I Have seen your printed Answer to certain Queries lately published, and observe with great Satisfaction, the Evidence you there give of a truly Christian Humility. And it is this emboldens me to tell you, That, in my Opinion, you have not in all Points set Things right; but some of your Corrections are as liable to Exceptions as the Passages you have corrected. I will give you a Specimen: Instead of "A­dam was adorned with all the Perfections of the Deity" you correct it, "All the moral communicable Perfections of the Deity. "— Was not Man created a little lower than the Angels? And if so, were there not some [Page 69] moral Perfections communicated to them, which were not communicated to him? For otherwise in what Sense could he be said to be inferior to them? And it would be absurd to say, That any Thing could be communicated that was not communicable.— I hope I have a true Sense of the Power and Usefulness of your Ministry, and wish it, from my Soul and Spirit all the Success it deserves: But at the same Time sincerely wish, that all Errors may be removed, and every Let and Hinderance taken away. I therefore beg, that you will furnish me with the means of Answering what may be objected to the above Passage, by leaving a Letter at Mr. Franklin's, directed to.

IN your Answer to the Queries you say, That to the Honour of free distinguish­ing Grace, you recieved the Spirit of A­doption, before you had conversed with one Man, or read a single Book, on the Doctrine of Free Justification by the Imputed Righte­ousness [Page 70] of JESUS CHRIST; and therefore, no Wonder that you was not so clear in some Points at your first setting out in the Ministry."— This Declaration to me seems clearly to imply, That the Spirit of A­doption alone, without the Aid of human Conversation or Books, is not sufficient ful­ly to accomplish a Christian Minister, but that human Conversation and Books are absolutely necessary, in order further to enlighten him. — As I understood you in this Sense, and further," That it is not yet perfect Day with you," I concluded you would readily retract any of your Errors, even now, since you are not fully enlight­ened; and more especially, as you say in your Answer to the Queries, "That you shall be thankful to any that shall point out your Errors; and promise, by Divine Assistance, they shall have no Reason to say, That you are one who hates to be reform­ed." — It was the Strength of this Con­clusion, that I thought it proper, not only to pray that God's Grace might shine more and more in your Heart, but also to trou­ble you with my Letter of the 11th Instant.

The high Opinion I had entertained of your great Candour, Sincerity, and Zeal [Page 71] for Truth, induced me to expect to Answer; and I would still gladly recieve that Satis­faction. But as I find you have hitherto declined it, and for which I am at a Loss for a good Reason; I therefore take this Occasion to let you know, that if you any longer decline doing what every Christian Enquirer has a Right to demand of you u­pon such Occasions, I will immediately call upon you in a publick Manner, by printing both this, and my former Letter.

LETTER I. To the Reverend Mr. Whitefield.

I Have perused your Sermon, entitled, What think you of Christ; to which you were pleased to refer me t'other Day, in support of your Charge, or rather railing Accusation against the Clergy of the Church of England in general, and the present Bi­shop of London in particular, of their teach­ing false Doctrine, contrary to the Gospel, and the Articles of the Church, in explain­ing that of Justification by Faith alone, in such a Manner, as including good Works a ne­cessary Condition. This Sermon of Yours, I say, I have perused, and made some Observa­tions upon; but of which, I shall at present only Trouble you with the following single one, on a Parag. P. 18. in which your Words are these: ‘Observe my dear Brethren the Words of the Article, good Works are the Fruits of Faith, and follow after Justificati­on. How then can they precede, or be any Ways the Cause of it? No, our Persons must be justified, before our Performances are accepted.’

[Page 74]Now, Sir, passing over your using the Word Cause for Condition; pray how was it possible for you, after setting down the Article at large in the next preceding Page, thus to explain it into a Contrad [...]ction to your own Doctrine? As if good Works which are the Fruits of Faith and pleasing to God, did not precede Justification, but fol­low after it only. For as a true and lively Faith, you admit, must precede Justificati­on; so good Works, teacheth the latter Part of this Article, do spring necessarily out of a true and lively Faith. Now, if good Works do necessarily spring out of a true and lively Faith, and a true and lively Faith necessari­ly precedes Justification, the Consequence is plain that good Works must not only follow after but precede Justification also. And there­fore your explaining the Article so, as to se­parate a true and lively Faith from good Works, admitting the one to go before, and the other only to follow after Justification, is explaining the A [...]cle into a Contradic­tion to your own Doctrine.

Please to unite this Knot, if you can, and you may hear further from Sir,

LETTER II. To the Reverend Mr. Whitefield.

I Have receiv'd your Letter of this Day but it will not do. The Difficulty I proposed, is of no small Importance with me, who have not only my own, but the Souls of many others committed to my Charge, concerned in it.

I firmly believe, and have always taught, that good Works do as necessarily spring from, and accompany a true and lively Faith, whether before or after Justification, as Light and Heat do the Sun; or that, as the Body without the Soul is dead, so Faith without Works, whether before or after Justification, is dead also. If this be an Error; if in this I'm departed from the Gospel and the Articles of the Church, will you not endeavour to restore me? Sure, if not the Precept and Example of our great Master, the common Bowels of Hu­manity will induce you to do a Thing, on [Page 77] which so much depends; especially when I assure you, 'tis as much the Cool of the Day with me now, as it has been in any Part of my Life.

LETTER III. To the Rev. Mr. Whitefield.

YOu'll excuse the Trouble of this, by Way of Supplement to my former Letters, and containing also a few Queries concerning your present Behaviour as a Presbyter of the Church of England.

You cannot but know, that to bring a criminal Accusation against any one, with­out sufficient Evidence or Proof to support it, is wilful and malicious Slander: But, this, Sir, you have done against your Bre­thren of the Church of England, in your Sermon entitled, What think ye of Christ. In [Page 78] that Sermon (P. 18.) you have accused them, of not Preaching the Truth as it is in Jesus; of falling from our establish'd Doctrines; and of preaching only the Law and not shew­ing the Way of Salvation by Faith in Christ Jesus; that is of preaching Justification by Works, and not by Faith only. Thus you have accused your Brethren in that Sermon; but where are the Proofs of your Accusation? What Evidence have you therein brought to support your Charge? Not the least Shadow or Appearance of any such Thing throughout the Whole. — But what Need (you'll say) of Proof in so plain a Case? The Clergy indeed pretend to Preach the true Doctrine of Justification by Faith only; but in explaining, do they not destroy it? Do they not explain it, as the present Bishop of London, in his 4th Pastor [...]l Letter, hopes they do; viz. That the Faith by which only we are justified must be true and lively or productive of good Works, and consequently That good Works are a ne­cessary Condition (included in that Faith) of our being justified in the Sight of God? And is not this explaining the Doctrine into a Contradiction? Is it not preaching a new Gospel? Preaching Justification by Works, and not by Faith only.

[Page 79]Well then, the Doctrine the Clergy preach, which you are so angry at, and cen­sure as preaching Justification by Works, and not by Faith only, is this; that we are justified by Faith only and not by Works; thus explained, viz. that we are justified by such a Faith only, as is true and lively that is ac­tually producing good Fruits or Works, and consequently implying them as a necessary con­dition (but no meritorious Cause) of our Justification.

This then, I say, is the Doctrine which you censure, and are so angry at: But which notwithstanding is indeed the true Doctrine of the Gospel; — and agreeab­ly, taught by the ancient Fathers, by the Church of England; by her Clergy at all Times; and (be not surprized!) the very Doctrine taught by your Reverence and Bre­thren Methodists, tho' not without apparent Shuffle and Contradiction, disguised under the Distinction of before and after Justification.

1. This Doctrine you condemn, is the true Doctrine of the Gospel. — We are justified by Faith and not by Works, teacheth St. Paul; that is (expoundeth St. James) not by such a Faith as is without Works; for Faith, if it hath not Works, is dead being [Page 80] alone; but by a lively operative Faith, pro­ducing the Fruit of good Works, by Works is Faith made Perfect.

2. This also is the Doctrine of all the ancient Fathers. — We are justified by Faith and not by Works, taught Clemens, Ori­gen, Cyprian, Basil, Chrysostom, Austin, &c. that is, ‘not so meant of them,' (Hom. of Salv. Part 2d.) that the said justifying Faith is alone in Man, without true Re­pentance, Hope, Charity, and the Fear of God at any Time or Season: But this saying that we be justified by Faith only, freely and without Works, is spoken, for to take away clearly ALL MERIT of our Works, as being unable to deserve our Jus­tification at God's Hands; — and whol­ly to ascribe the Merit of our Justification unto Christ only, and his most precious Bloodshedding.’

3. This same Doctrine also teacheth the Church of England. We are accounted righ­teous (or justified) before God only for the Merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by Faith, and not for our own Works or Deser­vings. Art. 11. ‘That is, (saith Hom. of Faith) not by a dead or barren, but a lively and fruitful Faith. — Good living [Page 81] cannot be separated from true Faith, which worketh by Love; — and Faith of itself is full of good Works; as soon as a Man believeth he is garnished with them. — And by all the Declarations of St. Paul, it is evident, that a true and Christian Faith, is no dead, vain, or un­fruitful Thing; but a Thing of perfect Virtue, of wonderful Operation, Working and Strength, bringing forth all good Motions, and good Works.’ See Hom. of Salvat. and short Declar. of a true and live­ly Faith.

4. And as of the Church, so agreeably is this the Doctrine at all Times preached by her Clergy. — We are justified by Faith on­ly and not by Works; — ‘And yet (saith Bishop Downam, Treat. of Justific. P. 15.) that Faith which is alone, severed from all other inward Graces, and outward O­bedience, doth not justify either alone, or at all; because it is not a true and lively, but a counterfeit and dead Faith.’ Ag­reeably also Bishop Beveridge on the 39th Art. (Art. 11.) ‘Tho' it be by Faith (saith he) that we are justified, and by Faith only, yet not by such a Faith as hath no Works accompanying it: No, every such [Page 82] Faith is a dead Faith; so that Faith with­out Works is as unable to justify us, as Works without Faith. And yet it is not from our Works that accompany our Faith, but from the Faith that is accom­panied by our Works, that we are justifi­ed.’ —Thus Bishop Burnet also (on the same 11th Art.) ‘A Man is then only justified when he is freed from Wrath, and is at Peace with God. And tho' this is freely offered to us in the Gospel through Jesus Christ, yet it is applied to none, but such as come within those Qua­lifications set before us in the Gospel. That God pardons Sin and receives us in­to Favour, only through the Death of Christ, is so fully expressed in the Gospel, that it is not possible to doubt of it. Nor is it less evident, that it is not offered to us absolutely, and without Conditions and Limitations. These Conditions are Repentance, with which Remission of Sins [...] often joined; and Faith; but a Faith that worketh by Love, that purifies the Heart; and that keeps the Commandments of God. Such a Faith as shews itself to be alive by good Works by Acts of Charity, and every Act of Obedience. Such a [Page 83] Faith as this justifies; but not as it is a Work or meritorious Action, but as it is the Condition upon which the Mercy of God is offered to us by Christ Jesus. — Our Faith and Repentance are not the va­luable Considerations for which God par­dons and justifies; that is done merely for the Death of Christ. — But still our Faith, which includes our Hope, our Love, our Repentance and Obedience, is the Condition that makes us capable of receiving the Benefit of this Redemption and free Grace.’

Agreeably also Bishop Williams (Serm. of Justification by Faith) — ‘It is said here, (Rom. v. 1.) being justified by Faith; by which we are to understand, not a mere notional Faith, (for that is no other than an Assent to the Truth of what is reveal­ed) but a Faith in Operation, a Faith ac­tive and vigorous, and that doth compre­hend in it, all that Duty and those Gra­ces, which are else where in Scripture made the Condition of the Gospel Co­venant, and which gives me a Title to all the Benefits of it, such as Forgiveness of Sin, Adoption and Glorification. And that is a practical Faith, and to which [Page 84] Repentance, Obedience, and Perseverance do belong, as the essential Parts of it.’

5. Finally, This is the very Doctrine taught by your Reverence and Brethren Methodists, tho' not without Shuffle and Contradiction, disguised under the ground­less Distinctions of before and after Justifica­tion, and 'twixt Justification and Salvation. Thus your Reverence (Serm. What think ye of Christ. Pag. 16.) ‘The Faith we preach, is not a lead speculative Faith, an Assent­ing to Things credible as credible, as it is commonly defined; it is not a Faith of the Head only, but a Faith of the Heart. It is a living Principle wrought in the Soul, by the Spirit of the everlasting God, convincing the Sinner of his lost and un­done Condition by Nature, and continu­ally exciting them to shew forth that Faith, by abounding in every good Word and Work.’ Thus also your Brother J. Wesley (Serm. Salvation by Faith, Pag. 14.) —‘The first usual Objection to this (saith he) is that to preach Salvation or Justification by Faith only, is to preach against Holiness and good Works. To which a short Answer might be given; it would be so, if we spake, as some do, of a [Page 85] Faith exclusive of these. But we speak of a Faith which is necessarily inclusive of all good Works, and all Holiness.’

Now Sir, this being the Doctrine of Jus­tification as taught and explained by the Clergy, and by you Methodists; how comes it to be a false Doctrine in the Mouths of the one, and not of the other? How comes it to be preaching only the Law (i. e. Justi­fication by Works, and not by Faith only) in the Clergy's Mouths; and yet to be preach­ing the Gospel (Justification by Faith only, and not by Works) in the Mouths of your­self and Brethren Methodists? — Have not the Clergy as good a Right as you to preach Justification by a true and lively Faith, a Faith, operating and bringing forth good Works, or inclusive of them, withou [...] being accused of preaching Justification by Works? Or rather is it not altogether arrogant and wicked Slander in you, thus to accuse them, and on none other Grounds than will equ­ally support the Charge against your sel­ves?

But this you'll say, is not a fair and ho­nest Representation or State of the Matter in Question. For, the Grounds on which you accuse the Clergy of preaching only the [Page 86] Law or Justification by Works, is not their Preaching, that such good Works as are pleasing to God, are the necessary Fruits or Effects of a justifying Faith; no, but their Preaching, that such good Works as are the Fruits of a justifying Faith, are a necessary Condition of Justification; and consequently must not only follow after Justification, but go before it also; contrary to sound Doctrine, and the 2th Article of the Church. To which I answer,

That is a miserable Distinction; a poor Jingle of Words, not serving to instruct, but to intangle and amuse the Minds of the weak and unwary Populace. For,

1. Is not the Word Condition, used in va­rious Senses? And can good Works be called a Condition of Justification, in no o­ther Sense, than that of a meritorious Cause? See what a Wrangler, in your own Way has said on this Point, (Edwards of New Eng­land; Disc. of Justification, p. 8. prefixed to his Narative of surprizing Conversions &c. The Word (says he) seems ambiguous in com­mon Use and also as used in Divinity. In one Sense Christ alone performs the Condition of our Justification and Salvation; in another Sense, Faith is the Condition of Justification; [Page 87] in another Sense, other Qualifications and Acts, are Conditions of Salvation and Justification too. And again, As the Wor [...] Cond [...]tion is very often understood in the common Use of Language, Faith is not the only Thing in us, that is the Condition of Justification. For by the Word Condition, as perhaps most common­ly used, we mean any Thing that may have Place in a conditional Proposition, and as such is truly connected with the Consequent, especi­ally if the Proposition holds both in the affir­mative and Negative, as the Condition is ei­ther affirmed or denied: And in this Sense, Faith is not the only Condition of Salvation or Justification; for there are many Things that accompany and flow from Faith, that are Things with which Justification shall be, and without which it shall not be; and therefore are found to be put in Scripture, in conditional Propositions with Justification and Salvation, in many Places; such are Love to God, and Love to our Brethren, Forgiving Men their Trespasses, and many other good Qualifications and Acts. Now if in the Judgment of this Wri­ter, of your own Cast, good Works may be and are usually called Conditions of Justifi­cation, in another Sense than that of meri­torious Causes; how dare you, in your [Page 88] Mobb Harangues, attempt to fix that Sense of the Word upon the Clergy in which they use it not, but which they expressly disclaim? And is not your doing it, a ren­dring your self guilty of wilful Slander?

2. That Faith is, in some Sense, a Condi­tion of Justification, is generally admitted by Writers of your own Cast, and that both Faith and good Works are Conditions of Salvation, is, I think, denied by none. The Distinct on 'twixt Justification and Salva­tion, w [...]th Respect to good Works, as la­bour'd by Dr. Edwards of Old England (Doctrine of Faith and Justific. &c.) is too much Nonsense to be defended, and which a beloved Brother seems (tho' with usual self Contradiction) to have rejected. See J. Wesley's Serm. (Salvation by Faith, p. 9. Whatever else it (Salvation by Faith) im­plies▪ it is a present Salvation, something at­tainable yea actually atained on Earth by those who are partakers of this Faith. For thus saith the Apostle, not ye shall be (tho' that also be true) but, ye are saved through Faith. Now what other can this present Salvation by Faith be▪ than a State of Par­don and Acceptance with God, that is, a State of Justification? And therefore, if a [Page 89] State of Justification be a present Salvation, or rather a present State of Salvation, the asserting of good Works a necessary Condi­tion of Salvation, but not of Justification, is a Contradiction. And agreeably the lear­ned Dr. Jackson, (Tom. 1. p. 739. of his Works.) That good Works (saith he) are more necessary to Salvation than to Justifica­tion, or that they are less necessary before Ju­stification, than after it, implies a Contradiction in the Terms well expressed and equally com­pared. And Man in that he is justified, is the immediate Heir of Salvation, at the least ac­quitted from the Sentence of Death. Now if we affirm, that good Works are more neces­sary after he is justified, than before, we should in Congruity grant, that Works win Heaven, and Faith only delivers from Hell: Or grant­ing Justification to be the Passage from Death to eternal Life, the Addition of such Works subsequent, as were not precedent, could be serviceable only to supererogate some Excess of Glory; for tho' we stood still at the same Point where Justification found us, we should be in­fallible Heirs of Glory. Or if Faith without Works obtain Justification, having justified us, shall it not much more without them lay sure hold on Salvation, and all the Degrees of Joy [Page 90] that accompany it? Suppose a Man should die in the very Instant wherein he is justified; none would Doubt either of his Absolution or Salva­tion. Is he then saved with Works, or with­out them? If without them, then our Savi­our's Rule doth fail us, (Mat. v. 20. Except your Righteousness exceed, &c.) For this Man enters into the Kingdom of Heaven with­out more strict Observance of the Command­ments than the Scribes and Pharisees used: If with them, then their Presence is necessary to Justification, and in Order of Nature before it, because necessary e'er he can be capable of Entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven; as the Performance of every Condition is in Nature precedent to the Accomplishment of what is not promised without it.

Nor indeed is the admitting of Faith a Condition of Justification, in any Sense, and yet denying it of the necessary Fruits or Ef­fects of Faith less absurd or contradictory.

This you know is the main Point in Di­stress with you, and which drove the above cited Dr. Edwards not only on the Senseless Distinction of Justification and Salvation, but moreover of the silly Subterfuges of scrupling to call Faith a Condition, and de­nying its going before Justification. Because [Page 91] (saith he Doct. of Faith and Justific. p. 318.) Faith is not a Condition in the strict Sense, I chuse to lay that way of speaking aside, and to express my Thoughts thus; the Gospel requires of those that are justified, that they believe in Christ. Curiously thought and expressed too! The Gospel requires of those that are justified, that they believe in Christ: But does it not require of those who are not justified, that they believe in Christ al­so? Rare Champion of Grace! Such Ways of Expression must do wonderful Feats, and enlighten every Mind in the Kingdom. But this is not all. It is an idle Contest (saith he) and yet hath troubled some Heads, which of these (Faith or Justification) is first in Time For I apprehend that they are both together: therefore no Man can tell which is precedent, and which Subsequent. Here is a Matter decided for you; Who dares any longer contest it? I apprehend, &c. That this is an idle Contest, and owing only to such Heads as his own will be easily granted: But his I apprehend, &c. will be deemed a very sorry Decision. — 99 of 100 will apprehend, that his Apprehension of the Matter is absurd, and repugnant to the very Order of Thought or Apprehension in [Page 92] all Cases whatsoever. And you are defied to instance the Case, in which the Condition, Means or Instrument of any Thing, must not in the Order of Thought or Apprehension be conceived to exist before the Thing; or that a Workman's Tools must not be con­ceived to exist previous to the Work done by them. But notwithstanding this Au­thor's Apprehension of this Matter, in the Passage above cited, viz. That Faith and Ju­stification are so instantaneous, as no Man can tell which is precedent and which subsequent; Yet how vastly different do we find his Ap­prehension of it, in his Preface to the same Performance, p. 15. The Passage is curious, and runs thus. So as to Justification by Faith, it may be said that Faith goes before Justification, and yet we are sure it comes af­ter▪ The former is true, because Pardon or Justification is propounded and promised as a Consequence and Reward of Faith. The lat­ter is also true; for we must not believe that we are forgiven, before God hath forgiven us. We must see our Pardon, and then exert our Faith. Thus both are true in different Re­spects. On one Account Faith Precedes Justi­fication; on the other it follows it. This puts an End to the Dispute, and lays all the Qua­rels [Page 93] in the Dust. Whoever can write such a Treatise, and such a Passage in the Preface to it, had need to be at an End of all Di­spute or Controversy. In the Treatise no Man can tell of Faith and Justification which is precedent and which is consequent. In the Preface to it, It may be said that Faith goes before Justification, and we sure also it comes after. So that to make all plain, Faith in one Respect, goes before Justification; in an­other comes after it; and yet in general they are so instantaneous, that no Man can tell which goes before, or which comes after. This is a Doctrine of Grace! Sanctified Logick out of all Question! That Faith goes be­fore Justification is easily admitted, and for the Reason assigned, viz. Because Pardon or Justification (which by the bye are not al­lowed to be synonimous Terms in the Treatise) is propounded and promised as a Consequence or Reward of Faith: But how comes it also to follow after? Why because we must not believe that we are forgiven, be­fore God hath forgiven us. We must see our Pardon, and then exert our Faith. Did ever a more arrant Piece of Nonse drop from the Pen of any Writer! As if Faith or Belief in Christ as the true Mesiah, operat­ing [Page 94] by Love, by which we are justified: And the Faith or Belief that God has actu­ally justified us by that Faith, were the Faith or Belief of the same Thing in diffe­rent Respects, and not of different and di­stinct Things! We must see our Pardon, &c. seeing, says the Proverb, is believing. But how can we see it? By the Eye of Faith. Well then, in plain Language, we must first see our Pardon by the Eye of Faith, and then exert our Faith. Such Logick must surely put an End to the Dispute and lay all the Quarrel in the Dust.

3. As to the 12th Article of the Church it is obvious, that by the Words, and follow after Justification, the Article means not to exclude good Works going before Justifica­tion, from being acceptable or pleasing to God, provided they are the Fruits of Faith, because it has no negative Words to exclude them. And not only so, but which is still confirmed, by the next following Article, intitled, of Works before Justification. Works (saith this Article) done before the Grace of Christ and the Inspiration of his Spirit are not pleasant to God: Why so? Forasmuch as they spring not of Faith in Jesus Christ. Here it is plain, that by Works before Justification, [Page 95] the Article meaneth Works that are so be­fore it as to be before the Grace of Christ, and consequently Faith in him; that is Works in a State of mere Heathenism or In­fidelity. And therefore according to the Max­im, Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis, the Article confirmeth, that Works which are not so before Justification as to be before the Grace of Christ and Faith in him, but after these and springing from them, are pleasing to God, tho' before Justification.

But do not both Articles rather seem to suppose that Faith and Justification are co­existant; or that 'twixt the first Act of a justifying Faith, and that of Justification, there intervenes no Space for good Works to be exerted in? I answer, that however some few have chose to understand them in this Sense, and in which they might re­main undisturbed, if they would not di­sturb, insult and abuse their Neighbours, for differing from them in Judgment; yet more generally 'tis conceived, to be disho­nouring the Articles, to understand them as regarding so silly and speculative a Notion, which never has, nor ever can be proved, to have the least Foundation either in Scripture, or common Reason; or which [Page 96] in it self, whether held or rejected, is not of the least moment or importance so long as the Foundation is held sure, viz. that we are justified by a true and lively Faith, bringing forth the Fruit of good Works; but that neither this Faith nor its Fruit of good Works, are in any Sense, meritorious Causes of either our Justification or Salva [...]ion (to admit the Distinction) but Conditions or Means only. Let one single plain Text of Scripture, or one single conclusive Argu­ment in Reason, be produced in Support of this speculative Notion, that the first mere Act of Faith and that of Justification▪ are co-existent; no one can be under any Temp­tation to reject it: For sure the less we are required to do in the Work of our Salvation, so much the happier for us, who are able to do so little, and so unwilling to do any Thing at all. Or let it be shown, what Moment or Importance the holding or rejecting this Notion is of, so long as this Foundation is held sure.

But without holding this Notion (as you teach and deceive the People) the Foundation is not, and cannot be held: For that the contrary Notion, say you, viz. [Page 97] that Faith and its necessary Fruits pre-exist, and go before Justification as necessary Conditions of it, is destroying the Founda­tion and holding Justification by Works as a meritorious Cause. This is your poisoned Insinuation; false, and insiduous! Have you proved (Sir) or dare you attempt to prove this Insinuation? No you dare not attempt it; not only because you have no Talent at proving any Thing, but chiefly because you are conscious, that such Proof must equally conclude against yourself and Brethren Methodists, in the Case of Salva­tion, as against those you abuse in that of Justification. Do not you and your Bre­thren hold that Faith and good Works are necessary Conditions of Salvation? Well; upstarts a hair-brained Solifidian, and runs about a Mouthing; The Methodists preach up Salvation by Works as meritorious Causes: Will you think it a fair Charge against you? Or not rather disclaim it as false and injurious? Produce (Sir) but one Ar­gument, either from Scripture or Reason, to prove, that the holding Faith and good Works necessary Conditions of Justification, is holding Justification by Works, as meri­torious Causes; that will not equally con­clude [Page 98] in the Mouth of this Solifidian, that your holding Fa [...]th and good Works ne­cessary Conditions of Salvation, is holding Salvation by Works, as meritorious Causes: Produce, I say, but one single Argument that will not equally conclude in the one Case as the other, and I'll become your Pro­selyte the next Moment.

But if this be impossible for you to do, as sure it is, then lay your Hand on your Mouth! Nay rather open it wide, and re­call the Slander you have scatter'd far and wide around you; and undo the Mischief you have already done. You boast indeed, in your Journals, that you have kindled a Fire which all the Devils in Hell shall not be able to exinguish! Alas (Sir) the Fire you have kindled is that of Slander and Defamation. A Fire! which no Devil in Hell, no nor Jesuit nor Deisi on Earth, will ever go about to extinguish; but fagot and foment it with all their Might, as too ef­fectually serving their Interests or Turn. You and your Brethren cry out Pers [...]cution! 'Tis true▪ Persecution there is in the Case; but are not you the Persecutors? Is it not you that falsely accuse the Brethren, de­sturb [Page 99] the Peace of the Church; tram­ple on her Laws and Cannons, tho' solemnly engaged to obey them) and de­spise her Authority? But still Persecution you cry out; for want of it you mean For ours is no Persecuting Country for Religion; every Man may enjoy his own Way in Peace and Safety; but as you may regard being persecuted as something essen­tial to a true Christian, and necessary to keep up the Spirit of Christianity, you seem to be in Quest or Pursuit of it, please only to step into a Neighbouring Country, Spain or Portugal, and you'll bid fair, I dare say, to find it. Or if this be too much, only pursue your first Plan, you amused the World with, viz. the Conversion of the Indians, you'll either meet with it or some­thing equivalent to it. But why, poor Gentleman are you thus to be bantered? Are you not really persecuted? Are you not cast out of the Synagogues; excluded the Church of England Pulpits; and treated as a Disciple of Fox or Muggleton? And is not all this Persecution? But for what Cause are you thus treated? Why, only for the trifling Cause of accusing the Cler­gy, openly and avowedly accusing them in [Page 100] general, for Apostates from Christianity, and ignorant of it as Mahomet; for blind Guides, false Teachers, and leading the Peo­ple to the Gates of Hell. And in all this you speak the Truth in Christ, and lie not. And are not the Clergy of a strange persecuting Spirit, to deny such Men their Pulpits, to insult, traduce and defame them in! But why will you desire our Pulpits, or pre­sume to approach the Altars at which we minister? Is it not Persecution in you to attempt the one or the other? Is it not wholy absurd and inconsistent in you to pretend holding Communion with us, if you believe a Word of the Characters you assure us to be true? Will you hold Com­munion with the Mufti or with the Pope, with the Turkish or the Romish Clergy? And why any more with us, whom you are pleased to set forth to the Multitude in such odious Colours? Sure you ought to get you up from among us, lest you be con­sumed in our Iniquities!

But I have done. I thought indeed to have added some other Queries relating to your Conduct, but since this Letter has been under my Pen, I have seen them put [Page 101] by another Hand; and therefore shall here put an End to this present Trouble.

P. S. Will your Reverence be pleased to help out your honoured Friend and Brother, J. Wesley, against the following Charge of a gross Contradiction, inserted in the Gentleman's Magazine for July 1739. Vol. IX. p. 358.

In the Preface to the Hymns and sacred Poems lately published at London, by Mr. John W-sl-y and his Brother, p. v. we are told, that "even the Condition of our Ac­ceptance with God, is not our Holiness either of Heart or Life, but Faith alone; Faith con­tradistinguished from Holiness, as well as from good Works." And then immediately follow these Words, "Other Foundation therefore can no Man lay, without being an Adversary to Christ and his Gospel, than Faith alone, Faith, tho' necessarily producing both, yet not including either good Works or Ho­liness."

But in a Sermon on this Text, "By Grace ye are saved through Faith, Eph. ii. 8. writ­ten [Page 102] and published by the same Mr. John W [...]sl [...]y, p. 14. is the following Expression: "But we speak of a Faith necessarily inclu­sive of all good Works and all Holiness"

Several serious Persons are of Opinion, that Mr. W [...]sl [...]y and his Adherents would behave with greater Modesty, if they left off to rail at the Clergy, and charge them with omitting to preach the funda­mental Doctrines of the Christian Religion, till they reconcile both Sides of this Con­tradiction; or, if that should appear a Task too difficult for them, that they would be pleased to expunge one of those Assertions, in order to let their own Followers, and the rest of the World know, what their own real Sentiments are with R [...]gard to That, which themselves confess to be a Matter of the utmost Importance.

LETTER IV. To the Reverend Mr. Whitefield.

AS you seem resolved to stick to your very edifying Motto, Answer him not [Page 103] a Word; it is neither for your Sake not my own, that I trouble you with this Fourth Letter, but for such Reasons as may in due Time be assigned.

I have now before me an anonymous Pamphlet, entituled, The Case between Mr. Whitefield and Dr. Stebbing stated, &c. containing, or designed to contain, the en­tire System of the Methodist Doctrine of Re­generation. Whether you approve of all and every Thing it contains, I presume not to know; but to me it appears as elaborate a Peace of dogmatical Theology, as any pro­duc'd in the Oliverian Age, and calculated not to edify, but to puzzle and amuse the Minds of the Populace, or common Readers.

Touching the Foundation of this goodly Structure, either the Author must beg the Question, of the Propagation of Souls, or his Propositions are mere Amusements.

Either he must take for granted, that A­dam begat the Souls, as well as Bodies of his immediate Posterity, or who can understand the Second Proposition? viz. Had Adam ‘continued in his happy State, he should have transmitted to his Posterity, by the Laws of Generation, that Image of God in which he was made.’ Consisting [Page 104] chiefly (Prop. 1st.) ‘In the Indowments of the Soul, viz. Knowledge, Innocence, Righteousness and Holiness.’ — Can the Endowments or Qualities of any Thing be transmitted to another by any Laws of Generation, without the Substance? The Author dare not say they can; and if they cannot, then how could Adam trans­mit the Endowments and Qualities of Know­ledge, Innocence, Righteousness and Holiness to the Souls of his Posterity, by the Laws of Generation, without transmitting the Substance also?

Again, either the Author must take the same Principle for granted, or to what End or Purpose Prop. vii and its Comment?

If his Meaning, indeed be, that as every animal Creature, by the Laws of Generation, begets its like; the Toad, the Viper, the Tyger, &c. begets Toads, Vipers, Tygers, &c. So the animal Part or Bodies of our first Parents being degenerate, corrupt and mortal, the animal Part or Bodies of their Posterity, which alone they could beget, must therefore, by the Laws of Generation, be degenerate, corrupt and mortal also: If this, I say, be his Meaning, who will ever dispute the Truth of the Proposition? Nay▪ [Page 105] who will not moreover readily grant, that the corruptible Body presseth down the Soul, and often too easily besets and draws it off, from heavenly and spiritual to earthly and carnal Things? But then, alas! what o­ther End or Purpose will all this be of, to the Author's Scheme of Regeneration, than to destroy it? This Scheme absolutely re­quires the positive innate Degeneracy and Corruption of the Soul for its Foundation. And as the Author must plainly see, that this Degeneracy & Corruption transmitted from Adam by the Laws of Generation, must nece­sarily suppose the Propagation of Souls; it is evident to me, that rather than touch this Point, or expressly beg the Question, he chose to lay its Foundation in Darkness, and to hide its Weakness under general and am­biguous Phrases, and especially the Word Nature; to the no small Puzzle and Per­plexity of common Readers.

It is true, Mention is once made of a Co­venant Adam was under, his being the Re­presentative Head, and of the Imputation of his Sin; but as these, the Author owns, lay [...]ut of his Way, that is, answered not to his Corruption Scheme, they are once, I say, as 'twere, compell'd to make a sort of ex­centrick [Page 106] Appearance, and we hear no more of them.

But to have done with this Head: E­very Body can easily conceive, as Adam was the Root, from which sprang the animal Part or Bodies of his Children, that the animal Patt or Bodies of his Children must therefore, by the Laws of Generation, partake of the Nature and Qualities of that Root, whether they were good or evil; but how their Souls, if they sprung not from that Root, must partake of its Nature and Qua­lities, by any Laws of Generation, I believe a Methodist only can conceive.

The Populace have been strangely amus­ed of late with the Doctrine of Regeneration, as a sudden, instantaneous Work (Act) of the Holy Spirit, and in which the Subjects are entirely passive. But this Author, tho' he still dogmatically insists on some certain cri­tical Act in the Case, yet has a whole Chap. (4th) concerning the Manner, Means and Steps, by which this Work is wrought by the Spirit of God in the Hearts of his Peo­ple. I'm afraid that in this Chap. he has departed from the ancient Testimony, and ad­vanced several Things, which natural Men may take for Inconsistences and Contradictions.

[Page 107] Pag. 52, 53. I find the following remark­able Passages. In all his Ways towards us, and especially in the Work of Regeneration and Con­version, God deals with us as reasonable Crea­tures, however weak degenerate, or corrupt; and always acts in a Way agreeable to our ra­tional Powers; this the Precepts, Admonitions, Promises, Councils and Invitations, &c. of the Word do clearly demonstrate.

How from the Bottom of my Heart do I wish, that this honest and instructive Pas­sage stood in Golden Capitals, at the Head of every Page, throughout the whole Perfor­mance; with [Regeneration is the whole and sole Work of God, in which we are entirely passive] incerted between Hooks in the very Center of it; to expose the Contradiction in direct View, and guard the Judgment of the unwary Reader! The Author goes on, ‘These (that is, Precepts, Admonitions, Promises, &c. of the Word all suppose that we are either capable of doing something or other in a Way of Duty; or, at least, of being excited, disposed and enabled to hear, understand, and do what is required. Tho' we have lost our In­nocence, Righteousness and Holiness, we have not lost our Faculties and Powers. [Page 108] We are not Stocks and Stones, and mere Machines; but, intelligent Agents: And tho' we cannot, in our natural State, know the Things of the Spirit of God, as we should, and as we must, if we would be saved; yet many Things we still know of our Maker, and his Will; yea, and many Things we can also do. In our Renovation, God restores what we have lost, but does it by working upon what remains. He calls and excites us, to the exercise of our rational Faculties, and at the same Time cures the Disorders of them, and frames them in some Measure, for what he enjoins. He commands us, for Example, to hear and read his Word, with Reverence and Seriousness; and in our obeying, as we can, and hearing it with that Reverence, we would do any Thing of Moment, he makes us to under­stand it. He commands us to mix Faith with our Hearing; and in our receiving it, with that Faith which we may have, he confirms our Assent to it. He saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the Dead, &c. and when we humble our selves under a deep Sense of our utter Inability, and heartily pray for Almigh­ty [Page 109] quickning Grace, he by the Power of his Spirit, working with the Word, tho­roughly awakens us, and raises us from the Dead. He commands Sinners to cease to do Evil; and in their sincere Care to compply, he many Ways assists them, And, to learn to do well; and in their setting about this Work, in earnest, he by the Word both disposes them farther, and enables them also.’ Now if all this be Methodism, I subscribe to it Heart and Hand; only with this Difference from the Author, that I must insist on these, not as previous Dispositions only, to the Work of Regeneration; but in Reality the Work ado­ing, and part of it actually done. For ac­cording to his own Description of Regene­ration, it consists, ‘In the checking, weak­ning, and in part subduing our Natural De­pravity and Corruption; and the restoring in some Measure, that Image of God, which Adam lost by his Fall.’ But if the Work of Regeneration consists in these, then I must insist, that it is not a sole, critical or instantaneous, but a gradual co-operating Work of the Holy Spirit; commencing at Bap­tism, and gradually advancing throughout the whole course of Christian Life; including [Page 110] all the Steps or Degrees of Faith, Repen­tance, renewed Dispositions of the Mind, and Habits of Obedience, 'till we arive at the Measure of the Stature of the Fulness of Christ; that is, to such a Degree of Chri­stian Perfection, as is attainable here; that which is absolute, being only atainable at the Resurrection hereafter. In a Word, I must insist, that according to the Scriptures, the whole Oeconomy of Grace is, an Oeconomy of CO-OPERATION, where the Subject is capable; and therefore, that the above cited Particulars are not only preparative, or previous Dispositions to Regeneration; but the Work actually adoing, and Part of it actually done.

This, in the Judgment of the Christian Church in all Ages, is the plain Doctrine of the Scripture, and therefore the Passage next following, contains a Contradiction to the above cited Passage, and a manifestly false Assertion, viz. ‘We are never com­manded to regenerate our selves, or beget our selves again; that is God's Work, his wholly and solely.’ But are we indeed ne­ver commanded to regenerate or beget our selves again; tho' not in the very Words, (for the Word Regenerate occurs not once [Page 111] in the whole English Bible) yet not in this Author's own Sense or Meaning of them? Are we never commanded to check, weaken, or in part subdue our natural Depravity and Corruption, and to improve our selves in Know­ledge, Righteousness and Holiness? Or are not these the Purport of all the Divine Com­mands? Are we never commanded, to purge out the old Leaven, that we may be a new Lump? To put off the Old Man, and to put on the New? To cracify the Flesh with the Affections and Lusts? To mortify our Mem­bers which are upon the Earth? Are we ne­ver commanded to cleanse our selves from all Filthiness both of the Flesh and Spirit, per­fecting Holiness in the Fear of God? To cleanse our Hands and purify our Hearts? &c. And can these, or any like Commands, be understood to import any more, than our doing such Part of these Things as we are a­ble, or that the main or principal part is not the Work of the Holy Spirit, without whose co-operating Aids and Graces, we can do nothing? Nay, but says the Author, this (Regeneration) is God's Work, his whol­ly and solely; and in which we are entirely passive. Are these the Words of him who just before had said, That in all his Ways, [Page 112] and especially the Work of Regeneration, God deals with us as reasonable Creatures, not as with Stocks or Stones, or mere Machines, but intelligent Beings? And a few Lines after says, That in the whole Work of Grace, God treats us as reasonable Creatures, and in a Way congruous to our rational Powers? A­way with such confused and contradictory Gibberish.

But our Author's Eyes being fitted only for Methodist Light, he is over with it a­gain, pag. 60, 61. Taking it for granted, that the Holy Spirit is the Almighty Worker of our Regeneration, in which we are entirely passive; we may observe, that ordinarily there are certain Works which are previous preparative, and some Way dispose to it. — Several Things are required of us in a Way of Duty; which all Men may in some Measure comply with, if not by their own natural Abilities, yet through the Assistance of that common Grace, which is in some Degree, given to all the Hearers of the Gospel, viz. That we seriously read▪ and carefully attend, to all the Dispensations of the Word; that we frequently think of our Ways▪ consider our State and Frame, and be much in Prayer for the holy Spirit to enlighten, renew and sanctify [Page 113] us, &c. Nor has any Man any Reason to expect any such invaluable Blessing, who is either utter negligent of, or only superficial in the Perfor­mance of them. Commonly also in the serious Attention of the Soul, to these Duties, the Ho­ly Ghost much enlightens the Mind, awakens the Conscience, convinces of Sin, fills with Grief, and Shame, and Fear, excites to Con­fession, Prayer and Humiliation, and frequent­ly works strongly upon, and produceth a migh­ty Change, not only in the outward Life, but inward Affections. Now if Regeneration consists in checking, weakning, and in part subduing our natural Depravity and Corrup­tion, &c. must not this Author allow the above Particulars, especially the mighty Change, both of the outward Life and in­ward Affections, to be not only a previous disposing to, but the real Work of Regenera­tion a doing, and part of it actually done? But no such Thing. Tho none of these (in­sists he) nor all of them together be Regene­ration, yea tho' all of them may be wrought, and that in a high Degree, in those who are never born of the Spirit, &c. Is it not plain, that he here shifts the Idea of the Word Re­generation, and instead of meaning by it the gradual and Progressive Work of checking, [Page 114] weakening, subduing, &c. he annexes it to the Idea of an immediate critical Act; or the natural Depravity or Corruption actu­ally checked, weakened and subdued, &c. The same which other Christian Writers or Divines call the highest Degree of Christian Perfection, which thro' a Growth in Grace, is attainable here, if not that, which none shall attain to, till the Resurrection hereafter.

But above all (Sir) what I chiefly design to observe to you is, that either this Au­thor must be in a very great Error, or your self; either his Doctrine must be false, or your own.

This Author Asserts, That several Things are required of us in a Way of Duty, which all Men may in some Measure comply with, if not by their own natural Abilities, yet thro' the Assistance of that common Grace gi­ven to all the Hearers of the Gospel viz. that we seriously read and attend to all the Dispen­sations of the Word, frequently think of our Ways, consider our State, and be much in Prayer, &c.

Now if according to this Author, these Works or Duties, viz. serious reading, care­ful Attention to all the Dispensations of the Word, frequent Meditation, and diligent [Page 115] Prayer, &c. if all these Works or Duties (and which thro' common Grace given to all Gospel Hearers we are able to perform) be required of us as Means naturally dispo­sing to the Work of Regeneration, and without which no one has Reason to expect that Blessing; then of necessary Consequence they must be required to Justification also, which in the Order of Nature, according to this Author, cannot precede Regeneration, but follow after it; but if these Works or Duties be required to our Justification, then what becomes of your remarkable Antino­mian Chalenge, Who dares assert that we are not justified in the Sight of God, merely by an Act of Faith in Jesus Christ, without any Re­gard to Works, past, present, or to come? (Jour. cont. P. 108. Edit. Phil.)

Again, these Works or Duties which God thus requires the Performance of, as Means materially, disposing for Regenera­tion, when through common Grace per­formed, are they acceptable to God or not? If you say they are not, you say, that the Performance of God's own Commands are not acceptable to him: If you say they are, you contradict your own express Doc­trine, (Serm. What think ye of Christ, P. 18.) [Page 116] ‘Our Persons must be justified before our Performances can be accepted.’

I have no Intention to wade through the Farrago of the Pamphlet, which I believe no one breathing will be ever be idle e­nough to do: But if you'll please to satify these few Exceptions I have offered upon it, you'll much oblige.

To the Reverend Mr. Whitefield.

TOUCHING your two Letters, which you have caused to be published in this Place, I am in no doubt what Spirit you were when you wroute them. Had you observed common Decency or good Man­ners in them, you had then been only an Object of common Pity; but your contra­ry Behaviour, exposes you to the utmost Scorn and Contempt of every Reader. You [Page 117] know not, you say, how to give flattering Titles in the cause of God; but you know how, pretending the Cause of God, to bring railing Accusations (which an Arch­angel durst not do against the Devil) to support some Crotchets you have got in your own Brains; how to insult and abuse the Memory and Writings of two of the most sound, Pious and learned Authors that ever adorned the English Church or Nation: And how to call God's Truth to witness the Falshood of the Gospel be­ing a Covenant! You know how to do all this, and to dispence it to the Populace in a Vehicle of cant Terms, without Sense or Meaning. And if this be the Spirit of Methodism, my Soul come thou not into their Secrets.

But have you indeed vindicated your Assertion that the Archbishop Tillotson knew no more of Christianity than Mahomet? [...] [...]ay how have you done it? Why in a very suitable Manner; by advancing two other Assertions, equally false and slanderous, and equally wanting a Vindication, viz. That the Archbishop knew of no other than a bare Historical Faith; and that, as to the Method of our Acceptance with God thro' [Page 118] Jesus Christ, and our Justification by Faith alone, he was as ignorant as Mahomet.

Now (Sir) have you proved, or attemp­ted to prove that the Archbishop knew of no more than a bare Historical Faith? No: Every Spiritual Man, you say, that reads his discourses may see it. Did you take this on trust from your honour'd Friend J. W? If you did, you must not lose your Reward. If you grounded it on your own Knowledge of those Discourses; how came this Passage of them in Par­ticular, besides many others, not to con­found you! Vol. II. Fol. Serm. 25. But then this Faith must not be a bare assent and persuasion of the Truth of the Gospel, but such an effectual Belief as expresseth itself in suitable Acts of Obedience and Ho­liness, such as the Apostle here calls a Faith which worketh by Love; a Faith that is inspir'd and acted or rather consummate & made perfect by Charity, (for so the Word doth often signify) and then this Phrase will be just of the same Importance with that of St. James, by Works is Faith made perfect. REMEMBER (Sir) this Passage must look you full in the Face at the great Day.

Have you prov'd for certain that the [Page 119] Archbishop knew no more of our Acceptance with God, &c. than Mahomet? Unfor­tunately then it turns out, that you have proved the same of yourself also. The naughty Passage by which you have prov'd this of the Archbishop you have interpo­lated: Restored with the Interpolation 'twixt Hooks, it runs thus.

‘You see then what it is that must re­commend us to the Favour of God; the real Renovation of our Hearts and Lives, after the Image of him that created us. [This must be repaired in us] before we can be restored to the Grace and Fa­vour of God, or to be capable of the Re­ward of Eternal Life. And what could God have done more reasonable, than to make these very Things the Terms of our Salvation, which are the necessary Causes and Means of it? How could he have dealt more mercifully and kindly with us, than to appoint that to be the Condition of our Happiness, which is the only Qualification that can make us capable of it?’

Now (Sir) if this Passage proves, that the Archb [...]shop knew no more of the Method of our Acceptance, &c. then what [Page 120] must these following Passages of yours, prove of you.

Whitefield's Sermon on Regeneration, P. 14, 17. The Apostle declares it to be the irre­vocable Decree of the Almighty, that whith­out Holiness, i. e. without being made pure by Regeneration, and having the Image of God thereby reinstamp'd upon the Soul, no Man living shall see the Lord. And it is very observable, that our Divine Master, in the famous Passage before referred to, concerning the absol [...]te Necessity of Regeneration, does not say unless a Man be born again he shall not, but unless a Man be born again he can­not enter into the Kingdom of God, For it is founded on the very Nature of Things, that unless we have Dispositions wrought in us suitable and answerable to the Objects that are to entertain us, we can take no Manner of Complacency or Satisfaction in them, &c. Nay, in one Place of Scripture, Sanctification is put before Justification, on purpose as it were, to shew that there is no Salvation with­out it. But ye are washed, says the Apostle, but ye are sanctified. Another indispu­table Argument why we must be new Crea­tures, viz. because without it Christ is dead in vain.

[Page 121]If St. Paul would pronounce an Anathema against the Archbishop on that naughty Pas­sage of his, how much more would he do so against you on these of yours! Here (in these Passages of yours) is not a Word about the All sufficient perfect and everlasting Righte­ousness and Death of Christ, as the sole Cause and Condition of our being accepted by the Father; (but what asserts the direct contra­ry, viz. That the Righteousness and Death of Christ are not Allsufficient as the sole Cause of our being accepted by the Father, but that without Regeneration Christ is dead in vain) Our Sanctification which is the Ef­fect and not the Cause of Christ's Righteous­ness being imputed to us, is here as elsewhere represented, as the sole Cause of our Justifica­tion and Salvation. So that (a monstrous Inference!) our Righteousness, which is but as filthy Rags, is here valued at so high a Price, as to be made to purchase, or which is the same, is made the Cause of our enjoying Christ, and Heaven and eternal Happiness. And what is this but Deisin refined? No, Sir, I'll tell you what it is; Arrant Gibberish and Nonsense; and equally so, applied to the Archbishop's Passage, or your own.

[Page 122]The Archbishop has asserted Regeneration, or the Image of God being repaired in us, as a necessary Cause, that is instrumental Cause, and Means of our Salvation: And have not you asserted, that without this no Man shall see the Lord? without it, we can­not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven? with­out it, there is no Salvation? and without it Christ is dead in vain? The Archbishop has asserted it the only Qualification that makes us capable of Happiness: And have not you asserted it as such, founded in the very Nature of Things? Or is the Asserting it the only Qualification of our Happiness, repre­senting it as the SOLE CAUSE of our Salvation? Lay your Hand upon your Heart (Sir) and say, whether the Archbi­shop has not asserted a supreme Cause of that very Qualification! But above all; supposing the Archbishop and yourself from him▪ (for let even a Methodist say) whether on the Comparison, there be no Grounds to presume, that you had the chief Materials of your Discourse from his; especially from the Paragraphs next preceeding that you censure) had worded your Sentiments in such a Manner, as to leave it doubtful, whether you meant Regeneration the SOLE [Page 123] CAUSE of Justification and Salvation or no; yet how will this support your monstrous Inference, — So that our Righteousness, &c. How long is it since you have made Rege­neration, or Sanctification (for you love dearly to shuffle among Terms) OUR RIGHTE­OUSNESS? Alas, my old Friend! whi­ther is your poor Head now wandring?

And thus, Sir, (in your Mountebank Way) you have, young David like, as you fancy, slain your Goliah: But whether it be not in the Pride and Naughtiness of your Heart, you have made so absurd an Attempt, and so foolishly manag'd it, the World is at no loss to determine; for the great and good Archbishop is still quite alive and well (his Works and Memory I mean) and will doubt­less long survive in the highest Honour and E­steem, after you and your dirty Pamphlets are sunk into Oblivion. But might not one such Conquest have sufficed you, as it did young David, at a Time? No, your noble Spirit scorns only to imitate, but must excel. No sooner have you dispatch'd this Cham­pion of the uncircumcised in Heart and Ears, but advancing from a David into a Knight of Lamanca, you go strait in Pursuit of new Adventures! And who unhapily falls in [Page 124] your Way, but another Son of Anak, the Author of the Whole Duty of Man? Down he must come; and thus you gird your self for the Battle!

Since it has pleased God to give me a True Knowledge of the Doctrines of Grace. Choice Armour indeed! Who shall be able to stand before you? None sure but the Pope or the Mufti; and it must be deemed not so honourable in you, to attack any one not equally arm'd for the Combat. A mo [...]ly Triumverate of Infallibles! Your Reverence, the Pope, and the Mufti! Each of you claiming the Gift of the True Know­ledge of the Doctrines of Grace, yet each denying his Claim to the other; and which therefore ought to be denied equally to you all; and regarded only as the Result of the most consummate Assurance, wherewith you jointly and severally disturb and confound the World.

But it has pleased God to give you a True Knowledge of the Doctrines of Grace; and therefore who dares dispute your Infalli­bility in pronouncing the false Ones! Who dares dispute when you pronounce, the Clery's falling away from the Principles of the Reformation; that such or such Books [Page 125] are founded on the Arminian Scheme; and the Chief Cause why many have built their hopes of Salvation on a false Bottom? And agreeably as you have pronounced, or born your noble Testimony concerning the Writings of Arbishop Tillotson, as directly contrary to the Gospel of Christ; if any dares to dispute the Matter, let them but remember, it has pleased God to give you the true Knowledge of the Doctrines of Grace, this must Command Assent, and hush e­very Tongue to Silence. Thus an elder Brother of yours, the ever memorable GEORGE FOX, (an Infallible also in his Days, to whom God had given the true Know­ledge of the Doctrines of Grace) bore his Testimony concerning the BIBLE, as on­ly a Dead Letter; and which was impli­citly recieved by his Followers, at least of that Age.

And thus equip'd you advance on the Author of the Whole Duty of Man. ‘This Book (you pronounce) is in general cal-to civilize, but you're persuaded never was a means of converting one single Soul.’ Will your Reverence stay your Hand here a little? ‘The Book (you say) is calcu­lated to civilize;’ Something then 'tis [Page 126] good for; please not utterly to destroy it. The Wrath, you know, of another noble Champion of Grace, See Edwards's Preacher, P. 49, 50.) was kindled against this Book; but his went no farther than the Title, Yours extends to the Preface, general Titles, and Index. ‘The Book (saith he) pretends to treat of the Whole Duty of Man, and puts us off with Half of it.’ Bad indeed! But is there no way to salve the Affair? Let the Title be altered, and for the future run, One half of the Whole Duty of Man; or rather let your Reverence, some spare Day or other, supply the other Half that's wanting, under the Title of the first or second Part, as you please, to be added next Edition, and then the first general Title and Book itself may stand. And this, I hope, you'll the more readily fall in with, because of the Judgment of this Brother Champion of yours, who with some Tem­per and Modesty says: ‘I deny not that the aforesaid Book is of very good Use in its Kind, and is in some Respects an excel­lent Piece; and it is probable that if the worthy Author had lived longer, he would have made those necessary Additions to it which I have hinted.’ Will either of [Page 127] these proposals do? By no means, ‘You have look'd over the general Titles and Index, and cannot find the WORD Rege­neration so much as once mentioned.’ A fatal Defect indeed! I have just been looking into my Concordance, and almost tremble to tell you, that I find this WORD but twice mentioned in the whole Bible; and in neither Place anywise to your Pur­pose! What the Consequence may be, when you have considered the Matter, I cannot say.

But neither is this all. ‘The whole Treatise (you say) is built on such a false Foundation, as not only proves the Author to be no real Christian at Heart; but also that he had not so much as a Head-Know­ledge of the true Gospel of Christ.’ All Heads, 'tis certain, are not alike furnished, nor capable of the same Furniture; and therefore, saving your Infalibility, this Pas­sage plainly shews your Head sufficiently furnished, with what I forbear to name. But what is this false Foundation this Treatise is built upon? Why it is contained in these Words of the Preface, This second Covenant was made with Adam, and us in him, present­ly after his Fall; and is briefly contained, Gen. [Page 128] iii. 15. where God declares, that the Seed of the Woman shall break the Serpents Head. And this was made up as the first was, of some Mercies to be offered by God, and some Duties to be performed by us. In this Passage lies the false Divinity, or Fundamental Error that poisons the whole Book: But, alas, who that is not some Way Enlightned, nay, who that is not equally Enlightened with your Reverence, shall be able to find it? The Scotch second sight People pretend often to see strange Things, which no Body else can see but themselves; and the Pope and the Mufti pretend to see all the Fundamental Errors, and false Divinity in the World; but what is all that to me, except they can open my Eyes to see the same also? If they can open my Eyes to see the same Things as they pretend to see, the Obligation of doing it will be very great; but their pre­tending to see this or the other, which yet I cannot see is of no Avail to me, who am not disposed to rely on their Pretences, or to see with their Eyes, but with my own.

This Passage asserts, ‘that God made a second Covenant with Adam, and us in him, presently after his Fall; Gen. 3d. 15th.’ — This you say, is false Divinity [Page 129] and fundamental Error; and that it cannot be proved that God made any second Covenant at all with Adam himself, or any of his Posteri­ty. — Pray, Sir, are you in a Jest or Ear­nest in this Matter? Have you not been dabling with, the Marrow of modern Divini­ty, or some such precious Book, which puz­zles your Head, and lies crude on your Understanding? Or are you deputed by some other Head or Hand behind the Cur­tain, to put off such Stuff upon the World? Or finally, do you really mean to burle­sque the Bible, and try Practices on the weak and unstable of Mankind? Here you say, (Gen. [...]d. and 15th.) is a Free Gift and Pro­mise of Salvation made to Adam; but no Cove­nant, not a Word of any Condition mentioned. There are certain People in the Word cal­led Deists, who will contend it with you▪ that this Text contains no free Gift, nor any Promise of Salvation to Adam, or any other. Please try a Cast of your masterly Hand a­gainst these same Diests; and if the same Arguments by which you prove the Text to contain a Free Gift, or Promise of Salvati­on to Adam, do not equally prove that it contains or implies a Covenant also, then let it be given up without further Contention.

[Page 130]But suppose this Text given up, and wholly out of the Question, will it thence follow, that it cannot be proved that God made any second Covenant at all with Adam himself, or any of his Posterity? Have you never read of the Covenant which God made with Abraham, and the Oath which he sware unto Isaac? Know you nothing of the Covenant which God made at Horeb, with the Seed of Abraham his chosen? or the Two Tables of it wrote with his own Finger, nor the Ark wherein they were kept? Are you wholly ignorant, how often God complains by his Prophets, of that chosen People's breaking his Cove­nant, and how often he punished them for such Breaches? Does not St. Paul (Gal. 4.) expressly assert two Covenants, represented by the two Sons of Abraham; that of the Law represented by the Son of the Bond-Woman, and that of the Gospel, by the Son of the Free? And is not Christ expressly stiled by the same Apostle, the Mediator of the NEW Covenant; of a better Covenant, which was established on better Promises? See Heb. 8th passim. — More-over, (Sir) if you are thus persuaded, that God never [...] any second Covenant with Adam, [Page 131] nor any of his Posterity; how can you with­out Hypocrisy or Dissimulation presume to baptize according to the Office of the Church of England, or to teach her Catechism? How can you with a good Conscience, oblige any Person in Bap­tism, to the solemn Vows and Promi­ses; First, Of renouncing the Devil and all his Works, the Pomps and Vanities of this wicked World, and all the sinful Lusts of the Flesh: Secondly, Of believing all the Arti­cles of the Christian Faith: And, Thirdly, Of keeping God's Holy Will and Command­ments, and walking in the same all the Days of their Life? How can you, I say, with an honest and upright Conscience, lay this Yoke on the Necks of the Disciples, which God himself never laid, nor ever im­powered Men to lay; if so be that he never made any second Covenant with them, and that the Gospel is a Free Gift in such a Sense, as to exclude its being a Covenant Dispensation?

Here I should lay down my Pen, and wait your Answers to the above Particu­lars; but one more Remark, and it will probably drop from my Hand.

[Page 132]After having quoted the 21st Paragraph of the Preface, viz. The Third Thing that Christ was to do for us, &c. You go on to ask, ‘Where has God taken off from the Hardness of the Law given to Adam? And required of us an holy and hearty Endeavour to do what we are able; and when we fail accepting of sincere Repen­tance?’ I answer, in every Page of the Bible: But to which your Answer is, This is all as false as God is true. Presumptu­ous Man! What more can the holdest In­fidel presume, than to call God's Truth to witness the Falshood of the Bible! My trembling Hand can no longer, than to subsribe myself,

LETTER VI. To the Reverend Mr. Whitefield.

ALAS Sir is it come to this at last! That you to whom God has given a true Knowledge of the Doctrines of Grace! And who in the Fulness of that Knowledge had so absolutely vindicated your modest and christian Assertion, viz. That Archbishop Tillotson knew no more of Christianity than Mahomet! That you, I say, instead of de­fending your noble Vindication, are fain to run for Shelter under the Wings of the poor shatter'd Dr. Edwards, (as dogmatical cap­tious, unfair and confuted a Writer as any of his Time) and to throw out his ex­ploded Snarling Stuff to your Opposers, and bid them Answer it! Are these the Arts of a Man of your Gifts and Graces? Or can you think your Opposers simple enough to be catch'd by them; and set to Work to confute such Stuff, as has been confuted and exploded above 30 Years a­go? It is a Maxim, I am told among the Jesuits in Controversy, never to regard the [Page 134] Objections of an Adversary; but to ne­glect them, and always return to their own Assertion, as if nothing had been of­fered against it. A Maxim worthy indeed of that singular Order! Do not you also pursue this Trick of theirs in your Pole­micks? Did you learn it of them? Or is it the Fruit of your own Genius? Do you Sir, first vindicate Dr. Edwards against his Opposers in the Case, and your Oppo­sers may probably take some Notice of your Vindication.

But mean-time, as this Letter, tho' di­rected to you, is design'd to be publish'd, and as many of the Readers of your Epistle in these Parts, may never have seen ei­ther Dr. Edwards's PREACHER, nor any Vindication the Archbishop from the injurious Treatment contain'd in it; I shall therefore take leave, in a few Words, to put such Readers in the Way, to avoid Imposition in the Case, and to do common Justice to the Parties con­cern'd. And to this Purpose the follow­ing single Rule, and a few Instances to shew the Necessity and Usefulness of it, shall suffice.

[Page 135]The Rule is this, That such Readers do by no Means trust to the Authority either of Dr. Edwards, your Reverence, or any other, concerning any Passages excepted to, of the Writings of the Archbishop; but that they see with their own Eyes, by reading them in Connection as they stand in the said Writings, and with due Regard to the Scope and Argu­ment of the respective Discourses in which they are found. This is the Rule, and the Necessity and Usefulness of it will appear in these following Instances.

1st. Tillot. Works, Vol. III. P. 414. You do not find any where revealed in all the Scripture, that there is a God. ‘And yet (excepts Dr. Edwards) it is agreed by all sober and intelligent Christians, that there is express Mention and Confirmation of a Deity in the Scriptures.’ Is this a fair and honest Quotation from the Archbi­shop? Or is this a fair and honest Ex­ception to it? It is not any where REVEA­LED, says the Archbishop; there is express Mention and Confirmation of it, says Dr. Edwards: What Inconsistency or Contra­dicton in these? The Archbishop denies not the express Mention and Confirmation; The Dr. asserts not the Revelation. But [Page 136] let the Reader see the Passage in this follow­ing Connection (as it ought to have been quo­ted) with his own Eyes. ‘A divine Reve­lation cannot possibly be an Argument inducing me to believe the Existence of a God, for this plain Reason; because a divine Revelation can be no Argument to any, that is not persuaded that it is a di­vine Revelation: But before I can be per­suaded that any Revelation is from God, I must be persuaded there is a God; and if so, there is no Need of this Argument to prove to me there is one. And therefore you do not find it any where revealed in all the Scripture, that there is a God. The Scripture often declares, that Jeho­vah is the true and living God; and that, besides him there is no other: But it doth not reveal but every where suppose, that there is one.’ Thus stands the Passage in Connection, containing as plain and de­monstrable a Truth, as any Proposition in Euclid.

2. From the same Vol. and Page of the Archbishop's Works, Dr. Edwards quotes these Words; I do not find the Immortality of the Soul, or a future State is expressly re­vealed in the Bible; and excepts to them as [Page 137] denying the express Mention and Confirma­tion of these Particulars, in the Scriptures. The Words indeed are in the same Vol. and Page, but not together as they are quo­ted. The Passage in Connection runs thus: As for the other two Principles of Natural Religion, the Immortality of the S [...]ul, and a future State; after we believe a God▪ we may be persuaded of these from Divine Reve­lation; and that doth give the highest and firmest Assurance of them, in the Resurrec­tion of Christ from the Dead. Yet I do not find but that these also are rather supposed, than expresly revealed in the Bible. Indeed the Immortality of the Soul may be inferred from several Places of Scripture, and the Te­nour of the whole Bible. And so a future State, which as for the Thing it self, seems to he supposed as a Thing acknowledged by Natu­ral [...]ight; only the Scripture hath revealed the Circumstances more particularly to us, and given us higher Assurance of the Thing. Thus let the Reader see with his own Eyes, and not trust the Quotations of Edwards, your Reverence, or any like foul and partial Writer.

3. As to the Archbishop's denying such Power or Prerogative to the Devil, as to im­print [Page 138] wicked Thoughts on the Minds of Men, (Vol. II. P. 532, 533, not 352, 353. as you directed) I must beg the Reader to consult that whole Sermon, intitled, the Knowledge of God. Of the several Passages relating to this Particular, I shall here set down but this one. — I do not see, how by any Means it can be granted, without Prejudice to this Prerogative of God, which the Scripture plain­ly gives him, of being the only Knower of the Heart, that the Devil can have so immediate an Access to our Minds, as to put wicked Thoughts into them; nor can I think that when it is said, that Satan provoked David to Number the People, that the Devil entred into Judas; that Satan had filled the Heart of Ananias, &c. that any or all of these Ex­pressions do amount to such an immediate Po­wer, of putting wicked Thoughts into Men's Minds; but they only signify, that the Devil hath a greater Hand in some Sins than others; and that a Heart wickedly bent and inclined, gives him a great Advantage to tempt Men more powerfully, by presenting the Occasions of such wicked Thoughts and Actions to them: For it is usual, in Scripture Phrase, as to as­cribe all good Motions to God's Spirit, so all e­vil Thoughts and Actions to the Devil; not that [Page 139] he is the immediate Cause of them, but because he is always ready to tempt Men to them, and one Way or other to promote them.' — Thus every Reader may see, from this Passage, but more fully from the whole Tenor of the Sermon, that the Archbishop is only assert­ing the Knowledge of Men's Hearts to be the sole Prerogative of God, and therefore deny­ing the same Prerogative to the Devil. But the unparalleled Abuse of the latter Part of this Passage by Dr. Edwards, and yourself his Voucher, must not be passed over in Silence. The lat [...]er Part of this Passage you cite from Dr. Edwards's Preacher, P. 117. Word for Word, thus; — As it is usual, in the Scripture Phrase, to ascribe all good Motions to God's Spirit, so all evil thoughts to the Devil; not that he is the immediate Cause of these, no more than God's Spirit is the Au­thor of the other. Thus Word for Word, I say, you have cited from Dr. Edwards, and all in I [...]aliks, as if they all were the Words of the Archbishop. In this Sir, you have injure [...] both the Archbishop and the Dr. For neither are these last Words, viz. NO MORE THAN GOD'S SPIRIT IS THE AUTHOR OF THE OTHER, the Words of the Archbishop at all; nor indeed has [Page 140] Dr. Edwards set them down as such in his Book, but in a different Character, as an Addition of his own. Rare juggling Work indeed! Dr. Edwards injuriously adds to the Archbishop's Words, and still more in­juriously censures him on that Addition. You, to mend the Matter, put the added Words directly into the Archbishop's Mouth, and vouch the same Censure, viz. Is not this a strange Comparison between these two contrary Spirits? And doth not the Framer of it discover what new Models of Divinity he affects? He is pleased to excuse the Devil from ejecting any bad Thoughts in­to Men's Minds, and he exempts God's Spirit from being the Cause or Author of any good or holy Thoughts. The Comparison is strange enough indeed! But whether Dr. Edwards and your Reverence are not the Framers of it, let the Reader see. You, Sir, and your Brother Champion are the Framers of it, and as stupidly as injuriously have you framed it. For so far is the Archbishop from exemp­ting God's Spirit from being the Author of any good or holy Thoughts, that it is the whole Scope or Argument of that very Discourse, to prove it the sole Prerogative of God, to know the Hearts of Men; and [Page 141] consequently his Power of being the im­mediate Author of good and holy Thoughts there; and denying this Prerogative to the Devil, and consequently his Power of be­ing the immediate Author of bad or evil ones.

Dr. Edwards is now dead and before his Maker, but you are yet alive, and therefore upon you I call, either to vindi­cate or retract your Testimony in this Matter, in as publick a Manner as you have bore it, or to rest under the Charge of being a wilful Deciever.

These few Instances are sufficient to shew the Necessity and Usefulness of observing the above Rule in the present Case, and in­deed in all like Cases of Controversy what­soever. Let no Reader trust the Citations of either Party or Parties concerned; but consult and see them with his own Eyes. For how easy a Matter is it for a dishonest Adversary to mis-represent and abuse the Writings of any Author, specially if gone to rest from his Labours? It is but expos­ing them in Shreds, Scraps, or Sentences de­tached from their Connection, with some few Addition of Words, Glosses, Inuendoes, &c. in order to give a wrong Turn; and [Page 142] the Work is done: By these and like Means, the poor Author is demolished; made to speak the very Reverse of his true Sentiments, the very contrary of what he meant and intended. Let Readers take Care; the best of Writers are not exempt­ed from this Usage. The sacred Pages have not escaped it, at the Hands of Collins, Tin­dal, and other Infidel Writers.

As to the Archbishop's Sentiments of Christianity in general, so charitably repre­sented by Dr. Edwards and your Reverence, as mean and disparaging, and his either giv­ing a very crude Account of Christian Duties, or jumbling them with mere Acts of Morality; I shall only lay before the Reader, the fol­lowing Paragraph from the Bishop of Lon­don's 2d Pastoral Letter, P. 64. 65. 4th Edit. ‘It may not be improper, before I shut up this Head, to observe that several of our most eminent Divines after the Restoration, set themselves both by Preaching and Writing to enlarge upon the Importance of Moral Duties, and to recommend them with great Earnestness to the Regard of the People; to such a Degree, as to stand charg'd by others with too great a Disre­gard of the D [...]ctrines and Duties peculiar [Page 143] to Christianity. Whereas, the Case in reality was this. During the Times of Confusion, many of the Preachers had not only forborn to inculcate the Duties of Morality, but had labour'd to depreciate them; to persuade the People that Faith was All, and Works Nothing. And there­fore the Clergy after the Restoration, in order to take off those unhappy Impres­sions, found themselves obliged to incul­cate with more than ordinary Diligence, the Necessity of moral Duties in the Chris­tain Life, and to labour to restore them to their proper Share in the Christian Scheme. But those of them, who with the honest View I have mention'd, labour'd the most zealously in that Way, were at the same Time as zealous to explain to the People the great Work of our Redemption by Jesus Christ, as the Means of Salvation which God has appointed: (a) The Cor­ruption and Misery into which Mankind was sunk by the Fall of our first Parents; (b) The Necessity of a Mediator to reco­ver them, and restore them to the Favour of God; (c) The Incarnation of [...]he Son of God for that End; (d) The Goodness of God in appointing his own Son to be [Page 144] the Mediator between him and Us;^(e) The Comfort of having a Mediator of our own Nature;^(f) The Expiation made for Sin by the Suffering of Christ;^(g) The Wisdom of God in making Christ a Sacrifice for Sin;^(h) The inestimable Value of his Sufferings, for the Redemption of all Mankind;⁽ⁱ⁾ Our Justification by Faith in him,^(k) and Sanctification by the Holy Spirit, and his Intercession for us at God's Right Hand. In general; what can be more express, than the Doctrine laid down by^(m) Archbishop Tillotson, concerning our Redemption by Christ, That Men are to place all their Hope and Con­fidence of Salvation in Jesus Christ the Son of God; that is, to believe that through the a­lone Merit of his Death and Sufferings, God is reconciled to us; and that, only upon the Ac­count of the Satisfaction which he hath made to Divine Justice, we are restor'd to the Favour of God, and our Sins are pardon'd to us, and we have a Title to Eternal Life. Not but that there are Conditions on our ^{(a) (b) (c) (d)}[Page 145] Part to make us capable of these Benefits, Faith and Repentance, and sincere Obedience, and Holiness of Life, without which we shall never be made Partakers of them; but that the Satisfaction of Christ is the only merito­rious Cause of those Blessings.’

I should here put an End to this Trouble, but as your Letter to the Inhabitants of Ma­riland, &c. is annexed to this I have now remark'd upon, I shall take Leave to sub­join a few Remarks on that valuable Per­formance.

In my humble Opinion, Sir, had you caused another Edition to be printed at Phi­ladelphia, of the Bishop of London's Letter to the Masters and Mistresses of Slaves in these Parts, and dispersed the Copies on your Way, as you came through the several Pro­vinces, you had done much more effectual Service, than by the Publication of your own. But if you knew of any such Let­ter of His Lordship's being extant, I suppose you'll plead a special Call for the Publica­tion of your own, and that answers all Ob­jections.

You must inform them (the Inhabitants of Maryland, &c.) you say, In the Meekness and Gentleness of Christ, &c. the Invective [Page 146] is so apparent throughout this notable Epistle, that these can only be taken for some Cant-Terms you accustom yourself to in all your Scriblings. But what is it you Must thus inform them of? Why, that you Think God has a Quarrel with them, &c. Had God sent you charged with this special Message, you might well say, that you MUST inform them of it; but as 'tis only a Matter of your own Thoughts, the Necessity does not so well appear. Your Thoughts in this Case may possibly be idle or ill grounded▪ and so better kept at home. But God you THINK has a Quarrel with them, and for their Abuse of and Cruelty to the poor Negroes. That God will have a Quarrel with any of the Human Race, for their Abuse of and Cruelty to others, is a very just Thought; and sin­ful out of all Doubt it is, for any of those Inhabitants to use their Negroes as bad, nay worse, than as tho' they were Brutes. But pray, Sir, on what Grounds do you bring this Charge against the Generality of those In­habitants who own Negroes, of using them as had, nay worse than as tho' they were Brutes? Do you know this Charge to be just and honest? Or have you sufficient Evidence to support it? No; you only [Page 147] think it to be so, and fear it, and believe it. But on the contrary, I shall presume, and on much better Grounds, to think, fear, and believe, that your Charge is false and inju­rious! and that the very Reverse of it is true, viz. that what particular Exceptions soever there may be as to good Usage of Slaves (as some doubtless there are) yet that the Generality of Owners use their Slaves with all due Humanity, whether in respect of Work, of Food, or Raiment. And therefore I farther think and believe, that the Generality of Owners of Slaves in the respective Colonies, may bring their Actions of Slander against you; and that in a certain Country I know, you would be indicted for meddling, as you have done in this Matter, which may endanger the Peace and Safety of the Community.

Hitherto we have only your Thoughts, your Fears, and your Belief on the Matter; you advance a-pace into positive Assertions. And perhaps, you say, it might be better for the poor Creatures themselves to be hurried out of Life, than to be made so miserable, as they generally are in it. And indeed, con­sidering what Usage they commonly meet with, &c. — I suppress the remainder of this [Page 148] and the next following Paragraph of your Epistle, as judging it both sinful, and dan­gerous to the publick Safety to reprint them. More Virulence and Falsehood cannot be contained in so few Lines. For so far are the generality of Slaves in these Colonies, from being miserable, that I dare confident­ly vouch and affirm, and partly on my own Knowledge, that their Lives in gene­ral are more happy and comfortable in all temporal Respects (the Point of Liberty only excepted) than the Lives of three fourths of the hired farming Servants, and Day Labourers, either in Scotland, Ireland, or even in many Parts of England, who not only labour harder, and fare worse, but have moreover the Care and Concern on their Minds how to provide for their Fa­milies; which Slaves are entirely exemp­ted from, their Children being all provi­ded for at the Owner's Charge.

Now, Sir, if this be really the Case with respect to the generality of Slaves in these Colonies, which can fully be proved it is; what Apology can suffice either for the Matter or Manner of your Letter, specially the two modest Paragraphs above mention­ed? Will you plead Hearsay or Report? [Page 149] Alas, Sir, this Plea will never do! I have heard by Report, of your Abuse and Cruelty to the poor Orphans under your Care, not only in Pinching their Bellies, but giving them up also to Task-Master [...] or Mistresses, who Plow upon their Backs, and make lomg Furrows, in a very inhuman Manner. And would you think it a fair and honest Thing in me, should I, on such Hearsay or Report, print and publish a Let­ter directed to you, pretending a Necessity of informing you, that God had a Quarrel with you, for your Cruelty to the poor Orphans; that perhaps they had better be hurried out of Life, than be made so miserable as they are in it; and that I wondered, they did not either put an End to their own Lives or Yours, rather than bear such Usage: Would you think this, I say, a fair and honest Proceed­ing in me, and not rather foul and injuri­ous, and having no good meaning, either towards yourself or the Orphans? And tho' it came prefaced in the Meekness and Gentleness of Christ, would you not regard it rather as a Burlesque of the Words? No, Sir, I know ther [...] must be a due Discipline, or Rod of Correction exercis'd among Chil­dren; and this may be, and often is misre­presented [Page 150] for Cruelty and bad Usage. I know also, that like Discipline and Correc­tion must be observed among every Parcel of Slaves; and which in like Manner, may be, and often is misrepresented in the same Light: And therefore no such Re­ports, in either Case, can justify a direct Accusation.

As to the little or no proper Care taken by Owners of the Souls of their Slaves, it is too sad a Truth; and I tremble to think, what Account they will give of it at the great Day! A sore Evil indeed! But for which, your Letter, I conceive, will afford but a poor Remedy. I cannot think so ill of any, as you do of most of them, viz. that on Purpose, they keep their Slaves ignorant of Christianity. I believe the Reason of their being so kept, is the want of one certain u­niform Method of teaching them, and which I hope will soon be established with Success. I readily agree, that the Objection to teaching them Christianity, viz. that it would tend to make them less governable, or worse Slaves, is wild and extravagant: But wish you had a little explained, what you mean by the Phrases, Christianizing; and MADE thorough Christians; and the Gospel [Page 151] preach'd with Power; whether by these Phrases you mean Things in the Power of Men? For sure I am, that Paul may plant, and Apollos may water, but God alone can give the Encrease. Men may teach true Chri­stianity, but no Man can MAKE a true Chri­stian.

Your Complement on Pastors and People, and apprehended Difference 'twixt the Im­portation of Rum and Bibles, are no Excep­tions to the usual Stile, Modesty, or Man­ners of your Epistles, and particularly of this under Consideration, which I have now done with, and remain,