it just, is it humane, to jumble whole bodies of people together, and condemn them by the lump? Is it not a maxim now almost universally received, that there are good and bad in every Society? Why then do you continually jumble together and condemn by the lump, the whole body of people, called Methodists? Is it prudent (just to touch even on so low a consideration) to be constantly insulting and provoking those who do you no wrong, and had far rather be your friends than your enemies? Is it consistent with humanity, to strike again, one who gives no provocation, and makes no resistance? Is it common justice, to treat with such contempt as you have done in the last month's Review, those who are by no means contemptible writers? Be persuaded, Gentlemen, to give yourselves the pains of reading either Mr. Herbert's Providence, or the verses which Norris entitles, The Meditation, and you will find them scarcely inferior, either in sense or language, to most compositions of the present age. To speak more freely still where is the justice of coupling the hymns of Methodists and Moravians together? Lay prejudice aside; and read with candour but the very first hymn in our first hymn-book; and then say, whether your prose is not as nearly allied to John Bunyan's, as our verse to Count Z-'s.

As probably you have never seen the books which you condemn, I will transcribe a few lines.

Thee, when morning greets the skies
With rosy cheeks and humid eyes;
Thee, when sweet declining day

Sinks in purple waves away;

Thee will I sing, O Parent Jove!

And teach the world to praise and love.

Yonder azure vault on high,
Yonder blue, low, liquid sky,
Earth on its firm basis plac'd,
And with circling waves embrac'd,

All creating power confess,

All their mighty Maker bless.

Thou shak'st all nature with thy nod,
Sea, earth, and air, confess thee God:
Yet does thy pow'rful hand sustain
Both earth and heav'n, both firm and main.

The feather'd souls that swim the air,
And bathe in liquid ether there,
The lark, precentor of their choir,
Leading them higher still and higher,
Listen and learn; the angelic notes
Repeating in their warbling throats:
And, ere to soft repose they go,
Teach them to their lords below:
On the green turf, their mossy nest,
The ev'ning anthem swells their breast.
Thus, like the golden chain from high,
Thy praise unites the earth and sky.

O ye nurses of soft dreams,
Reedy brooks and winding streams,
Or murmuring o'er the pebbles sheen,
Or sliding through the meadows green,
Or where through matted sedge you creep,
Tray'ling to your parent deep:

Sound his praise by whom you rose,
That sea, which neither ebbs nor flows.

O ye immortal woods and groves,
Which the enamour'd student loves;
Beneath whose venerable shade,

For thought and friendly converse made,
Fam'd Hecadem, old hero, lies,

Whose shrine is shaded from the skies,
And, through the gloom of silent night,
Projects from far its trembling light;
You, whose roots descend as low,

As high in air your branches grow;

Your leafy arms to heaven extend,
Bend your heads, in homage bend:
Cedars, and pines, that wave above,
And the oak belov'd of Jove!

Now, Gentlemen, can you say between God and your own souls, that these verses deserve the treatment you have given them? I think, you cannot. You are men of more understanding. You know they are not contemptible. If any of you will strike a real blot, if you will point out even in public (though that is not the most obliging way) any thing justly reproveable in our writings, probably we shall acknowledge and correct what is amiss; at least, we shall not blame you. But every impartial man must blame that method of proceeding, which neither consists with justice nor humanity.

Perhaps you may say, "You have been provoked." By whom? 66 "By Mr. Romaine." I answer, I am not Mr. Romaine; neither am I accountable for his behaviour. And what equity is this? One man has offended you: therefore you fall upon another. Will it excuse you to say, but he is called by the same name? Especially, when neither is this his own name, but a term of derision? Gentlemen, do to others, as you would have them do to you. Then you will no more injure one who never offended you, (unless this offend you, that he does really believe Jesus Christ to be God over all, blessed for ever,) then you will not return hatred for good-will, even to so insignificant a JOHN WESLEY. person as

TO THE SAME.

October 3, 1756.

REALLY, Gentlemen, you do me too much honour.

I could scarcely expect so favourable a regard from those who are professed admirers of Mr. Aaron Hill's verse, and Mr. Caleb Fleming's prose.

Nevertheless I cannot but observe a few small mistakes in the eight lines with which you favour me. You say, "We suppose the specimen of Mr. Wesley's Hymns (the false spelling is of little consequence) was sent us for this purpose," namely, to publish. Truly it was not; it never entered my thought. As I apprehend may appear from the whole tenor of the letter wherein those lines were inserted. "And if the Moravians please to select a like sample of what has been done by them, they may expect from us the same justice." Another little mistake, those lines are not selected; but are found in the very first hymn (as I observed in my last) that occurs in the first verses which my Brother and I ever published. "We have received a letter complaining of our having jumbled the Poetry of the Methodists and Moravians in an indiscriminate censure." Not so. The thing chiefly complained of was, 1. Your " jumbling whole bodies of people together, and condemning them by the lump, without any regard either to prudence, justice, or humanity:" 2. Your "treating with such contempt those who are by no means contemptible writers, Mr. Norris and Mr. Herbert.” The last and least thing was, "your coupling the hymns of Moravians and Methodists together." It was here I added, "As probably you have never seen the books which you condemn, I will transcribe a few lines:" but neither did I give the least intimation of "appealing hereby to the public, in proof of our superiority over the Moravians." This is another mistake.

At first I was a little inclined to fear, a want of integrity had occasioned this misrepresentation. But, upon reflection, I would put a milder construction upon it, and only impute it to want of understanding. Even bodies of men do not see all things, and are then especially liable to err, when they imagine themselves hugely superior to their opponents, and so pronounce ex cathedra.

Another instance of this is just now before me. A week ago, one put a Tract into my hands, in which I could discern nothing of the Christian, Gentleman, or Scholar; but

much of low, dull, ill-natured scurrillity and blasphemy. How was I surprised when I read in your 315th page, "We have read this little Piece with great pleasure!" When I found you so smitten with the author's "spirit, sense, and freedom," his smart animadversions and becoming severity! O Gentlemen! Do not you speak too plain? Do not you discover too much at once? Especially when you so keenly ridicule Mr. Pike's supposition, that "the Son and Spirit are truly divine." May I ask, if the Son of God is not truly divine, is he divine at all? Is he a little God, or no God at all? If no God at all, how came he to say, I and the Father are one? Did any Prophet before, from the beginning of the world, use any one expression, which could possibly be so interpreted as this and other expressions were, by all that heard Jesus speak? And did he ever attempt to undeceive them? Be pleased then to let me know, if he was not God, how do you clear him from being the vilest of men ? I am, Gentlemen, Your Well-wisher, though not Admirer, JOHN WESLEY.

TO THE REV. MR. CLARKE. OF A CATHOLIC SPIRIT.

REV. SIR,

Castlebar, July 3, 1756.

I AM obliged to you for the openness and candour with which you write, and will endeavour to follow the pattern which you have set me. I sent that sermon with no particular view, but as a testimony of love to a fellowlabourer in the gospel.

From the text of that sermon, I do not infer, That "Christians are not to inquire into each other's opinions." Indeed from that text I do not infer any thing: I use it to illustrate, not to prove. I am very sensible, "Jehu had more regard to state policy, than to religion," p. 5, and have no objection at all to the very fair explication, which you have given of his words. Accordingly, I say, p. 13,