perdition. It never fails to work by love, while it continues; but if itself fail, farewell both love and good works.

"Faith is the hand which receives all that is laid up in Christ." Consequently, if we make shipwreck of the faith, how much soever is laid up in Christ, from that hour we receive nothing.

Letter 11. "Faith in the imputed righteousness of Christ, is a fundamental principle in the gospel." If so, what becomes of all those who think nothing about imputed righteousness? How many who are full of faith and love, if this be true, must perish everlastingly!

"Thy hands must urge the way of the deadly weapon through the shivering flesh, till it be plunged in the throbbing heart." Are not these descriptions far too strong? May they not occasion unprofitable reasonings in many readers?

Ne puerum coram populo Medea trucidet.

"How can he justify it to the world?" Not at all. Can this then justify his faith to the world?

"You take the certain way to obtain comfort, the righteousness of Jesus Christ." What! without the atonement? Strange fondness for an unscriptural, dangerous mode of expression!

"So the merits of Christ are derived to all the faithful." Rather the fruits of the Spirit; which are likewise plainly typified by the oil in Zechariah's vision.

"Has the law any demand? It must go to him for satisfaction." Suppose Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself:' Then I am not obliged to love my neighbour. Christ has satisfied the demand of the law for me. Is not this the very quintessence of Antinomianism?

"The righteousness wrought out by Jesus Christ, is wrought out for all his people, to be the cause of their justification, and the purchase of their salvation. The righteousness is the cause, the purchase." So the death of Christ is not so much as named ! "For all his people: " but what becomes of all other people? They must inevitably perish for ever. The die was cast or ever they were in being. The doctrine to pass them by has

Consign'd their unborn souls to hell,

And damn'd them from their mother's womb!

I could sooner be a Turk, a deist, yea, an atheist, than I could believe this. It is less absurd to deny the very being of God, than to make him an almighty tyrant.

"The whole world, and all its seasons, are rich with our Creator's goodness. His tender mercies are over all his works." Are they over the bulk of mankind? Where is his goodness to the non-elect? how are his tender mercies over them? "His temporal blessings are given to them." But are they to them blessings at all? are they not all curses? Does not God know they are? that they will only increase their damnation? Does he not design they should? And this you call goodness! this is tender mercy! May we not discern pregnant proofs of goodness in each individual object?" No; on your scheme not a spark of it in this world, or the next, to the far greater part of the work of his own hands!

"Is God a generous benefactor to the meanest animals, to the lowest reptiles? and will he deny my friend what is necessary to his present com

fort, and his final acceptance?" Yea, will he deny it to any soul that he has made? Would you deny it to any if it were in your power?

But if you loved whom God abhorr'd,

The servant were above his Lord.

“The wedding-garment here means holiness."

"This is his tender complaint, they will not come unto me!"" Nay, that is not the case; they cannot. He himself has decreed, not to give them that grace without which their coming is impossible.

66

"The grand end which God proposes in all his favourable dispensations to fallen man, is to demonstrate the sovereignty of his grace." 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.

"God hath pleasure in the prosperity of his servants. He is a boundless ocean of good." Nay, that ocean is far from boundless, if it wholly passes by nine-tenths of mankind.

"You cannot suppose God would enter into a fresh covenant with a rebel." I both suppose and know he did.—“ God made the new covenant with Christ, and charged him with the performance of the conditions." I deny both these assertions, which are the central point wherein Calvinism and Antinomianism meet. 'I have made a covenant with my chosen ;' viz. with David my servant. So God himself explains it.

"He will wash you in the blood which atones, and invest you with the righteousness which justifies." Why should you thus continually put asunder what God has joined?

"God himself, at the last day, pronounces them righteous, because they are interested in the obedience of the Redeemer." Rather, because they are washed in his blood, and renewed by his Spirit.

Upon the whole, I cannot but wish that the plan of these Dialogues had been executed in a different manner. Most of the grand truths of Christianity are herein both explained and proved with great strength and clearness. Why was anything intermixed which could prevent any serious Christian recommending them to all mankind? anything which must necessarily render them exceptionable to so many thousands of the children of God? In practical writings, I studiously abstain from the very shadow of controversy. Nay, even in controversial, I do not knowingly write one line to which any but my opponent would object. For opinions shall I destroy the work of God? Then am I a bigot indeed much more, if I would not drop any mode of expression, rather than offend either Jew or Gentile, or the church of God. I am, with great sincerity, Dear Sir, your affectionate brother and servant, J. W.

October 15, 1756.

I have but one thing more to add, which is, concerning the seasonableness of the following publication. It may perhaps be thought a needless revival of a dispute which happened long ago, and which is now probably forgotten. In answer to which, I can assure the reader, that the above is printed from an edition of the Preservative now on sale at the Foundry. The seasonable

ness of this publication is therefore apparent; for though my brother died December 25, 1758, the controversy did by no means die with him, but still subsists in the daily publication and sale of the Preservative, which also comes with a special * recommendation from Mr. Wesley, into the hands of all his preachers, to be by them first "carefully read, then to be recommended and explained to the several societies where they labour." So that the controversy is, in the most effectual manner, daily and hourly kept alive by Mr. Wesley himself. This proves very sufficiently the seasonableness, and as things have happened, the expediency, of the present appearance of the following Letters in public. How pertinent an answer they contain to Mr. Wesley's objections, is now to be left to the consideration of the candid reader.

Miles-Lane, Dec. 5, 1764.

W. HERVEY.

See the last paragraph of a Tract, entitled, Reasons against a Separation from the Church of England; printed also in the Preservative, p. 237.

LETTERS

ΤΟ

THE REV. MR. JOHN WESLEY,

LETTER I.

REVEREND SIR,-I received the letter you mention, containing remarks on the Dialogues between Theron and Aspasio. As, after a careful perusal, I saw very little reason to alter my sentiments, I laid aside your epistle without returning an answer, in hopes that my silence (which it seems you mistook for obstinacy) would most emphatically speak my advice; which, had it been expressed more plainly, would have been delivered in the apostle's words, That ye study, or make it your ambition, to be quiet*.

Since you have, by printing these remarks, summoned me, though reluctant, to the bar of the public, it should seem that I ought not to discredit the truth once delivered to the saints, by a timid silence; and I am the more willing to answer for myself, as I have now the privilege of an unprejudiced judge, and an impartial jury. If my defence should be lost on my opponent, it may possibly make some useful impressions on the court, and candid audience. However, I will not absolutely despair of convincing Mr. Wesley himself; because it is written, "Give admonition to a wise man, and he will yet be wiser t." On some very momentous and interesting points, I may probably be a little more copious than the strict laws of argument demand, in order to exhibit some of the great truths of the gospel in so clear a light, that “he may run who readeth them;" in so amiable and inviting a light, that the believer may rejoice in them, and the sinner may long for them. For such digressions I promise myself an easy pardon, both from yourself and the reader.

Thus you open a debate: "In the second Dialogue, is not the description often too laboured, the language too stiff and affected?" I must confess, Sir, this animadversion seems to be as just, as the praise which you have here and elsewhere bestowed, appears to be lavish. The former, if not more pleasing, may be no less serviceable than the latter; for both I acknowledge myself your debtor; and if ever I attempt any thing more in the capacity of an author, I will be sure to keep my eye fixed on the caution you have given.

I am sorry that the next words bring on a complaint so close to my ac.

⚫ 1 Thess. iv. 11. Þihoripuodas, a beautiful word, rich with meaning, and not adequately translated by make it your ambition; still more inadequately by our common version. + Prov, ix. 9. The original phrase is only Give.-which may signify, give admonition as well as (what our version has supposed) instruction.

knowledgement. "You cite the pages according to the Dublin edition, having wrote the rough draught of what follows in Ireland." But should you not, in complaisance to your readers on this side of the water, have referred to the pages of the English edition? For want of such reference, there is hardly distinction enough in some places to know which are your words, and which are Aspasio's.. Should you not also, in justice to the author, before you transcribed the rough draught for the press, have consulted the last edition of his work? which, you well knew, was not the copy from which the Irish impression was taken, yet might reasonably suppose to

be the least inaccurate.

When I read your next paragraph, I am struck with reverence, I am ashamed, and almost astonished, at the littleness of the preceding observations. Stiffness of style, and a thousand such trifles, what are they all compared with justification before the infinite and immortal God? This is a subject that commands our most awful regard, a blessing that should engage our whole attention. As this is the grand article to come under our consideration, I would desire to maintain an incessant dependance on the divine Spirit, that my thoughts may be influenced, and my pen guided, by the wisdom which cometh from above; that I may neither pervert the truth by any erroneous representations, nor dishonour it by an unchristian temper. It would be easy to make use of bitter satire and disdainful irony, the contemptuous sneer or the indignant frown. And indeed, Sir, you have laid yourself open to every attack of this kind; but these are not the weapons of a Christian's warfare- Non defensoribus istis ;—we are to give a reason o the hope that is in us, with meekness and fear: meekness, with regard to those who interrogate or oppose us; fear, with regard to him whose cause we plead, and whose eye is ever upon us. "Is justification," you say, more or less, than God's pardoning and accepting a sinner, through the merits of Christ ?" I somewhat wonder, Sir, that you should ask this question, when it is professedly answered by Aspasio, who has presented you with a very circumstantial definition of justification, explaining it, establishing it, and obviating several objections advanced against it. If you would animadvert with spirit and force, or indeed to any considerable purpose, should you not lay open the impropriety of this definition, showing from reason and Scripture, that it is neither accurate nor orthodox?

The reader may see Aspasio's account of justification, and find the words imputation and righteousness of Christ particularly explained; the latter denoting all the various instances of his active and passive obedience.” Accordingly it is affirmed, "the punishment we deserved, he endures; the obedience which we owed, he fulfils." What Aspasio here professes to understand by the righteousness of Christ, the reader is particularly requested to bear in his memory, that he be not misled by Mr. Wesley, who often forgets it, and complains, when the righteousness of Christ is mentioned, that his penal sufferings are quite omitted. I would not wish, Sir, to have a plainer proof that you do not discard the active, than Aspasio has hereby given that he never excludes the passive.

By your question, you hint a dislike, yet without informing us what it is, or wherein Aspasio's illustrations and proofs are deficient. You propose, and

opose, another definition. Well, then, to differ from you as little as

v, to agree with you as far as truth will permit, since you are