yea, and do at this day. Arminianism therefore (whatever it be) is totally different from Arianism.

5. The rise of the word was this, James Harmens, in Latin, Jacobus Arminius, was first one of the ministers of Amsterdam, and afterwards Professor of Divinity at Leyden. He was educated at Geneva; but in the year 1591, began to doubt of the principles which he had till then received. And being more and more convinced that they were wrong, when he was vested with the Professorship, he publicly taught what he believed of the truth, till in the year 1609, he died in peace. But a few years after his death, some zealous men, with the Prince of Orange at their head. furiously assaulted all that held, what were called, his opinions, and having procured them to be solemnly condemned, in the famous Synod of Dort, (not so numerous or learned, but fully as impartial as the Council, or Synod of Trent ;) some were put to death, some banished, some imprisoned for life, all turned out of their employments, and made incapable of holding any office, either in church or state.

6. The errors charged upon these (usually termed Arminians) by their opponents, are five, 1. That they deny Original Sin. 2. That they deny Justification by Faith. 3. That they deny Absolute Predestination. 4. That they deny the Grace of God to be irresistible; and, 5. That they affirm, a believer may fall from Grace.

With regard to the two first of these charges, they plead, not guilty. They are entirely false. No man that ever lived, not John Calvin himself, ever asserted either Original Sin, or Justification by Faith, in more strong, more clear, and express terms, than Arminius has done. These two points, therefore, are to be set out of the question in these both parties agree. In this respect there is not a hair's breadth difference between Mr. WESLEY and Mr. WHItefield.

7. But there is an undeniable difference between the Calvinists and Arminians, with regard to the three other questions. Here they divide the former believe Absolute, the latter, only Conditional Predestination. The Calvinists hold, 1. GoD has absolutely decreed, from all eternity, to save such and such persons, and no others, and that Christ died for these, and none else. The Arminians hold, God has decreed from all eternity, touching all that have the written word.

He that believeth shall be saved: he that believeth not, shall be condemned:" and in order to this, "Christ died for all, all that were dead in trespasses and sins," that is, for every child of Adam, since in Adam all died.

8. The Calvinists hold, Secondly, That the saving Grace of God is absolutely irresistible: that no man is any more able to resist it. than to resist the stroke of lightning. The Arminians hold, that, although there may be some moments wherein the Grace of God acts irresistibly, yet in general any man may resist, and that to his eternal ruin, the Grace whereby it was the will of God, he should have been eternally saved.

9. The Calvinists hold, Thirdly, That a true believer in Christ. cannot possibly fall from grace. The Arminians hold, That a true

believer may make shipwreck of faith and a good conscience;" that he may fall, not only foully, but finally, so as to perish for ever. 10. Indeed the two latter points, Irresistible Grace, and Infallible Perseverance, are the natural consequence of the former, of the unconditional decree. For if God has eternally and absolutely decreed to save such and such persons, it follows, both, that they cannot resist his saving Grace, (else they might miss of salvation;) and that they cannot finally fall from that grace which they cannot resist. So that in effect, the three questions come into one, Is Predestination absolute or conditional?" The Arminians believe, it is conditional: the Calvinists, that it is absolute.

11. Away then with all ambiguity: away with all expressions which only puzzle the cause. Let honest men speak out, and not play with hard words, which they do not understand: and how can any man know what Arminius held, who has never read one page of his writings? Let no man bawl against Arminians, till he knows what the term means. And then he will know that Arminians and Calvinists are just upon a level. And Arminians have as much right to be angry at Calvinists, as Calvinists have to be angry at Arminians. John Calvin was a pious, learned, sensible man: and so was James Harmens. Many Calvinists are pious, learned, sensible men: and so are many Arminians. Only the former hold absolute Predestination, the latter, conditional.

12. One word more. Is it not the duty of every Arminian preacher, first, never in public or in private, to use the word Calvinist as a term of reproach; seeing it is neither better nor worse than calling names? A practice no more consistent with good sense, or good manners, than it is with Christianity. Secondly, To do all that in him lies, to prevent his hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly of it? And is it not equally the duty of every Calvinist preacher, First, never in public or in private, in preaching, or in conversation, to use the word Arminian as a term of reproach? Secondly, to do all that in him lies, to prevent his hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly thereof? And that the more earnestly and diligently, if they have been accustomed to do it? Perhaps encouraged therein by his own example?

1. MR. HILL has an immense advantage over me: he abounds in time, and I in business. I cannot, therefore, undertake to write page for page; I have not leisure, if I had inclination. And indeed it is not needful. For a full confutation of whatsoever is cited from the eleven Letters commonly ascribed to Mr. Hervey, I need only refer to Mr. Sellon; who has not only answered every shadow of an argument, contained in that poor piece of low invective, but even the reproaches; which, indeed, he could not pass over, without passing over a great part of the book. If Mr. Hill is afraid to read that answer, I am sorry for it. And for whatever he advances on particular redemption, or any of the points connected therewith, I refer every one who is not afraid of the light, to those three tracts of Mr. Sellon, "The Arguments against General Redemption answered," "God's Sovereignty vindicated against Elisha Coles," and "The Church of England vindicated from the charge of Calvinism.” I believe if Mr. Hill had given this last a fair reading, he would know the 17th Article is nothing to his purpose.

2. With regard to his objections to Mr. FLETCHER, I refer all candid men to his own writings: his letters, entitled, "A First, Second, and Third Check to Antinomianism:" the rather, because there are very few of his arguments which Mr. H. even attempts to answer. It is true he promises "a full and particular answer to Mr. Fletcher's Second Check to Antinomianism." But it will puzzle any one to find where that answer is, except in the titlepage. And if any thing more is needful to be done, Mr. Fletcher is still able to answer for himself. But if he does, I would recommend to his consideration the advice formerly given by a wise man to his friend, "See that you humble not yourself to that man: it would hurt both him and :

SOME REMARKS UPON MR. HILL'S REVIEW, &c.

477

the cause of God." It is a pity but he had considered it sooner, and he might have escaped some keen reflections. But he did not: he imagined when he spoke or wrote in the simplicity of his heart, that his opponents would have received his words in the same spirit wherein they were spoken. No such matter: they turn them all into poison he not only loses his sweet words, but they are turned into bitterness, are interpreted as mere sneer and sarcasm! A good lesson for me! I had designed to have transcribed Mr. F.'s character of Mr. H. and to have added a little thereto, in hope of softening his spirit. But I see it is in vain; as well might one hope to soften

"Inexorable Pluto, king of shades !"

Since he is capable of putting such a construction, even upon Mr. F.'s gentleness and mildness; since he ascribes even to him "a pen dipped in gall," what will he not ascribe to me? I have done, therefore, with humbling myself to these men, to Mr. H. and his associates. I have humbled myself to them for these thirty years: but will do it no more. I have done with attempting to soften their spirits: it is all lost labour. Upon men of an ingenuous temper, I have been able to fix an obligation. Bishop Gibson, Dr. Church, and even Dr. Taylor were obliged to me for not pushing my advantage. But it is not so with these: whatever mercy you show, you are to expect no mercy from them. Mercy did I say? Alas, I expect no justice; no more than I have found already. As they have wrested and distorted my words from the beginning, so I expect they will do to the end. Mr. H.'s performance is a specimen! Such mercy, such justice I am to expect!

3. And does Mr. Hill complain of the unhappy spirit in which Mr. Fletcher writes? Many writers have done marvellously: but thou excellest them all! For forty or fifty years have I been a little acquainted with controversial writers; some of the Romish persuasion, some of our own church, some dissenters of various denominations. And I have found many among them as angry as he: but one so bitter I have not found. Or one only, the author of those "excellent letters," as Mr. H. styles them; which he particularly admires, (that is his word,) and the whole spirit of which he has drank in. This is his peculiar character, his distinguishing grace; as a writer, his name is wormwood. Accordingly he charges Mr. F. with a "severe acrimonious spirit," with "sneer, sarcasm, and banter, yea with notorious falsehoods, calumny, and gross perversions." (p. 2.) Nay, “I accuse you,” says he, "of the grossest perversions and misrepresentations that ever proceeded from any author's pen." In the same spirit he is represented, (p. 21,) as "a slanderer of God's people and ministers, descending to the meanest quibbles, with a bitter, railing, acrimonious spirit." And, p. 27, (to go no farther,) as "using stratagem and ungenerous artifices." Although "I have treated you," says Mr. Hill," with all the politeness of a gentleman, and the humility of a Christian." Amazing! And has he not treated me so too? At present, take but one or two instances. "Forgeries

have long passed for no crime with Mr. Wesley." (p. 27.) “He administers falsehoods and damnable heresies, rank poison, hemlock, and ratsbane. We cannot allow him any other title than that of an empiric or quack doctor." (p. 29.) Which shall we admire most here! The gentleman or the Christian?

4. There is something extremely odd in this whole affair. falls upon another, and gives him a good beating; who, in order to be revenged, does not grapple with him, (perhaps sensible that he is above his match,) but giving him two or three kicks, falls upon a third man that was standing by. "O, says he, but I know that fellow well; he is the second of him that beat me." "If he is, despatch your business with the former first, and then turn to him." However, if Mr. H. is resolved to fall upon me, I must defend myself as well as I can.

5. From the spirit and manner wherein he writes, let us now proceed to the matter. But that is so various, and scattered up and down for a hundred and fifty pages, without much order or connexion, that it is difficult to know where to begin. However all tends to one point; the good design of the writer is to blacken. With this laudable view, he observes the old rule, "throw dirt enough, and some will stick." Knowing that the mud may be thrown in a trice; but it will take time and pains to scrape it off. Indeed he takes true pains to fasten it on; to represent Mr. W. as a knave and a fool; a man of no conscience, and no understanding. It is true the latter is insisted on most at large; by a hundred instances Mr. H. has made it plain to all the world, that Mr. W. never had three grains of common sense; that he is the veriest weathercock that ever was; that he has not wit enough to be fixed in any thing, but is "tost to and fro continually;" "that he is to this very moment so absolutely unsettled with regard to every fundamental doctrine of the gospel, that no two disputants in the schools can be more opposite to each other than he is to himself."

6. But some may naturally ask, What is the matter? What makes Mr. H. so warm? What has Mr. W. done, that this gentleman, this Christian, ita gladiatorio animo ad eum affectat viam? That he falls upon him thus outrageously, dagger out of sheath, without either rhyme or reason? O, the matter is plain. Besides that he is Mr. F.'s friend, he is an Arminian: and nothing is bad enough for an Arminian. An Arminian! What is that? "I cannot tell exactly: but to be sure it is all that is bad. For a Popish friar, a Benedictine monk, bears witness, (and Mr. H avers the same,) that the tenets of the church of Rome are nearer by half to Calvinism than to Arminianism; nearer by half to Mr. H.'s tenets than to Mr. W.`s.” Truly I always thought so. But still I ask, What is an Arminian? Why, in other words, an election-doubter. And the "good old preacher," (says Mr. H.) "places all election-doubters, (i. e. those who are not clear in the belief of absolute predestination,) among the numerous hosts of the Diabolonians. One of these being brought before the judge, the judge tells him, To question election, is to