17. A farther consequence (you think) of my preaching this doctrine, is "the introducing that of absolute predestination. And whenever these errors," say you, "gain ground, there can be no wonder, that confusion, presumption, and despair, many very shocking instances of all which you give us among your followers, should be the -consequences." You should by all means have specified a few of those instances, or at least, the pages where they Till this is done, I can look upon this assertion, as no other than a flourish of your pen.

occur.

To conclude this head. You roundly affirm once for all, + "The grossest corruptions have ever followed the spreading of this tenet. The greatest heats and animosities have been raised thereby. The widest errors have been thus occasioned. And in proportion to its getting ground, it has never failed-to perplex the weak, to harden the wicked, and to please the profane. Your Journal is a proof, that these terrible consequences have of late prevailed, perhaps more than ever." Suppose that Journal gives a true account of facts (which you seem not to deny) could you find there no other fruits of my preaching, than these terrible ones you here mention ?

'O who so blind, as he that will not see?'

18. But that we may not still talk at large, let us bring this question, into as narrow a compass as possible. Let us go no farther, as to time, than seven years last past; as to place, than London and the parts adjoining: as to persons, than you and me, Thomas Church preaching one doctrine, John Wesley, the other. Now then let us consider with meekness and fear, what have been the consequences of each doctrine?

You have preached justification by faith and works, at Battersea and St. Ann's, Westminster; while I preached justification by faith alone, near Moorfields, and at Short's Gardens. I beseech you then to consider, in the secret of your heart, how many sinners have you converted to God? By their fruits we shall know them. This is a plain rule. + p. 51.

* Remarks, p. 52

By this test let them be tried. How many outwardly and habitually wicked men, have you brought to uniform habits of outward holiness? It is an awful thought! Can you instance in a hundred? In fifty? In twenty? In ten ?If not, take heed unto yourself and to your doctrine. It cannot be, that both are right before God.

Consider now, (I would not speak; but I dare not refrain,) what have been the consequences of even my preaching the other doctrine? By the fruits shall we know those of whom I speak: even the cloud of witnesses, who at this hour experience the gospel I preach, to be the power of God unto salvation. The habitual drunkard, that was, is now temperate in all things. The whoremonger, now flees fornication. He that stole, steals no more, but works with his hands. He that cursed or swore, perhaps at every sentence, has now learned to serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice unto him with reverence. Those formerly enslaved to various habits of sin, are now brought to uniform habits of holiness. These are demonstrable facts. I can name the men, with their several places of abode. One of them was an avowed Atheist for many years; some were Jews; a considerable number Papists: the greatest part of them as much strangers to the form, as to the power of godliness.

When you have weighed these things touching the consequences of my preaching, on the one hand, (somewhat different from those set down in your Remarks,) and of your preaching on the other, I would earnestly recommend the following words to your deepest consideration: Beware of false prophets; ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles 2 Even so every good tree (every true prophet or teacher) bringeth forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, is hewn down and cast into the fire.*

III. 1. Having spoken more largely than I designed, on the principle I hold in common with the Moravians, I shall

* Matt. vi. 15, &c.

touch very briefly on those errors (so called) which, you say, I hold, more than theirs.

"You name, as the first, my holding, that a + man may have a degree of justifying faith, before he has, in the full, proper sense, a new, a clean heart.'

I have so often explained this, that I cannot throw away time in adding any more now: only this, That the moment a sinner is justified, his heart is cleansed in a low degree. But yet he has not a clean heart, in the full, proper sense, till he is made perfect in love.

2. Another error you mention, is this § "doctrine of perfection." To save you from a continued ignoratio elenchi. I wave disputing on this point also, till you are better acquainted with my real sentiments. I have declared them on that head again and again; particularly in the sermon on Christian Perfection.

3. Into this fallacy you plunge from the beginning to the end of what you speak on my third error, (so you term it,) relating to the Lord's Supper; confuting, as mine, || notions which I know not. I cannot think any farther answer is needful here, than the bare recital of my own words.

¶ Frid. June 27. I preached on, Do this in remembrance of me.

"It has been diligently taught among us, that none but those who are converted, who have received the Holy Ghost, who are believers in the full sense, ought to communicate.

But experience shews the gross falshood of that assertion, That the Lord's Supper is not a converting ordinance. Ye are witnesses. For many now present know, the very beginning of your conversion to God, (perhaps, in some the first, deep conviction,) was brought at the Lord's Supper. Now one single instance of this kind, overthrows that whole assertion.

"The falsehood of the other assertion appears both from Scripture precept, and example. Our Lord commanded

those very men who were then unconverted, who had not yet received the Holy Ghost, who (in the full sense of the word) were not believers, to do this in remembrance of him. Here the precept is clear. And to these he delivered the elements with his own hands. Here is example equally indisputable.

'Sat. 28. I shewed at large, 1. That the Lord's Supper was ordained by God, to be a means of conveying to men, either preventing, or justifying, or sanctifying grace, according to their several necessities. 2. That the persons for whom it was ordained, are all those who know and feel that they want the grace of God, either to restrain them from sin, or to shew their sins forgiven, or to renew their souls in the image of God. 3. That inasmuch as we come to his table, not to give him any thing, but to receive whatsoever he sees best for us, there is no previous preparation indispensably necessary; but a desire to receive whatsoever he pleases to give. And, 4. That no fitness is required at the time of communicating, but a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness; every one who knows he is fit for hell, being just fit to come to Christ, in this as well as all other ways of his appointment.'

4. *"A stoical insensibility," you add, "is the next error I have to charge you with. You say, 'The servants of God suffer nothing,' and suppose, that we ought to be here so free, as in the strongest pain, not once to desire to have a moment's ease.

"At the end of one of your hymns, you seem to carry this notion to the very height of extravagance and presump, tion. You say,

'Doom, if thou canst, to endless pains,

And drive me from thy face.'

"A stoical insensibility is the next error I have to charge you with" And how do you support the charge? Why thus: "You say, 'The servants of God suffer nothing.' And can you possibly misunderstand these words, if you

read those that immediately follow? His body was well nigh torn asunder with pain. But God made all his bed in his sickness. So that he was continually giving thanks to God, and making his boast of his praise.'

"You suppose, we ought to be so free, as in the strongest pain, not once to desire to have a moment's ease." Sir, with what eyes did you read those words?

* I dined with one who told me in all simplicity, Sir, I thought last week, there could be no such rest as you describe; none in this world, wherein we should be so free, as not to desire ease in pain. But God has taught me better : for on Friday and Saturday, when I was in the strongest pain, I never once had one moment's desire of ease, but only that the will of God might be done.' Do I say here, that "we ought not, in the strongest pain, once to desire to have a moment's ease?" What a frightful distortion of words is this! What I say is, 'A serious person affirmed to me, that God kept her for two days in such a state.' And why not? Where is the absurdity?

my

"At the end of one of your hymns, you seem to carry this notion, to the very height of extravagancy and presumption. You say,

'Doom, if thou canst, to endless pains,

And drive me from thy face.""

"If thou canst"-i. e. If thou canst deny thyself, if thou canst forget to be gracious, if thou canst cease to be truth and love. So the lines, both preceding and following, fix the sense. I see nothing of "stoical insensibility," neither of "extravagancy or presumption" in this.

5. Your last charge is, that I am "guilty of enthusiasm to the highest degree. + Enthusiasm (you say) is a false persuasion of an extraordinary divine assistance, which leads men on to such conduct as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance. An enthusiast is then sincere, but mistaken. His intentions are good-but his actions most abominable. Instead of making the word of God the rule of his actions, he follows only that secret im+ Remarks, p. 60, 61.

* Vol. II. p. 46.