"What is the law but Divine virtue and wisdom, assuming a visible form? What is it but the original ideas of truth and good, which were lodged in the uncreated mind from eternity, now drawn forth and clothed with such a vehicle, as to appear even to human understanding?

"The law of God is a copy of the eternal mind, a transcript of the Divine nature; yea, it is the fairest offspring of the everlasting Father, the brighest efflux of his essential wisdom, the visible beauty of the Most High." Are these low and scanty apprehensions of God's law? Or are any such found in the preceding sermons? Can any one form higher apprehensions of it? If not, let this accusation sink for ever.

16. I am accused, in the Eleventh place, for teaching Popish doctrine:

"Mr. Wesley, setting aside pardon and reconciliation, together with the one perfect righteousness that procures them," (I set aside neither the one or the other,)" ascribes all to the love of God. This notion may pass current at Rome, but not among the Protestant churches." (p. 101.)

"This was the doctrine established by the Council of Trent." (But it is not mine.) "This is still maintained in the conclave of Rome." (p. 117.) But it is not maintained by me, nor any of my friends. We teach quite the contrary.

"I acquit you from the charge of being a Jesuit or a Papist ;" (so far, so good;) "but nobody, I apprehend, can acquit your principles from halting between Protestantism and Popery :" (no more than the principles of all who believe that "Christ tasted death for ever man :")" You have stolen the unhallowed fire, and are infected with the leaven of Antichrist. You have adopted Papistical tenets," (I know not which, and should be glad any one would inform me,) "and are listening to 'the mother of abominations' more than you are aware." (p. 118.) But let it be observed, the holding universal redemption is no proof of this. For thousands of Papists, yea, all the Dominican friars, hold particular redemption.

"The moment in which saints depart from the body, they are in the highest heavens. Here is no hint of any intermediate state. This is the Popish notion." And the Protestant too: it is the notion of many very eminent divines of our own Church. Bishop Smalridge, in particular, has published a celebrated sermon upon it. "I am very sorry your opinions are so much like the man of sin." (Ib.)

In this article they are not like at all; they are directly opposite. For the Papists believe, even good men undergo a painful purgatory after death. I believe there is no pain after death, unless to those who perish for ever.

17. The grand charge remains: I am accused, Lastly, and that over and over, in great variety of expressions, of being a knave, a dishonest man, one of no truth, justice, or integrity.

"(1.) The First proof of it is this: We have Aspasio's words; but in a patched and disfigured condition.'" (p. 20.)

The words I quoted are: "As sin and misery have abounded through the First Adam, mercy and grace have much more abounded through the Second; so that now none have reason to complain."

So

That Aspasio's words are here abridged, is true; that they are patched disfigured, is not true, as every man of common sense must see. this is no proof of dishonesty.

"(2.) See another: Turn inward, and you will probably discern more than a little disingenuity in your own procedure.'" (p. 83.)

Mr. Hervey said, "On Christ's death sinners are to rely as the cause of their forgiveness; on Christ's obedience, as the ground of their acceptance." I asked, "How does this agree with page 58, where we read these words? However I may express myself, I would always have the obedience and the death of Christ understood as a glorious aggregate, looking upon all this as the foundation of my hope.' " I ask again, How does the former sentence agree with this? And if a man think it agrees perfectly well, yet he has no ground to charge me with disingenuity for thinking otherwise.

"(3.) A Third proof is brought, p. 37: Theron calls the terms inherent and imputed, nice distinctions, and metaphysical subtilties. Mr. Wesley makes Aspasio apply this to the active and passive righteousness of Christ, whereas he is treating of a subject totally different." "

Upon recurring to the "Dialogues," I find this is true. Here therefore is a breach of literary justice. But it was not a designed one; as may appear from hence, that this was originally sent to Mr. Hervey himself, and him only. Now, had I been ever so dishonest, I should not have been so foolish, had I been conscious of any dishonest dealing, as to appeal to him, who of all others could not fail immediately to detect it.

"(4.) A Fourth runs thus: Barely to demonstrate his sovereignty, is a principle of action fit for the Great Turk, not the Most High God. Such a fraudulent quotation I have not seen, no, not in the Critical Reviewers. To mark the first sentence with commas, and thereby assign it to me, is really a masterpiece, especially when you have thrust in the word barely, and lopped off the word grace." (p. 284.)

In my Letter the whole paragraph is: "The grand end which God proposes in all his favourable dispensations to fallen man is, to demonstrate the sovereignty of his grace.'" (Is the word barely thrust in here, or the word grace lopped off? And could any one, who had eyes to read this, be deceived by my citing afterward part of this sentence?) Not so; to impart happiness to his creatures is his grand end herein. Barely to demonstrate his sovereignty' is a principle of action fit for the Great Turk, not the Most High God.

You see, there needs only to correct the mistake of the printer, who set the commas on the wrong word, and this "specimen too of my want of integrity" vanishes into nothing.

Suffer me to observe once more, (and let it be once for all,) that the sending false quotations of a man's book to himself, and that while there was not the least design or thought of publishing what was so sent, could never be a proof of want of integrity, but of attention, or, at most, of understanding.

6

"(5.) But this will not avail in the following case: Review a passage of your book on Original Sin. Here you scruple not to overleap the bounds of sincerity and truth. Aspasio had said, As Adam was a public person, and acted in the stead of all mankind; so Christ was a public person, and acted in behalf of all his people. As Adam was the first general representative of this kind, Christ was the second and the last.' Here you substitute the word mankind instead of this kind. I at first thought, it might be an inadvertency, or an error of the press, till I looked to the bottom of the page, where I found

the following words inclosed within the marks of the same quotation:" (that is, the commas, which ought to have been set five lines sooner, are set at the end of the paragraph:) "All these expressions demonstrate, that Adam (18 well as Christ) was a representative of all mankind; and that what he did in this capacity did not terminate in himself, but affected all whom he represented." " (Original Sin, p. 268; Dialogues, p. 137.) "Then I could no longer forbear crying out, There is treachery, O Ahaziah!" (p. 278.)

Treachery! Cui bono? "For what end?" Can any guess? What was I to gain thereby? Of what possible advantage could it be, either to me or to the cause I was defending? What possible view could I have therein? And would I cheat for cheating sake? I was not here talking either of general or particular redemption. I purposely declined entering into the question throughout that whole treatise. Every candid man will therefore naturally suppose, that both the misplacing the commas, and the putting mankind for this kind, were the printer's fault, not mine; a part of those numerous errors of the press, which were occasioned by my absence from it, and the inaccuracy of the cor

rector.

18. I will not tire either my reader or myself, by citing any more passages of this kind; although the circumstances are so plausibly related, and so strongly amplified, that, upon the first reading of each, I was myself ready to cry out, "Surely this must be true!" I hope the preceding specimen may suffice, and prevent impartial men from judging rashly. I shall add but one passage more; but it is a very extraordinary one; such as none can deny to be a home thrust, a blow under the fifth rib:

66

My dear sir, let me give you a word of friendly advice. Before you turn Turk, Deist, or Atheist, see that you first become an honest man. They will all disown you, if you go over to their party destitute of common honesty." (p. 277.)

Upon what is this wonderful advice grounded? and this peremptory declaration, that, as I am now, even Turks and Deists, yea, Atheists, would disown me?. Why, upon the printer's blunder,-putting mankind for this kind, and setting the commas in the wrong place!

"And is this thy voice, my son David?" Is this thy tender, loving, grateful spirit? No, "the hand of Joab is in all this!" I acknowledge the hand, the heart of William Cudworth. I perceive, it was not an empty boast, (as I was at first inclined to think,) which he uttered to Mr. Pearse, at Bury, before my friend went to paradise," Mr. Hervey has given me full power to put out and put in what I please."

But he too is gone hence; and he knows not whether I am an honest man or no. It cannot be long, even in the course of nature, before I shall follow them.

My race of glory 's run, and race of shame;
And I shall shortly be with them that rest.

I could wish till then to be at peace with all men; but the will of the Lord be done! Peace or war, ease or pain, life or death, is good, so I may but "finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the Gospel of the grace of God." HOXTON-SQUARE, Nov. 16, 1764.

SOME REMARKS

ON

"A DEFENCE OF THE PREFACE TO THE EDINBURGH EDITION OF ASPASIO VINDICATED."

EDINBURGH, May, 1766.

I HAVE neither time nor inclination to write a formal answer to the Reverend Dr. Erskine's tract. My hope of convincing him is lost; he has drunk in all the spirit of the book he has published. But I owe it to God and his children to say something for myself, when I am attacked in so violent a manner, if haply some may take knowledge, that I also endeavour to " live honestly, and to serve God."

1. Dr. Erskine says, "An edition of these Letters has been published in London, from the author's own manuscripts, which puts the authenticity of them beyond doubt." I answer, This is a mistake; impartial men doubt of their authenticity as much as ever. (I mean, not with regard to the Letters in general, but to many particular passages.) And that for two reasons: First, because those passages breathe an acrimo ny and bitterness which Mr. Hervey in his life-time never showed to any one, and least of all to one he was deeply obliged to. Surely this is not what Dr. E. terms his "Scriptural and animated manner." I hope it was not for this cause that he pronounces this "equal, if 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 "Dialogues," 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 my self can read."

2. But the present question lies, not between me and Mr. Hervey, but between Dr. E. and me. He vehemently attacks me for saying, "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 religon, 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, perforce, 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 contradistinguished both from right tempers and from right words and actions. Of this, I say, “It is a slen

der 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 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, [willing or unwilling,] 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.

3. 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 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 a 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

as