1

England, who embrace the doctrines of the Reformation as taught in the Thirty-nine Articles, though they do not separate from the church either in doctrine or in discipline; to which it may be added, that others give the name to every one whom they judge to have a little more religion than themselves, or indeed whom they discover to be in good earnest on the subject. There is no doubt, Sir, but you include every class above mentioned in the term Methodists. It is evident, however, that you are equally unacquainted with the English Methodists as you are with the Greek and Roman Dramatists. This reminds me, Sir, that, through a mistake, in my first letter, I neglected to reply to one of your, assertions on the subject of the Roman theatricals, which I shall therefore take the liberty to confute here. You assert that the inhabitants of Rome, more austere than the Greeks, were indebted for a great part of their morality and civilization to theatrical exhibitions. This is a gross mistake. The Romans had arrived at the zenith of their civilization, in the proper sense of the word, before plays were introduced. Livius Andronicus was the first Roman who conceived the design of making comedies and tragedies, in imitation of the Greeks, about 514 years after the building of the city. This design was afterwards improved by Plautus, and finally received its highest perfection from the pen of Terence, who died about 600 years

L

after the city was founded. But you say that Rome was indebted to the theatre for a great part of her morality and civilization. Do you mean that this assertion is to be understood by the rule of reverse, or are you ignorant of the history of Rome?-Rome, Sir, was a virtuous city for many centuries, and she remained so while theatres were unknown; but after plays were introduced, to whatever cause the fact is to be ascribed, her austerity, her virtue, her morality, began to decline, and her civilization to degenerate into dissipation and luxury.

I am, Sir, &c.

LETTER V.

SIR,

HAVING in my last letter given some brief account of the Methodists in general, I shall now proceed to take some notice of the Methodists of Reading, who are the most prominent objects in the animadversions of your publication.

By the Methodists of Reading, it is evident that you intend principally, though not exclusively, the congregation worshipping in the chapel in Castle-street. But whatever this congregation may now be denominated, it is a fact well known by every one who is acquainted with their history, that they received not their origin from either of the three classes of Methodists before noticed; but from ministers of the Established Church, in all respects regular, orthodox, and conscientiously attached to its discipline as well as to its doctrines.

You are not unacquainted, Sir, that there has been for a considerable time in the Established Church an increasing body of ministers denominated Evangelical. Whether they have assumed this distinction, or whether it has been given them by others, it is unnecessary for me to inquire. It

is an unhappy circumstance, that the sentiments and practice of any should have rendered such a distinction as this necessary; for certainly every minister ought to be evangelical. The original commission delivered to the apostles of Christ was, to preach the gospel, or evangelium. The commission given to every minister of the national church, by the bishop, at his ordination, runs in the same words; and woe be to that minister, whoever he be, who does not preach the gospel. If, then, Sir, you were to inquire what is the difference between evangelical ministers and others, I would bring the distinction to one single point, and answer, The former preach "redemption through the blood of Jesus, even the forgiveness of sins," which I consider to be the special reason why the gospel is so denominated, literally signifying good news, or a good message. And were I to be more particular, I would say, They make the prominent and fundamental doctrines of revelation, as summed up in the articles of our church, the foundation of all their preaching. These they deliver with all plainness, fidelity, and affection. They consider man, in consequence of his fall, as involved in a state of sin, misery, and ruin. Hence they insist upon the necessity of his being born again, and made a new creature, before he can enter into the kingdom of heaven. This was the essential doctrine of revelation with which our Lord began his important discourse

.

with Nicodemus. They shew that there is no salvation by the law, because it requires perfect obedience, without making allowance for the least defect and therefore that every human being to whom the gospel is offered, and who does not flee for refuge to the grace which it exhibits, must remain under the curse and condemnation of the holy law for not conforming to it. They shew, moreover, that a perfect and complete salvation is bestowed on all those that believe in Jesus Christ, through his obedience unto death, as the Redeemer of a lost world. But they always exhibit faith rather as an efficacious principle, than as a mere notion: a principle that works by love, purifies the heart, and overcomes the world. Hence they insist on the necessity of sanctification, as an indispensable branch of that salvation which they preach, constantly maintaining that "without holiness no man shall see the Lord." These, Sir, are the doctrines of Scripture, and of the Established Church-these are the doctrines preached by the apostles of our Lord, and by all his true ministers in every age, as well as by those who, in the present time, are usually denominated evangelical. But when I speak of evangelical clergymen, let it not be imagined that I consider all others as heterodox in sentiment, or immoral in practice. I have occasionally heard orthodox sermons, as well as observed excellent conduct, from clergy