for "there is none righteous, no, NOT ONE. Besides, if men become sinners through the influence of example only, it will follow that they commit no sin which they have not known committed by others. For to suppose them guilty of any sin which they have not known committed by others, and at the same time to affirm that they are sinners by example only, is a direct contradiction, and consequently impossible: it is equal to saying, they are sinners by example, and are not sinners by example at the same time. It seems utterly impossible to account for the universal prevalence of sin on any other principle than the radical depravity of human nature. But let this be admitted, and we can at once trace universal criminality to an adequate cause. The fountain being impure, the streams issuing from thence must participate in its impurity.

But it seems that "their opinion of the depravity of human nature" was "exaggerated." In proof of which you assert that "with them a robber or a murderer was not at all worse than any other human being ;" and that they spoke of the Creator of men as if he were "the Evil Spirit, rather than God." Yet you have not furnished your readers with a single passage in proof of either of these charges. And why? The reason is obvious-no such passage exists. Mr. Wesley especially taught that by nature every man is a child of wrath,-that from an evil heart proceeds evil works, and that the soul that sinneth is exposed to eternal death; or with the apostle James he declared-" He that offendeth in one point is guilty of all.”

Yet he no where maintains that all are equally guilty, or exposed to an equality of punishment. All have sinned, but not in the same degree. He taught as the scriptures do, that there are different gradations in vice, and different degrees in punishment; but no where did he teach that honest and benevolent men are as wicked as robbers and murderers, or that the punishment of a moral man, but who lives in the neglect of salvation, will be equal to that of Judas. He had read and believed that-" that servant which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes: but he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required."*

But, you say, he represented the Creator of men as an "Evil Spirit, rather than God." I am sorry, Sir, that a Christian minister, more especially a dignitary in the Christian church, should so confidently assert what is not only unsupported by the shadow of proof, but is in direct opposition to the voluminous writings of that venerable man, which are in the possession of many hundreds, if not thousands of the inhabitants of this nation. It is true that he represents the creature as evil, full of evil; but, instead of ascribing that evil to the Creator, he affirms again and again that

"Evil from God cannot proceed;"

*Luke xii. 47, 48.

and traces it to the voluntary and unnecessitated transgression of man. Nor does he trace moral evil only, but natural evil also to the same cause. "The world at the beginning," he says, "was in a totally dif ferent state, from that wherein we find it now. Object therefore whatever you please to the present state, either of the animate, or inanimate creation, whether in general, or with regard to any particular instances, and the answer is ready: these are not now as they were in the beginning.-He made no corruption, no destruction in the inanimate creation. He made no death in the animal creation, neither its harbingers, sin and pain. It was only

Post ignem ætherea domo
Subductum,

that is, in plain English, after man, in utter defiance of his Maker, had eaten of the tree of knowledge, that

Macies et nova febrium
Terris incubuit cohors:

that a whole army of evils, totally new, totally unknown till then, broke in upon rebel man, and all other creatures, and overspread the face of the earth."

Again he observes that "Evil did not exist at all in the original nature of things. All things then, without exception, were very good. And how should they be otherwise? There was no defect at all in the

power of God, any more than in his goodness or wisdom. His goodness inclined him to make all things good and this was executed by his power and wisdom.

"God made man upright, and every creature perfect in its kind, but man found out to himself many inventions; and by his apostacy from God, threw not only himself, but likewise the whole creation, into disorder, misery, death."*

Is this, Sir, representing the Creator of men as "the Evil Spirit rather than God?" Yet such was the manner in which Mr. Wesley uniformly spoke of the great Creator.

What you mean by interpreting the "words of the ninth Article in their strongest and most harsh sense,' I do not understand. The title of the Article is descriptive of its character, and the article itself is expressed in terms so explicit and appropriate, that, be the doctrine true or false, nothing can be more obvious than that it teaches that the heart of every man born into the world is corrupt-naturally inclined to evil, and deserving God's wrath and damnation. Thus it was understood by the founders of Methodism-thus it is understood by many of the clergy and laity of the church of England-thus it is understood by the orthodox dissenters, and thus also it is understood by those dissenters who deny original sin. How Socinian churchmen under-' stand and interpret this article I do not pretend to know; but suppose they may explain it in its weakest

* Wesley's Works, vol. 9. p. 140-142. 8vo. Edit.

and most mild sense. Or what will be yet more complete, reject its doctrine altogether, and subscribe it only as an article of peace.

Mr. Wesley uniformly preached the doctrines of the church of England; in proof of which I refer you to the 135 Sermons which are published in his works; and for preaching these doctrines with much earnestness and plainness, and for no other reason, he was "excluded from the churches." Those, therefore, who excluded him were, to say the least, inconsistent members of the church of England; and their "prohibitions" are, and will be reviewed with abhorrence, and severely censured by every true churchman; that is, by every one who cordially believes and loves the articles and liturgy of the church of England.

But it seems they did wrong in "collecting congregations of their own from the bosom of other men's cures." Yes, this was robbery, downright robbery !!! Let us see how the case stands. England and Wales are divided, say, into 18,000 parishes, in each of which a clergyman is supposed to reside, for the purpose of performing spiritual cures. Some of these parishes contain from 10 to 20,000 people, each of whom is morally diseased, and needs the aid of the parish spiritual physician. What can one man do in such a parish? Were he as much concerned for the salvation of sinners as St. Paul himself, he would find it utterly impossible to attend to such a number of cases. Hundreds, thousands of them must necessarily be neglected. But suppose the parish physician should happen either to be ignorant of the state of the people, or

H