not superior to any one of his controversial pieces published in his life-time." Indeed, I know of no controversial piece at all which he published in his life-time. His Dia logues he no more intended for such, than his Meditations among the Tombs. A second reason for doubting of their authenticity is, that he told his brother, with his dying voice, (I have it under his brother's own hand,) "I desire my letters may not be published: because great part of them is written in a short-hand, which none but myself can read."

11. But the present question lies, not between me and Mr. Hervey, but between Dr. E. and me. He vehemently attacks me, for saying, Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy, or right opinion, is at best, but a very slender part of religion, if any part of it at all.' He labours to deduce the most frightful consequences from it, and cries, "If once men believe, that right opinion is a slender part of religion, if any part of religion, or no part at all, there is scarce any thing so foolish, or so wicked, which Satan may not prompt to," (p. 6.) And what if, after all, Dr. E. himself believes the very same thing? I am much mistaken if he does not. Let us now fairly make the trial.

I assert, 1. That, in some cases' right opinion is no part of religion:' in other words, there may be right opinion, where there is no religion. I instance, in the devil. Has he not right opinions? Dr. E. must, per force, say, Yes. Has he religion? Dr. E. must say, No. Therefore, here right opinion is no part of religion. Thus far then Dr. E. himself believes as I do.

I assert, 2. In some cases,.It is a slender part of religion.” Observe, I speak of right opinion, as contra-distinguished both from right tempers and from right words and actions. Of this, I say, 'it is a slender part of religion.' And can Dr. E. say otherwise? Surely, no: nor any man living, unless he be brimful of the spirit of contradiction.

"Nay, but I affirm, right tempers cannot subsist without right opinion: the love of God, for instance, cannot subsist VOL. XIII.

I'

without a right opinion of him." I have never said any thing to the contrary: but this is another question. Though right tempers cannot subsist without right opinion, yet right opinion may subsist without right tempers. There may be a right opinion of God, without either love, or one right temper toward him. Satan is a proof of it. All therefore that I assert in this matter, Dr. E. must affirm too.

But does it hence follow, "that ignorance and error are as friendly to virtue as just sentiments ?" Or, that any man may "disbelieve the bible with perfect innocence or safety ?? Does Dr. E. himself think I believe this? I take upon me to say, he does not think so. But why does he talk as if he did? "Because it is a clear consequence from your own assertion." I answer, 1. If it be, that consequence is as chargeable on Dr. E. as on me: since he must, nolens volens, assert the same thing, unless he will dispute through a stone wall. 2. This is no consequence at all. For admitting "right tempers cannot subsist without right opinions," you cannot infer, therefore right opinions cannot subsist without right tempers." Prove this by other mediums, if you can: but it will never be proved by this. However, until this is done, I hope to hear no more of this thread-bare objection.

III. Dr. E. attacks me, Secondly, with equal vehemence, on the head of Justification. In various parts of his tract, he flatly charges me with holding justification by works. In support of this charge, he cites several sentences out of various treatises, abridgments of which I have occasionally published within these thirty years. As I have not those abridgments by me now, I suppose the citations are fairly made and that they are exactly made, without any mistake, either designed or undesigned. I will suppose likewise, that some of these expressions, gleaned up from several tracts, are indefensible. And what is it which any unprejudiced person can infer from this? Will any candid man judge of my sentiments, either on this, or any other head, from a few sentences of other men, (though reprinted by me, after premising, that I did not approve of all their expressions,) or from my own avowed, explicit

declarations repeated over and over? Yet this is the way by which Dr. E. proves, that I hold justification by works! He continually cites the words of those authors as mine, telling his reader, "Mr. Wesley says thus and thus." I do not say so; and no man can prove it, unless by citing my own words. I believe justification by faith alone, as much as I believe there is a God. I declared this in a sermon preached before the university of Oxford, eight and twenty years ago. I declared it to all the world eighteen years ago, in a sermon written expressly on the subject. I have never varied from it, no, not an hair's breadth, from 1738 to this day. Is it not strange, then, that at this time of day any one should face me down, (yea, and one who has that very volume in his hands, wherein that sermon on justification by faith is contained,) that I hold justification by works? And that, truly, because there are some expressions in some tracts written by other men, but reprinted by me during a course of years, which seem (at least) to countenance that doctrine! Let it suffice, (and it will suffice for every impartial man,) that I absolutely, once for all, renounce every expression which contradicts that fundamental truth, We are justified by faith alone.

"But you have published John Goodwin's Treatise on Justification." I have so: but I have not undertaken to defend every expression which occurs therein. Therefore none has a right to palm them upon the world as mine. And yet I desire no one will condemn that treatise before he has carefully read it over; and that seriously and carefully; for it can hardly be understood by a slight and cursory reading. And let whoever has read it declare, whether he has not proved every article he asserts, not only by plain express Scripture, but by the authority of the most eminent Reformers. If Dr. E. thinks otherwise, let him confute him; but let no man condemn what he cannot answer.

IV. Dr. E. attacks me, thirdly, on the head of Christian Perfection. It is not my design to enter into the merits of the cause. I would only just observe, 1. That the great argument which Dr. E. brings against it, is of no force; and

2. That he misunderstands and misrepresents my sentiments on the subject.

First, His great argument against it is of no force. It runs thus "Paul's contention with Barnabas, is a strong argument against the attainableness of perfection in this life," (p. 41.) True, if we judge by the bare sound of the English version. But Dr. E. reads the original: naι ɛyɛveto zapožvoμos. It does not say, that sharpness was on both sides. It does not say, that all or any part of it was on St. Paul's side. Neither does the context prove, that he was in any fault at all. Indeed, 'he thought it not good to take him with them,' who had deserted them before. Now cer→ tainly there was no blame in this: neither was there any in his subsequent behaviour. For when Barnabas also departed from it, he went on still in the work. He went through Syria and Cilicia,' as he had proposed, confirming the churches.'

،

Secondly, He misunderstands and misrepresents my sentiments on the subject. He says, "Mr. Wesley seems to maintain, that sinless perfection is actually attained by every one born of God," p. 59.

I do not maintain this. I do not believe it. I believe Christian perfection or perfect love, (sinless perfection, is an expression which I do not use or contend for,) is not attained by any of the children of God, till they are what the apostle John terms fathers. And this I expressly declare in that very sermon which Dr. E. so largely quotes.

IV. Why Dr. E should quarrel with me concerning natural free-will, I cannot conceive, unless for quarrelling's sake. For it is certain on this head, if no other, we are precisely of one mind. I believe that Adam before his fall had such freedom of will, that he might choose either good or evil; but that since the fall no child of man has a natural power to choose any thing that is truly good. Yet I know (and who does not?) that man has still freedom of will in things of an indifferent nature. Does not Dr. E. agree with me in this? O why should we seek occasion of contention ?

V. That Michael Servetus was "one of the wildest antitrinitarians that ever appeared," is by no means clear. I doubt of it, on the authority of Calvin himself, who certainly was not prejudiced in his favour. For if Calvin does not misquote his words, he was no antitrinitarian at all. Calvin himself gives a quotation from one of his letters, in which he expressly declares, "I do believe the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. But I dare not use the word Trinity or Person." I dare, and I think them very good words. But I should think it very hard to be burnt alive for not using them: especially with a slow fire, made of moist, green wood!

I believe Calvin was a great instrument of God; and that he was a wise and pious man. But I cannot but advise those who love his memory to let Servetus alone. Yet if any one resolves to understand the whole affair, he may see a circumstantial account of it, published some years since by Dr. Chandler, an eminent Presbyterian divine in London.

VI. Of myself I shall speak a little by and by. But I would now speak of the Methodists, so called, in general. Concerning these, Dr. E. cites the following words, from a little tract, published some years since.*

"We look upon ourselves, not as the authors or ringleaders of a particular sect or party, but as messengers of God to those who are Christians in name, but Heathens in heart and life, to call them back to that from which they are fallen, to real, genuine Christianity."-"We look upon the Methodists, not as any particular party, but as living witnesses, in and to every party, of that Christianity which we preach," p. 3.

On this Dr. E. remarks, "If the Methodist teachers confined themselves to preaching, there might be some room for this plea but hardly, when they form bands and classes:" that is, when they advise those who are "recalled to real Christianity" to watch over each other, lest they fall

* Advice to the People called Methodists.