2. Is it right in Mr. Hill to charge me, p. 1. I did not produce as a quotation the 7, with "base forgeries ;" and to represent me, words which you allude to; I put them in p. 56, as "descending to the poor, illiberal arts commas, as expressive of the sentiments of of forgery, and defamation," because I have "many good men;" How then could you think presented the public with a parable, in the that you alone are many good men? 2. But dress of a royal proclamation, which I proyou say that you, for one, understand the duce as a mere "illustration,"-because I words of St. John, He that does righteous- charge him with indirectly propagating tenets ness is righteous, of personal holiness: Now which as necessarily flow from his doctrines of to prove me a "a calumniator," you have only grace, as light from the sun,-and because I to prove that David did righteousness when he have distinguished by commas, a Creed framdefiled Uriah's wife; for you teach us directed with his avowed principles; although I ly, or indirectly, that when he committed that crime he was "undefiled," and continued to be " a man after God's own heart," i. e. a righteous man, for " the Lord alloweth the

and sentences I have added, not to misrepresent and blacken," (for what need is there of blackening the sable mantle of midnight?)" but to introduce, connect, and illustrate your sentiments."

3. Angry as the pharisees were at our Lord, when he exposed their errors by para bles, did they ever charge him with base for gery, because his "illustrations were not true stories? Is it not strange that this admirable way of defending the truth," should have been found out by the grand defender of the doctrines of grace? Again, if mark. ing with commas a paragraph of our composing, to distinguish it from our own real sentiments, is a crime; is not Mr. Hill as criminal as myself? Does he not, p. 31, present the public with a card of his own composing, in which he holds forth the supposed entiments of many clergymen, and which he distinguishes with commas thus: "The Feather's Tavern fraternity present compliments to Messrs. J. Wesley and Fletcher, &c."-Shall what passes for wit in the author of Pietas Oxoniensis, be gross disingenuity, and base forgery in the author of the Vindication ? ye candid Calvinists, partial as your system is, can you possibly approve of such glaring partiality?

4. Is it right in Mr. Hill to take his leave of me in this abrupt manner, p. 39, 40: "The unfair quotations you have made, and the shocking misrepresentations and calumnies you have beeu guilty of, will for the future preventme from looking into any of your books, if you should write a thousand volumes." And this especially under pretence, that I have "shamefully perverted and misrepresented the doctrines of Anthony Burgess," when I have simply produced a quotation from him in which there is not a shadow of misrepresentation, as the reader will see by comparing 4th Check, p. 41, 42. with the last paragraphs of the XIIth Sermon of Mr. Burgess on Grace and Assurance!

§ XIII. This perpetual noise about gross misrepresentations, shameful perversions, interpolations, base forgeries, &c. becomes Mr. Hill, as little as any man; his own inaccuracy in quotation equalling that of the most inattentive writer I am acquainted with. Our readers have seen, on what a slender basis he rests his charge of "base forgeries," I beg leave to shew them now, on what solid ground I rest my charge of uncommon inaccuracy; and not to intrude too long upon their patience, I shall just produce a few instances only out of his Finishing Stroke.*

To produce such instances out of the Review, would be almost endless. One however, Mr. Hill forces me to touch upon a second time. This is the ease. The sword of the Spirit which Mr. Wesley uses is two-edged. When he defends the first gospel axiom against the Pharisees, he preaches salvation not by the merits of works, but by believing in Christ: And when be defends the second gospel-axiom against the Anti

1. That performance does not do my ser mon justice, for p. 51, Mr. Hill quotes me so; "They (good works) are declarative of

nomians, he preaches Salvation, not by the merit of works, but by works as a condition. No sooner did the Minutes, than they took the alarm, fondly imagi the Calvinists see this last proposition at full length in ning that Mr. Wesley wanted to overthrow the protestant doctrine of salvation by faith. To convince themgeneral, and to the Minutes in particular, two sentenof their mistake, I appealed to Mr. Wesley's works in ces of which evidently shew, that he had not the least intention of setting aside faith in Christ, in order to make way for the anti-christian merit of works. Accordingly I laid those sentences before my readers, taking special care to show by comma's, that I produce two different parts of the Minutes, thus ; " Not by the merit of works," but by "believing in Christ." Here is tions, for they are fairly taken from the minutes; or not a shadow of disingenuity; either as to the quotaas to the sense of the whole sentences; for fifty volumes and myriads of hearers can testify, that it perfectly agrees with Mr. W's well known doctrine. But what does Mr. Hill? Biassed by his system, he tampers with my quotations; he takes off the two commas after the word works; he overlooks the two comhope throws my two distinct quotations into one; and mas before the word believing! he [inadvertently, I by that means adds to them the words "but by." which I had particularly excluded. When he has thus turned my two just quotations into one that is false, he is pleased to put me into the Geneva-pillory for his own mistake; and as his doctrines of grace teach him to kill two birds with one stone, he involves Mr. Wesley in my gratuitous disgrace, thus: "Forgeries of this kind have long passed for no crime with Mr. Wesley; I did not think you would have followed him in these ungenerous artifices," Review. p. 27.

Upon the remonstrance I made about this strange way of proceeding [see note, Fourth Check, p. 49.] I hoped that Mr. Hill would have hanged down his head a moment, and dropt the point for ever. But no He must give a finishing stroke, and drive home the nail of his rash accusation, by calling my remarks upon ful false quotation, he [Mr. Fletcher] has twice made his mistakes, "Attempts to vindicate that most shamefrom the Minutes," Log. Wesl. p. 35, And to prove that my attempts have been unsuccessful, he produces passages out of a newspaper, which represent " His mitted to the house of correction. To this I answer, majesty" stealing bread.""Her Majesty"-comthat is such unconnected quotations [of which I only give here the substance] were properly distinguished words; and if they did not in the least misrepresent the by commas: if they were separated by intervening author's sense; it would be greater injustice to call them either "a most shameful false quotation," or a "forgery." Now these three particulars meet in my properly distinguished with commas: 2. They are parttwo quotations from the minutes: 1. They are both ed by intervening words: And, 3. They do not in the least misrepresent Mr. Wesley's meaning: Whereas [to say nothing more of my commas expunged in the Review,] no word intervenes between Mr. Hiil's supposed quotations out of the papers: and they form a shameful misrepresentation of the publisher's meaning.

linked, they speak a language directly opposite to
Oh! but, as the quotations from the Minutes are
the Minutes themselves." So says Mr. Hill, without
producing the shadow of a proof. But upon the argu-
ments of the five Checks, affirm that the two gospel-
axioms, or my linked quotations and the Minutes,
agree as perfectly with each other, as those positions of
St. Paul, to which they answer: " By grace ye are
saved through faith." Therefore,
Work out your
salvation with fear."

From this redoubled stroke of Mr. Hill, I am tempted to think, that, like Justice, Logica Genevensis has a covering over her eyes: but alas! for a very different reason. Like he also she has a balance in her left hand but it is to weigh out and vend her own assertions as

our free justification :" whereas my manuscript runs thus: "They are the declarative cause of our free justification," viz. in the day of trial and of judgment. The word cause here is of the utmost importance to my doctrine, powerfully guarding the Minutes and undefiled religion. Whether it is left out because it shews at once the absurdity of pretending that my old sermon "is the best confutation of Mr. Wesley's Minutes;" or because Mr.Hill's copier omited it first, is best known to Mr. Hill himself.

2. I say in the 4th Check, "To vindicate what I beg leave to call God's honesty, per mit me to observe first, that I had rather believe, Joseph told once " a gross untruth," than to suppose that God perpetually equivocates." For undoubtedly of two evils I would choose the least, if a cogent dilemma obliged me to choose either. But this is not the case here; the dilemma is not forcible; for in the next lines I show, that Joseph, instead of "telling a gross untruth," only spake the language of brotherly kindness. However, without paying any regard to my vindication of Joseph's speech, Mr. Hill catches at the conditional words, "I had rather believe :" Just as if I had said, I do actually believe, he turns them into a peremptory declaration of my faith, and three times represents me as asserting what I never said nor believed: Thus P. 38, "Your wonderful assertion, that Joseph told his brethren a gross untruth :" Again, "Still you declare it to be your opinion, that Joseph told his brethren a gross untruth:":"-Once more, p. 39, "The repeated words of inspiration you venture to call gross untruth." Solomon says, "Who can stand before envy?" And I ask, Who can stand before Mr. Hill's inattention? I am sure neither I, nor Mr. Wesley. At this rate he can undoubtedly find a blasphemy in every page, and a Farrago in every book.

3. Take another instance of the same want of exactness. I say, in the 4th Check, "I never thought Mr. Whitefield was clear in the doctrine of our Lord, In the day of Judg ment by thy words shalt thou be justified, for if he had seen it in a proper light he would instantly have renounced Calvinism."-This passage Mr. Hill quotes thus, in Italics and commas, p. 23, "You never thought him clear in our Lord's doctrine, for if he had, he would have renounced Calvinism." The inaccuracy of this quotation consists in omitting those important words of our Lord, In the day of Judgment, &c. By this omission that sense of the

proofs. And, like her, she holds a sword in her right hand; but alas! it is often to wound brotherly love, and stab evangelical truth. Bring her into the field of Controversy, and she will at once cut down Christ's doctrine as dreadful heresy. Set her in the judgment-seat to pass sentence over good works, and over honest nien, that do not bow at her shrine: and without demur she will pronounce, that the former are dung, and that the latter are knaves,

preceding clause is left indefinite, and I am represented as saying, that Mr. Whitefield was not clear in any doctrine of our Lord, no not in that of the fall, repentance, salvation by faith, the new birth, &c. This one mistake of Mr. Hill is sufficient to make me pass for a mere coxcomb in all the calvinistic world.

4. It is by the like inattention that Mr. Hill prejudices also against me the friends of Mr. Wesley. In the 4th Check, after having answered an objection of the Rev. Mr. Hill against Mr. Wesley, I produce that objection again for a fuller answer, and say, “But supposing, that Mr. Wesley had not properly considered, &c. what would you infer from thence? &c. Weigh your argument, &c, and you will find it is wanting:" Then I immediately produce Mr. Hill's objection in the form of an argument, thus: "Twenty-three, or, if you please, three years ago, Mr. Wesley wanted clearer light," &c. Now what I evidently produce as a supposition and as the Rev. Mr. Hill's own argument unfolded in order to answer it, my opponent fathers upon me thus, "The following are your own words." 'Three years ago Mr. Wesley wanted clearer light,' &c.-True, they are my own words; but to do me justice, Mr. Hill should have produced them as I do, namely as a supposition, and as the drift of his brother's objection in order to show its frivolousness. This is partly such a mistake as if Mr. Hill said, The following are David's own words, "Tush? there is no God."

However he is determined to improve his own oversight, and does it by asking, p. 17. "What then is become of thousands of Mr. Wesley's followers, who died before this clearer light came?" An argument this, by which the most ignorant papists in my parish perpetually defend the idolatrous superstitions; "What is become of all our forefathers, say they, before Luther and Calvin? Were they all damned?"—Is it not surprising, that Mr. Hill, not contented to produce a popish friar's conversation, should have thus recourse to the argument of every popish cobbler, who attacks the doctrines of the Reformation! O Logica Genevensis! how dost thou shew thyself the genuine sister of Logica Romana!

5. I return to the mistakes, by which Mr. Hill has supported before the world his charge of "calumny." I say, in the Second Check, "How few of our celebrated pulpits are there, where more has not been said at times for sin than against it?" Mr. Hill p. 7, says, "The ministers, who preach in these (our most celebrated pulpits) are condemned without exception, as such pleaders for sin, that they say more for it than against it." Here are two capital mistakes: 1. The question, How few? &c. evidently leaves room for some exceptions; but Mr. Hill represents me

as condemning our most celebrated pulpits "without exception." 2. This is not all: To mitigate the question, I add, at times, words by which I give my readers to understand, that sin is in general attacked in our celebrated pulpits, and that it is only at times, that is, on some particular occasion, or in some part of a Sermon, that the ministers alluded to, say more for sin than against it. Now, Mr. Hill leaves out of his quotation the word, at times, and by that means effectually represents me as a a calumniator of God's people:" For what is true with the limitation that I use, becomes a falsehood when used without it. This omission of Mr. Hill is the more singular, as my putting the word, at times, in Italics, indicates that I want my readers to lay a peculiar stress upon it on account of its importance. One more instance of Mr. Hill's inaccuracy, and I have done.

6. P. 7, 8. He presents his readers with a long paragraph,produced as a quotation from the Second Check. It is made up of some detached sentences picked here and there from that piece, and put together with as much wisdom as the patches which make up a fool's coat. And among these sentences he has introduced this, which is not mine in sense, any more than in expression, "They [celebrated ministers] handle no texts of Scripture without distorting them," for I insinuate just the contrary in the Second Cheek.

7. But the greatest fault I find with that paragraph of Mr. Hill's book, is the conclusion, which ruus thus,-They [celebrated ministers] do the devil's work, till they and their congregations all go to hell together. [A] Second Check, p. 97, 103." -Now in neither of the pages quoted by Mr. Hill, nor indeed any where else, did I ever say so wild and wicked a thing. Nothing could engage my pious opponent to father such a horrid assertion upon me, but the great and severe Diana, that engages him to father absolute reprobation upon God.

It is true however, that alluding to the words of our Lord, Matt. xxv. I say, in the Second Check, "If these shall go into everlasting punishment," &c. But who are these? All celebrated ministers, with all their congre. gations! So says Mr. Hill, but happily for me, my heart starts from the thought with the greatest detestation, and my pen has testified that these condemned wretches are in general, "Obstinate workers of iniquity," and in particular, unrenewed anti-Calvinists, and "impenitent Nicolaitans," Page 97. [the very page which Mr. Hill quotes,] I describe the unrenewed anti-Calvinists thus, "Stubborn sons of Belial, saying, Lord, thy Father is merciful; and if thou didst die for all, why not for us?" "Obstinate pharisees, who plead the good they did in their own name to supersede the Redeemer's merit."-Impenitent Nicolaitans, or Antinomians, I describe

thus, p. 101, 132. "Obstinate violaters of God's law-who scorned personal holinessrejected Christ's word of command-have gone on still in their wickedness-have continued in doing evil have been unfaithful unto death and have defiled their garments to the last."-Is it possible that Mr. Hill should take this for a description of all celebrated ministers, and of all their congregations; and that upon so glaring a mistake, he should represent me as making them "all go to hell together?"

XIV. O ye pious Calvinists, whether ye fill our celebrated pulpits, or attend upon them that do, far from sending you "all to hell together," as you are told I do, I exult in hope of meeting you alltogether in heaven: I lie not; I speak the truth in him that shall justify us by our works: even now I enjoy a foretaste of heaven in lying at your feet in spirit; and my conscience bears me witness, that though I try to detect and oppose your mistakes, I sincerely love and honour your persons. My regard for you, as zealous defenders of the first gospel-axiom, is unalterable. Though your mistaken zeal should prompt you to think or say all manner of evil against me, because I help Mr. Wesley to defend the second; I am determined to offer you still the right hand of fellowship. And if any of you should honour me so far as to accept it, I shall think myself, peculiarly happy; for, next to Jesus and Truth, the esteem and love of good men is what I consider as the most invaluable blessing. A desire to recover the interest I once had in the brotherly kindness of some of you, has in part engaged me to clear myself from the mistaken charges of calumny and forgery, by which my hasty opponent has prejudiced you against me and my Checks. If you find, that he has defended your canse with carnal weapons, hope with me, that precipitation and too warm a zeal for your doctrines, have misled him, and not malice or disingenuity.

un

Hope it also, ye Anti-Calvinists, consider. ing that if St. James and St. John, through mere bigotry and impatience of opposition, were once ready to command fire from hea ven to come down upon the Samaritans, it is no wonder that Mr. Hill, in an guarded moment, should have commanded the fire of his Calvinistic zeal to kindle against Mr. Wesley and me. As you do not unchristian now the two rash apostles for a sin, of which they immediately repented; let me beseech you to confirm your love towards. Mr. Hill, who has probably repented already of the mistakes, into which his peculiar sentiments have betrayed his good nature and good breeding.

§ XV. I return to you, honoured Sir, and beg you would forgive me the liberty I have taken, to lay before the public what I should have been glad to have been buried in eternal

oblivion: but your Finishing Stroke has been so heavy and desperate, as to make this addition to Logica Genevensis necessary to clear up my doctrine, to vindicate my honesty, to point out the mistaken Author of the Farrago, and give the world a new specimen of the arguments, by which your system must be defended, when reason, conscience, and scripture, [the three most formidable batteries in the world] begin to play upon its ramparts.

You" earnestly intreat" me in your Post script, to publish a manuscript sermon on Rom. xi. 5, 6, that I preached about eleven years ago in my church, in defence of the first gospel-axiom. You are pleased to call it three times " excellent," and you present the public with an extract from it, made up of some unguarded passages ; detached from those that in a great degree guard them, explain my meaning, confirm the doctrine of the Checks, and sap the foundation of your mistakes. As I am not less willing to defend free-grace, than to plead for faithful obedience; I shall gladly grant your request; so far at least as to send my old sermon into the world with additions in brackets, just as I preached it again last spring; assuring you that the greatest addition is in favour of freegrace. By thus complying with your "earnest entreaty," I shall shew my respect, meet you half way, gratify the curiosity of our readers, and yet give them a specimen of what appears to me a free, guarded gospel.

That Discourse will be the principal piece of An Equal Check to Pharisaism and Antinomianism, which I have prepared for the press. Upon the plan of the doctrines it contains, I do not despair to see moderate Calvinists, and unprejudiced Anti-Calvinists acknowledge their mutual orthodoxy, and embrace one another with mutual forbearance. May you and I set them the example! In the mean time, may the brotherly love, with which we forgive each other the real or apparent unkindness of our publications, continue and increase? May the charity that is not provoked, and hopeth all things, uniformly influence our hearts! So shall the words that drop from our lips, or distil from our pens, evidence that we are, or desire to be the close followers of the meek, gentle, and yet impartial, plain-spoken Lamb of God. For his sake, to whom we are both so greatly indebted, restore me to your former benevolence, and be persuaded that notwithstanding the severity of your Finishing Stroke, and the plainness of my answer, I really think it an honour, and feel it a pleasure, to subscribe myself, honoured and dear Sir, your affectionate and obedient servant in the Gospel of our common Lord.

Madely, Sept. 13th, 1773.

J. FLETCHER.

APPENDIX.

Upon the remaining difference between the Calvinists and the Anti-Calvinists, with respect to our Lord's doctrine of Justification BY WORDS, and St. James's doctrine of Justifica tion BY WORKS.

To force my Opponents out of the last entrenchment in which they defend their mistakes, and from behind which they attack the Justification by words and works peculiarly insisted on by our Lord and St. James; I only need to shew how far we agree with respect to that justification; to state the difference that remains between us; and to prove the unreasonableness of considering us as Papists because we oppose an unscriptural, and irrational distinction, that leaves Mr. Fulsome in full possession of all his antinomian dotages.

Thus

On both sides we agree to maintain, in opposition to Socinians and Deists, that the grand, the primary and properly meritorious cause of our justification, from first to last, both in the day of conversion and in the day of judgment, is only the precious atonement, and the infinite merits of our Lord Jesus Christ.-We all agree likewise, that in the day of conversion, faith is the instrumental cause of our justification before God.-Nay, if I mistake not, we come one step nearer each other, for we equally hold, that after conversion the works of faith are in this world, and will be in the day of judgment, the evidencing cause of our justification: That is, the works of faith [under the above mentioned primary cause of our salvation, and in subordination to the faith that gives them birth] are now, and will be in the great day, the evidence that shall instrumentally cause our justification as believers. Mr. Hill says, Review, p. 149, "Neither Mr. Shirley, nor I, nor any Calvinist that I ever heard of, deny, that, though a sinner be justified in the sight of GOD by Christ alone, he is declaratively justified by works, both here and at the day of Judgment." And Mr. Madan, in his sermon on Justification by Works, &c. stated, explained, and reconciled with Justification by Faith, &c. says, p. 29, "By Chiist only are we meritoriously justified and by faith only are we instrumentally justified in the sight of GOD; but by works, and not by faith only are we declaratively justified before men and angels." From these two quotations, which could easily be multiplied to twenty, it is evident that pions Calvinists hold the doctrine of a justification by the works of faith, or as Mr. Madan expresses it, after St. James, by works, and not by faith only.

It remains now to shew wherein we disagree. At first sight the difference seems trifling, but upon close examination it