i^W^T 
 
 m 
 
 
 '•""•.Hi 
 
 .^^ 
 
 m' 
 
 -^^-w 
 
 
 .•'SfeH^' 
 
 ^^'?D. 
 
 f^4Q 
 

 «■ 
 
AN ESSAY 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE POSITION OF A PERSONAL ASSU- 
 RANCE OF THE PARDON OF SIN, BY A DIRECT COM- 
 MUNICATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT: 
 
 NOTES, 
 
 OCCASIONED BY A PAMPHLET CONTAINING REMARKS ON 
 THE ESSAY, UNDER THE NAME OF " A REPLY." ' 
 
 BY Wm. white, D. D. 
 
 BISHOP OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF 
 PENNSTLVANIA. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 PCBLISHED BY MOSES THOMAS, NO. 52, CHESTNUT STHEtTt 
 
 Printed at the Office of the United States' Gazette. 
 
 1817. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 ■ THE following Essay, which, with similar docu- 
 ments, was penned for the perusal of theological stu- 
 dents under the immediate notice of the author, was 
 published some months ago, in a periodical work enti- 
 tled: ** The Christian Register," edited in New York. 
 The Essay has been lately attacked, in a pamphlet un- 
 der the name of "A Reply," edited by some person 
 who signs himself J- E. Of the considerations in the 
 Essay, many which were judged to have a weighty 
 bearing on the subject, have been passed over, or but 
 slightly noticed, in the pamphlet. Probably, there 
 would have been thought no call for the present publi- 
 cation, if the Reply had not ascribed to the Essay some 
 matters not expressed in it, and not admitted by the 
 author. 
 
 This property of the pamphlet, is especially remarka- 
 ble in its disjoining of a passage in the Essay, from the 
 place which it occupies immediately before the first ap- 
 pendix; and by commenting on it, as if it were a part of 
 the second appendix. In consequence of this, what was 
 said indefinitely of some facts which had fallen under 
 the immediate notice of the present writer, is construed 
 to have been levelled by him at the body of professing 
 Christians, to which J, E. announces himself to belong. 
 
In his title page, he had contemplated the Essay and 
 its appendices, as distinct objects: by which, besides 
 the propriety of the thin,^, he had pledged himself to 
 bestow on each object its appropriate attention. 
 
 Perhaps, it was in retaliation for this elicited occasion 
 of offence, that the author of the Reply considered him- 
 self as warranted in the charge found in the beginning 
 of his work, of the want of ministerial fidelity in the 
 author of the Essay; and of the consequences, in the 
 religious state of the congregations immediately under 
 his pastoral care:, for this is the result of what is there 
 said. Perhaps there may have been meditated an act of 
 Christian charity, in the caution given to those congre- 
 gations against their pastor, in the application of the 
 scriptural rule — "By their fruits ye shall know them." 
 But on the ground of his ideas of decorum, he would 
 consider it as very humiliating in any minister of the 
 gospel, and very degrad'ng to his flock, ;|hould he regard • 
 such a call, to the bringing of his or <if their concerns , 
 before the publick eye. The author of .the Reply will 
 hardly endeavour to excuse himself from tnis personality, 
 by his having kept out of sight the name of the object 
 of his attack. He was too pointedly designated, to re- 
 main unknown: Or, if there were a chance of this, it was 
 prevented by advertisements in the newspapers. 
 
 Although, in the above \jistance, the conduct of the 
 author of the Reply cannot be accounted for, from what 
 
he alleges concerning the theological obscurity and the 
 unusual phraseology of the Essay; yet, the author of the 
 latter ought to have the modesty to admit, that there may 
 be in this respect a fault escaping his own penetration, 
 and to the correction of which he is incompetent. On 
 the other hand, if he should suppose, that he has some- 
 times written with perspicuity; and that, in his opponent, 
 there has not been, in various instances, on tliis particu- 
 lar question, discernment to distinguish between two 
 subjects not the same; the sentiment, it is to be hoped, 
 although the decision of a party in his own cause, would 
 not, if incorrect, be out of the reach of the plea of the 
 infirmity of human nature. 
 
 On every such occasion as the present, the author 
 has made it an object to avoid the language of incivility. 
 In the opposite performance, some expressions wear 
 such an aspect to his mind, as to confirm him in his 
 disrelish of such writing. If he has strayed from his 
 own rule in any instance, it will be an inconsistency 
 more to be lamented by him, than any of which there is 
 the shadow of proof in the Reply. • 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 THE author wishes to acknowledge, most unequivo^ 
 cally, that in the following Essay, as edited in the Chris- 
 tian Register, there have been two inaccurate quota- 
 tions; which are here corrected in their proper places, 
 not without notice of what was in the first edition. To 
 the best of his judgment, the mistakes make no differ- 
 ence in the argument: But justice to two authors exacts 
 the present acknowledgment* 
 
 The Essay is dated July 25, 1814. Not long after, 
 it was sent to a friend in New York, at his own request. 
 It remained in his hands, until late in the year 1816; 
 when, at the desire of the same friend, consent was 
 given to its being published. The au^ior of the Reply ^ 
 supposes, that through the whole intervening time, there 
 w^s an opportunity of maturing it. The^pposition w,as 
 not unnatural; but is a mistake. 
 
SOME OBJECTIONS 
 
 AGAINST THE 
 
 POSITION OP A PERSONAL ASSURANCE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 FARLOJS' OF SIJV, 
 
 BY A DIRECT COMMUNICATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.* 
 
 FOR the conveying of the clearer idea of the errour 
 objected to, it may be proper to state what is conceived 
 to be scriptural truth, concerning the subject. 
 
 When it is considered independently on personal ap- 
 plication, the only ground of it is in the revelation made 
 to the world by Jesus Christ and h'is Apostles. It is 
 " the Gospel," as contained in Holy Scripture, which is 
 " the power of God unto salvation:" and the knowledge 
 of this gospel is brought to us, in the same way with 
 that of any other subject: for — " faith cometh by hear- 
 ing, "i 
 
 The question occurs — How is the individual to be 
 satisfied of his interest in the promises of this gospel? 
 The correct answer is here conceived to be — By a cor- 
 respoEfdency of the state of his mind, which is a subject 
 of consciousness; with the requisitions of the gospel, 
 which are a subject of revelation. 
 
 For further elucidation, the sentiment shall be given, 
 as expressed more at large by Archbishop Usher in his 
 
 * See note A. t See note B. 
 
8 Some Objections against the Position of a 
 
 Body of Divinity. He asks the question — " Is it not 
 necessary to justification, to be assured that my sins are 
 pardoned, and that I am justified?" The answer is — 
 "No, that is no act of faith as it justifieth, but an effect 
 and fruit that follovveth after justification: for no man is 
 justified by believiwg that he is justified, for he must be 
 justified, before he can believe it: and no man is pardon- 
 ed by beheving that he is pardoned, for he must first be 
 pardoned, before he can believe it. But faith, as it jus- 
 tifieth, is a resting on Christ to obtain pardon, the ac- 
 knowledging him to be their only Saviour, and the 
 hanging upon him for salvation. 
 
 " It is the direct act of faith that justifieth, that where- 
 by I do believe: it is the reflect act of faith that assures; 
 that whereby I know I do believe, and it comes by way 
 of argumentation thus: 
 
 " Major; Whosoever relieth upon Christ, the Saviour 
 of the world, for justification and pardon, the word of 
 God saith, that he, by so doing, is actually justified and 
 pardoned. 
 
 *' Minor; But I do rely on Christ for Justification and 
 pardon. ^ 
 
 '* Conclusion; Therefore, I undoubtedly believe, that* 
 I am justified and pardoned." ^ 
 
 In contrariety to the test laid down by this excellent 
 person, it is imagined, that there must, or at least may 
 be, a direct and personal assurance to the mind of every 
 believer. For here comes into view a difference among 
 the advocates of the position: some contending, that the 
 assurance spoken of is of the essence of faith; and others 
 going no further than to say, that it is highly desirable 
 and to be laboured after. The whole of this is here de- 
 
Personal Assurance of the Pardon of Sin. 9 
 
 nied. But it is not denied to be a fruit of the Spirit, in 
 jjke manner with the other fruits associated with it ia 
 <j^\. V. 22. Tiiey are all alike produced by that suasive 
 and insensible operation of the Holy Spirit, of which we 
 are no otherwise conscious, than through the medium of 
 •the gracious habits of the mind: any more than we have 
 a knowledge of the wind, except by its agency in nature. 
 John iii. 8.* 
 
 There is no degree of satisfaction from this source, to 
 which the devout mind may not attain, by the dint of 
 holy endeavour and desire: but it is a very different mat- 
 ter, from that contended for on the other side. 
 
 In relation to the latter, it will be acknowledged by 
 the advocates of it, to be, if true, at least one of the most 
 important points in the Christian Revelation: and this 
 must be allowed especially by those, who affirm it to be 
 an attendant on all true conversion. Such persons, if 
 they be ministers of the gospel, can never sincerely offer 
 Christ to sinners, without advertising them of so indis- 
 pensable an evidence to be looked for. They cannot 
 dwell on the duty of self-examination, without insisting 
 on this as of its essence. It is indeed difficult to say, on 
 what subject they can pass over this doctrine, consist- 
 ently with fidelity. And most of all, in their ministerial 
 intercourses with the sick or with the sorrowful, it cao 
 hardly be kept back without the hazarding of their sal- 
 vation. 
 
 On the property of the opposite theory, that in addi- 
 tion to the supposed truth of the position, it must be held 
 to the last degree important, will very much depend the 
 
 * Sec note C. 
 
10 Some Objections against the Position of a 
 
 validity of the objections to be now made to it, which 
 are as follow: 
 
 1st; W hen the fore-runner of the Messiah " preached 
 the bapti;m of repentance for the remission of sins," not 
 a word appears to countenance the sentiment in question. 
 He admonished some of his hearers, to manifest the sin- 
 rerity of their reptntance by its fruits: at d he applied 
 his doctrine to various descriptions of persons, accord- 
 ing to their respective states of life. Kow happened he 
 to pass unnoticed what is pleaded for as the most decisive 
 and an indisptnijable evidence?* 
 
 2dly ; When Christ himself " began to preach, and to 
 say, the kingdom of Heaven is at hand," the presumed 
 accompanyment of all sincere repentance was unnoticed 
 by him. There is not the least suggestion of it in his 
 parables, nor in any other of his set discourses; among 
 which, that on the Mount may especially be appealed to. 
 In a few instances, there proceeded from his lips the as- 
 surance-—" Thy sins are forgiven thee." But this, far 
 from proving the tenet, is in contrariety to it. The prin- 
 ciple, that no more causes are to be looked for than arc 
 sufficient for the effect, is as reasonablejn the department 
 of grace, as it is acknowledged to be in that of nature! 
 The inward assurance would have renderedthe outward 
 one superfluous f • ■• 
 
 3dly; In the Acts of the Apostles there are many 
 places, wherein slence as to this point speaks as power- 
 fully as c uld have been done by any words in contra- 
 diction to it. We may take the interview of St. Peter 
 with Cornelius, or of St Philip with the Ethiopean eu- 
 nuch, or of St. Paul with 4he jailor, or in any of his ad- 
 
 * See note D. t See note E. 
 
Personal Assurance of the Pardon of Sin, 11 
 
 dresses to Jews or Gentiles: an i tlie advocate of the 
 position may be asked — What he would think of a 
 minister of the gospel, who in any one address to a sin- 
 3ier, and professing' to tell him what he must do to be 
 saved, should he he silent as to the inward voice in 
 question? The wai^t of the notice of it, is especially con- 
 spicuous it: St. Paul's accouijt of his own conversion. 
 No inward voice announced to him the forgiveness of 
 his sins; in aid of the outward voice of Ananias, exhort- 
 ing him to wash them avvav in baptism: this divinely in- 
 stituted sign being judged by that holy man, to be evi. 
 dence sufficiently satisfactory of the in-.vard grace pro- 
 mised to accompany it. 
 
 4ihly; In regard to the texts alleged out of the epis- 
 ties, there be ing very few, is a presumptive circumstance 
 against the construction given to them on the other side-. 
 What would the advocates of the opinion think of one 
 consenting with them in it; and yet, in his address 
 to persons of different descriptions, so limiting lus notice 
 of it, as would be proportionate to the spaces w b.ich his 
 doctrine is supposed to occupy in the sacred records? 
 Such a person, would consistently be considered as un- 
 faithful in his ministry. The whole of the present argu- 
 ment being bottomed on defect of evidence where it 
 must be expected to have been found, the examination 
 of the texts is for the present passed by; but they shall 
 be attended to in an appendix. It is remarkable, that 
 almost every one of them is from the writings of St. Paul. 
 Now this is the apostle, who, being called by his especial 
 designation to vindicate the rights of the Gentile Chris- 
 tians, was necessarily led, in giving the evidences of 
 their vocation, to use language easily drawn aside to a 
 subject which is analagous, but not the same. In order 
 
1»2 Some Objections against the Position of a 
 
 to discern his meaning, it is necessary to attend to llu: 
 drift of his argument, and to the peculiarity of his style.* 
 5thly; The advocates of the ])osition, would do well 
 to account for the silence of the aposde on the subject. 
 when he is giving directions to ministers concerning 
 their official duties. To pass over his charge to the 
 clergy of the church of Ephesus, and his instructions in 
 his first Epistle to Timothy; it will be especially proper, 
 to attend to what Titus is directed to say to the people 
 under his charge. There are sundry heads of instruction; 
 and doubtless, some of them have respect to very im- 
 portant evidences of a state of grace. But it will hardly 
 be alleged, that the evidence in question appears to have 
 occurred to the mind of the apostle, f 
 
 6thly; Another fact, is the frequent reference in scrip- 
 ture to tests, which, according to the opposite tenet, are 
 unnecessary. On this ground, every charge to self- 
 examination might have been spared: and so might every 
 reference to the fruits of righteousness, as evidences of a 
 religious state. So far as respects the manifesting of 
 real piety to the world, there might ^till be reason to 
 refer to the conduct, as descriptive of^he state of mind. 
 But this would be known to the party himself, indepen- 
 dently on the graces and the works protkiced by it. 
 Therefore these, however important in themselves, are 
 unimportant in the view of acquiring a knowledge of our 
 state. J 
 
 7thly; Although scripture is the only test of divine 
 truth; yet it is generally acknowledged, that the primitive 
 faith is of use in ascertaining the sense of scripture. It 
 would seem too great hardihood to affirm, that the know- 
 ledge of the most essential point of Christian theology 
 * Sec note F. t See note G. \ See note H. 
 
Personal Assurance of the Pardon of Shu 13 
 
 was buried in the grave of the last of the apostles: and 
 yet it is not here recollected, that a sentence or a scrap 
 of a sentence has been brought from any of the early 
 fathers; in favour of a position, held to be all -important 
 in the doctrine of grace. In particular, why does it not 
 appear in the apologies of Justin, Tertullian, and others? 
 These were considered by all Christendom, as sufficient 
 expositions of the faith: why is the matter in question 
 wanting? They knew nothing of it, either as Christian 
 doctrine, or as heresy.* 
 
 8thly; From the primitive Church, let there be a transi- 
 tion to the Prbtesta.it Episcopal Church in the United 
 States: not as evidence of divine truth; but as what ought 
 consistently to be acknowledged, by those who call them- 
 selves its members; and especially by its ministers. 
 It will not be pretended, that either her articles or her 
 other institutions countenance the doctrine: on the 
 contrary, there are many of them essentially defective, 
 on the supposition of the correctness of it. For instance 
 
 " The visitation of the sick.'» It is not rash to affirm, 
 that on the said supposition, the framers of this service, 
 and especially of the exhortation in it, were Christians 
 in name only. The same censure applies to the services 
 for baptism, and to that for the administration of the 
 holy communion. None, without the stamp required, 
 should be considered as a proper subject of the latter 
 ordinance, nor any adult of the former. Or rather, none 
 of any description; because baptism, in this case, ought 
 not to be administered to infants, in a church, which 
 considers the outward sign as testifying the subjects of it 
 to be — " Members of Christ, children of God, and inhe- 
 ritors of the kingdom of Heaven, "t 
 
 •See note I. t See note K.. 
 
14 Some Objections agamst the Position of a 
 
 9thly; In religious books, the authors of which arc 
 wedded to this tenet, we read much of the varying state 
 of mind in the same persons, as to their assurance of a 
 state of grace. This accords with what we know of the 
 rising and the falling of the animal spirits; and with the 
 effect thereby produced on the views which men take of 
 their temporal concerns, and of whatever is interesting 
 to them in the state of the world: but it ill agrees with 
 the confidence, supposed to have been produced by a 
 divine communication, and yet so liable to be shaken by 
 doubt.* 
 
 lOthly; The vacillations and inconsistences of opinion 
 which have attended the profession of the doctrine, arc 
 fruitful of the suspicion of its unsoundness. There are 
 none who have laid so much stress on it as the Method- 
 ists; whose inconsistences will be especially considered 
 in an appendix. The tenet is distinctly taught in the 
 institutions of Calvin. But in the words of one of his 
 successours, Turretine, the doctrine is reduced to the 
 more moderate position, that the assurance in question 
 is received by every child of God, some short time at 
 least before his death. The professor gfves no scriptural 
 authority for this: and it is observable of all who depart* 
 from the absolute necessity of the reqiiLsition, that they 
 find themselves immediately deserted by their'^xts. even 
 according to their own mistaken interpretation ofthem; 
 and are obliged to open the door more or less wide, 
 according to their different dispositions to indulgence, 
 and without any alleged authorities from scripture. 
 
 When the Westminster Confession was framed, the 
 doctrine had become so far^pared down in England, that 
 its being essential to a state of grace is expressly given 
 
 , * See note L. 
 
Personal Assurance of the Pardon of Sin. 15 
 
 up in the ISth chapter. By the approved writers of 
 the churches adhering to that confession, the opinion of 
 the necessity of the test has been generally abandoned. 
 A {t\v names shall be mentioned. Mr. Baxter (Practi- 
 cal Works, vol i. p. 876, and vol. ii. p. 875) cautions 
 his readers against supposing, that assurance can be 
 perfect in this life.* The late Dr. Witherspoon, in his 
 Discourse on Regeneration, in the 1st volume of his 
 works (p. 175 and 176) gives us the point as an essential 
 of a state of grace. t If the position be true, there is 
 
 * The sentimeRts of Mr. Baxter on the present point, seem to 
 have been tor some time unsettled; but at last to have been fixed 
 on the ground taken in the present essay. To prove this, the foU 
 lowing extract is given from his " Review of his Religious Opi- 
 nions;" being here copied from the Christian Observer for, Au- 
 gus;, 1807. 
 
 " Though ihe lolly of Fanalicks templed me long to overlook the 
 strength < i tl;is tcslsmony of the Spiiit, while they placed it in a 
 certain internal assGr'ion or enihusiastick inspiration; yet I now 
 see that the Holy Ghost, in another manner, is the vi^itness of 
 CI. list, aVid his agent in the world. The Spiiit, by the sanctification 
 i:nd consolation assimilaiiog the soul to Christ, is the continued 
 witness to ail tsue believers." 
 
 t Dr. Edwards, in iiis Treatise on Religious Aifeclions, cites 
 wiih approbation the following account of the sense of • a former 
 Divine; whose authority he often introduces as of great weight with 
 the churches of New England. 
 
 " The late venerable Stoddard, in his younger time, falling in 
 with the opinion of some others, received this notion of the witness 
 of the Spirit, by «vay of imnr^ediate suggestion; but in the latter part 
 of his life, when he had more thoroughly weighed things, and had 
 more experience, he entirely rejected it; as appears by his Treatise 
 of the Nature of S.iving Conversion, p. 81." Then Dr. E. 
 quotes from Mr. S. as follows. «< The Spirit of God does not 
 testify to particular persons, that they are godly. Some think; 
 
16 Some Objections against the Position of a 
 
 hardly a more delusive work than Dr. Doddridge's 
 " Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul:" the naked- 
 ness of which is especially apparent in the 13th chapter. 
 From some passages of this Divine in his Family Expo- 
 sitor, he would seem to acknowledge there being such a 
 
 that the Spirit of Ged tloth testify it to some; and they grounrl it 
 on Rom. viii. 16. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, 
 that we are the children of God. They think the Spirit reveals it, 
 by giving an inward testimony to it, and some godly men think 
 they have experience of it; but they may easily mistake. When 
 the Spirit of God doth eminently stir up a spirit of faith, it is easy 
 to mistake it as a testimony. And that is not the meaning of Paul's 
 words. The Spirit reveals things to us, by opening our eyes to see 
 what is revealed in the word. The Spirit discovers the grace of 
 God in Christ, and thereby draws forth special actings of faith and 
 love, which are evidential; but it doth not work in way of testimony. 
 If God does but help us to receive the revelations in the word, we 
 shall have comfort enough without new revelations." 
 
 The above, and the extract made from Mr. Baxter in the last 
 preceding note, are here strongly recommended to the notice of 
 any young clergyman, who may be disposed to propose the question 
 to people, whether they have received the witness of the Spirit. 
 If, like those eminent men, at a more mature period of life, he 
 should discover his errour, who knows how many,1tj the meaatime, 
 will have been inspired by him with a false confidence? 
 
 It would have been easy to have muUiplied extracts to the same 
 purpose with the above, from the Treatise of Mr. Edwards on the 
 Affections. At p. 258, he gives an explanation of Rorii^iii. 16, 
 altogether inconsistent with the opinion here contradicted. And at 
 p. 267, he speaks of it as follows — " Many have been the mischiefs 
 that have arisen from that false and delusive notion of the witness 
 of the Spirit, that it is a kind of inward voice, suggestion, or decla- 
 ration from God to man, that he is beloved of him; and pardoned 
 and elected or the like, sometimes with, and sometimes without a 
 text of scripture; and many have been the false and vain, though 
 very high affections, that have arisen from hence. And it is to be 
 eared, that multitudes of souls have been eternally undone by it." 
 
Personal Assurance of the Pardon of Sin. 17 
 
 source of evidence as that in question, but gives up its 
 being essenti.'.l to a religiouji state. The true course, is 
 to abandon it altogether. If we ;Ook beyond the churches 
 adhering to the Westminster Confession, there is not 
 here known to be a vestige of the position in any of them, 
 with the exception of the methodists. Neitiier the Con- 
 fession nor the Catechism of the Church of the Neiher- 
 lands, and of otiier Calvinistick churches, savours of the 
 doctrine. It is unquestionably wanting in the Confession 
 of Augsburgh.* 
 
 To all thdt has been said, there will be objected the 
 experience of many, who testify to an assurance of sal- 
 vation received in the manner in question. Doubtless, a 
 man cannot be surer of any thing, than of what passes in 
 his own mind: that is, of its passing there, without its 
 being a test of the reality of the object to which it corres- 
 ponds. The baptists of Munster, about the time of the 
 Reformation, and the 5th Monarchy Men, in the begin- 
 ning of the reign of Charles II. professed to act in obe- 
 dience to divine calls, distinctly perceived by them: and 
 their respective conduct, however atrocious, plainly 
 showed that their belief was agreeable to their profession. 
 To take a more respectable comparison: there have been 
 many of unquestionable integrity, who have been con- 
 fident of divine calls to go from England to America, 
 and fro'm America to England, to preach against the 
 sacraments and the ministry of the Christian church, and 
 against various doctrines, supposed to be gospel verity 
 by those for whom this essay is designed. If in the cases 
 mentioned, the possession of feeling is not in itself a proof 
 
 * See note M. 
 c 
 
18 Some Objection^ against the Position ofa 
 of the source from which it is supposed to come, so nei- 
 ther in the other.* 
 
 The present writer has had occasion, during half a 
 century, to remark the effect of tlie sentiment objected 
 to, on those whose religious impressions began with the 
 belief, that it is a matter to be laboured after and prayed 
 for. Some of them have settled down in a consistent 
 profession of Christianity; but always, so far as is here 
 known, in silence as to the tenet in question, if not in 
 open, disavowal of it. Others have rejected, together 
 with it, all regard to religion in any shape; which they 
 have loaded with the odium of their former temporary 
 delusion. A third sort have degenerated into the cast of 
 character, which continues the language of enthusiasm 
 without its sensibilities; and in which there is an indul- 
 gence of those passions, which the most conveniently 
 admit the cover of a religious profession. There have 
 been also persons who have gone on through life, hank- 
 ering after an assurance which they do not affect to have 
 received. And of these, some have been perceived to 
 be apparendy devout, without the consol^itions uhere- 
 with religion ought to be attended; while others have 
 lived either in indifference or open sin, still hoping that 
 their day of effectual visitation would come, and not a 
 little hindered from seeking it in gracious affecnoiis, by 
 the errour with which the subject had been incumbered. 
 On the whole, the influence of the opinion is here judged 
 to be pernicious. If it have been permanently entertain- 
 ed by any truly estimable people, the same has happen- 
 ed to many gross corruptions of Christianity; faith in 
 which has been coincident witfi their earliest sensibility 
 to spiritual subjects, f 
 
 * See note N. f See note O. 
 
Personal Assurance of the Pardon of Sin. 19 
 
 Here, the writer of this will attain put in a caution, 
 against his being understood to deny the possibility of a 
 Christian's knowing that he is within the terms of the 
 gospel covenant. Faith and repentance are exercises of 
 the mind, and subjects of consciousness; and the assu- 
 rances of the acceptance of them in the gospel, are une- 
 quivocal. There may be counterfeit appearances of these 
 graces; and their reality must be known by their effect 
 of a godly, a righteous, and a sober life, proceeding 
 from a corresponding bent of the will and the affections. 
 The knowledge thus obtained, admits of degrees: and 
 this accords with the property of grace, whereby it may 
 be continually progressive. Even they who contend for 
 what they call assurance, are so incautious as to talk of 
 its degrees. It is true, that on the ground here con- 
 tended for, satisfaction must be interrupted by sin, in 
 act or in affection: but according to the other theory, it 
 suffers abatements, and from csrusts not to be defined. 
 
 The uses to which the author of the foregoing discus- 
 sion wishes to apply it, are as follow: 
 
 If it should meet the eye of a clergyman of the Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Church, favourable to the rejected po- 
 sition; he is affectionately entreated, to consider the ob- 
 jections which have been opposed to it; and, next to the 
 question of the sense of scripture, and of that of the pri- 
 mitive church, to weigh well the circumstance of its 
 being unknown in the institutions of his communion, 
 and alien from their spirit. 
 
 If it should be presented to any person, conscious of 
 the desire of being assured of an interest in Christ; the 
 author approves of so holy a thought: and he advises 
 that the object be sought, not immediately, and by en- 
 
20 Some Objections against the Position, ^c, 
 
 deavours to excite sensibilities which may suggest the 
 idea of the solicited good, on insufficient grounds; but by 
 jealousy of sin in every shap^', and by a good life; not 
 consisting in a varnish of the exteriour conduct, but as 
 the result of a right state of the affeciions. 
 
 If there should be a reader, who relies on an inward 
 testimony, supposed to have been formerly given, but 
 now suspended by a state of sin; he is here cautioned 
 against a delusion, which may drown him in perdition. 
 
 Finally; if vhis essay should be read by any one, who 
 believes that he bus received assurance in the way in 
 qu^-stion, bur adorns the doctrine of !)is God and Saviour; 
 let him cultivate, raort- and more, what has been here 
 contended fnr as the sure ground of satisfaction, when 
 taken in connexion with the corresponding testimony of 
 scripture. The pious Scou -al (las said, that he had rather 
 have the evidence of re i ious graces, than the assurance 
 of an Angel, chat Ms na%ie was v.Tstten in the Book of 
 Life. It is here Ivelieved, that the more this species of 
 evidence is cherished, the greaier will be the indifference 
 to the other. But should the errour be refined, it will 
 be barmlers to the supp e 1 par y^ t*l:hough it may 
 cause him unintentionally to mislead gthers.* 
 
 /w/z/25, 1814. " W^W. 
 
 • See note P. 
 
FIKST APPE]^DIX: 
 
 J*^xplaining the few Texts, alleged i?i Favour of the 
 Position, 
 
 THE writer of this may possibly have met with texts, 
 besides those to be here considered. If such should oc- 
 cur, it is trusted, that a mere inspection of them will 
 show them to be irrelative. 
 
 Romans viii. 16, speaks of " the Spirit's bearing wit- 
 ness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." 
 It is here thought, that the true sense of this passage 
 cannot better be given, than in the words of Dr. Mac- 
 knight, a very respectable Calvinist, in his late work on 
 the epistles. He paraphrases the place thus — '* Also the 
 Spirit itself, bestowed on us in his extraordinary opera- 
 tions, beareth witness with the filial dispositions of our 
 own minds, that we are children of God." That there 
 are two witnesses spoken of, is the concurrent sense of 
 able commentators (see Doddridge and others) and if so, 
 its relativeness to the position disappears. 
 
 In order to guard against this, some have wished to 
 alter the translation thus — " to our spirits:" on which 
 the sflid Dr. Macknight remarks in a note — "This 
 translauon makes no alteration in the sense; provided, 
 by the Spirit's witness, we do not understand a particu- 
 lar revelation to individuals; but the common witness 
 which the Spirit bears, by producing filial dispositions 
 in the hearts of the faithful." 
 
 I'here are, however, these objections to the change. 
 
22 Some Objections against the Fosition of a 
 
 1st; It is not so much in agreement with the evident 
 sentiment; which calls for two witnesses. 
 
 2d; It does not agree with the usual force of the Greek 
 preposition " c-yv" joined wid\ " f*.»pTvpei:'' the former an- 
 swering to the preposition *' cum" in Latin. It is true, 
 that in composition, it has sometimes only the effect of 
 additional energy to the verb: but as Grotius (quoted 
 in Pool's Synopsis) remarks, it will scarcely ever be 
 found that, with the compound word, there is not a con- 
 junction of testimony, either of man or of scripture. To 
 the contrary of this, Rev. xxii. 18, has been mentioned: 
 but Griesbach amends the text, by leaving out the pre- 
 position; as, in his opinion, not justified by the manu- 
 scripts. The compound verb is used in Rom. ix. 1. 
 But the apostle there appeals, first to Christ, as having 
 announced the rejection of the Jewish people; and then 
 to the inspiration of the Holy Ghost within himself, of 
 which the continual heaviness of his heart was an adjunct. 
 So in Rom. ii. 15, we read of God's bearing of witness 
 in the works of the visible creation; and of the con- 
 sciences of men consenting therewith, in consures or in 
 acquittals. "^ 
 
 3d; The present translation, and not the other, har- 
 monizes wiih the design of the apostle in the Epig^e to 
 the Romans; which was to prove the right of the Gentile 
 Christians to the benefits of the Christian covenant. 
 This could never have been proved by a testimony to 
 their own minds. But the testimony of God in miracu- 
 lous gifts, bestowed as well on Gentiles as on Jews; and 
 a correspondency with this in aj^conformity to the holy 
 requisitions of the gospel, was to the purpose; which 
 was the convincing not the Gentile converts them- 
 
Personal Assurance of the Pardon of Sin. 23 
 
 selves, but those who questioned their right to church- 
 communion. 
 
 2 Cor. i 21, 22, speaks of ** anointing'* and " sealing:" 
 which still refers principally to the extraordinary opera- 
 tions of the Holy Ghost. But we further discern <' the 
 earnest of the Spirit in our hearts:" for the explanation 
 of which see the next text. 
 
 Eph. i. 13 and 14. Here we read of " the sealing of 
 the Spirit of promise," and of its being "the earnest of 
 our inheritance." The Spirit of promise is the Holy 
 Ghost, in his gifts begun on Pentecost. By these the 
 Ephcsians had been sealed as a church. The sealing 
 took place after they believed: which shows, that it was 
 unconnected with any matter necessarily attached to the 
 forgiveness of sin. The sealing by a miraculous effusion 
 might well be considered as an earnest or a pledge of a 
 future inheritance of the faithful in Heaven. It is said to 
 be " in our hearts," because of its holy influence, in the 
 elevating of affection and of hope. The earnest is 
 addressed to the heart; but is given by the Spirit, 
 through the medium of the wonderful works whereby 
 Christianity was established. (See Doddridge on the 
 Place.) 
 
 2 Tim. iv. 8, St. Paul speaks with great confidence 
 of the treasure, laid up for him in heaven. But on what 
 is this confidence grounded? It is not any inward voice 
 or feeling, but partly on the retrospect of the good fight 
 of faith; and partly on the near prospect of his "depar- 
 ture," which was "at hand." 
 
 Heb. vi. 11, speaks of "the full assurance of hope." 
 The word translated "full assurance," " TrXr,pc(popi*;' has 
 two senses in the New Testament — accomplishment, 
 
24 Some Objections against the Position of a 
 
 and — conviction of the understandiiig-. The latter is the 
 meaning in this place, as in Rom. xiv. 5. 2 Tim. iv. 17. 
 Col. ii. 2. and 1 Thes. i. 5- Dr. Campbell, in his note 
 on Luke i. 1, charges Theodore Beza with giving a pre- 
 cedent to Protestant Churches, of drawing the word from 
 these its proper significations, to the denoting of a mere 
 persuasion of the mind. 
 
 V. 19. Hope is called " an anchor to the soul, sure 
 and steadfast." In the original, there is no word answer- 
 ing to hope, which is therefore printed in italicks. But 
 the word occurs in the verse immediately preceding^ 
 where it stands, not for hope in the mind, but for tlie 
 ground of hope in the promises of God. This ground is 
 sure and steadfast. 
 
 2 Pet. i. 10. We are here exhorted to *' use all dili- 
 gence, to make our calling and election sure." It has no- 
 thing to do with assurance in the mind. The G reek word 
 " StC«;«v," signifies " steadfast" or "permanent," as in 
 Heb. ii. 2, and elsewhere. The calling and election of 
 tlie Hebrews had taken place; but diligence, was neces- 
 sary to its continuance. ^ 
 
 1 John V. 10. He that believeth in "t'Tie Son of God, 
 hath the witness in himself." The passage is generally 
 quoted under the erroneous supposition, that '* thju^it- 
 ness" is a person. No such thing. It means the sante 
 v/ith ''testimony." The Greek is " i^otprvpixv." It is the 
 inward testimony of the graces of the heart, combining 
 with the outward testimony to which the apostle had 
 appealed of" the Spirit, the water, and the blood." But 
 if we amend the text from some (jf the most respectable 
 of die manuscripts (see Mills) adding after " f*«/>Tt/^/«v" — 
 ry ha £v nvTM (for ictvTu) thc propcr rendtfring will be — 
 
Personal Assurance of the Pardon of Sin, 25 
 
 hath the testimony of God in him: that is in the Son 
 proved to be a rea! person (the subject in question) by 
 the three credentials in the 8th verse — the Spirit, the 
 Water, and the Blood. This gives peculiar pertinency 
 to the latter part of the verse now commented on — " He 
 that believeth not God" — meaning in that his testimony 
 presented to the senses — " hath made him a liar, be- 
 cause he believeth not the record that God gave of his 
 Son " 
 
 Remark. How barren of proof must be the position 
 in question; when, on a point so very important, it pro- 
 duces texts so few in number; and so easily rescued 
 from perversion, by attention to the contexts and a due 
 consideration of the terms!* 
 
 * See note Q 
 
SECOND APPENDIX. 
 
 Of the Inconsistency of the Methodists^ on the Subject. * 
 
 IT was sug:gested under the 10th objection, that the 
 controverted position has not been taught as a doctrine 
 and in its extent, by any reUgious society except the 
 Methodists. This induces the present writer, as a tri- 
 bute to what he conceives to be evangelical truth, to no- 
 tice their inconsistency. He goes on the subject the more 
 readily; because it is the very point, on which Mr. 
 Wesley broke with his brethren of the Church of Eng~ 
 land. It is slated by himself, to have been on the question 
 of inward salvation, now attainable by faith: but it must 
 have been by faith as defined by him, and as essentially 
 including, or rather consisting in the impression here 
 treated of. Cotemporancous with the event refeiTed to, 
 there arc so many sermons in print, of bishops, and of 
 other eminent men in the Church of England, explicitly 
 laying down not onl}- the doctrine o!^ justification by 
 faith alone, but by this as working by- love, the principle 
 of all inward and outward obedience; that there^a^ be 
 no room for the supposition, of Mr. Wesley's having 
 been ejected from English churches on that account. 
 He preached a familiar doctrine; but there may have been 
 novelty in the terms in which he clothed it.f 
 
 In his Appeal (p. 33) he declares, that he and his 
 brother had been Pharisees, fropi the beginning of their 
 
 * See note R. f See note S. 
 
Personal Assurance of the Pardon of Sin. 27 
 
 ministry in 1729, to the year 1737. They were then 
 avvakened by a preacher of the Church of the " Unitas 
 Frairum," of the name of Peter Bohler. It is evident 
 from the narrative, that they wanted what was considered 
 by him and by themselves, as the assurance of faith. 
 And yet it is remarkable, that in a subsequent conver- 
 sation with Count Zinzendorf, the leader of that people, 
 he gave to Mr. W'esley a directly contrary decision on 
 the point. This is related in Dr. Wliitehead's Life of 
 Mr. Wesley, vol. ii. p. 82. 
 
 Mr. Wesley's conversion, was considered by him as 
 having taken place on the 24th of May, 1738 (White- 
 head, vol. ii. p. 79) when, he says, an assurance was 
 given him by Christ, that he had taken away his sins. 
 
 In the account of the conference in 1767, it is deci- 
 ded by the body — " That all Christians have such fait^ 
 as implies an assurance of God's love, appears from," 
 &c. — citing some texts. And it is expressly said — " No 
 man can be justified and not know it." (Whitehead, vol. 
 ii. p. 215.) 
 
 Many things to the same effect, may be found in Mr. 
 Wesley's Appeal: but the reverse now follows. 
 
 According to Dr. Whitehead, between the years 
 1745 and 1747, there took place a correspondence be- 
 tween Mr. Wesley and a person under the assumed 
 name of John Smith, who is said to have been *' a cler- 
 gyman of considerable abilities, and probably of high 
 authority, if not the highest in the church." The his- 
 torian supposes, that this correspondence had some* 
 influence on Mr. Wesley's mind; and that it occasioned 
 
 * In the former Edition, the word was "great." 
 
28 Some Objections against the Position of a 
 
 a letter to his brother given at large, in which, on the 
 present subject, he says — " I allow, 1st, that there is 
 such an explicit assurance: 2dly, that it is the common 
 privilege of Christians: and 3dly,^ that it is the proper 
 Christiaii faith, which purifieth the heart and overcometh 
 the world: but I cannot allow, that justifying faith is 
 such an assurance, or necessarily connected therewith.'* 
 And he goes on to give his reasons.* 
 
 That during Mr. Wesley's life, the Methodist sys- 
 tem became less tenacious on the point, the present 
 writer thinks he could clearly show from sundry mat- 
 ters in *' A Vindication of the Minutes," by Mr. 
 Fietciier — -a book approved of by Mr. Wesley, and 
 much extolled by his Society rj- But it is rather thought 
 proper to adduce authority from a more recent account 
 of their principles, in " A Portraiture of Methodism," 
 by Jonathan Crowther. He lays it down as a tenet 
 . of the Society; but adds as their opinion— " There 
 may be exceptions in some extraordinary cases, occa- 
 sioned by extreme ignorance, the influence of bodily 
 complaints, ©r the violence of temptatioi^" That each 
 of these causes may have powerful e^Pects on the exer- 
 cises of the human mind, and especially such of them as 
 are influenced by changes in the sfate of the animal 
 spirits, is obvious. But that they can be im|Miiments 
 to the voice of God speaking to oiir spirits, ought not 
 to be ad Hi i I ted. 1 
 
 • See note T. 
 t Mr. Fletcher, in his Vindication of the Minutes (p. 83) says 
 
 I' Do we not see huudicds, who, when they have reason to hope 
 
 wellof tlieir state, think tlierc is no»liope for them?" 
 
 I lu Dr. Adam Clark's Commentary, now re-printing in this 
 
Personal Assurance of the Pardon of Sin. 29 
 
 On the whole, how unstable is a doctrine, which, 
 however for a while held up as essential, is sure to ex- 
 pose its unsoundness; and, if not renounced, must be 
 clogged by distinctions not alleged to be found in the 
 Word of God; but dictated by imperious necessity, in 
 order to account for what passes before the eyes of its 
 advocates. 
 
 It will not be irrelevant, to state the difficulty Mr. 
 Wesley was put to, in order to make out the consis- 
 tency of his position, with the doctrine of the Church 
 of which he was a minister. He does not profess to 
 have found it in the liturgy or in the articles: but he 
 fastened on the Homilies. And yet, these being but a 
 larger explication of the articles, it is not natural to ex- 
 pect to find an highly important doctrine not hinted at 
 
 country, there is a remarkaWe evidence of rernaiiiing attachment 
 ia his Society, to the construction of Rom. viii. 16 here objected 
 111. He coiisideis " with our spirit," as the same with «< to our 
 iimiei-siancr.ng;" — "the Place" — ssys he "or laculty, to wliich 
 such information can properly be brought." The word «<n«v^t<»/» 
 rendered " Spiiit," is evidently uicd to denote our spiritual natare 
 generally — not the understanding in particular. This faculty is 
 expressed, not by that word, but by " f«t«," or by '« hxicm" or 
 by '• c-yv£c-<?," or by " ^^jjv." The distinrtion is especially con- 
 spicuous in 1 Cor xiv. 15. «I will pray with the spirit, and I 
 will pray with the understanding also." 
 
 Suc^i forced constructions only show the importance of the text, 
 to the support of a favourite opinion. The truth is, that the one 
 cannot stand without the other. i3ut to make it to the purpose, 
 there is the necessity, either of combining the two witnesses into 
 one, or of making a translation i>ot warranted by the original: as 
 in the inbtances of John Wesiey and Adam Clarke; although 
 their renderings differ from one another. Had the doctrine been 
 •correct, it would have been found over the wholeface of scripture. 
 
30 Some Objections against the Position of a 
 
 in the one, taught clearly ia the other. [The place re- 
 lied on by Mr. Wesley, is " 'I'he Homily of Sislvation;" 
 which says — *' The right and true Christian faith is, 
 not only to believe the holy scriptures and the articles 
 of our faith are true, but also to have a sure trust and 
 confidence to be saved from everlasting damnation by 
 Christ; Or, as is expressed a little after, a sure trust 
 and confidence which a man hath in God) that his sius 
 are forgiven, and he reconciled to the favour of God." 
 The Homily is correctly quoted l)y Mr. Wesley: But 
 when he afterwards undertakes to state the substance of 
 the above account of faith, he f xpresses it in the propo- 
 sition — " Faith is a sure trust which a man hath in God, 
 that his sins are forgiven:" As if this »vere the essence 
 and the whole of such an act of the mind. The Homily 
 contemplates other matters, as comprehended in its 
 object. This is made the more explicit by the context; 
 which speaks of faith in Cesar's Commentaries, and of 
 such as may be possessed by devils.]* But whether 
 
 * In the former Ediiion, instead of wh^t is between the two 
 brackets, it was as tollows— The place relied o^ by Mr. Wesley, 
 is in the Homily <' Of Faith;" inadvertently quoted by him (in his 
 Appeal p. 27) from the Homily " Of Salvation;" in which the 
 words are not found, although there is something to thi^nme 
 cfiect. The Homily says concerning faith — It is "not only the 
 common belief of the articles of our faith— this Mr. Wesley omits 
 — " but it is also a true trust and confi^xnce of the mercy of God, 
 through our Lord Jesus Christ." By ihe omission noticed, the 
 passage is made to represent the very essence of faith as consist- 
 ing in the confidence spoken of. But what is principally to be 
 remarked on, is the disregard of the ^ontext; v, hich speaks of a 
 species of faith consisliog in barely believing what is related in 
 
Personal Assurance of the Pardon of Sin. 3 1 
 
 the confidence spoken of be an internal suggestion from 
 the Holy Spirit, or arise from a comparing of our inward 
 state with the outward testimony of scripture, the 
 Homily dops not say.* 
 
 Considc ring the errour guarded against in the Homily; 
 it is hazardous to give it a construction, which may 
 bring under the weight of it a doubting and disconsolate 
 person, who neither questions the sufficiency of the 
 merits of the Redeemer, nor has any hesitation to rest 
 on them for salvation, but desponds greatly — perhaps 
 from some erroneous opinion, and especially the opinion 
 here in question — that of the necessity of waiting for 
 some sensation, which may be construed into a divine 
 communication. 
 
 It is worth while to notice in what way the Homilies 
 speak, when the question now at issue is in contempla- 
 tion. To show this, the Homily for Whitsunday shall 
 be quoted. 
 
 Some one is supposed to put the question — " How 
 shall I know, that the Holy Ghost is within me?" The 
 answer is *' Forsooth, as the tree is known by the fruit, 
 so is also the Holy Ghost. The fruits of the Holy Ghost, 
 according to the mind of St. Paul (Gal. v.) are these — 
 Love, joy, peace, long suffering, gendeness, goodness, 
 faithfulness, meekness, temperance, &c. Contrariwise, 
 the deeds of the flesh are these — Adultery, fornication, 
 uncleanness, wantonness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, 
 debate, emulation, wrath, contention, sedition, heresy, 
 
 scripture: in like manner as there is a belief of wlnt is I'ebted in 
 Cesar's Commentaries. In opposition to this, we must have 
 faith in a dispensation in which we feel an interest. 
 • See note U, 
 
32 Some Objections against the Position bV. 
 
 envy, murder, drunkenness, gluttony, and such like. 
 Here is now that glass, wherein thou mayest behold thy- 
 self and discorer, whether thou have the Holy Ghost 
 within thee, or the spirit of the flesh." 
 
 Has the Church been unfaithful, in pointing to this 
 source of satisfaction, and in being silent as to the other? 
 It is here confidently believed, that she has not; although 
 the contrary is the case, on the presumption of the truth 
 of the proposition which has been denied.* 
 
 W. W. 
 See note V. 
 
 Besides the two corrections of the former publication noticed 
 in the proper places, there are the following corrections ol typo- 
 graphical errours, found in the first publication of the Essay: 
 
 Page 18 line 14 " character" for " characters.'' 
 
 Page 26 line 1 « 10th" for « 9th." 
 
 Ibid line 1 8 " obediercc" ior " obediences." 
 
 Page 28 line 5 " purifieth" for « pacificth.'' 
 
 Page 29 first note " he" for *« ear." 
 
 Ibid second note " Tvisa-is"* for " i'vuSii" . ^ 
 
 Ibid " ^ixftix' iov *^ ha$oic6.'\ 
 
IS^OTES. 
 
 NOTE A — Page 7. 
 
 The first comment of the Pamphlet, is on the title of the Essay: 
 which is bent to another nieanin?^ than that designed, by printing 
 the two members of the sentence in different characters, The 
 Author of it had no other idea of personal assurance, than as the 
 individual is interested in offers designed for all by whom they 
 may be accepted: the interest to be tesied, as described in what 
 follows from Abp: Usher. With the help of italicks and a suitable 
 comment, the title is made to speak a sense contradicted hy the 
 general tenour of the Essay — that of a species of application which 
 the Author is alleged to have admitted, and then accused of, not 
 preaching to his congregations. The neglect of personal appli> 
 cation, in the proper sense of the expression, he would have 
 acknowledged to be an essential defect in a Minister of the Gos- 
 pel, and a professedly christian people. 
 
 The mistake produced by the comment on the title, m^y be illus- 
 trated thus: Some one may be supposed to lay down the following 
 position—" There has been a refutation of the Essay of W. W. 
 " by a reply of J. E." A second person may be supposed to deny 
 the position, in the form in which it has been presented. A 
 third may step in, and, putting the latter part in italicks, may say 
 to the second — You acknowledge that the Essay has been refuted, 
 but you deny it's having been done by J. E. Would this be a 
 fair interpretation? 
 
 It was intended by the Author of the Essay, to contradict the 
 assurance of paklon, as coming immediately from the Holy 
 Spirit, or as predicated in the Gospel individually. But he did 
 not deny the application ot the benefit to the individual believer, 
 on the general ground of the promises of the Gospel, with his 
 knowledge of the state of his own mind, and under the ordinary 
 operations of the Holy Spirit. 
 
34 Notes. 
 
 NOTE B.—Pase 7. 
 
 In the reply, there is imputed to the Author of the Essay a very 
 censurable opinion, which he has not only not expressed, but 
 against which he has carefully guarded. ^ It is, that " the written 
 " word merely is the power of God unto Salvation, without the 
 "influence of the Holy Spirit applying it to the heart." There 
 would have been no room for the representation; if, with the 
 repetition of the text of Scripture, there had been given the cir- 
 cumstance, that the subject was declared to be spoken of — <' inde- 
 pendently on personal application." Even after the omission of 
 that clause, the effect would not have been accomplished, if there 
 had been given the text as in the Essay.— " Faith cometh by 
 hearing," in connexion with the text above recited; lor then, 
 there would have been perceived to be as much room fof the 
 criticism on the other side, had it been levelled at the aposto- 
 lick writer of both these texts; who says not a word of the 
 agency of the Holy Spirit, in either of the places. 
 
 After these omissions of important clauses in the paragraph, 
 it is prepared for the bolder step of an addition. Accordingly, 
 in the next paragraph of the Reply, the Author of it, by a train of 
 sentiment which perhaps may have been satisfactory to his own 
 mind, lands himself on the conclusion— but instead of declaring it 
 as such, affirms it to be a statement of the Author of the Essay, 
 which it is not, — that "no other causes are necessary" (meaning 
 to salvation) " than a knowledge of the Gaspeir* defined to be 
 attained to by men of corrupt minds, and taught in schools and 
 colleges. Before his coming to this conclusion, he misunder- 
 stands a maxim which he impliedly impeaches; considering it 
 as interdicting two or more causes, each of which contiToute^s its 
 share of the effect, and no more. 
 
 With all this omission and addition, the paragraph becomes a 
 sufficient ground of a report, which has accordingly gone forth, 
 and is ef course believed by those who will take it on the credit of 
 the author of the Reply, that the author of the Essay has de- 
 nied the influence of the Holy Spirit of God. 
 
 NOTE C— Page 9. 
 In exhibiting the passage from Archbishop Usher, it was con- 
 sidered agreeably to his intention, as a sufficient test of a gracious 
 
JVotes. ^5 
 
 slate. When the author of the Essay spoke of '« contrariety" 
 to this, it was in the character of a test. The author of the Reply, 
 professes to hold the subject in perfect concordance with Usher. 
 How ean this be, when the Syllogism is conducted to its conclu- 
 sion, without comprehending what is called for by the position 
 referred to in the title pap;e? The quotation from Mr. Wesley, 
 concerning the testimony of our own spirits, is nothing to the 
 purpose; when there is the unequivocal declaration, that this must 
 be preceded by another testimony, adequate to the effect? 
 
 For the clearer display of the distinctiofi, let there be a refer- 
 ence to the Sermon of Mr. Wesley, on Rom. 8, 16, to which the 
 Reply has directed the attentiam (p. 10.) It shall be given from 
 Jon. Crovvther's portraiture (p. 166.) "The testimony of the 
 " Spirit is an inward impression on the soul, whereby the Spirit 
 <' of God directly witnesses to my spirit that I am a child of God: 
 " that Jesus Christ balh loved me and given himself for me: that 
 " all my sins are blotted out, and that I, even I am reconciled to 
 " God." The passage is introduced by its being said — " It is hard 
 " to find words in the language of men, to explain the deep things 
 " of God.'' A tenet, thus acknowledged not to have been deliver- 
 ed in definite language in the Scriptures, is made the distinguish- 
 ing property of a theological system. But taking the testimony 
 of the Spirit as defined, it makes no part of the syllogism of Arch- 
 bishop Usher: which is accordingly represented as defective, 
 in point of argument. This is the " contrariety" intended in the 
 Essay. 
 
 The author of the Reply infers from the paragraph under notice, 
 that the author of the Essay did not consider the assurance spoken 
 of as "desirable." If, with this word, there had been set down, 
 as in the Essay—" and to be laboured after," the reader would 
 have perceived, that the former is used in a sense different from 
 that exhibited. We do not say of every thing in itself valuable, 
 that it is a proper subject of desire or wish. The acquisition of 
 riches, in right of heirship, may be an estimable change in the 
 condition of a man: but if he be conscientious, it has not been 
 the object of his wish or desire. As to any thing impossible, or 
 for the expectation of which there is no ground to desire it, is 
 folly. 
 
36 Notes. 
 
 The author of the Reply is dissatisfied with the test of "gracious 
 habits," as laid down in this place; and pronounces it to be incon- 
 sistent with correct ideas of justification. Concerning this, it is 
 asked — " Are we conscious of it, at the time that it takes place, or 
 not till some lime afterwards? And, if not till some time after- 
 wards, l;ow long?" &c. There will be laid a ground for answers 
 to these questions, in what is to be quoted from Dr. Paley's Ser- 
 mon on Conversion. 
 
 In the Reply it is supposed, that in the tssay, an improper 
 use is made of the words " sensible" and « insensible:" and it is 
 asked, whether the agency of the wind in nature, is the one or the 
 other. Answer: The word *' agency" being taken in its usual 
 sense, as signifying " a quality of action," or " the state of a being 
 in action;" that of the wind is insensible, or not an object of sense. 
 But, not so is its effect or action, on the organs of our bodies. In 
 like manner, of the agency of the Holy Spirit, as is remarked in 
 the Essay, we are no otherwise conscious, than by possessing the 
 gracious habits of the mind, w!uch are subjects of spiritual sensi- 
 bility. This is conceived to be in agreement with John iii. 8. 
 
 The author of the Reply is pleased to say, that there are those, 
 who, with himself, regret that the author of the Essay should waste 
 the remains of his life " in labouring to demolish so evangelical 
 and precious a doctrine," as that contended for. His defence must 
 rest on fidelity to his ministry; and on the mischiefs observed by 
 him in the course of it, as staled in a succeeding p^rt of the Essay. 
 As to the doctrine's being " evangelical and "precious;" that is, as 
 is here supposed to be the me ning, fruitful of consolation; there 
 would be mure room for the affirming of tFiis, if it were not so 
 very susceptible of the fluctuations of doubt; as i* confe^iW by its 
 most distinguished advocates, from Calvin downwards. Mr. Wes- 
 ley's seasons ot heaviness, are acknowledged by himself; without 
 its being said to be owing to " the quenching and the grieving of 
 the Spirit," as is suggested of such cases by the author ot the 
 Reply (p. 27.) 
 
 When such a man as President Edwards, as quoted in the Essay, 
 says ot the doctrine — " It is to be fekred, that multitudes of souls 
 have been eternally undone by it;" the saying bting the result of 
 much observation of its effects, as the history of his life may show; 
 
JSTotes, 37 
 
 it ought not to be uninteresting to the conscience of a minister of 
 the gospel, in giving counsel to a candidate for the ministry, to 
 warn him ot an errour which he is so likely to encounter, not 
 mei ely in theological disputation, but in its intrusion into some of 
 the most trying circumstances of the members of his future flock. 
 
 NOTE D— Page 10. 
 
 The author of the Reply remarks truly, that the accounts of the 
 ministry of the Baptist are short; and that it is said — " Many other 
 things preached he unto the people." The question is, not whether 
 all the things which he preached have been recorded; but, whether 
 divine inspiration have kept back a communication, which enters 
 into every branch of the Christian life; and which would have oc- 
 cupied no more space than some of the addresses there recorded, 
 on minor points of Christian doctrine, and with varieties suited to 
 his respective auditors. 
 
 The author of the Reply has added another answer; it being 
 such, as that if he be a qualified organ of his society, reveals a 
 limitation of the tenet in question, which the author of the Essay 
 either never knew, or has forgotten: do that his not noticing of it, 
 must be attributed to his want of information, and not to his want 
 of candour; as is supposed, with the concession that it may have 
 been from oversight. 
 
 " The Evangelists unanimously declare" (says the Reply, p. 1 3) 
 «' that he" (the Baptist) « proclaimed to the multitudes who came 
 to his baptism, I indeed baptize you with water to repentance— 
 but he that cometh after me, shall baptize you xoitb the Holy 
 Ghost" Certain it is, that there never occurred to the author of 
 the Essay, any other exposition of the above text, than that recorded 
 in Acts xi. 1 6, as proceeding from the mouth of St. Peter; or ra- 
 ther, as 'implied in the words of our Lord himself, recited and 
 interpreted by that apostle. If this be not enough, his exposition 
 of the meaning of the Saviour is more precise in the fifth verse of 
 the first chapter of the same book, in the reference to the ap- 
 proaching event of the miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost: 
 which is iurther explained by the narrative of that event, in the 
 second chapter. It will hardly be alleged, that it gives an account 
 of any such testimony as that taken above from Mr. Wesley. 
 
38 Notes. 
 
 Notwithstanding the Reply's pronouncing that « it will not serve 
 W. W's. purpose, to say that the baptism of the Holy Ghost, here 
 promised, was to be of an extraordinary nature, or to be confined 
 to a few;" the latter presumes, that whatever operation of the Di- 
 vine Spirit was begun on the day of Pentecost, was not a common 
 privilege, except through the medium of its effects; but of an ex- 
 traordinary nature, and confined to a few, as appears from the 
 fourteenth verse; although the resulting benefit was that of the 
 whole church, and therefore reasonably held out by the Baptist, as 
 an object of expectation to multitudes. The stream of interpreta- 
 tion in the Christian church, limits the first effusion to the apostles: 
 and if, with some, we extend it to the one hundred and twenty 
 disciples, it will not follow, that all Christians are comprehended; 
 much less, that the wonderful event hss any reference to the matter 
 now at issue. 
 
 The author of the Reply impliedly acknowledges, that the per- 
 sonal assuranee contended for by him, began on the day of Pente- 
 cost: being therefore irrelevant to all holy men under the Old 
 Testament; and, under the New, until that period, to all the per- 
 sonal attendants on the Saviour. Perhaps, it was with an apprehen- 
 sion of the consequences of the concession, that there was added 
 in a note the citation of John vii. 39; with explanatory words, which 
 do away the force of it—-" The Holy Ghost was not given" — not 
 so clearly and fully as afterwards—" because that Jesus was not 
 yet glorified." Dr. Doddridge, who seems to have^een respected, 
 and justly, by the author of the Reply, would nave supplied from 
 his Commentary, the following explanatory. words — " In that ex- 
 traordinary manner." In that manner, the Holy Ghost had not 
 been given at all. And if, as the Reply seems to suppos^^e had 
 been so given, although " not so clearly and fully as afterwards;" 
 it throws a cloud over the whole theory, in relation to antecedent 
 time. For then, the assurance must have been less clear and less 
 full: that is, the state of mind, whatever it may be, loses the pro- 
 perty of assurance. 
 
 NOTE E— P^e 10. 
 Theauthor oftheReply (p. 14) again makes light of the maxim, 
 of looking for no more causes, than are necessary to the effect. 
 
Notes. 39 
 
 The maxim is dictated by reverence of divine wisdom; and, al- 
 though more immediately applied to the operations of nature, may 
 reasonably be transferred to the department of grace, Man, in 
 his defect of judgment, may put into action two mechanick 
 powers, for an effect to which one of them would be competent. 
 Not so. Omnipotence. The author of the Reply uniformly speaks 
 of the maxim, as though it interdicted two or more causes, con- 
 tributing to any effect. The meaning, as understood by the author 
 of the Essay, admits of a multiplicity of partial causes; in such a 
 way, as that if any one of them be withdrawn, the effect will not 
 follow. It is believed, that two distinct forces keep the planets in 
 their orbits; each of which is in part the cause, and the two united 
 are the causes of the whole of the effect. 
 
 It must have been under a different impression, that the author 
 of the Reply notices Heb. vi. 17, 18. The Divine Being is there 
 said " to have confirmed his promise by an oath:" two immutable 
 things, <' in which it was not possible that God should lie." What 
 was this for, but to bear down the resistance of human incredulity? 
 Divine wisdom, would not have put forth a waste of energy in both, 
 if the first of them had been equal to the extensive use contem- 
 plated. 
 
 Thus it is contended, in the interpretation of Rom; viii. 16, 
 that miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, conferred indiscriminately 
 on Jewish and on gentile christians, concurrently with suitable 
 dispositions of mind on the part of the latter, were sufficient evi- 
 dence, in opposition to the prejudices of the former, of release 
 from subjection to the ritual law. But a divine communication 
 to the mind, made with such circumstances as to be relied on, 
 would want no confirmation of a miracle to the same eff'ect, for 
 the satis^ction of those immediately concerned. If, as the author 
 of the Reply supposes, the outward expression of the forgiveness 
 of the paralytick was principally for the conviction of the by- 
 standers; it is strange, that this should be recorded by three cf 
 the Evangelists, and that not one of them should record the essen- 
 tial part of the benefit to the person the most concerned, in an 
 inward assurance of pardon. Be this as it may, there is irrele- 
 vancy in confounding the subject, with the question of consolation 
 resulting to the patient. The author of the Reply ,remarks, that 
 
40 JVotes, 
 
 the paralytick " could have enjoyed no more consolation from a 
 mere outward assurance that his sins were forgiven, virithout being 
 sensible of it, than he could from an outward assurance that his 
 body was healed, without feeling it." There is added — " It might 
 as well be said, that when Peter said to Eneas, Jesus Christ maketh 
 thee whole, it was impossible for him to feel it." Can there the n 
 be overlooked the circumstance, that inward feeling may be ex- 
 cited by outward communication? On the contrary supposition, 
 a condemned criminal cannot indulge satisfaction from tidings of 
 his pardon, although comnmnicated by the proper officer, and 
 under the seal and the signature of state. 
 
 But the author of the Reply thinks, that our blessed Saviour 
 did suggest the doctrine occasionally, and in set discourses. Some 
 texts are alleged, as being thought to the purpose. Certain it 
 is, that the author of the Essay never conceived of them as what 
 •would be brought iorward in deliberate argument, on the question 
 now at issue. But being given on the other side, doubtless as a 
 specimen of the many, which, it is said, are to the purpose, there 
 shall be some notice of them in another place, 
 
 NOTEF— Page 12. 
 
 The author of the Reply (p. 17) joins the 3d and 4th objections. 
 He rejects the term "an inward voice;" which haa been used in 
 the Essay, in a passage given as synonymous with " inward sug- 
 gestion or declaration." Mr. Wesley made use "^f the word " im- 
 pression." The subject might have made it manifest, that the 
 word " voice" was used metaphorically: and however rejected on 
 this occasion, it occurs often in discourse, as applicable to the 
 present question. ^ 
 
 The Essay is charged with sophistry, because, in reference to 
 the preaching of Christ and his apostles, it asks of a dissentient— 
 " What would he think of a minister of the gospel, who, in any 
 one address to a sinner, and professing to tell him what he must 
 do to be saved, should be silent as to the inward voice in question." 
 For answer it is said — " I think that a minister of the gospel might 
 tell a sinner what he must do to \)e saved, without saying any 
 thing about an inward voice, and even without telling him of this 
 personal assurance. For this is not what a sinner has to do, it is 
 
JVotes. 41 
 
 God's word, aud, in conjunction with tlie witness of our own 
 Spirit, is the comforting evidciice of our salvation. In ansver to 
 this itisDot perceived, that on the question — "What shall Idotobe 
 saved," the knowledge of the fruit of tlif- inquiiy can be foreign to 
 it. Be it, that the giving of the personal assurance must be the 
 work of Go.'!: the endeavouring to obtain it, is represent d as 
 rcfelii-g witti naen. Sc say Divines of the Westminster confession; 
 and' so says the instrument it-jelf. If Anninian Divines think other- 
 wise, they carry this poim further then, the advocates of the Gal- 
 vlnistick theory. But wisaiever be the mind of the author of the 
 R'.-r ly. it is here conceived, not to speaU the sense of his soc'eiy, 
 Af 'he beginning of their new i)lan, in tiie peisons of the deceased 
 J'lm and Charles Wesley, and in the endeavours ot their irstructor 
 to (liitct their attention to the assurance in question, there is no 
 appearance of its being thought a work to be left wholly to G:>A, 
 Neither does this seem to 1 • ve been thought of, when an adnnoni- 
 tion was given to the present writei-, on the subject of preaching. 
 If the author of the Reply deliberately thinks as he has here Writ- 
 ten, he must think difTeientiy from Mr. \\ eslcy, in the 3d minute 
 of the cfinfcrence . f 1770; : nd frcm Mr. Fletcher, in his vindication 
 of that minute from p. 47, to p. 54. In the ntinute it is sa»d, that 
 nothing is more false than the maxim, that a man can do nothing in 
 order to justification. And, accordinir to Mr. Wesley, this is in- 
 stantly followed by the impression. The two being thus connected, 
 the labouring for one is the labouring for both. 
 
 The author of the Reply, in aoing on to the acts, still confound- 
 ing the subject with that ' f mi'aculous gilts, thmks it worth his 
 while to cite the case of Ccrnc'.iiis in t!ie 10. h chnpter, and from 
 thence he passes to the case of St. P.uil, in ti e 9th chapter. That 
 there must have been, in each of these cases, consoljtion suited 
 to it, is not denied. The question is, as to the manner. The authw 
 of the Reply will hardly sfiy, that thete is any thing like the 
 intimation of acceptance, v.'hich Mr. Wesley states to have been 
 given to himself. But when the author of ti.e Essay had described 
 Saul as called on by Ananias to wash away his sins in baptism, it 
 was added — " This divinely instituted" sign being judged by that 
 holy man, to be evidence sufficiently satisfactory of the inward 
 grace promised to accompany it." 
 
42 Notes, 
 
 Here the author of the Reply steps in with a syllogism, thus 
 represerted as \.\:t logick of tlie author of the Essay— " No more 
 causes are (« be looked for, than are sufBcient for the effect. But 
 baptism is an evidence of inward grace sufficiently satisfactory. 
 Therefore, no other evidence is to be looked for" The errour of 
 confoundint; '* cause" with "evidence" being put out of view, let it 
 be remarked, that the minor of ihis syllogism, was never expressed 
 by the person from whom it is said to have proce« ded. His posi- 
 tion was not a universal affirmative, as it is represented (o have 
 been, but predicated of the individual — Saul. There is no hesita- 
 tion to avow the sentiment, that the position is true of all fit reci- 
 pients of the rite ol baptism. It may be considered as implied: but 
 this did not warrant the swelling of what was said of a particular 
 character, into a general proposition. 
 
 The above, may be an answer to the charge of inconsistency 
 from the author of the Reply, between what is said concerning 
 baptisrr:, and the max m of no more causes, than are necessary to 
 the effect. God acts through the channel oi his own institution; 
 agreeably to which, there is required fitness in the recipient. As 
 the light of the scm, although a cause sufficient for the effect of 
 making tlie objects of the materia! universe visible, requires an 
 atn^osphere, and an eye possessf-d of the sense of seeing, so the 
 ordinance of baptism, comprehending the visible sign and the in- 
 visible grace, although sufficient for the effect of engrafting into 
 grace, requires to be administered to a person within the contem- 
 plation oi divine wisdom in the appointment. ^ 
 
 It should be noticed, that ti>e Essay was penned for the perusal 
 of some theolojiical s'udents, who were presumed to be acquainted 
 with the philosophical maxim introduced. Tnis circumstance, and 
 the obvious meaning of the words, seemed to render ex^fnation 
 unnecessary. 
 
 On proceeding to the epistles, the author of the Reply is dis- 
 satisfied with the assertion, that there are but few alleged to the 
 purpose of his tenet. The author of the Essay conceives of himself, 
 as having exhibited all alleged by men ot the most name, of those 
 by wiiom the tenet has been publickly advocated. That the zeal 
 of some may have carried them further,*is very probable; and made 
 the more so, by the real meaning of the few texts incidentally in- 
 troduc«d in the Reply. 
 
JVotes. 43 
 
 The author of it, in remarking <iu its being said in the Essay, 
 that every aur of the texts was taken from tht.- writings of Si. Paul, 
 ought to iiave liotlced its bavins^' been also said, that his special 
 designation, and t!;e subjects to which liis mind was especially 
 directed, led to language liable to be bent to subjects analagous to, 
 but not the same. Let this be illustrated in a single instance. To 
 combat the prejudice of subjecting the gentile Christians to the 
 ritual law, it wss pertinent to oppose tlie truth contained in the 
 Old Testament, that, before the giving of the law, there had been 
 the predestinating of Jews and gentiles, to be congregated in a 
 participation of the gospel; and that thus they were elect or chosen, 
 as a body, as hud heretofore been the case with the progeny of 
 Abraham only. It was hardly possible :o disclose this design, with- 
 out the use of language easily misconstrued, to what has been 
 called the irrespective decrees of God, in reference to individuals. 
 
 As to the other apostles; it is in vain, that the author of the Reply 
 uould account for their silence, from the circumstance, that their 
 epistles were "chiefly devoted to subjects of morality, the cor- 
 recting of errours, or general topicks." Any of these, might have 
 admittci of the introduction of the position in question, had it been 
 deemed correct. The appeal may be confiJenily made, whether 
 there would be similar allowance in favour of any minister, who, 
 admitting the truth, should not make it prominent in his preaching. 
 The author of the Reply has anticipated this appeal, and answered 
 to it, in his fourth page. 
 
 NOTE G— Page 12. 
 The solitary text noticed (p. 22) in opposition, is Titus iii. 5—8: 
 " Not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but ac- 
 cording to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, 
 and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly, 
 through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified," &6. It 
 never occurred to the author, to deny the regenerating grace of 
 baptism, nor the renovating which can proceed only from the 
 Holy Spirit of God, nor his being shed in religious graces. But 
 what relation this has to the position contradicted, the author is 
 utterly at a loss to conceive. The identifying of it with what goes 
 before, is the taking for granted of the matter to be proved. Of 
 
44 Notes. 
 
 commentators, there shall be referred to Dr. Doddridge only: who 
 certainly saw no such sense in the passage, as, on the other side, 
 must have seemed to be conspicuous. 
 
 NOTE H— Page 112. 
 
 When it is said in the Essay, that. there is fiequent reference to 
 tests, which, according to the oppr)site tenci, are unnecessary; it 
 is meant, and this is the sttict interpretation of the words, that the 
 non-necessity of the test in question nviy fairly be inferred. The. 
 meaning was not, that the superfl\iity ot either .was held on the 
 other side. Here again, the author of the Reply (p. 23) charges the 
 author of th E-^say with maintaining, tl,at " baptism alone is an 
 evidence of inward grace, sufficiently satisfactory." He never 
 said, nor thought so. It was said to be saiislactory, in the case of 
 penitent and believing Saul. 
 
 In this part of the Reply, the author of it protests against what 
 he represents as a fiostulate in the Essay, that '< the trutli of any 
 doctrine, however important, depends on the muliitude of texts by 
 which it is supported; and that (he silence of the inspired writers 
 respecting it, in some places^ where we may suppose it ought to 
 have been mentioned, if true, when it is mentioned in other places, 
 is any valid argument against it." No such postulate, is in the 
 Essay. And, as to what was said, the Reply has given a help to 
 explanation. The author of tue latter has charged the author of 
 the other, in regard to a Christian privilege supposed to have been 
 admitted by him, with not pressing it in many more discourses 
 than a certain other subject, which, by the by, he does not remem- 
 ber ever to have discoursed en from tlic pulpit. The argument is 
 here conceded to be good, if the teims be mutually understood, 
 and if the applicr^iion have been made with truth. It is wisned to 
 clear the aposiles of a charge mads, whether true or not, on the 
 author of the Essay. If the latter should prove, that he had some- 
 times, although seldom, complied with what has been held up to 
 him as a duty, would tliis relieve him from the charge? It evi- 
 dently would not; either in his own opinion, or in that of the author 
 of the Reply- So, concerning a few texts from scripture, and those 
 taken from places in which other sulJ'jects are prominent, it is 
 meant, not that the texts are to be undervalued, but that it is more 
 
Notes. 45 
 
 likely t'^ey should be misinterp eted, than that there should be 
 seldom inculcated so important a matter, as that in question must 
 be confessed to be, if correct. 
 
 NOTEI— Page 13. 
 
 By the author of the Repiy, this objicion ^s slighted, as being 
 •vague. It couid not have been otherwise, in the case of a general 
 negai»')n. 
 
 However unnecessary may be recourse to the falhers, in the 
 estin>atic'not t^ie auiUur of the Reply; it did not seenri bo tothe author 
 oi the E>say, wh^n he was penning it for the perusal of tneologi- 
 cal students of a church, which indeed knows no ether standard of 
 truth than Scripture, but which, on any question concerning the 
 sense of fh?.t code, on a point supposed to be very important in the 
 system, lays great stress on opinion held in the earliest ages, and 
 supposed to have been transmitted to them by the apostles. At 
 the time of the reformation, the church of England took this 
 ground to great advancage: resisting the overbearing plea of anti- 
 quity, by going up to antiquity still higher. At the present day, 
 the Ro-y.an catholick church lays so much stress, on some things 
 truly alleged to be found in writers of the fiurth century and 
 downwards, as sometimes makes a serious impression on it)quiring 
 minds: and, as on the present subject, it has been urged with 
 effect, that the earlier writers knew nothing of such matters, 
 either as truth or as heresy. The like use has been made of the 
 same nr.ean, in reference to our Lord's divinity and atonement: and 
 further, to some matters in what is called the Calvinistick system; 
 against which Mr. Wesley set himself with great zeal. 
 
 The author of the Reply, will not attempt to account for the 
 silence of Justin and T rtuUian, unil it oe duly proved. It was 
 impossible to prove it in the Essay, but by making their folio 
 volumes a part of it. The E-s^y had said — "and others " on 
 which it is remarked — •' We canoot tell why it does not appear in 
 them, until we know who they are." The answer is short. Their 
 names may be f<Hind in any of the ecclesiastical histories. 
 
 The Riply refers to Mr. Wesley's appeal, on the subject of the 
 fathers. After a repetusal of the portion of it supposed to be 
 
46 Notes. 
 
 meant, from p. 40 to p. 68 of the first part of " the further appeal," 
 there is not perceived reason to revoke what was said from general 
 recollection, that it did not furnish a sentence, or the scrap of a 
 sentence, alleged in favour of the doctrine in question. In tlie pat^es 
 alluded to, seven texts of Scripture are discussed; of which one only 
 —Rom. viii. 16, can be plausibly said to be pertinent to the present 
 point. Mr, Wesley does indeed bring a passage from Chrysostom 
 and another from Athanasius, to prove, that adoption to be the 
 sons of God is not peculiar to the first C'ristians, but v;nrni»jon to 
 believers. This is n'it the point at issue. It is, wheth'jr the 
 general declarations of God in Scripture, resiing-on an extraordi- 
 nary display of Omnipotence [although not independently on the 
 ordinary influence of the Holy Spirit on the mind] be the ground 
 on which the individual, repenting and believing, is to conceive 
 of himself as brought within the sphere of adoption; or tliis must 
 be communicated to him personally, by an immediate communi- 
 cation of the Holy Spirit, Neither Chrysostom nor Athanasius 
 applies the docirine to this point, nor docs Mr. Wesley state that 
 they so apply it. On the contrary, however decisively he delivers 
 this property of his doctrine in other places, he keeps it out of 
 view in the present place. It was not neccsssry to the question 
 between him and his opponent; who had contended concerning all 
 the texts in the discussion, that they were merely descriptive of 
 the spirit of the Christian system, in comparison with that ot the 
 Jews; and that they belonged only to the apostolick "age. 
 
 NOTE K— Page 13. 
 Does the author of the Reply suppose (p-'^6) of the reference 
 in the Essay to the institutions of the Church of Englan^J^at it 
 can be invalidated by the opinion of any bisliop wi)0 may be 
 named by him? There is however peculiar infelicity, in bringing 
 in the name of Bishop Pearson for this purpose: Which is pro- 
 posed to be shown below. 
 
 NOTE L,— Page 14. 
 It will not be Irrelevant to remark i!ie circumstance, that this 
 objection has noc been noticed in the Reply, in the pf»int of view 
 in which it is conceived to stand, except incidentally and in a note- 
 
Notes. 47 
 
 The consiruciion is, that it could not have been prominently no- 
 ticed, without an acknowlfjdgment of the f; ci; and that it could 
 not have boen acknowle^ed, without great abatement of the advan- 
 tage claim<'d in favor of the position, of its being " precious and 
 evangelical:" on account, as is here supposed, of its consolatory 
 tendency. 
 
 There is however another subject, to which the objection has 
 been misinterpteted— ^(p. 27) that of quenching and grieving the 
 Holy Spirit bv unfaithfulness. Without entrenching on that sub- 
 ject, the contemplated case may be perceived to originate, some- 
 times in temporal distress, and s:.metimes in a disordered state of 
 the nerves. On such occasions, be the approach to what the 
 author of the Reply calls *' a partial derangement*' more or less; 
 of which nothing had been said in the Essay; the author of it 
 denies the charge of ascribing to the maintainers of the position, 
 their « contending for nothing more than a casual emotion." He 
 does not doubt, that ihey contend for the graces of the heart, and 
 for a correct course of life. But he supposes, that they also con- 
 tend for, as the beginning ol the Christian life, what may be^to 
 use the words furnished in the Reply — "Nothing more than a 
 casual emotion, depending on the ebbing and flowing of that un- 
 described sometliing, which he" (the present writer) "calls the 
 animal spirits." Yes, undescribed; because, ns to the expression, it 
 is understood in common discourse; and bc-csusethe describing of 
 the subject falls within the province of the Anatomist. 
 
 NOTE M.— Page 17. 
 
 The author of the Reply (p. 28) recriminates with the charge 
 of" vacillations and inconsistences of opinion:'' which he takes up, 
 as if it were intended of the oppositions of individual Divines. It 
 was designed of changes in the belief of bodies of men: of whose 
 sense, in some instances, although not in that of the Church of 
 England, individuals may be considered as the organs. 
 
 Of the charges of inconsistency on the present writer, he wili 
 only remark, that so far as concerns the doctrine of his church, the 
 only proot alleged is the misrepresented opinion of a single bishop. 
 As to the Church of England, the reference recommended in the 
 pamphlet to Mosheim, in proof of" vacillations and inconsistences,*' 
 
49 Notes. 
 
 win cerlainlv show, that there have been diflferent interpretations 
 of lier articles, by fUfffrent Divines. Bu' ^U' h differences are " ide 
 of the present point. The seventeenth anide says, th^l the pjodly 
 consideration of predestination is full of comfort " to godly per- 
 sons, and such as feel in themselves the Vorkini; of the Spirit of 
 Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and drawing up their 
 tnird to high and heavenly things." Or> the question, whether 
 predestination be founded on faith and works foreseen, of which 
 the article says nothing, there have been opposite opini'ins, with- 
 out a vestige of vacillation in the church. But if she, afier saying 
 as above, had defined the doctrine in the same terms in any other 
 of her institutions, and then applied it as full of comfort to thobC, 
 who feel in themselves an impression of the pardon of their sins; it 
 would have given occasion to a question, independent on that of a 
 conditional or an unconditional decree: and there would have been 
 a vacillation, unfavourable to the admission of the first affirmed 
 confidence as a religious test. 
 
 The author of the Essay, under the tenth objection, has made a 
 reference to the standards of the most eminent of the Protestant 
 Churches, and to the opinions of some eminent Divines, not of his 
 own persuasion. Of all this, the author of the Reply has taken no 
 notice. It might have been expected, from the respect expressed 
 by him for Dr Doddridge, that there would have been an endea- 
 vour to rescue tliis Divine, from wiiat ought to have b' en consider- 
 ed a reproach. To make the ref.-rence the more definite, let it 
 rest on the thirteenth chapter of the book numed m the Essay. 
 With this, let there be taken a b^ok of like celebrity with the same 
 •body of Chri'stiiins, and lately reprinted in -thjs citv — " Boston's 
 Fourfold Sta't" — Ist head of 3d state. It is not forgotlefl| how 
 little argument is allowed by the author of the R ply to^e cir- 
 cumstance of silence, except when the interpretation of it may 
 help to a personal attack on a minister disapproved of by him. 
 But it IS here conceived, tliat in some cases, not excepting the case 
 of a defective preocher, silence may reach the highest grade of 
 sinfulness. If a guide, after voluntarily presenting himself to a 
 traveller, with the proffer of informing him of the road to the object 
 of his intended journey, should be guil y\>f an omission, tending 
 to mislea" at th. offset; it tvould be utceptive; however accurate- 
 ly the rest of the road might be portriifed. 
 
Notes, 49 
 
 Perhaps it was to counterbalance the weipjht of such authorities 
 as the above, tliat the author of the R^^ply has introduced the names 
 of Bisliop Pearson, Di'. Puley, and Dr. Buchanan — three Divines 
 of the Cimrch of Enejland. 
 
 Tlie passage brought from Bishop Pccirson, is not to the pur- 
 pose of the position. No consistent member of the Episcopal 
 Ghvirch, objects to the tertRS " assure," " earnest," &c, as applied 
 to a religious state. The question relates to the manner, in which 
 the work is accomplished. It is a great oversiL':ht in the author 
 of the Reply, that in the passage quoted, he marks the word 
 <* because" as emphatical; witiioui perceiving, that it is adverse to 
 his object. The Galatians had become sons of God; and because 
 they were sons, God had sent forth the Spirit of his Son into their 
 hearts." Dr. Doddridge has well paraphrased on this passage. 
 
 Let Bishop Pearson's Exposition of "I believe," be read; 
 wherein he professes to give a full account of the act of faith: 
 or, let there be read, what he has delivered under the article of 
 " The Forgiveness of Sins:" and it will be difficult to find any 
 thing to the purpose of the position; or, in the case of deficiency 
 where it ought to be found, to defend the American bishops in 
 enjoining on students of theology the reading of the book. This, 
 to be sure, is only silence: but it is the silence of Bishop Pearson; 
 who would not have omitted what was essential to his subject. 
 
 Of all the sermons on Conversion, ever perused by tlie present 
 writer, the last which he should have expected to see quoted to 
 the purpose of the position, is that of Dr. Paley. The learned au- 
 thor, not far before the passage quoted from him, contemphtes 
 two sorts of persons: those to whom conversion, and those to whom 
 improvement is to be preached. The former, under two subdivi- 
 sions, are they of whom the passage quoted in the Reply, and 
 many otller excellent things, are said. After this, the preacher 
 goes on to his second sort of persons, thus — « But I am willing 
 to believe, that there are very many Christians, who neither have 
 in any part of their lives been without influencing prmciples, nor 
 have at any time been involved in the habit and course of a parti- 
 cular known sin, or have allowed themselves in such course and 
 practice. Sins, without doubt, tiiey have committed, more than 
 
50 Notes, 
 
 sufficient to humble them to the dust; but they have not, to repeat 
 the same words again, lived in the course of any p;nticular known 
 sin, whether of commission or neglect, and by deliberation and of 
 aforethought, allowed thems'Ives in such course. The Conver- 
 sion therefore, above described, cannot a-pply to, or be requireu of, 
 such Christians. To these we must preach, not conversion, but 
 imfirovemene," 
 
 The distinction sustained in this passage, had been before more 
 largely insisted on through four pages, beginning with the second 
 paragraph of the sermon. Doubtless, Dr. B.uchanan had well 
 weighed the sense of it, before he quoted it in a note to his ser- 
 mon, entitled «« The Star in the East." This excellent person was 
 discoursing of the conversion of the Hindoos. He knew, that in 
 the country which he had visited, there l-ad been made converts 
 by name, to whom the leading truths of Christianity had never 
 bben disclosed. And he knew, that in his own country, there were 
 Christians in profession only. But it was his desire, that the pro- 
 jected conversion ol which he was discoursing, might be conge- 
 nial with the spirit of the religion to be disseminated. To this 
 purpose, the quotation from Palcy was pertinent, while it is irrela- 
 tive to that of the Reply. 
 
 It may be now proper, to look back on the questions proposed 
 under note C concerning " Justification." If the principles of Dr. 
 Paley be correct, there is a proportion of Christian people, with 
 whom the former took place at their baptism; as is affirmed in the 
 third part of" The Homily of Salvation." As to persons convert- 
 ed from a life of sin, they may reason concerning their state, in 
 some such way as that propounded by Arcl>bishop Usher. Hence 
 their assurance, unbounded as respects the faithfulness of God: of 
 which there needs not to be any abatement as to the future, ex-- 
 eept what may arise from such considerations as where it is said-^ 
 n Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall." On 
 the promises of God in scripture, the dependence should be unre- 
 served, both as to the present and as to the future. Still, in censi- 
 deration of the source of danger intimated, it is of importance to 
 loik forward to gracious habits: and in proportion to the stability 
 of these, should be the absence of fear. ■• 
 
JVotes. 51 
 
 NOTE N.— Page 17. 
 Although this has been passed over by the author of the Reply, 
 it is a very important consideration. There has been already given 
 Mr. Wesley's definition of the testimony of the Spirit of God, con- 
 sisting in a certain impression made on the mind. It is impossible 
 the impression should be more strong:, than is testified by pious 
 and virtuous men and women, to be on theirs, inciting them to 
 the preaching oi opinions, considered by both of the parties on the 
 present question to be contrary to scripture. There is also the 
 -fact of incitement to wicked actions, in wliich the agents consider- 
 ed themselves as obeying the calls of vehement impression. In- 
 stances are given in the Essay: to which there shall be added, the 
 single instance of R^ivaillac; who, at the moment of his plunging 
 the dagger into the body of Henry IV. of France, and for a long 
 time before, was persuaded of a divine monition to the deed. This 
 man gave no other evidence of insanity, and could have had no 
 other motive, than that professed by him— the preventing of a 
 war, judged to be adverse to the interests of the Pope. 
 
 NOTE O.— Page 18. 
 The present writer will not return the charge of illiberalityj 
 made on the part of the author of the Reply, by a heavier charge^ 
 but hopes, it was from some cause not easily conjectured, that 
 he delayed his comments on this part of the Essay, to the conclu- 
 sion of his own production. It would be easy to show, how much 
 depends on juxta-position. Ptople of different religious societiesi 
 become distressed under the weight of the tenet in question; taken 
 up, as is here conceived, not from the reading of the scriptures 
 with the aid of prayer, as the author of the Reply advises the con- 
 gregations of the author of the Essay to read them; but from un- 
 scriptural preachings and books. The author of the Essay, dis- 
 claims reference to any individuals of the mcthodistick persuasion: 
 for, although the society were incidentally mentioned under the 
 tenth objection; the reader was there referred to an appendix, for 
 further notice of them. It was natural, for the author of the Reply 
 to make a similar arrangement of his matter. His not doing so, 
 gives an aspect to the passage unintended in the Essay. That it 
 is so exhibited in the Reply, appears in the circumstance, that the 
 
52 Mtes. 
 
 author of it describes the people connected with him, as under 
 accu'-ation (p. 40) and as pleading—" JVo; guilty." He might 
 have spared his remark, against arguing from particulars to gene- 
 rals What was designed as argument directly bearing on the 
 point, is arranged under ten heads. But it is not uncouimon, after 
 reasoning against a dogma, to point out its consequences. 
 
 Although, as the author of the Reply remarks, " recrimination 
 is no defence;" yet it would not have been unwelcome to the 
 author of the Essay, had the other entered on what he calls--" a 
 fair comparison of the practical effect of the oppo ite doctrine." 
 This may be stated to be, that a man is to know his safe state, only 
 by his possessing of the graces of the Christian character, and by 
 their effect on his life; taken in connection with the declarations 
 of divine mercy, in the Scriptures: which are now, what the wit- 
 nessing of the spirit in miraculous gifts was to the first Christians; 
 it being the same witnessing under another form. If this doc- 
 trine have been productive of evil, it is more than has come to 
 the knowledge of the present writer. 
 
 NOTE P — Page 20. 
 
 What has been said in the preceding note, may be applied to the 
 notice taken by the author of the Reply, of the uses contemplated 
 by the Essay. The author of it never intended to charge the 
 methodists with " reliance upon any inward teatimpny formerly 
 given, but now suspended by a state of sin." Nor^ould such a 
 sense have been extorted, but by the dislocatidw of the passage. 
 
 When the sentiment cited from Scougal was approved of by the 
 author of the Reply, ' e does not seem to have perceived, that the 
 said excellent m ui held ihe test delineated by him to be theii^hest 
 evidence of a gracious s(ate. He probably considered the assur- 
 ance of an angel, as more weighty than an impression on the 
 mind. At any rate, his test, although acknowledged to be good 
 as far as it went, was evidently imperfect, according to the test 
 laid clown by the autlior ot the Reply, in this place. 
 
 The same author (p. 42) has indulged himself in sarcasm on 
 the last sentence in the Essay. To prepare for this, he has kept 
 out of view the sentence immediately preceding; and even an 
 essential part of the sentence, the rest of which he has quoted. 
 
Notes. 53 
 
 Had lie given it fairly, there would have been no room for his 
 anima<!version. The harnilessness of iheerrour to the individual, 
 was made dependent on conformity to the test laid down by 
 Scougal. Without such a mutilation of the passage, it would 
 have been impossi*>le to display it, as overturning observations 
 made during half a century. 
 
 NOTE Q.— Page 25. 
 
 The author cf the Reply, has incidentally, in different places 
 of it, produced a few of the many texts, which he thought perti- 
 nent to his purpose. He might have found scores of them, which 
 have as m,uch b^ruing on the subject. As a specimen, there shall 
 be exhibited the first two: and let it be remembered, that they 
 are intended in direct proof of the position contradicted in the title 
 page. 
 
 Luke xi. 13. *' If ye then, being evil, know how to give good 
 gifts unto your children; how m.uch more shall your heavenly 
 father give his Holy Spirit to them that ask him? ' No question 
 has been raised of the efficacy ot prayer; the benefit being such, 
 as we are warranted in praying for. And, as to the mention of 
 the Holy Spirit; the introducing of it is an additional instance, of 
 a tendency to confound his ordinary with his extraordinary opera- 
 tions. If the latter be designed, why was it said — «< The Holy 
 Ghost was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified?** 
 
 1, Cor. ii. 12. ♦' Now we have received not the Spirit of the 
 world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the 
 things that are freely given to us of God.*' In the Essay, there is no 
 denial ol the agency of the Holy Spirit on the human mind. The 
 question relates to a communication specially defined, and the 
 alleged qnanner of its being made. What we know of the things 
 of God, should be known both notionally and experimentally: 
 and the Essay had given no occasion, to introduce the respectable 
 authority of Dr. Doddridge to that effect. 
 
 It is thouglit unnecessary to notice the other texts; and especi- 
 ally those from which it is endeavoured to elicit the tenet in ques- 
 tion, by embodying it with the effusion on the Day of Pentecost. 
 Any good commentator will give an explanation of them, wide of 
 the application in the Reply. 
 
54 . J^otes. 
 
 NOTE R.— Page 26. 
 
 It is thought proper to state the ground, on which the author 
 of the Essay thought it no reasonable cause of offence, to refer to 
 the theology of a particular denomination/ 
 
 This is a liberty, which it is customary for a writer to take with 
 the tenets of any church, for the elucidation of what is supposed 
 to be religious truth: and reasonably; because every church pub- 
 lishes its faith to the world, and wishes it to be influential. 
 
 There is no church, with which greater license ot this sort is 
 taken, than with that of which the present writer is a minister: 
 and when it is done in fair argument, and not rancorously or inde- 
 corously as sometimes happens, it may be dissented from, while, at 
 the act itself no offence is taken, so far as is here known. 
 
 In the following appendix, it has been presumed to contradict 
 a tenet of a large body of professing Christians. The tenet is 
 acknowledged by their advocate to be theirs. If he has denied 
 some statements produced, the question of their correctness ought 
 to depend on evidence; concerning the weight of which, neither 
 of the parties c&n make himself a judge for the other. But no 
 aspersion was intended either of the body, or of any individual of 
 them: although there must be confessed to be the appearance of 
 it on the face of the Reply; owing to the management complained 
 of in the preface and in the last note but one. It was thus, that 
 the author of the Reply found an opportunity of charging the au- 
 thor of the Essay with being " not only unchajitable, but unjust." 
 
 NOTE S.— Page 26. ' .- 
 
 The Rev. John Wesley, is represented as persecutedLip the 
 Essay beyond the grave. Is there in it an expression personally 
 disrespectful to that divine? It is trusted, that there is not. But 
 when opinions are published to the world, intended to have and 
 having an eflect on its religious state; to interdict a temperate 
 discussion of them, whether the promulger be deceased or living, 
 would be the taking of a very extraordinary stand in relation to a 
 favourite character. 
 
 The author of the Reply thinks (p. 31, note) that there is incon- 
 sistency in objecting to Mr. Wesley's doctrine, because of the 
 dress in which it was clothed. If this be all, it may have been a 
 
Notes. 55 
 
 g-iound of objection. Sheuld a prince so dress himself, as to be 
 mistaken for a begt^ar; or a woman of reputation, so as to be mis- 
 taken for a prostitute; in each of the cases, or in its opposite, the 
 consequences might be serious. There may be similar miscon- 
 struction of doctrine. 
 
 To prove that the tenet in question was a new doctrine, either 
 irt substance or in dress, it will be sufficient to appeal to Mr. 
 Wesley himself, m the minutes of a conference, held under his 
 superintendence in 1770; of which there is a well written vindica- 
 tion by his friend— the Reverend Mr. Fletcher. In the minutes, 
 after a statement of the doctrine of salvation, «' not by the merit of 
 works, but by works as a conditien," it is asked — "What have we 
 then been disputing about, these thirty years?" The answer is — "I 
 am afraid, about words." " He might have said, I am sure of it," i$ 
 the remark of Mr. Fletcher (p. 68.) The round number of thirty 
 years carries back so near to the time, when, according to the 
 appeal, the denial of the pulpits was owing to the preaching of 
 inward salvation by faith, that the question at this period, must 
 have been adjudged at a later period to have been a dispute about 
 words. At least, Mr. Wesley feared its having been so; Mr. 
 Fletcher was sure of it; and these things arc said in a work written 
 by the one, and countenanced by the other. This being the case, 
 there is not the inconsistency in the author of the Eisay, although 
 charged on him in the Reply (p, 32, note) of " at the same time 
 opposing Ml. Wesley's doctrine, and maintaining that of the 
 Church of England." If there be any errours of which the author 
 of the Essay supposes himself not chargeable, one of them is a 
 departure from the doctrine of justification by faith, as affirmed in 
 the eleventh article of his church, and as is more largely explained 
 in " The ^Homily of Salvation," referred to in the article. As to 
 Mr. Wesley, if, for a long course of years, as he seems to concede, 
 he delivered the doctrine in such a dress, or with such adjuncts, 
 or, as he says in a place to be quoted below, by " tacking to them 
 a position which was not true" — a fact displayed at large, in "The 
 Vindicaiion of the Minutes;" there is no design of detracting from 
 the merit of subsequent acknowledgement and revocation. 
 
 Praise is also due to Mr. Fletcher; who defends the said minutes, 
 on the ground of the spreading of antinomian principles, « like 
 
56 Notes. 
 
 wild-fire," in some of the societies: impliedly the effect of the 
 enour of thirty preceding years. He goes on (p. 23—28) lament- 
 ing the consequences, in the abounding of carnal confidence, of 
 ambition, of worldly mindedness, of spiritual blindness, of formaiity, 
 of the neglect of relative duties, of knowledge without experience, 
 of selfish views, and of the want of heathen morality. Tht-re is too 
 much of all these, under every form of profession. What they 
 are here noticed for, is the acknowledged cause of them, in an 
 errour confessed to have its origin, about the time when Mr. 
 Wesley was excluded from the London pulpits. And yet, in the 
 appeal printed in 1738, the exclusion is said to have been owing 
 to "the preaching of inward salvation, naw attainable by faith.'' If 
 it mean, as the words seem to express, justification by faith, and 
 deliverance from the inward dominion of sin, attainable by the in- 
 fluence of the same principle; this was so customarily preached in 
 the Church of England, as of itself to render it probable, that there 
 was included in the position something beyond what is visible \n 
 the letter of the complaint. 
 
 NOTE T.— Page 28. 
 On the question of the testimony of Dr. Whitehead, the com- 
 petency of his authority is material. Any contradiction of his state- 
 ments, on the part oi the society to which he belonged, is not here 
 known. That physician was one of three persofls, to whom Mr. 
 Wesley left his papers by will. It is generally v^derstood, that 
 after the other two had surrendered them t(^ their colleague, for 
 the writing of the life of the deceased, there arose a controversy 
 between them; partly pecuniary, but principally on account of the 
 biographer's refusal to subject his work to their conlf^. His ' 
 disapprobation of the secession then lately made in Ameiica, which 
 appears in his book, may account for its not having the stamp of 
 the approbation of the society. Had the brother of the deceased, 
 the Reverend Charles Wesley, been the survivor and the biogra- 
 pher, the same objection would have lain For when, above thirty 
 years ago, he put into the hand which now writes, a pamphlet 
 issued many years before by his brother and himself, contaming 
 reasons against s«para.ing from the Church of England, he said 
 with emphaais — These are so many reasons against what has bc-:n 
 
JSTotes. 57 
 
 lately done in America. But enough of this, as the author of the 
 Reply has not directly denied, that reliance may be placed on the 
 statements of Dr. Whitehead. 
 
 After reconsidering the passapje quoted from him, containing a 
 thesis in a letter of Mr. Wesley to his brother, it is still conceived, 
 that the view of it in the Essay is correct. Mr. Wesley proposes 
 .Ihe question — Is justifying faith a sense of Pardon? He takes the 
 negative. In the succeeding discussion, under the first head, he 
 sets forth the importance of the question, and the extreme on 
 each side. Under the second head, he professes to define justi* 
 fying faith and a sense of pardon, going on, in the words quoted 
 in the Essay, to deny that justifying faith is an assurance of par- 
 don, or necessarily connected therewith. Under the third head, 
 he gives reasons from Scripture and experience. Under the 
 fourth and last head, he answers objections; the third of which is 
 *-" We have been exceedingly blessed, in preaching this doc- 
 trine." The answer, which ought to have been exhibited by the 
 author of the Reply, is especially worthy ot notice. It is—" We 
 haye been exceedingly blessed in preaching the great truths of the 
 gospel, although we tacked to them, in the simplicity of our hearts, 
 a proposition which was not true." What was this untrue propo- 
 sition? It was— " Justilying faith is an assurance of pardon, or 
 necessarily connected therewith.'* Compare this with what is said 
 in the appeal (p. 2«) "Faith implies assurance.** Otlier like sayings 
 might be produced. Is there any difTerence of sense, in those two 
 positions? And is there not, in each of them, the identical doctrine 
 which was preached in 1738, and deliberately revoked in 174?'? 
 
 Mr. Wesley goes on to answer an objection, grounded on what 
 is here believed to be a misinterpreted account of the sense of the 
 Church of England, which he had quoted many years before, as 
 in agreement with the sense of the matter then entertained by him, 
 but which he supposes to be contrary to his present opinion. Ac- 
 cordingly, he appeals from it, to " the law and the testimony.** 
 
 What though the discussion of the thesis was proposed in a 
 skeleton, to be filled up by bis brother: the outlines must be 
 supposed to have been weighed by the proposer; and especially so 
 must have been the result, in which he speaks in his own person. 
 
58 Notes, 
 
 The sense of Dr, Whitehead on the subject, was evidently the 
 same with that of the author of the Essay: which appears in the 
 prefacing of the latter by saying, in reference to the unknown per- 
 son under the name of John Smith—"! think it had some in- 
 fluence on Mr. Wesley's mind." Between the words great and 
 5ome, there must be confessed a difTerence. The latter ought to 
 have been in the Essay: and the only apology of the author for 
 his inaccuracy, is the impression on his mind from the perusal of 
 the work, that what the pen of an intimate friend called some, 
 was indeed great. Whether there be cause of the impression, will 
 be seen in what is to follow. 
 
 Dr. Whitehead records, that in the month of July, 1747, when 
 Ml'. Wesley wrote the letter, the controversy with John Smith 
 was drawing towards a conclusion. In the pages immediately prece- 
 ding, there are minutes of four conferences; the last of which was 
 in June of the same year. One of the questions is — " What is faith?" 
 The answer, after defining justifying faith, adds — " Immediately 
 the spirit bears witness, thou art pardoned," 8cc. If this be not a 
 necessary connexion, what words could have been more expres- 
 sive of such a circumstance? Under the answer to the next ques- 
 tion, it is affirmed, that bo n an r?>n be justified, and not know it. 
 Let this be compared with the skeleton, and let them be reconciled 
 if possible. 
 
 If the skeleton be still supposed to have been misrepresented, 
 there is confirmation of the sense given ot it, in a reproving letter 
 in the year 1768. (Whitehead vol.2, p. SlOj^to a preacher of the 
 name of James Morgan. This man had given offence, by preach- 
 ing that all mourning penitents were in the 'favour of God. Mr. 
 W*"sley holds to tlie general rule — "They who are in the^vour 
 of God, know they are so." But he concedes — " There may be 
 some exceptions. Some may fear and love God, and yet not be 
 clearly conscious ot his favour. At least, they may not dare to 
 affirm, that their sins are forgiven." Could Mr. Wesley have been 
 now of the same mind, as when he said: — "Faith is a sure trust 
 which a man hath in God, that his sins are forgiven?" Or when he 
 sanctioned the above cited minute of a conference — "Immediately, 
 the same spirit bears witness, ihou art pJrdoned?" 
 
Notes, 59 
 
 The following;, is from the life of Mr. Wesley by John Hamp- 
 son. He had ceased to be a member of the Society, but continued 
 to esteem its founder. He quotes (vol. 3; p. 50) from Mr. Wes- 
 ley thus—" Near fifty years ago, the preachers were not sufficient- 
 ly apprized of the difference between a servant and a child of God« 
 Ttiey did not clearly understand, that every one who feareth God 
 •and worketh righteousness is accepted of him. In consequence 
 of this, they were apt to make sad the hearts of those, whom God 
 had not made sad. For they frequently asked those who feare4 
 God — " Do you know that your sins are forgiven? And upon 
 their answering no, immediately replied — then are you a child of 
 the devil " For the above, Mr. Hampson quotes Mr. Wesley's 
 Sermons, without noticing the place. Accordingly, the pas- 
 sage is given on the authority of the said biographer. If he 
 be correct, and if we set aside all question as to the distinction 
 between a servant and a child of God; can it be conceived, that Mr. 
 Wesley would have written in this manner, before the correspon- 
 dence with John Smith? 
 
 In Mr. Wesley's Journal, November 27th, 1750, published in 
 1756, he enumerates sundry faults found by him with the doctrines 
 of the " Unitas Fratrum." The fourth point is — " That there is 
 no sitoh thing as degrees in faith, or weak faitb; since he has no 
 faith, who has any doubt or fear." It is added—" How to reconcile 
 this with what I heard the Count say at large, that a man may 
 have justifying faith, and not know it, I cannot tell." In the 
 Essay, there is noticed the contrariety of Count Zinzendorf's tes- 
 timony to that of Peter Bohler, and Mr. Wesley's adherence to 
 the latter. Is there no evidence, that he had changed his ground? 
 The question of the consistency of the Count, is irrelative to the 
 present purpose. 
 
 The i*elevancy of what foUoirs, must depend on the correctness 
 of the reasoning of the writer, from the facts to be staled: which 
 have weight on his mind, disposing to the admission of the positive 
 evidence offered, to prove there having been a change in the mind 
 of Mr. Wesley. 
 
 In bis appeal (p. 10) he notices as follows—" Infants indeed our 
 church supposes to be justified in baptism, although they cannot 
 
60 JVotes. 
 
 then either believe or repent. But she expressly requires boti* 
 repentance and faith, in those who come to be baptized when they 
 are of riper years.'* Consistently with this, he makes the follow- 
 ing entry in his journal, in the year 1738 — "I believe, till I was 
 about ten years old, I had not sinned away that washing of the Holy 
 Ghost, which was given me in baptism." And his friend Mr. 
 Fletcher, above forty years afterwards, slates more at large (vol. 
 2, p. 149 and 195) the doctrine of justification of infants in baptism, 
 precisely as it appears in the institutions of the Church of Eng- 
 land. It seems to follow, that during the opening of the under- 
 standing of an infant child of God, and during the progress of a 
 religious education, and during continuance in grace as in the 
 case of young Wesley— and who can say, that his integrity, or 
 another's in a like state, might not have continued — it is impossible 
 there should take place a species of atsurance, declared to be 
 given with an incipient state of grace, and with that only. The in- 
 ference is, that of the two opinions, one of them must eat out the 
 other. The work of Mr. Fletcher, must have had the approbation 
 of Mr. Wesley. Concerning the first check, it is said in the pre- 
 face to the second, that he had read it in manuscript, and— let it 
 be noticed to his honour — that he had expunged every tart expres- 
 sion. How far this statement should have weight on the present 
 question, must be. left to the judgment of every reader. 
 
 If Mr. Fletcher, in saying (p. 83) as quoted in the Essay, with 
 many things to the sime effect, and (two pages after) in describ- 
 ing the lamentable courses of many, conseqi^nt on their declara- 
 tions that they were justified and sanctified in a moment, did not 
 lay less stress on assurance of an immediate communication of 
 pardon, than had been laid on it in the original professionJ^e has 
 expressed himself in terms very liable to be misunderstood: 
 which ought not to be easily admitted, of so clear headed a writer. 
 One passage from him, was given in the Essay: which was pru- 
 dently passed over in the Reply; it being very little in unison with 
 the commendation, of " the precious and evangelical" tendency of 
 the doctrine. 
 
 Without travelling further into the work of Mr. Fletcher, it 
 may sufAce to take up the matter as delfvered by Jonathan Crow* 
 • her. The author of the Reply Bays (p. 36) that exceptions prove 
 
Notes, 6i 
 
 the rule. Yes; where the exceptions themselves are first esta- 
 blished. But there are some rules, admitting of no exception: ab— • 
 " This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments:'* 
 and — " Let no corrupt connmunication proceed out of your mouth." 
 The rule cited in the Reply—" He that belicveth not shall be 
 damned," must have bee« intended of those only, in whom the ex- 
 ercise of faith was possible. It was no more possible to ideots and 
 infants, who aie mentioned as exceptions, than to sheep or horses. 
 The Reply defines the exceptions of Jonathan Crowther, as 
 comprehending bare possibility. This does not seem to be the 
 meaning. To begin with ignorance. If this be an exception in 
 any instance; it must especially apply, where the knowledge of 
 there being such a test is wanting. If the distinction had been 
 admitted by Mr. Wesley, how safely might he have abstained from 
 the self-reproach, of having been a Pharisee through so long a 
 tract of time ! In the whole of which, although spending much of 
 his time in the study of the scriptures, and in prayer for the right 
 understanding of them, he does not appear to have heard of the 
 matter in question, until he learned it from Peter Bohler. When 
 learned, it took such firm possession, as not to yield to the con- 
 trary instruction of his superiour— Count Zinzendorf. 
 
 The article of bodily complaints, must be supposed to include 
 such as rest on the nervous system: which has so great an influ- 
 ence on the movements of the mind, as to dispense with all con- 
 cern in the business in a numerous class of persons. 
 
 The violence of temptation is so indefinite an expression, that 
 it is difficult to know what sort of persons, if their religious de- 
 sires be otherwise correct, may not hold the impression to be un- 
 necessary in their cases. For every man knows " the sore of his 
 own heart," and no other man can judge of the force of hi& temp- 
 tation. I 
 
 In regard to all these impediments, it seems unreasonable to 
 suppose, that they can be bars against the energy of a communi- 
 cation from " the Father of our Spirits." It was no part of the 
 original theory of Mr. Wesley; nor can it now, consistently, be a 
 part of the theory of those, who consider exception as a bare pos- 
 ifibility. 
 
02 Notes, 
 
 Concerning the note on Dr. Clarke's Commentary, the author 
 of the Essay will not return to the author of the Reply his com- 
 pliment of the thick fog. It will be more consistent with the ideas 
 of decorum entertained by the former, to say that the latter, un- 
 der the astonishment which he confesses to have seiied him, has 
 misunderstood the kind of inconsistency intended to be affirmed. 
 It consisted of a doctrine originally preached without the limits, to 
 which it was now submitting. It does not follow, that the majority 
 may not adhere to the doctrine in its first shape. If this be the 
 case, which is neither affirmed nor denied, the greater is the in- 
 consistency of the esteem in which Mr. Wesley's later as well as 
 earlier positions are held; and of the approbation, which, it is said, 
 is extended to the work of Jonathan Crowther. When Dr. Clarke, 
 after quoting the words " with our spirits," puts as synonomous 
 " to our understanding," it is as much as saying, that the words 
 admit of being so translated; which is not correct. As to what 
 follows in the same note, of the influence thereby exercised over 
 the operations of the soul generally, the same may be the effect of 
 what comes through the medium of the senses. If the author of 
 the Reply possess such a knowledge of the Greek, as to be able 
 to show, that " understanding"— call it either translation or inter- 
 pretation — answers to « spirit" in the English Bible, he will add 
 to the publick stock of criticism. Or, if he can make out the use 
 of the word by Dr. Clarke, to be the same with that of Mr. Wes- 
 ley, as follows; it will be the discovery of an agreepnent not very 
 obvious. V 
 
 For Mr. Wesley's translation, to which he the most inclined, 
 although he says he will not contend for it, there may be reference 
 to Jonathan Crowther's Portraiture, p. 165. The favour«^||rans- 
 laiion, not supp»rted by the original, is " beareth witness to our 
 spirits;" which, in the next page, is clearly distinguished from the 
 rational testimony of our own spirits, and said to precede it. If this 
 be not to combine two witnesses, or, what is in effect the same, 
 to ascribe to one the testimony predicated concerning both, how 
 could it have been done more significantly? It is true, that Mr. 
 Wesley goes on to speak particularly of^the rational testimony of 
 our own spirit, and to sustain it by texts. But there is not one of 
 
Notes, 63 
 
 them, that has an especial bearing on an incipient state of grace. 
 Therefore, in that crisis, there must be a combining of two wit- 
 nesses; or else a confining to one of what is said of both, in order 
 to constitute the testimony in question. This is without any fault- 
 ing of Dr. Clarke's construction of the pronoun " ctvre" which is 
 conceived to be correct. The word " ear" was a typographical 
 crrour. The nonsense of" ear said," would have been considered 
 by most Repliers, as excusing them from any remarks predicated 
 on an opposite construction. 
 
 NOTE U.— Page 31. 
 While the author of the Essay is desirous of acknowledging in 
 the most explicit manner, that he has unintentionally given a par- 
 tial quotation of what Mr. Wesley transcribed from " The Homily 
 of Salvation;" it seems the more surprising, that after an accurate 
 quoting of the Homily, and thus qualifying the reader to judge of 
 the correctness of the interpretation, he should, a few lines below, 
 give a defective summary of the very passage he had been reciting. 
 He quotes as follows— ."The right and true Christian faith is, not 
 only to believe the holy scriptures and the articles of our faith 
 are true; but also to have a sure trust and confidence, to be saved 
 from everlasting damnation through Christ." Of this, Mr. Wesley 
 says to his opponent—" You are a member of the Church ot Eng- 
 land.— Are you? Then hear the Church. Faith is a sure trust which 
 a man hath in God, that his sins are forgiven." Is there no dif- 
 ference between the Homily, and the construction thus given? 
 The latter, makes faith to consist in the sense of forgiveness. The 
 former, lays down the ground of the subject in scripture, and the 
 articles of our faith. It is impossible, under a right knowledge of 
 these, to exercise faith and repentance; and not entertain a sure 
 tpust, in tihe mercy of God through Christ. 
 
 NOTE v.— Page 32. 
 It has not a little confirmed the present writer in his opinion of 
 the incorrectness of the controverted position, that on many occa- 
 sions of stating his objections to persons with an opposite bias, 
 they have combated them in his presence and in subsequent re- 
 port, by identifying them with other matters; from the imputation of 
 
64 Notes, 
 
 which, his most positive declarations have not been sufficient to 
 relieve him. Into this track they are conceived to fall, often 
 ivith the best intentions; partly from the law of association, which, 
 in their minds, connects the favourite tenet with every thing spi- 
 ritual in religion; and partly from the untenableness of it, when 
 brought to the test of scripture. Hence, the denying of it is said 
 to be the denying of the forgiveness of sin~of inward salvation — 
 of vital godliness, &c. 
 
 It is more remarkable, that there should be the same errour in 
 the deliberate writing and printing of a pamphlet. But the miscon- 
 struction is chargeable on the Reply. What else could have occa- 
 sioned the author of it to hold up the author of the Essay, as 
 denying the influence of the Holy Spirit, in making the gospel 
 " the power of God unto salvation" (p. S) — as setting aside the ne- 
 cessity of knowing the things of God, both notionally and experi- 
 mentally (p. 1 2) — of favouring the want of ieeling of the pardon of 
 sin, such as would have been the cases of the Parlytick and Eneas^ 
 in the not being sensible of their cures (p. 15) — of making light of 
 the conversion of the heart (p. 9)— and ot considering baptism as 
 evidence of grace, sufficiently satisfactory (p. 5^0.) All these are 
 now disavowed, and it is denied that they are in the Essay: and 
 yet, if the Reply were stripped of every thing of the sort, and of 
 the observations founded on them, it would be reduced to a very 
 small size. 
 
 The first of the said erroneous tenets, the author of the Reply 
 seems especially desirous of fastening on the author of the Essay. 
 And yet, it is directly contradicted in a passage, on the page next 
 to that which was the subject of remark. Ttig-same stands in this 
 republication, at the head of page 9th. _ 
 
 On the last of the same tenets, the author of the Reply (p. 20) 
 has again shown his management of italicks. The words in the 
 Essay are — «» Evidence sufficiently satisfactory, of the grace pro- 
 mised to accompany it.** No grace is promised to any other adults, 
 than such as are penitent and believing. With the help of italicks, 
 put to the preceding part of the clause, the eye is drawn from the 
 words which follow, fiy this, the mind becomes prepared, in the 
 next sentence but one, for what is unhesiTatingly given as the opi- 
 nion of the Essay, that "baptism is an evidence of inward grace, 
 
JVotes. Q5 
 
 sufficiently satisfactory:^' there being left out the circumstance of 
 promise, which might have recalled the attention to the intended 
 objects of it. It is in this part of the Reply, that the author of the 
 Essay is suspected of the want of sfiirituat discernment; a talent 
 not to be coveted, in the sense of being occupied as above. The 
 preceding charge has not yet spent itself: for, with the repetition 
 bnthe 23d page, that " baptism alone is evidence sufficiently sa- 
 tisfactory,' it is made a ground of the iRfereHce- that " every 
 charge to self-examiRation might have been spared, and every 
 reference to the fiuita of righteousness, as evidences of a religious 
 state." This is fair reasoning; and not the sophistry, which is 
 one of the articles of accusation, brought against the author of the 
 Essay. But while he acknowledges the correctness of the inference, 
 he is not envious of the s/iiritual discernment, which made the 
 fancied discovery of the premises. 
 
 From the repetitions of the aforesaid passage of the Essay, in 
 a mutilated state in the Reply, there is ground for the suspicion, 
 that the author of the latter was especially desirous of loading the 
 former with the stigma, of arrogating to the mere ceremony of 
 baptism, the power of conferring grace. Let there then be again 
 noticed, although at the expense of repetition, the occasion sup- 
 posed to have been given. The person spoken of is Saul, formerly 
 a sinner, but now penitent and believing. This case being con- 
 templated, the proposal of Ananias, recorded in Acts xxii. 16, was 
 stated to be sufficient ground of an assurance of forgiveness, with- 
 out an inward voice to the effect. The author of the Reply, rejects 
 this expression. Let it be abandoned, although furnished by Mr. 
 Wesley, as may be seen in the extract from hini by Jonathan 
 Crowther, p. 168, 1. 24. Let there be taken " impression," or any 
 other word of the same founder of the society. But let there not 
 rest the imputation of extending the remark to any person, in a 
 state of known sin. 
 
 The taking of such courses — that is, the identifying of the de- 
 nial of the tenet with extraneous matter; although there may not 
 always be the accompanyments which the author of the Reply so 
 liberally employs; is here conceived to be the only way, in which 
 the tenet itself can be plausibly maintained. The author would 
 consider it as a failing in himself; were he possessed of much 
 
66 Notes, 
 
 sensibility on the subject. But he does not affect, to be indifferent 
 to it. The Reply notices, that passages of authors may be cited, 
 without due regard to connexion. This happens, sometimes by 
 mistake, and sometimes by design. Whether by mistake or by 
 design, it is seldom so glaring as in him'who makes the remark, 
 when he cites the authorities of Dr. Paley and Dr. Buchanan, in 
 order to aggravate the charge of the dispensing with the conver- 
 sion of the heart. The same fault is still more unjustifiable, '^ hep 
 he strips sentences of clauses essential to their respeclive senses; 
 of which the resul*^, so far as can be accomplished, is the loading 
 of the accused party with the odium of denying truths, acknow- 
 ledged by him habitually in the use ot the offices of his Church. 
 
 There reiay be errours in the making of quotations, which tie 
 writer of this ought to be the more ready to concede, on account 
 of an errour made by himself, in the quoting of Mr. Wesley, 
 although not having the effect of ascribing to him any opinion 
 which he can be supposed not to have entertained. But when, as 
 at present, mutilations of sentences are many, and uniformly tend- 
 ing to lay the charge of opinions inconsistent with the integrity of 
 the Christian faith, it must be consolatory to a mind not wishing to be 
 uncharitable, that the author of the Reply has laid the ground of 
 an apology for himself, in his professing not to understand the 
 phraseology of the author of tlie Essay: in whom, it would be 
 rash to calculate the degree of the obscurity of his perfor* 
 mancb'. 
 
 He does not know, whether such allowance i^ght not to be claim- 
 ed by himself, in his interpreting of the controverted position, as 
 maintained by Mr. Wesley. The said eminent man, however 
 generally intelligible, has given, at different times, what sj^jun to 
 be such different views of the same subject, that perhaps he may 
 have been occasionally misunderstood. In the appeal, faith itself 
 is defined to be assurance of the forgiveness of sin. In a work 
 quoted by Jonathan Crowther (p. 162, 1. 4) assurance is said to 
 be " of the essence of faith, or rather a property thereof." To be 
 of the essence of the subject, is not exactly the same with the be- 
 ing itself: and to be a property ol it, supposes the existence of the 
 subject to which the other ib superaddecf. An impression, is still 
 further from the original definition: because the fact of forgiveness 
 
Notes. 67 
 
 must exist in the Divine mind, before there can be made an im- 
 pression of it from that source, on the mind of the person forgiven. 
 When at last it comes to the point stated in the Skeleton, that 
 assurance is not necessarily connected with faith, the original 
 matter is removed beyond the reach of an ordinary understanding. 
 
 Perhaps^ even the author of the Reply found some difficulty in 
 determining at what spot to take his stand, on the ground of these 
 minute distinctions. He has not proceeded with Mr. Wesley, to 
 the last mentioned of his opinions: but he has gone (p. 33) to the 
 extent of acknowledging a difference between the doctrine of jus- 
 tifying faith, and that of the sense of pardon. This cannot be called 
 the last thought in his pamphlet; but, in imitation of the talent for 
 comparison displayed in the last paragraph but one, the liberty is 
 taken of considering it as the best thought. In the said paragraph, 
 although there is a mutilation of the last sentence in the Essay, 
 it was not with the design of making the author odious. The only 
 design, in this instance, was to render him ridiculous. To accom- 
 plish this, it was necessary to disengage the sentiment from two 
 qualifications, intended to accompany it. It ought in justice to be 
 noticed, that these may have been overlooked, during the astonish- 
 ment in which the author of the Reply confesses himself to have 
 been thrown on this occasion, as on another. 
 
 Had he, on recovery, reviewed the passage, he,might have per- 
 ceived a warrant for it, in what St. Paul has said (1. Cor. iii. 1 1 — 
 15) in his comparative valuation of different materials, laid on the 
 same foundation. On the ground of this authority, there shall now 
 be a repetition of the last sentence in the Essay, enlarged in lan- 
 guage, but not in sense; and for the aiding of the apprehension of 
 the author of die Reply, with the qualifications which he has over- 
 looked, made the more conspicuous by being printed in italicks. 
 The astonishing sentiment is, that should an advocate of the re- 
 jected tenet, be fiosaeased of the fruits of the Sfiirit in his heart 
 and in his life, his opinion will not exclude him from the covenant- 
 ed mercies of the gospel, although it may not be harmless in its 
 influence over others. 
 
ERRATA, 
 
 Page 7, line from bottom 6, wanting " — ." 
 
 10, 2, for " Etheopean" read " Ethiopian." 
 
 13, 20, wanting " — ." 
 
 16, last line, for " eared" read " feared." 
 
 35, line from bottom 2, comma misplaced. 
 
 41, line 1, for " word" read " work." 
 
 43, Une 23, for « truth" read " tenet." 
 
 For Sale, by Meses Thomas, 
 
 The following Works of the same Author: 
 
 Lectures on the Catechism of the Prostestant 
 Episcopal Church: with explanatory Disser- 
 tations. 1 vol. 8vo. ^^ * 
 
 AND, 
 
 Comparative Views of the Controversy be^een 
 the Calvinists and the Arminians. % vols* 
 8vo. 
 
REVIEW 
 
 QUESTION OF A PERSONAL ASSURANCE 
 
 OF 
 
 PARDON OF SIN, 
 
 BY A DIRECT COMMUNICATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT; 
 
 ^S AS ES8AX AND NOTES ON THE SUBJECT; AND IN A HEPLY AND A FAHTHEB 
 REPLY TO THE SAME: 
 
 THE TWO LAST BEING UNDER THE SIGNATURE OF 
 JOHJSTEMORT, 
 
 A MINISTEB OF THE GOSPEL, OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHXTHCP, 
 WITH 
 
 AN APPENDIX, 
 
 ON THE NOTICE OF THE SUBJECT, IN THE QUARTERLY 
 REVIEW BY THE REV. E. S, ELY, A. M. 
 
 BY Wm. white, D. D. 
 
 SISHOP OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHTJIICH, IN THE COJIJIONWEALTH 05" 
 PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 FHILADELPHM: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY MOSES THOMAS, NO. 52, CHESTNUT STBEET. 
 
 rrinted at the Office of the United States' Gazette. 
 1818. 
 
PREF\CE. 
 
 That the present pamphlet is a review of the three 
 pamphlets preceding it, is owing to a persuasion on the 
 mind of the author, of its being the best way of sustain- 
 ing the object of the essay: an opportunity being thus 
 given of showing, how lightly some material points 
 have been touched^ and how some have been overlook- 
 ed on the other side; and of putting out of view mucli 
 matter, that has no bearing on the question. In fact, the 
 author is of opinion, that, if so disposed, he might ex- 
 press unqualified assent to the greater part of the "Far- 
 ther Reply," without the surrender of a particle of his 
 own argument. 
 
 As, in the preface to his former pamphlet, he decli- 
 ned the degrading of the congregations under his care, 
 by complying with a call to bring their concerns before 
 the publick; he now extends the determination to 
 the Episcopal Church at large; which the replier, in his 
 second work [p. 26—29] has thought proper to hold 
 up to view, in a disadvantageous comparison with the 
 body of professing christians to which he belongs. But, 
 the present author is considered as having thrown the 
 first stone. This is not so; and it is evident, that if the 
 Jreplier so construed the second appendix to the Essay, 
 he did not calculate on its being perceived by his reader^! 
 
IV 
 
 which appears ia his disjoining of the appendix from its 
 proper place. No one will deny the privilege of a writer, 
 to chuse the arrangement of his work. The complaint 
 is, that there was a deviation from the form chosen, in a 
 single instance; not to be accounted for, by any thing 
 on the face of the transaction; other than the giving of 
 the appearance of an attack on a body of people, to 
 what was written in reference to a single point in their 
 religious system. 
 
 The consideration of heavy charges against the or^ 
 thodoxy of the Essay, having been forced on the au- 
 thor of itf there may be propriety in this place, to say- 
 something of the attendant personality. 
 
 The Farther Replier considers it as a circumstance ta- 
 king off the edge of personality , that he was answering an 
 anonymous pamphlet. Had there been a desire to remain 
 unknown — which was not the case-;— such secrecy was 
 prevented by sufficient intimation of the person, without 
 the mention of his name. That an mdividual was in 
 view, is evident over the whole fourth page of the reply- 
 He is described as a person advanced in years; as ha^jpg 
 ministered to the same people through a long course of 
 time, and in page 13, he is thought to be "high in office:"* 
 terms doubtless designed to be expressive of his 
 presiding in the church of which he is a minister^ 
 These things, taken in connexion with a reference td 
 J the Episcopal Church all along, left no doubt as to the 
 
object of the attack. Besides, it is supposed capable of 
 proof, that the authorship had been communicated on 
 credible authority. Under these circumstances, it was 
 hardly worth while to reject responsibility for the ap- 
 pearance of the name in the newspapers; although in this 
 there would have been more consistency, had there 
 been accounted for its appearing in several papers, du- 
 ring several successive days. In all this, whatever may 
 have been the indecorum, there would have been no 
 injury; but for the groundless constructions to be noticed 
 in their proper places, and still contended to be correct- 
 ly fastened on the Essay. 
 
 The author has reached a period of life, when he 
 ought to be able to say like St. Paul — " With me, it is a 
 very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of 
 man's judgment." But it is something, although com- 
 paratively very small, and it has not escaped attention, 
 not only that the charges of the Replier will be read in 
 this city, by many who will never read the answers to 
 them; but also that they will travel to districts, in which 
 -not a copy of the answers will appear. 
 
 In the preface to the former pamphlet, the author pro- 
 fessed the design of avoiding the retaliation of incivility. 
 But the "Farther Reply," [Note to p. 15] adduces an 
 instance, in which it is intimated, that the line of conduct 
 has been departed from. It is, where the bad effect of a 
 serious charge, was apprehended [Notes, page 34] on 
 
VI 
 
 the minds of those who would take it on the credit of the 
 Replier. The author supposes it not too much to expect, 
 that among people to whom he has been ministering 
 forty five years, his avowing in print of sentiments in 
 contrariety to what he has been delivering to them from 
 the pulpit and otherwise, through that long tract of 
 time, would not be believed on the credit of a stranger. 
 At the same time, it was not overlooked, that many, not 
 entertaining eidier favourable prejudice or the contrary 
 towards either of the parties, would be relnctant to 
 suppose of any minister of the Gospel, his preferring of 
 such charges against any other minister, without at 
 least specious ground for the procedure. This took 
 place in sundry instances for a time, and was soon cor* 
 rected, as the author has been credibly informed. 
 
 Let it be remembered, in reference to the credit of 
 the Replier, that how far his charges, in the judgment 
 of charity, ought to be ascribed to mistake, w^ left at 
 large. Even if it should be conceived, that the faulty 
 spirit, often generated by controversy, lirad its operation 
 in the case; there would not, necessarily, be the cha"?|fe 
 of intended falsehood. It is a matter not in itself im- 
 possible, that this spirit may have generated personal re- 
 sentment, where the parties have been otherwise un« 
 known to one anotlier. 
 
A REVIEW 
 
 THE CtUESTION, <^c. 
 
 Section 1. — Of the title of the Essay, 
 
 IT denied the position of a personal assurance of the 
 pardon of sin, by a direct communication of the Holy 
 Spirit. The property of "direct" was to distinguish 
 from another species of satisfaction, noticed not far be- 
 low, in which there is explicitly confessed the agenty 
 of the Holy Spirit. The property of "personal" was tQ 
 distinguish the contradicted assurance, from those cases 
 of it in scripture which were personal, but through the 
 medium of the senses. This species of personal assu- 
 rance, seemingly imputed to the author but rejected by 
 him, was any thing which may be imagined, like those 
 instances of it from the mouth of the Saviour in person. 
 The replier triumphs, in having gained an acknowledg- 
 ment to the above effect. But there would not have ap- 
 peared any ground for this; if there had been thought a 
 call to give, with the acknowledgment, the following 
 words designed to qualify it.-— "He did not deny the ap- 
 plication of the benefit to the individual believer, on 
 the general ground of the promises of the gospel; with 
 his knowledge of the state of his own mind, and under 
 the ordinary operations of the Holy ^Spirit" [Essaj- 
 page 9.] 
 
In regard to the benefit, it is attempted in the Farther 
 Reply, to fasten on the author an inconsistency with 
 what he had said in a former publication, which speaks 
 of a drawback in proportion to experience of deficiency. 
 The meaning is, that in the promises of God, there 
 should be confidence without reserve; but that in pro- 
 portion to deficiency, there should apply the admonition 
 — "Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest 
 he fall." For the sake of any reader, who may wish 
 further exposition, there shall be here a reference to a 
 lucid one given by Dr. Witherspoon, vol. 1. p. 176. 
 
 There may be degrees of the assurance on the latter 
 point mentioned above, but not on the former; which is 
 the species contended for on the other side, and to be 
 without drav/back, in compliance with the terms *'assu- 
 rance" and "much assurance,"as supposed (ibid) to be 
 distinguished in scripture. There is no such distinction 
 there. It was stated in the Essay [page 23] on what is 
 here supposed the uncontradicted authority of Dr. 
 Campbell, that the word translated "full and much assu- 
 rance," always means either conviction or accomplish- 
 ment. "Assurance" is not from any word of^he same 
 root; and, as an affection of the mind^is commonly de- 
 noted by the words expressive of beljief. 
 
 Section 2. — Of the state of the question. 
 It is announced in the second paragraph — "indepen- 
 dently on personal application," meaning, not that there 
 existed such independency; but, that for the space of a 
 few lines, and for the sake of distinctness, the connex- 
 ion of the two subjects was to bejjut out of view*' Tho 
 
second sentence of the paragraph, is an ampUficatlon of 
 the first; and although the former has been treated as not 
 having any bearing on the latter, it is by a very singu- 
 lar species of criticism. In the second paragraph, there 
 comes in the question, as it relates to application to 
 person: and as one of the concurring grounds of satis- 
 faction was the consciousness of the party; the short 
 discussion does not conclude, without recognising it to 
 be "produced by the suasive and insensible operations 
 of the Holy Spirit; of which we are no otherwise con- 
 scious than through the medium of the gracious habits 
 of the mind, any more than we have the knowledge of 
 the wind, except by its agency in nature." 
 
 Nothing further appearing of the displeasure of the 
 replier with the word "insensible" as introduced in this 
 place; it may be hoped that he apprehends the meaning, 
 and is reconciled to the use of it. In the Reply, it was 
 treated as indicative of material errour. 
 
 The second paragraph, has been here considered in 
 connexion with the initiatory sentence of the former one,, 
 in order to show the entire want of ground in the impu- 
 tation to be noticed. In this first paragraph, the Essay, 
 speaking independently on personal application, which 
 was to be provided for below in the second paragraph, 
 goes on to say — "It is the gospel, as contained in Holy 
 Scripture, which is the power of God unto salvation; 
 and the ktiowledge of this gospel, is brought to us in the 
 same way with that of any other subject." Here it is, 
 that there comes in the charge of the unsoundness of the 
 author. He added, indeed, in order to show that he Was 
 speaking of the outward word only —"For faith cometh 
 by hearing." The Farther Reply pleads, that this being; 
 
10 
 
 only a reason of what went before, there was no obliga- 
 tion to repeat it. The obligation is not affirnned on any 
 other jjround, than that it would have enabled the reader 
 to judge of the merits of the imputation. What avails 
 the stress laid on the word "for?'' as if the reason 
 given for an affirmation, may not be explanatory of it. 
 There is a set-off, in the author's having omitted the 
 words of St. Paul — "To every one that believeih." They 
 made no part of his intended statement of a single ques- 
 tion, in the next paragraph. In distinguishing, whatever 
 is superfluous tends only to embarrass. The author, 
 never contemplated the denying of the agency of 
 the Holy Spirit, in the act of faith. Had he been 
 of that mind, he might have brought in the words 
 with the mental reserve of a Pelagian; and might have 
 recollected, that, according to his theory, faith is produ- 
 ced by the unassisted action of the natural powers of 
 man. 
 
 The bolder step of adding to the terms of the Essay, 
 is repelled by the repL'cr in his. second work, by alleging 
 that it was the deduction of his own argument in the 
 first. The words are — "tlie knowledge of^other sub- 
 jects may be attained to" — implying the knowledge of 
 thi^ subject also — "without the inHiience of the Holy 
 Spirit." Had this been given as the deduction-^ the - 
 repiier, and not as the sense of the essaj, ist, there would 
 have been no pertinency in the commeni, that the know- 
 led <je in question may be attained to by "men of cor- 
 ruj-i minds and reprobate concerning the faith." Who 
 knows not, that a charge may be made in the form of 
 an inference? 
 
11 
 
 There is the more notice to be taken of this way of 
 writing, as it appears often on the faces of the two re- 
 plies. The way is this — the replier, in the beginning of 
 his remarks on some point, states it in the words of 
 the person against whom he vmtes. But in the issue, he 
 brings in the contradicted principle, still holding it up as 
 maintained on the other side; and by a small but im- 
 portant variation of the words, not likely to be noticed 
 by any other than a very attentive reader, gives a differ- 
 ent complexion from that intended. 
 
 There shall be given an instance similar to the above, 
 and on the present subject. The Farther Repl) (pige 13) 
 taking it up, not as in the Essay and earlv in the notes, 
 but as briefly glanced at in noie V. (page 64) vindicates 
 himself against the charge of "representing the author 
 of the Essay as denying the influence of the Holy 
 Spirit in making" — the meaning in the Kssay is the 
 Koly Spirit's making, and not the author's makin^^ — 
 "the gospel the power of God unto salvation." The 
 replier ascribes to the words an absurd sense, not intend- 
 ed; and then as if to fix it, varies the sentence to — on 
 account qfhxs holding &c. The words in italicks, are 
 not the author's; but they help to give the air of unrea- 
 sonableness to a supposed sense, which ascribed a very 
 improbable censure to the pen of the replier. 
 
 To return to the charge in question: why should 
 he have exercised his ingenuity on clauses of sen- 
 tences and on words, in order to find out a sense in con- 
 trariety to what was before him, in language not to be 
 misunderstood, of the agency of the Holy Spirit in man's 
 salvation. It appears in two places in the beginning of 
 the Essay; and more fully, in the last paragraph of the 
 
IB. 
 
 second appendix to it. Independently on those passages 
 directly to the point; the charge is sustained by such a 
 wire-drawing, as, if applied to the scriptures, might con- 
 vict them of heresy in innumerable places: particularly 
 in the only two passages, as yet under notice— of both 
 which it might be pretended, that the apostle meant no 
 more than such a gospel, as is attainable by men of cor- 
 rupt minds, and received by such a hearing, as is given 
 in schools and colleges; a meaning charged by the replier 
 on the present writer, on no better ground. For the 
 apostle has not guarded against misconstruction, by the 
 mention of the Holy Spirit in these places. 
 
 The replier's charge of the author's want of fidelity 
 in his ministry, appears (page 4) in the deduction of a cer- 
 tain doctrine from the.terms of the title of the Essay, and 
 in an appeal — introduced in the not uncommon form 
 of inquiry — to the fact of its not being preached by 
 him who held it. An admonition to do this, was fairly 
 considered as implication; especially when taken with 
 the reference to an Aquila or a Priscilla, to qualify for 
 the work. The Farther Reply [page 7] distinguishes 
 between the positive and the hypothetical: the^latter of 
 which only, is applied to the religious^^tate of the con- 
 gregations, with which the essayist is ^.connected. But 
 does not every one know, that it is common to insinm|^e 
 reproaches not to be misunderstood, under the forms 
 of hypothesis? If any one can construe the words — 
 <'By their fruits ye shall know them" — taken in their 
 connexion, in any other sense than as containing a cau- 
 tion against the essayist to his hearers, let the replier 
 have the full benefit of whatever judgment and impar- 
 tiality may belong to the construer. Let the same bo 
 
13 
 
 . conceded to the interpretation of any person, who can- 
 not perceive the charge of unfaithfulness, when the re- 
 pHer on his third page * 'supposed" — if the word be pre- 
 ferred to "alleged" — the belief of a certain species of 
 assurance: when on the next page, he intimated, that, if 
 preached, there must be the fruits of it among the hear- 
 ers: and when he asked — "Is this the case" — adding, 
 **thc friends of this doctrine will be very happy to learn 
 that it is." 
 
 The Farther Replier denies, that he either alleged or 
 supposed. That he did not use the words, is conceded. 
 But that he made an effort to prove it by his manage- 
 ment of italicks, is manifest. The species of proof is 
 no longer continued: but it remains on record in the 
 Reply. 
 
 In another place, the author is charged with inaccu- 
 racy more properly. The Farther Replier [page 15. 
 N.] truly affirms that the advice on the subject of 
 prayer, stated in the notes [page 51] was not given. 
 The advice is always good; but, if it had been given as 
 incorrectly stated, would not have been well-timed. 
 The impression was too hastily admitted, from an ex- 
 pression on the 25 page of the reply. 
 
 The author did not consider as offensive, the charge 
 of being theologically obscure to strangers. He wouM 
 rather wish to receive instruction on the point, although 
 it may be too late in life for profit. But he does not per- 
 ceive any connexion between this, and the obscurit)^ 
 referred to in the Farther Reply [page 8] manifested in 
 his having been misrepresented by well-intentioned per- 
 sons, as denying in conversation forgiveness of sin, vi- 
 tal godliness, &:c. The fact was better accounted for 
 
14 
 
 [page 64] from an accidental association of ideas. The 
 differences between the subjects were thought very 
 clta'-, ai hough known to be confounded from that cause 
 by certain descriptions of persons: among whom, how- 
 ever, he did not expect to find a person coming for- 
 wards, wiihout contradiction, as the mouth of a nume. 
 rous sociecv — -see reply, page 40, two last lines. 
 
 In like manner as above, some people, still with the 
 best inttntions, represent the use of forms of prayer, as 
 necessarily destitute of every thing spiritual in the exer- 
 cise; others charge their Christian brethr'::n, with de- 
 crving meetings for the special purpose of prayer, 
 when the thing objected to is a species of prayer, not 
 accounted either rational or scriptural; and others 
 would even deny there being any spiritual influence on 
 either the prayers or the preachings of the replier him- 
 self, merely because he has set times for those exercises; 
 and especially, if he should avow the revolving of the 
 subjects of them previously in his mind. — It is not from 
 real obscurity on the points respectively. At an early 
 period of the life of him who now writes, he was in dan- 
 ger of being considered as an atheist, by an ag^d woman 
 not wanting in esteem for him; for no t!rther reason, than 
 that in relation to some recent incidents related by her 
 as unequivocally the deeds of witchcraft, he cndeavour- 
 ed to convince her that there was no such art, and that 
 the facts might be traced to natural causes. It was the 
 result of a false association of ideas, as in the other cases. 
 
 Section 3. Of the test of ArchhisJwp Usher. 
 The substance of it is, that a man, conscious of the 
 exercise of faith and repentance, li^ay infer on the war- 
 
15 
 
 ratit of the promises of God in scripture, that his sins are 
 pardoned. The position on the other side is, that there 
 must be what is called sometimes an impression, some- 
 times a voice, sometimes a feeling, sometimes, as in the 
 Reply [page 6] a consciousness, and always a some- 
 thing direct and personal from the Holy Spirit, to the 
 effect. The replier professed to hold the subject not in 
 contrariety to Usher, but in accordance with him. It 
 was answered, that to make out this, he ought to have 
 . shown, not merely that he does not contradict the test 
 given, but that lie has not added to it, thereby represent- 
 ing it to be insufficient. This interpretation is not con- 
 troverted in the "Farther Reply;" but there is produced 
 a passage from the same work of the pious and learned 
 prelate, which, if the construction were admitted, would 
 prove him inconsistent with himself. The place given, 
 docs not either speak of or imply a direct and personal 
 communication of the Holy Spirit. It is " the Holy 
 Ghost is in the hearts of God's children," — yes, in their 
 hcartS) through the medium of what he produces there 
 * — "the pledge of Christ's preference, — the witness of 
 their adoption — the guide of their life — the comforter 
 of their soul — the seal of their redemption — the first- 
 fruits of their Salvation." Can any conceive, that these 
 things have a bearing on the question of a direct commu- 
 nication? If there should be such, let them attend to 
 the next question and answer [page 86] concerning 
 > which it is to be hoped, that although so near, they did 
 not meet the eye of the Farther Replier. — "But how 
 are you assured, that you have the Spirit?" says the 
 archbishop, precisely to the present point. "Answer: 
 
i6 
 
 because it hath convinced my judgment — converted mf 
 soul — and having mixed the word with my faith" — evi- 
 dently in that conviction and conversion, from which 
 faith cannot be separated-^"it has become as life to 
 quicken me— as water to cleanse me — as oil to cheer 
 me — as fire to melt and refine me." It will be pertinent 
 to remark the coincidence of the train of sentiment of the 
 archbishop, with that of his church in the homily of 
 Whitsunday. The author will not hesitate to add — 
 with his own sentiments, as delivered on the first page 
 of his former work. 
 
 Bishop Pearson is again introduced in the Farther 
 Reply [page 14 ] The author stated in his notes 
 [page 49] that this sensible prelate, under the first arti- 
 cle of the creed, had given an account of faith; and 
 under another article had explained forgiveness of sin, 
 in ways inconsistent with the opposite theory. When 
 the Farther Replier, without notice of these facts, can 
 permit himself to present from the same work another 
 passage; it may be left to speak for itself, under the 
 general remark that it is nothing to the purppse. 
 
 One of the last authors expected to have l^een pro- 
 duced in favour of the position is Dr. Mammond, as his 
 name appears in a note of page 77. If any should doubt 
 of the contrariety of the sentiments of this divineto 
 the position in the title page, there might be referee 
 to many passages in his commentary: but notice shall be 
 confined to the thirteenth paragraph of his short post- 
 script on divine illumination prefixed to it. The quota- 
 tion on the otlier side, has no bearing on the subject* 
 
Section 4. Of the Essayist's first objection to the 
 Position 
 This objection \vas grounded on the fact, that John 
 tlie Baptist, although the object of his commission was 
 to preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of 
 sills, never intimated such a test of it, as is contended 
 for on the other side. This is not contradicted; but it is 
 alleged, that he pointed to the Messiah's future baptism 
 by the Holy Ghost. It was remarked in answer, that 
 on such a ground, all the saints of old arc left without 
 the benefit: for as to the distinction between a less and a 
 gTcater degree of clearness; it has not only no place in 
 ♦lie promise of what happened at Pentecost, but leaves 
 behind the question of assurance. Here is a difficulty, 
 not attempted to be resolved by any of the texts in the 
 "Farther Reply," extending from page 46 to 50. 
 There is however among them one text, having espe- 
 cial relation to the ministry of the baptist. It is [Luke 
 1. 77] "To give knowledge of salvation unto his j)eo- 
 ple^ by the remission of tlieir sins," and it is contended, 
 that an experimental knowledge is contemplated. Cer- 
 tainly, none other is available: but may not theoretick 
 knowledge fall on minds, which the other shall never 
 reach? Else, what shall we make of the saying of St Paul 
 [1 Cor. 8. i.] "knowledge pufFeth up, but charity edi- 
 fyeth?" If this should be unacceptable from the present 
 pen, let the same be taken from the pen of Dr. Dod- 
 dridge; where, paraphrasing the text from St. Luke, he 
 has it — "To give the knowledge of eternal salvation to 
 his people, in directing them how they are to obtain the 
 forgiveness of their sins." To be made to know the way 
 is one matter: to reach the benefit, is another, 
 c 
 
18 
 
 Section 5, Of the second objection. 
 
 It afilrmed, that the position is not to be found in the 
 discourses of our Saviour. There is nothing produced 
 to the contrary, except those places in the gospel of Sto 
 John, in which the Saviour promises what was accom- 
 plished at Pentecost. It would be tedious repetition, to 
 go on to prove, under each of these texts, that it is irre- 
 lative to the subject. 
 
 But it is contended, that in the case of Kneas, Acts 9. 
 34 and of course in similar cases in the gospels, there 
 must have been an inward sense of pardon. Who doubts 
 it? The question is, whether the said inward sense may 
 not have been produced by the speech of the Savi- 
 our, or of an Apostle, taken in by the ear? This 
 is a point, which does not. come within the no- 
 tice of the Replier. As to the agency of the Holy- 
 Spirit in the way of application, it is wide of the ques- 
 tion of direct communication. 
 
 In the passage under review, what is meant by the 
 feeling of Eneas? If it be of his bodily cure, it is foreign 
 to the purpose. Ifitbeofthe forgiveness of his sins, 
 there is not a word concerning it. T|ig probitbility, per- 
 haps the presumption may be, that this was so: in which 
 case, his repentance and faith must be presumed 
 also. All tlicse things being presumed, it was nJl^ft'al 
 that he should have a joyful feeling, consequent on his 
 new state. But there is a manifest diflTerence between 
 this, and the feelings being the evidence of his pardon 
 and the warrant for his assurance; which is the matter 
 understood on the other side. 
 
 Under this head, there arose the question between the 
 two litigants, as to the admission of more causes than 
 are necessary to an effect. There is a philosophical 
 
19 
 
 maxim, forbiddintf this. When the autlior supposed the 
 meaning of the maxim to be obvious, he thought the 
 terms were so. When he expected them to be obvious 
 to students of theology in particular, he meant, not the 
 terms, but the truth of the proposition, as an axiom 
 nat requiring proof: for it is the shape in which it meets 
 the eye, in systems of natural science. That the mean- 
 ing of the words themselves were out oFthc view of the 
 Replier while he was writing, appears in his continually 
 confounding of the tao ideas of a single cause and a suf- 
 ficient cause. He now [page 19] rests the correctness 
 of his statf ment on the 14th and 15th pages of "The 
 Reply." Cn those pages, the present author is wiilinp- 
 to rest the propriety of his own statement. There are 
 two cases; in the former of which, neither of the given 
 forces was equal to the effect; and in the latter, botli 
 were contemplated as necessary by divine wisdom: and 
 yet in each case, there is held to be a contradiction of 
 the maxim, that no more causes are to be admitted, 
 than the effect in question requires What is especiallv 
 remarkable, in the first of the above instances, the fall 
 of a house is supposed to be owing partly to winds and 
 floods, and partly to the insufficiency of its foundation: 
 whereas the maxim relates entively to divine age; ey, and 
 has no bearing on any effect, to which the unskilfulness 
 or he ignorance of man contributes. 
 
 The Farther Replier thinks [page 16] that he has re- 
 torted the author's maxim on himself, in the case of 
 Eneas — the outward assurance rendering the inward 
 feeling superfluous. There is still a misunderstanding. 
 The feeling supposed to have been possessed, must 
 have been the effect, and not the cause. The author's 
 
20 
 
 use of the word "impossible" for "superfluous," was 
 an unimportant inaccuracy; because according to his 
 views, which were undertaken to be given in that place, 
 superfluous and impossible were the same. The whole 
 argument on the other side went on the presumption, that 
 ^n inward feeling consequent on assurance, cannot be the 
 effect of an outward declaration of it: or why was this 
 represented as designed principally for the conviction 
 of the beholders, and not for the satisfaction of the 
 patient? 
 
 It is asked [page 16] Why, if the author of the 
 Essay admits an inward and spiriiEual feeling, does he 
 not avow it? He thought he had avowed it on the first 
 page of the Essay, in speaking of being satisfied of an 
 interest in the promises of the gospel; on the next page 
 but one, in speaking again of a satisfaction which could 
 have been none other than spiritual; and in the labt page 
 of the performance: for how can there be any other 
 than a spiritual possession, of the fruits of the Spirit 
 spoken of? The "Farther Reply," on the next page, 
 goes on in such a way, as to manifest a confounding of 
 feeling consequent on the pardon of sin, wi^^i evidence 
 of the fact supposed to be bottonTfed on feeling. It 
 should be remembered, that the for-mer of these was not 
 the subject of the Essay; which was limited to th^^is- 
 proof of the errour of thf latter. 
 
 Jf the opponent of the Essay can satisfy those con- 
 cerned, that he has not contradicted Mr. Wesley and 
 Mr. Fletcher, in affirmii.g on the eighteenth page of his 
 former pamphlet, that, assurance being the work of 
 God, the smner has no need to be told of it, with a 
 yiew to its being sought by him; it is here a matter of 
 
21 
 
 indifference. But let it not be admitted that the se- 
 cond pamphlet [page 20] is correct in representing as 
 the sense of one of the notes to the Essay, that accord- 
 ing to the said two divines, the communication of the 
 Holy Spirit is the work not of God, but of the sinner. 
 • If any other reader can elicit the same reproach from 
 the following words in note F [page 41] let him have 
 the full benefit of his ingenuity — "Be it, that the giving 
 of the personal assurance must be the work of God: the 
 endeavouring to obtain it, is represented as resting with 
 men." Then for evidence of this fact, there is reference 
 to the divines of the Westminster confession; and to 
 Arminian divines, especially Mr. Wesley and Mr, 
 Fletcher 
 
 It is to be lamented, that there has been so much to say 
 of a philosophical axiom, brought incidentally into the 
 question. This would probably not have happened, if 
 there could have been drawn from the discourses of the 
 Saviour, any thing which had an evident bearing on the 
 controversy. 
 
 Section 6. — Of the third objection. 
 It is the non-appearance oi the position, in the acts of 
 the apos'les — especially its being wanting in that of 
 Cornelius, that of the Kthiopian, that of the jailor; and 
 further, in the addresses to the Jews and Gentiles. In all 
 this, there is snppc^sed to be a set-off in Acts 2. 4 — 5, 
 9. 31 — and 11, 16. There is not a syllable in them, 
 which applies to any other subject thaa that of Pente- 
 cost, except ill the second, where the comfort of the Holy 
 Ghost is spoken of. Let that passage be taken with the 
 comment given in connexion with it. There is nothing 
 
inconsistent with this declaration, in the Essay or in the 
 notes to it. If the "Farther Reply" had copied from a 
 concordance all the texts which have a reference to the 
 Holy Ghost or Spirit, and given ponin7ents on them 
 from approved authors; the whole might have been 
 made as much to the purpose, as the text above given. 
 
 The case of St. Paul, unexpectedly to him who ad- 
 duced it, has produced a question on the subject of 
 baptism. He has said, that this divinely instituted sign 
 was considered by Ananias — evidendy meaning in alli- 
 ance with the repentance and faith of Saul — sufficient 
 evidence of grace promised to accompany it. 
 
 By what process of mind, the place of Ananias vv'as 
 taken possession of by Saul, in the imagination of the 
 opponent, is not here within the sphere of conjecture. 
 In the passage referred to, the former was the speaker; 
 and the latter passed no judgment on the subject. What 
 the Essay said of a particular case, has been under- 
 stood to be a general position. Not only so, the "Far- 
 ther Reply," in a way of writing against which the rea- 
 der has been already cautioned, after a deduction of its 
 own, brings in the issue not as its own deducti^, but 
 as the doctrine of the essayist, thus — "HeViaintains that 
 baptism alone is sufficiently satisfactory ; ai>d that no more 
 causes are to be looked for, than are siiilicient for tl^ 
 effect." He never maintained any such thing, detached 
 from the state of a known individual; although he acknow- 
 ledged it to extend to all fit recipients. The affirmed uni- 
 versality of the proposition, is the consequence of sepa- 
 rating a sentence from that immediately precedii^g it: 
 which led to the disregard of the distinction between 
 the cause of any eftect; and a circumstance of the sub- 
 
ject, by which, of itself, the effect could never have been 
 produced. 
 
 Section 7. — Of the fourth objection. 
 
 It relates to the paucity of texts found even in the 
 epistles; although the subjects are sometimes such, as 
 produced incidentally sayings, which may be drawn 
 aside to the purpose of the position. 
 
 Of the texts in the "Farther Reply," that which 
 takes the lead is Rom. 8. 16. So much has been said of 
 it in the first appendix to the Essay, that it shall not be 
 here discussed again. But it is worth the while of a cu- 
 rious reader to notice the constructions, interfering with 
 one another, of those who hold it so important to their 
 theory. Mr. Wesley [Crowther page 165"] prefers the 
 translation — "To our spirits," although he says he will 
 not contend for it Here is one witness only: but Dr« 
 Coke in his commentary calls for two witnesses; although 
 under the testimony, he does not comprehend the mi- 
 raculous eilusion, as do Doddridge and others; Dr^ A* 
 Clarke, varying from both Mr. Wesley and Dr. Coke, 
 states the testimony of the spirit as given in the intellec- 
 tual fticulty. Siich is the issue of plans of interpretation, 
 resulting from disregard of the drift of the argument of 
 the apostle: which was to prove to the Jewish christians, 
 that tlieir brethren, the Gentile christians, had been 
 owned by the common Father of both, in the effusion of 
 miraculous gifts: an effusion, which under the ordinary 
 operation of the spirit, had also manifested itself ii^ its 
 holy influences on the minds of the latter, by a child-like 
 confidence suited to the beneficent spirit of the gospel; 
 and illustrating its superiority to the preparatory dispen- 
 sation of the law. 
 
Answer to note of the "Farther Reply,'* page 53. 
 Agreeably to the correction in said page, the note ofDr, 
 Clarke is "in" and not "to" our understandings: but 
 there is no difference in sense; because the Holy Spirit 
 would in vain witness in, if not to. Be it, that the under- 
 standing is made the medium to the feelings. The lat- 
 ter are sometimes addressed by another course, and es- 
 pecially on the present subject. 
 
 That Mr. Wesley preferred "to our spirits," is here 
 thought evident, although he considered the contending 
 for it as not necessary to his purpose. This was not 
 yielding it. If he put "with" into his notes, it may have 
 been from mature consideratioUj and only shows a more 
 extensive variety. 
 
 After all as the witnessing of the spirit might 
 have been, through the instrumentality of his 
 miraculous effusions, to the spirits of the gentile 
 christians; there would be nothing conceded on 
 the present point, by the admission of the inter- 
 pretation. The holy agent addressed the minds 
 of the gentile christians through the- medium 
 of their senses. But the argument of jhe ap(^tle re- 
 quires reference to the conviction, of the Jewish 
 christians. 
 
 This is the only objection to the rendering of Padp^ 
 hurst; who however, after his translation adds — "not 
 by any direct impression or immediate testimony 
 communicated to the soul, but, as the Apostle speaks 
 V. 14. by leading us in our lives and conversationy 
 &c." 
 
* 25 
 
 It will be pertinent to remark a partial representation 
 of the sentiments of the present author, from lectures on 
 the catechism formerly published by him [page 239] in 
 which it is said-^ — "What miraculous effusion vasto the 
 infant church, the authentick record of it, and other evi- 
 dences of Christianity are to believers r f the present 
 day:" From which the "Farther Rcplier" deduces the 
 inference [page 51] — "that to believers of the present 
 day, there is no other witness of^the Spirit, than the 
 scriptural account of those miraculous effusions." How 
 happened it to escape his consideration, that these mira- 
 culous effusions were in confirmation of the gospel 
 preached by apostolick men? Answerable to the gospel 
 so preached, are the records of it now in our possession: 
 and answerable to the effusions are the credible narra- 
 tives of them and other evidences of Christianity. ^ 
 
 Further, as in the gospel age, the inward cast of cha- 
 ricter of the believers, produced by the ordinary operation 
 of the spirit, concurred with the miraculous effusion in 
 demonstrating their adoptioh, and in being its seal and 
 pledge; the same cast of character, produced by the 
 same operation, and in concurrence wiih holy scripture, 
 reaches to the same effect. 
 
 In defence of the opposite exposition of 'he text, there 
 is produced the authority of archbishop Tillotson, where, 
 discoursing on John 7. 39, and noticing the text in ques- 
 tion, he says — "that it is a testimony within iis^ that we 
 are the children of God." He speaks, further, of the 
 seal, the pledge, and tlie earnest of the Spirit: 
 But his meaning is evident in another place not far be- 
 fore, where it is sairi — -"The ^-pirit of God, dwelling in 
 good men and evidencing itself by its genuine fruits and 
 
2d 
 
 effects, the graces and virtues cFa good life, is said to be 
 the pledge and earnest of our future inheritance. '^ The 
 archbishop contends for an immediate influence of the 
 Holy Spirit. But for what object? Is it a direct and per- 
 sonal assurance of pardon? No: But it is tothe effcctof *an 
 inward power, strength and assistance communicated to 
 christians, to all the purposes of holiness and obedience.'* 
 There are two sermons on John 7. 39; and they are as in- 
 consistent with the opposite theory, as any thing in th' 
 Essay. When Dr. Doddridge is quoted to the same effect, 
 why is it not shown, that by internal and gracious ope- 
 rations, giving assurance Sec. vvas meant an immediate 
 communication of pardon? 
 
 The general tenour of the writings of the 
 archbishop, would refer his interpretation to the 
 fruits of the spirit. Certain terms had been explained 
 by him, in the conclusion of the first of the two sermons: 
 They are repeated early in the second, without the ex- 
 planation; and so taken up, and bent to a meaning in con- 
 trariety to it. There is a similar misdirection given below 
 to the same excellent person, in a comment .on 2 Cor. 1. 
 22; which speaks again of a seal, an earnest ahd^a pledge. 
 These are referred by the archbishop^^io the operations 
 of the Holy Spirit: but they are sufficiently explained 
 by him in what immediately follows. After discoursiMpof 
 tlie operation of the high agent in prayer, in peace, and 
 in consolation, the statement is made more at large than 
 will here suit for a quotation, that "although it is hard, 
 if not impossible, particularly to distinguish between the 
 motions of God's Spiritand those rf our own minds; yet 
 we are assured of the existence of the supernatural princi- 
 ple from its effects and from the declarations of scripture. " 
 
S7 
 
 Rom. '5. 5. When the present author save the inter- 
 pretation referred to of this text, it was such as seemed 
 called for by the argument of the apostle. But it was not 
 intended to deny, that the love existing in the divine 
 mind was manifested to the hearts of believers, by the 
 operation of the Holy Ghost; nor if, in contrariety 
 to his opinion, the proper construction be the love of 
 God in the hearts of believers, that the sense was exci- 
 ted by any other cause. The text ought not to have been 
 produced on this occasion, without notice of the effect 
 of the initiatory words of it. 
 
 Rom. 8. 9. 8. 15. 14, 17. The first and 
 second of these texts refer to the ordinary opera- 
 tions of the Holy Spirit, in holiness of heart; and 
 the List of them refers to the same Spirit, in the fruit of 
 holy joy. There is nothing of direct communication 
 in these things; and they are explained accordingly by 
 Doddridge, To the same purpose with the latter of the 
 texts, is 2 Cor. 13 14, and 1 Thess. 1. 5 and 6. 1 Cor. 2, 
 12. The same commentator explains it of the informa- 
 tion and regulation of the mind, in opposition to carnal 
 views. This, and not the sentiment of the position, is 
 what he meant by notionally and experimentally. 
 
 2. Cor. 1. 22. He interprets the sealing and the ear- 
 nest, of "the gifts" — ^doubtless meaning in miraculous 
 effusioiiSj as he explains in other places — and ''the 
 graces," which produce an anticipation of heaven in 
 the heart. The same interpretation may be given, on the 
 same authority, of Gal. 3. 14. and of Eph. 1. 13. 
 
 Gal. 4. 6. That all good in the heart is ascribed to the 
 operation of the Holy Spirit, is not here disputed. The 
 place refers especially to the good disposition of the 
 
28 
 
 hecirt, so produced, which consists in a confidence like 
 that of a free man, distinguished from the fear and dis- 
 tance of a slave. This also is the interpretation in the 
 paraphrase so often referred to above, and made the 
 more manifest by the reference to Selden in a note. 
 
 Heb. 6. 4. Doddridge explains the only terms quoted 
 thus— The "heavenly gift, is the illumination by chris- 
 tian knowledge: and the being m tde partakers of the 
 Holy Ghost," is the possession of his miraculous com- 
 munications. The unquoted expressions of "tasting of 
 the good word of God and the powers of the w^orld to 
 come," refer to "affectionate impressions" on the minds 
 of the Hebrews — not consisting in a direct and personal 
 assurance of pardon, but — "awakening in them a con- 
 viction of sin, desires after holiness, and resolutions in 
 favour of it." 
 
 1 Pet. 1. 12. "The Holy Ghost sent down fromhea- 
 ven" — "with such visible glory" — savs Doddridge 
 —"and testifying his continued residence among us, by 
 such wonderful effects." — 2. 3. When the commenta- 
 tor so often here quoted, gave the pertinent comment, 
 in the "Farther Reply," he did not ihifik of interpreting 
 the text to the purpose of that work. .On the contrary, 
 the testifying spoken of, was the "knowing the sweetness 
 there is in Christ, and how suitable he is to the necd^« 
 ties and desires of an awakened sinner;" all which 
 might be from the preached gospel, under the ordinary 
 influences of the Spirit. 
 
 1. John 3. 24. According to the author here so much 
 respected, the abiding of the Spirit, is his "producing in 
 6ur souls by his gracious operation the Image of God, 
 ^nd forming us V) an intimacy with and nearness to him: *' 
 
S9 
 
 Which is commonly known under the name of sancti- 
 iication. 
 
 1 John 4. 13. "He hath given us of his Spirit: "ope- 
 'rating by his gracious influences," says the same com- 
 mentator. 
 
 1 John 5. 6. "It is the Spirit that beareth witness." 
 The extraordinary communication of the Spirit to his 
 servants, is the most glorious communication of all," 
 says the same excelleiit person. 
 
 10. It is surprising that a man possesed of the learning of 
 Dr. A. Clarke, should have furnished the "Farther Re- 
 ply" wiih a note on this text, grounded on the supposi- 
 tion, that it speaks of the person of the Holy Spirit. 
 "Witness," in this place, is the same with "Testimonv;" 
 which ma\ be the fruits of the Spirit in the heart. 
 
 P' ilipp. 1.9. It is evidently cited, for the sake of the 
 word "sense" in the margin of the large bibles, consi- 
 dered as the same with judgment: as if sense or feeling 
 may not be excited by other than direct communication. 
 The same author refers to the *'feeling" or ^'■percep- 
 tion''' of the social ties sooken of before: but marks the 
 latter of those words emphatical; for which the reason 
 must have been, his thinking it the most agreeable to the 
 original, as it certainly is. 
 
 When the present author made use of a negative form 
 of argument, founded on the silence of the Gospels, the 
 Acts, and the Epistles, he did not anticipate a text to be 
 alleged from the Apocalypse. But as such an authority 
 is adduced in the " Farther Reply," it may not be im- 
 proper to notice it in this place. 
 
 Rev. 2. 17. It speaks of " hidden manna," and "a 
 •^Thitc stone" — to be given "to him that overcometh," 
 
30 
 
 with reference to dangers that will beset the righteous 
 through life; and therefore not to be expected, until the 
 battle shall be over, and the conquest gained. Accord- 
 ingly, in other messages to the churches of Asia, it is — 
 "He that overcometh and keepeth my words unto the 
 end," and "to him that overcometh, will I give to sit 
 down with me in my throne, &c." Ifthe interpretation here 
 given should be unwelcome from the present quarter, 
 let it be taken, although it must be to the same f ffect, 
 in the commentary so much noticed above. It may be 
 seen at large in the paraphrase, the note, and the im> 
 provement. It is not means to deny, that the text may 
 with great propriety be applied, in an accommodated 
 sense, to an anticipation of the heavenly Canaan. But it 
 is not the sense, as it stands in scripture. 
 
 It has been a painful task, to show the irrelevancy of 
 the above texts; of the greater number of which it must 
 still be here believed, that they were never before present- 
 ed in formal argument — although they may have been 
 in declamation, in favour of the contradicted position. 
 It would be easy to show, that in general, the copimen- 
 tators relied on in the "Farther Reply," ififo not conn- up 
 to the sense vvhich it was written lo sustain. But it Wiis 
 thought best to confine the attention to a single commen- 
 tator, respected on both sides of the present qucstion.^^ 
 
 The Farther Replier was under a mistake, if he un- 
 derstood the Essay, as representing Dr Doddridge 
 of his opinion in any part of his commentary. The 
 meaning was, that his interpretation was not so pointedly 
 applied to the conviction of the believing Jews, as the 
 argument of the apostle requires. Of some of the texts 
 ffi 'ihe first appendix to the Essay it seems, that if they 
 
31 
 
 had been adduced by men of name, it was unknown to 
 the Farther Replier. They are eight in number. Four 
 of them are produced by himself. Of the remainder, 
 .three may be found applied to the doctrine of assurance, 
 in the notes attached to the larger editions of the West- 
 minster confession, which have been so long considered 
 by many able men, as a store-house of authorities. Of 
 the only remaining text, 2 Tim. 4. 8, the Replier ought 
 not to suppose it improbable that it has been produced 
 to the point, wlien he himself has argued from confidence 
 in an uninspired but holy man, like that expressed by 
 St. Paul, that it is evidence in favour of the position., 
 
 Section 8. — Of the fifth objection. 
 It is bottomed on the silence of St. Paul on the sub- 
 ject, in his instructions to Timothy and to Titus, con- 
 cerning the ministry. On the other side,there is produced 
 the text—" These things I will thatthouaffirm constant- 
 ly." What things? — Among others, there is " the wash- 
 ing of regeneration," inward cleansing and the outward 
 sign of it, belonging to the commencement of the sincere 
 profession of Christianity — and "the renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost" — which ought to be "day by day." The 
 irrelevancy was shown in the notes; and the text, as 
 given in the Reply, still stands as the only place alleged 
 against the objection. 
 
 Section 9. — Of the sixth objection. 
 It turned on the uselessness of any other test, accord- 
 ing to the tenet in question. This is misinterpreted in 
 the Reply. It was not meant, that the tenet disowned 
 every other test; but the meaning was, that any other 
 
was uiinecessaiy, on the ground so taken. The duty of 
 self-examination may exact much deep thought, and 
 much nice discrimination: But what occasion for them 
 —still meaning, in the single point of ascertaining re- 
 ligious state — if there be the shorter road of consulting 
 a testimony in the mind? T! le matter seems to have Leen 
 dropped in the ''Farther Reply," and may be so here. 
 
 Section iO. — Of the seventh objection, , 
 
 In the Essay it was said, that the author of it had 
 never met with a scrap from any of the fathers, even 
 advanced in favour of the position. He cannot say so, 
 any longer: but with what propriety they are nov/ pro- 
 duced in the "Farther Reply," is the question. 
 
 It begins its discussion of the present subject, with 
 retorting on the Essayist, and asking, wh^erc is his test 
 to be found in them of the witness of the Holy Spirit, at 
 first in miraculous effusion, and since in the scriptures? 
 Answer: no where in the form of a disputed point, but 
 wherever they refer to those oracles, in concurrence 
 with the fruits of the Spirit in the heart: 6f which there 
 is abundance of evidence, not like^ to be'^3enicd, in 
 their homilies and other writings. . 
 
 To give a damper on the wliolt argument, au- 
 thorities are produced, intended to invalidate any^pti- 
 mony from the fathers. 
 
 The first, is that of Dr. FJaweis; iii what he himself 
 calls "an impartial history of the christian church." 
 There could hardly have been produced a more incom- 
 petent witness: and if any reader wishes to know how 
 cheap his name is held by those who consent with him in 
 liis theology, many proofs might be referred to; but. at 
 
33 
 
 present, there shall be notice of those only to be found 
 in the first volume of the Christian Observer. The in- 
 dex of names will direct to the places The misrepresen- 
 tations of this divine, in respect to the Fathers in particu^ 
 lar, have been pointed out by many persons: The truth 
 is, he measured their respective worth by the standard 
 of his Calvinism.* 
 
 * On the authorjfy of this divine, there are given in the "Farther 
 Reply" two anecdotes of two very respectable prelates, in them- 
 selves to their credit, but designed to manifest sentiments on their 
 death-beds, inconsistent with those of their preceding lives. The 
 truth of the anecdotes requires better evidence, than their appear- 
 ing from the pen cf Dr. Haweis. He may have believed them; 
 but many know how much the English prints abound with fabri- 
 cations of 'his sort, concerning distinguished persons. 
 
 The above are about as mwc - to the matter in hand, as when the 
 Farther Rcplier goes out of his way, to vent his prejudices in tel- 
 ling of "sinecures," and of the popular — not the ecclesiastical — 
 Phraseology ol "livings." 
 
 Did it never occur to the retailer of these and many such things 
 opprobrious to the church of England, to how much greater 
 an extent he has carried his unprovoked attack, (han could have 
 been chargeable on the present author, even had he brought before 
 the publick a particular body of professing christians, indepen- 
 dently on their theology? which has not been done by him. 
 
 The author takes the opportunity of declaring, that he has no 
 design to deny, in regard to a considerable proportion of the Eng- 
 lish clergy, there being room for the remarks quoted in the 32d 
 and following pages of the Farther R^iply, of the neglect of 
 grounding christian morals on christian doctrine. May such re- 
 marks as those of bishops Lavington and Horsely, have their due 
 eff-^ct: For without the latter of these subjects, the gospel i' not 
 preached; and even the former, severed from it, is little more than a 
 name. 
 
34 
 
 The much more respectable Dr. Mosheim is brought 
 to testifv against the Fathers, in two long quotations; in 
 which, the only matter to the purpose is, that "they did 
 not succeed so well" — meaning as in their writings 
 against the pagans — "in unfolding the true nature and 
 genius of Christianity." There is a difference between 
 success in unfolding the doctrines of the system, and 
 testifying to what they are: in which, the testimony of 
 the Fathers would not have been lightly spoken of by 
 Dr. Mosheim. It should be remembered, that he is 
 speaking of controversial writers; and that therefore, 
 
 It is a pity to charge the f >ult, as is done in a cited authority, on 
 archbishop Laud; who has enough in his character, not to be de- 
 fended. It has been more reasonably accounted for, as introduced 
 in the reign of Charles the second, by an affected contrarif ty of 
 those who had for sonoe time filled the pulpits; many of whom ran 
 into the opposite extreme, of preaching doctrine without morals* 
 There is no inconsistency with this acknowledgment, in what is 
 said in the notes [page 56] and remarked on in the Farther Reply, 
 [^page 32] that the doctrine said to be preached by Mr, Wesley, 
 was customary. It can be shown, in printed sermons of many dis- 
 tinguished men in the intervening times. If the m3ss of clergy are 
 to be judged of from them, the number of correct poachers must 
 have been great. As to the extent of cuslmnarily., it is not to be 
 estimated either by the author or by his opponent, although put in 
 italicks by the latter. Where is the record'bf such a custoni, a& 
 that of denial of all the pulpits, for preaching justification b^i^th? - 
 What dsfensible si-nse can be put on Mr. Wesley's words— "in- 
 ward salvation now attainable," other than release from the dominion 
 of sin and sui jeciion to g( spel righteousness? But under the unusual 
 phrase, may there not have been included the proposition, which 
 alter having been preached for thirty yiears, was acknowledged by 
 him not to be true? 
 
33 
 
 what he says has no bearing on writings addressed to 
 the heart, and intended to govern the conduct— such as 
 the epistles of Clement and Ignatius. Even in regard 
 to controversial writers; the historian, a few pages be- 
 fore, had made a material distinction between disputed 
 cjoctrines, concermng which only they wrote; and the 
 undisputed, which, he says, *'are very rarely defined 
 with accuracy, by the ancient writers, so as to point out to 
 us clearly, what their opinions concerning them were." 
 If the views here taken of the Fathers, be correct; the 
 point in question, must have been one of the undis- 
 puted. If so, either it was unknown, whether in* the 
 shape of truth, or in that of heresy, as affirmed in the 
 Essay; or it was universally held, and therefore passed 
 over by the controversial and other writers in silence. 
 The argument is, that the matter was too important to 
 every individual, to admit the latter supposition. 
 
 It is hardly necessary to say much to prove, that the 
 Writings of the early Fathers may have been sufficient 
 expositions of the faith, in the sense of laying all essen- 
 tial points before the empcrours and senate, and other 
 strangers to the system; and not in the unfolding of the 
 several doctrines lucidly, and with apposite reasonings. 
 This is the merit denied to them by Mosheim. 
 
 Monsieur Daille, the learned French protestant divine, 
 who is supposed to have written with the greatest effect 
 against the improper use of the Fathers; and who has 
 been thought, by men of equal intelligence with himself, 
 to have carried the matter to an extreme; in the conclu- 
 luon of his celebrated work, opens his mind concerning 
 them as follows. After praising their exhortations to 
 holiness, and the solid proofs found in them of the fun- 
 
m 
 
 tiamental principles of the christian religion, he goes dn^ 
 in these words — "But now, besides what has been' 
 hitherto said, we may, in my opinion, make another very 
 considerable use of the P'athers. For there sometimes 
 arise such troublesome spirits, as will reeds broach doc- 
 trines devised out of their own head, which are not at all 
 grounded upon any principle of the christian religion. I 
 say therefore, that the authority of the Fathers may 
 very properly and seasonably be made use of, against the 
 impudence of these men, by showing, that the Fathers 
 were utterly ignorant of any such fancies, as these men 
 propose to the world. And if this can be proved, we ought 
 certainly to conclude, that no such doctrine was ever 
 preached to mankind, either by our Saviour Christ, or 
 by his ai)ostles. For what probability is there, that those 
 holy doctors of former ages, from whose hands christi;)n- 
 ity has been derived down unto us, should be ignorant 
 of any of those things, which had been revealed and 
 recommended by our Saviour, as important and neces-- 
 sary to salvation?" 
 
 The censures cast by Monsieur Daille, when no ac- 
 tual case uas in his view, shall not be here^iplied to 
 the case in hand. But there is the wi^, that it may be 
 seriously compared with the rule laid down by him; and 
 further, tliat there may be a consideration of the extent, 
 in which the making light of it gives advantage torne 
 Romanists on the one hand, and to Avians, Socinians, 
 and even Deists on the other. 
 
 The first Father cited is St. Clement, who says — "A 
 full effusion of the Holy Ghost was upon you all.'' 
 Doubtless, he meant not the miraculous effusion on all, 
 hwt the ordinary operations of the Spirit^ The question 
 
^7 
 
 h' — how were they manifested? Answer: not in direct 
 an(i personal communication of pardon; but, as is evi= 
 dent in the long paragraph of which the words are part, 
 and in the other long paragraph before it in the epistle, 
 "in the performance of various social duties, in regard to 
 \yhich the addressed church had recently become delin- 
 quent. Mr. Milner, from whose history a comment is 
 given on the place, had reason to complain of those, 
 who branded with the name of enthusiasm the doctrine 
 of the hpirit's work on the heart, and the experience of 
 his consolations in the sou!: but it is here supposed very 
 improbable, that he would have lent his name to the 
 support of the position at issue. He wrote his histo- 
 ry, with the design of being more attentive to the traces 
 of piety i'l the several ages, than to facts prominently- 
 dwelt on by historians generally. It is remarkable, that a 
 work should be so often quoted with approbation in the 
 Farther Reply; and yet, that this should not produce 
 from it a single extract, in which the mind of the writer 
 is declared in favour of the sentiment of the positione 
 It is so irrelevant, to cite the epistles of the venerable 
 Ignatius, where he speaks of God's dwelling in us as 
 his temples, and the having a feeling ot it; which may 
 well be interpreted of the fruits of the Spirit, and of his 
 presence manifested therein; that there is thought to be 
 no need of any further remark on his authority, 
 
 Clement and Ignatius, were of the first century. Justin, 
 of the second, in his examination previous to his mar- 
 tyrdom, professed before the judge a certainty of his 
 salvation. Many have done the same: some, with very lit- 
 tle cause apparent to the world; and others, as in the case 
 of the venerable martyr, on the ground of the promises 
 
S8 
 
 of the gospel, and through the mercy of God in Christ; 
 compared with the gracious habits of their souls, and 
 not without their being manifested in act; although 
 mingled with infirmity. It is perhaps owing to the said 
 profession of Justin, that Dr Haweis [vol. 1. page 189] 
 "hopes" — shame on the double faced compliment — 
 "that the root of the matter was in him." It may be ac- 
 counted for by passages in Justin, confessedly unfavour- 
 able to Calvinism. 
 
 If, in the quotadon here given from Mihier, the put- 
 ling again in italicks, were designed to convey the idea 
 of reiterated assurance; it is wide of any thing within 
 the view of that author. Perhaps it may not have been 
 intended; but as the intimation may be understood by 
 the reader of assurance, there may be propriety in men- 
 tioning, that the "again," twice introduced, was with a 
 reference as well to a suspension of the persecution, as 
 to the revival of the courage of the accused. 
 
 The passage from Cyprian, is for the proof of sudden 
 and entire conversion. Who can reasonably doubt, that 
 a sinner, under conviction of the errour of bis ways, and 
 resolution to reform, breaks off immediately, i^t merely 
 from this or that sin, but from all hl^ sins? This is 
 evident in C}prian's specifying of th^;,ex changes of ex- 
 pense for parsimony, of costly for common apparel ,^d 
 of ambition for retirement. They are changes of habit^ 
 begun at once, and doubtless from a change of heart. 
 Here was U-e place, for this celebrated bishop to speak 
 of direct and personal assurance. But where is it? 
 
 There follow quotations from Origen; concerning 
 adoption, so often spoken of in this coi^troversy. Mr* 
 Wesley, is quoted as saying that the places cannot re- 
 
89 
 
 late to miraculous effusion. Certainly not: but may they 
 not relate to the ordinary operation of the Holy Spirit? 
 
 Mr. Milner thinks favourably of Novatian, although 
 guilty of what is acknowledged in the place to be an 
 unjustifiable schism His character is foreign to the pre- 
 sent question; and the quotation from him may be con- 
 sented in, without injury to the argument. 
 
 The Farther Replier has gone into the fourth century, 
 and has produced many and copious passages from an 
 eloquent writer-=— Macarius. These are places, in which 
 it any where, the position is to be expected: although 
 notwithstanding the many clauses marked by italicks, 
 it can hardly be required to show, that there is nothing 
 in them to the effect. 
 
 The last citation, is from the celebrated Chrysostomc 
 Is it still necessary to repeat the acknowledgment of the 
 ordinary operations of the Holy Spirit, in producing the 
 sense of adoption? As for what this Father may say of 
 "amazing turoes &c." it is well known, to what extent 
 he has carried his rhetorical figures. Romanists deduce 
 the doctrine of transubstantiation, from such places as 
 where he speaks of the people dyed red with the blood 
 of the Saviour, during the celebration of the eucharist. 
 Had he held the position now in question, it would have 
 been taught and dwelt on over and over in his numerous 
 homilies. In which of them can it be found? 
 
 Bernard, of the twelfth century, was a great and good 
 man: but to notice his sayings, taken in the Farther Re- 
 ply Iro-.n Mr. Wesley, v/ould be a repetition of what has 
 preceded. 
 
40 
 
 Section 11. — 'Of the eighth objection. 
 This was addressed, exclusively to professors of the 
 Episcopal church; and it was affirmed, that there was 
 nothing in her institutions to the purpose of the position. 
 Mr. Wesley thought he- had discovered it, in a senience 
 of the homily of salvation. His construction of the sen- 
 tence was denied; and stress was laid on the circum^ 
 stance, that, repeating the leading sentiment in the exist- 
 ing controversy, he dropt a material part of the sentence. 
 The repetition is called by the Farther Reply, d sum- 
 mary. What is designed as such, should contain all the 
 essential parts of the matter to which it relates. In the 
 present instance, there is wanting the essential clause of a 
 reference to the holy scriptures. To this there shall be 
 here added, that the part of the homily resorted to by 
 nim (the third) was not the part of it in which the doc- 
 trine of justification by faith is the most pointedly laid 
 down. This is done in the second part; in which justi- 
 fying faith is defined to be with true repentance, hope, 
 charity and the fear of God. Accordingly when, in the 
 third part, the homily distinguishes its subject from the 
 case of devils, for whom Christ did not die, i^equires 
 "confidence in Gods merciful promises" — meanmg in 
 the scriptures; these, combining with.the graces spoken 
 of in the second part, must be contemplated as the 
 ground of confidence, not only not requiring the dire^ 
 communication, but rendering it needless. 
 
 In the Essay, it was represented to be strange, that so 
 important a position, if held to be true, should creep only 
 into a sentence of a homily. To supply this defect, it is 
 thought by the Farther Reply, to be in the seventeenth 
 article, in the prayer for ascentioii day, and in sundry of 
 the homilies^ 
 
4i 
 
 If it be found in t'^e seventeenth article, where may it 
 not be found? The arti le pronounces it; subject fiili of 
 comfort, to those who '*ieel in thems' Ives the working^ of 
 the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the fl*^sh 
 and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to 
 high and heavenly things." What are the matters men- 
 tioned, but the fruits of the Spirit? And in what else is 
 his Spirit said to be felt? 
 
 The collect for ascension day, prays for "the sending 
 of the Holy Ghost to comfort us; and that we may have 
 a riijht judgment in all things, and evermore rejoice in 
 his holy comfort." Is there a sentence in the Essay or in 
 the notes, which denies these benefits to be the result of 
 the operation of the Holy Spirit? 
 
 It is extraordinary, that there should be quoted the 
 homily for Whitsunday, Vvithout notibe of the passage 
 on the last page of the second appendix to the Essav . in 
 answer to the question-^^'How shall i know thar the 
 Holy Ghost is within me?" It is equally so, that in 
 quoting the homily of the resurrection, it should be over- 
 looked, that the seal a)id the !)lcdge are predicated of 
 those o:ily. who '*be feph nished with all righteous- 
 ness " In this fruit of the Spirit, consist the seal and the 
 pledge. The homily on reading the scripture says — "In 
 reading of God's word, he profiteth nios', that is most 
 inspired with the Holy Ghost." It may be, in his ordi- 
 nary influences. There f )llows a sentence, concerning 
 the non-necessity of human and worldly v\isdom, for 
 the understanding of the Holy Scriptures. It oUghf to 
 have been stated, that this is said of those, who pleaded 
 their ignorance to dispense with reading. But by < efer- 
 cnce to note I. it seems to have been understood, as if 
 
to the purpose of dispensing with human literature iri 
 the clergy. Nothing can be further from the argu>nent 
 of the homily. 
 
 The homily for Rogation week, says — '^Uwtfeel 
 our conscience at peace with God, through remissmi of 
 sins," Sec. This is so far from being designed of the spe- 
 cies of assurance contended for, that the party is suppo- 
 sed to have been within the christian covenant, and to 
 have fallen from it. In the event of restoration, the words 
 above apply. Doubtless, the remission of sins, through 
 the instrumentahty of the promises of the gospel, and 
 tinder the operation of the loly Spirit, is a subject of 
 feeling. The homily on faith, speaks of it as produ ing 
 feeling: but whoever shall consult the place will find) 
 that it is in continuing in thanksgiving and praise to 
 God. 
 
 The homily on certain places of scripture, says — * 
 "'Godly men feel inwardly God's Holy Spirit, inflaming 
 their hearts with love." Yes: for love, the fruit of the 
 Spirit, is evidence of his presence. 
 
 Surely, the Farther Replier had better have continued 
 with Mr. Wesley, to rest the matttjr on the single sen- 
 tence of the homily of salvation. And yet, the former 
 supposes that some good would result, from printing 
 passages such as his, without note or commSit It 
 would be the way to mislead. The publishing of the ho- 
 milies at large, as is done within these few years, is more 
 fair. How came it into his mind, to compare his propo- 
 sal with the publishing of the whole bible, by the socie- 
 ties instituted for that end. The latter is calculated to 
 prevent and correct mistakes: his project^would create 
 thcm« 
 
Section 12. — Of the ninth objection. 
 h was founded on the evidence apparent in religious 
 books, that the assurances spoken of in them, and de- 
 scribed with its alternate changes, agrees with what we 
 know of the same sort in the rise and the fall of the ani- 
 mal spirits. In the "Reply," this became blended with 
 two points, not contemplated by the author. Having 
 explained himself in note I. (page 44) and finding nothmg 
 further in opposition, he puts the subject out of view: 
 not without entreating all concerned to consider, how 
 unsafe must be a dependence which fluctuates with the 
 humours of the body, and even with the changes of the 
 atmosphere. Let it not give offence to any virtuous per- 
 son, when the author adds, that in some, formerly im- 
 pressed by religious sentiments which had lost their in- 
 fluence, he has known sensibilities connected with the 
 subject to be revived, by the use of wine or of ardent 
 spirits^ 
 
 Section 13. — Of the tenth objection. 
 It was grounded on the vacillations and inconsistent, 
 ees of opinion, attendant on the profession of the posi- 
 tion. Here came into view a difference suggested in the 
 beginning, between those who considered the matter in 
 question as essential to faith, and those who held it to be 
 attainable but not essential. The author, contemplating 
 principally what he thought the errour of the Method- 
 ists, and wishing to give a caution against that especial- 
 ly, to those for whom the Essay was designed, referred 
 their theory to an appendix. The Replier clearly saw 
 the line of discrimination, when he began the controversy 
 at this point: but in the character of the Farther Replei\ 
 he has lost sight of it. 
 
44* 
 
 In treating of the doctrine in the lower form, whether 
 he were exact in his conception of it, this is not the 
 place to inquire. But he is persuaded, that no intelligent 
 advocate of the Westminster confession will take of-, 
 fence, at the views which he has given of the opinions 
 of i^ome of their most prominent divines. The two Re- 
 plies are silent on the names of these men, with one ex- 
 i:epiion,* If the author labours under grievous errour, 
 so did they. One of them^— Mr. Baxter— was especiaU 
 !y wort y of notice in those two performances, on ac- 
 count of the honour in which his memory was held by 
 Mr. Wesley. Of this, the following sentence only shall 
 be given from his journals [vol. 3. page 10]— "Surely, 
 one page of that loving, serious christian, weighs more 
 than volumes of this bitter sarcastick jester," — meaning 
 ft dissenting minister,and sonie work pubUshed by him. 
 
 * The exception is of Dr. Doddridge. He was noticed in the 
 Essay, as abandoning the necessity of the test; and it was remark- 
 ed, 'hat on the ground of the necessity, there could hardly be a 
 more delusive work, than his "Rise and progress of Religion in 
 thp Soul." In the Reply, this was rebutted by nothing more than 
 his commendation of Mr. Wesley's Farthes^Appeal/by writing 
 <yn ih9 title page of i'-i-"How forcible are right words." Who 
 w>uU' not suppose, that the Fart'ter Appeal'swatained the principle 
 in question? But it contains nothing to that effect. And yet^j^e 
 Farther Reply (page 90 N)rf^marks on the present authors, in 
 attention ^0 this circumstance in the notes. It was because he 
 thought the tract, and of course the commendation of it, foreign to 
 the point for which the name of Dr, Doddridge was introduced 
 into, the Essay [pag« 16] The tract comm-nded by him, is oc- 
 cuptt d by auim;»iiversions on abounding irreligion and licentious- 
 ness, on the delinquencies of prciessors of rclit!;iqp, and on a 
 (detence of the then eaily plan of preaching of Mr. Weslej anal 
 ihosp who acted with hsnt. 
 
45 
 
 It may be supposed not susceptible of denial, that there is 
 nothing in the hssay more directly contrary to the po« 
 sitio'i in question, than the sentiments of Mr. Baxter 
 as given ui a note to pa.s:e 15. 
 
 Under this objection it was noticed, that with one ex- 
 ception, that of the Methodists, there was not known 
 ^ vestige of the position in the confession of any church: 
 the conft'ssion of Augsburgh, and that of the church 
 of the Netherlands and other calvinistick qhurches, were 
 referrfdo. There was no notice of this, in the first 
 pamphlet on the other side: but in the second, there is 
 produced the single exception, of a confession edited 
 in 1784, by the respectable body called *'Unitas Fra^ 
 trum." Concerning this, the author is not prepared to 
 speak definitely. But he will remark, that some ex- 
 pressions in it — which may perhaps be explained dif. 
 ferently — are contrary to what Mr. Wesley was taught 
 bv the founder of that society •«- count Zinzendorf, as 
 given in the Essay, page 27. 
 
 This modern confession is professed to be founded 
 «n that of Augsburgh, which contains nothing of the 
 contradicted position. If it do, why is not the evidence 
 prcvduced fiom the source, and not thus at second hand? 
 It is impossible.* Equally so, is the presenting of it 
 from the confession consented in by all the Calvinistick 
 churches on the continent of Europe, and by tlie 
 
 * The senliments of the confession are considerably dilated in 
 the apology tor it, by Melancthon who had dr wn up the apology 
 itself. In the apology justifit ation by faith is dwt It on at great- 
 er length, under the second nead: But it is also barren of mailer, 
 
 the purpose ot the Replies. 
 
46 
 
 churches descended from them in this country. Let 
 these facts be compared with the importance of the po- 
 sition, if correct. 
 
 Section 14 — Of the other supposed communications ^ 
 compared with that in question. 
 
 When two subjects are compared in argument, if 
 they agree in the point on the account of which the argu- 
 ment is constructed, it ought not to be offensive, because 
 of disagreement in other points. In the comparisons in 
 question, the single point is the full persuasion of the 
 parties, of communications to their respective minds. 
 The matter is noticed in the "Farther Reply" page 35. 
 
 Mosheim, there cited, is concise on the cases of the 
 Anabaptists of Munster, From larger accounts of theni 
 it might be made to appear, that in the beginning, their 
 leaders were remarkable for sanctity and correct lives, 
 aud so esteemed by Luther. It was not until they were 
 drawn to place full reliance on revelations in their minds, 
 that they were carried to the length of building a go- 
 vernment on the basis of their extra vagai^pes. That 
 these should be characterized by the Kames of phrenzy 
 and madness, is consistent with usual, phraseolo2;y; but 
 could not have been designed by Mosheim to describe 
 the men as mad, strictly speaking: for their measures 
 phow the contrary. 
 
 As for the Fifth- monarchy men, they were certainly, 
 as Mosheim says, wrong-headed and turbulent enthu- 
 siasts; but sincere in their profession; which is evident, 
 in their exposing of themselves to what^all besides 
 must have seen to be sure destruction. They certainly 
 believed, that they were acting under a commission to 
 
47 
 be|2:irt the reign of Christ on earth* It must be of a safe 
 state an indecisive test, which cannot give the same 
 certainty to a wrong headed as to a reasonable man. 
 
 Ravaillac is represented as a madman. He does not 
 appear in that character in the records of his trial, which 
 may be seen in Sullv's memoirs. It is also said, that he 
 had been expelled the religious order, of which he was 
 a lay brother: but it should have been added, that his 
 expulsion was for no other cause than his visions: which, 
 as appeared after the fact and not before, had all a relation 
 to the murder to which he thought himself admonished. 
 
 In regard to the more respectable comparision intro- 
 duced, the "Farther Reply" denies the cases to be paral- 
 lel: because of the light withinj held on one side, and 
 the rule of scripture on the other. This does not touch 
 the pointy in which the cases agree. Let there be select- 
 ed a given number froth each of two descriptions of 
 persons: Let those selected be of the same respectability, 
 for virtue and intelligence: and let them be equally free 
 from madness; unless^ in either case, the thing in ques- 
 tion should be so accounted; which would be to pre- 
 sume, and not to argue. One set declare, each of them 
 for him and herself, that they have received individual- 
 ly a direct assurance of the pardon of sin^ which they 
 do not allege to be personally addressed to each in the 
 written word. The other set as explicitly testify, that 
 each of them has received an injunction distinctly pre^ 
 sented to the mind, to make a journey or a voyage for 
 the propogating of what is conceived to be errour on 
 the other side; yet contended by the professing party, 
 to be not contrary to any thing which the wrhten revela- 
 tion contains: the truth of which they do not deny, but 
 
48 
 
 represent to he in agreement M^ith the inward H?ht. Is 
 there not, so far as the conscience of each individual is 
 concerned, as much ground to act on in regard to tte 
 one subject of revelation^ as in regard to the other? 
 
 The author, not many years ago, was informed by a 
 man of unquestionable sincerity in religion, in relation 
 to a complaint by which he had been long afflicted, that 
 It had been removed by a remedy suggested to his mind, 
 in a divine impression. On being questioned, whether 
 he really believed this to be the source of his recovery, 
 he answered in the affirmative, with great confidence.*" 
 
 Such a revelation, limited to the assurance of the par- 
 don of sin, is what was meant in the lectures on the ca- 
 techism [page 40] referred to in the Farther Reply 
 [page 161 under the expression-especial faith. The 
 place has been quoted imperfectly. The words are— 
 *'This must mean, either the discerning of a special in- 
 terest in redemption, not indulged to ail— and then it is 
 an unwarrantable limiting of the mercies of God; or a 
 sensibility to the interest which wt possess in common 
 with others; and then it is true but useless: for a gene- 
 ral proposition includes all the particulars of -which it i^ 
 affirmed.''^ The Farther Keplier omits the words in ita- 
 licks: which gives an opportunity, at the end of the pa- 
 ragraph, to ask the question — "Is there then "W 
 all this no evidence of favouring a want of 
 feeling of the pardon of sin? The m^odern er- 
 rour, of the sensibilities of which the primitive 
 
 * Oliver CromweH is recorded as one of tliose, who have con- 
 strued an cxiraordiiwry impression as an admonitioi^. to duty» 
 On some occasion, one of his chaplains [Mr. Howe] 'Jeli- 
 livered his mind in opposition to the principle; and was ever aftcj 
 coldly treated by the Protector, on that account* 
 
49 
 
 thurch was said to know nothinp^, is not, as the reade* 
 is led by the mutilation to suppose, what gives sensi- 
 bility to the interest which we possess in the gospel pro- 
 mises; but the representing of the sensibility of the in- 
 terest, as confirmation of the reality of it. 
 
 ^Section 14. — Of the dislocated passage in the Essay-^ 
 page 18.* 
 This part of the Essay professed to give some gene- 
 ral facts, relative to the effects of the position, and the 
 result of the observation of the author. Complaint was 
 made in the notes, that the Replier referred his notice of 
 this place, to be brought in with his remarks on the se- 
 cond appendix: thus giving to the former the appear- 
 ance of being designed against the manners of the body 
 of which he is a member. It was denied to have been 
 intended. The Farther Replier [page 28] professes to 
 accept the denial. But what he gives with one hand, he 
 takes back, as it were, with the other [page 24] in the im« 
 plied charge of design in the separating of the two sub- 
 jects, and the distant station of one of them from the 
 other. This is suspicion in answer to a change of fact. 
 There is no circumstance sustaining the suspicion; be- 
 cause of two subjects, one of which was to be especially 
 treated of, it was natural to speak of the point in which 
 they were supposed to agree; and to refer the other 
 
 * It is imagined in the Farther Reply [page 2f] that the resul- 
 ting mistake was guarded against by notice of the page in the 
 Christian Register: as if it could have been expected, that readers 
 generally would inquire for that periodical work, merely to ascer- 
 tain the order in which it is answered in thf Repiy; or, even in 
 perusal of the former, would detect the management in the ktter, 
 G 
 
50 
 
 point, to be exclusively treated of in another place! 
 which harmonized with the object of the Essay. 
 
 The only colour which can be given to the effect pro- 
 duced by the dislocation complained of, must be in the 
 presumption, that the author knew little or nothing of 
 the fruits of the controverted position, except as they 
 may appear among the people now contemplated. He 
 saw much of it, before there was a single congregation 
 of them — at least as he supposes — within what are now 
 the United States. In the year 1767, there was raised in 
 this city a ferment, of which he witnessed the beginning, 
 the progress, and the speedy end, on the particular point. 
 There are persons living, who cannot have forgotten it. 
 In one congregation, not episcopal, it having been no- 
 tified that there was to be a sermon preached in opposi- 
 tion; the author attended, and listened to a discourse of an 
 hour and a half, from a clergyman well known and es- 
 teemed among them. It was from what happened at 
 the said period, that there was acquired the earliest in- 
 formation of the mischiefs originating in the matter in 
 question; and promoted by groundless confidence 
 in some, and by distress in others; either-^rom a mis- 
 taken cause, or, where real cause may have existed, from 
 its taking of a wrong direction. CaHit be supposed, con- 
 sidering the profession of the author, his preseiTj^img 
 of life, and his intercourses with divers descrip- 
 tions of people, that with a view to the present subject, 
 he has occasion to inspect the peculiar manners of the 
 religious society whom he has been accused of tradu- 
 cing? He certainly has not. 
 
 The author, after the facts given on observation, ap- 
 plied them to certain uses; of which there nee^s to be sai4 
 
51 
 
 nt) more, than what relates to a passa.sje pjiVen from ScoU- 
 gal. Being misunderstood, it was explained b\ a'iipli- 
 fication in a note P.Tpage 52] not without intimation, diat 
 it was conceived to be perfectly intelligible in the Essay. 
 In the Farther Reply [page 9] the contrary is conten .ed 
 to be the case; as is said to be confirmed by the sense 
 of sundry judicious perjons to whom the pas^.age was 
 shown— among them, a friend of the autiv r. What is 
 here said ought to have weight with him, were he suie, 
 that with the passage, there was shown the sentence im- 
 mediately preceding; which includes within the con- 
 templation of the paragraph those only who **adorn the 
 doctrine of their God and Saviour " The harmlessness 
 to the party, was rested on this circumstancci 
 
 Why should it be thought impossible [ibid] that a 
 person of the above description may hold an errour 
 harmlessly to himself; and yet that it may do harm to 
 others^ by its legitimate consequences not i)ercei\ ed by 
 him? It is of frequent occurrence in religion. 
 
 Section 15. — 0/ the Methodists, as brouo^ht info notic6 
 by the dislocation of the passage in the Essay. 
 The Farther Replier [page 22] denies his having an^ 
 hounced himself as of the body of the methodists; and 
 even under his character as an advocate, they novi' come 
 in, only among the mass of those called the accusedo 
 Let it be inquired, how this matter stands in the Hep y. 
 At page 28, there begins a professed vindication of 
 them, against what are represented as the unjust and un- 
 charitable attack in the Essay. The vindication is con- 
 tinued to page ^2>\ and then, notice is given of the dis* 
 continuance of it, with the promise— •♦•The vindication 
 
of the Methodists as a body, shall presently be fesii* 
 med'* At the end of page 40, the intervening subject 
 is dropped; that of the Methodists is resumed; and the 
 accused plead in the person of the Replier — "not guil- 
 ty." Was it to be supposed, that any man, without con- 
 tradiction, would have taken such a liberty with a body 
 of professing christians, to whom he was an alien? And 
 would it not have been indecorous towards the pubUck, 
 who might be listening to an enemy, under the mask not 
 of a mere advocate, but of a representative? This was not 
 the factf but the contrary could not have been reason- 
 ably supposed, except on the presumption of an impli- 
 ed — it must be confessed there was not an explicit—^ 
 assumption of authority? 
 
 It is somewhat mysterious, that the Farther Replierj 
 after dislocating a passage, and giving it the appearance 
 of being predicated of the Methodists and of them only; 
 should contemplate it as if standing in its proper place; 
 and after remarking on it accordingly, should describe 
 the larger body of those whom he calls the accused, as 
 pleading "not guilty" in his person* He did not com- 
 mit himself to this extent, in his first ^publication; audit 
 is now a greater liberty, than vvoyld have been the 
 doing of the same without express or Implied authority, 
 in behalf of the body of which he is a member. ^ 
 
 But it is intimated [pagv 26] that on the supposition 
 of the author's not levelling of his charge especially 
 against the said body, the pernicious effects of the prin- 
 ciple, according to the account given of it, must be ex- 
 pected to manifest itself in their characters. This docs 
 not follow. He expressed his belief, that sonte subjects 
 of the errour settle down in christian conduct, and in 
 
63 
 
 silence on the point. Others were said to have abandon- 
 ed, with the principle, religion in evcy shape; and what- 
 ever number there may have been of these, they may 
 be supposed tohavcleftthe society, or to have been dis- 
 owned by it. Even the clause at the end of the statement, 
 may be seen, to have put some out of the reach of the sup- 
 posed charge. Of the two intervening particulars the 
 author will only say concerning the first, that he has no 
 data on which to calculate its extent— for he supposes 
 some portion of it to exist in every religious society; 
 and in regard to the other, that instances of it have been 
 within his personal knowledge* Let it be again remem- 
 bered, that the arguing from a doctrine to its apparent 
 consequences, ought not to be too curiously carried in- 
 to consideration of persons; as there may be the resist- 
 ance of counteracting causes. Mr. Wesley and his as- 
 sociate ministers, were very free in pointing out what 
 they thought fairly drawn consequences from doctrines 
 held by many, whom they would have acknowledged 
 to have been good men; and on whose personal charac- 
 ters, they were far from considering themselves as cast- 
 ing reproach. 
 
 When the author said, that he had no reference to 
 any individuals of the methodistick persuasion; the 
 meaning was, as the context may show, that contem- 
 plating the matter as existing in different religious socie- 
 ties, he put particular persons out of view. Were he cal- 
 led, by any existing circumstances, to the work of iden- 
 tifying worthy members whom he has known of the said 
 persuasion, it is what he would comply with much more 
 willingly. 
 
54 
 
 Section 16.-0/ Wr: Wesley. 
 
 It would be a subject of regret to the author, if he 
 ahould be found to have treated the memory of this di- 
 vine, with any thing so much like 'personal indecorum, 
 as the short notice of his brother bordering on the scorn^ 
 ful — in the Farther Reply, page 86. There is only 
 claimed the privilege, carried to a great extent by Mr. 
 Wesley with others, of calUng in question a point in his 
 theology. Even against the authority of the elder 
 brother, there was an unintended offence of the Replier, 
 in the positive disallowance of the expression — -"an in* 
 ward voice." The errour is now revoked, under the plea 
 that the expression was rejected "not as to every use of 
 it, but as to its being the point in question." But it was to 
 the point of direct communication, that the expression 
 was introduced in the Essay (page 11) and that it was of 
 course contemplated in the Reply (page 18 ) 
 
 If the author had accused Mr. Wesley of Antinomi- 
 anism — for this is the construction (page 31) of which 
 the representation in the notes is thought suscepti- 
 ble — the charge would have been unjust: but it was not 
 made. If it should appear from the^Essay^nd the 
 notes, that the doctrine of Mr. Wesley, unintentionally 
 on his p;>.rt, produced Antinomianism "in others, evea 
 this was not presented as a charge; but arose incidentallj^p" 
 from the acknowledgments of himself and Mr. Fletcher^ 
 brought to show tl.e change of opinion in the former. 
 The matter stands thus: Mn Wesley, in 1770, re- 
 minds his conference— "We said in 1744, we have 
 leaned too much to Caivinism:" and proceeds to spe- 
 cify wherein. How far Calvinism is truly reptesented 
 or to be charged with the consequences, is not the qucs- 
 
55 
 
 lion. The particulars are in regard to man's Faitlifulness-^ 
 \vorkin.2: for life, and — doin^, in order to justification. 
 In 1744, there bad been a drawing off from the ground 
 on these points; and now, in 1770, a more distant posi- 
 tion is to be taken. The measure is vindicated by Mr. 
 F'etcher, relatively to each of them. How is this done? 
 He tells sir Richard Hill, his opponent [page 24] 
 *'You know by sad experience, that at this time, we arc 
 in danger of splitting on the Antinomian Rock." And 
 he goes on, through four pages, speaking in the person 
 of Mr. Wesley, to describe the miserable shipwrecks 
 which the same rock had occasioned in some of the 
 societies: and he states the errour to have spread like 
 wild fire. At the end of the speech put into the mouth 
 of Mr. V^'esley, Mr Fletcher reverts to the cause of all 
 the mischiff — in Calvinism, as he supposes. Soon after 
 (prige 36) he taKes up the three particulars stated in the 
 minutes, and discourses of them at large; still under the 
 aspect of there having been formerly erroneous views of 
 them, which originated in Calvinism and ended in 
 Antinomianism. The Farther Reply (page 30) 
 represents what was said in the notes to this 
 effect, as injurious to the characters of the said two 
 divines. It will not be expected of the author, to tran- 
 scribe 40 or 50 piiges into this pamphlet. But he ap- 
 peals confidently to the judgment of every impartial per- 
 son, who may t ike the trouble of comparing those pages 
 with what is here written. It is a very irrelevant com- 
 parison jnade of the subject (page 31) with the abuse o 
 the doctrine of St. Paul, and the check given by St. 
 James. Had the former renounced his doctrine, from 
 perceiving that it had led by direct consequence to the 
 errour, the parallel would have been to the purpose. In 
 
36 
 
 that case, the seed sown was good, and an enemy sowed 
 tares, as is set forth in a metaphor on the other side. But 
 in the case in hand, the tares, not intentionally but 
 through human infirmity, were sovyn with the wheat; and 
 so acknowledged to have been by the sower.* 
 
 It is no wonder, that Mr. Wesley should have found 
 a difficulty, which was conceived to be apparent, where 
 he prefaces his definition of the testimony of the spirit 
 thus — "It is hard to find words in the language of men, 
 to explain the deep things of God." The matter was 
 not to explain, but to define a doctrine; which scrip- 
 ture, if it be true, must be supposed to have placed 
 within the comprehension of every believer and of 
 every seeker. When Mr Wesley went in search of 
 it to the deep things of God, he travelled beyond scrips 
 tural bounds. 
 
 Tiie author's confession of his oversight, in citing 
 Mr. Wesley's extract from the homily of salvation, is 
 thought imperfect. It is not alleged, that he is thereby 
 charged with any doctrine not held by him. The author 
 thought himself the more entitled to indulgence in the 
 above particular, as Mr. Wesley himself make^<in over- 
 sight in that very passage; first quolnng the homily 
 correctly, and then repealing the uwds partially, and 
 with a variation of the sense. The Farther Replier calls 
 this the giving of a summary: but who knows not, that a 
 true summary contains all things necessary to the mat- 
 ter abridged? Whereas in the present instance, there 
 
 * Amontj the questions and answers at the conference of 1747, 
 there is as follows--" Have we not leaned too much to Antinomian- 
 iim? We arc afraid wc have," ».- 
 
5f 
 
 Was left out the reference to the scriptures; the ground, 
 with the concurrence of present state of mind, of arx 
 assurance of pardon. How can it be said that the ac- 
 knowledgment is imperfect, becatise it did not specif) st 
 revocation of Mr. Wesley's omitting of the context? 
 If the homily was quoted correctly by him, as the repub- 
 lished Essay declares (page 30) either the context was 
 unnecessary, or was given: which made the notice of it 
 iof no moment. The author denies, that he either be- 
 lieved Mr. Wesley to have been "designedly guilty of 
 the alleged omission," or has said any thing to that ef- 
 fect. It seems (page 36) that the paragraph bore the as- 
 pect to the mind of the Farther Replier: but this is one 
 of his mar.y suspicions. 
 
 It seems, that if the acknowledgment had been as 
 ample as the demand on the other side exacted, the mis- 
 chief had not spent itself, because of intermediate inju'y* 
 There could have been no injury, except in point of 
 accuracy, and that in d single instance: and the Far- 
 ther Replier ought not to be quick sighted in this par- 
 ticular; lest some one should imagine and describe all 
 the evils within the bounds of possibility, which may 
 result from his introducing of the names of many emi- 
 nent persons, as holding an opinion contradicted in their 
 writings: and by some of them in the very places, from 
 which there have been partial quotations, given to pro- 
 duce a contrary impression. 
 
 There remains a concern of the present author, respec- 
 ting both Mr. Wesley and the Farther Replier. It is to 
 show, in re,-^ard to the former, that there has been pro- 
 ved the only inconsistency having a bearing on the 
 
3g 
 
 jir^sent controversy; and, that the proof has been adrtiitt 
 ted on the part of the latter. 
 
 According; to his statement (page 39) the question of 
 change of ground by Mr. Wesley is, either his change 
 of the definition of faith, or his giving up of the position 
 in question. In regard to this, the Farther Replier an- 
 swers — and the present author has said nothing to the 
 contrary — "No, never." But as to the other, it is the 
 very point on which the present controversy began, al- 
 though now unequivocally surrendered, after having 
 been as unequivocally maintained in the Reply, page 29. 
 The point is, that Mr. Wesley ceased to be of the first 
 of the two descriptions of persons mentioned in the be- 
 ginning of the Essay (page 8) and took the same, or 
 some like ground, to that attributed to those of the se- 
 cond description. 
 
 A difference was stated, as existing among the advo- 
 cates of the position in the title page: "some contending 
 that the assurance spoken of is of the essence of faith; 
 and others going no further than to say, that it is highly 
 desirable and to be laboured after." Under the tenth 
 objection (page 14) the methodistsare said to 1^ espe- 
 cial stress on the controverted opinion: Tt being design- 
 ed, as what follows in the second appeiidix shows, and 
 as is evident in the disjoining of them from another dca^ 
 scription of persons, to class them of the first of the two 
 descriptions. In the said appendix, they are again intro- 
 <}uced; and the design is avowed of showing an incon- 
 sistency between the opinion of Mr, Wesley adopted in 
 1737 and illustrated in his own person; and sentiments 
 expressed by him after a correspondence witji an un* 
 known person, under the fictitious name of John Smitli- 
 
59 
 
 Under the head of the precedent opuiion of Mr. 
 Wesley, may be mentioned (Crovvther page 162) his 
 declaring of assurance to be * "the essence or rather a 
 properly of faith:" the last expression being short of the 
 other; yet required to constitute the subject of which it 
 is predicated. Of this testimony of the spirit it is affirm- 
 ed (ibid. 166) that it "must in the very nature of things, 
 go before the testimony of our own spirits.'* Again (ap- 
 peal page 26) "faith implies assurance." Many like say- 
 ings might be cited; but the last of them, shall be what 
 was decided by a conference shortly before the corres' 
 pondence with John Smith, which says — "immediately" 
 —on the act of justifying faith — "the Spirit bears wit- 
 ness — thou art pardoned." These strong declarations 
 are not denied to have been made.t 
 
 * The author quoting this expression, dropped the word "of" 
 to the injury of his own argument, because to be "the essence" 
 of any matter, is more than to be "of its essence," The Farther 
 Replier seems to have had an opposite conception of the omission 
 (page 40 note.) 
 
 Immediately before the words quoted, is the conviction that 
 Christ loved me and gave himself for wze— being put in italicks, tQ 
 show that the individual must know it in his special case; and im- 
 mediately after the sentence from which the quotation is given 
 there is an express application of the whole to the doctrine of as- 
 surance. And yet— says the Farther Replier— "He does not men- 
 tion the doctrine of assurance at all, as the reader who will examine 
 the place, may find." 
 
 t In the Farther Reply [page 43"] the author is blamed for li- 
 mitifig the affirmed assurance, as if predicated of an incipient state 
 of grace only. The language is still believed to be correct, but the 
 meaning has been misunderstood. The word only was to distin- 
 guish, not from the subsequent possession of the supposed benefit, 
 but from its being subsequently begun. Under the former cir- 
 cumstance, the contemplated assurance must be considered not as 
 given but as continued. 
 
60 
 
 There follows the change of ground. In Mr. Wesley *s 
 letter lo his brother, soon after the correspondence, he 
 acknowledges, that the proposition so long maintain- 
 ed — 'Justification is an assurance of pardon or necessa- 
 rily connected therewith, is not true." In his letter to 
 James Morgan, he concedes — "Some may fear and 
 love God, and not be clearly conscious of his favour." 
 In one of his journals, he finds fault with the "Unitas 
 Fratrum," for denying d. grees in faith. In another of 
 his journals quoted by John Hampson, and not contra- 
 dicted, there is a censure on branding any person as a 
 child of the devil, for answering no, to the question- — Do 
 you know that your sins are forgiven? And Mr. Flet- 
 cher, writing under the eye of Mr. Wesley, asks (page 
 83) "Do we not see hundreds, who, when they have 
 reason to hope well of their state, think there is no hope 
 for them?" The Farther Replier could not find these 
 words in his edition: but they are in that of the author^ 
 published in Bristol in 1772, by W. Pine, and now 
 open to any one who may have the curiosity to inspect it. 
 Can any one be blind, to the differences resulting from 
 these opposite statements in addresses to convinced 
 sinners; and to persons continuing for years — perhaps 
 during life-r-fluctuating between doubt and hope? Very 
 many have been the cases, in which the want either oT^ 
 tlie knowledge or of the application of the distinction, 
 |ias been the cause of the anguish of despair. This con- 
 sideration is rendered the more important by the cir- 
 cumstance, that according to the account of the con- 
 ference held in 1747 (Whitehead, vol. 2, page 222) "q. 
 great majority of those who believe," and who, of course 
 have received an assurance, said by Mr. Wesley to be 
 
61 
 
 as clear as the blaze of the sun (Crowther page 167) 
 "fall more or less into doubts and fears." 
 
 What signifies the distinction taken by the Farther Re» 
 plier (page 40) between a connexion "immediate as to 
 the order of the operations of grace," and another "in 
 'theessential nature of the two things?" The pjreat dis- 
 tinciion here taken, is as applicable to cases occurring in 
 life. 
 
 His difference between genus and species (page 33 
 note) is not correctly applied. In the present case, the 
 only true faith is in the promises of God in scripture, 
 addressed to a suitabable state of mind. The distinction 
 of genus and species is an excrescence on the subject. 
 
 As to the Replier; on his first notice of the Essay's 
 mention of the Methodists (page 9) he quotes it saying 
 — "There are none who lay so much stress on it;" that 
 is, on the position in its plenitude, and he adds soon 
 after — "They glory in it." 
 
 The object of the second appendix, was to show an 
 inconsistency, in relaxation from the absolute require- 
 ment. The Reply admits of no such inconsistenc}'; and 
 in order to prove that there was none in Mr. Wesley, 
 discusses his letter to his brother, giving a maimed re- 
 presentation of it, denying any further exception than 
 that of mere possibility. Even this, may be considered 
 as an entering wedge into the original system; but it was 
 contended to come under, the adage— -"an exception 
 proves the rule."* 
 
 * After all this, the Farther Replier does not hesitate to say 
 (page 43) that the question is not," whether Mr. Wesley or tiie 
 Methodists have been consistent in tlieir doctrir-e, or have vacil- 
 lated." 
 
Behold, how enlari^ed the ground becomes in the 
 Farther Reply. In the texts, and in the quotations 
 from the homilies and from modern author , were the 
 concession made of their applying" to the position gene- 
 rally, they would still be irrelative to the theory, as it 
 stands between the Methodists, and those who consent 
 with them in the position, but do not affirm it of every 
 believer. Again, of four facts produced on the 58th and 
 59th pages of the notes, to demonstrate the change of 
 mind in question, the Farther Reply takes notice of one 
 only; and that, in a way not interfering with the design 
 for which it was produced. To crown all, Mr. Wesley 
 himself is brought in, conceding— "/jo^^ii^t/?/ some may 
 be in the favour of God, and go mourning all the day 
 long" — owing, as he supposes, to disorder or to igno- 
 rance. It has not escaped observation, that where Mr. 
 Wesley s?iys possibli/, the word is stamped with italicks: 
 apparently, to identify it with the barely possible case in 
 the Reply. The possibility of Mr. Wesley, admitted of 
 an indefinite number; and related, not merely to the ab- 
 sence of the benefit at the moment of conversion, but 
 to the continuance of the privation to ^e end ^f life. 
 
 Independently on all the above, concessions, tho 
 change of ground might have been rested on where it is 
 said (page 39) "what ground is meant? If it be this de^- 
 finition of faith"— meaning the very definition which 
 gave beginning to the coptroversy — "The answer may 
 be, YES." 
 
 In reviewing the facts above, unnoticed in the second 
 pamphlet, it seemed., that in regard to the letter of Mr. 
 
Wesley to his brother, the passing of it over mi^ht with 
 much more reason be charged with injustice to the me- 
 mory of the former, than the author's omission of what 
 he thought an unimportant context of the same person. 
 He intended the letter to be a revocation, of what had 
 .been taught by him for 30 years; and Dr. Whitehead 
 could not have omitted it, without desertion of the duty 
 of a biographer. If, during the present controversy, 
 any person should read of the incident, only as it stands 
 in the Replies, and should presume them to be correct; 
 it must be natural for him to imagine, that the letter was 
 merely of the nature of a collegiate exercise, and for the 
 display of ingenuity in argument; that Dr. Whitehead 
 had indiscreetly given it to the world, as the exhibition 
 of deliberate opinion; and that the present author had 
 been trifling with his readers, in laying stress on it. In 
 all this, the result of the Replies would have been coun- 
 teracted, if only there had been contained in the first of 
 them; or if, after having been pointed out there had 
 been acknowledged in the second of them, these few- 
 words as part of a quoted sentence — "We tacked to 
 them" — the truths of the gospel — "a proposition which 
 was not true." 
 
 Section 17. — Of authors , eked on the other side. 
 
 It is intended to say very little concerning tliem, in 
 addition to what has been said of a few of the number, 
 in the preceding pages. The object at present, is to ap.^ 
 peal to the judgment of every intelligent reader, in proof 
 of the impropriety of providing so much food for the 
 appetites of prejudiced and uninformed minds; to many 
 
of which the passages will appear to the purpose, merely 
 from the circumstance of being so adduced: although^ 
 in general, they have no bearing on the position; much 
 less on the profession of those, who are a subdivision 
 of the persons of whom the position had been predicated. 
 
 To illustrate the remark, let there be supposed the 
 two following cases in civil life. 
 
 A principle, deeply interesting to the just claims of 
 the executive authority, is brought into question. One 
 man writes to sustain it. Another writes on the contra- 
 ry side; and to enlist the partialities of his readers, loads 
 his pages with what various persons have correctly 
 written concerning abuse of power* 
 
 The second case: A principle relative to the liberty 
 of the citizen, and his security against oppression, is 
 brought on the carpet. One man writes in defence of it; 
 and another writes on the contrary side; but enlarges 
 his book with matter from approved writers, on the mi- 
 series produced by popular licentiousness. 
 
 The appeal may be made to ail who have any know 
 ledge of the world, whether in the first of the cases, the 
 leading writer would not be loaded by man^ with the 
 reproach of wishing to change the gTivernment into a 
 monarchy-^ — perhaps into a despotism?, and whether, in 
 the second, there would not be the charge of a desi ga 
 to o\^erturn law and government? 
 
 The opposite effects would be greatly aided, by an 
 artful manaocment of italicks: in the former case, invi- 
 ting especial r.otice to every word expressive of tyranny; 
 and in the laiter, to whatever carried in its hand the 
 brand of faction. 
 
There is an analogy to the stated cases, in the whok 
 of the third part of the Farther Reply; and the unfair 
 circumstance attached to the case, may be traced through 
 all the three parts of that production: so that many a 
 reader, perceiving the stress laid on every word savour- 
 . jng of spirituality in religion, will take for granted, that 
 this is the very thing denied in the Essay. 
 
 The author hopes he has shown, of some eminent 
 men quoted on the other side, that they have been great- 
 ly misrepresented. It is believed that the same is true 
 of the greater number of those, who have not been na- 
 med in this review. But the task shall be limited to 
 two of them — bishop Taylor of the church of England, 
 and Dr. Watts of the dissenters. 
 
 The former, in his treatise entitled; "Unum Necessa- 
 rium, or The Doctrine and Practice of Repentance" 
 [ch. 9, sect. 6. paragraph 69] writes thus — *' Unless 
 God be pleased to draw the curtains of his sanctuary, 
 and open the secrets of his eternal counsel, there is no 
 other certainty of an actual pardon, but what the church 
 does minister, and what can be prudently derived from 
 ourselves. For to every such curious person this only 
 is to be said- Do you believe the promises? That if we 
 confess our s>ins and forsake them, we shall be pardoned 
 and saved. If so, then inquire, whether or no thou dost 
 perform the conditions of thy pardon. How shall I know? 
 Examine thyself, try thy own spirit, and use the help 
 of a holy and wise guide. If, after all, thou answerest, 
 that thou canst not tell whether thy heart be right, and 
 thy duty acceptable; then sit down and hope the best 4 
 and walk in as much light as thou hast," &c. 
 
66 
 
 Before the quotation from Dr. Watts in the Farther 
 Reply, there is given what ou^ht to be an antidote to a 
 false impression from it — the distinction between the 
 extraordinary and the ordinary operations of the Holy 
 Spirit. Nevertheless, to show the contrariety of the 
 views of that eminent divine to the position now the 
 subject, the following extract is presented from his tenth 
 discourse. 
 
 *' We may infer from this discourse the value of a 
 solid and regular knowledge of the person of Christ, 
 and his gospel. It lays a good foundation for our first 
 faith, and afterwards, for its growth to a steady assurance. 
 What is the reason of the perpetual doubts and de- 
 spondencies of some christians, tliat have made a long 
 profession of the gospel? Whence is it, that they are 
 alarmed at every turn and trouble, as though all were 
 lost? How comes it to pass, that these hurries of mind 
 should return so often, and almost overwhelm some 
 pious souls, that walk carefully and humbly with God? 
 Is it not, because their faith has been too much built on 
 sudden and warm aifections, without so solid a ground 
 of regular knowledge? When person^of a w^ker mind 
 have felt a strong and divine impression from some par- 
 ticular scripture, or from some bright' sentence in a ser- 
 mon which had displayed the grace and salvation lil^ 
 . Christ, they have made this inward sensation the ground 
 of their hope; they have fed still upon this cordial, and 
 lived upon this support. And whensoever these warm 
 impressions return, they trust in Christ afresh, and re- 
 joice sensibly in his salvation; but thev can hardly give 
 © rational account what their faith is, or why xhty believe? 
 
and when these extraordinary supplies fail them, they 
 sink, and trembl* and die." 
 
 There may have been remarked additional evidence 
 of the surrendry of the point, begun on by the Replier 
 — the ne^cessity of a direct communication, agreeably to 
 •the original doctrine of Mr. Wesley. The present au- 
 thor supposed much to have been gained by establish- 
 ing subsequent sayings of the said divine, inconsistent 
 with the stand at first taken. But the Farther Replier 
 has at last got so far from it, as to bring in a long list of 
 learned divines, not one of v.hom says a sentence to his 
 original purpose; while yet he pronounces them to be 
 *'many of the greatest and best of men, who may be 
 ranked among the brightest ornaments of the christian 
 church. "May it not be hoped, that during the progress of 
 this controversy, there has been a vacillation of**^^"'^""'^ 
 of the Replier, from the views with whic'" ^^ opened? 
 
 Section l%.--~Ofconversior^^^^^^^pt^s^' 
 These subjects have been p^dlessly brought into the 
 controversy; and therefor- »t is designed to be more 
 brief on them, than thf-'f importance would otherwise 
 require. They shor-^ be passed over; were it not, that 
 the author is desiK)us of repelling some injurious state, 
 ments; and of not appearing to shrink from the odium of 
 holding an opinion, w^ich the Farther Replier, without 
 any be^jring on tb^ matter in han^l, seems solicitous to 
 draw from him. 
 
 In the Reply [page 8] there was introduced a pas- 
 sage from Dr. Buchanan, in favour of spiritual conver- 
 sion, and citing Dr, Paley in its support. The first part 
 of the passage from Paley, went to the same point. lit 
 
68 
 
 seemed enough to show [notes page 49] that the Essay 
 had not denied it. But now, the Farther Replier comes 
 with the residue of the passage from Paley, which had 
 been considered by .the author as a meer circumstance; 
 and which, as well as the other, he had never thought of 
 denying — that a man cannot stop short in a course of sin, 
 and turn to God, without being sensible of it, nor with- 
 out remembering the process of mind issuing in the 
 change. In the extract from Dr. Buchanan, there is no- 
 thing giving the idea, that this was the sentimtnt for 
 which, principally, the passage of Paley was intro- 
 duced.* 
 
 The question of conversion being thus obtruded, the 
 Fai-Jier Replier [page 11] has resorted to printed lec- 
 tures o. xhQ catechism by the present author; who is 
 thought to inye laid in them a ground for conclusions, 
 which may be c^sj^jered as they regard either adults or 
 jinfants. 
 
 In regard to adults, thv author finds himself under the 
 necessity of repeating the du^hration in, the Essay, of 
 his never having imagined of a^^ of them, be^g not fit 
 yecipients, that they were convertu] dr'regentraied, by 
 undergoing the ceremony of baptism. But if, on account 
 of what ought to be, and of the agreement between the 
 
 * The introduction of the passage ft^m Buchanan, warranted 
 the author to suppose, that the conversion oi sinners, in ti^e point 
 of ivs being seated in the heart was represented as having been 
 denied. There being cause of the supposition, he had a right to 
 convey the idea entertained of the charge, eitlier under the ex- 
 pression ot "dispensing" with the subject, or under that of "ma- 
 king light" of it. Both of them apply; without any srich material 
 difference of sense as to th$; matter in hand, as is imagined on the 
 other sidco 
 
68 
 
 sign and the thing signified, the scriptures and the 
 church connect the two; there can be no impropriety, in 
 his doing of the same. See Acts 22, 16. Rom. 6. 3, 4, 
 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal 3. 27. Col 2. 12,* Tit. 3. 5. 1 Pet, 
 3. 21. There is no difficulty, arising out of the case of 
 a baptized hypocrite, afterwards becoming a sincere 
 convert. The grace designed for the sincere only, has 
 been signed and sealed to him eventually and on condi- 
 tion, but in a Vv^ay the most hkely to aggravate his con- 
 demnation. Justification may be possessed, before the 
 baptismal act. Still, in the eye of man, and in that of 
 God independently on good desire, the state is inchoate, 
 and the church does not recognise it, until the concki» 
 ding act.f 
 
 * The Farther Replier, denies the universality of the applica-. 
 tion of this text to baptism. It would be rash to affirm, sf.rictlj 
 speaking, that there are no dissentients. But of the four mention-, 
 ed, three have been consulteil-— the other being not at hand — and 
 are found noticing the above connexion: without— wliat was no^ 
 meant — the severing of baptism from the "putting off' the bod j 
 of the sins of the flesh;" this being the thing intended to be sign!* 
 fied by the sign The construings are sufficient for what -as the 
 object in the lectures — to show the agreement between circum- 
 cision and baptism: of course, the extension as much of the one 
 of them as of the other, to infants; and further, their not remain- 
 ing, subsequently to their admission to the christian covenant, 
 under the condemning eftects of the sin of Adam. 
 
 t The Farther Replier [page 88] dwells at considerable length 
 on the uncertainty as to the point of time, when, on the princi^ 
 pies of the author, a believer may begin to account liimself in a 
 safe state. There is much more certainty in this matter, on tli© 
 ■ground taken in the Essay over the first two pages of it, than on 
 that of the Replier to it, after desertion of the necessity of a di- 
 vine communication ou the first act of faith. Although the sub- 
 
70 
 
 It is in regard to the other particular, that the author 
 foresees an irreconcilable clifFerenc- between his theory 
 and that of his opponent. The former does not hesitate to 
 avow the belief, that of those who- are baptized in in- 
 fancy, no other conversion is ever afterwards required, 
 if, as they grow up, they are restrained from a state or 
 life of sin. Instead of being inferred, it might have been 
 made a charge from the first dissertation attached to the 
 lectures. But in this case, it would have been incum- 
 bent to repel the same sentiment, as given in the passage 
 quoted from Paley, with its enlargement in the note? 
 |]page 49] and from Mr. Wesley, in the same notes 
 (page 59 and 60) from his journal (ibid.) and from Mr, 
 Fletcher (ibid. ) 40 years afterwards, under Mr, Wesley's 
 eye. If the last mentioned did not mean what he said of 
 baptism, it makes no difference; because infants, being 
 justified, as he aflirms them to be, must remain so, until 
 apostatising to a state or life of sin. The Farther Re- 
 plier may take his choice of the words.* He has noticed 
 
 ject is confessed to have been rested at the nineteenth page of the 
 Essay on the assurances of tlie gospel and present exercises of 
 the mind, the ointment is spoiled by the dea^-fly of tlie requi- 
 sition, that the reality of those graces must, be known by the ef- 
 fects of a godly, righteous and sober life. Is' it possible the Far- 
 ther Replier should be ignorant, that in this particular, as in va- 
 rious other ways, a man may not know what manner of spirit he 
 is of? 
 
 The Farther Replier has given a specimen of his logick — page 
 18 — still confounding "cause" with "evidence," as in the Reply. 
 With this exception, his syllogism may be agreed to: it being un- 
 derstood, that the concurrence of the state of mind with the pro- 
 mises of God, in an ordinance of his appointment, is the evidence 
 in question. 
 
 * He [page 30 note] sarcastically ascribes tlic im^ 
 
that the author, having used the former word in his lec- 
 tures, takes the latter in his notes. In approved dictiona* 
 ries, one of the senses given to "Ufe," is "die present 
 istate or condition of a person." If a man be in a state 
 of disregard of God, is notthis ahfe of sin? There was 
 n6 use in the criticism, unless it were to charge theau- 
 tlior with sinking the christian state into a prudential 
 regulating of the exteriour.* 
 
 But it is noticed, that in the lecture, the position is 
 made, of there being no new power of the mind, be- 
 stowed in baptism on iUe infant. Are there any, on the 
 beiieving adult? Does not the difference between his 
 former and his subsequent state consist in contrariety of 
 disorder and of good government, in the exercise of his 
 natural powers? Let there be taken the appetites of 
 hunger and thirst: what an immensity of vice, is the re- 
 sult of disorder in them! And yet, where is the difference 
 between the saint and the sinner, except that the former 
 is under the control of a supernatural principle, keeping 
 those appetites in subjection? Let the distinction be 
 transferred to all the bodily and to all the mental powerSj 
 and the oonclusion will be the same. 
 
 derstanciing of what Mr. Fletcher says of baptism, to the law 
 of association. The solution is admitted: and the associating 
 circumstance, is declared to be Mr. Fletcher's having been in the 
 habitual use — which is supposed to have been the case — of the 
 office for infant baptism in the book of Common Prayer. 
 
 * In making a man an offender for a word, there is a right to 
 expect, that the objector should understand it. In conversation and 
 in books, there are often included both heart and action under 
 the term — "the christian life." It is even the name of a large 
 work, formerly much read by religious people, and certaini y coio- 
 prehending both of the subjects. 
 
It is objected, that the church of the author required 
 faith as the instrument of justification. The same church, 
 in the homily quoted by Mr. Wesley, and in the part 
 quoted (the third) contemplates baptised and justified 
 infants, as the same. She does not limit the latter word, 
 although it is often applicable, to a precise point of time. 
 It would be impossible to show, at what moment Abra- 
 ham began to be justified. For although we kr.ovv he 
 was so, when he "offered Isaac his son en the altar" 
 (James 2. 21. ) and when another of his acts was "impu- 
 ted unto him for righteousness" (Rom. 4. 3 ) it hinders 
 not his having been in a justified state, when at the call 
 of God, he "went out" from his own country, "not 
 knowing whither he went." [Heb. 11. 8.] There are 
 many who revolt at the bearing of this subject on the; 
 condition of baptised infants: but they ought to be 
 aware, of the door they thus open to the errour of exclu- 
 ding infants from baptism. It is difficult to perceive, 
 how the admission of them can be defended on any other 
 ground. 
 
 The Farther Replier, has made a most unwarrantable 
 use of that part of thr first lecture, which int «prets the 
 baptismal promise: putting between inverted commas, 
 and commenting as if one subject', on two distinct 
 branches of the promise, stated to have been introduced 
 into the primitive church at difterent periods of time. 
 In the lecture, there is occupied more than a page, in 
 explaining the expression— "the devil and all his 
 works." Then follows the expression — **the pomps 
 and vanities of this wicked world:" but what is said of 
 this, is interpreted in the Farther Reply, of the two ub- 
 jccts alike. The passage of that work ought to hav^ 
 
73 
 
 looked back to the exposition of the precedent expres- 
 sion, and forward to the exposition of anotiier — "all 
 the sinful kists of the flesh." This is not said with the 
 view of evading the insinuation made in the form of put- 
 ting a question, of countenancing improper customs of 
 the world, not coming within the limits ''of impiety, 
 cruelty and sensuality," The words, as the connexion 
 shows, are applied to the second of the three branches 
 of the promise. And yet, if under the head of cruelty- 
 there be understood, as there may be, every unjust act, 
 the words comprehend the whole. When an apostle 
 has summed up the positive branches of duty, under the 
 heads of "living godly, righteously and soberly in this 
 present world;" the opposite may be considered as for- 
 bidden in sufficient extent, in the terms above mention- 
 ed: notwithstanding their being put in italicks; to show 
 the low staiidard of morals, supposed to he advocated by 
 the author. 
 
 Independently on the injustice done to himself in this 
 particular, he is apprehensive of the danger of there be- 
 ing some persons, who would welcome his theory on 
 that account; and perhaps allow of some little weight in 
 his name, towards the sanctioning of it. If there should 
 be any such persons among his readers, he now decla^^es 
 to them, that his mind is far different from the represen- 
 tation which has been made of it in the two Replies. He 
 knows of no acceptable worship, besides chat which is 
 *'in spirit and in truth; "and of no morali.y, coniing with- 
 in the covenant conditions of the gospel, besides that 
 answerable to the "holiness of hrart, without which no 
 mm shall see the Lord/' 
 
AlSr APPENDIX, 
 
 On the notice of the Controversyi in the Quarterli/ 
 Review, by the Rev, E, S, Ely, A. M. {now D. D.) 
 The Kev, Reviewer having unequivocally declared, 
 that the doctrine of the Essay is the same with that of him- 
 self and his church; there would not seem a call for any 
 comments, were it not that he good naturedly proclaims 
 *'a little controversy" with the Essayist, relative to the 
 representation made of the opinion of Calvin; courteous- 
 Jy inviting information on that point. 
 
 The differing from that very eminent person, cannot 
 be a source of pleasure to the author. On the contrary, 
 it would gratify him to be convinced of his mistake, if 
 |ie have incurred any. As yet, however, he sees no 
 cause to change his mind: for on again consulting the 
 Institutions, he thinks that the principle in ques- 
 tion may be found, where the Reviewer looked for it in 
 vain, in the second chapter of the third book. 
 
 The parties are agreed in the fact, lamented by the Re- 
 viewer, that Calvin states assurance as of the e^ence of 
 fsdth. Accordingly, thelittle controversyTs brought within 
 a little compass. It is, \vhether, according to Calvin, assu- 
 rance be through the medium of the word, applied ge- 
 nerally to believers by the ordinary operations of the 
 spirit; or it b^ by direqt comqiiinication, addressed to 
 each individual, for him or her self. 
 
 The author does not undertake to inform the reviewer 
 of any passage,in whicV it is said— r" An assurance of par- 
 don is given to an indivi^Mal, by a direct communication 
 of the holy spirit, by an inward suggestion of something 
 
75 
 
 not recorded in the bible.'* The matter thought to be 
 seen in the work of the reformer, is his contemplating 
 of an assurance which may exist independently on any 
 particular passage in the bible, applied concurrently 
 with the consciousness of state of heart, to the indivi- 
 • dual case. That "faith is communicated through the 
 appointed means of grace; so that we come by this faith 
 ful' of assurance, by the reading, hearing, and contem- 
 plating of the gospel," would no more have been con- 
 tradicted by Mr. Wesley, tban by Calvin. The latter, 
 begins to open his mind on that point, in his 6th section., 
 Butj that there is any place in the chapter^ which founds 
 the assurance pleaded for on a comparison of the state 
 of the believer with the terms required in the gospel — 
 as in the test oi Usher — is what the author cannot disco- 
 ver. The want of something to this effect, seems to im- 
 ply the resolving of the assurance into divine and direct 
 communication. 
 
 At the end of the 7th section, there is a definition of 
 faith; which, seen under the distinction taken above, 
 may be made to square with the one or the other of the 
 theories eompared. Before the opening of the terms of 
 the definition, there are preliminary observations: among 
 which, there are some which may be made to harmo- 
 nize with the exceptionable position, but it is conceived 
 — not with its opposite. One of the places referred to, is 
 where it is said (Section 11) "the Lord to render the 
 guilty of the reprobate tnore manifest and inexcusable, 
 insinuates himself into their minds, so far as his gond- 
 nesscan be enjoyed without the spirit of adoption." It 
 Would seem inadmissible, in relation to the reformer, 
 that he contemplated the Holy Spirit's applying of the 
 
76 
 
 promises of scripture, to states of mirid to which thtf 
 are not suited, and for which they were not designed^ 
 Direct insinuation, may be thought to interfere less 
 with the constituted economy of the gospel, in its great ' 
 end of application to the faithful; although, as well in the 
 one line as in the other, in contrariety to the views here 
 entertained of the dispensation of grace. 
 
 If, from the reprobate, we pass to what is said of the 
 elect in the 19th section; all that we read of contempla- 
 ting the divine face, placid and serene, as the immediate 
 eifect of faith; and of arriving, afterwards^ at a nearer, 
 more certain, and familiar view; looks much like an im- 
 mediate manifestation, and not like that which is through 
 the medium of the word. Very different from Calvin's 
 view of the Deity, was that of St. Paul in 1 Cor 13. 18. 
 This w^as in the instituted economy of the gospel, re- 
 presented by the metaphor of a glass. There is nothing 
 like it in the other. 
 
 It may be worth the while of the reviewer, to con- 
 bider the section but one before. It describes the fluc- 
 tuating states of mind incidental to believers,, in terms so 
 very like to those of the advocates of direct assurance, 
 as renders it difficult to distinguish b'etween him and 
 them: and with both, they are withouj. any visible de- 
 pendence on the intellectual faculty. That doubts and , 
 fears may, with good cause, arise in the believing mind, 
 is evident. But to render them worthy of attention, 
 there should be the correspondent sense of delinquency. 
 The feelings described by Calvin, like those of Mr; 
 Wesley, seem to be much dependent on animal organi- 
 zation: the effects of which so mingle with the conscious- 
 ness of unfaithiulness, as to occasion the suspicion of 
 
there never having been the light, compared by the one 
 of those divines to the blaze of the sun; and by the 
 otherof them, to the contemplating of the divine face 
 placid and serene. The difference between them is, that 
 according to the theory of Calvin, there can be no such 
 loss of the benefit, as is entire and final; and that in the 
 opinion of Mr. Wesley, there may be both. 
 
 There is no desire of establishing the above as the opi- 
 nion of Calvin. It was incidentally introduced in the 
 Essay, as a matter supposed not to be denied. Accord- 
 ingly, the notice of the subject is now dismissed, unless 
 in ^ event of conviction of errour: in which case, 
 there would be propriety in communicating the change* 
 of mind to the reviewer. 
 
 The author, has no fault to find with the exhibition of 
 his opinions in the review; except, that where it is said 
 [page 11] on the subject of assurance — "which is not 
 given to all but enjoyed by some," he wishes it had 
 been — "which is attainable but not possessed by all." 
 
 In relation to instances of injurious construction in the 
 Reply; it was a confirmation of the opinion, that no 
 ground had even inadvertently been laid for them in the 
 Essay; to find the s?.m.e sentiment in the impartial deci- 
 sions of the reviewer. 
 
 The author is thought [page 1 3] to have used an unphi- 
 losophical, although common expression, concerning ths 
 state of mind of an individual, in saying, that it "is a sub- 
 ject of consciousness:" for, "consciousness can have 
 no other, than a present operation." In the case of a man, 
 labouring at this moment under conviction of sins com- 
 mitted — say a year ago — and sincerely repenting of 
 them; is it possible, that his consciousness of the preser"^ 
 
78 
 
 state of his mind can be altogether independent on his 
 recollection of the past? Mr. Locke [book 2 ch. 27. 
 section 16 and 17] makes the idea of self, dependent on 
 consciousness, connecting the past with the present. 
 
 But stress is laid on the contrariety of the expresssion 
 to "modern mental philosophy." Perhaps there is no mo- 
 dern more eminent in the department, than the late Dr. 
 Reid of Edinburgh. This profound and luminous 
 writer [Essay 3. ch. 6] dissents from the theory of Mn 
 Locke, as did another eminent metaphysician before 
 him-^bishop Butler. Dr. Reid distinguishes between 
 recollection and consciousness; and between wha^on- 
 stitutes identity, and the evidence of it to the mind: the 
 confounding of which, he takes to have been the errour 
 of Mr. Locke. But although recollection and conscious- 
 ness are distinct acts of the mind does, Dr. Reid deny, 
 that the subject of the one may be feelings, produced by 
 the exercise of the other on past transactions? There is 
 nothing to this effect; or showing, that we may not pro- 
 perly speak of being conscious of present penitence, al- 
 though it be for sins formerly committed. For any thing 
 here known, there may be modern i)hilosopiier3, al- 
 though it is supposed that they would not be respected 
 by the reviewer, treading in some such^-rack in relation 
 to the mind, as that of oneofMoliere's doctors in relation 
 lo the body; who conceded that the heart was formerly 
 on the left side, but contended that modern anatomy had 
 placed it on the right. 
 
 Docs it not border on the hypercritical, when the re- 
 view [page 8] quoting the Essay as saying, that the 
 assurances in the gospel of the acceptance of fa^th and 
 • epcn.tance arc unequivocal, wishes it to have been la- 
 
79 
 
 ther said of persons who possess those graces? Use is the 
 law of language. If a son, having lived in disobedience 
 to his father, have become penitent, and complied 
 with the conditions of forgiveness, should we hesitate 
 to say, that the father had accepted of his sorrow for the 
 past, and of his promises for the future? And would not 
 the acceptance of his person be understood? 
 
 The Review [page 20] has given a candid and true 
 construction,of the words introducing a quotation from 
 Dr. Witherspoon. "Us" for "up," was a typographical 
 errour; and, as conjectured, was not in the original 
 publication. 
 
 Although the author has no personal concern in the 
 two concluding pages of the review cf the two pamphlets; 
 he hopes, there will be no impropriety in noticing them. 
 They present a pinching difficulty, intended of the theory 
 of the Replier, in its contrariety to the doctrine of the 
 final perseverance of the saints. It is not here wished, 
 to convert him to the belief of that doctrine: but it is 
 not perceived in what way he can resist it, and retain his 
 theory of a direct communication. The author distinct- 
 ly recollects, that in the discourse mentioned in the pre- 
 ceding pubhcation [page 50] as listened to in 1767, 
 the respectable preacher laid stress on the said doctrine; 
 pot as a matter to be then proved, but as the acknow- 
 Uged doctrine of the church in which he stood. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Preface 
 Section 
 
 page 3 
 7 
 
 1. Of the title of the Essay, 
 
 £. Of the state of the question, ... 8 
 
 3. Of the test of Archbishop Usher, - - 14 
 
 4. Of the Essayist's 1st objectioH to the position, 17 
 
 5. Of the 2nd object on, - - - 18 
 
 6. Of the 3rd - bjection, - - - 21 
 
 7. Of the 4th objection, - - - 23 
 
 8. Of the 5th objection, - - - 31 
 ; 9. Of the 6th objection, - - - lb. 
 
 10. Of the 7th objection, ... 32 
 
 11. Of the 8th objection, - - - 40 
 
 12. Of the 9th objection, . - . 43 
 
 13. Of the 10th objection, - - "• lb. 
 
 14. Of the other sup ;osed communications compared 
 
 with that in question, - - - 46 
 
 15. Of the dislocated passage in the Essay - 49 
 
 16. Of the Methodists, as brought under notice by a 
 
 dislocated passage in the Essay, - - 51 
 
 17. Of Mr. Wesley ... . . 54 
 
 18. Of authors cited on the other side, - - 63 
 
 19. Of conversion and baptism, * ," ' ^^' 
 Appendix. - - - - - - ' ^"' "^^ 
 
 ERRATA. . 
 
 Page 34 note: end of line 4— for "of" read "to." 
 40— line 15, for "nim" read "him." 
 
 «• line from bottom 2, for "ascention" read "ascension,.' 
 43 line from the bottom 2, for ' Repler" read Replier." 
 45 note: end ofline 2, for "apology" read "confession.'^ 
 
 " last line insert "to." 
 49 line 6, for "14" "15." 
 
 " line from bottom 5, for "change" read "charge." 
 51 line from bottom 12, for "15" read "16," 
 54 line 1, for "16" "17 '\ 
 
DATE DUE 
 
%v. 
 
'^ 
 
 ^ - *« 
 
 
 w, 
 
 ■Ma 
 
 
 
 h^^'^'^'A