harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of music, recommends the pompous delusion: the enthusiastic multitudes are fired into universal applause. In Nebuchadnezzar's sense of the word, they are all orthodox; they all believe the Gospel of the day, "Great is the Diana of the Babylonians." "All people, nations, and languages, fall down" before her. But the day is not lost: Shadrach has not yet bowed the knee to Baal: nor have his two friends yet deserted him. "What! three!" Yes, three only. Nor are they unequally matched; one Shadrach against all people! One Meshach against all nations! One Abednego against all languages! One Luther, one Protestant against all the world! O ye iron pillars of truth-ye true Protestants of the day, my exulting soul meets you in the plain of Dura. Next to Him who witnessed alone a good confession before Pontius Pilate, of you I learn to protest against triumphant error. Truth and a furnace for us! The truth-the whole truth as it is in Jesus, and a burning fiery furnace for true Protestants!

And shall we forget thee, O thou "man greatly beloved,"-thou pattern of undaunted Protestants? Shall we silently pass over thy bold protest against the foolish, absolute, irreversible decree of the day? No, Daniel: we come to pay our tribute of admiration to thy blessed memory, and to learn of thee also a lesson of true Protestantism. Consider him, my brethren. His sworn enemies watch him from the surrounding palaces but he believes in "the Lion of the tribe of Judah," and his fearless soul has already vanquished their common lions. He opens his window, he looks toward desolate Jerusalem, with bended knees he presents his daily supplication for her prosperity, with uplifted hands he enters his Jewish protest against the Persian statute; and, animated by his example, I enter my Christian protest against the Calvinian decree. "If Daniel, in sight of the lions, durst testify his contempt of an absurd and cruel decree, wantonly imposed upon his king; by which decree the king hindered his subjects from offering any true prayer for a month, under pretence of asserting his own absolute sovereignty; shall I be ashamed to enter my protest against a worse decree, absurdly imposed upon the Almighty on the very same absurd pretence? A decree which hinders the Saviour of the world' from 'praying for the world?' A decree which Calvin himself had the candour to call horribile decretum? O how much better is it to impose upon an earthly king a decree restraining the Persians from praying aright for thirty days, than to impose upon the King of kings a decree hindering the majority of men, in all countries and ages, from praying once aright during their whole lives? And if Darius stained his goodness by enacting that those who disobeyed his UN-FORCIBLE decree should be cast into the den of lions, and devoured in a moment; how do they stain God's goodness, who teach us, as openly as they dare, that he will cast into the den of devils, and cause to be devoured by flames unquenchable, all those whom his FORCIBLE decree binds either not to pray at all, or to offer up only hypocritical prayers! I PROTEST against doctrines of grace, which cannot stand without such doctrines of wrath. I PROTEST against an exalting of Christ, which so horribly debases God. I PROTEST against a new-fangled Gospel, which holds forth a robe of finished salvation, lined with such irreversible and finished damnation."

VOL. II.

2

Again: "If Moses had courage enough in a heathen country, and in the midst of his enemies, to enter his protest against the oppressive decree by which Pharaoh required of the Israelites their usual tale of bricks, when he refused them fuel to burn them with: shall I be afraid, in this PROTESTANT kingdom, and in the midst of my friends, to bear also my testimony against the error of Honestus? An error this, which consists in asserting that our gracious God has decreed that we shall work out our own salvation without having first life and strength to work imparted to us in a state of initial salvation? Without being first helped by his free grace to do whatever he requires of us in order to our eternal salvation?-Shall such a supposed decree as this be countenanced by a silence that gives consent? No: I must, I do also enter my protest against it, as being contrary to Divine goodness, derogatory to Christ's merits, subversive of the penitent's hope, destructive of the believer's joy, unscriptural, irrational. And agreeably to our tenth article, I PROTEST: (1.) In opposition to Pharisaic pride, that we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God preventing us that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will. And (2.) In opposition to Pharisaic bigotry, I PROTEST, upon the proofs which follow, that God's saving grace has appeared in different degrees to all men; PREVENTING [not FORCING] them, that they may have a good will, and WORKING WITH [Note, our Church does not say, DOING ALL FOR] them when they have that good will. And I hope, that when my Protestant brethren shall be acquainted with the merits of the cause, they will equally approve of my anti-Solifidian and of my anti-Pharisaic protest.'

But shall a blind zeal for truth carry me beyond the bounds of love? Shall I hate Zelotes and Honestus, because I think it my duty to bear my full testimony against their errors? God forbid! I have entered two protests as a divine, and now permit me, my Protestant brethren, to enter a third as a plain Christian. Before the Searcher of hearts I once more protest, that I make a great difference between the persons of good men, and their opinions, be these ever so pernicious. The God who loves me, -the God whom I love,-the God of love and truth teaches me to give error no quarter, and to confirm my love toward the good men who propagate it; not knowing what they do, or believing that they do God service. And I humbly hope that their good intentions will, in some degree, excuse the mischief done by their bad tenets. But, in the meantime, mischief, unspeakable mischief is done, and the spreading plague must be stopped. If in trying to do it as soon and as effectually as possible, I press hard upon Zelotes and Honestus, and without ceremony drive them to a corner, I protest, it is only to disarm them, that I may make them submit to Christ's easy yoke of evangelical moderation and brotherly kindness.

A polemical writer ought to be a champion for the truth; and a champion for the truth who draws only a wooden sword, or is afraid lovingly to use a steel one, should, I think, be hissed out of the field of controversy, as well as the disputant who goes to Billingsgate for dust, mud, and a dirty knife, and the wretch who purposely misses his opponent's argu ments that he may basely stab his character. I beg, therefore, that the reader would not impute to a "bad spirit," the keenness which I indulge

for conscience' sake; assuring him that, severe as I am sometimes upon the errors of my antagonists, I not only love, but also truly esteem them: Zelotes, on account of his zeal for Christ; Honestus, on account of his attachment to sincere obedience; and both, on account of their genuine, though mistaken piety.

Do not think, however, that I would purchase their friendship by giv. ing up one of my scales, that is one half of the Bible. Far be the mean compliance from a true Protestant. I hope that I shall cease to breathe, before I cease to enter protests against Antinomian faith and Pharisaic works, and against the mistakes of good men, who, for want of Scripture scales, honestly weigh the truth in a false balance, by which they are deceived first, and with which they afterward inadvertently deceive others.

But, although I would no more yield to their bare assertions or inconclusive arguments, than to hard names or soft speeches, I hope, my honoured brethren, that they and you will always find me open to, and thankful for, every reproof, admonition, and direction which is properly supported by the two pillars of Protestantism-sound reason* and plain Scripture: for, if I may depend upon the settled sentiments of my mind, and the warm feelings of my heart, I am determined, as well as you, to live and die a consistent Bible Christian. And so long as I shall continue in that resolution, I hope you will permit me to claim the honour of ranking with you, and of subscribing myself, brethren and fathers, your affectionate brother, and obedient son in the WHOLE Gospel of Christ, A TRUE PROTESTANT.

POSTSCRIPT.

CONTAINING SOME STRICTURES UPON A NEW PUBLICATION OF RICHARD HILL, ESQ.

SOME time after I had sent this epistle to the press, one of my neighbours favoured me with the sight of a pamphlet, which had been hawked about my parish by the newsman. It is entitled, Three Letters written by Richard Hill, Esq., to the Rev. John Fletcher, &c. It is a second Finishing Stroke, in which that gentleman gives his "reasons for declining any farther controversy relative to Mr. Wesley's principles." He quits the field; but it is like a brave Parthian. He not only shoots his own arrows as he retires, but borrows those of two persons whom he calls "a very eminent minister in the Church of England," and "a lay gentleman of great learning and abilities." As I see neither argument nor Scripture in the performances of these two new auxiliaries, I shall take no notice of their ingrafted productions.

With respect to Mr. Hill's arguments, they are the same which he advanced in his Finishing Stroke: nor need we wonder at his not scrupling to produce them over again, just as if they had been overlooked by his opponent; for, in the first page of his book, he says, “I have not

* By "sound reason" I mean the light of the world,-the true light which enlightens every man that comes into the world.

read a single page, which treats on the subject, since I wrote my Finishing Stroke." But, if Mr. Hill has not read my answer to that piece, some of our readers have; and they will remember that the crambe repetita—I mean his supposition that St. Paul and St. John held Dr. Crisp's doctrinal peculiarities, is answered in part first of the Fifth Check, [toward the close of the first volume.] As for his common plea taken from the objection, Who hath resisted his will? it is answered in this

book.

As Mr. Hill's arguments are the same, so are also his personal charges. After passing some compliments upon me as an "able defender" of Mr. Wesley's principles, he continues to represent me as "prostituting noble endowments to the advancing of a party." He affirms, but still without shadow of proof, that he has "detected many misrepresentations of facts throughout my publications." He accuses me of using "unbecoming artifices, much declamation, chicanery, and evasion;" and says, "Upon these accounts I really cannot, with any degree of satisfaction, &c, read the works of one who, I am in continual suspicion, is endeavouring to mislead me by false glosses and pious frauds." If I were permitted to put this argument in plain English, it would run thus :-I bespatter my opponent's character, therefore his arguments are dangerous and not worth my notice. I do not find it easy to overthrow one of the many scriptures which he has produced against Antinomianism, but I can set them all aside at a finishing stroke; for I can say, "The shocking misrepresentations and calumnies you have been guilty of, will for the future prevent me from looking into any of your books if you should write a thousand volumes. So here the controversy must end." (Finishing Stroke, p. 40.) When Mr. Hill had explained himself so clearly about his reason for declining the controversy, is it not surprising that he should suffer his bookseller to get sixpence for a new pamphlet, "setting forth Mr. Hill's reasons for declining any farther controversy relative to Mr. Wesley's principles?" i. e. to Mr. Wesley's anti-Solifidian doctrine, of which I profess myself the vindicator.

But another author vindicates those principles also. It is Mr. Olivers, whom Mr. Hill calls "one Thomas Oliver, alias Olivers." This author was twenty five years ago a mechanic, and like "one" Peter, "alias" Simon, a fisherman, and "one" Saul, "alias" Paul, a tent maker, has had the honour of being promoted to the dignity of a preacher of the Gospel; and his talents as a writer, a logician, a poet, and a composer of sacred music, are known to those who have looked into his publications. Mr. Hill informs the public why he takes as little notice of this able opponent's arguments as he does of mine; and the "reason" he "sets forth" is worthy of the cause which he defends. En argumentum palmarium! “I shall not,' says he, "take the least notice of him, or read a line of his composition, any more than if I was travelling on the road, I would stop to lash, or even order my footman to lash, every impertinent little quadruped in a village, that should come out and bark at me; but would willingly let the contemptible animal have the satisfaction of thinking he had driven me out of sight." How lordly is this speech! How surprising in the mouth of a good man, who says to the carpenter, My Lord and my God! When the author of "Goliah Slain" dropped it from his victorious pen, had he forgotten the voluntary humility for which his doctrines of grace

are so conspicuous? Or did he come off in triumph from the slaughter of the gigantic Philistine? O ye English Protestants, shall such lordly argu. ments as these make you submit to Geneva sovereignty? Will you be "lashed," by such stately logic as this, to the foot of the great image, upon whose back you see absolute preterition written in such large characters? Will you suffer reason and Scripture to be whipped out of the field of controversy in this despotic manner? Shall such imperial cords as these bind you to the horns of an altar, where myriads of men are intentionally slain before they are born, and around which injudicious worshippers so sing their unscriptural songs about finished salvation, as to drown the dismal cries of insured destruction and finished dam

nation.

Mr. Hill's performance is closed by "a shocking, not to say blasphemous confession of faith," in ten articles, which he supposes "must inevitably be adopted, if not in express words, yet in substance, by every Arminian whatsoever," especially by Mr. Wesley, Mr. Sellon, and my self. As we desire to let true Protestants see the depth of our doctrine, that they may side with us, if we are right, or point out our errors, if we are wrong, I publish that creed, (see the close of vol. i,) frankly adopting what is agreeable to our principles, and returning to Mr. Hill the errors which his inattention makes him consider as necessary consequences of our doctrines of grace.

With respect to the three letters, which that gentleman has published to set forth his reasons for declining the controversy with me, what are they to the purpose? Does not the first of them bear date "July 31, 1773?" Now I beg any unprejudiced person to decide if a private letter, written on July 31, 1773, can contain a reasonable overture for DECLINING THE CONTROVERSY, when the Finishing Stroke, which was given me publicly, and bears date January 1, 1773, contains (page 40) this explicit and final declining of it: "So here the controversy must end, at least it shall end for me. You may misquote and misrepresent whomsoever and whatsoever you please, and you may do it with impunity; I assure you, I shall give myself no trouble to detect you." The controversy, therefore, was "declined" in January, on the above-mentioned bitter reason. Mr. Hill cannot then reasonably pretend to have offered to decline it in July, six or seven months after this, from sweet reasons of brotherly kindness, and love for peace. "But in July Mr. Hill wrote to his bookseller to sell no more of any of his pamphlets which relate to the Minutes." True: but this was not declining the controversy; and here is the proof. Mr. Hill still professes "declining any farther controversy about the Minutes," and yet in this his last publication, (page 11,) he advertises the sale of all the books which he has written against them, from the Paris Conversation to the Finishing Stroke. Therefore, Mr. Hill himself being judge, declining the controversy, and stopping the sale of his books, are different things.

Concerning the three letters I shall only add, that I could wish Mr. Hill had published my answers to them, that his readers might have seen I have not been less ready to return his private civilities, than to ward off his public strokes. In one of them in particular, I offered to send him my answer to his Finishing Stroke before it went to press, that he might let me know if in any thing I had misunderstood or misrepre.