viii. 1.) "no condemnation to them who are in Chrift Jefus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Thus it hath been fhewn from uncontroverted principles applied to the paffage, what the general scope muft necessarily be; and that it is impoffible to apply thofe things which are here faid to St. Paul's ftate after his converfion. The feveral expreffions used in this paffage have been compared with texts, which are acknowledged to contain the chief traits of the unbeliever's character; and they not only exprefs the fame fense, but in general are the very fame words. The paffage hath also been compared with the characteristic marks of Christians, as expreffed by the Spirit of God in the fcripture; and it is found to be as contrary to thefe as words can poffibly be. In illuftrating the feveral verses, the expreffions used have been applied to a number of known facts, familiar to mankind in general, and universally allowed to belong in particular unto the ungodly; with which facts, it hath been shewn, these expreffions perfectly agree. The phrafes, which were thought inapplicable to the wicked, have been compared with pas fages which are acknowledged to respect the ungodly, and are found not only to be fimilar, but almoft the very fame words. Other expreffions have been fhewn to be perfectly confiftent with the known difpofitions and practices of the unregenerate; and that they actually are the circumftances, which aggravate their guilt. It hath also been proved, that those who maintain a contrary opinion, explain almost every sentence of the paffage in a manner perfectly foreign to the genuine fenfe of the words, and their uniform fignification in the fcriptures; and that hardly any thing can be more abfurd or unwarrantable, than the method which hitherto hath been ufed to fupport this opinion. Its fatal confequences, as they affect the fcriptures and the fouls of men, have therefore been defcribed: and, upon the whole, it appears, that Euclid's demonftration of a theorem cannot be more convincing of its truth, than all thefe these things taken together are of the truth of the opinion, refpecting the general scope of this paffage. Though the fubject admits not of the fame demonftration with a theorem, yet this proof of its truth appears to be equally irrefiftible. 10. "BUT is it poffible, to fupply all the poor in our So ciety with the neceffaries of life ?" It was poffible once to do this, in a larger Society than this. In the first Church at Jerufalem, there was not any among them that lacked, but diftribution was made to every one, according as he had need. And we have full proof that it may be fo fill. It is fo among the people called Quakers. Yea, and among the Moravians fo called. And why should it not be fo with us? "Because they are ten times richer than us." Perhaps fifty times. And yet we are able enough, if we were equally willing to do this. A gentleman (a Methodift) told me fome years fince, “I fhall leave forty thoufand pounds among my children." Now, fuppofe he had left them but twenty thoufand, and given the other twenty thousand to God and the poor; would God have faid to him, "Thou fool ?" And this would have fet all the Society far above want. 11. But I will not talk of giving to God, or leaving half your fortune. You might think this to be too high a price for heaven. I will come to lower terms. Are there not a few among you that could give a hundred pounds, perhaps fome fome that could give a thoufand, and yet leave your children as much as would help them to work out their own falvation? With two thousand pounds, and not much lefs, we could fupply the prefent wants of all our poor, and put them in a way of fupplying their own wants, for the time to come. Now fuppofe this could be done, are we clear before God, while it is not done? Is not the neglect of it one caufe, why fo many are ftill fick and weak among you? And that both in foul and in body? That they fill grieve the Holy Spirit, by preferring the fashions of man to the commands of God? And I many times doubt whether we Preachers are not in fome measure partakers of their fin? I am in doubt, whether it is not a kind of partiality. I doubt, whether it is not a great mercy to keep them in our Society? May it not hurt. their fouls, by incouraging them to perfevere, in walking contrary to the Bible? And may it not in fome measure intercept the falutary influences of the bleffed Spirit, upon the whole Community? 12. I am diftreft. I know not what to do. I fee what I might have done once. I might have faid preremptorily and exprefsly, "Here I am: I and my Bible. I will not, I dare not vary from this book, either in great things or small. I have no power to difpenfe with one jot or tittle of what is contained therein. I am determined to be a Bible Chriftian, not almost but altogether. Who will meet me on this ground? Join me on this, or not at all." With regard to drefs in particular I might have been as firm (and I now fee it would have been far better) as either the people called Quakers, or the Moravian Brethren. I might have faid, "This is our manner of drefs, which we know is both fcriptural and rational. If you join with us, you are to drefs as we do: but you need not join us unless you pleafe." But alas! the time is now past. And what I can do now, I cannot tell. 13. But to return to the main queftion. tianity done fo little good, even among us? Why has ChrifAmong the Me thodiЛls? It was "Never was thodifts? Among them that hear and receive the whole Chrif tain Doctrine, and that have Chriftian Difcipline added thereto, in the most effential parts of it? Plainly because we have forgot, or at leaft, not duly attended to those folemn words of our Lord; If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his crofs daily and follow me. the remark of a holy man feveral years ago, there before a people in the Chriftian Church, who had fo much of the power of God among them, with fo little selfdenial." Indeed the work of God does go on, and in a furprizing manner, notwithstanding this capital defect; but it cannot go on in the fame degree, as it otherwise would: neither can the word of God have its full effect, unless the hearers of it deny themfelves and take up their crofs daily. 14. It would be easy to hew, in how many refpects the Methodists in general, are deplorably wanting in the practice of Chriftian Self-denial: from which indeed they have been continually frighted by the filly outcries of the Antinomians. To inftance only in one. While we were at Oxford, the rule of every Methodist was, (unless in cafe of fickness) to faft every Wednesday and Friday in the year, in imitation of the Primitive Church, for which they had the highest reverence. Now this practice of the Primitive Church is univerfally allowed. "Who does not know, fays Epiphanius, an ancient writer, that the fafts of the fourth and fixth days of the week (Wednesday and Friday) are obferved by the Chriftians throughout the whole world?" So they were by the Methodists for feveral years; by them all, without any exception. But afterwards fome in London carried this to excefs, and fafted fo as to impair their health. It was not long before others made this a pretence for not fafting at all. And I fear there are now thousands of Methodists fo called, both in England and Ireland, who, following the fame bad example, have entirely left off fafting: who are so far from falling twice in the week VOL. XIII. 3 E (as (as all the fricter Pharifees did,) that they do not faft twice in the month. Yea, are there not fome of you who do not faft one day, from the beginning of the year to the end? But what excufe can there be for this; I do not fay for those that call themselves members of the Church of England; but for any who profefs to believe the fcripture to be the word of God? Since, according to this, the man that never fasts, is no more in the way to heaven than the man that never prays. 15. But can any one deny that the members of the Church of Scotland fast conftantly? Particularly on their facramental occafions. In fome parishes they return only once a year, but in others, fuppofe in large cities, they occur twice, or even thrice a year. Now it is well known there is always a faft-day in the week preceding the administration of the Lord's Supper. But occafionally looking into a book of accounts in one of their veftries, I obferved, "So much fet down, for the dinners of the Minifters on the fast-day!" And I am informed, there is the fame article in them all. And is there any doubt, but the people faft just as their Minifters do? But what a farce is this? What a miferable bur. lefque upon a plain Chriftian duty! O that the general affembly would have regard to the honour of their nation! Let them roll away from it this fhameful reproach, by either inforcing the duty, or removing that article from their books. Let it never appear there any more! Let it vanish away for ever! 16. But why is felf-denial in general fo little practised at present among the Methodists? Why is fo exceeding little of it to be found even in the oldest and largest Societies? The more I observe and confider things, the more clearly it appears, what is the cause of this in London, in Bristol, in Birmingham, in Manchefter, in Leeds, in Dublin, in Cork. The Methodifts grow more and more felf-indulgent, because they grow rich. Although many of them are still deplorably poor, |