SOME REMARKS
ON
MR. HILL’S "FARRAGO DOUBLE-DISTILLED."

"If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." Romans 12:18.

1. It is far from my design to give a particular answer to everything contained in Mr. Hill’s late treatise. I intend only to offer to the impartial reader a few cursory remarks, which may partly explain and partly confirm what I have already said upon the subject.

2. "Poor Mr. Wesley," says Mr. Hill, opening his cause with native eloquence, "has published various tracts, out of which Mr. Hill collects above an hundred gross contradictions. At this Mr. W.’s temper is much ruffled;" (I believe not; I am not sensible of it;) "he primes, cocks, and fires at Calvinism; and there is smoke and fire in plenty. But if you can bear the stench, (which indeed is very nauseous,) there is no danger of being wounded. He calls this last cannon, or pop-gun, ’Remarks’ on my Review. Men of sense say, it is quite unfit for duty; men of grace compassionate the caster of it; men of pleasantry laugh heartily at it; but some good old women speak highly of it." (Pages 3-5.) I give this passage at some length, as a genuine specimen of Mr. Hill’s manner of writing.

3. But as Mr. Hill did not "choose to perplex his name, it argued no great proof of Mr. W.’s politeness, to address him in the personal manner he has done." Which of us began? Was it not Mr. Hill? Did not he address me in a personal manner first? And some, beside the old women, are of opinion, he did not do it in the politest manner in the world.

4. "Mr. W. would have us know, that his piece is written in much love. But what love? Love to his own inconsistencies; love of scolding, love of abuse. Let the reader find out any other sort of love through the whole performance." In order to judge whether I wrote in love or no, let any one read the words he has picked out of fifty-four pages, just as they stand connected with others in each page; it will then appear they are not contrary either to love or meekness.

5. But Mr. W. says, Mr. Hill "is unworthy the name either of the gentleman or the Christian; and is amazed that Mr. Hill should lay claim to either of those titles." (Page 6.) Not so. It is my belief that Mr. Hill is both a gentleman and a Christian; though I still think, in his treatment of Mr. Fletcher and me, he has acted beneath his character. Yet it is very likely, "a friend of yours" (not mine) "might say, I wrote in much wrath." (Page 7.) I wrote then in just as much wrath as I do now; though your friend might think otherwise.

6. Nay, but Mr. W. "gives all the Calvinist Ministers the most scurrilous, Billingsgate language, while he is trumpeting forth his own praises, in Mr. F.’s ’Second Check to Antinomianism.’" (Page 8.) A small mistake. I do not give Billingsgate language to anyone: I have not so learned Christ. Every one of those Hymns, out of which Mr. Hill culls the harshest expressions, are not mine, but my brother’s. Neither do I trumpet forth my own praises. Mr. Hill’s imagining I do, arises from an innocent mistake. He continually takes for granted that I read over and correct all Mr. F.’s books before they go to the press. So far from it, that the "Fourth Check to Antinomianism" I have not read over to this day. But Mr. W. "thinks himself to be the greatest Minister in the world." Exceedingly far from it. I know many now in England, at whose feet I desire to be found in the day of the Lord Jesus.

7. To that question, "Why does a man fall upon me, because another gave him a good beating?" Mr. Hill answers, "If your trumpet had not given the alarm, we should not have prepared ourselves for the battle." (Page 53.) Nay, truly, not mine, but Mr. Shirley’s. I was sitting quietly in my study, on the other side of St. George’s channel, when his trumpet gave the alarm. Yet I say again, I am not now sorry for these disputes, though I was sorry. You say, truly, "Mr. W.’s temper has been manifested" hereby. (Page 56.) Let all candid men judge between us, whether Mr. F. and I, on the one hand, or Mr. Hill on the other, has shown more "meekness and lowliness;" and which of us has expressed the greatest heat, and the most cordial contempt of his opponent.

Mr. H. adds: "Hereby Mr. Charles Wesley’s Calvinism is exposed by Mr. John." Then that is exposed which never existed; for he never was a Calvinist yet. And "hereby," Mr. H. says, "the ’Christian Library’ is given up as nothing." Mere finesse! Everyone sees my meaning, but those that will not see it: It is nothing to your purpose; it proves nothing of what it is brought to prove. In the same sense I set the word nothing over against the citations from Mr. Baster and Goodwin.

8. If Mr. Hill says he always was a Calvinist, I have no right to contradict him. But I am sure he was of a widely different temper from that he has shown in his late writings. I allow much to his belief, that, in exposing me to the utmost of his power, he is doing God service. Yet I must needs say, if I were writing against a Turk or a Pagan, I durst not use him as Mr. Hill does me. And if I really am (which will one day appeal) employing all my time, and labor, and talents (such as they are) for this single end, that the kingdom of Christ may be set up on earth; then He whom I serve in the gospel of his Son, will not commend him for his present work.

9. But what makes Mr. Hill so warm against me? I still believe it is for this chiefly, — because I am an Arminian, an election-doubter. For, says he, the "good old Preacher places all election-doubters" (that is, those who are not clear in the belief of absolute predestination) "among the numerous hosts of the Diabolonians. One of these being brought before the Judge, the Judge tells him he must die." (Review, page 35.) That is, plainly, he must die eternally for this damnable sin. I beg Mr. Hill to explain himself on this head. Does he still subscribe to the sentence of this "good old Preacher?" Are all election-doubters to be placed among the Diabolonians? Is the sentence irreversibly passed, that they must all die eternally? I must insist on Mr. Hill’s answering this question: If not, silence gives consent.

10. Mr. H. farther affirms: "The only cement of Christian union is the love of God. And the foundation of that love must be laid, in believing the truths of God;" (that is, you must believe particular redemption, or it is impossible you should love God;) for, to use "the words of Dr. Owen, in his ’Display of Arminianism,’" (see what truths Mr. H. means,) "an agreement without truth is no peace, but a covenant with death, and a conspiracy against the kingdom of Christ.’" (Page 39.) Here again I beg an explicit answer. Will Mr. H. affirm this in cool blood? If he will, there needs no more to account for his enmity both to me and the Minutes. "Nay, but the foundation is struck at by those wretched Minutes." (Page 52.) True, the foundation of Calvinism. So I observed before. I know it well. If the Minutes stand, Calvinism falls. But Mr. Hill says, "The doctrines of election and perseverance are very little, indeed scarcely at all, dwelt on in the ’Review.’" Now, I think they are very much dwelt on therein, and desire any that have eyes to judge.

11. We come now to the main question: Is the "Farrago" true or false? I aver it to be totally false; except in one single article, out of an hundred and one. I mean, Mr. H. has not proved that I contradict myself, except in that single instance. To come to particulars: —