the style and manner of Afpafio vindicated, prove, that Mr Hervey wrot it. That evidence, I must be excused for thinking, remains ftill unfhaken, after all the ftory of Mr Cudworth. If that gentleman's heart was profligate enough to prompt him to an infamous forgery, of which however there is no proof: yet hardly was his genius adequate for a task, in which the most artful and cautious impoftors have generally failed; counterfeiting, I mean, throughout a work of confiderable length, the most strik. ing and characteristical indications of authenticity. Mr K. infifts, p. 37. & feq. that I confess mistakes in Afpafio vindicated, both in doctrinal fentiments and illuftrations of fcripture, and yet pronounce them equal, if not fuperior, to any of his controverfial writings published in his lifetime whence he argues, I must think there are fuch mistakes in these other writings. : Had Mr K. read the preface leifurely, and with attention, he would have obferved I only fay, "mistakes there r may be, &c. ;" and found my faying fo, fimply on this, that Mr Hervey was not infallible, This is no more a confellion of actual mistakes in Afpafio vindicated, than acknowledging my felf liable to err, would be a confession, that fome of my present opinions are actually false. Though I had confeffed what Mr K. alledges, his confequence would not hold. I think fome of the works of Chemnitius, Gerhard, Bengelius, and other Lutheran divines, fuperior in value to certain modern Calvinist pieces; in which last there are, notwithstanding, fewer errors: and it is as confiftent with equalling, or even preferring Afpafio vindicated, to Mr Hervey's other works, to fuppofe leffer miftakes in the firft, from which the laft are free. Far lefs would it follow, from my acknowledging miflakes in all Mr Hervey's writings, that I looked upon them as unprofitable, and not calculated to do good. (See Appeal, p 37) If no books in which there are any mistakes are calculated to do good, I am afraid no bulky book in the world, except the Old Teftament in Hebrew, and the New in Greek, would deferve a reading; nay, nor even these, unless we knew they were exactly printed from copies in which there was no error. Does not Mr Kershaw think, that not a few miftakes in Theron and Afpafio have been been pointed out by Mr Wefley, in his letter to the author? and yet does he not say, p. 38. "It is certain Mr "Hervey's writings have been weapons, by which God "has done great things, in instructing the foolish, convin"cing the erroneous, &c." Mr Wesley has recommended a number of books at the end of his Reflections on the conduct of human life. I fuppofe he will readily acknowledge, that there may be mistakes even in his own tracts and Christian library; and that there are mistakes in Epictetus, and Marcus Antoninus, not to fay Terence, Horace, or Martial. All of them, however, appear in the lift; which, it is evident from the design of the book to which they are annexed, they would not have done, if he had not looked upon them as profitable, and calculated to do good. Is candor confined to Methodists! and are all elfe fuch bigots, that they cannot esteem a book useful, in which they fee fome small mistakes! What occafion then has the preface given for the excla. mation, (Appeal, p. 37.) "Where is the glory of Mr "Hervey himself, if all his writings are fo full of mistakes? "His remembrance is dear to many. But if this be the "cafe, as it appears from the above, we may truly fay, in "mournful accents, Where is his glory?" Is faying that there are mistakes in all Mr Hervey's writings, (had that indeed been faid), the fame thing with faying, they are full of mistakes? Where were Mr Kerfhaw's eyes, if he fancied I faid fo? and where was his honefty, if he did not? What is faid, Appeal, p. 46. has more appearance both of fairness and of argument: "Can that be fcriptural, "which mistakes, 1. Scripture illustrations (I should ra"ther have faid proofs)? 2. Doctrinal sentiments, allow"ing they were the leffer fort only, and but few in num"ber likewife? By the fame charitable allowance, how ever, I hope foon to make it appear, that the editor "muft either allow Mr Wefley to be orthodox, or him"felf poffibly a little too partial." If Mr Wefley's miftakes were only in a few illuftrations of certain paffages of fcripture, (not scripture illuftrations, which was not the phrafe in the preface), or in leffer doctrinal fentiments, I acknowledge, his writings might be in the main orthodox and and useful; though, at the fame time, guarding against these lesser errors might be no useless employment for one who had fufficient leifure: but if his mistakes are nume rous, and fome of them capital ones too, the recommending Mr Hervey's writings will be no reafon for recommending his. How numerous Mr Wefley's mistakes are, I have shown in the preface, and will further show in the fequel of this defence. How important some of them are, e. g. Juftification through our own faith and obedience, and the finless perfection of all born of God, I need not fay. But Mr Kershaw would have the public believe, that Mr Wesley cannot be justly charged with the first of these errors. He tells us, p. 41. Mr Wefley uniformly afferts, and that without wavering fince the 1738, that no man is justified in the fight of God by any works done by him of any kind, either before or after believing, nor by fanctifying grace inherent in him; but by the righteousness of Chrift alone, (including both what he did and fuffered), imputed to us, and received by a true and lively faith; and that faith itself does not justify as it is a work, but as it apprehends Chrift; and that if Mr Wefley has ftyled faith a condition of justification, he has told us, in the first volume of his sermons, that all he means is, that a man can. not be justified without it. From p. 51.-74. he attempts to fhow, that Mr Wefley has uniformly explained the doctrine of juftification in this manner. Many of the expreffions to which he appeals might have been honeftly used by. one who believed not the imputation of Chrift's active obedience, fome of them I think could not; particularly what is cited, p. 58. from Wesley's Principles of a Methodist: "Chrift is now the righteousness of every one that truly "believes in him; he for them paid the ranfom by his "death; he for them fulfilled the law in his life: fo that 66 now in him and by him every believer may be called a " fulfiller of the law." And, p. 60. from his notes on the epiftle to the Romans, "We conclude then, that a "man is juftified by faith; and even by this, not as it is a "work, but as it apprehends Christ." But though thele and other paffages prove that Mr Wefley has afferted the fcripture doctrine of juftification through through the righteousness of Chrift, in writings both of an older and later date; what name is due to an attestation, that he has uniformly, and without wavering, afferted that doctrine? I fhall fay nothing of his letter to Mr Hervey, as it has been so often reprinted: but I would remind Mr Kershaw, that in the year 1745, Mr Wesley published an extract of Mr Baxter on juftification. There an attempt is made, p. 3, 4, 5. to confute the opinion that Chrift did as properly obey as fuffer in our ftead; and that his active obedience is imputed to us for the making of us righteous, and giving us a title to the kingdom. It is argued, p. 24,-26. that it is faith in a proper sense that is faid to justify, and not Chrift's righteousness only, which it receives: and that faith properly juftifies, not as apprehending Chrift and his righteousness, but as fulfilling the condition of a new covenant. And, to crown all, it is maintained, p. 26,-31. that repentance, forgiveness of injuries, new obedience, &c. are conditions of pardon and eternal life: and that therefore, when it is faid that faith only juftifies, the meaning is, that faith juftifies, as implying all other parts of the condition of the new covenant, and as the great mafter-duty of the gospel, to which all the reft are reducible. This year, 1765, Mr Wesley has published a large treatife on justification, extracted from Mr John Goodwin, as containing the real scripture-doctrine relating to that article. The great defign of that treatise is to prove, that he act of faith is imputed to men for righteoufnefs; and that the active obedience of Chrift, or his fulfilling the mo ral law, was never intended by God to be that righteoufnefs wherewith we are justified Mr Wefley tells us, Mr Goodwin was a firm and zealous Calvinist at the time he wrote that book. If he profeffed himself fo, (in which I hope Mr Welley is wrong informed), his integrity and orthodoxy were much of a piece. One thing is certain, there are few books in English, in which the Popish and Arminian objections against the imputation of Chrift's active obedience have been more keenly urged. If, then, Mr Kershaw would vindicate his affertion of Mr Wesley's uniform orthodoxy, he must maintain that the following propofitions are confiftent: We are juftified by the righteousness teousness of Chrift alone, including both what he did and fuffered. Christ's fulfilling the moral law, or active obedience, was never intended to be that righteousness wherewith we are justified.-Faith does not justify as it is a work, but as it apprehends Chrift. Faith properly justifies, not as apprehending Chrift and his righteousness, but as an act of obedience to a law, or as fulfilling the condi. tion of a new covenant.-No man is justified in the fight of God, by any works done by him either before or after believing, nor by fanctifying grace inherent in him. Repentance, forgiveness of injuries, new obedience, &c are conditions of pardon and eternal life: and faith justifies as the great master-duty of the gospel, to which all the rest are reducible.- -When Mr Kershaw has reconciled these glaring contradictions, he bids fair for gratifying the sceptics with a proof, that darkness and light, falfehood and truth, abfurdity and evidence, are one and the fame thing. "Doth a fountain fend forth at the fame "place fweet water and bitter? My brethren, these "things ought not fo to be." Whether the doctrine of juftification, as afferted in the confeffions of the Lutheran and Reformed churches, or as explained by Arminian divines, is preferable, has indeed been difputed. But his understanding must be of a monstrous make, who can digeft both as equally wholesome. Mr Wesley, in a late advertisement about Goodwin on juftification, has apologised for himself in a way very different from Mr Kerfhaw. He tells us, as the expression, the imputation of the righteoufnefs of Chrift for juftification, was capable of a found fenfe, his brother and he, not only did not oppose it, but fometimes even used it themselves, especially in verfe, where allowance is made for phrafes not exactly proper. But they foon found the inconvenience of thofe expreffions. Antinomianism came in with a full tide. They were perfuaded that thofe phrafes were not only unfcriptural, but dangerous in the highest degree, tending to deftroy the very end of our Lord's coming into the world, namely, to fave his people from their fins; yea, in fact, made thousands easy though not thus faved. Yet the fear of grieving any who were upright of heart, and yet wedded to those modes of expreffion, |