divine and brotherly love! And thou Prince of Peace, thou true Solomon, thou pacific Son of warlike David; should an evil spirit come upon me as it did upon Saul, to make me dip my pen in the envenomed gall of discord, or turn it into a javelin to strike my dear opponent through and through: Mercifully bow the heavens, gently touch the strings of my heart, and play upon them the melting tune of forgiving love! Teach me to check the rapid growth of Antinomian errors, without hindering the slow progress of thy precious truth; and graciously instruct me how to defend an insulted, venerable father, without hurting an honoured, though alas! prepossessed brother. If the latter has offended, suffer me not to fall upon him with the whip of merciless revenge; and if I must use the rod of reproof, teach me to weigh every stroke in the balance of the sanctuary with tender fear, and yet with honest impartiality.

Should I, in this encounter, gracious Lord, overcome by thy wisdom my worthy antagonist, help me by thy meekness to give him an example of Christian moderation; and while I tie him with the cords of a man and a believer, while I bind him with reason and scripture to the left wheel of thy gospel chariot, which alas! he mistakes for a wheel of Antichrist's carriage; let me rejoice to be tied by him with the same easy bonds to the right wheel, which he, without reason, fears I am determined to stop. And when we are thus mutually bound to thy triumphant car, draw us with double swiftness to the happy regions where the good, as well as 'the wicked, cease from troubling,' and those who are weary of contention are at rest.' So shall we leave for ever behind the deep and noisy 'waters of strife,' in which so many bigots miserably perish; and the barren mountains of Gilboah, where hurried Saul falls upon the point of his own controversial sword, and lovely Jonathan himself receives a mortal wound.

You remember, honoured Sir, that I opened the Second Check to Antinomianism, by demonstrating, that in the day of judgment we shall be justified by works, that is, by the evidence of works. A person of your pe

setration could not but see, that if this legal proposition tood, your favourite doctrine of finished salvation, and Calvinian imputation of righteousness to an impenitent adulterer, would lose their exorbitant influence. You design, therefore, to bend yourself, with Samson's might, upon this adamantine pillar of our "heretical" doctrine. Let us see whether your redoubled efforts have shaken it, or only shown that it stands as firm as the pillars of heaven.

You enter upon the arduous labour of deciding, in your first paragraph, that I deal in "sneer, banter, sarcasm, notorious falsehood, calumny, and gross perversions ;" and to confirm this charge, you produce three anonymous letters, one of which deposes, that what I have written upon finished Salvation "is enough to make every child of God shudder ;" while another pronounces, that my "book is full of groundless and false arguments;" and the third, that I am "infatuated," and have" advanced pernicious doctrines in bitter expressions." Your initial charge, supported by this threefold authority, will probably pass for a demonstration with some of your readers; but as I consider it only as a faint imitation of Calvin's book, called Responsio ad calumnias Nebulonis, I hasten to what looks a little like an argumeut.

Page 4, you say, concerning justification by works, that is, by the evidence of works, in the last day, "I may safely affirm, that it has no existence in the word of God." So, honoured Sir, the plainest and fullest passages of the sacred oracles, are, it seems, to fly like chaff before your "safe affirmation;" for you have not supported it by one single text. Near twenty have I produced, which declare with one consent, that we shall be judged, not according to our faith, but according to our works; and that the doers of the law, and they alone, shall be justified in the last day; but in your "full and particular answer to my book," you take a full and easy leap over most of these texts. Two however you touch upon; let us see if you have been able to press them into the service of your doctrine,

1. You find fault with our translation of Rev. xxii., 14. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life.' You say, that the word which is rendered right, properly signifies privilege. Granting it, for peace's sake, I ask, What do you get by this criticism? Absolutely nothing; for the word privilege proves my point as well as the word right; unless you can demonstrate that it makes a material difference in the sense of the following similar sentence: "Blessed was the son of Aaron, whom Moses anointed high-priest, that he might have the right, (or, that he might have the privilege,) of entering once a year into the holy of holies." If those different expressions convey the same idea, your objection is frivolous, and Rev. xxii. 14, even according to your own translation, still evidently confirms the words of our Lord and his favourite disciple: 'If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.-And this is his commandment, that we should believe on the name of his Sou Jesus Christ, and love one another.'

2. The other text you touch upon is Matt. xii. 36, 37, In the day of judgment, by thy WORDS shalt thou be justified.' Page 10, you thus comment upon it: "Our Lord points out the danger of vain and idle words; and affirms, that as every tree is known by its fruit, so may the true state of the heart be known by the evil or good things which proceed out of the mouth; and having laid down this rule of judgment, he adds the words which you have so often cited in defence of your doctrine, By thy words thou shalt be justified,' &c. that is, As words and works are the streams which flow from the spring of the heart, so by these it will appear whether that spring was ever [I would say with more propriety, is now] purified by grace; or whether it still remains in its natural corrupt state; the actions of a man being the declarative evidences, both here and at the great day, whether or no ke was [I would say, he is] among the trees of righteousness which the Lord hath planted: This is the plain easy sense of this passage.” Is it, indeed, honoured Sir? Well then, I have the

pleasure of informing you, that supposing you allow of my little alterations, we are exactly of the same sentiments; and I think that, upon second thoughts, you will not reject them; for it is evident, the actions of to-day show what a free-agent is to day, and not what he was yesterday, or he will be six months hence. By what argument will you prove, that because Lucifer was once a bright angel, and Adam a godlike creature, they continued such under all the horrors of their rebellion? Or that David's repentance after Nathan's expostulation, evidenced that he was a penitent before? In the last day the grand inquiry will not be,. Whether Hymeneus, Philetus, and Demas," were ever purified by grace;" but whether they were so at death. Because our last works will be admitted as the last, and consequently the most important and decisive evidences; for as the tree falls, so it lies.' Apostates, far from being justified for having been once "purified by grace;" will be counted worthy of a sorer punishment' for having turned from the way of righteousness.' Would not the world hiss a physician, who should publicly maintain, that by feeling people's pulse now, he can tell whether they were ever sick or well? Or, that, because one of his patients was alive ten years ago, he is alive now, though every symptom of death and corruption is actually upon him? And shall your hint, honoured Sir, persuade your readers, that what would be an imposition upon common sense in a gentleman of the faculty, is genuine orthodoxy in Mr. Hill ?

But I have too high an opinion of your good sense and piety, dear Sir, to think that you will persist in your inaccuracy, merely for the pleasure of maintaining the ridiculous perseverance of Antinomian apostates, and contradicting the God of truth, who expressly mentions the righteous turning from his righteousness, and dying in the sin that he has sinned.' My hopes that you will give it up are the more sanguine, as it is rectified in the same page, by two quotations, which have the full stamp of your approbation.

"The judicious Dr. Guise," say you, " paraphrases thus ou the place: Your words, as well as actions, shall be produced in evidence for or against you, to prove, [not whether you ever were, but] whether you are a saint or a sinner. a true believer or ' not; and, according to their evidence, you shall be either publicly acquitted, or condemned in the great 'day.'"-And as it is absurd to suppose, that Christ shall inquire whether men are believers in the day of judgment, because faith will then be lost in sight; Mr. Wesley, whom you quote next as if he contradicted me, wisely corrects the little inacccuracy of the Doctor, and says, "Your words as well as actions shall be produced in evidence for or against you, to prove [not whether you are, but] whether you was a true believer or not, and according to their evidence you will either be acquitted or condemued in the great day." The very doctrine this which I have advanced at large in the Second Check.

However, triumphing as if you had won the day, you conclude by saying, "In the mouth of these two witnesses may THE TRUTH be firmly established." To this pious wish, honoured Sir, my soul breathes out a cordial Amen! I rejoice to see that God has given you candour to the acknowledgment of THE TRUTH; and as it is firmly established in the mouth of Dr. Guise and Mr. Wesley, may it be for ever confirmed by this spontaneous testimony of Mr. Hill! But, in the name of brotherly love, if you thus hold THE TRUTH which I contend for; that is, Justification by the evidence of Works in the last day; why do you oppose me? Why do you represent my sentiment" as full of rottenness and deadly poison?" Till you solve this problem, permit me to vent my surprise by a sigh, and to say, Logica Genevensis !

Having seen how fully and particularly you have granted the fundamental doctrine of the book, to which you was to give" a full and particular answer," namely, that our final justification will turn upon the evidence