pain; but no word dropped from him that bore the most remote implication of murmuring, or complaining. He mentioned how fuitable to his cafe that hymn was, and the peculiar fweetness there was in it, My fufferings all to thee are known:", He generally expreffed himself with a fmile, even when he felt very great pain in both his fides, and through his whole body. Once he expressed something like a fear left the enemy might be permitted to attack him again; and mentioned the cafe of Thomas Walsh." If fo great and pious a man (said he) had fuch a conflict, and was in fome degree of darkness not long before his death; what may not I expect?" I was under a neceffity of being absent on a journey to the North for a week; during which time the enemy was permitted to buffet him, and harrass him with ftrange thoughts; and he was eager to relate the circumstances of it to me, on my return home the night before he died. It appeared to me to arise partly, or chiefly, from the debilitated state of his body, and the weakness of his head, of which the enemy ftrove to take advantage; but the crafty foe was finally put to flight by Him, who fhed his blood to fave finners. The next morning he dozed a good deal, and when I went in to fee and afk him how he did; he faid" I am getting more reft." Yes. faid I, and you will fhortly get more: you will foon enter into a glorious reft. Some time after this, he faid to his wife-" Jefus is come!-He is now in my heart: now let me mufe awhile." He continued very fenfible to the laft, and funk gradually, with a ferene and placid countenance, into the arms of his Redeemer, and expired without a figh ora groan, whilst a few friends were commending his fpirit into the hands of Him who gave it, about fix o'clock in the evening of May 13th, 1791, having juft compleated the 55th year of his age. J. C. A LETTER प्र t A LETTER to the Rev. Dr. PRIESTLEY. Sir, You YOU have lately fent forth into the world a number of original Letters, fome of his relations. which paffed between Mr. Wesley and To these you have prehxed an account of the Letters with an addrefs to the Methodifts; in the latter Not being a Methodist myself, or having any connection with their Societies, it feems to be out of my province to interfere in this matter; more efpecially as there are many among the Methodifts themfelves, who are more deeply interefted, and abundantly better qualified for the talk. Yet, if I may be the means of pointing out to you what is faulty in your conduct, and of guarding them against what is pernicious in your counfels, I fhall have no caufe to repent that I have written to you on this occafion. The fubjects upon which I would addrefs you are three. Firft, on the impropriety of your publishing thofe letters at all. From the date of those letters we obferve that the latest of them was written above fifty years ago: they originated, you tell us, in Mr. W's defire to juftify his own conduct to fome of his friends. At the fame time you inform us that They were not intended for the public eye-that Mr. W was very defirous of getting them into his poffeffion :-that the daughter and grand daughter of his brother Samuel being of fended at his conduct, would never deliver them to him, taking it for granted that he would have suppressed them." Now, Now, Sir, if he was fo defirous to fupprefs them, what right had you to publish them? You fay, "The public is interested in them" true, the curiofity of the public may be interested, but not their welfare. But you wanted to fhew that he was ftrongly tinctured with Enthufiafm." Well, if you thought fo, and wished to expofe it, would not his early journals have furnished you with full as plain and authentic an account of his fentiments as these letters can do? And would they not have been a more honourable fource of information? Let me afk you, Sir, whether your publishing these letters against his will be agreeable to that precept of "doing unto others as we would they fhould do unto us?" You can easily fee that neither your fentiments in religion nor your conduct in politics could juflify the mob in destroying your property may you not then perceive, even from your late calamities, that you should have held facred what every man of honour would have esteemed another's property? Your having the letters in your poffeffion, and confequently in your power, was no more a reafon for your abufing that power to the wounding of Mr. W's character, than the populace having your houfe in their power was a reafon for their abusing that power to the destruction of your property. Let me then appeal to your own confcience. Did you act right in making thofe letters public; in publishing them not only without his approbation, but exprefsly and knowingly against his will; and that too, not while he was living, and might answer for himself, but immediately after his death, as if that opportunity had been waited for? What though his relations kept the letters for this purpose "because they were offended with him?" You had no reason to be offended with him. He had never injured you. What though they continued their refentment through fuch a long feries of years? Was there any reafon but that you should join in their hoftilities against him? Was it not your 'province rather as a chriftian Minifter to reprove their unforgiving fpirit, and to diffuade Mr. Badcock from concurring with them? Did it be come 'come you, who could have no cause to be offended with him, to step forth as the Patron and Inftrument of their revenge? Was this, Sir, doing as you would have another do to you? The next fubject to which I would call your attention is, the end which you propose in publishing them. It is to make the Methodists "think better of you," and of your principles; or, in other words, to draw them away, (their Leader being dead) and to make them your own Difciples. We must take it for granted, that you fuppofe yourself to be in poffeffion of truth, and them to be in error; for, on this ground we cannot blame you for wifhing to make them profelytes. But in the beginning of your address to them, you pay them the highest compliments: You fay that "in promoting the great end of the gospel, viz: the reformation of the world, their zeal is abundant, and highly meritorious, far beyond what most profeffors of Christianity can pretend to." You tell them that "by them is the gofpel preached to the poor in this country, and that to them is owing the civilization, the industry and fobriety of great numbers of the labouring part of the people: at the great good which they are inftrumental in the hands of God of rendering to their country and to the world, you truly rejoice." Now, Sir, can any thing like this be spoken of your followers? Pray then let your own principles manifest their fuperior efficacy in producing the general good, before attempt to diffolve the union of those who have approved them felves fo beneficial to mankind. you But, Sir, permit me to afk, whither would you lead the Methodists? Do you yourfelf know whither you would lead them? Are you come to any determinate point in which you yourself can reft? Is your own creed yet fixed? No; you have acknowledged it is not: but, Sir, ought you not at least to be fatisfied with your own principles, before you invite others to embrace them? The Methodists at present have a full perfuafion that at leaft in all the fundamental doctrines of Christianity they are right; and they feel an unfpeakable comfort comfort in this perfuafion: will they then have any cause to thank you for endeavouring to turn them from the truths wherein all their hopes are fixed, and to bring them to a flate of fluctuation and uncertainty? Surely, Sir, this is an end, which is fearely worthy of your purfuit; an end too, which, I truft, will never be attained. The principal and laft fubje&t, to which I would turn your attention, refpects the means by which you would effect your end. Not to advert to many circumstances, I will only mention a few which are peculiarly deferving notice. In order that you may put the Methodifts off their guard and prevail upon them to read your books, you tell them (p. 22.) that "Mr. W has often declared in your hearing Wthat Methodifm had nothing to do with any particular opinions in religion; that the end of all religion was good morals, and that every man who had this object was his friend." On what occafion Mr. I uttered thefe words we cannot tell; not need we be folicitous to enquire; for, if properly understood, they breathe the true spirit of Chriftianity: but, Sir, do you feriously think Mr. W meant to say that Methodism had nothing to do with original fin, juftification by faith, the atonement, the divinity of Chrift, the influences of the Spirit, &c? Would not this have been to contradict all that he had ever taught either from the pulpit or the prefs? And yet you evidently intend that they who read your addrefs fhould underfland him in that fenfe: is this, Sir, ingenuous? Is it not a wilful mifreprefentation of his meaning? you But that which above all is reprehenfible in your address is, what affert in p. 25. Your words are thefe: "In what then, my brethren, do we differ? Hardly in any thing except in our opinion who Christ was; not with refpect to what he taught, or did, or will do, which however is all that particularly interefts us." Now, Sir, if I were addreffing you merely as a private gentleman, I fhould think it my duty to be very cautious of faying any thing which might either hurt your feelings of wound |