aid. Farther, admitting that the bulk of mankind, (who, after all, and not merely ingenuous minds, are, as Doctor Priestley confesses, "the persons to be wrought upon,") were as strongly influenced by love of the goodness of God, as by fear of his justice, it by no means follows, that "the doctrine of atonement must lose in one way what it gains in another:" because it is not true, that "the fear of the divine justice must sink our ideas of the divine mercy." On the contrary, the greater the misery from which men have been released, the greater must be their gratitude to their deliverer. And thus, whilst the divine rectitude rendered it unavoidable, that the offender should be treated in a different manner from the obedi

ent; the mercy which devised a method, whereby that rectitude should remain uninfringed and yet the offender forgiven, cannot but awaken the strongest feelings of gratitude and love.

Dr. Priestley however contends, that even the advantage ascribed to the doctrine of atonement, namely, that of exciting apprehensions of the divine justice and of the evil and demerit of sin, does not strictly belong to it; "for, that severity should work upon men, the offenders themselves should feel it." Now, this I cannot understand. It seems much the same as to say, that in order to feel the horror of falling down a precipice, on

* The "ne non timere quidem sine aliquo timore possimus" of Tully, seems an idea quite inconceivable to Dr.

1

the edge of which he hangs, a man must be actually dashed down the steep. Will not the danger produce sensations of terror? And will not the person who snatches me from that danger, be viewed with gratitude as having rescued me from destruction? Or is it necessary, that I should not be saved, in order to know from what I have been saved? Can any thing impress us with a stronger sense of God's hatred to sin, of the severe punishment due to it, and of the danger to which we are consequently exposed if we comply not with his terms of forgiveness, than his appointing the sacrifice of his only begotten son, as the condition, on which alone he has thought it right to grant us forgiveness? Do we not in this see every thing to excite our fear? do we not see every thing to awaken our gratitude?

Priestley. On this subject I beg to direct the reader's attention to the words of the late Bishop Porteus, and par ticularly to the striking and beautiful expression in the con. cluding clause, taken from Scott's Christian Life.-" By accepting the death of Christ instead of ours, by laying on him the iniquity of us all, God certainly gave us the most astonishing proof of his mercy: and yet, by accepting no less a sacrifice than that of his own son, he has, by this most expressive and tremendous act, signified to the whole world such extreme indignation at sin, as may well alarm, even while he saves us, and make us tremble at his severity, even while we are within the arms of his mercy." Porteus's Sermons, ii, p. 56.

END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

Printed by J. & E. Hodson

Cross Street, Hatton Garden, London.

Vol. I. page 115. At the end of the note add-That the reader may feel the full force of the observations contained in the above note, he is requested to peruse the extraordinary details, authenticated by Dr. Buchanan, in his recent publication, entitled Christian Researches in Asia; particularly those relating to the worship of Juggernaut, and the present condition of Ceylon, which are to be found at p. 129–147, and p. 182-190 of that work. These details must be alarm

ing indeed to every serious mind.

Vol. I. page 162. To the note, what follows may be added It may be satisfactory to the reader to know exactly, what are the Articles and Psalms that have been rejected by Mr. Wesley. The Articles rejected are, the third, eighth, the greater part of the ninth, thirteenth, fifteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-third, twenty-sixth, much of the twenty-seventh, twenty-ninth, thirty-third, and three others of the less important ones at the end. Those

marked in Italics are more particularly to be noticed. The Psalms rejected are, the 14th, 21st, 52d, 53d, 54th, 58th, 50th, 64th, 72, 74th, 78th-83d, 87th, 88th, 94th, 101st, 105th, 106th, 108th-110th, 120th, 122d, 129th, 132d, 134th, 136th, 137th, 140th, 149th. The general character of the rejected Articles and Psalms will pretty clearly establish what has been alleged throughout Number XII. as to the na ture of the opinions, which Mr. Wesley and his followers maintain, or at least of the doctrines which they reject.

The pamphlet published by Mr. Hare, in refutation of the charges against the Methodists contained in the former edition of this work, (a pamphlet which reflects credit upon its author for the ingenuity more than for the fairness with which he treats his subject,) reached my hands too late for a revision of its arguments at the time when I was preparing the above Number for the press. The new matter, however, which had been introduced into that Number, joined to the list now given of the rejected Articles and Psalms, and assisted by the avowals of opinion made by Mr. Hare himself on the part of those whose cause he espouses, may possibly be considered as superseding the necessity of a more specific reply. It is but fair to add, that certain inaccuracies, (that one especially of ascribing to Mr. Wesley what belonged to a letter of Mrs. E. Hutton,) I have corrected, although at the expense of cancelling two leaves: and I return Mr. Hare my thanks for enabling me to make the due corrections; although they certainly have not been suggested in that pure spirit of Christian meekness, which belongs to the character of Christian perfection, so ia. miliarly claimed by him for his brethren of the Wesley con. nexion.