your third argument runs thus, "We may see in Mr. W,'s writings that he was once a strict churchman, but gradually put on a more catholic spirit, tending at length to Roman catholic. He rejects any design to convert others, from any communion; and consequently not from popery."

This is half true, (which is something uncommon with you,) and only half false. It is true, that for thirty years last past, I have “gradually put on a more catholic spirit,' finding more and more tenderness for those who differed from me, either in opinions or modes of worship. But it is not true, that I "reject any design of converting others from any communion." I have by the blessing of God, con verted several from popery, who are now alive and ready to testify it.

1

Your fourth argument is, That in a collection of prayers, I cite the words of an ancient liturgy, for the faithful de parted.' Sir, whenever I use those words in the burial service, I pray to the same effect. That we, with all those who are departed in thy faith and fear, may have our perfect consummation of bliss, both in body and soul. Yea, and whenever I say, 'Thy kingdom come; for I mean both the kingdom of grace and glory. In this kind of general prayer, therefore, for the faithful departed). I conceive myself to be clearly justified, both by the earliest antiquity, by the Church of England, and by the Lord's prayer; although the Papists have corrupted this scriptural practice, into praying for those who die in their sins.

45. Your fifth argument is, that they use private confession, in which every one is to speak the state of his heart, with his several temptations and deliverances, and answer as many searching questions as may be. And what a scene, say you, is hereby disclosed! What a filthy jakes opened, when the most searching questions are answered without reserve?" Hold, Sir, unless you are answering for yourself. This undoubtedly you have a right to do. You can