thou shalt be saved. Certainly," you say, "if any thing is true, it is true that to deny the view we are maintaining, and teach that a penitent sinner cannot know he is accepted until the fact is communicated to him by special revelation, is to deny the sufficiency and authority of the Scriptures on this point is to deny that the divine promise is worthy of confidence-is to doubt whether the veracity of Heaven may be relied on-in fine, is to maintain that we have no substantial evidence of the divine placability." "Take an illustration. Suppose a band of dark and designing conspirators," apprehended in acts the penalty of which is death. But instead of executing the penalty," their sovereign places them on probation, and promises forgiveness to all who truly repent." "Now if one of these men repent, how shall he know that his sovereign pardons him? Truth and common sense reply that the means of knowing it is the promise given him when he was placed on probation."-Spec., vol. ix, p. 179. To all which I answer, that suppose this person should enter into the assembly of the innocent, would he not be asked, Friend, how camest thou in hither? Wast thou not convicted of conspiracy? Upon which he would undoubtedly produce a certificate of his pardon, or be speechless. Or suppose the prince standing by at the time of the man's repentance, what kind of prince would he be, if he would not say, I forgive you? Our doctrine does not destroy the virtue of that promise, seeing it still accomplishes its beneficent purpose of informing men how they may find pardon. You say farther, "If the divine promise is not a means of knowing the believer is accepted, the only reason why it is not such a means is, that the divine veracity is mistrusted ?" I think not. It is not that the divine veracity is mistrusted, but our fulfilment of the term. The offended, and not the offender, should say whether the condition has been met.

You object, secondly, that this doctrine is not warranted by Scripture, for a full answer to which I refer you to Mr. Watson, Mr. Wesley, and Dr. Bangs. Passing over for the present all other passages, let us attend to two :-Rom. viii, 16: We have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. For the Spirit itself witnesseth with our spirits that we are the children of God; Gal. iv. 6: Because ye are sons, he hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying within you, Abba, Father.

and

You ask, Do these texts teach that the only conceivable means of knowing we are accepted, is an immediate revelation? I answer, they say nothing about what is conceivable. Neither do they say, this is the only mode, yet it is a mode.

Do they teach, you ask, that every believer must expect an immediate revelation? Yes, such a revelation as I have described. Observe, because ye are sons. Wherever the reason holds, the rule holds. Whoever is a son, for that very reason he has the Spirit of God's Son sent forth into his heart, crying within him. "Do these texts even treat of the manner in which a believing sinner gains a knowledge of his justification, or refer to this point at all?" As pointed out they do. Not otherwise.

The following remarks present an interpretation of these passages, somewhat different, perhaps, from that of others, though agreeing with them in the main particular. You have here the chief Scriptural argument, and if you can meet this interpretation with a better, I will refrain from any appeal to Scripture on the subject. 1. I do not understand, by any means, that the divine Spirit approaches the human, visibly and audibly, communicating the fact of his adoption, though the manner of the approach may be more or less direct according to circumstances. In the first instance, there is no such proposition as this, I am a child of God, standing out in the mind. 2. I do not understand the apostle to represent the Holy Spirit and our spirit as concurring to testify to our adoption, but as concurring in the cry.

The time at which this transaction takes place is the time of pardon, adoption, and regeneration. The subject of the operation is a human being, just born into the heavenly family, and now about to act his part. A part of the change which has passed upon him is the implantation of the law of belief, as before represented. What now is the Spirit's work? I answer, As God, when he had fully fashioned the body of Adam, breathed into it, and set it in action;-as a mechanist, having adjusted all the parts of his machine, touches some leading parts, and all the parts are put in motion: so the divine Spirit, having adjusted all the parts of this spiritual machine, puts it in motion-sets it crying; in other words, stimulates this new-born child to act a filial part.

The concurrence of our spirit consists in the promptitude with which we recognize our parent, and address to him the cry. We have, then, in these texts three things: 1. The preparatory operation of the Spirit in renewing and qualifying us to cry. 2. His then setting our new spiritual organs upon their work, as God by his breath did at first set in motion the lungs, the heart, the lips.

Hence the apostle says, the spirit cries. 3. Our spirit, yielding to the impulse of the divine, and lifting up the cry. Hence the apostle says, whereby we cry You object, thirdly, on page 182, that in one of its particulars the doctrine contradicts the Scriptures, and disturbs our faith in that discourse of the Sayfour where he teaches that the Holy Spirit's operations in Christian experience are perceived only by their effects. But if you will consider carefully what has been said, you will perceive there is ground for no such objection. "We have already remarked," you proceed to say, "upon the practical tendency of this part of the doctrine, and shown that this reference to inward impressions, as the leading evidence of acceptance with God, gives a dangerous and destructive prominence to reliance on frames and feelings." In the former number I endeavored to distinguish between this experience and the feeling of him who receives it; and I trust prolonged remark is not now necessary. Take the feeling of joy, for instance. Is not that as plainly distinguishable from the assurance of adoption, as the delight occasioned by the sight of a long-lost friend is from the sight itself?

Recur to the instance already mentioned of a man reasoning to-day about the bearing of his yesterday's conduct upon his present condition. The feeling of identity there is the basis of his reasoning; nay, it is in the reasoning. Yet is it not the subject of direct contemplation. So this is the basis of the believer's love, joy, peace, &c. This is in them; yet it is not immediately seen. I hope this brief illustration will clear up, if not the subject, yet our views of the subject. You perceive that this conviction is a something out of the man's own power; a something which he cannot counterfeit, except by an obstinate resort to the spirit of self-delusion.

You are pleased to remark, p. 190, "The fact of Methodists employing a test evinces that they do not experience any such revelations, and that they practically feel the falsity of their doctrine." You seem to use that word practically by way of softening the expression. However, you are wide of the mark. Methodists do experience such revelations; they do not, either practically or theoretically, feel the falsity of their doctrine.

Speaking of the case of a certain female, which you had adduced, you say, "We supposed Methodists would admit delusion in this case, and we maintained that upon their principles it could not be detected." Pray, if upon their principles it could not be detected, why did you suppose they would admit it? Your assumption that there was delusion, is a specimen of the credulity before described. "The writer contends that no delusion can be detected in the case"-for the best of reasons, as he thinks; that is, there is none. "We did not suppose an intelligent Methodist would carry his principles quite so far; but, since he does it, we cannot understand why he does not glory in being termed a mystic." With all humility, Mr. Spectator, I do glory in being so termed, that is, if you mean by a mystic such a person as Mr. Wesley; or rather, I am ashamed that I have so little of his mystical spirit.

Your fourth objection, having been fully met already, requires no particular examination.

12. I had intended to remark upon some other topics, particularly upon what you say of regeneration. A comparison of our views of that subject with yours, would, I think, be productive of benefit. Manifestly, if we are right on that subject, the entire fabric of New Divinity is wrong; whereas, if you are right, we are altogether in the dark. I hope a competent hand, guided by a sound heart, will set the two in array against each other.

In conclusion, Mr. Spectator, suffer me to say that though in the course of our brief discussion we have used both irony and plainness of speech, yet I trust there will be no continuing root of bitterness. You chose to exercise your right to express your views of John Wesley and Wesleyan Methodism on the witness of the Spirit. It were superfluous in me to say we have no objection to be examined. I suppose you will not ask whether we have or not. You have here our answer. I trust there is in it neither anger, nor malice, nor guile; neither bitterness, nor bigotry, nor excess of self-esteem. If there be, pray tell me, (if you choose to say more.) I do not wish to provoke debate, but I certify you that from frank and manly discussion we (Methodists) fear nothing. I should be happy to see in the Spectator a full account of the new birth, the manner in which the sinner is brought to it, and the fruits which follow after it, compared, if you please, with Methodist views on the same subject. "Search us and prove us; and see if there be any evil way in us,"-and may God enlighten your eyes to discern clearly. I

Having now used all the time and space which circumstances allow me, conclude with a petition, caught from your own lips, "May the triumphs of truth multiply until all minds are free." W. M. B.