The Works of the
Rev. John Wesley, M.A.

---

The PRINCIPLES of a

METHODIST.

Written in 1740.

Occasioned by a late pamphlet, intitled, A brief history of the principles of Methodism.

To the READER.

1.I HAVE often wrote on controverted points before; but not with an eye to any particular person. So that this is the first time I have appeared in controversy, properly so called. Indeed I have not wanted occasion to do it before. Particularly when after many stabs in the dark, I was publicly attacked, not by an open enemy, but by my own familiar friend. But I could not answer him. I could only cover my face and say, Καὶ σὺ εἶ ἐκείνων: Καὶ σὺ, τέκνον; Art thou also among them? Art thou, my son?

2. I now tread an untried path with fear and trembling; fear, not of my adversary, but of myself. I fear my own spirit, lest I “fall, where many mightier have been slain.” I never knew one (or but one) man write controversy, with what I thought a right spirit. Every disputant seems to think (as every soldier) that he may hurt his opponent as much as he can; nay, that he ought to do his worst to him, or he cannot make the best of his own cause: that, so he do not bely or wilfully misrepresent him, he must expose him as far as he is able. It is enough, we suppose, if we do not shew heat or passion against our adversary. But, not to despise him, or endeavour to make others do so, is quite a work of supererogation.

3. But ought these things to be so? (I speak on the Christian scheme.) Ought we not to love our neighbour as ourselves? And does a man cease to be our neighbour, because he is of a different opinion? Nay, and declares himself so to be? Ought we not, for all this, to do to him as we would he should do to us? But do we ourselves love to be exposed, or set in the worst light? Would we willingly be treated with contempt? If not, why do we treat others thus? And yet who scruples it? Who does not hit every blot he can, however foreign to the merits of the cause? Who, in controversy, casts the mantle of love over the nakedness of his brother? Who keeps steadily and uniformly to the question, without ever striking at the person? Who shews in every sentence that he loves his brother, only less than the truth?

4. I have made a little faint essay towards this. I have a brother who is as my own soul. My desire is, in every word I say, to look upon Mr. Tucker, as in his place; and to speak no tittle concerning the one in any other spirit, than I would speak concerning the other. But whether I have attained this or no, I know not; for my heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. If I have spoken any thing in another spirit, I pray God it may not be laid to my charge! And that it may not condemn me in that day, when the secrets of all hearts shall be made manifest! Mean while my heart’s desire, and prayer to God is, that both I and all who think it their duty to oppose me, may put on bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering: forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven us.

---

1. THERE has lately appeared in the world a tract intitled, A brief history of the principles of Methodism. I doubt not, but the writer’s design was good, and believe he has a real desire to know the truth. And the manner wherein he pursues that design, is, generally, calm and dispassionate. He is indeed in several mistakes: but as many of these are either of small consequence in themselves, or do not immediately relate to me, it is not my concern to mention them. All of any consequence which relates to me, I think, falls under three heads:

First, That I believe justification by faith alone;

Secondly, That I believe sinless perfection: and

Thirdly, that I believe inconsistencies.​――Of each of these I will speak as plainly as I can.

2. First, that I believe justification by faith alone. This I allow. For I am firmly persuaded, that every man of the offspring of Adam is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature, inclined to evil: that this corruption of our nature, in every person born into the world, deserves God’s wrath and damnation, that therefore if ever we receive the remission of our sins, and are accounted righteous before God, it must be only for the merit of Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings of any kind. Nay, I am persuaded, that all works done before justification, have in them the nature of sin: and that, consequently, till he is justified, a man has no power to do any work which is pleasing and acceptable to God.

3. To express my meaning a little more at large. I believe, three things must go together in our justification: upon God’s part, his great mercy and grace; upon Christ’s part, the satisfaction of God’s justice, by the offering his body and shedding his blood, and upon our part, true and living faith in the merits of Jesus Christ. So that in our justification there is not only God’s mercy and grace, but his justice also. And so the grace of God does not shut out the righteousness of God in our justification, but only shuts out the righteousness of man, that is, the righteousness of our works.

4. And therefore St. Paul requires nothing on the part of man, but only a true and living faith. Yet this faith does not shut out repentance, hope, and love, which are joined with faith in every man that is justified. But it shuts them out from the office of justifying. So that although they are all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not all together.

5. Neither does faith shut out good works, necessarily to be done afterwards. But we may not do them to this intent, to be justified by doing them. Our justification comes freely, of the mere mercy of God: for whereas all the world was not able to pay any part towards their ransom, it pleased him, without any of our deserving, to prepare for us Christ’s body and blood, whereby our ransom might be paid, and his justice satisfied. Christ therefore is now the righteousness of all them that truly believe in him.

6. But let it be observed, the true sense of those words, We are justified by faith in Christ only, is not, that this our own act, To believe in Christ, or this our faith which is within us, justifies us, (for that were, to account ourselves to be justified by some act or virtue that is within us) but that although we have faith, hope and love within us, and do never so many good works, yet we must renounce the merit of all, of faith, hope, love, and all other virtues and good works, which we either have done, shall do, or can do, as far too weak to deserve our justification: for which therefore we must trust only in God’s mercy, and the merits of Christ. For it is he alone that taketh away our sins. To him alone are we to go for this; forsaking all our virtues, good words, thoughts and works, and putting our trust in Christ only.

7. In strictness therefore, neither our faith nor our works justify us, i. e. deserve the remission of our sins. But God himself justifies us, of his own mercy, through the merits of his Son only. Nevertheless, because by faith we embrace the promise of God’s mercy and of the remission of our sins, therefore the scripture says, That faith does justify, yea, faith without works. And it is all one to say, Faith without works, and faith alone justifies us, therefore the antient fathers from time to time speak thus: Faith alone justifies us. And because we receive faith, through the only merits of Christ, and not through the merit and virtue we have, or work we do; therefore in that respect we renounce, as it were, again, faith, works, and all other virtues. For our corruption through original sin is so great, that all our faith, charity, words and works, cannot merit or deserve any part of our justification for us. And therefore we thus speak, humbling ourselves before God, and giving Christ all the glory of our justification.

8. But it should also be observed, what that faith is, whereby we are justified. Now that faith which brings not forth good works, is not a living faith, but a dead and devilish one. For even the devils believe, “That Christ was born of a virgin, that he wrought all kind of miracles, declaring himself to be very God, that for our sakes he died and rose again, and ascended into heaven, and at the end of the world shall come again, to judge the quick and the dead.” This the devils believe, and so they believe all that is written in the Old and New Testament. And yet still, for all this faith, they are but devils. They remain still in their damnable estate, lacking the true Christian faith.

9. The true Christian faith is, not only to believe the holy scriptures and the articles of our faith are true; but also, to have a sure trust and confidence to be saved from everlasting damnation by Christ, whereof doth follow a loving heart, to obey his commandments. And this faith neither any devil hath, nor any wicked man. No ungodly man hath or can have this sure trust and confidence in God, that by the merits of Christ his sins are forgiven and he reconciled to the favour of God.

10. This is what I believe (and have believed for some years) concerning justification by faith alone. I have chose to express it in the words of a little treatise, published several years ago; as being the most authentic proof, both of my past and present sentiments. If I err herein, let those who are better informed calmly point out my error to me: and I trust, I shall not shut my eyes against the light, from whatsoever side it comes.

11. The second thing laid to my charge is, that I believe sinless perfection. I will simply declare what I do believe, concerning this also, and leave unprejudiced men to judge.

12. My last and most deliberate thoughts on this head were published but a few months since, in these words.

1. “Perhaps the general prejudice against Christian perfection may chiefly arise from a misapprehension of the nature of it. We willingly allow, and continually declare, there is no such perfection, in this life, as implies either a dispensation from doing good and attending all the ordinances of God; or a freedom from ignorance, mistake, temptation, and a thousand infirmities necessarily connected with flesh and blood.”♦

13. If there be any thing unscriptural in these words, any thing wild or extravagant, any thing contrary to the analogy of faith, or the experience of adult Christians, let them smite me friendly and reprove me; let them impart to me of the clearer light God has given them. How knowest thou, O man, but thou mayest gain thy brother? But he may at length come to the knowledge of the truth? And thy labour of love, shewn forth with meekness of wisdom, may not be in vain!

14. There remains yet another charge against me, that I believe inconsistencies: that my tenets, particularly concerning justification, are contradictory to themselves: that Mr. Wesley “since his return from Germany, has improved in the Spirit of inconsistency. ‘For then he published two treatises, Dr. Barnes’s, the calvinist, or dominican rather, who suffered 1541;’ [Let us spare the ashes of the dead. Were I such a dominican as he was, I should rejoice too to die in the flames] ‘the first on justification by faith only, the other on the sinfulness of man’s natural will, and his utter inability to do works acceptable to God, until he be justified. Which principles if added to his former tenets’ (nay they need not be added to them, for they are the very same) ‘will give the whole a new vein of inconsistency, and make the contradictions more gross and glaring than before.’”

15. It will be necessary to speak more largely on this head, than on either of the preceding. And in order to speak as distinctly as I can, I propose taking the paragraphs one by one, as they lie before me.

16. (1) It is “asserted that Mr. Law’s system was the Creed of the Methodists.” But it is not proved. I had been eight years at Oxford, before I read any of Mr. Law’s writings: and when I did, I was so far from making them my creed, I had objections to almost every page. But all this time my manner was, to spend several hours a day, in reading the scripture in the original tongues. And hence my system (so termed) was wholly drawn, according to the light I then had.

17. It was in my passage to Georgia, I met with those teachers, who would have taught me the way of God more perfectly. But I understood them not. Neither on my arrival there, did they infuse any particularities into me, either about justification or any thing else. For I came back with the same notions I went. And this I have explicitly acknowledged in my second journal, where some of my words are these.¹ “When Peter Bohler, as soon as I came to London, affirmed of true faith in Christ, (which is but one) that it had these two fruits inseparably attending it, ‘Dominion over sin, and constant peace from a sense of forgiveness,’ I was quite amazed, and looked upon it as a new gospel. If this was so, it was clear, I had no faith. But I was not willing to be convinced of this. Therefore I disputed with all my might, and laboured to prove, that faith might be where these were not: especially, where that sense of forgiveness was not: for all the scriptures relating to this, I had been long since taught to construe away, and to call all presbyterians who spoke otherwise. Besides, I well saw, no one could, (in the nature of things) have such a sense of forgiveness, and not feel it. But I felt it not. If then there was no faith without this, all my pretensions to faith dropt at once.”

18. (2) Yet it was not Peter Bohler, who convinced me that conversion (I mean justification) was an instantaneous work. On the contrary, when I was convinced of the nature and fruits of justifying faith, still “¹I could not comprehend what he spoke of an instantaneous work. I could not understand, how this faith should be given in a moment; how a man could at once be thus turned from darkness to light, from sin and misery to righteousness and joy in the Holy Ghost. I searched the scriptures again, touching this very thing, particularly the Acts of the apostles. But to my utter astonishment, I found scarce any instances there of other than instantaneous conversions; scarce any other so slow as that of St. Paul, who was three days in the pangs of the new birth. I had but one retreat left; viz. ‘Thus I grant, God wrought in the first ages of Christianity: but the times are changed. What reason have I to believe, he works in the same manner now’?

“But on Sunday 22, I was beat out of this retreat too, by the concurring evidence of several living witnesses, who testified God had thus wrought in themselves: giving them in a moment, such a faith in the blood of his Son, as translated them out of darkness into light, out of sin and fear into holiness and happiness. Here ended my disputing. I could ♦only cry out, ‘Lord, help thou my unbelief.’”​――The remaining part of this section; with the third and fourth, contain my own words, to which I still subscribe.

And if there is a mistake in the fifth it is not material.

♦20. (6) It is true, that “on Wednesday, July 12, the Count spoke to this effect:

“1. Justification is the forgiveness of sins:

“2. The moment a man flies to Christ, he is justified:

“3. And has peace with God, but not always joy:

“4. Nor perhaps may he know he is justified, till long after:

“5. For the assurance of it is distinct from justification itself:

“6. But others may know he is justified, by his power over sin, by his seriousness, his love of the brethren, and his hunger and thirst after righteousness, which alone proves the spiritual life to be begun.

“7. To be justified is the same thing as to be born of God: when a man is awakened, he is begotten of God, and his fear and sorrow, and sense of the wrath of God, are the pangs of the new birth.”

It is true also, that I then recollected what P. Bohler had often said on this head, which was to this effect:

1. When a man has living faith in Christ, then he is justified:

2. This is always given in a moment:

3. And in that moment, he has peace with God:

4. Which he cannot have without knowing that he has it:

5. And being born of God he sinneth not:

6. Which deliverance from sin he cannot have without knowing that he has it.

21. I did not apprehend it possible, for any man living to have imagined, that I believed both these accounts: the words whereof I had purposely so ranged, and divided into short sentences, that the gross, irreconcileable difference between them, might be plain to the meanest reader. I cannot therefore but be a little surprised, at the strength of that prejudice, which could prevent any one’s seeing, that in opposition to the Count’s opinion (which in many respects I wholly disapproved of) I quoted the words of one of his own church, which, if true, overturn it altogether.

22. I have nothing to object to the quotations made in the 7th, 8th, and 9th sections. In the 10th are these words: “Now since Mr. ♦Wesley went so far, to gather such materials together, let us see what was the system (or rather the medley) of principles he had to return with to England.”

---

Of the Assurance of justification.

I believe that conversion is an instantaneous work. And that the moment a man is converted, or has living faith in Christ, he is justified. Which faith a man cannot have, without knowing that he hath it.

Yet I believe he may not know that he is justified (i. e. that he has living faith) till a long time after.

I believe also that the moment a man is justified, he has peace with God.

Which he cannot have without knowing that he has it.

“Yet I believe he may not know that he is justified (i. e. that he has peace with God) till a long time after.

“I believe when a man is justified, he is born of God.

“And being born of God he sinneth not.

“Which deliverance from sin he cannot have without knowing it.

“Yet I believe he may not know that he is justified (i. e. delivered from sin) till a long time after.

“Though I believe that others may know that he is justified by his power over sin, his seriousness, and love of the brethren.”

---

23. “Of the Conditions of justification.

“I believe that Christ formed in us subordinately to Christ given for us (i. e. our own inherent righteousness subordinate to Christ’s merits) ought to be insisted upon, as necessary to our justification.

“And it is just and right that a man should be humble and penitent, and have a broken and contrite heart (i. e. should have Christ formed in him) before he can expect to be justified.

“And that this penitence and contrition is the work of the Holy Ghost.”

“Yet I believe that all this is nothing towards, and has no influence on, our justification.

“Again, I believe that in order to justification, I must go strait to Christ, with all my ungodliness, and plead nothing else.

“Yet I believe that we should not insist upon any thing we do or feel, as if it were necessarily previous to justification.”

---

24. “Of the Effects of justification.

“I believe, that justification is the same thing as to be born of God. Yet a man may have a strong assurance, that he is justified, and not be able to affirm, that he is born of God.

“A man may be fully assured that his sins are forgiven, yet may not be able to tell the hour, or day, when he received this full assurance, because it may grow up in him by degrees.​――Though he can remember that from the time this full assurance was confirmed in him, he never lost it, no not for a moment.

“A man may have a weak faith at the same time that he hath peace with God, not one uneasy thought, and freedom from sin, not one unholy desire.

“A man may be justified (♦i. e. born of God) who has not a clean heart (i. e. is not sanctified.)

“He may be justified (i. e. born of God) and not have the indwelling of the Spirit.”

25. I entirely agree, “That the foregoing creed is a very extraordinary and odd composition.” But it is not mine. I neither composed it, nor believe it: as I doubt not every impartial reader will be fully convinced, when we shall have gone over it, once more, step by step.

The parts of it which I do believe, I shall barely repeat: on the others it will be needful to add a few words.

---

Of the Assurance of justification.

“I believe that conversion” (meaning thereby justification) “is an instantaneous work: and that the moment a man has living faith in Christ, he is converted or justified. (So the proposition must be expressed to make it sense.) Which faith he cannot have, without knowing that he has it.”

“Yet I believe he may not know that he has it till long after.” This I deny: I believe no such thing.

“I believe the moment a man is justified he has peace with God:”

“Which he cannot have, without knowing that he has it:

“Yet I believe, he may not know he has it till long after.” This again I deny. I believe it not. Nor Michael Linner neither. To clear whom intirely, one need only read his own words.

“About fourteen years ago, I was more than ever convinced, that I was wholly different from what God required me to be. I consulted his word again and again; but it spoke nothing but condemnation; till at last I could not read, nor indeed do any thing else, having no hope and no spirit left in me. I had been in this state for several days, when being musing by myself, those words came strongly into my mind, God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, to the end that all who believe in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” I thought, “All! Then I am one. Then he is given for me. But I am a sinner. And he came to save sinners.” Immediately my burden dropped off, and my heart was at rest.

“But the full assurance of faith I had not yet, nor for the two years I continued in Moravia. When I was driven out thence by the Jesuits, I retired hither, and was soon after received into the church. And here after some time it pleased our Lord to manifest himself more clearly to my soul; and give me that full sense of acceptance in him, which excludes all doubt and fear.

“Indeed the leading of the Spirit is different in different souls. His more usual method, I believe, is, to give in one and the same moment, forgiveness of sins, and a full assurance of that forgiveness. Yet in many he works as he did in me: give first the remission of sins, and after some weeks or months or years, the full assurance of it.”¹

All I need observe is, that the first sense of forgiveness is often mixed with doubt or fear. But the full assurance of faith, excludes all doubt and fear, as the very term implies.

Therefore instead of, “He may not know that he has peace with God till long after,” it should be (to agree with Michael Linner’s words) “He may not have till long after the full assurance of faith, which excludes all doubt and fear.”

“I believe a man is justified at the same time that he is born of God.

“And he that is born of God sinneth not.

“Which deliverance from sin he cannot have, without knowing that he has it.”

“Yet I believe he may not know it till long after.” This also I utterly deny.

---

26. Of the Conditions of justification.

“I believe, that Christ formed in us ought to be insisted on, as necessary to our justification.”

I no more believe this than Christian David does, whose words concerning it are these:

“It pleased God to shew me, that Christ in us, and Christ for us, ought to be both insisted on:”

But I clearly saw we ought not to insist on any thing we feel, any more than any thing we do, as if it were necessary previous to our justification.

“And before a man can expect to be justified, he should be humble and penitent, and have a broken and contrite heart, that is, should have Christ formed in him.” No; that is quite another thing. I believe every man is penitent, before he is justified; he repents, before he believes the gospel. But it is never before, he is justified, that Christ is formed in him.

“And that this penitence and contrition is the work of the Holy Ghost.”

“Yet I believe that all this is nothing towards, and has no influence on our justification.”

Christian David’s words are, “Observe, this is not the foundation. It is not this by which (for the sake of which) you are justified. This is not the righteousness, this is no part of the righteousness, by which you are reconciled to God, You grieve for ♦your sins. You are deeply humbled. Your heart is broken. Well: but all this is nothing to your justification.” (The words immediately following fix the sense of this otherwise exceptionable sentence) “The remission of your sins is not owing to this cause, either in whole or in part. Your humiliation has no influence on that.” Not as a cause; so the very last words explain it.

“Again, I believe that in order to obtain justification, I must go strait to Christ, with all my ungodliness, and plead nothing else.”

“Yet I believe we should not insist upon any thing we do or feel, as if it were necessarily previous to justification.” No, nor on any thing else. So the whole tenor of Christian David’s words implies.

---

Of the Effects of justification.

27. “I believe a man may have a strong assurance he is justified, and not be able to affirm he is a child of God.”

Feder’s words are these: “I found my heart at rest, in good hope that my sins were forgiven; of which I had a strong assurance six weeks after.” (True, comparatively stronger, though still mixt with doubt and fear.) “But I dare not affirm, I am a child of God.” I see no inconsistency in all this. Many such instances I know at this day. I myself was one, for some time.

“A man may be fully assured, that his sins are forgiven, yet may not be able to tell the day, when he received this full assurance; because it grew up in him by degrees.” (Of this also I know a few other instances) “But from the time this full assurance was confirmed in him, he never lost it.” Very true, and I think, consistent.

Neuser’s own words are, “In him I found true rest to my soul, being fully assured, that all my sins were forgiven. Yet I cannot tell the hour or day, when I first received that full assurance. For it was not given me at first, neither at once;” (not in its fulness) “but grew up in me by degrees. And from the time it was confirmed in me, I have never lost it, having never since doubted, no, not for a moment.”

“A man may have a weak faith, at the same time that he has peace with God, and no unholy desires.”

A man may be justified, who has not a clear heart.

28. (11) Not in the full sense of the word. This I do verily believe is sound divinity, agreeable both to scripture and experience. And I believe it is consistent with itself. As to the “hundred other absurdities which might be fully and fairly made out,” it will be time enough to consider them, when they are produced.

29. (12, 13.) But whether I have succeeded in attempting to ♦reconcile these things or no, I verily think Mr. Tucker has. I desire not a more consistent account of my principles, than he has himself given in the following words:

“Our spiritual state should be considered distinctly under each of these views.”

1. “Before justification; in which state we may be said to be unable to do any thing acceptable to God: because then we can do nothing but come to Christ. Which ought not to be considered as doing any thing, but as supplicating (or waiting) to receive a power of doing for the time to come.”

“For the preventing grace of God, which is common to all, is sufficient to bring us to Christ, though it is not sufficient to carry us any further, ’till we are justified.”

2. “After justification. The moment a man comes to Christ (by faith) he is justified, and born again; that is, he is born again in the imperfect sense (for there are two, [if not more] degrees of regeneration) and he has power over all the stirrings and motions of sin, but not a total freedom from them. Therefore he hath not yet, in the full and proper sense, a new and clean heart. But being exposed to various temptations, he may, and will fall again from this condition, if he doth not attain to a more excellent gift.”¹

3. Sanctification; the last and highest state of perfection in this life. For then are the faithful born again in the full and perfect sense. Then is there given unto them a new and clear heart; and the struggle between the old and new man is over.¹

30. (14.) That I may say many things which have been said before, and perhaps by Calvin or Arminius, by Montague or Barclay, or the archbishop of Cambray, is highly probable. But it cannot thence be inferred, that I hold “a medley of all their principles; Calvinism, Arminianism, Montanism, Quakerism, Quietism, all thrown together.” There might as well have been added Judaism, Mahometanism, Paganism. It would have made the period rounder, and been full as easily proved, I mean asserted. For no other proof is not yet produced.

31. I pass over the smaller mistakes which occur in the 15th and 16th paragraphs, together with the prophecy or prognostication, concerning the approaching divisions and downfal of the Methodists. What follows to the end, concerning the ground of our hope, is indeed of greater importance. But we have not as yet the strength of the cause. The dissertation promised, is still behind. Therefore as my work is great, and my time short, I wave that dispute for the present. And perhaps, when I shall have received farther light, I may be convinced, that “gospel-holiness (as Mr. Tucker believes) is a necessary qualification, antecedent to justification.” This appears to me now to be directly opposite to the gospel of Christ. But I will endeavour, impartially, to consider, what shall be advanced in defence of it. And may he who knoweth my simpleness, teach me his way, and give me a right judgment in all things!

---

AN

ANSWER

TO THE

Rev. Mr. Church’s Remarks on the Rev. Mr. John Wesley’s last Journal.

In a LETTER to that Gentleman.

Let not him that putteth on his harness, boast himself as he that putteth it off. 1 Kings xx. 11.

Reverend Sir,

1. MY first desire (and prayer to God) is, That I may live peaceably with all men. My next, That if I must dispute at all, it may be with a man of understanding. Thus far therefore I rejoice on the present occasion. I rejoice also in that I have confidence of your sincerity, of your real desire, to promote the glory of God, by peace and good-will among men. I am likewise thankful to God, for your calm manner of writing; (a few paragraphs excepted:) and yet more for this, That such an opponent, should by writing in such a manner, give me an opportunity of explaining myself on those very heads, whereon I wanted an occasion so to do.

2. I do not want indeed (though perhaps you think I do) to widen the breach between us, or to represent the difference of the doctrines we severally teach, as greater than it really is. So far from it, that I earnestly wish, there were none at all: or if there must be some, that it may be as small as possible: being fully persuaded, that could we once agree in doctrines, other differences would soon fall to the ground.

3. In order to contribute, as I am able, to this, it will be my endeavour, to acknowledge what I think you have spoken right, and to answer what I cannot think right as yet, with what brevity and clearness I can. I desire to do this, in as inoffensive a manner, as the nature of the thing will bear; and consistently with that brotherly love, which I cannot deny you, without wronging my own soul.

4. You sum up your charge thus: You have now, Sir, my sentiments​――It is impossible for you to put an entire stop, to the enormities of the Moravians, while you still, I. Too much commend these men, II. Hold principles in common with them, from which these enormities naturally follow, and III. Maintain other errors more than theirs, and are guilty of enthusiasm to the highest degree.¹

I. 1. You, first, charge me with too much commending the Moravians. That the case may be fully understood, I will transcribe the passages which you cite from the journal concerning them, and then give a general answer.

“She told me, Mr. Molther had advised her, till she received faith, to be still, ceasing from outward works​――In the evening, Mr. Bray also was highly commending the being still​――He likewise spoke largely, of the great danger that attended the doing of outward works, and of the folly of people that keep running about to church and sacrament.”¹

“Sunday November 4. Our society met, and continued silent till eight.”¹

“Sunday June 22. I spoke thus: Eight or nine months ago, certain men arose, who affirmed, that there is no such thing as any means of grace​――and that we ought to leave off these works of the law.”¹

“You (Mr. Molther) believe, that the way to attain faith, is, not to go to church, not to communicate, not to fast, not to use so much private prayer, not to read the scripture; not to do temporal good, or attempt to do spiritual good.”¹

“You undervalue good works, especially works of outward mercy, never publicly insisting on the necessity of them.”¹

“Some of our brethren asserted, 1. That till they had true faith, they ought to be still, that is (as they explained themselves) to abstain from the means of grace, as they are called, the Lord’s supper in particular. 2. That the ordinances are not means of grace, there being no other means than Christ.”¹

“I could not agree, either that none has any faith, so long as he is liable to any doubt or fear, or that till we have it, we ought to abstain from the ordinances of God.”¹

“Mr. Br――d speaks so slightly of the means of grace, that many are much grieved to hear him. But others are greatly delighted with him. Ten or fourteen of them meet at our brother Clark’s, with Mr. Molther, and make a ♦mere jest of going to church or to the sacrament.”¹

“You (Mr. Molther) believe, it is impossible for a man to use these means, without trusting in them.”¹

“Believers (said Mr. Simpson) are not subject to ordinances, and unbelievers have nothing to do with them.”¹

“Believers need not, and unbelievers may not use them. These do not sin when they abstain from them; but those do sin, when they do not abstain.”¹

“For one who is not born of God, to read the scriptures, or to pray, or to communicate, or to do any outward work is deadly poison.​――If he does any of these things, he destroys himself.”¹

“Mr. Bell earnestly defended this.”

“At eight the society (at Nottingham) met; I could not but observe​――that not one who came in, used any prayer at all.​――I looked for one of our hymn books, but both that and the bible were vanished away, and in the room thereof lay, the Moravian hymns and the Count’s sermons.”¹

“One of our English brethren, joined with you, said in his public expounding, ‘As many go to hell by praying, as by thieving.’ Another, ‘I knew one, who leaning over the back of a chair, received a great gift. But he must kneel down, to give God thanks. So he lost it immediately. And I know not whether he will ever have it again.’ And yet another, ‘You have lost your first joy. Therefore you pray. That is the devil. You read the bible. That is the devil. You communicate. That is the devil.’”¹

“They affirmed, that there is no commandment in the New Testament, but to believe; that no other duty lies upon us; and, that when a man does believe, he is not bound or obliged, to do any thing which is commanded there.”¹

“Mr. St―― told me, No one has any degree of faith, till he is perfect as God is perfect.”¹

“You believe there are no degrees in faith.”¹

“I have heard Mr. Molther affirm, that there is no justifying faith, where there is ever any doubt.”¹

“The moment a man is justified, he is sanctified wholly. Thenceforth, till death, he is neither more nor less holy.”¹

“We are to grow in grace, but not in holiness.”¹

♦2. I have frequently observed, that I wholly disapprove, of all these positions, “That there are no degrees in faith”; “That in order to attain faith, we must abstain from all the ordinances of God”; “That a believer does not grow in holiness”, and “That he is not obliged to keep the commandments of God.” But I must also observe, 1. That you ought not to charge the Moravian church with the first of these; since in the very page from which you quote those words, “There is no justifying faith where there is ever any doubt” that note occurs, “In the preface to the second journal, the Moravian church is cleared from this mistake.” 2. That with respect to the ordinances of God, their practice is better than their principle. They do use them themselves, I am a witness; and that with reverence and godly fear. Those expressions however, of our own countrymen, are utterly indefensible: as, I think are Mr. Molther’s also; who was quickly after recalled into Germany. The great fault of the Moravian church seems to lie in not openly disclaiming all he had said: which in all probability they would have done, had they not leaned to the same opinion. I must 3. observe, that I never knew one of the Moravian church, but that single person affirm, “That a believer does not grow in holiness.” And perhaps he would not affirm it, on reflection. But I am still afraid their whole church is tainted with Quietism, Universal Salvation, and Antinomianism: “I speak (as I said elsewhere) of Antinomian opinions, abstracted from practice, good or bad.”

3. But I should rejoice if there lay no other objection against them, than that of erroneous opinions. I know in some measure, how to have compassion on the ignorant: I know the incredible force of pre-possession. And God only knows, what ignorance or error (all things considered) is invincible; and what allowance his mercy will make in such cases, to those who desire to be lead into all truth. But how far what follows may be imputed to invincible ignorance or pre-possession, I cannot tell.

Many of “¹you greatly, yea above measure, exalt yourselves (as a church) and despise others:

“I have scarce heard one Moravian brother own his church to be wrong in any thing:

“Many of you I have heard speak of it, as if it were infallible;” “Some of you have set it up, as the judge of all the earth, of all persons as well as doctrines:

“Some of you have said, that there is no true church but yours; yea, that there are no true Christians out of it:

“And your own members you require to have implicit faith in her decisions, and to pay implicit obedience to her directions.”

I can in no degree justify these things. And yet neither can I look upon them in the same light that you do, as ¹some of the very worst things which are objected to the church of Rome. They are exceeding great mistakes: yet in as great mistakes, have holy men both lived and died: Thomas a Kempis, for instance, and Francis Sales. And yet I doubt not, they are now in Abraham’s bosom.

4. I am more concerned for their “¹Despising and decrying self-denial:” for their “²extending Christian liberty beyond all warrant of holy writ;” for their “³Want of zeal for good works;” and above all for their supposing, that “³we may, on some accounts use guile:” in consequence of which they do “⁴use guile or dissimulation in many cases.” “⁵Nay, in many of them I have found” (not in all, nor in most) “much subtlety, much evasion and disguise; so becoming all things to all men, as to take the colour and shape of any that were near them.”

I can neither defend nor excuse those among the Moravians, whom I have found guilty of this. But neither can I condemn all for the sake of some. Every man shall give an account of himself to God.

But you say, ¹Your protesting against some of their opinions, is not sufficient to discharge you​――Have you not prepared the way for these Moravians, by​――countenancing and commending them: and by still speaking of them as if they were in the main the best Christians in the world, and only deluded or mistaken in a few points?

I cannot speak of them otherwise than I think. And I still think 1. That God has some thousands in our own church, who have the faith and love which is among them, without those errors either of judgment or practice; 2. That next to these, the body of the Moravian church, however mistaken some of them are, are in the main, of all whom I have seen, the best Christians in the world.

5. Because I am continually charged with inconsistency herein, even by the Moravians themselves, it may be “needful to give a short account of what has occurred between us from the beginning.”

“¹My first acquaintance with the Moravian brethren began in my voyage to Georgia. Being then with many of them in the same ship, I narrowly observed their whole behaviour. And I greatly approved of all I saw.” (The particulars are related in the first journal.)

“From February 14, 1735, to December 2, 1737, being with them (except when I went to Frederica or Carolina) twice or thrice every day, I loved and esteemed them more and more. Yet a few things I could not approve of. These I mentioned to them from time to time, and then commended the cause to God.”

“In February following I met with Peter Bohler. My heart clave to him as soon as he spoke. And the more we conversed, so much the more did I esteem, both him and the Moravian church. So that I had no rest in my spirit, till I executed the design, which I had formed long before; till after a short stay in Holland, I hastened forward, first to Marienbourn, and then to Hernhuth.”

It may be observed, that I had before seen a few things in the Moravians which I could not approve of. In this journey I saw a few more, in the midst of many excellent things: in consequence whereof,

“In September 1738, soon after my return to England, I began the following letter to the Moravian church. But being fearful of trusting my own judgment, I determined, to wait yet a little longer, and so laid it by unfinished,”

---

“My Dear Brethren,

“I Cannot but rejoice in your stedfast faith, in your love to our blessed Redeemer, your deadness to the world, your meekness, temperance, chastity, and love of one another. I greatly approve of your conferences and ¹bands, of your methods of instructing children; and in general, of your great care of the souls committed to your charge.

“But of some other things I stand in doubt, which I will mention in love and meekness. And I wish that, in order to remove those doubts, you would, on each of those heads, first, plainly answer, whether the fact be as I suppose; and if so, secondly, consider, whether it be right?

“Is not the Count all in all among you?

“Do you not magnify your own church too much?

“Do you not use guile and dissimulation in many cases?

“Are you not of a close, dark, reserved temper and behaviour?”――

“It may easily be seen, that my objections then were nearly the same as now.” (Only with this difference; I was not then assured, that the facts were as I supposed.) “Yet I cannot say my affection was lessened at all, (for I did not dare to determine any thing.) But from November 1, I could not but see more and more things which I could not reconcile with the gospel.”

“These I have set down with all simplicity.​――Yet do I this, because I love them not? God knoweth: yea, and in part, I esteem them still: because I verily believe, they have a sincere desire to serve God; because many of them have tasted of his love, and some retain it in simplicity; because they love one another; because they have so much of the truth of the gospel, and so far abstain from outward sin. And lastly, because their discipline is, in most respects, so truly excellent: (notwithstanding that visible blemish, the paying too much regard, to their great patron and benefactor, Count Zinzendorf.)

“6. I believe if you coolly consider this account, you will not find, either that it is inconsistent with itself; or that ♦it lays you under any necessity of speaking in the following manner: ¹What charms there may be in a demure look, and a sour behaviour, I know not. But sure they must be in your eye very extraordinary, as they can be sufficient to cover such a multitude of errors and crimes, and keep up the same regard and affection for the authors and abettors of them. I doubt your regard for them was not lessened, till they began to interfere with what you thought your province.​――You was influenced, not by a just resentment to see the honour of religion and virtue so injuriously and scandalously trampled upon, but by a fear of losing your own authority.”

I doubt, there is scarce one line of all these, which is consistent either with truth or love. But I will transcribe a few more, before I answer. How could you so long and so intimately converse with, so much commend, and give such countenance to, such desperately wicked people, as the Moravians, according to your own account, were known by you to be?​――And you still speak of them, as if they were, in the main, the best Christians in the world.​――In one place you say, “A few things I could not approve of.” But in God’s name, Sir, is the contempt of almost the whole of our duty, of every Christian ordinance, to be so gently touched? Can detestation in such a case, be too strongly exprest? Either they are some of the vilest wretches in the world, or you are the falsest accuser in the world. Christian charity has scarce an allowance to make for them as you have described them. If you have done this truly, they ought to be discouraged, by all means that can be imagined.

7. Let us now weigh these assertions. They (i. e. the charms of their sour behaviour) must be in your eye very extraordinary.​――Do not you stumble at the threshold? The Moravians excel in sweetness of behaviour​――as they can be sufficient to cover such a multitude of errors and crimes​――Such a multitude of errors and crimes! I believe, as to errors, they hold universal salvation, and are partly Antinomians (in opinion), and partly Quietists. And for this cause I cannot join with them. But where is the multitude of errors? Whosoever knows 2 or 300 more, let him please to mention them.

Such a multitude of crimes too! That some of them have used guile, and are of a close, reserved behaviour, I know. And I excuse them not. But to this multitude of crimes I am an utter stranger. Let him prove this charge upon them who can. For me, I declare, I cannot.

To keep up the same regard and affection.​――Not so. I say, my affection was not lessened, till after September 1739, till I had proof of what I had feared before. But I had not the same degree of regard for them, when I saw the dark as well as the bright side of their character. I doubt your regard for them was not lessened, till they began to interfere with what you thought your province. If this were only a doubt, it were not much amiss; but it presently shoots up into an assertion: equally groundless; for my regard for them lessened, even while I was in Georgia. But it increased again, after my return from thence, especially while I was at Hernhuth. And it gradually lessened again for some years, as I saw more and more which I approved not. How then does it appear, that I was influenced herein, by a fear of losing my own authority? Not by a just resentment to see the honour of religion and virtue so scandalously trampled upon.​――Trampled upon! By whom? Not by the Moravians: I never saw any such thing among them.

* But what do you mean by a just resentment? I hope you do not mean, what is commonly called Zeal: a flame which often sets on fire the whole course of nature, and is in itself set on fire of hell!​――Rivers of water run from my eyes, because men keep not thy law. This resentment on such an occasion I understand. From all other may God deliver me!

8. You go on. How could you so long and so intimately converse with​――such desperately wicked people, as the Moravians, according to your own account, were known by you to be? O Sir, what another assertion is this? The Moravians, according to your own account, were known by you to be desperately wicked people, while you intimately conversed with them! Utterly false and injurious. I never gave any such account. I conversed intimately with them, both at Savannah and Hernhuth. But neither then, nor at any other time, did I know, or think, or say, they were desperately wicked people. I think and say, nay, you blame me for saying, just the reverse, viz. That though I soon “found among them a few things which I could not approve,” yet I believe they are in the main some of the best Christians in the world.

You surprize me yet more in going on thus: In God’s name, Sir, is the contempt of almost the whole of our duty, of every Christian ordinance, to be so very gently touched? Sir, this is not the case. This charge no more belongs to the Moravians, than that of murder. Some of our countrymen spoke very wicked things. The Moravians did not sufficiently disavow them. These are the ♦premises. By what art can you extort so dreadful a conclusion from them?

Can detestation, in such a case, be too strongly exprest?​――Indeed it can; even were the case as you suppose​――either they are some of the vilest wretches in the world, or you are the falsest accuser in the world​――neither one, nor the other; though I prove what I alledge, yet they may be, in the main, good men​――charity has scarce an allowance to make for them, as you have described them.​――I have described them, as of a mixt character, with much evil among them, but more good. Is it not a strange kind of charity, which cannot find an allowance, to make in such a case?​――If you have described them truly, they ought to be discouraged by all means that can be imagined​――By all means! I hope not by fire and faggot: though the house of mercy imagines these to be of all means most effectual.

9. You proceed. ¹How can you justify the many good things you say of the Moravians, notwithstanding this character?​――You say they love God.​――But how can this be, when they even plead against keeping most of his commandments?​――You say, you believe, they have a sincere desire to serve God.​――How then can they despise his service in so many instances?​――You declare some of them much holier than any people you had yet known. Strange! if they fail in so many prime points of Christian duty, and this not only habitually and presumptuously, but even to the denying their use and necessity. You praise them, for trampling under foot the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life.​――And yet you make them a close, reserved, insincere, deceitful people.

How you will explain those things, I know not.​――By nakedly declaring each thing as it is. They are, I believe, the most self-inconsistent people, now under the sun: and I describe them just as I find them, neither better nor worse, but leaving the good and bad together. Upon this ground I can very easily justify, the saying many good things of them, as well as bad. For instance, I am still persuaded, that they (many of them) love God: although many others of them ignorantly plead against the keeping, not most, but some of his commandments. I believe, they have a sincere desire to serve God. And yet, in several instances, some of them (I think) despise that manner of serving him, which I know God hath ordained. I believe some of them are much holier than any people I had known in August 1740. Yet sure I am, that others among them fail, not indeed in the prime points of Christian duty (for these are faith and the love of God and man) but in several points of no small importance. Not that they herein sin presumptuously neither; for they are fully (though erroneously) persuaded in their own minds. From the same persuasion they act, when they (in some sense) deny the use or necessity of those ordinances. How far that persuasion will justify or excuse them, I leave to him who knoweth their hearts. Lastly, I believe they trample under foot, in a good degree, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life. And yet many of them use reserve, yea guile. Therefore my soul mourns for them in secret places.

10. But I must observe, you say, that ¹you fall not only into inconsistencies, but into direct contradictions.​――You commend them for “loving one another, in a manner the world knoweth not of.” And yet you charge them with being “in the utmost confusion, biting and devouring one another.” You say, “They caution us against natural love of one another​――And had well-nigh destroyed brotherly love from among us.”

You praise them, for “using no diversions but such as become saints,” and for “not regarding outward adorning.” Yet you say, they “conform to the world in wearing gold and costly apparel: and by joining in worldly diversions, in order to do good.”

You call their discipline, “in most respects, truly excellent.” I wish you had more fully explained yourself​――I am sure, it is no sign of good discipline, to permit such abominations. And you tell them yourself, “I can shew you such a subordination, as answers all Christian purposes, and yet is as distant from that among you, as the heavens are from the earth.”

You mention it as a good effect of their discipline, that “every one knows and keeps his proper rank.” Soon after, as if it were ♦with a design to confute yourself, you say, “Our brethren have neither wisdom enough to guide, nor prudence enough to let it alone.”

And now, Sir​――how can you reconcile these opposite descriptions?​――Just as easily as those before, by simply declaring the thing as it is. You “¹commend them (the Moravians) for loving one another. And yet charge them with biting ²and devouring one another.” Them! whom? Not the Moravians; but the English brethren of Fetter-lane, before their union with the Moravians. Here then is no shadow of contradiction. For the two sentences do not relate to the same persons.

You say, ¹“They had well-nigh destroyed brotherly love from among us;” partly by “cautions ¹against natural love.” It is a melancholy truth; so they had. But we had then no connexion with them. Neither therefore does this contradict “their loving one another, in a manner the world knoweth not of.”

You praise them for ¹using no diversions but such as become saints: and yet say, (I recite the whole sentence) “²I have heard some of you affirm, that Christian salvation implies liberty to conform to the world, by joining in worldly diversions, in order to do good.”​――And both these are true. The Moravians, in general, “use no diversions but such as become saints:” and yet I have heard some of them affirm (in contradiction to their own practice) that “One then mentioned did well, when he joined in playing at tennis, in order to do good.”

11. You praise them for not “¹regarding outward adorning.”​――So I do, the bulk of the congregation​――And yet you say (I again recite the whole sentence) “I ²have heard some of you affirm, that Christian salvation implies liberty to conform to the world, by putting on of gold and costly apparel.” I have so. And I blame them the more, became they are condemned by the general practice of their own church.

You call their discipline “in most respects truly excellent.”¹ I could wish you had more fully explained yourself​――I have, in the second journal, from the 44th to the 82d page. It is no sign of good discipline, to permit such abominations, (i. e. error, in opinion, and guile, in practice:) true, it is not; nor is it any demonstration against it. For there may be good discipline even in a college of Jesuits.​――Another fault is, too great a deference to the Count. And yet, “in most respects, their discipline is truly excellent.”

You mention it as a good effect of their discipline, that “¹every one knows and keeps his proper rank.” Soon after, as it were with a design to confute yourself, you say, “Our brethren have neither wisdom enough to guide, nor prudence enough to let it alone.”² Pardon me, Sir. I have no design either to confute or to contradict myself in these words. The former sentence is spoken of the Moravian brethren: the latter, of the English brethren of Fetter-lane.

* 12. You need not therefore ¹imagine, that either the strong pretences or warm professions of the Moravians, or their agreeing with me in some favourite topicks (for my love to them was antecedent to any such agreement) induce me to overlook their iniquity, and to forgive their other crimes. No. I love them upon quite different grounds: even, because I believe (notwithstanding all their faults) they love the Lord Jesus in sincerity, and have a measure of the mind that was in him. And I am in great earnest when I declare once more, That I have a deep, abiding conviction, by how many degrees the good which is among them, overbalances the evil: That I cannot speak of them but with tender affection, were it only for the benefits I have received from them: and that at this hour, I desire union with them (were those stumbling-blocks once put away, which have hitherto made that desire ineffectual) above all things under heaven.

---

II. 1. Your second charge is, That I hold, in common with them, principles from which their errors naturally follow. You mean, justification by faith alone. To set things in the clearest light I can, I will, first, observe, what I hold, and what you object, and then enquire, what the consequences have been?

First, As to what I hold, my latest thoughts upon justification, are exprest in the following words:¹

“Justification sometimes means our acquittal at the last day. But this is out of the present question: that justification whereof our articles and homilies speak, meaning present pardon, and acceptance with God: who therein declares his righteousness and mercy, by or for the remission of the sins that are past.――

“I believe, the condition of this is faith: I mean not only, that without faith we cannot be justified; but also, that as soon as any one has true faith, in that moment he is justified.

“Good works follows this faith, but cannot go before it. Much less can sanctification, which implies a continued course of good works, springing from holiness of heart. But​――entire sanctification goes before our justification at the last day.

“It is allowed, that repentance and fruits meet for repentance, go before faith. Repentance absolutely must go before faith: fruits meet for it, if there be opportunity. By repentance I mean, conviction of sin, producing real desires and sincere resolutions of amendment: and by fruits meet for repentance, forgiving our brother, ceasing from evil, doing good, using the ordinances of God, and in general, obeying him according to the measure of grace which we have received. But these I cannot, as yet term good works; because they do not spring from faith and the love of God.”

2. “Faith in general is, a divine, supernatural ἔλεγχος (evidence or conviction) of things not seen, not discoverable by our bodily senses, as being either past, future, or spiritual. Justifying faith implies, not only a divine ἔλεγχος, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, but a sure trust and confidence, that Christ died for my sins, that he loved me, and gave himself for me. And the moment a penitent sinner thus believes, God pardons and absolves him.”

¹Now, it being allowed, that both inward and outward holiness are the stated conditions of final justification: what more can you desire, who have hitherto opposed justification by faith alone, merely upon a principle of conscience; because you was zealous for holiness and good works? Do I not effectually secure these from contempt, at the same time that I defend the doctrines of the church? I not only allow, but vehemently contend, that none shall ever enter into glory, who is not holy on earth, as well in heart, as in all manner of conversation. I cry aloud, Let all that have believed, be careful to maintain good works: and, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ, depart from all iniquity. I exhort even those who are conscious they do not believe, Cease to do evil, learn to do well. The kingdom of heaven is at hand; therefore, repent, and bring forth fruits meet for repentance. Are not these directions the very same, in substance, which you yourself would give to persons so circumstanced?――

3. “Many of those who are perhaps as zealous of good works as you, think I have allowed you too much​――Nay, my brethren, but how can we help allowing it, if we allow the scriptures to be from God? For is it not written, and do not you yourselves believe, Without holiness no man shall see the Lord? And how then, without fighting about words, can we deny, that holiness is a condition of final acceptance? And as to the first acceptance or pardon, does not all experience as well as scripture prove, that no man ever yet truly believed the gospel, who did not first repent.​――Repentance therefore we cannot deny, to be necessarily previous to faith. Is it not equally undeniable, that the running back into wilful, known sin (suppose it were drunkenness or uncleanness) stifles that repentance or conviction? And can that repentance come to any good issue in his soul, who resolves, not to forgive his brother? Or who obstinately refrains from what God convinces him is right, whether it be prayer or hearing his word? Would you scruple yourself to tell one of these​――Unto him that hath shall be given: but from him that hath not, i. e. uses it not, shall be taken even that which he hath. Would you scruple to say this?​――But in saying this, you allow all which I have said, viz. That previous to justifying faith, there must be repentance, and if opportunity permit, fruits meet for repentance.”

“And yet I allow you this, That although both repentance and the fruits thereof are in some sense necessary before justification, yet neither the one nor the other is necessary in the same sense, or in the same degree with faith; for in whatever moment a man believes, (in the Christian sense of the word) he is justified, his sins are blotted out, his faith is counted to him for righteousness. But it is not so, at whatever moment he repents, or brings forth any or all the fruits of repentance. Faith alone therefore justifies; which repentance alone does not; much less any outward work. And consequently, none of these are necessary to justification, in the same degree with faith.

“Nor in the same sense. For none of these has so direct, immediate a relation to justification as faith. This is proximately necessary thereto; repentance, remotely, as it is necessary to the increase or continuance of repentance. And even in this sense, these are only necessary on supposition​――if there be time and opportunity for them: for in many instances there is not; but God cuts short his work, and faith prevents the fruits of repentance. So that the general proposition is not overthrown, but clearly established by these concessions; and we conclude still​――That faith alone is the proximate condition of justification.”

* 4. This is what I hold concerning justification. I am next, briefly to observe what you object. ¹If faith, say you, is the sole condition of justification, then it is our sole duty. I deny the consequence. Faith may be (in the sense above described) the sole condition of justification, and yet not only repentance be our duty before, but all obedience after we believe.

* You go on. If ¹good works are not conditions of our justification, they are not conditions of our (final) salvation. I deny the consequence again. Good works (properly so called) cannot be the conditions of justification: because it is impossible to do any good work, before we are justified. And yet notwithstanding, good works may be (and are) conditions of final salvation. For who will say it is impossible to do any good work, before we are finally saved?

You proceed. ¹Can we be saved, in the contemptuous neglect of repentance, prayer, &c.? No: nor justified neither; but while they are previous to faith, these are not allowed to be good works.

You afterwards argue from my own concessions, thus.​――¹Your notion of true stillness is, “A patient waiting upon God, by lowliness, meekness, resignation, in all the ways of his holy law, and the works of his commandments.​――But how is it possible to reconcile to this the position, that these duties are not conditions of our justification? If we are justified without them, we may be saved without them.​――This consequence cannot be too often repeated.”

Let it be repeated ever so often, it is good for nothing. For, far other qualifications are required, in order to our standing before God in glory, than were required in order to his giving us faith and pardon. In order to this, nothing is indispensably required, but repentance, or conviction of sin. But in order to the other it is indispensably required, that we be fully cleansed from all sin: that the very God of peace sanctify us wholly, even to τὸ ὁλέκληρον ἡμῶν, our entire body, soul, and spirit. It is not necessary therefore (nor indeed possible) that we should before justification, patiently wait upon God, by lowliness, meekness, and resignation, in all the ways of his holy law. And yet it is necessary in the highest degree, that we should thus wait upon him after justification. Otherwise, how shall we be meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light?

5. ¹Soon after you add, In the passages last cited, you plead for the necessity of a good life. But in others, the force of your principles shews itself.​――An answer approved by you is, “My heart is desperately wicked. But I have no doubt or fear. I know my Saviour loves me and I love him.”​――Both these particulars are impossible, if the scripture be true.

You amaze me! Is it possible you should be ignorant, that your own heart is desperately wicked? Yet I dare not say, either that God does not love you; or that you do not love him.

¹Again, You say “you described the state of those who have forgiveness of sins, but not a clean heart”; (not in the full, proper sense) Very true: but even then, they had power over both inward and outward corruptions: far from being, as you suppose, still wedded to their vices, and resolved to continue in them.

¹In another place, after having observed, that “Sin does remain in one that is justified, though it has not dominion over him,” you go on, “But fear not, though you have an evil heart; yet a little while and you shall be endued with power from on high, whereby ye may purify yourselves, even as he is pure.”​――Sinners, if they believe this, may be quite secure, and imagine they have nothing to fear, though they continue in their iniquities.​――For God’s sake, Sir, speak out.​――If they that have an evil heart have not, who has reason to fear?​――All who have not dominion over sin: all who continue in their iniquities. You, for one, if any sin has dominion over you. If so, I testify against you this day, (and you will not be quite secure, if you believe me.) The wrath of God abideth on you!

¹What do you mean by “Sin remains in one that is justified?” That he is guilty of any known, wilful, habitual sin?​――Judge by what has gone before​――I mean the same as our church means, by “Sin remains in the regenerate.”

6. You proceed to another passage, which in the journal stands thus:¹

“After we had wandered many years, in the new path of salvation by faith and works, about two years ago it pleased God, to shew us the old way of salvation by faith only. And many soon tasted of this salvation, being justified freely, having peace with God, rejoicing in hope of the glory of God, and having his love shed abroad in their hearts.” Thus I define what I mean by this salvation, viz. righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

But you object, ¹Here you deny the necessity of good works, in order to salvation​――I deny the necessity, nay possibility, of good works as previous to this salvation; as previous to faith or those fruits of faith, righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. This is my real sentiment, not a slip of my pen, neither any proof of my want of accuracy.

7. ¹I shall now, you say, consider the account you give in this journal, of the doctrine of justification.

I will recite the whole, just as it stands, together with the occasion of it.

“In ¹the afternoon I was informed, how many who cannot, in terms, deny it​――explain justification by faith. They say 1. Justification is two-fold; the first, in this life, the second, at the last day. 2. Both these are by faith alone, that is, by objective faith, or by the merits of Christ which are the object of our faith. And this, they say, is all that St. Paul and the church mean by, We are justified by faith only. But they add, 3. We are not justified by subjective faith alone, that is, by the faith which is in us. But good works also must be added to this faith, as a joint condition both of the first and second justification.

“In flat opposition to this, I cannot but maintain (at least till I have clearer light) 1. That the justification which is spoken of by St. Paul to the Romans, and in our articles, is not two-fold. It is one and no more. It is the present remission of our sins, or our first acceptance with God. 2. It is true, that the merits of Christ are the sole cause of this our justification. But it is not true, that this is all which St. Paul and our church mean, by our being justified by faith only: neither is it true, that either St. Paul or the church mean by faith, the merits of Christ. But 3. By our being justified by faith only, both St. Paul and the church mean, that the condition of our justification, is faith alone, and not good works: inasmuch as all works done before justification, have in them the nature of sin. Lastly, That faith which is the sole condition of justification, is the faith which is wrought in us, by the grace of God. It is a sure trust which a man hath, that Christ hath loved him and died for him.”

8. To the first of these propositions you object, “That ¹justification is not only two-fold, but manifold. For a man may possibly sin many times, and as many times be justified or forgiven.”

I grant it. I grant also, that justification some times means, a state of acceptance with God. But all this, does not in the least affect my assertion, that “that justification which is spoken of by St. Paul to the Romans, and by our church in the 11th, 12th, and 13th articles, is not our acquittal at the last day, but the present remission of our sins.”

You add, ¹You write in other places so variously about this matter, that I despair to find any consistency. Once you held “a degree of justifying faith, short of the full assurance of faith, the abiding witness of the Spirit, or the clear perception that Christ abideth in him.”​――And yet you afterwards “warned all, not to think they were justified before they had a clear assurance, That God had forgiven their sins.”​――What difference there is between this clear assurance, and the former full assurance and clear perception, I know not.

Let us go on step by step, and you will know. Once you held a “Degree of justifying faith, short of the full assurance of faith, the abiding witness of the Spirit, or the clear perception that Christ abideth in him.” And so I hold still, and have done for some years. And yet you afterwards warned all, not to think they were justified, before they had a clear assurance that God had forgiven their sins​――I did so​――What difference there is between this clear assurance, and that full assurance and clear perception, I know not​――Sir, I will tell you. The one is, an assurance that my sins are forgiven, clear at first, but soon clouded with doubt or fear. The other is, such a plerophory, or full assurance, that I am forgiven, and so clear a perception, that Christ abideth in me, as utterly excludes all doubt and fear, and leaves them no place, no not for an hour. So that the difference between them is as great as the difference between the light of the morning and that of the mid-day sun.

9. On the second proposition you remark, 1. That ¹I ought to have said, the merits of Christ, are (not the sole cause, but) the sole meritorious cause of this our justification. 2. That St. Paul and the church, by justifying faith mean, faith in the gospel and merits of Christ. The very thing; so I contend, in flat opposition to those, who say they mean, only the object of this faith.

Upon the third proposition, “By our being justified by faith only, both St. Paul and the church mean, that the condition of our justification, is faith alone and not good works:” You say, ¹Neither of them mean any such thing. You greatly wrong them, in ascribing so mischievous a sentiment to them. Let me beg you, Sir, to have patience, and calmly to consider, 1. What I mean by this proposition. Why should you any longer run as uncertainly, and fight as one that beateth the air? 2. What is advanced touching the sentiments of the church, in the tract referred to above. Till you have done this, it would be mere loss of time to dispute with you on this head.

I wave therefore, for the present, the consideration of some of your following pages. Only I cannot quite pass over that (I believe, new) assertion, ¹That the 13th article, intitled,

“Of Works done before justification”

does not speak of works done before justification, but of works before grace, which is a very different thing! I beseech you, Sir, to consider the 11th, 12th, and 13th articles, just as they lie, in one view. And you cannot but see, that it is as absolutely impossible to maintain that proposition, as it is to prove, that the 11th and 12th articles speak not of justification, but of some very different thing.

10. Against that part of the 4th proposition, “faith is a sure trust which a man hath, that Christ loved him and died for him:” you object, ¹This definition is absurd; as it supposes that such a sure trust can be in one who does not repent of his sins.​――I suppose quite the contrary, as I have declared over and over: nor therefore is there any such danger as you apprehend.

But you say, ¹There is nothing distinguishing enough in this, to point out the true justifying faith. I grant it: supposing a man were to write a book, and say this of it, and no more. But did you ever see any treatise of mine, wherein I said this of faith, and no more? Nothing whereby to distinguish true faith from false? Touching this journal, your own quotations prove the contrary. Yea, and I every where insist, that we are to distinguish them by their fruits, by inward and outward righteousness, by the peace of God filling and ruling the heart, and by patient, active joy in the Holy Ghost.

You conclude this point; ¹I have now, Sir, examined at large your account of justification; and I hope fully refuted the several articles in which you have comprized it.​――We differ in our judgment. I do not apprehend, you have refuted any one proposition of the four. You have indeed amended the second, by adding the word meritorious; for which I give you thanks.

11. You next give what you stile ¹The Christian scheme of justification, and afterwards point out the consequences, which you apprehend to have attended the preaching justification by faith: the third point into which I was to inquire.

You open the cause thus: ¹The denying the necessity of good works, as the condition of justification, directly draws after it, or rather includes in it, all manner of impiety and vice​――It has often perplexed and disturbed the minds of men, and in the last century occasioned great confusions in this nation​――These are points which are ever liable to misconstructions, and have ever yet been more or less attended with them. And it appears from what you have lately published, that since you have preached the doctrine, it has had its old consequences, or rather worse ones: it has been more misunderstood, more perverted and abused than ever.

The denying the necessity of good works, as the condition of justification, draws after it, or rather includes in it, all manner of impiety and vice. Here stands the proposition: but where is the proof? Till that appears, I simply say, It does not.

It has often perplexed and disturbed the minds of men. And so have many other points in St. Paul’s epistles.

But these are points which are ever liable to misconstructions, and have ever yet, more or less, been attended with them​――And what points of revealed religion are those, which are not ever liable to misconstructions? Or of what material point can we say, that it has not ever yet, more or less, been attended with them?

In the last century it occasioned great confusions in this nation​――It occasioned! No; in no wise. It is demonstrable, the occasions of those confusions were quite of another kind.

And it appears​――That since you have preached the doctrine, it has had its old consequences, or rather worse. It has been more misunderstood, more perverted and abused than ever​――What! Worse consequences than regicide, (which you say, was the old one) and making our whole land a field of blood? Or has it been more perverted and abused, than when (in your account) it overturned the whole frame both of church and state?

12. You go on. ¹The terms of the gospel are, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.​――But when we undervalue either of these terms, we involve the consciences of the weak in fatal perplexities; we give a handle to others to justify their impieties; we confirm the enemies of religion in their prejudices.

All this I grant. But it affects not me. For I do not undervalue either faith or repentance.

¹Was not irreligion and vice already prevailing enough in the nation, but we must​――throw snares in people’s way, and root out the remains of piety and devotion, in the weak and well-meaning? That this has been the case, your own confessions put beyond all doubt. And you even now hold and teach the principles, from which these dangerous consequences do plainly and directly follow.

Was not irreligion and vice already prevailing enough (whether I have increased them, we will consider by and by)​――but we must throw snares in people’s way​――God forbid! My whole life is employed in taking those snares out of people’s way, which the world and the devil have thrown there​――And root out the remains of piety and devotion in the weak and well-meaning? Of whom speaketh the prophet this? Of himself? Or of some other man?​――Your own confessions put this beyond all doubt​――What? That I root out the remains of piety and devotion? Not so. The sum of them all (recited above) amounts to this and no more: “That while my brother and I were absent from London, many weak men were tainted with wrong opinions: most of whom we recovered at our return: but even those who continued therein, did notwithstanding continue to live a holier life, than ever they did before they heard us preach.”​――And you even now hold the principles from which these dangerous consequences do plainly and directly follow​――But I know not where to find these consequences​――Unless it be in your title-page: there indeed I read of the very fatal tendency of justification by faith only, the divisions and perplexities of the Methodists, and the many errors relating both to faith and practice, which (as you conceive) have already arisen among these deluded people.

However ¹you charitably believe, I was not aware of these consequences at first. No, nor am I yet: though ’tis strange I should not, if they so naturally succeed that doctrine. I will go a step farther. I do not know, neither believe, that they ever did succeed that doctrine: unless perhaps accidentally; as they might have succeeded any doctrine whatsoever. And till the contrary is proved, those consequences cannot shew, that these principles are not true.

13. Another consequence which you charge on my preaching justification by faith, is, the introducing the errors of the Moravians. ¹Had the people, say you, gone on in a quiet and regular practice of their duty, as most of them did before you deluded them, it would have been impossible for the Moravian tenets to have prevailed among them.​――But when they had been long and often used to hear good works undervalued​――I cannot wonder​――that they should plunge into new errors​――and wax worse and worse.

This is one string of mistakes. Had the people gone on in a quiet and regular practice of their duty, as most of them did before you deluded them​――Deluded them! Into what? Into the love of God and all mankind, and a zealous care to keep his commandments. I would to God this delusion (if such it is accounted) may spread to the four corners of the earth! But how did most of them go on, before they were thus deluded? Four in five, by a moderate computation, even as other baptized Heathens; in the works of the devil, in all the ♦wretchlesness of unclean living​――In a quiet and regular practice of their duty!​――What duty? The duty of cursing and swearing? The duty of gluttony and drunkenness? The duty of whoredom and adultery? Or of beating one another, and any that came in their way? In this, (not very quiet or regular) practice, did most of those go on before they heard us, who have now put off the old man with his deeds, and are holy in all manner of conversation.

Have these, think you, been long and often used to hear good works undervalued? Or, are they prepared for receiving the Moravian errors, by the knowledge and love of God? O Sir, the Moravians know, if you do not, that there is no such barrier under heaven against their tenets, as those very people, whom you suppose just prepared for receiving them.

But complaints (you say) of their errors, come very ill from you, because you have occasioned them. Nay, if it were so, for that very cause they ought to come from me. If I had occasioned an evil, surely I am the very person, who ought to remove it as far as I can: to recover, if possible, those who are hurt already, and to caution others against it.

14. On some of those complaints (as you term them) you remark as follows: ¹“Many of those who once knew in whom they had believed (these are my words) were thrown into idle reasonings, and thereby filled with doubts and fears.” This, you add, it is ♦to be feared, has been too much the case of the Methodists in general.​――Accordingly we find in this journal, several instances not barely of doubts and fears, but of the most desperate despair. This is the consequence of resting so much on sensible impressions.​――Bad men may be led into presumption thereby: an instance of which you give, page 66.

That instance will come in our way again. Many of those who once knew in whom they had believed, were thrown (by the Antinomians) into idle reasonings, and thereby filled with doubts and fears. This, you fear, has been the case with the Methodists in general. You must mean (to make it a parallel case) “That the generality of the people, now termed Methodists, were true believers till they heard us preach; but were thereby thrown into idle reasonings, and filled with needless doubts and fears.” Exactly contrary to truth in every particular. For 1. They lived in open sins till they heard us preach, and consequently were no better believers than their father, the devil. 2. They were not then thrown into idle reasonings, but into serious thought, how to flee from the wrath to come. Nor 3. were they filled with needless doubts and fears; but with such as were needful in the highest degree: such as actually issued in repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Accordingly we find in this journal several instances, of the most desperate despair: page 24. 36. 63.

Then I am greatly mistaken. But I will set down at length the several instances you refer to.

Page 24. “I was a little surprised in going out of the room, at one who catched hold of me, and said abruptly, ‘I must speak with you and will. I have sinned against light and against love.’ (N. B. She was soon after, if not at that very time, a common prostitute) ‘I have sinned beyond forgiveness. I have been cursing you in my heart, and blaspheming God, ever since I came here. I am damned. I know it. I feel it. I am in hell. I have hell in my heart.’ I desired two or three who had confidence in God, to join in crying to him on her behalf. Immediately that horrible dread was taken away, and she began to see some dawnings of hope.”

Page 38. “The attention of all was soon fixed, on poor L―― S――. One so violently and variously torn of the evil one, did I never see before. Sometimes, she laughed till almost strangled; and then broke out into cursing and blaspheming; then stamped and struggled with incredible strength, so that four or five could scarce hold her: then cried out, ‘O eternity! eternity! O that I had no soul! O that I had never been born!’ At last she faintly called on Christ to help her. And the violence of her pangs ceased.”

(It should be remembered, that from that time to this, her conversation has been as becometh the gospel.)

Page 63. Thursday, December 25. “I met with such a case as I do not remember either to have known or heard of before. L―― S―― (the same person) after many years of mourning (long before she heard of us) was filled with peace and joy in believing. In the midst of this, without any discernable cause, such a cloud suddenly overwhelmed her, that she could not believe her sins were ever forgiven at all, nor that there was any such thing as forgiveness of sins. She could not believe, that the scriptures were true, that there was any heaven, or hell, or angel, or spirit, or any God. One more I have since found in the same state. (But observe, neither of these continued therein: nor did I ever know one that did.) So sure it is, that all faith is the gift of God, which the moment he withdraws, the evil heart of unbelief will poison the whole soul.”

Which of these is an instance of the most desperate despair? Surely the most desperate of any, yea, the only one which is properly said to be desperate at all, is that which produces instant self-murder: which causes a poor wretch, by a sin which he cannot repent of, to rush strait through death into hell. But that was not the case in any of these instances; in all which we have already seen the end of the Lord.

15. That I raise separate ¹societies against the church, is a charge which I need not examine till the evidence is produced. You next cite a Moravian’s words to me (an Englishman joined with the Moravians) You have eyes full of adultery, and cannot cease from sin; you take upon you to guide unstable souls, and lead them in the way of damnation: and remark, This is only returning some of your own treatment upon yourself. Here also you set the pattern. At what time and place? When and where were such abuses as these thrown out by me, against our universities, and against our regular clergy, not the highest or the worthiest excepted? I am altogether clear in this matter, as often as it has been objected: neither do I desire to receive any other treatment from the clergy, than they have received from me to this day.

You have a note at the bottom of this page which runs thus: see page 71, 77, and 73, where some Methodists said, they had heard both your brother and you many times preach popery.

I am afraid, you advance here a wilful untruth, purely ad movendam invidiam. For you cannot but know, 1. That there is not one word of preaching popery, either in the 71st or 77th page: and, 2. That when Mr. C. and two other predestinarians (as is related, page 73) affirmed, They had heard both my brother and me many times preach popery, they meant neither more nor less thereby, than the doctrine of universal redemption.

16. You proceed, ¹Kingswood you call your own house. And when one Mr. C. opposed you there, you reply to him, “You should not have supplanted me in my own house, stealing the hearts of the people”​――The parochial clergy may call their several districts their own houses, with much more propriety than you could call Kingswood yours. And yet how have you supplanted them therein, and laboured to steal the hearts of the people​――You have suffered by the same ways you took to discharge your spleen and malice against your brethren.

Your brother’s words to Mr. C. are​――“Whether his doctrine is true or false is not the question. But you ought first to have fairly told him, ‘I preach contrary to you. Are you willing notwithstanding, that I should continue in your house, gain-saying you?’ Shall I stay here opposing you, or shall I depart?​――Think you hear this spoken to you by us――What can you justly reply?​――Again, if Mr. C. had said thus to you, and you had refused him leave to stay; I ask you, whether in such a case he would have had reason to resent such a refusal? I think you cannot say he would. And yet how loudly have you objected our refusing our pulpits to you!

So you judge these to be exactly parallel cases. It lies therefore upon me to shew, that they are not parallel at all: that there is, in many respects, an essential difference between them.

1. Kingswood you call your own house. So I do, that is, the school-house there. For I bought the ground where it stands, and paid for the building it, partly from the contribution of my friends (one of whom contributed fifty pounds) partly from the income of my own fellowship. No clergyman therefore can call his parish his own house, with more propriety than I can call this house mine.

2. Mr. C. opposed you there. True: but who was Mr. C.? One I had sent for, to assist me there; a friend that was as my own soul; that even while he opposed me, lay in my bosom. What resemblance then does Mr. C. thus opposing me bear, to me opposing (if I really did) a parochial minister?

3. You said to Mr. C. “You should not have supplanted me in my own house, stealing the hearts of the people. Yet you have supplanted the clergy in their own houses”​――What in the same manner as Mr. C. did me? Have I done to any of them, as he has done to me? You may as justly say, I have cut their throats!――Stealing the hearts of their people​――Nor are these their people in the same sense wherein those were mine, viz. Servants of the devil brought through my ministry, to be servants and children of God.​――You have suffered by the same ways you took to discharge your spleen and malice against your brethren​――To discharge your spleen and malice! Say, your muskets and blunderbusses. I have just as much to do with one as the other.

4. Your brother said to Mr. C. “You ought to have told my brother fairly, I preach contrary to you. Are you willing I should continue in your house, gain-saying you? Shall I stay here opposing you, or shall I depart?” Think you hear this spoken to you by us​――What can you justly reply?​――I can justly reply, “Sir, Mr. C.’s case totally differs from your’s. Therefore it makes absolutely nothing to your purpose.”

17. A farther consequence (you think) of my preaching this doctrine, is the ¹introducing that of absolute predestination. And whenever these errors, say you, gain ground, there can be no wonder, that confusion, presumption and despair, many very shocking instances of all which you give us among your followers, should be the consequences.​――You should by all means have specified a few of those instances, or at least, the pages where they occur. Till this is done, I can look upon this assertion, as no other than a flourish of your pen.

To conclude this head. You roundly affirm once for all, ¹The grossest corruptions have ever followed the spreading of this tenet. The greatest heats and animosities have been raised thereby. The widest errors have been thus occasioned. And in proportion to its getting ground, it has never failed​――to perplex the weak, to harden the wicked, and to please the prophane. Your journal is a proof, that these terrible consequences have of late prevailed, perhaps more than ever.​――Suppose that journal gives a true account of facts (which you seem not to deny) could you find there no other fruits of my preaching, than these terrible ones you here mention!

“O who so blind, as he that will not see?”

18. But that we may not still talk at large, let us bring this question, into as narrow a compass as possible. Let us go no farther, as to time, than seven years last past; as to place, than London and the parts adjoining: as to persons, than you and me, Thomas Church preaching one doctrine, John Wesley the other. Now then let us consider with meekness and fear, what have been the consequences of each doctrine?

* You have preached justification by faith and works, at Battersea and St. Ann’s, Westminster; while I preached justification by faith alone, near Moorfields, and at Short’s Gardens. I beseech you then to consider, in the secret of your heart, how many sinners have you converted to God? By their fruits we shall know them. This is a plain rule. By this test let them be tried. How many outwardly and habitually wicked men, have you brought to uniform habits of outward holiness? ’Tis an awful thought! Can you instance in a hundred? In fifty? In twenty? In ten?​――If not, take heed unto yourself and to your doctrine. It cannot be, that both are right before God.

* Consider now (I would not speak; but I dare not refrain) what have been the consequences of even my preaching the other doctrine? By the fruits shall we know those of whom I speak: even the cloud of witnesses, who at this hour experience the gospel I preach, to be the power of God unto salvation. The habitual drunkard, that was, is now temperate in all things. The whoremonger, now flees fornication. He that stole, steals no more, but works with his hands. He that cursed or swore, perhaps at every sentence, has now learned to serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice unto him with reverence. Those formerly inslaved to various habits of sin, are now brought to uniform habits of holiness. These are demonstrable facts. I can name the men, with their several places of abode. One of them was an avowed Atheist for many years; some were Jews; a considerable number Papists: the greatest part of them as much strangers to the form, as to the power of godliness.

When you have weighed these things touching the consequences of my preaching, on the one hand, (somewhat different from those set down in your remarks) and of your preaching on the other, I would earnestly recommend the following words to your deepest consideration: Beware of false prophets; ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree (every true prophet or teacher) bringeth forth good fruit​――Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, is hewn down and cast into the fire?¹

---

III. 1. Having spoken more largely than I designed, on the principle I hold in common with the Moravians, I shall touch very briefly on ¹those errors (so called) which, you say, I hold, more than theirs.

“You name, as the first, my holding, ‘that a ¹man may have a degree of justifying faith, before he has, in the full, proper sense, a new, a clean heart’.”

I have so often explained this, that I cannot throw away time in adding any more now: only this, That the moment a sinner is justified, his heart is cleansed in a low degree. But yet he has not a clean heart, in the full, proper sense, till he is made perfect in love.

2. Another error you mention, is this ¹doctrine of perfection. To save you from a continued ignoratio elenchi, I wave disputing on this point also, till you are better acquainted with my real sentiments. I have declared them on that head again and again; particularly in the sermon on Christian Perfection.

3. Into this fallacy you plunge from the beginning to the end of what you speak on my third error (so you term it) relating to the Lord’s supper; confuting, as mine, ¹notions which I know not. I cannot think any farther answer is needful here, than the bare recital of my own words.

¹“Friday, June 27. I preached on, Do this in remembrance of me.――

“It has been diligently taught among us, that none but those who are converted, who have received the Holy Ghost, who are believers in the full sense, ought to communicate.

“But experience shews the gross falshood of that assertion, That the Lord’s supper is not a converting ordinance. Ye are witnesses. For many now present know, the very beginning of your conversion to God, (perhaps, in some the first deep conviction) was ♦wrought at the Lord’s supper. Now one single instance of this kind, overthrows that whole assertion.

“The falshood of the other assertion appears both from scripture​――precept and example. Our Lord commanded those very men who were then unconverted, who had not yet received the Holy Ghost, who (in the full sense of the word) were not believers, to do this in remembrance of him. Here the precept is clear. And to these he delivered the elements with his own hands. Here is example equally indisputable.

“Saturday 28. I shewed at large, 1. That the Lord’s supper was ordained by God, to be a means of conveying to men, either preventing, or justifying, or sanctifying grace, according to their several necessities. 2. That the persons for whom it was ordained, are all those who know and feel that they want the grace of God, either to restrain them from sin, or to shew their sins forgiven, or to renew their souls in the image of God. 3. That inasmuch as we come to his table, not to give him any thing, but to receive whatsoever he sees best for us, there is no previous preparation indispensably necessary; but a desire to receive whatsoever he pleases to give. And 4. That no fitness is required at the time of communicating, but a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness: every one who knows he is fit for hell, being just fit to come to Christ, in this as well as all other ways of his appointment.”

4. ¹A stoical insensibility, you add, is the next error I have to charge you with. You say, “The servants of God suffer nothing,” and suppose, that we ought to be here so free, as in the strongest pain, not once to desire to have a moment’s ease.

At the end of one of your hymns, you seem to carry this notion to the very height of extravagance and presumption. You say,

A stoical insensibility is the next error I have to charge you with​――And how do you support the charge? Why thus​――You say ¹“The servants of God suffer nothing.” And can you possibly misunderstand these words, if you read those that immediately follow? “His body was well nigh torn asunder with pain. But God made all his bed in his sickness. So that he was continually giving thanks to God, and making his boast of his praise.”

You suppose, we ought to be so free, as in the strongest pain, not once to desire to have a moment’s ease​――O Sir, with what eyes did you read those words?

¹“I dined with one who told me in all simplicity, Sir, I thought last week, there could be no such rest as you describe; none in this world, wherein we should be so free, as not to desire ease in pain. But God has taught me better: for on Friday and Saturday, when I was in the strongest pain, I never once had one moment’s desire of ease, but only that the will of God might be done.” Do I say here, that we ought not, in the strongest pain, once to desire to have a moment’s ease?​――What a frightful distortion of my words is this? What I say is, “A serious person affirmed to me, that God kept her for two days in such a state.” And why not? Where is the absurdity?

At the end of one of your hymns, you seem to carry this notion, to the very height of extravagancy and presumption. You say,

“If thou canst”​――i. e. If thou canst deny thyself, if thou canst forget to be gracious, if thou canst cease to be truth and love. So the lines both preceding and following fix the sense. I see nothing of stoical insensibility, neither of extravagancy or presumption in this.

5. Your last charge is, that I am guilty of enthusiasm to the highest degree. ¹Enthusiasm (you say) is a false persuasion of an extraordinary divine assistance, which leads men on to such conduct as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance​――An enthusiast is then sincere, but mistaken. His intentions are good​――but his actions most abominable. Instead of making the word of God the rule of his actions, he follows only that secret impulse which is owing to a warm imagination​――Instead of judging of his spiritual estate by the improvement of his heart, he rests only on extacies, &c. He is very liable to err, as not considering things coolly and carefully. He is very difficult to be convinced, by reason and argument, as he acts upon a supposed principle superior to it, the directions of God’s Spirit. Whoever opposes him is charged with ♦resisting the Spirit. His own dreams must be regarded as oracles.​――Whatever he does, is to be accounted the work of God. Hence he talks in the stile of inspired persons: and applies scripture phrases to himself, without attending to their original meaning, or once considering the difference of times and circumstances.

You have drawn, Sir, (in the main) a true picture of an enthusiast. But it is no more like me, than I am like a centaur. Yet you say they are these very things which have been charged upon you, and which you could never yet disprove: I will try for once; and to that end, will go over these articles, one by one.

Enthusiasm is, a false persuasion of an extraordinary divine assistance, which leads men on to such conduct as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance​――Before this touches me, you are to prove (which I conceive you have not done yet) that my conduct is such, as is only to be justified by the supposition of an extraordinary divine assistance. An enthusiast is then sincere, but mistaken, that I am mistaken remains also to be proved​――His intentions are good; but his actions most abominable. Sometimes they are; yet not always. For there may be innocent madmen. But what actions of mine are most abominable? I wait to learn. Instead of making the word of God the rule of his actions, he follows only his secret impulse.​――In the whole compass of language, there is not a proposition which less belongs to me than this. I have declared again and again, that I make the word of God the rule of all my actions: and that I no more follow any secret impulse instead thereof, than I follow Mahomet or Confucius.

Instead of judging of his spiritual estate by the improvement of his heart, he rests only on extacies​――Neither is this my case. I rest not on them at all. Nor did I ever experience any. I do judge of my spiritual estate by the improvement of my heart and the tenor of my life conjointly. He is very liable to err​――So indeed I am. I find it every day more and more. But I do not yet find, that this is owing to my want of considering things coolly and carefully. Perhaps you do not know many persons (excuse my simplicity in speaking it) who more carefully consider every step they take. Yet I know I am not cool or careful enough. ♦May God supply this and all my wants! He is very difficult to be convinced, by reason and argument, as he acts upon a supposed principle superior to it, the direction of God’s Spirit.​――I am very difficult to be convinced, by dry blows or hard names; (both of which I have not wanted:) but not, by reason and argument. At least that difficulty cannot spring from the cause you mention. For I claim no other direction of God’s Spirit, than is common to all believers. Whoever opposes him is charged with ♠resisting the Spirit.​――What! whoever opposes me, John Wesley? Do I charge every such person with rejecting the Spirit? No more than I charge him with robbing on the highway. I cite you yourself, to confute your own words. For do I charge you with rejecting the Spirit? His own dreams must be regarded as oracles.​――Whose? I desire neither my dreams nor my waking thoughts, may be regarded at all, unless just so far as they agree with the oracles of God. Whatever he does is to be accounted the works of God.​――You strike quite wide of me still. I never said so of what I do. I never thought so. Yet I trust what I do is pleasing to God. Hence he talks in the stile of inspired persons.​――No otherwise inspired, than you are, if you love God. And applies scripture phrases to himself, without attending to their original meaning, or once considering the difference of times and circumstances. I am not conscious of any thing like this. I apply no scripture phrase either to myself or any other, without carefully considering both ♣the original meaning, and the secondary sense, wherein (allowing for different times and circumstances) it may be applied to ordinary Christians.

6. So much for the bulk of your charge. But it concerns me likewise, to gather up the fragments of it. You say, ¹We desire no more, than to try your sentiments and proceedings, by the written word. Agreed. Begin when and where you please. We find there good works as strongly insisted on as faith.​――I do as strongly insist on them as on faith. But each in its own order. We find all railing, &c. condemned therein.​――True; and so you may in all I write or preach. We are assured, that the doing what God commands, is the sure way of knowing, that we have received his Spirit.​――We have doubtless received it, if we love God (as he commands) with all our heart, mind, soul and strength: And not by any sensible impulses or feelings whatsoever.​――Any sensible impulses whatsoever? Do you then exclude all sensible impulses? Do you reject inward feelings toto genere? Then you reject both the love of God and of our neighbour. For if these cannot be inwardly felt, nothing can. You reject all joy in the Holy Ghost. For if we cannot be sensible of this, it is no joy at all. You reject the peace of God, which if it be not felt in the inmost soul, is a dream, a notion, an empty name. You therefore reject the whole inward kingdom of God, that is, in effect, the whole gospel of Jesus Christ.

You have therefore yourself abundantly shewn (what I do not insinuate, but proclaim on the house-top) that I am charged with enthusiasm, for asserting the power (as well as the form) of godliness.

7. You go on ¹The character of the Enthusiast above drawn, will fit, I believe, all such of the Methodists as can be thought sincere.​――I believe not. I have tried it on one, and it fitted him, just as Saul’s armour did David. However, a few instances of enthusiasm, you undertake to shew in this very journal.

And first, You give us one (these are your words) of a private revelation, which you seem to pay great credit to. You partly relate this, and then remark, What enthusiasm is here? To represent the conjectures of a woman, whose brain appears to have been too much heated, as if they had been owing to a particular and miraculous spirit of prophecy?​――Descant, Sir, as you please on this enthusiasm; on the credit I paid to this private revelation; and my representing the conjectures of this brain-sick woman, as owing to the miraculous power of the Spirit of God. And when you have done I will desire you to read that passage once more, where you will find my express words are (introducing this account) “Sunday, 11. ¹I met with a surprizing instance, of the power of the devil.” Such was the credit I paid to this revelation! All which I ascribe to the Spirit of God is, the enabling her to strive against the power of the devil, and at length restoring peace to her soul.

8. As a second instance of enthusiasm, you cite those words, “¹I expounded out of the fulness which was given me.” The whole sentence is, “Out of the fulness that was given me, I expounded those words of St. Paul (indeed of every true believer) To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” I mean, I had than a fuller, deeper sense of that great truth, than I ordinarily have. And I still think it right, to ascribe this, not to myself, but to the giver of every good and perfect gift.

You relate what follows as a third ¹very extraordinary instance of enthusiasm. “Tuesday, ²February 17. I left London. In the afternoon I reached Oxford, and leaving my horse there (for he was tired, and the horse-road exceeding bad, and my business admitted of no delay) set out on foot for Stanton-harcourt. The night overtook me in about an hour, accompanied with heavy rain. Being wet and weary, and not well knowing my way, I could not help saying in my heart, (tho’ ashamed of my want of resignation to God’s will) O that thou would’st stay the bottles of heaven! Or at least, give me light or an honest guide! Or some help, in the manner thou knowest; presently the rain ceased: the moon broke out, and a friendly man overtook me, who set me on his own horse, and walked by my side, till we came to Mr. Gambold’s door.”

Here you remark, If you would not have us look on this as miraculous, there is nothing in it worthy of being related.​――It may be so; let it pass then as a trifle not worth relating: but still it is no proof of enthusiasm. For I would not have you look on it as miraculous. I do not myself look upon it as such; but as a signal instance of God’s particular providence over all those who call upon him.

9. ¹In the same spirit of enthusiasm (you go on, citing this as a fourth instance) You describe heaven as executing judgments, immediate punishments, on those who oppose you. You say “Mr. Molther was taken ill this day. I believe it was the hand of God that was upon him”​――I do. But I do not say, as a judgment from God, for opposing me. That you say for me. Again, you tell us of “one who was exceeding angry, at those who pretended to be in fits; and was just going to kick one of them out of the way, when she dropt down herself and was in violent agonies for an hour.”​――And you say you left her​――under a deep sense of the just judgment of God.​――So she termed it, and so I believe it was. But observe. Not for opposing me.​――Again, you mention ‘as an ♦awful providence, the case of a poor wretch, who was last week cursing and blaspheming, and had boasted to many, that he would come again on Sunday, and no man should stop his mouth then (His mouth was stopped before, in the midst of the most horrid blasphemies, by asking him, “If he was stronger than God?”) But on Friday, God laid his hand upon him, and on Sunday he was buried.’​――I do look on this, as a manifest judgment of God, on a hardened sinner, for his complicated wickedness.​――²Again, “one being just going to beat his wife, (which he frequently did) God smote him in a moment: so that his hand dropped, and he fell down upon the ground, having no more strength than a new-born child.”​――And can you, Sir, consider this, as one of the common dispensations of providence? Have you known a parallel one in your life? But it was never cited by me, as it is by you, as an immediate punishment on a man for opposing me. You have no authority from any sentence or word of mine, for putting such a construction upon it: no more than you have for that strange intimation (how remote both from justice and charity!) That I ♠paralleled these cases, with those of Ananias and Sapphira, or of Elymas the sorcerer!

10. You proceed to what you account a 5th instance of enthusiasm. ¹With regard to people’s falling in fits, it is plain, you look upon both the disorders and removals of them to be supernatural. It is not quite plain. I look upon some of these cases as wholly natural: on the rest, as mixt; both the disorder and the removal being partly natural and partly not. Six of these you pick out from, it may be, two hundred, and add, From all which you leave no room to doubt, that you would have these cases considered, as those of the demoniacks in the New Testament; in order, I suppose, to parallel your supposed cures of them, with the highest miracles of Christ and his disciples.​――I should once have wondered at your making such a supposition: but I now wonder at nothing of this kind.​――Only be pleased to remember till this supposition is made good, it is no confirmation at all of my enthusiasm.

You then attempt to account for those fits, by obstructions or irregularities of the blood and spirits; hysterical disorder; watchings, fastings; closeness of rooms, great crowds, violent heat. And lastly, by terrors, perplexities and doubts, in weak and well-meaning men; which, you think, in many of the cases before us, have quite overset their understandings.

As to each of the rest, let it go as far as it can go. But I require proof of the last way whereby you would account for these disorders. Why, The instances, you say, of religious madness, have much increased since you began to disturb the world.¹ I doubt the fact. Although if these instances had increased lately, ’tis easy to account for them another way. Most have heard of or known several of the Methodists thus driven to distraction.​――You may have heard of five hundred. But how many have you known? Be pleased to name eight or ten of them. I cannot find them, no not one of them to this day, either man, woman or child. I find some indeed, whom you told, “They would be distracted, if they continued to follow these men:” and whom at that time, you threw into much doubt, and terror, and perplexity. But though they did continue to hear them ever since, they are not distracted yet.

As for ¹the abilities, learning and experience of Dr. M――, if you are personally acquainted with him, you do well to testify them. But if not, permit me to remind you of the old advice,

In endeavouring to account for the people’s recovery from those disorders you say, ¹I shall not dispute how far prayer may have naturally a good effect. (Nay, I am persuaded, you will not dispute but it may have supernatural good effects also.) However, there is no need of supposing these recoveries miraculous.​――Who affirms there is? I have set down the facts just as they were, passing no judgment upon them myself, (consequently here is no foundation for the charge of enthusiasm,) and leaving every man else to judge as he pleases.

11. The next passage you quote as a proof of my enthusiasm, taking the whole together runs thus: “After ¹communicating at St. James’s, our parish church, I visited several of the sick. Most of them were ill of the spotted fever, which they informed me, had been extremely mortal, few persons recovering from it. But God had said, Hitherto shalt thou come. I believe there was not one with whom we were, but recovered.”​――On which you comment thus; Here is indeed no intimation of any thing miraculous.​――No! Not so much as an intimation! Then, why is this cited as an instance of my enthusiasm? Why, You seem to desire to have it believed, that an extraordinary blessing attended your prayers: whereas, I believe they would not have failed of an equal blessing and success, had they had the prayers of their own parish ministers.​――I believe this argument will have extraordinary success, if it convince any one, that I am an enthusiast.

12. You add, ¹I shall give but one account more, and this is, what you give of yourself. The sum whereof is, “At two several times, being ill and in violent pain, I prayed to God and found immediate ease.” I did so. I assert the fact still. Now if these (you say) are not miraculous cures, all this is rank enthusiasm.

I will put your argument in form:

He that believes those are miraculous cures which are not so, is a rank enthusiast:

But you believe those to be miraculous cures which are not so:

Therefore, you are a rank enthusiast.

Before I answer, I must know, what you mean by miraculous? If you term every thing so, which is not strictly accountable for, by the ordinary course of natural causes; then I deny the latter part of the minor proposition. And unless you can make this good, unless you can prove the effects in question are strictly accountable for, by the ordinary course of natural causes, your argument is nothing worth.

You conclude this head with, ¹Can you work miracles.​――All your present pretences to the Spirit, till they are proved by miracles, cannot be excused, or acquitted from enthusiasm.

My short answer is this: I pretend to the Spirit just so far, as is essential to a state of salvation. And cannot I be acquitted from enthusiasm, till I prove by miracles, that I am in a state of salvation?

13. We now draw to a period. The ¹consequences of Methodism (you say) i. e. of our preaching this doctrine, which have hitherto appeared, are bad enough to induce you to leave it. It has in fact introduced many disorders, Enthusiasm, Antinomianism, Calvinism, a neglect and contempt of God’s ordinances, and almost all other duties.

* That whenever God revives his work upon earth, many tares will spring up with the wheat, both the word of God gives us ground to expect, and the experience of all ages. But where, Sir, have you been, that you have heard of the tares only? And that you rank among the consequences of my preaching, A neglect and contempt of God’s ordinances, and almost of all duties? Does not the very reverse appear, at London, at Bristol, at Kingswood, at Newcastle? In every one of which places, multitudes of those (I am able to name the persons) who before lived in a thorough neglect and contempt of God’s ordinances and all duties, do now zealously discharge their duties to God and man, and walk in all his ordinances blameless.

* And as to those drunkards, whoremongers, and other servants of the devil, as they were before, who heard us a while and then fell to the Calvinists or Moravians: are they not even now in a far better state, than they were before they heard us? Admit they are in error, yea and die therein, yet who dares affirm, they will perish everlastingly? But had they died in those sins, we are sure they had fallen into the fire that never shall be quenched.

I hope, Sir, you will rejoice in considering this, how much their gain still outweighs their loss: as well as in finding the sentiments you could not reconcile together, clearly and consistently explained. I am very willing to consider whatever farther you have to offer. May God give us both a right judgment in all things! I am persuaded you will readily join in this prayer with,

Reverend Sir,

Your servant for Christ’s sake,

JOHN WESLEY.

Bristol, February 2,
1744‒5.

---

The PRINCIPLES of a

METHODIST

Farther explained:

Occasioned by the Rev. Mr. Church’s Second Letter to Mr. Wesley.

In a Second Letter to that GENTLEMAN.

Reverend Sir,

* 1.AT the time that I was reading your former letter, I expected to hear from you again. And I was not displeased with the expectation; believing it would give me a fresh opportunity of weighing the sentiments I might have too lightly espoused, and the actions which perhaps I had not enough considered. Viewing things in this light, I cannot but esteem you, not an enemy, but a friend; and one, in some respects, better qualified to do me real service than those whom the world accounts so; who may be hindered, by their prejudice in my favour, either from observing what is reproveable, or from using that freedom and plainness of speech, which are requisite to convince me of it.

2. It is at least as much with a view to learn myself, as to shew others (what I think) the truth, that I intend to set down a few reflections on some parts of the tract you have lately published. I say, some parts; for it is not my design to answer every sentence in this, any more than in the former. Many things I pass over, because I think them true; many more, because I think them not material: and some, because I am determined not to engage in a useless, if not hurtful controversy.

* 3. Fear indeed is one cause of my declining this: fear (as I said elsewhere¹) not of my adversary, but of myself. I fear my own spirit, lest “I fall where many mightier have been slain.” I never knew one (or but one) man write controversy with what I thought a right spirit. Every disputant seems to think (as every soldier) that he may hurt his opponent as much as he can; nay, that he ought to do his worst to him, or he cannot make the best of his own cause: that so he do not bely, or wilfully misrepresent him, he must expose him as much as he is able. It is enough, we suppose, if we do not shew heat or passion against our adversary. But, not to despite him, or endeavour to make others do so, is quite a work of supererogation.

* 4. But ought these things to be so? (I speak on the Christian scheme.) Ought we not to love our neighbour as ourselves? And does a man cease to be our neighbour, because he is of a different opinion? Nay, and declares himself so to be? Ought we not, for all this, to do to him as we would he should do to us? But do we ourselves love to be exposed, or set in the worst light? Would we willingly be treated with contempt? If not, why do we treat others thus? And yet, who scruples it? Who does not hit every blot he can, however foreign to the merits of the cause? Who, in controversy, casts the mantle of love over the nakedness of his brother? Who keeps steddily and uniformly to the question, without ever striking at the person? Who shews in every sentence, that he loves his brother only less than the truth?

5. I fear neither you nor I have attained to this. I believe brotherly love might have found a better construction than that of unfairness, art, or disingenuity, to have put either on my not answering every part of your book (a thing which never once entered my thoughts) or on my not reciting all the words of those parts which I did answer. I cannot yet perceive any blame herein. I still account it fair and ingenuous, to pass over both what I believe is right, and what I believe is not dangerously wrong. Neither can I see any disingenuity at all, in quoting only that part of any sentence, against which I conceive the objection lies: nor in abridging any part of any treatise to which I reply, whether in the author’s, or in my own words.

6. If indeed it were so abridged as to alter the sense, this would be unfair. And if this were designedly done, it would be artful and disingenuous. But I am not conscious of having done this at all; although you speak as if I had done it a thousand times. And yet I cannot undertake now, either to transcribe your whole book, or every page or paragraph, which I answer. But I must generally abridge before I reply: and that not only to save time (of which I have none to spare) but often to make the argument clearer, which is best understood when couched in few words.

7. You complain also, of my mentioning, all at once, sentences which you placed at a distance from each other. I do so; and I think it quite fair and ingenuous, to lay together what was before scattered abroad. For instance: you now speak of the conditions of justification, in the 18th and following pages: again, from the 89th to the 102d: and yet again, in the 127th page. Now I have not leisure to follow you to and fro. Therefore what I say on one head, I set in one place.

---

I. 1. This premised, I come to the letter itself. I begin, as before, with the case of the Moravians: of whom you say, ¹I collected together the character which you had given of these men; the errors and vices which you had charged upon them, and the mischiefs​――they had done among your followers. And I proved, that, in several respects, you had been the occasion of this mischief; and are therefore, in some measure, accountable for it. Let us see what answer you give to all this. 2d letter, page 79.

“With regard to the denying degrees in faith, you mentioned, that the Moravian church was cleared from this mistake.” But did you not mention this as one of the tenets of the Moravians? Do you not say, that “you could not agree with Mr. Spangenberg, that none has any faith, so long as he is liable to any doubt or fear?” Do not you represent Mr. Molther, and other Moravians in England, as teaching the same? In short, I have not charged the Moravian church with any thing; but only repeat after you. And if you have accused them, when you knew them to be guiltless, you must bear the blame.

“They do use the ordinances of God with reverence and godly fear.”​――You have charged Mr. Spangenberg and Mr. Molther with teaching, that we ought to abstain from them. And the same you say in general of the Moravian brethren, in your letter to them.​――“But Mr. Molther was quickly after recalled into Germany.” This might be on other accounts. You do not say it was out of any dislike of his doctrines or proceedings. Nor indeed can you, consistently with your next words: “The great fault of the Moravian church seems to lie, in not openly disclaiming all he had said: which in all probability they would have done, had they not leaned to the same opinion.”

You “never knew but one of the Moravian church affirm, that a believer does not grow in holiness.” But who was this? No less a person than Count Zinzendorf, their great bishop and patron, whose authority is very high, all in all with them, and to whom you think they pay too much regard.”

2. This is the whole of your reply to this part of my answer. I will now consider it, part by part.

First, With regard to the denying degrees in faith, you mentioned, “that the Moravian church was cleared from this mistake.” But did you not mention this as one of the tenets of the Moravians?​――No; not of the Moravians in general?​――Do you not say, that you “could not agree with Mr. Spangenberg, that none has any faith, so long as he is liable to any doubt or fear?”​――I do say so still. But Spangenberg is not the Moravian church.​――Do you not represent Mr. Molther, and other Moravians in England, as teaching the same?​――I do? three or four in all. But neither are these, the Moravian church.​――In short, I have not charged the Moravian church with any thing; but only repeat after you.​――Indeed you have, in the very case before us. You charge them, with denying degrees in faith. I do not charge them herewith. I openly cleared them from any such charge near six years ago.​――If therefore you have accused them when you knew them to be guiltless, you must bear the blame.​――In this case, I must intreat you to bear it in my stead. For I have not accused them (the Moravian church.) It is you that have accused them. I have again and again declared, they are not guilty.

Secondly, “They do use the ordinances of God with reverence and godly fear.”​――You have charged Mr. Spangenberg and Mr. Molther with teaching, that we ought to abstain from them.​――That we? No. That unbelievers ought. The assertion relates to them only.​――And the same you say in general of the Moravian brethren, in your letter.​――I say, they hold, that “unbelievers ought to abstain from them.” But yet I know and bear witness, they use them themselves, and that with reverence and godly fear?”​――“Mr. Molther was quickly after recalled to Germany.”​――This might be on other accounts. You do not say, it was out of any dislike of his doctrines or proceedings.​――I do not say so; because I am not sure; but I believe it was out of a dislike to some of his proceedings, if not, of his doctrines too.​――Nor indeed can you, consistently with your next words: “The great fault of the Moravian church seems to lie, in not openly disclaiming all he had said” (relating to this head.)​――They did privately disclaim what he had said, of degrees in faith. But I think, that was not enough. And I still believe, they would have done more, “had they not leaned themselves to the same opinion,” touching the ordinances.

Thirdly, You “never knew but one of the Moravian church affirm, that a believer does not grow in holiness.”​――But who was this? No less a person than Count Zinzendorf, their great bishop and patron, whose authority is very high, all in all with them, and to whom you think they pay “too much regard.”​――Do you apprehend, where the stress of the argument lies? I never heard one Moravian affirm this, but the Count alone; and him only once; and that once was in the heat of dispute. And hence I inferred, it is not a doctrine of the Moravian church: nay, I doubt, whether it be the Count’s own settled judgment.

3. But I may not dismiss this passage yet. It is now my turn to complain of unfair usage; of the exceeding lame, broken, imperfect manner, wherein you cite my words. For instance; your citation runs thus: You “never knew but one of the Moravian church affirm, that a believer does not grow in holiness.”​――Whereas my words are these, “I never knew one of the Moravian church, but that single person, affirm, that a believer does not grow in holiness: and perhaps he would not affirm it on reflection.”​――Now why was the former part of the sentence changed, and the latter quite left out?​――Had the whole stood in your tract, just as it does in mine, it must have appeared, I do not here charge the Moravian church.

I complain also, of your manner of replying to the first article of this very paragraph. For you do not cite so much as one line of that answer, to which you profess to reply. My words are, “You ought not to charge the Moravian church with the first of these (errors) since in the very page from which you quote those words, There is no justifying faith, where there ever is any doubt, that note occurs, (viz. 4 journal, page 105.) ‘In the preface to the second journal, the Moravian church is cleared from this mistake.’”​――If you had cited these words, could you possibly have subjoined, I have not charged the Moravian church with any thing; but only repeat after you!

♦4. I have now considered one page of your reply, in the manner you seem to require. But sure you cannot expect I should follow you thus, step by step, through an hundred and forty pages! If you should then think it worth while, to make a second reply, and to follow me in the same manner, we might write indeed; but who would read?​――I return therefore to what I proposed at first, viz. To touch only on what seems of the most importance, and leave the rest just as it lies.

4. You say, (page 80.) With regard to subtlety, evasion, and disguise, you now would have it thought, that you only found this “in many of them; not in all, nor in most.”​――You now would have it thought! Yes, and always, as well as now. For my original charge was, (4 journal, page 104.) “I have found this, in many of you, i. e. much subtlety, much evasion, and disguise.”​――But you add, let the reader judge from the following passages, whether you did not charge the Moravians in general with these crimes. “I had a long conference with those, whom I esteem very highly in love: but I could not yet understand them in one point, Christian openness and plainness of speech. They pleaded for such a reservedness and closeness of conversation. Yet I scarce know what to think considering they had the practice of the whole Moravian church on their side.​――True; in pleading for such a reservedness of conversation, as I could not in any ♦wise approve of; but not in using much subtlety, much evasion and disguise; this I dare not charge on the whole Moravian church.” Those words also, “There is darkness and closeness in all their behaviour, and guile in almost all their words,” I spoke not of all the Moravians, nor of most: but of those who were then in England.” I could not speak it of them all; for I never found any guile in Christian David, Michael Linner, and many others.

5. We are next to see, how you get over the objection I made good in three several particulars, that you have prepared the way for spreading of these tenets. The first you say nothing to here;​――the second you quote very partially thus​――“by countenancing and commending them.” And why would you not add, “And being the occasion of so many of them coming over among us.”​――Because I was not the occasion. I was indeed the first Englishman that ever was at Hernhuth. But before I was at Hernhuth, (I find on later enquiry) the Count himself had been in England.

You “still think, (page 81) That next to some thousands in our own church, the body of the Moravian church, however mistaken some of them are, are, in the main, the best Christians in the world.” I do; “of all whom I have seen;” (you should not omit these words.)​――Those dreadful errors and crimes are here softened into mistakes. (I term them “Errors of judgment and practice.”) I have proved, that you have charged the body with such.​――At present, the proof does not amount to demonstration. There needs a little farther proof, that I charge any dreadful crimes on the body of the Moravians.

I see no manner of inconsistency still, in those accounts of my intercourse with the Moravians, which you suppose irreconcileable with each other. Let any one read them in the journal, and judge.

6. You had said, “Your objections then were nearly the same as now.” You now add, “only with this difference: I was not then assured, that the facts were as I supposed; I did not dare to determine any thing.”​――No! Not when by conversing among them you saw these things! As indeed the facts are of such a nature, that you could not but be assured of them, if they were true. Nor do the questions in your letter really imply any doubt of their truth: but are so many appeals to their consciences, and equivalent to strong assertions. And if you had not been assured, if you did not dare to determine any thing concerning what you saw, your writing bare suspicions to a body of men in such a manner was inexcusable. This excuse therefore will not serve you, (83.)

I apprehend it will. “I was not then (in September 1738) assured that the facts were as I supposed. [Therefore] I did not [then] dare to determine any thing.” Be pleased to add the immediately following words: “But from November 1. [1739] I saw more and more things, which I could not reconcile with the gospel.”

If you had not omitted these words, you could have had no colour to remark, on my saying, “I did not dare to determine any thing.”​――No! Not when by conversing among them you saw these things.​――No, I did not dare to determine, in September 1738, from what I saw in November 1739.​――But the facts are of such a nature, that you could not but be assured of them if they were true.​――I cannot think so. “Is not the Count all in all among you? Do not you magnify your own church too much? Do you not use guile and dissimulation in many cases?” These facts are by no means of such a nature, as that whoever converses (even intimately) among the Moravians, cannot but be assured of them.​――Nor do the questions in your letter really imply any doubt of their truth.​――No! Are not my very words prefixed to those questions, “Of some other things I stand in doubt”.​――And I wish that, in order to remove those doubts, you would​――plainly answer, whether the fact be as I suppose.​――But [these questions] are so many appeals to their consciences.​――True.​――And equivalent to strong assertions.​――Utterly false.​――If you had not been assured, if you did not dare to determine any thing, concerning what you saw [fifteen months after] your writing bare suspicions to a body of men, in such a manner, was inexcusable.​――They were strong presumptions then; which yet I did not write to a body of men, whom I so highly esteemed; no, not even in the tenderest manner, till I was assured, they were not groundless.

7. In a note at the bottom of page 8, you observe, “the Band-society in London began May 1, some time before I set out for Germany.” Would you insinuate here, that you did not set it up, in imitation of the Moravians?​――Sir, I will tell you the naked truth. You had remarked (page 17.) thus​――“You took the trouble of a journey to Germany to them; and were so much in love with their methods, that, at your return hither, you set up their bands among your disciples.” This was an entire mistake: for that society was set up, not only before I returned, but before I set out. And I designed that note to insinuate this to you, without telling your mistake to all the world.

I imagined, that supposing your account of the Moravians true, it would be impossible for any serious Christian to doubt of their being very wicked people.​――I know many serious Christians who suppose it true, and yet believe they are, in the main, good men.​――A much worse character, take the whole body together, cannot be given of a body of men.​――Let us try. “Here is a body of men who have not one spark either of justice, mercy, or truth, among them; who are lost to all sense of right and wrong; who have neither sobriety, temperance, nor charity: who are, in general, liars, drunkards, gluttons, thieves, adulterers, murderers.” I cannot but think, that this is a much worse character than that of the Moravians, take it how you will.​――Let the reader judge how far you are now able to defend them​――Just as far as I did at first. Still I dare not condemn what is good among them; and I will not excuse what is evil.

8. “The Moravians excel in sweetness of behaviour.” What though they use guile and dissimulation?​――Yes.​――“Where is their multitude of errors?” In your own journal.​――I have taken the pains to place them in one view in my remarks; the justness of which with all your art you cannot disprove.​――You have taken the pains to transcribe many words; all which together amount to this, that they (generally) hold universal salvation, and are partly Antinomians (in opinion) partly Quietists. The justness of some of your remarks, if I mistake not, ♦has been pretty fully disproved. As to what you speak of my art, subtlety, and so on, in this and many other places, I look upon it as neither better nor worse than a civil way of calling names.

“To this multitude of crimes ¹I am also an utter stranger.” Then you have charged them wrongfully.​――What do you account guile, &c.​――I account guile, despising self-denial, even in the smallest points, and teaching that those who have not the assurance of faith, may not use the ordinances of God, the Lord’s supper in particular, (this is the real, unaggravated charge) to be faults which cannot be excused. But I do not account them all together a multitude of crimes. I conceive this is a vehement hyperbole.

The honour of religion, said you, and virtue trampled upon? I answered, “By whom? Not by the Moravians.”​――You reply, And yet you have accused some of these as decrying all the means of grace.​――No. What I accused them of was, teaching that an unbeliever (in their sense) ought to abstain from them​――“Neither did I know, or think, or say, they were desperately wicked people.”​――Your journal is before the world; to whom I appeal whether this has not so represented them.​――But how do you here represent your remark, and my answer? My paragraph runs thus, page 10.

“You go on​――How could you so long, and so intimately converse with​――such desperately wicked people as the Moravians, according to your own account, were known by you to be?​――O Sir, what another assertion is this? The Moravians, according to your own account, were known by you to be desperately wicked people, while you intimately conversed with them.”​――Utterly false and injurious! I never gave any such account. I conversed with them intimately both at Savannah and Hernhuth. But neither then, nor at any other time, did I know, or think, or say, they were desperately wicked people. I think and say​――just the reverse, viz. That tho’ I soon “found among them a few things which I could not approve, yet I believe they are, in the main, some of the best Christians in the world.”​――After this, are you the person, who complains of me, for imperfect and partial quotations?

I added, “You surprize me yet more in going on thus; In God’s name, Sir, is the contempt of almost the whole of our duty, of every Christian ordinance to be so very gently touched?” “Sir, this is not the case. This charge no more belongs to the Moravians than that of murder.” page 11.

You reply, Mr. Spangenberg and Mr. Molther, are accused by name. If falsely, I am sorry both for them and you. Accused? True. But of what? Of the contempt of every Christian ordinance, of almost the whole of our duty? By no means. The plain case is, I accuse them of one thing, viz. “Teaching that an unbeliever should abstain from the ordinances.” You accuse them of another, “contemning every Christian ordinance, and almost the whole of our duty.” And this you would father upon me. I desire to be excused.

9. As to what I said in my letter to the Moravian church, “You can hinder this if you will.​――Therefore if you do not prevent their speaking thus, you do in effect speak thus yourselves.”​――It may be observed, 1. That this letter is dated, August 8, 1741. 2. That from that time the Moravian church did in great measure prevent any of their members speaking thus.

You proceed. You distinguish between the English ♦brethren and the Moravians. These English ♠brethren, I presume, were your followers. Afterwards you represent them as perverted by the Moravians. Before they had spoke these wicked things, you say, they had joined these men, and acted under their direction. If they did not learn them from these new teachers, from whom did they learn them? Not sure from yourself, or any other Methodists. You cannot therefore bring off the Moravians, without condemning your own people. Here therefore you have certainly overshot yourself, page 85.​――Perhaps not.​――These English brethren were, I presume, your followers.​――No; this is your first mistake. I was but a single, private member of that society.​――Afterwards you represent them as perverted by the Moravians.​――I do; but not yet connected with them.​――Before they spoke these wicked things, they had joined these men, and acted under their direction.​――This is another mistake. They did not join these men, nor act by their direction, till long after.​――If they did not learn them from these new teachers, from whom did they learn them?​――You cannot bring off the Moravians, without condemning your own people.​――They learned them from Mr. Molther chiefly; whom I am not at all concerned to bring off.​――Now let all men judge, which of us two has overshot himself!

10. In answer to my objections against the inconsistent accounts you have given of the Moravians​――you say, “They are, I believe, the most self-inconsistent people under the sun.” Would not one imagine, that you here speak of the same persons, or of the whole body of them in general?​――I do, thus far: I ascribe the good to the body, of them in general; the evil to part only of that body, to some of those same persons.

Your method of getting over the contradictions I had charged upon you, is much the same, (page 86.) To distinguish either between the Moravians and the English brethren (tho’ these had been their disciples.​――This has been abundantly answered)​――or between some of the Moravians and others.​――I think a very good method; for propositions are not contradictory, unless they both speak of the same persons.

However, since you persist to affirm, that I am guilty of the contradictions you charged upon me, (page 87.) I think there cannot be a sufficient reply, without reciting the several instances.

11. First, You commend them (the Moravians) for loving one another; and yet charge them with biting and devouring one another.​――I answered, “Them! Whom? Not the Moravians, but the English brethren of Fetter-lane, before their union with the Moravians. Herein then is no shadow of contradiction. For the two sentences do not relate to the same persons.”

You reply, Would you then have us to think, that so much anger and contradiction reigned among your Methodists​――I would have you think, this is nothing to the purpose. Prove the contradiction, and you speak to the point.​――It is plain they had before this been perverted by the Moravians, and that​――they were unwilling to be taught by any others.​――They​――that is, nearly half of the society. But here is no proof of the contradiction still.

2. You say, “They had well nigh destroyed brotherly-love from among us, partly by cautions against natural love” [Partly by occasioning almost continual disputes]​――So they had. But we had then no connexion with them. Neither therefore does this contradict their loving one another.​――You reply, As if they can truly love each other, who teach you not to do it, and stir up divisions and disturbances among you.​――You should say, if you would repeat after me, “Who caution you against natural love, and occasion many disputes among you.” Well; allowing they do this, (which is utterly wrong) yet where is the contradiction? Yet they may love one another.

3. You “praise them for using no diversions, but such as become saints: and yet say (I recite the whole sentence) I have heard some of you affirm, that Christian salvation implies liberty to conform to the world, by joining in worldly diversions, in order to do good.”​――And both these are true. The Moravians, in general, “use no diversions but such as become saints.” And yet I have heard some of them affirm (in contradiction to their own practice) that “one then mentioned did well, when he joined in playing at tennis, in order to do good.” To this you make no reply. Silence then consents, that there is no contradiction here.

4. You “praise them for not regarding outward adorning.”​――So I do, the bulk of the congregation.​――And yet you say (I again recite the whole sentence) “I have heard some of you affirm, that Christian salvation implies liberty to conform to the world, by putting on gold and costly apparel.”​――I have so. And I blame them the more, because they are condemned by the general practice of their own church.​――To this also you reply not. So I must count this the fourth contradiction which you have charged upon me, but have not proved.

5. “You call their discipline, in most respects, truly excellent. I could wish you had more fully explained yourself.​――I have in the 2d journal, from the 44th to the 82d page.​――It is no sign of good discipline, to permit such abominations, (i. e. error in opinion, and guile in practice.)​――True; ’tis not; nor is it any demonstration against it. For there may be good discipline, even in a college of Jesuits. Another fault is, too great deference to the Count. And yet, in most respects, their discipline is truly excellent.”

You reply, Such excellent discipline, for all that I know, they may have, [i. e. as the Jesuits;] but I cannot agree​――that this is scarce inferior to that of the apostolical age.​――It may be, for any thing you advance to the contrary.​――Here I cited some words of yours, condemning their subordination, (page 88.) which you prudently take no notice of.​――Yes; I had just before taken notice of their too great deference to the Count. But, the contradiction! Where is the contradiction?

6. “You mention it as a good effect of their discipline, that every one knows and keeps his proper rank. Soon after, as it were with a design to confute yourself, you say, Our brethren have neither wisdom enough to guide, nor prudence enough to let it alone.”​――I answered, “Pardon me, Sir, I have no design either to confute or contradict myself in these words. The former sentence is spoken of the Moravian brethren. The latter of the English brethren of Fetter-lane (not then united with the Moravians, neither acting by their direction.)” To this likewise you do not reply. Here is then a sixth contradiction, alledged against me, but not proved.

12. However you add, Had you​――shewn me mistaken in any point you have attempted to reply to, still​――you confess errors and wickedness enough among the Moravians, to render your account of them very inconsistent. But you have not succeeded in any one answer. You have not shewn, that I have in any one instance misquoted you, or misunderstood the character you had given of them, or argued falsely from what you had said of them. And truly, Sir, all you have done, has been cavilling at a few particulars. But the argument I was urging all this while you quite forgot.

Sir, if it be so, you do me too much honour, in setting pen to paper again. But is it so? Have I all this while quite forgot the argument you was urging? I hope not. I seem to remember, you was urging some argument (Remarks, page 21.) to prove, that I fall not only into inconsistencies, but direct contradictions; and that I shewed you mistaken not only in one, but in every point which you advanced as such: that I did not confess any such errors or wickedness of the Moravians, as rendered my account of them self-inconsistent: that I succeeded in more than one answer, to the objections you had urged against it; and that I shewed, you had misquoted or misunderstood the character I had given of them, or argued falsely from it, not properly in one instance, but from the beginning to the end.

Yet this I think it ♦incumbent upon me to say, that whereinsoever I have contributed, directly or indirectly, to the spreading of any thing evil, which is, or has been, among the Moravians, I am sorry for it, and hereby ask pardon, both of God and all the world.

---

II. 1. I think it appears, by what you yourself observed, that on the second head, justification by faith, I allow, in the beginning of the Farther Appeal, almost as much as you contend for.

I desire leave to cite part of that passage again, that we may come as near each other as possible. I would just subjoin a few words on each head, which I hope may remove more difficulties out of the way.

“That justification whereof our articles and homilies speak, means present pardon, and acceptance with God: who therein declares his righteousness or mercy, by or for the remission of sins that are past.”

I say, past. For I cannot find any thing in the bible, of the remission of sins, past, present, and to come.

* “I believe the condition of this is faith: I mean not only, that without faith we cannot be justified, but also, that as soon as any one has true faith, in that moment he is justified.”

* You take the word condition in the former sense only, as that without which we cannot be justified. In this sense of the word, I think we may allow, that there are several conditions of justification.

* “Good works follow this faith, but cannot go before it. Much less can sanctification; which implies a continued course of good works, springing from holiness of heart.”

* Yet such a course is without doubt absolutely necessary to our continuance in a state of justification.

“It is allowed, that repentance and fruits meet for repentance, go before faith. Repentance absolutely must go before faith: fruits meet for it, if there be opportunity. By repentance I mean conviction of sin, producing real desires and sincere resolutions of amendment: and by fruits meet for repentance, forgiving our brother, ceasing from evil, doing good, using the ordinances of God, and, in general, obeying him according to the measure of grace which we have received. But these I cannot as yet term good works, because they do not spring from faith and the love of God.” Although the same works are then good, when they are performed by those who have believed.

“Faith in general is, a divine supernatural ἔλεγχος, (evidence, or conviction) of things not seen, not discoverable by our bodily senses, as being either past, future or spiritual. Justifying faith implies, not only a divine ἔλεγχος, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, but a sure trust and confidence, that Christ died for my sins, that he loved me, and gave himself for me. And the moment a penitent sinner thus believes, God pardons and absolves him.”

I say, a penitent sinner; because justifying faith cannot exist without previous repentance.

――“Yet although both repentance, and the fruits thereof, are in some sense necessary before justification, neither the one nor the other is necessary in the same sense, or in the same degree with faith. Not in the same degree. For in whatever moment a man believes, (in the Christian sense of the word) he is justified.​――But it is not so, at whatever moment he repents, or brings forth any, or all the fruits of repentance.​――Consequently, none of these are necessary to justification, in the same degree with faith.”

“Nor in the same sense. For none of these has so direct, immediate a relation to justification as faith. This is proximately necessary thereto; repentance remotely, as it is necessary to faith (so the error of the press is to be corrected.) And the fruits of repentance still more remotely, as they are necessary to the increase, or continuance of repentance. And even in this sense, they are only necessary on supposition​――if there be time and opportunity for them. For in many instances there is not, but God cuts short his work, and faith prevents the fruits of repentance.”

2. Thus far I believe we are nearly agreed. But on those words, “Far other qualifications are required, in order to our standing before God in glory, than were required in order to his giving us faith and pardon: in order to this, nothing is indispensably required, but repentance or conviction of sin; but in order to the other, it is indispensably required, that we be fully cleansed from all sin:” you remark, Here, I apprehend, are two great mistakes, 1. You make too little necessary before pardon. 2. Too much afterward. You confine repentance within too narrow limits, and extend holiness beyond its just bounds. (page 92.)

First, By repentance you mean only conviction of sin. But this is a very partial account of it. Every child that has learned his catechism can tell, that forsaking of sin is also included in it.​――Living in obedience to God’s will, when there is opportunity; and even when there is not, a sincere desire and purpose to do so​――and a faith in God’s mercies through Christ Jesus.

I had said, “In order to God’s giving us faith and pardon, nothing is indispensably required but repentance,” i. e. “Conviction of sin producing real desires and sincere resolutions of amendment.” But you apprehend, that I am here in a great mistake: that I give a very partial account of repentance; that I ought to include therein a sincere desire and purpose to obey God.​――I do: I have said so expressly​――And living in obedience to God’s will, when there is opportunity.​――Very well; but I here speak of what is indispensably required, i. e. whether there is opportunity of actual obedience or no.​――And a faith in God’s mercies through Christ Jesus.​――A very great mistake indeed! My not including faith in that repentance, which I say is indispensably required​――in order to faith!

Secondly, You make sinless perfection necessary after justification, in order to make us meet for glory.​――And who does not? Indeed men do not agree in the time. Some believe it is attained before death: some, in the article of death: some, in an after-state; in the mystic, or the popish purgatory. But all writers, whom I have ever seen till now (the Romish themselves not excepted) agree, that we must be “fully cleansed from all sin,” before we can enter into glory.

3. After what has already been allowed, I cannot think it needful, to dispute farther, on the head of justification.​――Rather suffer me to close this part of our debate, by transcribing what I assent to, from that clear recapitulation of your sentiments, which you have given in your 45th and 46th pages.

“First, Justification is the act of God, pardoning our sins, and receiving us again to his favour. This was free in him, because undeserved by us; undeserved, because we had transgressed his law, and could not, nor even can now, perfectly fulfill it.”

2. “We cannot therefore be justified by our works, because this would be, to be justified by some merit of our own. Much less can we be justified by an external shew of religion, or by any superstitious observances.”

3. “The life and death of our Lord is the sole meritorious cause of this mercy, which must be firmly believed and trusted in by us. Our faith therefore in him, though not more meritorious than any other of our actions, yet has a nearer relation to the promises of pardon through him, and is the mean and instrument whereby we embrace and receive them.”

4. “True faith must be lively and productive of good works, which are its proper fruits, the marks whereby it is known.”

* 5. “Works really good, are such as are commanded by God (springing from faith) done by the aid of his holy Spirit, with good designs, and to good ends. These may be considered as internal or external.”

* 6. “The inward ones, such as hope, trust, fear, and love of God and our neighbour, (which may be more properly termed good dispositions and [are branches of] sanctification) must always be joined with faith, and consequently be conditions present in justification​――though they are not the means or instruments of receiving it.”

* 7. “The outward”​――(which are more properly termed good works) “though there be no immediate opportunity of practising them, and therefore a sincere desire and resolution to perform them, be sufficient for the present; yet must follow after as soon as occasion offers, and will then be necessary conditions of preserving our justification.”

* 8. “There is a justification conveyed to us in our baptism, or properly, this state is then begun. But​――should we fall into sins​――we cannot regain it without true faith and repentance, which implies (as its fruits) a forsaking of our sins, and amendment of (our whole) life.”

* I have only one circumstance farther to add, namely, That I am not newly convinced of these things. For this is the doctrine which I have continually taught for eight or nine years last past: only, I abstained from the word condition, perhaps more scrupulously than was needful.

4. With regard to the consequences of my teaching this doctrine, I desire any who will not account it lost labour, to consult with his own eyes, seriously and in the fear of God, the 3d and 4th journals. And if he pleases, he may farther read over and compare, from the 25th to the 29th page of my answer, with your reply, from the 101st (inclusive) to the 104th page.

Among the consequences you reckoned (in your Remarks) besides introducing predestination, confusion, presumption, and despair, many very shocking instances of all which (your words are) you give us among your followers​――pages 52, 55​――I answered, “You should have specified a few of those instances; at least the pages where they occur.” (Suppose, only three of each sort, out of any, or all the four journals) “Till this is done, I can look upon this assertion as no other than a flourish of your pen.”

Upon this you exclaim, (page 111.) I must beg the reader to observe your method of citing my words. Many instances of omissions he has had already. But here is such a one, as I believe few controversies can parallel.​――Would not any one imagine from the view of these words [Predestination, confusion, presumption, and despair] that they occurred all together in page 52, of my remarks, and that I observed nothing farther concerning this point? Could it be thought, that any thing intervened between the page referred to, and the last sentence? And yet so it is, that near three pages intervene!​――Ha! do near three pages intervene! Prodigious indeed!​――And this is called an answer!​――So it is, for want of a better.

Your business was to shew, that the calvinistical notions have not prevailed among the Methodists, or that they were no consequences of unconditioned justification.​――No, Sir, It was not my business to shew this. It was not my business to prove the negative; but yours, to prove the affirmative. Mr. Whitefield is himself a Calvinist. Such therefore doubtless are many of his followers. But Calvinism has not prevailed at all, among any other of the Methodists (so called,) nor is it to this day any consequence of unconditional justification, in the manner wherein I preach it.

5. You next take the pains to lay before the reader, an instance or two of confusion, &c. The first I read thus: page 11.

“While we were at the room, Mrs. J. sitting at home, took the bible to read. But on a sudden, threw it away, saying I am good enough. I will never read or pray more. She was in the same mind when I came; often repeating, I used to think, I was full of sin, and that I sinned in every thing I did. But now I know better. I am a good Christian. I never did any harm in my life. I do not desire to be any better than I am; she spake many things to the same effect, plainly shewing, that the spirit of pride and of lies had the full dominion over her.​――I asked, do you desire to be healed? She said, I am whole. But do you desire to be saved? She replied, I am saved, I ail nothing, I am happy.”​――This is one of the fruits of the present salvation and sinless perfection, taught by you among the weak and ignorant.

I should wonder if the scarecrow of sinless perfection was not brought in some way or other. But to the point. You here repeat a relation as from me, and that in confirmation, you say, of your own veracity, and yet leave out both the beginning of that relation, part of the middle, and the end of it.

I begin thus (4th Journal, page 66.) “Sunday 11. I met with a surprizing instance of the power of the devil.” These words, of all others, should not have been left out, being a key to all that follows. In the middle of the relation, immediately after the words, I am happy, I add, “Yet it was easy to discern, she was in the most violent agony both of body and mind: sweating exceedingly, notwithstanding the severest frost, and not continuing in the same posture a moment.” A plain proof, that this was no instance of presumption, nor a natural fruit of any teaching whatever.

It ends thus. “About a quarter before six the next morning, after lying quiet a while, she broke out, ‘Peace be unto thee, (her husband) peace be unto this house, the peace of God is come to my soul, I know that my Redeemer liveth.’ And for several days her mouth was filled with his praise, and her talk was wholly of his wondrous works.”​――Had not these words been left out, neither could this have past for an instance of despair.​――Though still I do not know but it might have stood for an instance of confusion, &c.

I must not forget, that this was cited at first, as a proof of my enthusiasm: as an instance of a private revelation, which (you say) I seem to pay great credit to​――representing the conjectures of a woman​――whose brain appears to have been too much heated, as if they had been owing to a particular and miraculous spirit of prophesy. (Remarks page 64.) I answered, “Descant, Sir, as you please on this enthusiasm; on the credit paid to this private revelation; and my representing the conjectures of this brain-sick woman, as owing to a miraculous power of the spirit of prophecy”. And when you have done, I will desire you to read the passage once more; where you will find my express words are (introducing this account.) “Sunday 11. I met with a surprizing instance of the power of the devil.” Such was the credit I paid to this revelation! All which I ascribe to the Spirit of God is, the enabling her to strive against the power of the devil, and at length restoring peace to her soul. (Answer, page 41.)

I was in hopes, you had done with this instance. But I am disappointed. For in your 2d letter I read thus (page 130.)

The instances of enthusiasm and presumption, which your last journal had furnished me with, remain now to be reviewed. The first was, of a private revelation, which you appeared to pay great credit to. You had represented every thing the woman had spoke in her agony as coming to pass.​――But I had not represented any thing she spoke then, whether it came to pass or no, as coming from the Spirit of God, but from the devil.

You say, When I read this first, I was amazed, and​――impatient to look again into your journal. But I had no sooner done this, but I was still more astonished. For you have very grievously misrepresented the case​――If I have, then I will bear the blame; but if not, it will light on your head.

It is not this account which you had thus introduced; but another, and a very different one, of what happened a day or two before. Sunday, you mention her as being guilty of gross presumption,​――which you attribute to the power of the devil. But on Monday and Tuesday the opposite revelations happened, which​――you relate without the least mark of diffidence or blame. (page 131)

I am grieved that you constrain me to say any more. In the 66th and 67th page of the last journal, I gave an account of Mrs. Jones, which I term, “a surprizing instance of the power of the devil.” It includes the occurrences of three days. This you brought as a proof of my enthusiasm. I answer, “the very words that introduce this account,” prove it is no instance of enthusiasm: meaning by this account (as I suppose is plain to every reader,) the following account of Mrs. Jones. You reply. It is not this account, which you had thus introduced, but another, and a very different one, of what happened a day or two before. Sir, it is the whole account of Mrs. Jones which I thus introduce; and not another; not a very different one. And I attribute the agony which she (Mrs. Jones) was in; and most of the words which she spoke, both on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, not to the Spirit of God, but to the power of the devil.

6. The next instance, which you relate as an instance of despair, is that of a young woman of Kingswood; which you break off with, “Take me away,” &c. (page 112.) But why did you not decypher that, &c. Why did you not add the rest of the paragraph? Because it would have spoiled your whole argument. It would have shewn what the end of the Lord was, in permitting that severe visitation. The words are, (Journal 3, page 93.) “We interrupted her by calling again upon God, on which she sunk down as before (as one asleep) and another young woman began to roar as loud as she had done. My brother now came in, it being about nine o’clock. We continued in prayer till past eleven: when God in a moment spoke peace into the soul, first, of the first tormented, and then of the other. And they both joined in singing praises to him, who had stilled the enemy and the avenger.”

7. I am sorry to find you still affirm, that with regard to the Lord’s supper also, I advance many injudicious, false and dangerous things. Such as, 1. That “a man ought to communicate, without a sure trust in God’s mercy through Christ, (page 117.)” You make these as my words; but I know them not.​――2. “That there is no previous preparation indispensably necessary, but a desire to receive whatsoever God pleases to give.”​――But I include abundantly more in that desire, than you seem to apprehend; even a willingness to know and do the will of God.​――3. “That no fitness is required at the time of communicating, (I recite the whole sentence) but a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness! Every one who knows he is fit for hell, being just fit to come to Christ, in this, as well as in all other ways of his appointment.”​――But neither can this sense of our utter sinfulness and helplessness subsist, without earnest desires of universal holiness.​――There was another passage (you say) which you chose to omit. (page 118.) Which this was, I do not understand. Nor do I perceive any one of these dreadful positions (as you stile them) to be contrary to the word of God.

8. You will likewise at all hazards stand your ground, as to the charge of stoical insensibility. I answered before, (page 36.) How do you support the charge? Why thus,​――You say, the servants of God suffer nothing.​――And can you possibly misunderstand these words, if you read those that immediately follow? “His body was well nigh torn asunder with pain. But God made all his bed in his sickness. So that he was continually giving thanks to God, and making his boast of his praise.”

You reply, (118) If you meant no more than that a man under the sharpest pains, may be thankful to God, why did you call this a strange truth?​――Because I think it is so. I think it exceeding strange, that one in such a degree of pain, should be continually giving thanks to God. Not that I suppose him insensible of his torments. “His body, I say, was well nigh torn asunder with pain.” But the love of God so abundantly overbalanced all pain, that it was nothing to him.

The next instance is as follows. One told you, Sir, I thought last week there could be no such rest as you describe; none in this world wherein we should be so free, as not to desire ease in pain. But God has taught me better. For on Friday and Saturday, when I was in the strongest pain, I never once had one moment’s desire of ease (add, “but only that the will of God might be done.”)

Neither has this any resemblance of stoical insensibility. I never supposed, that this person did not feel pain: (nor indeed that there is any state on earth, wherein we shall not feel it.) But that her soul was filled with the love of God, and thankfully resigned to his will.

Another instance is taken from one of your hymns where are these lines: (page 119.)

This I thought the height of insensibility, extravagance and presumption.​――You see nothing of these in it. And yet you explain yourself thus, “If thou canst deny thyself, if thou canst forget to be gracious, if thou canst cease to be truth and love.” All which in my opinion, is fixing the charge most strongly upon you. For the supposition that Christ can do these things​――Are you in earnest, Sir? Are you really ignorant, that expressions of this kind, do not suppose he can, but quite the reverse? That they are one of the strongest forms of obtestation, of adjuring God to shew mercy, by all his grace, and truth, and love? So far is this also from proving the charge of stoical insensibility.

---

III. 1. I come now to consider the point of church-communion, of which you have spoke in the beginning of your treatise. In the entrance you say, We teach no other doctrine than has always been taught in our church.​――Our sentiments concerning justification are reconcileable to our articles, homilies and service.​――This I apprehend several of the Methodists have been convinced of, and have therefore left our communion entirely.​――You give us more instances than one of this in your last journal.​――(page 2.) No, not one. Nor did I ever yet know one man, who therefore left the communion of the church, because he was convinced that either her articles, homilies or liturgy opposed his sentiments concerning justification. Poor Mr. St. and Mr. Simpson were induced to leave it, by reasons of quite another kind.

You add, We cannot wonder, that some Methodists, have withdrawn from her,​――while they have been used to hear doctrines, which they must have been sensible, have no place in her articles and service.​――So far from it, that all I know of them are deeply sensible, the doctrines they have been used to hear daily, are no other than the genuine doctrines of the church, as exprest both in her articles and service.

2. But our present question turns not on doctrine but discipline.​――My first business (you say) is to consider, some very lax notions of church-communion, which I find in your last journal. Page 26, you say, “Our 20th article defines a true church, a congregation of faithful people, wherein the true word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered​――(page 3.) The use I would willingly make of this definition, (which, observe, is not mine, be it good or bad) is to stop the boasting of ungodly men, by cutting off their pretence to call themselves, of the church. But you think, they may call themselves so still. Then let them. I will not contend about it.

But you cannot infer from hence, that my notions of church communion are either lax or otherwise. The definition which I occasionally cite, shews nothing of my sentiments on that head. And for any thing which occurs in this page, they may be strict or loose, right or wrong.

You add, It will be requisite, (page 5.) in order to approve yourself a minister of our church, that you follow her rules and orders.​――That you constantly conform to the method of worship she has prescribed, and study to promote her peace. All this is good and fit to be done. But it properly belongs to the following question.

What led you into such loose notions of church-communion, I imagine, might be, your being conscious to yourself, that according to the strict, just account of the church of England, you could not with any grace maintain your pretensions to belong still to her.​――Sir, I have never told you yet, what my notions of the church-communion are. They may be wrong, or they may be right, for all you know. Therefore, when you are first supposing that I have told you my notions, and then assigning the reasons of them, what can be said, but that you imagine the whole matter?

3. How far I have acted agreeably to the rules and orders of our church, is a farther question. You think I have acted contrary thereto, first, By using extemporary prayer in public. The church, you say, has strongly declared her mind on this point, by appointing her excellent liturgy, which you have solemnly promised to use​――and no other.​――I know not when or where.​――And whoever​――does not worship God in the manner she prescribes​――must be supposed to slight and contemn her offices and rules: and therefore can be no more worthy to be called her minister. (page 7.)

I do not slight or contemn the offices of the church. I esteem them very highly. And yet I do not, at all times, worship God, even in public, in the very terms of those offices. Nor yet do I knowingly slight or contemn her rules. For it is not clear to my apprehension, that she has any rule which forbids using extemporary prayer, suppose between the morning and evening service. And if I am not worthy to be called her minister (which I dare by no means affirm myself to be) yet her minister I am, and must always be, unless I should be judicially deposed from my ministry.

Your second argument is this. “If you suppose the scripture enjoins you to use extemporary prayer, then you must suppose our liturgy to be inconsistent with scripture, and consequently unlawful to be used.” That does not follow: unless I supposed the scripture to enjoin, to use extemporary prayer, and no other. Then it would follow, that a form of prayer was inconsistent with scripture. But this I never did suppose.

Your third argument is to this effect; “You act contrary to the rule of the church. Allow she in the wrong: yet while you break her rule, how do you act as her minister?” It ought to be expressed, how are you her minister? For the conclusion to be proved is, That I am not her minister.

I answer, 1. I am not convinced, as I observed before, that I do hereby break her rule. 2. If I did, yet should I not cease to be her minister, unless I were formally deprived. 3. I now actually do continue in her communion, and hope that I always shall.

4. You object farther, “That I disobey the governors of the church.” I answer, I both do, and will obey them in all things, where I do not apprehend there is some particular law of God to the contrary.​――Here, you say, you confess that in some things you do not, and cannot obey your governors (page 8.)​――Did I confess this? Then I spoke rashly and foolishly: for I granted more than I can make good.​――I do certainly apprehend, that the law of God requires me, both to preach and (sometimes) to pray extempore. Yet I do not know that I disobey the governors of the church herein. For I do not know, that they have forbidden me to do either.

But your ♦behaviour and method of teaching is irregular.​――Have you any warrant from scripture for preaching up and down thus?​――I think I have: I think God hath called me to this work by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, which directs me how to obey that general command, While we have time, let us do good unto all men.

But we ought to do this agreeably to our respective situations, and not break in upon each other’s provinces.​――Every private man may take upon himself the office of a magistrate​――and quote this text as justly as you have done, (page 9.) No. The private man is not called to the office of a magistrate; but I am to the office of a preacher.​――You was indeed authorized to preach the gospel: but it was in the congregation to which you should be lawfully appointed.​――Whereas you have many years preached in places whereunto you was not lawfully appointed; nay, which were intrusted to others, who neither wanted nor desired your assistance.

Many of them wanted it enough, whether they desired it or no. But I shall not now debate that point. I rather follow you to the ♦Part of the Farther Appeal, where this objection is considered.

5. “Our church (it was said) has provided against this preaching up and down, in the ordination of a priest, by expresly limiting the exercise of the powers then conferred upon him, to the congregation where he shall be lawfully ♦appointed thereunto.”

I answered, 1. “Your argument proves too much. If it be allowed just as you propose it, it proves, that no priest has authority either to preach or administer the sacrament in any other than his own congregation.” Farther Appeal, page 84.

You reply, Is there no difference between a thing’s being done occasionally​――and its being done for years together?​――Yes a great one. And more inconveniencies may arise from the latter than from the former. But this is all wide: it does not touch the point. Still if our church does expresly limit the exercise of the sacerdotal powers, to that congregation whereunto each priest shall be appointed; this precludes him from exercising those powers at all, in any other than that congregation.

I answered, 2. “Had the powers conferred been so limited when I was ordained priest, my ordination would have signified just nothing. For I was not appointed to any congregation at all: but was ordained as a member of that ‘college of divines,’ (so our statutes express it) ‘founded to overturn all heresies, and defend the catholic faith.’”

You reply, “I presume it was expected you should either continue at your college, or enter upon some regular cure.”​――Perhaps so; but I must still insist, that if my sacerdotal powers had been then expresly limited to that congregation whereunto I should be appointed, my ordination would have signified nothing. I mean, I could never, in virtue of that ordination, have exercised those powers at all: seeing I never was appointed to any single congregation: at least, not till I went to Georgia.

I answered, 3. “For many years after I was ordained priest, this limitation was never heard of. I heard not one syllable of it, by way of objection to my preaching up and down, in Oxford or London, or the parts adjacent: in Glocestershire or Worcestershire: in Lancashire, Yorkshire, or Lincolnshire. Nor did the strictest disciplinarian scruple suffering me to exercise those powers wherever I came.”

You reply, There is great difference between preaching occasionally​――with the leave of the incumbent, and doing it constantly without their leave. I grant there is; and there are objections to the latter, which do not reach the former case. But they do not belong to this head. They do not in the least affect this consequence, “If every priest, when ordained, is expresly limited, touching the exercise of the power then received, to that congregation to which he shall be appointed; then is he precluded by this express limitation, from preaching, with or without the incumbent’s leave, in any other congregation whatever.”

I answered, 4. “Is it not, in fact, universally allowed, that every priest, as such, has a power, in virtue of his ordination, to preach​――in any congregation, where the curate desires his assistance?”

You reply to this by what you judge a ♦parallel case. But it does not touch the restriction in question. Either this does, or does not expresly limit the exercise of the powers conferred upon a priest in his ordination, to that congregation whereunto he shall be appointed. If it does not, I am not condemned by this; however faulty I may be on a thousand other accounts. If it does, then is every priest condemned who ever preaches out of the congregation to which he is appointed.

Your parallel case is this​――Because a man does not offend against the law of the land, when I prevail upon him to teach my children.​――Therefore he is impowered to seize (read, he does not offend against the law of the land in seizing) an apartment in my house, and against my will and approbation to continue therein, and to direct and dictate to my family! page 11.

An exact parallel indeed!​――When therefore I came to live in St. Luke’s parish, was it just the same thing as if I had seized an apartment in Dr. Buckley’s house? And was the continuing therein against his will and approbation (supposing it were so) precisely the same, as if I had continued in his house, whether he would or no? Is the one exactly the same offence against the law of the land as the other? Once more. Is the warning sinners in Moorfields, to flee from the wrath to come, the very same with directing the Dr.’s family, under his own roof?​――I should not have answered this, but that I was afraid you would conclude, it was unanswerable.

I answered the former objector, 5. “Before those words which you suppose to imply such a restraint​――were those spoken without any restraint or limitation at all, which I apprehend to convey an indelible character, receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a priest in the church of God, now committed unto thee, by the imposition of our hands.”

You reply, The question is not, whether you are in orders, or not? page 12.​――I am glad to hear it. I really thought it was.​――But whether you have acted suitably to the directions or rules of the church of England.​――Not suitably to that rule, if it were strictly to be interpreted, of preaching only in a single congregation. But I have given my reasons, why I think it cannot be so interpreted. And those reasons I do not see that you have invalidated.

I would only add, If I am in orders, if I am a minister still, and yet not a minister of the church of England, of what church am I a minister? Whoever is a minister at all, is a minister of some particular church. Neither can he cease to be a minister of that church, till he is cast out of it by a judicial sentence. Till therefore I am so cast out (which I trust will never be) I must stile myself, a minister of the church of England.

6. Your next objection is, You not only erect bands, which, after the Moravians, you call the united society, but also give out tickets to those that continue therein.​――These bands, you think, have had very bad consequences​――as was to be expected​――when weak people​――are made leaders​――of their brethren, and are set upon expounding scripture.​――Ibid.

You are in some mistakes here. For, 1. The bands are not called the united society. 2. The united society was originally so called, not after the Moravians, but because it consisted of several smaller societies united together. 3. Neither the bands, nor the leaders of them, as such, are set upon expounding scripture. 4. The good consequences of their meeting together in bands, I know: but the very bad consequences I know not.

When any members of these, or of the united society, are proved to live in known sin, we then mark and avoid them; we separate ourselves from every one that walks disorderly. Sometimes, if the case be judged infectious (though rarely) this is openly declared. And this you stile excommunication, and say, Does not every one see a separate ecclesiastical society or communion? page 13.​――No. This society does not separate from the communion of the rest of the church of England. They continue stedfastly with them, both in the apostolical doctrine, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayers (which neither Mr. St. nor Mr. Si. does: nor the gentleman who writes to you in favour of the Moravians: who also writes pressingly to me, to separate myself from the church) a society over which you had appointed yourself a governor.​――No; so far as I governed them, it was at their own intreaty.​――And took upon you all the spiritual authority, which the very highest church governor could claim.​――What! at Kingswood? In February 1740‒1? Not so. I took upon me no other authority (then and there at least) than any steward of a society exerts by the consent of the other members. I did neither more nor less than declare, that they who had broken our rules, were no longer of our society.

Can you pretend that you received this authority from our church?​――Not by ordination; for I did not exert it as a priest: but as one whom that society had voluntarily chosen to be at the head of them.​――Or that you exercised it in subjection, or subordination to her lawful governors?​――I think so; I am sure I did not exercise it in any designed opposition to them.​――Did you ever think proper to consult or advise with them, about fixing the terms of your communion?​――If you mean, about fixing the rules of admitting or excluding from our society: I never did think it either needful or proper. Nor do I, at this day.

How then will you vindicate all these powers?​――All these are, “Declaring those are no longer of our society.” Here is a manifest congregation. Either it belonged to the church of England, or not.​――If it did not​――you set up a separate communion against her. And how then are you injured, in being thought to have withdrawn from her?​――I have nothing to do with this. The antecedent is false. Therefore the consequent falls of course.​――If it did belong to the church, shew where the church gave you such authority of controuling and regulating it?​――Authority of putting disorderly members out of that society? The society itself gave me that authority. What private clergyman can plead her commission, to be thus a judge and ordinary, even in his own parish?​――Any clergyman or layman, without pleading her commission, may be thus a judge and ordinary. Are not these powers inherent in her governors, and committed to the higher order of her clergy?​――No; not the power of excluding members from a private society,​――unless on supposition of some such rule as ours is, viz. “That if any man separate from the church, he is no longer a member of our society.”

7. But you have more proof yet. The grand jury in Georgia found, that you had called yourself ordinary of Savannah. Nor was this fact contradicted even by those of the jury, who you say wrote in your favour. So that it appears, you have long had an inclination, to be independent and uncontrouled.​――This argument ought to be good; for it is far fetched. The plain case was this. That grand jury did assert, “That in Mr. Causton’s hearing, I had called myself ordinary of Savannah.” The minority of the jury, in their letter to the trustees, refuted the other allegations particularly: but thought this so idle an one, that they did not deign to give it any farther reply, than

“As to the eighth bill we are in doubt, as not well knowing the meaning of the word ordinary.” See 1 Journal, pages 47, 49.

You add, I appeal to any reasonable man, whether you have not acted as an ordinary; nay, a bishop in Kingswood.​――If you mean, in “declaring those disorderly members were no longer of that society.” I admit your appeal, whether I therein acted as a bishop, or as any steward of a society may. Nay, you have gone far beyond the generality of the dissenters themselves; who do not commit the power of excommunication (and ♦appointing to preach​――that is another question) to the hands of any private minister.​――The powers of excommunication.​――True; but this was not excommunication, but a quite different thing.

How far, in what circumstances, and in what sense, I have appointed men to preach, I have explained at large in the third part of the Farther Appeal. But I wait for farther light; and am ready to consider, as I am able, whatever shall be replied to what is there advanced.

8. Your general conclusion is, Whatever your pretences or professions may be, you can be looked upon by serious and impartial persons, (not as a member, much less a minister of the church of England,) but as no other than an enemy to her constitution, worship and doctrine, raising divisions and disturbances in her communion, (page 76.)​――And yet you say​――“I cannot have greater regard to her rules”​――“I dare not renounce communion with her.” (page 15.)

* I do say so still. I cannot have a greater regard to any human rules, than to follow them in all things, unless where I apprehend there is a divine rule to the contrary. I dare not renounce communion with the church of England. As a minister, I teach her doctrines. I use her offices. I conform to her rubricks. I suffer reproach for my attachment to her. As a private member I hold her doctrines. I join in her offices, in prayer, in hearing, in communicating. I expect every reasonable man, touching these facts, to believe his own eyes and ears.​――But if these facts are so, how dare any man of common sense, charge me with renouncing the church of England?

9. Use ever so many exaggerations, still the whole of this matter is, 1. I often use extemporary prayer. 2. Wherever I can, I preach the gospel. 3. Those who desire to live the gospel I advise how to watch over each other, and to put from them such as walk disorderly. Now whether these things are, on other considerations, right or wrong, this single point I must still insist on; “All this does not prove, either that I am no member, or that I am no minister of the church of England.” Nay, nothing can prove, I am no member of the church, till I either am excommunicated, or renounce her communion, and no longer join in her doctrine, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayer. Nor can any thing prove, I am no minister of the church, till I either am deposed from my ministry, or voluntarily renounce her, and wholly cease to teach her doctrines, use her offices, and obey her rubricks for conscience sake.

However I grant, that whatsoever is urged on this head, deserves my most serious consideration. And whensoever I am convinced, that by taking any methods, more or less different from those I now take, I may better consult the honour of religion, and be able to do more good in the world; by the grace of God, I shall not persist in these one hour, but instantly chuse the more excellent way.

---

IV. 1. What you urge on the head of enthusiasm also, I think deserves my most serious consideration. (You may add, and presumption. I let it drop once more; because I do not love tautology; and because I look upon presumption to be ♦essential to enthusiasm, and consequently contained therein.) I will therefore weigh what you advance concerning it, and explain myself something more at large.

I am to examine, you say, (page 120.) How far you have cleared yourself of enthusiasm. My account of this you set down, making as many alterations and omissions as there are lines​――Perhaps more; for I never designed to recite the whole, but only the material part of it. If you did not wholly approve of it, why would you not let me know, what you disliked in it?​――Because I do not love many words. Therefore when the argument stood thus: “He that does this is an enthusiast: but you do this:” I was generally content with answering the 2d proposition, and leaving the first as I found it.

I laid this charge against you and the Methodists in general: between you every part of the character has been verified.​――I answer for one; let the rest answer for themselves,​――if they have not better employment.

That the question between us may be the more fully understood, I shall briefly compare together, 1. Your remarks. 2. My answer. 3. Your reply: though still I cannot promise to repeat your words at length.

2. You remark (page 60.) Though you would be thought an enemy to enthusiasm and presumption,​――yet in both you are far from being inferior to the Moravians, or indeed to any others: [strong assertions! not inferior to any others? Not to the French prophets, or John of Leyden?] 1. Enthusiasm is, a false persuasion of an extraordinary divine assistance, which leads men to such conduct, as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance. I answer, (page 38.) “Before this touches me, you are to prove (which I conceive you have not done yet) that my conduct is such, as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance.” You reply (page 120.) This, I think, is proved in the preceding tract.​――I think not. Let men of candour judge.​――Yet I am persuaded, there was such an assistance at some times. You have also to prove, that this was a false persuasion.

You remark, 2. An enthusiast is then sincere, but mistaken. (page 61.) I answered, “That I am mistaken, remains to be proved.” You reply, The world must judge. Agreed, if by the world you mean, men of reason and religion.

You remark, 3. His intentions must be good: but his actions will be most abominable. I answered,​――“What actions of mine are most abominable?” You reply, The world must be judge, whether your public actions have not been​――in many respects abominable. I am glad the charge softens. I hope by and by you will think they are only abominable in some respects.

You remark 4. Instead of making the word of God​――the rule of his actions, he follows only secret persuasion or impulse.​――I answered, “I have declared again and again, that I make the word of God the rule of all my actions, and that I no more follow any secret impulse instead thereof, than I follow Mahomet or Confucius.” You reply (page 121.) You fall again into your strain of boasting, as if declarations could have any weight against facts; assert, that “you make the word of God the rule of all your actions,” and that I “perhaps do not know many persons.”​――Stop, Sir. You are stepping over one or two points, which I have not done with.

You remark, 5. Instead of judging of his spiritual estate, by the improvement of his heart, he rests only on extasies, &c.​――I answered, “Neither is this my case. I rest not on them at all. I judge of my spiritual estate, by the improvement of my heart and the tenor of my life conjointly.” To this I do not perceive you reply one word. Herein then I am not an enthusiast.

You remark, 6. He is very liable to err​――not considering things coolly and carefully. I answered, “So indeed I am: I find it every day more and more. But I do not yet find, that this is owing to my want of considering things coolly and carefully. Perhaps you do not know many persons (excuse my simplicity in speaking it) who more carefully consider every step they take (page 39.) Yet I know I am not cool or careful enough. May God supply this and all my wants!” You reply, Your private life I have nothing to do with: and then enlarge on my method of consulting scripture, and of using lots: of both which by and by. But mean time, observe this does not affect the question. for I neither cast lots, nor use that method at all, till I have considered things with all the care I can. So that, be this right or wrong, it is no manner of proof, that I do not “carefully consider every step I take.”

But how little did I profit by begging your excuse, suppose I had spoken a word unguardedly? O Sir, you put me in mind of him who said, “I know not to shew mercy!” You have need never to fight, but when you are sure to conquer: seeing you are resolved neither to give nor take quarter.

You remark, 7. He is very difficult to be convinced by reason and argument, as he acts upon a supposed principle superior to it, the direction of God’s Spirit. I answered, “I am very difficult to be convinced by dry blows or hard names.​――But not, by reason or argument. At least that difficulty cannot spring from the cause you mention. For I claim no other direction of God’s Spirit than is common to all believers.”

You reply (page 124) 1.​――I fear this will not be easily reconcileable to your past pretences and behaviour. I believe it will; in particular to what I speak of the light I received from God in that important affair. (1 journal page 37.) But as to the directions, in general of the Spirit of God, we very probably differ in this; you apprehend those directions to be extraordinary, which I suppose to be common to all believers.

You remark, 8. Whoever opposes him will be charged with resisting or rejecting the Spirit. I answered, “What! Whoever opposes me, John Wesley?​――Do I charge every such person with rejecting the Spirit? No more than I charge him with robbing on the highway.​――Do I charge you with rejecting the Spirit?” You reply, You deny that you charge the opposers with rejecting the Spirit, and affirm, that you never said or thought, that what you do is to be accounted the work of God. Here you blend different sentences together, which I must consider apart, as they were written. And first, where do I charge you with rejecting the Spirit? If I charge whoever opposes me with this, undoubtedly I charge you. If I do not charge you, that proposition is false; I do not so charge whoever opposes me. Your next words are, You affirm that you never said or thought, that what you do is ♦to be accounted the work of God.​――If it be the work of God, you need not deny the other point.​――Yes, Sir: whether it be or no, I must still deny, that I ever charged you with rejecting the Spirit in opposing me.

You remark, 9. His own dreams must be regarded as oracles.​――I answered, “Whose? I desire neither my dreams nor my waking thoughts, may be regarded at all, unless just so far as they agree with the oracles of God.” To this also you make no reply.

You remark, 10. However wild​――his behaviour may be, whatever he​――does, is to be accounted the work of God. It was to this I answered, “I never said so of what I do: I never thought so.” This answer was ill expressed. And I might have foreseen, you would hardly fail, to make your advantage of it. I must therefore explain myself upon it a little farther. You said, “An enthusiast accounts whatever he does to be the work of God.” I should have said, “but I do not account whatever I do to be the work of God.” What that is, which I do account his work, will be considered by and by.

You remark, 11. He talks in the stile of inspired persons. I answered, “No otherwise inspired, than you are, if you love God.” You reply, (page 126.) The point was not, whether you are actually inspired, but whether you have talked in the stile of those who were so. That was so much the point, that if it were allowed, it would overturn your whole argument. For if I was inspired (in your sense) you could not term that inspiration enthusiasm without blasphemy: but you again mistake my words. The plain meaning of them is, that I talk in the stile of those persons, who are “no otherwise inspired than you are, if you love God.”

You remark, 12. He applies scripture phrases to himself, without attending to their original meaning, or once considering the difference of times and circumstances. (page 62.) I answered, “I am not conscious of any thing like this. I apply no scripture phrase (page 39) either to myself or any other, without carefully considering both the original meaning, and the secondary sense, wherein, allowing for different times and circumstances, it may be applied to ordinary Christians.” You reply, This also you deny to have done; holding however some secondary sense, (what it is you have not told us) in which scripture phrases may​――be applied to ordinary Christians. I have largely told you, what I mean by, a secondary sense, in the first part of the Farther Appeal. You add, (page 126.) many things which were truly written of the preaching of Christianity at first, you have vainly applied to yourselves. Sir, I am to answer only for myself: as I will for that expression, Behold the day of the Lord is come; he is again visiting and redeeming his people!

3. I come now to what you expatiate upon at large, as the two grand instances of enthusiasm. The first is plainly this. * At some rare times, when I have been in great distress of soul, or in utter uncertainty how to act, in an important case, which required a speedy determination: after using all other means that occurred, I have casts lots, or opened the bible. And by this means I have been relieved from that distress, or directed in that uncertainty.

Instances of this kind occur in the 12. 14. 15. 28. and 88th pages of the third journal: as also in the 27. 28. and 80th page of the last journal. I desire any who would understand this matter throughly, to read those passages as they stand at length.

As to the particular instances, I would observe, 1. That with regard to my first journey to Bristol, you should in any wise have set down those words, that preface the scriptures there recited. “I was intreated, in the most pressing manner, to come to Bristol without delay. This I was not at all forward to do: and perhaps a little the less inclined to it​――because of the remarkable scriptures which offered, as often as we enquired touching the consequence of this removal: though whether this was permitted only for the trial of our faith, God knoweth, and the event will shew.”​――From the scriptures afterwards recited, some inferred, that the event, they apprehended, was yet afar off.​――I infer nothing at all. I still know not how to judge; but leave the whole to God.​――* This only I know, that the continual expectation of death, was then an unspeakable blessing to me: that I did not dare, knowingly, to waste a moment, neither to throw away one desire on earthly things: those words being ever uppermost in my thoughts, and indeed frequently on my tongue,

I observe, 2. That in two other of those instances, (3 journal pages 12 and 14.) it is particularly mentioned, that “I was troubled;” and that by the seasonable application of those scriptures, that trouble was entirely removed. The same blessing I received (so I must term it still) from the words set down in the 88th page: and in a yet higher degree, from that exceeding, ♦apposite scripture mentioned in the 80th page of the last journal.

I observe, 3. That at the times to which your other citations refer, I was utterly uncertain how to act, in points of great importance, and such as required a speedy determination: and that by this means my uncertainty was removed, and I went on my way rejoicing, Journal 3. pages 12, 15. Journal 4. pages 27, 28.

My own experience therefore, which you think should discourage me for the future from any thing of this kind, does on the contrary greatly encourage me herein; since I have found much benefit, and no inconvenience: unless perhaps this be one, that you cannot acquit me of enthusiasm: add, if you please, and presumption.

But you ask, Has God ever commanded us to do thus? I believe he has neither commanded nor forbidden it in scripture. But then remember, That scripture (to use the words which you cite, from our learned and judicious Hooker) is not the only rule of all things, which in this life, may be done by men​――All I affirm concerning this, is, That it may be done; and that I have in fact, received assistance and direction thereby.

4. I give the same answer to your assertion, (page 123.) that we are not ordered in scripture to decide any point in question by lots. You allow indeed, there are instances of this in scripture; but affirm, these were miraculous: nor can we without presumption (a species of enthusiasm) apply this method. I want proof of this: bring one plain text of scripture, and I am satisfied.​――This, I apprehend, you learned from the Moravians​――I did; though ’tis true, Mr. Whitefield thought I went too far therein.​――Instances of the same occur in your journals. I will mention only one. It being debated when you should go to Bristol, you say, “We at length all agreed, to decide it by lot. And by this it was determined, I should go.” (Journal 3, page 28.) Is this your way of carefully considering every step you take? Can there be greater rashness and extravagance? Reason is thus in a manner rendered useless: prudence is set aside, and affairs of moment left to be determined by chance! page 124.

So this you give as a genuine instance of my proceedings​――And, I suppose, of your own fairness and candour! “We agreed at length, to decide it by lot.” True; at length: after a debate of some hours; after carefully hearing and weighing coolly, all the reasons which could be alledged on either side; “Our brethren still continuing the dispute, without any probability of their coming to one conclusion, we at length (the night being now far spent) all agreed to this.” Can there be greater rashness and extravagance?​――I cannot but think there can. Reason is thus in a manner rendered useless. No: we had used it as far as it could go: from Saturday, March 17, (when I received the first letter) to Wednesday 28, when the case was laid before the society. Prudence is set aside: Not so; but the arguments here were so equal, that she saw not how to determine:​――And affairs of moment left to be determined by chance! By chance? What a blunder then is that, The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposal thereof is of the Lord!

* This I firmly believe is truth and reason, and will be to the end of the world. And I therefore still subscribe to that declaration of the Moravian church (laid before the whole body of divines in the university of Wirtemberg, and not by them accounted enthusiasm) “We have a peculiar esteem for lots, and accordingly use them both in public and private, to decide points of importance, when the reasons brought on each side, appear to be of equal weight. And we believe this to be then the only way, of wholly setting aside our own will, of acquitting ourselves of all blame, and clearly knowing what is the will of God.” Journal 2, page 81.

5. You next remarked several instances of my enthusiasm. The first was, That of Mrs. Jones. The next ran thus. Again, you say, “I expounded out of the fulness that was given me.” (page 64.) I answered, “I mean, I had then a fuller, deeper sense (of what I spoke) than I ordinarily have.” (page 41.) But if you still think, It would have been more decent to have said, according to the best of my power and ability, with God’s assistance, I expounded; I will say so another time.

With regard to the third instance of enthusiasm, you remarked, If you would not have us look on this as miraculous, there is nothing in it worthy of being related, page 64.​――I answered, “It may be so. Let it pass then as a trifle not worth relating; but still it is no proof of enthusiasm. For I would not have you look upon it as miraculous​――But as a signal instance of God’s particular providence, page 42.” How friendly and generous is your reply! You seem ashamed of it​――I am glad you give this fooling up, and hope for the future, you will treat your readers better. (page 131.) Sir, I am not ashamed of it; nor shall I ever give this fooling up, till I give up the bible. I still look upon this “as a signal instance of God’s particular providence”​――But how is this consistent with yielding it to be a trifle? (page 132.) My words do not imply, that I yield it so to be. Being urged with the dilemma, “Either this is related as miraculous, (and then it is enthusiasm) or it is not worth relating:” I answered (to avoid drawing the saw of controversy) “Let it pass then as a trifle not worth relating. But still, (if it be a trifle, which I suppose, not grant) it is no proof of enthusiasm. For I would not have you look upon it as miraculous.”

And yet I believe I yielded too much, and what might too much favour your assertion, that there is a great difference between particular providences and such extraordinary interpositions.​――Pray, Sir, shew me what this difference is. It is a subject that deserves your coolest thoughts​――I know no ground​――to hope or pray for such immediate reliefs.​――These things must be represented either as common accidents or as miracles. I do not throughly understand your terms. What is a common accident? That a sparrow falls to the ground? Or something more inconsiderable than the hairs of your head? Is there no medium between accident and miracle? If there be, what is that medium?​――When we are agreed with regard to these few points, I shall be glad to resume the subject.

6. The fourth instance of my enthusiasm was this, that I related judgments inflicted on my opposers. As to Mr. Molther, I must observe once more, that I do believe there was a particular providence in his sickness. But I do not believe, (nor did I design to insinuate) that it was a judgment, for opposing me.

You go on. Again, you mention “as an awful providence, the case of a poor wretch who was last week cursing and blaspheming, and had boasted to many, that he would come again on Sunday, and no man should stop his mouth then​――But on Friday God laid his hand upon him, and on Sunday he was buried.” (page 66.) I answered, “I look on this as a manifest judgment of God, on a hardened sinner, for his complicated wickedness”. (page 42.) You reply, page 133. Add, if you please, “His labouring with all his might to hinder the word of God.” Here therefore is a confest judgment, for his opposition to you.​――There is, for his thus opposing with curses and blasphemy. This was part of his complicated wickedness. Here then you think I plead guilty.​――Not of enthusiasm; till you prove, this was not “an awful providence.”

Again, “One was just going to beat his wife (which he frequently did) when God smote him in a moment, so that his hand dropped, and he fell down upon the ground, having no more strength than a new-born child.” Have we any warrant either from scripture, or the common dispensations of providence, to interpret misfortunes of this nature as judgments? page 67. I answered, “Can you, Sir, consider this, as one of the common dispensations of providence? Have you known a parallel one in your life? But it was never cited by me (as it is by you) as an immediate punishment on a man for opposing me”. page 42.​――You reply, As if what is not common, or what I have not known, must be a miraculous judgment.​――I believe it was, whether miraculous or no, a judgment mixed with mercy.

You now add to the rest the following instance: “One John Haydon, a man of a regular life and conversation, being informed, that people fell into strange fits at the societies, came to see and judge for himself. But he was still less satisfied than before; insomuch that he went about to his acquaintance one after another, and laboured above measure to convince them, it was a delusion of the devil. We were going home, when one met us in the street, and informed us, that J. H. was fallen raving mad. It seems he had sat down to dinner, but had a mind first to end the sermon on salvation by faith. In reading the last page he changed colour, fell off his chair, and began screaming terribly, and beating himself against the ground. The neighbours were alarmed, and flocked into the house. I came in and found him upon the floor, ♦the room being full of people, whom his wife would have kept without, but he cried aloud, No; let them all come; let all the world see the just judgment of God. Two or three men were holding him as well as they could. He immediately fixed his eyes upon me, and cried, Ay, this is he, who I said was a deceiver of the people. But God has overtaken me. I said, it was all a delusion. But this is no delusion. He then roared out, O thou devil! Thou cursed devil! Yea, thou legion of devils! Thou canst not stay! Christ will call thee out. I know his work is begun. Tear me to pieces if thou wilt, but thou canst not hurt me. He then beat himself against the ground again, his breast heaving at the same time, as in the pangs of death, and great drops of sweat trickling down his face. We all betook ourselves to prayer. His pangs ceased, and both his body and soul were set at liberty.” Journal 3. page 44.

If you had pleased, you might have added from the next paragraph, “Returning to J. H. we found his voice was lost, and his body weak as that of an infant. But his soul was in peace, full of love, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God.”

You subjoin, this you may desire for ought I know, to pass as a trifle too. (page 134.) No: it is so terrible an instance of the judgment of God, (tho’ at length mercy rejoiced over judgment) as ought never to be forgotten by those who fear God, so long as the sun or moon endureth.

7. The account of people falling down in fits you cite as a fifth instance of my enthusiasm: it being plain, you say, that I look upon both the disorders, and the removals of them to be supernatural. (page 67.) I answered, “It is not quite plain. I look upon some of these cases, as wholly natural: on the rest, as mixt: both the disorders and the removals, being partly natural and partly not.” (page 43.) You reply, It would have been kind, to have let us know your rule, by which you distinguish these.​――I will. I distinguish them, by the circumstances, that precede, accompany, and follow. However some of these you here allow, to be in part, supernatural. Miracles therefore are not wholly ceased. Can you prove they are? By scripture, or reason?​――You then refer to two or three cases related in the 42d and 43d pages of the third journal. I believe there was a supernatural power, on the minds of the persons there mentioned, which occasioned their bodies to be so affected by the natural laws of the vital union. This point therefore you have to prove, or here is no enthusiasm; that there was no supernatural power in the case.

Hereon you remarked, You leave no room to doubt that you would have these cases considered, as those of the demoniacks in the new Testament, in order, I suppose, to parallel your supposed cures of them, with those highest miracles of Christ and his disciples, the casting out devils​――(Remarks, page 68.) I answered, “I should once have wondered at your making such a supposition. But I now wonder at nothing of the kind.” You reply, Why so? What have I done lately, to take off your surprize? Have I forfeited my character for ingenuous and fair dealing with you? (2d Letter, page 135.) Since you ask me the question, I will answer it (I hope, in love and in the spirit of meekness.) I scarce know, of all who have wrote against me, a less ingenuous dealer: or one who has shewn a more steady, invariable disposition, to put an ill construction on whatever I say.

But why would you not particularly explain these cases?​――I will explain myself upon them once for all. For more than three hundred years after Christ, you know demoniacks were common in the church: and I suppose, ♦you are not unapprised, that during this period, ♠(if not much longer) they were continually relieved by the prayers of the faithful. Nor can I doubt, but demoniacks will remain, so long as Satan is the God of this world. I doubt not, but there are such at this day. And I believe John Haydon was one. But of whatever sort his disorder was, that it was removed by prayer is undeniable. Now, Sir, you have only two points to prove, and then your argument will be conclusive. 1. That to think or say, “There are demoniacks now, and they are now relieved by prayer,” is enthusiasm: 2. That to say “Demoniacks were or are relieved, on prayer made by Cyprian, or their parish-minister,” is to parallel the actions of Cyprian, or that minister, with the highest miracles of Christ and his disciples.”

8. You remarked, It will be difficult to persuade any sober person, that there is any thing supernatural in these disorders, Remarks, page 69. The remainder of that paragraph I abridged thus. You attempt to account for those fits, by obstructions or irregularities of the blood and spirits; hysterical disorders; watchings, fastings; closeness of rooms, great crouds, violent heat. And lastly by terrors, perplexities and doubts, in weak and well-meaning men; which you think in many of the cases before us, have quite overset their understandings, Remarks, page 43.

I answered, “As to each of the rest, let it go as far as it can go. [Let it be supposed to have some influence in some cases; perhaps, fully to account for one in a thousand.] But I require proof of the last way, whereby you would account for these disorders.”​――Why, the instances, you say, of religious madness have much increased, since you began to disturb the world.​――“I doubt the fact.”​――You reply, This no way disproves it, page 137.​――Yes it does, till you produce some proof. For a bare negation is the proper and sufficient answer to a bare affirmation. I add, “If these instances had increased daily, ’tis easy to account for them another way,” (as is done in the first part of the Farther Appeal, at the 101st and following pages.) You say, Most have heard of or known, several of the Methodists, thus driven to distraction: I answered, “You may have heard of five hundred. But how many have you known? Be pleased to name eight or ten of them. I cannot find them, no, not one of them to this day, either man, woman, or child,” page 44. You reply, “This (the naming them) would be very improper and unnecessary, page 138.” However, Sir, it is extremely necessary, that you should name them to me in private, I will then, if required, excuse you to the public; which till then I cannot do.

The person I mentioned whom you threw into much doubt and perplexity, then lived in the parish of St. Ann, Westminster. I related the case just as she related it to me. But she is able and ready to answer for herself.

9. You go on. It is the most charitable supposition we can make, that many of the cases you have mentioned in your journals, and some of which have been represented above, are of this kind, i. e. instances of madness,​――2d Letter, page 138. O tender charity! But cannot your charity reach one hair’s breadth farther than this?​――No: for otherwise [i. e. if those persons were not mad] the presumption and despair are terrible indeed.​――But what if you were to suppose John Haydon (to instance in one) was not mad, but under a temporary possession? And that others were deeply convinced of sin, and of the wrath of God abiding on them? I should think this supposition (be it true or false) was full as charitable as the other.

I said, “I cannot find one such instance to this day.” You reply, Yet once you could not but be under some “Concern, with regard to one or two persons, who seemed to be indeed lunatic, as well as sore vexed”.​――“So they seemed: but it soon appeared, they were not.” The very next paragraph mentions, that one of these within a few hours, was “filled with the spirit of love, and of a sound mind.” Journal 3. page 88.

But you are resolved, come what will, to carry this point: and so add, Toward the end of your Farther Appeal, [the first part, page 101.] You say, “You have seen one instance of real, lasting madness. This was one whom you took with you to Bristol, who was afterwards prejudiced against you, and began a vehement ♦invective both against your person and doctrines. In the midst of this he was struck raving mad.” Add, “And so he continued till his friends put him into Bedlam: and probably laid his madness to my charge.”​――If they did not, it is now done to their hands.

10. As to the cure of these fits, I observed (so you, page 139. proceed) that you had frequently represented them as miraculous, as the instantaneous consequences of your prayers.​――My former answer to this was, “I have set down the facts just as they were, passing no judgment upon them myself, and leaving every man else to judge as he pleases.”

I am glad you give me an occasion of reviewing this answer; for upon reflection, I do not like it at all. It grants you more than I can in conscience do. As it can be proved by abundance of witnesses, that these cures were frequently, (indeed almost always) the instantaneous consequences of prayer; your inference is just. I cannot, dare not affirm, that they were purely natural. I believe they were not. I believe many of them were wrought by the supernatural power of God. That of John Haydon in particular: (I fix on this, and will join issue with you upon it when you please) and yet this is not bare-faced enthusiasm. Nor can you prove it any enthusiasm at all, unless you can prove, that this is falsely ascribed to a supernatural power.

The next case, you say, relates to the spotted fever, which you represent as being extremely mortal; but​――you believe there was not one with whom you were but recovered. I allowed, that here is no intimation of any thing miraculous (Remarks page 72.) You ask, (Answer, page 45.) “Why then is this cited as an instance of my enthusiasm?”​――You sure cannot think, that false pretences to miracles are the whole of enthusiasm. No; but I think they are that part of enthusiasm, which you here undertook to prove upon me. You are here to prove, that I boast of curing bodily distempers by prayer, without the use of any other means. (Remarks, page 71.) But if there is no intimation in my account of any thing miraculous, or that proper remedies had not been applied: how is this a proof, that I boast of curing bodily distempers, without applying any remedies at all?

But you seem to desire to have it believed, that an extraordinary blessing attended your prayers. Whereas if the circumstances could be particularly inquired into, most probably it would appear, that either the fury of the distemper was abated, or the persons you visited were seized with it in a more favourable degree, or were by reason of a good constitution, more capable of going through it. Neither do I believe, that they would have failed of an equal blessing and success, had they had the assistance and prayers of their own parish ministers.

There, Sir; now I have done as you require: I have quoted your whole remark. But does all this prove, that I boast of curing bodily distempers by prayer, without the use of any other means? If you say, although it does not prove this, it proves that you seem to desire to have it believed, that an extraordinary blessing attended your prayers: and this is another sort of enthusiasm:​――’tis very well: so it does not prove the conclusion you designed; but it proves another, which is as good!

11. The two last instances of my enthusiasm which you bring (Remarks, 72, 73.) I had summed up in two lines thus: “At two several times, being ill and in violent pain, I prayed to God, and found immediate ease.” (Answer, page 45.) But since you say, I must not hope to escape so; these instances must once more be laid before me particularly, page 140. I must yield to necessity, and set them down from the beginning to the end.

“Saturday, March 21. I explained in the evening the 33d chapter of Ezekiel: in applying which, I was seized with such a pain in my side, I could not speak. I knew my remedy, and immediately kneeled down. In a moment the pain was gone.” Journal 4. page 77.

“Friday, May 8. I found myself much out of order, however I made shift to preach in the evening. But on Saturday my bodily strength failed, so that for several hours I could scarce lift up my head. Sunday 10. I was obliged to lie down most part of the day, being easy only in that posture.​――In the evening​――beside the pain in my back and head, and the fever which still continued upon me, just as I began to pray, I was seized with such a cough, that I could hardly speak. At the same time came strongly into my mind, These signs shall follow them that believe.​――I called on Jesus aloud, To increase my faith, and to confirm the word of his grace. While I was speaking, my pain vanished away, the fever left me, my bodily strength returned, and for many weeks I felt neither weakness nor pain. Unto thee, O Lord, do I give thanks.” Journal 4. page 83.

When you first cited these as proofs of enthusiasm, I answered, “I will put your argument into form.

“He that believes those are miraculous cures which are not so, is a rank enthusiast: but

“You believe those are miraculous cures which are not so, therefore, you are a rank enthusiast.”

――“What do you mean by miraculous? If you term every thing so, which is not strictly accountable for by the ordinary course of natural causes, then I deny the latter part of the minor proposition. And unless you can make this good, unless you can prove, the effects in question, are strictly accountable for by the ordinary course of natural causes, your argument is nothing worth.”

You reply, Your answer to the objection is very evasive, though you pretend to put my argument in form. You mistake the major proposition which should have been:

He that represents those cures as the immediate effects of his own prayers, and as miraculous, which are not so, is a rank enthusiast, if sincere:

But, This you have done: Ergo, &c.

To this clumsy syllogism I rejoin, 1. That the words, “if sincere,” are utterly impertinent: for if insincerity be supposed, enthusiasm will be out of the question. 2. That those words, “as the effects of his own prayers,” may likewise be pared off; for they are unnecessary and cumbersome, the argument being compleat without them. 3. That with or without them, the proposition is false; unless so far as it co-incides with that you reject. For it is the believing those to be miracles which are not, that constitutes an enthusiast: not the representing them one way or the other; unless so far as it implies such a belief.

12. Upon my answer to the syllogism first proposed, you observe, Thus (by denying the latter part of the minor) you clear yourself from the charge of enthusiasm, by acknowledging the cures to be supernatural and miraculous​――Why then would you not speak out, and directly say, that you can work real and undoubted miracles? This would put the controversy between you and your opposers on a short foot, and be an effectual proof of ♦the truth of your pretences, page 142.

---

V. 1. I have in some measure explained myself on the head of miracles, in the third part of the Farther Appeal. But ♦since you repeat the demand (tho’ without taking any notice of the arguments there advanced) I will endeavour once more to give you a distinct, full and determinate answer.

And first, I acknowledge, that I have seen with my eyes, and heard with my ears, several things, which, to the best of my judgment, cannot be accounted for by the ordinary course of natural causes, and which, I therefore believe ought to be ascribed to the extraordinary interposition of God. If any man chuse to stile these miracles, I reclaim not. I have diligently inquired into the facts. I have weighed the preceding and following circumstances. I have strove to account for them in a natural way. I could not, without doing violence to my reason. Not to go far back, I am clearly persuaded, that the hidden deliverance of John Haydon, was one instance of this kind, and my own recovery, on May the tenth, another. I cannot account for either of these in a natural way. Therefore I believe they were both supernatural.

* I must, secondly, observe, That the truth of these facts is supported by the same kind of proof, as that of all other facts is wont to be, namely, the testimony of competent witnesses: and that the testimony here is in as high a degree as any reasonable man can desire. Those witnesses were many in number: they could not be deceived themselves; for the facts in question they saw with their own eyes, and heard with their own ears. Nor is it credible, that so many of them would combine together, with a view of deceiving others; the greater part being men that feared God; as appeared by the general tenor of their lives. Thus, in the case of John Haydon, this thing was not contrived and executed in a corner, and in the presence of his own family only, or three or four persons prepared for the purpose. No; it was in an open street of the city of Bristol, at one or two in the afternoon. And the doors being all open from the beginning, not only many of the neighbours from every side, but several others, (indeed whosoever desired it) went in, till the house could contain no more. Nor yet does the account of my own illness and recovery depend, as you suppose, on my bare word. There were many witnesses both of my disorder on Friday and Saturday, and of my lying down most part of Sunday (a thing which they were well satisfied could not be the effect of a slight indisposition.) And all who saw me that evening, plainly discerned (what I could not wholly conceal) that I was in pain: about two hundred of whom were present when I was seized with that cough, which cut me short, so that I could speak no more; till I cried out aloud, “Lord, increase my faith: Lord, confirm the word of thy grace.” The same persons saw and heard, that at that instant I changed my posture, and broke out into thanksgiving: that quickly after I stood upright (which I could not before) and shewed no more sign either of sickness or pain.

* Yet I must desire you well to observe, thirdly, That my will, or choice, or desire, had no place either in this, or any case of this kind, that has ever fallen under my notice. Five minutes before I had no thought of this. I expected nothing less. I was willing to wait for a gradual recovery, in the ordinary use of outward means. I did not look for any other cure, till the moment before I found it. And it is my belief, that the case was always the same, with regard to the most real and undoubted miracles. I believe God never interposed his miraculous power, but according to his own sovereign will: not according to the will of man; neither of him by whom he wrought, nor of any other man whatsoever. The wisdom as well as the power are his: nor can I find, that ever, from the beginning of the world, he lodged this power in any mere man, to be used whenever that man saw good. Suppose therefore, there was a man now on earth, who did work real and undoubted miracles; I would ask, by whose power doth he work these? And at whose pleasure? His own, or God’s? Not his own; but God’s. But if so, then your demand is not made on man, but on God. I cannot say it is modest, thus to challenge God; or well suiting the relation of a creature to his Creator.

2. However, I cannot but think, there have been already so many plain interpositions of divine power, as will shortly leave you without excuse, if you either deny or despise them. We desire no favour, but the justice that diligent enquiry may be made concerning them. We are ready to name the persons on whom that power was shewn, which belongeth to none but God; (not one or two, or ten or twelve only) to point out their places of abode: and we engage they shall answer every pertinent question, fairly and directly; and, if required, shall give all those answers upon oath, before any who are impowered so to receive them. It is our particular request, that the circumstances which went before, which accompanied, and which followed after, the facts under consideration, may be thoroughly examined, and punctually noted down. Let but this be done (and is it not highly needful it should? at least, by those who would form an exact judgment) and we have no fear, that any reasonable man should scruple to say, This hath God wrought!

As there have been already so many instances of this kind, far beyond what we had dared to ask or think, I cannot take upon me to say, whether or no it will please God to add to their number. I have not herein known the mind of the Lord, neither am I his counsellor. He may, or he may not; I cannot affirm or deny. I have no light, and I have no desire either way. It is the Lord, let him do what seemeth him good. I desire only to be as clay in his hand.

* 3. But what if there were now to be wrought ever so many real and undoubted miracles? (I suppose you mean by undoubted, such as being sufficiently attested, ought not to be doubted of.) Why, this, you say, would put the controversy on a short foot, and be an effectual proof of the truth of your pretences. By no means. As common as this assertion is, there is none upon earth more false. Suppose a teacher were now, on this very day, to work real and undoubted miracles: this would extremely little shorten the controversy between him and the greater part of his opposers. For all this would not force them to believe; but many would still stand just where they did before: seeing men may harden their hearts against miracles, as well as against arguments.

So men have done, from the beginning of the world: even against such signal, glorious miracles, against such interpositions of the power of God, as may not be again till the consummation of all things. Permit me to remind you only of a few instances; and to observe, that the argument holds a fortiori: for who will ever be impowered of God again, to work such miracles as these were? Did Pharaoh look on all that Moses and Aaron wrought, as an effectual proof of the truth of their pretences? Even when the Lord made the sea to be dry-land, and the waters were divided: when the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea, and the waters were a wall, on the right and on the left? Exodus xiv. 21, 22. Nay;

Was all this an effectual proof of the truth of their pretences, to the Israelites themselves? It was not. They were still disobedient, at the sea; even at the red sea! Was the giving them day by day bread from heaven, an effectual proof to those two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown, who said, with Dathan and Abiram, Wilt thou put out the eyes of these men? We will not come up. Numbers xvi. 14. Nay, when the ground clave asunder that was under them, and the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up: (verse 32.) Neither was this an effectual proof to those who saw it with their eyes, and heard the cry of those that went down into the pit: but the very next day they murmured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of the Lord! (verse 41.)

Was not the case generally the same with regard to the prophets that followed? Several of whom stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, did many mighty works; yet their own people received them not. Yet they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword; they were destitute, afflicted, tormented! Utterly contrary to the commonly-received supposition, that the working real undoubted miracles, must bring all controversy to an end, and convince every gainsayer.

Let us come nearer yet. How stood the case between our Lord himself and his opposers? Did he not work real and undoubted miracles? And what was the effect? Still when he came to his own, his own received him not. Still he was despised and rejected of men. Still it was a challenge not to be answered, Have any of the rulers, or of the pharisees believed on him?​――After this, how can you imagine, that whoever works miracles, must convince all men of the truth of his pretences?

* I would just remind you of only one instance more. There sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother’s womb who never had walked. The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed, said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.​――Here was so undoubted a miracle, that the people lifted up their voices, saying​――The Gods are come down in the likeness of men. But how long were even these convinced of the truth of his pretences? Only till there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium; and then they stoned him (as they supposed) to death! Acts xiv. 1, &c. So certain it is, that no miracles whatever, which were ever yet wrought in the world, were effectual to prove the most glaring truth, to those that hardened their hearts against it.

* 4. And it will equally hold in every age and nation. If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced (of what they desire not to believe) tho’ one rose from the dead. Without a miracle, without one rising from the dead, ἐαν τις θέλει ποιεῖν· if any man be willing to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God. But if he is not willing to do his will, he will never want an excuse, a plausible reason for rejecting it. Yea, tho’ ever so many miracles were wrought to confirm it. For let ever so much light come into the world, it will have no effect (such is the wise and just will of God) on those who love darkness rather than light? It will not convince those who do not simply desire to do the will of their Father which is in heaven: those who mind earthly things; who (if they do not continue in any gross outward sin, yet) love pleasure or ease; yet seek profit or power, preferment, or reputation. Nothing will ever be an effectual proof to these of the holy and acceptable will of God, unless first their proud hearts be humbled, their stubborn wills bowed down, and their desires brought, at least in some degree, into obedience to the law of Christ.

Hence altho’ it should please God to work a-new, all the wonders that ever were wrought on the earth, still these men, however wise and prudent they may be in things relating to the present world, would fight against God and all his messengers, and that in spite of all these miracles. Mean while God will reveal his truth unto babes, unto those who are meek and lowly, whose desires are in heaven, who want to know nothing save Jesus Christ and him crucified.​――These need no outward miracle, to shew them his will: they have a plain rule, the written word. And the anointing which they have received of him, abideth in them, and teacheth them of all things. (1 John ii. 27.) Thro’ this they are enabled to bring all doctrines to the law and to the testimony. And whatsoever is agreeable to this they receive, without waiting to see it attested by miracles. As on the other hand, whatever is contrary to this they reject: nor can any miracles move them to receive it.

* 5. Yet I do not know, that God hath any way precluded himself from thus exerting his sovereign power, from working miracles in any kind or degree, in any age to the end of the world. I do not recollect any scripture, wherein we are taught, that miracles were to be confined within the limits either of the apostolic or the cyprianic age; or of any period of time, longer or shorter, even till the restitution of all things. I have not observed, either in the Old Testament or the New, any intimation at all of this kind. St. Paul says indeed once, concerning two of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit (so, I think, that text is usually understood) whether there be prophecies, they shall fail, whether there be tongues, they shall cease. But he does not say, either that these or any other miracles shall cease, till faith and hope shall cease also: till they all be swallowed up in the vision of God, and love be all in all.

I presume you will allow, there is one kind of miracles (loosely speaking) which are not ceased; namely, τέρατα ψεύδους, lying wonders, diabolical miracles; or works beyond the virtue of natural causes, wrought by the power of evil spirits. Nor can you easily conceive that these will cease, as long as the father of lies is the prince of this world. And why should you think, that the God of truth is less active than him, or that he will not have his miracles also? Only, not as man wills, neither when he wills; but according to his own excellent wisdom and greatness.

6. But even if it were supposed, that God does now work beyond the operation of merely natural causes, yet what impression would this make upon you, in the disposition your mind is now in? Suppose the trial were repeated, were made again to-morrow. One informs you the next day, “While a clergyman was preaching yesterday, where I was, a man came who had been long ill of an incurable distemper. Prayer was made for him, and he was restored to perfect health.”

Suppose now, that this were real fact, perhaps you would scarce have patience to hear the account of it: but would cut it short, in the midst, with, “Do you tell this as something supernatural? Then miracles are not ceased!” But if you should venture to ask, where was this? And who was the person that prayed? And it was answered, “At the Foundery near Moorfields; the person who prayed was Mr. Wesley:” What a damp comes at once! What a weight falls on your mind, at the very first setting out? ’Tis well if you have any heart or desire to move one step further. Or if you should, what a strong additional propensity do you now feel to deny the fact? And is there not a ready excuse for so doing? “O! they who tell the story, are doubtless his own people: most of whom, we may be sure, will say any thing for him, and the rest will believe any thing.”​――But if you at length allowed the fact, might you not find means to account for it by natural causes? Great crouds, violent heats, with obstructions and irregularities of the blood and spirits, will do wonders.​――If you ♦could not but allow, it was more than natural, might not some plausible reason be found for ranking it among the lying wonders, for ascribing it to the devil rather than God? And if, after all, you was convinced it was the finger of God, must you not still bring every doctrine advanced, to the law and to the testimony, the only sure and infallible test of all?​――What then is the use of this continual demand, “Shew us a sign, and we will believe?” What will you believe? I hope no more than is written in the book of God. And thus far you might venture to believe, even without a miracle.

7. Let us consider this point yet a little farther. “What is it you would have us prove by miracles? The doctrines we preach?” We prove these by scripture and reason; and, if need be, by antiquity. What else is it then we are to prove by miracles? At length we have a distinct reply​――Wise and sober men will not otherwise be convinced (i. e. unless you prove this by miracles) that God is, by the means of such teachers, and such doctrines, working a great and extraordinary work in the earth. Preface, page 6.

So then the determinate point which you, in their name, call upon us to prove by miracles, is this, That God is, by these teachers, working a great and extraordinary work in the earth.

What I mean by a great and extraordinary work, is, the bringing multitudes of gross notorious sinners, in a short space, to the fear, and love, and service of God, to an entire change of heart and life.

Now then, let us take a nearer view of the proposition, and see which part of it we are to prove by miracles.

“Is it, 1. That A. B. was, for many years, without God in the world, a common swearer, a drunkard, a sabbath-breaker?

“Or, 2. That he is not so now.

“Or, 3. That he continued so, till he heard these men preach, and from that time was another man?

“Not so. The proper way to prove this fact, is, by the testimony of competent witnesses. And these witnesses are ready, whenever required, to give full evidence of them.

“Or would you have us prove by miracles,

“4. That this was not done by our own power or holiness? That God only is able to raise the dead, to quicken those who are dead in trespasses and sins?”

Surely no. Whosoever believes the scriptures, will want no new proof of this.

Where then is the wisdom of those men, who demand miracles in proof of such a proposition? One branch of which, “That such sinners were reformed by the means of these teachers,” being a plain fact, can only be proved by testimony, as all other facts are: and the other, “That this is a work of God, and a great and more than ordinary work,” needs no proof, as carrying its own evidence to every thinking man.

* 8. To sum up this. No truly wise or sober man can possibly desire or expect miracles, to prove, either, 1. That these doctrines are true: this must be decided by scripture and reason; or, 2. That these facts are true: this can only be proved by testimony; or, 3. That to change sinners from darkness to light, is the work of God alone; only using what instruments he pleases: this is glaringly self-evident; or, 4. That such a change wrought in so many notorious sinners, within so short a time, is a great and extraordinary work of God. This also carries its own evidence. What then is it which remains to be proved by miracles? Perhaps you will say, it is this: “That God hath called or sent you to do this.” Nay, this is implied in the third of the foregoing propositions. If God has actually used us therein, if his work hath in fact prospered in our hands, then he hath called or sent us to do this. I intreat reasonable men to weigh this throughly, whether the fact does not plainly prove the call: whether he who enables us thus to save souls alive, does not commission us so to do? Whether by giving us the power to pluck these brands out of the burning, he does not authorize us to exert it?

O that it were possible for you to consider calmly, whether the success of the gospel of Jesus Christ, even as it is preached by us, the least of his servants, be not itself a miracle, never to be forgotten! One which cannot be denied, as being visible at this day, not in one but a hundred places: one which cannot be accounted for, by the ordinary course of any natural cause whatsoever: one which cannot be ascribed with any colour of reason, to diabolical agency; and lastly, one which will bear the infallible test, the trial of the written word.

---

VI. 1. But here I am aware of abundance of objections. You object, first, that to speak any thing of myself, of what I have done, or am doing now, is mere boasting and vanity. This charge you frequently repeat. So, page 102. The following page is full of boasting​――Page 113. You boast very much of the numbers you have converted: and again, As to myself, I hope I shall never be led to imitate you in boasting.​――I think therefore it is needful, once for all, to examine this charge throughly; and to shew distinctly, what that good thing is, which you disguise under this bad name.

From the year 1725 to 1729, I preached much, but saw no fruit of my labour. Indeed it could not be that I should; for I neither laid the foundation of repentance, nor of believing the gospel: taking it for granted, that all to whom I preached, were believers; and that many of them needed no repentance. 2. From the year 1729 to 1734, laying a deeper foundation of repentance, I saw a little fruit. But it was only a little; and no wonder. For I did not preach faith in the blood of the covenant. 3. From 1734 to 1738, speaking more of faith in Christ, I saw more fruit of my preaching, and visiting from house to house, than ever I had done before: though I know not, if any of those who were outwardly reformed, were inwardly and throughly converted to God. 4. From 1738 to this time, speaking continually of Jesus Christ, laying him only for the foundation of the whole building, making him all in all, the first and the last: preaching wholly on this plan, The kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye and believe the gospel: The word of God ran as fire among the stubble; it was glorified more and more: multitudes crying out, What must we do to be saved? And afterwards witnessing, By grace we are saved through faith. * 5. I considered deeply with myself, what I ought to do? Whether to declare the things I had seen or not? I consulted the most serious friends I had. They all agreed, I ought to declare them: that the work itself was of such a kind, as ought in no wise to be concealed; and indeed, that the unusual circumstances now attending it, made it impossible that it should. 6. This very difficulty occurred, “Will not my speaking of this be boasting? At least, will it not be counted so?” They replied, “if you speak of it as your own work, it will be vanity and boasting all over: but if you ascribe it wholly to God, if you give him all the praise, it will not. And if, after this, some will account it so still, you must be content, and bear the burden.” 7. I yielded, and transcribed my papers for the press; only labouring, as far as possible, to render unto God the things which are God’s, to give him the praise of his own work.

* 2. But this very thing you improve into a fresh objection. If I ascribe any thing to God, it is enthusiasm. If I do not (or if I do) it is vanity and boasting, supposing me to mention it at all. What then can I do to escape your censure? “Why, be silent, say nothing at all.” I cannot. I dare not. Were I thus to please men, I could not be the servant of Christ.

* You do not appear to have the least idea or conception of what is in the heart of one, whom it pleases him that worketh all in all, to employ in a work of this kind. He is in no wise forward to be at all employed therein; he starts back, again and again: not only, because he readily foresees, what shame, care, sorrow, reproach, what loss of friends and of all that the world accounts dear, will inevitably follow: but much more, because he (in some measure) knows himself. This chiefly it is which constrains him to cry out, (and that many times, in the bitterness of his soul, when no human eye seeth him,) “O Lord! Send by whom thou wilt send! Only, send not me!​――What am I? A worm! A dead dog! A man unclean in heart and lips!”​――And when he dares no longer gainsay or resist, when he is at last thrust out into the harvest, he looketh on the right hand, and on the left, he takes every step with fear and trembling, and with the deepest sense (such as words cannot express) of, who is sufficient for these things? Every gift which he has received of God, for the furtherance of his word, whether of nature or grace, heightens this fear, and increases his jealousy over himself: knowing that so much the stricter must the enquiry be, when he gives an account of his stewardship. He is most of all jealous over himself, when the work of the Lord prospers in his hand. He is then amazed and confounded before God. Shame covers his face. Yet when he sees, that he ought to praise the Lord for his goodness, and to declare the wonders which he doth for the children of men, he is in a strait between two: he knows not which way to turn: he cannot speak: he dares not be silent. It may be, for a time he keeps his mouth with a bridle; he holds his peace even from good. But his heart is hot within him, and constrains him, at length, to declare what God hath wrought. And this he then doth in all simplicity, with great plainness of speech, desiring only to commend himself to him, who searcheth the heart and trieth the reins: and, (whether his words are the savour of life or of death to others) to have that witness in himself, as of sincerity, as of God, in the sight of God, speak we in Christ.​――If any man counts this boasting, he cannot help it. It is enough, that a higher judge standeth at the door.

3. But you may say, “Why do you talk of the success of the gospel in England, which was a Christian country before you was born?” Was it indeed? Is it so at this day? I would explain myself a little on this head also.

And 1. None can deny, that the people of England, in general are called Christians. They are called so, a few only accepted, by others, as well as by themselves. But I presume no man will say, that the name makes the thing; that men are Christians, barely because they are called so. It must be 2. allowed, that the people of England, generally speaking, have been christened or baptized. But neither can we infer, these were once baptized; therefore they are Christians now. It is 3. allowed, that many of those who were once baptized, and are called Christians to this day, hear the word of God, attend public prayers, and partake of the Lord’s supper. But neither does this prove, that they are Christians. For notwithstanding this, some of them live in open sin: and others (though not conscious to themselves of hypocrisy, yet) are utter strangers to the religion of the heart: are full of pride, vanity, covetousness, ambition; of hatred, anger, malice or envy; and consequently, are no more scriptural Christians, than the open drunkard or common swearer.

Now these being removed, where are the Christians, from whom we may properly term England a Christian country? The men who have the mind which was in Christ, and who walk as he also walked? Whose inmost soul is renewed after the image of God; and who are outwardly holy, as he who hath called them is holy? There are doubtless a few such to be found. To deny this, would be want of candor. But how few? How thinly scattered up and down? And as for a Christian, visible church, or a body of Christians, visibly united together, where is this to be seen?

* And what use is it of, what good end does it serve, to term England a Christian country? (although ’tis true, most of the natives are called Christians, have been baptized, frequent the ordinances: and although a real Christian is here and there to be found, as a light shining in a dark place:) Does it do any honour to our great Master, among those who are not called by his name? Does it recommend Christianity to the Jews, the Mahometans, or the avowed Heathens? Surely no one can conceive it does. It only makes Christianity stink in their nostrils. Does it answer any good end with regard to those on whom this worthy name is called? I fear not; but rather an exceeding bad one. For does it not keep multitudes easy in their Heathen practice? Does it not make or keep still greater numbers, satisfied with their Heathen tempers? Does it not directly tend to make both the one and the other imagine, that they are what indeed they are not? That they are Christians, while they are utterly without Christ and without God in the world?​――To close this point: if men are not Christians, till they are renewed after the image of Christ, and if the people of England in general are not thus renewed, why do we term them so? The God of this world hath long blinded their hearts. Let us do nothing to increase that blindness: but rather labour to recover them from that strong delusion, that they may no longer believe a lie.

4. Let us labour to convince all mankind, that to be a real Christian, is, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and to serve him with all our strength; to love our neighbour as ourselves, and therefore do unto every man as we would he should do unto us. Nay, you say, Had you confined yourselves to these great points, there would have been no objection against your doctrine. But the doctrines you have distinguished yourselves by​――are not the love of God and man, but many false and pernicious errors. (page 104.)

I have again and again, with all the plainness I could, declared, what our constant doctrines are; whereby we are distinguished only from Heathens, or nominal Christians; not from any that worship God in Spirit and in truth. Our main doctrines, which include all the rest, are three, that of repentance, of faith, and of holiness. The first of these we account, as it were, the porch of religion; the next, the door; the third religion itself.

That repentance, or conviction of sin, which is always previous to faith (either in a higher or lower degree, as it pleases God) we describe in words to this effect:

“When men feel in themselves the heavy burthen of sin, see damnation to be the reward of it, behold with the eye of their mind, the horror of hell: they tremble, they quake, and are inwardly touched with sorrowfulness of heart, and cannot but accuse themselves, and open their grief unto Almighty God, and call unto him for mercy. This being done seriously, their mind is so occupied, partly with sorrow and heaviness, partly with an earnest desire to be delivered from this danger of hell and damnation, that all desire of meat and drink is laid apart, and loathing of all worldly things and pleasure cometh in place. So that nothing then liketh them more, than to weep, to lament, to mourn, and both with words and behaviour of body, to shew themselves weary of life.”

Now permit me to ask, what if before you had observed, that these were the very words of our own church, one of your acquaintance or parishioners had come and told you, that ever since he heard a sermon at the Foundery, he saw damnation before him, and beheld with the eye of his mind the horror of hell? What, if he had trembled and quaked, and been so taken up, partly with sorrow and heaviness, partly with an earnest desire to be delivered from the danger of hell and damnation, as to weep, to lament, to mourn, and both with words and behaviour, to shew himself weary of life? Would you have scrupled to say, Here is another deplorable instance of the Methodists driving men to distraction! See, into what excessive terrors, frights, doubts and perplexities, they throw weak and well-meaning men! Quite over-setting their understandings and judgments, and making them liable to all these miseries.

I dare not refrain from adding one plain question, which I beseech you to answer, not to me, but to God. Have you ever experienced this repentance yourself? Did you ever feel in yourself that heavy burthen of sin? Of sin in general; more especially, inward sin? Of pride, anger, lust, vanity? Of (what is all sin in one) that carnal mind, which is enmity, essential enmity against God? Do you know by experience what it is, To behold with the eye of the mind, the horror of hell? Was your mind ever so taken up, partly with sorrow and heaviness, partly with an earnest desire to be delivered from this danger of hell and damnation, that even all desire of meat and drink was taken away, and you loathed all worldly things and pleasure?​――Surely if you had known what it is, to have the arrows of the Almighty thus sticking fast in you, you could not so lightly have condemned those who now cry out, The pains of hell come about me: the sorrows of death compass me, and the overflowings of ungodliness make me afraid.

5. Concerning the gate of religion (if I may be allowed so to speak) the true, Christian, saving faith, we believe it implies abundantly more than an assent to the truth of the bible. “Even the devils believe, that Christ was born of a virgin; that he wrought all kind of miracles; that for our sakes he suffered a most painful death to redeem us from death everlasting. These articles of our faith the very devils believe, and so they believe all that is written in the Old and New Testament. And yet for all this faith, they be but devils. They remain still in their damnable estate, lacking the very true Christian faith.

“The right and true Christian faith is. Not only to believe that the holy scriptures and the articles of our faith are true, but also to have a sure trust and confidence to be saved from everlasting damnation through Christ.” Perhaps it may be expressed more clearly thus, “A sure trust and confidence which a man hath in God, that by the merits of Christ his sins are forgiven, and he reconciled to the favour of God.”

For giving this account of Christian faith (as well as the preceding account of repentance, both which I have here also purposely described, in the very terms of the homilies) I have been again and again, for near these eight years past, accused of enthusiasm; sometimes by those who spoke to my face, either in conversation, or from the pulpit: but more frequently by those who chose to speak in my absence; and not seldom from the press. I wait for those who judge this to be enthusiasm, to bring forth their strong reasons. Till then, I must continue to account all these, the words of truth and soberness.

6. Religion itself (I chuse to use the very words, wherein I described it long ago) we define, “The loving God with all our heart, and our neighbour as ourselves, and in that love abstaining from all evil, and doing all possible good to all men.” The same meaning we have sometimes expressed a little more at large, thus: “Religion we conceive to be no other than love; the love of God and of all mankind: the loving God with all our heart, and soul, and strength, as having first loved us, as the fountain of all the good we have received, and of all we ever hope to enjoy: and the loving every soul which God hath made, every man on earth as our own soul.

“This love we believe to be the medicine of life, the never-failing remedy for all the evils of a disordered world, for all the miseries and vices of men. Wherever this is, there are virtue and happiness, going hand in hand. There is humbleness of mind, gentleness, long-suffering, the whole image of God, and at the same time, a peace that passeth all understanding, and joy unspeakable, and full of glory.

“This religion we long to see established in the world, a religion of love, and joy, and peace; having its seat in the heart, in the inmost soul, but ever shewing itself by its fruits: continually springing forth, not only in all innocence (for love worketh no ill to his neighbour) but likewise in every kind of beneficence, spreading virtue and happiness all around it.”

If this can be proved by scripture or reason, to be enthusiastic or erroneous doctrine, we will then plead guilty to the indictment, of teaching error and enthusiasm. But if this be the genuine religion of Christ, then will all who advance this charge against us, be found false witnesses before God, in the day when he shall judge the earth.

7. However, with regard to the fruits of our teaching, you say, It is to be feared, the numbers of serious men who have been perplext and deluded, are much greater than the numbers of notorious sinners, who have been brought to repentance and good life, (page 113.) Indeed, if you could prove,​――that the Methodists were in general, very wicked people before they followed you, and that all you have been teaching them is, the love of God and their neighbour, and a care to keep his commandments, which accordingly they have done since, you would​――stop the mouths of all adversaries at once. But​――we have great reason to believe, that the generality of Methodists, before they became so, were serious, regular, and well-disposed people, page 103.

If the question were proposed, Which are greater, the numbers of serious men who have been perplext and deluded, or of notorious sinners who have been brought to repentance and good life by these preachers, throughout England, within seven years: it might be difficult for you to fix the conclusion. For England is a place of wide dimensions; nor is it easy to make a satisfactory computation, unless you confine yourself within a smaller compass. Suppose then we were to contract the question, in order to make it a little less ♦unwieldy. We will bound our enquiry, for the present, within a square of three or four miles. It may be certainly known by candid men, both what has been, and what is now done within this distance. And from hence they may judge of those fruits elsewhere, which they cannot be so particularly informed of.

* Enquire then, Which are greater, the numbers of serious men, perplext and deluded by these teachers, or of notorious sinners brought to repentance and good life, within the forest of Kingswood? Many indeed of the inhabitants are nearly as they were; are not much better or worse for their preaching: because the neighbouring clergy and gentry have successfully laboured to deter them from hearing it. But between three and four hundred of those who would not be deterred, are now under the care of those preachers. Now, what number of these were serious Christians before? Were fifty? Were twenty? Were ten? Peradventure, there might five such be found. But ’tis a question, whether there could or no. The remainder were gross, open sinners, common swearers, drunkards, sabbath-breakers, whoremongers, plunderers, robbers, implacable, unmerciful, wolves and bears in the shape of men. Do you desire instances of more notorious sinners than these? I know not if Turkey or Japan can afford them. And what do you include in repentance and good life? Give the strictest definition thereof that you are able: and I will undertake, these once notorious sinners, shall be weighed in that balance, and not found wanting.

8. Not that all the Methodists (so called) were very wicked people before they followed us. There are those among them, and not a few, who are able to stop the boasting of those that despise them, and to say, Wherein soever any of you is bold, I am bold also: only they count all these things but loss, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus. But these we found, as it were, when we sought them not. We went forth to seek that which was lost: (more eminently lost) to call the most flagrant, hardened, desperate sinners to repentance. To this end we preached in the Horsefair at Bristol, in Kingswood, in Newcastle: among the colliers in Staffordshire, and the tinners in Cornwall: in Southwark, Wapping, Moorfields, Drury-Lane, at London. Did any man ever pick out such places as these, in order to find serious, regular, well-disposed people? How many such might then be in any of them I know not. But this I know, that four in five of those who are now with us, were not of that number, but were wallowing in their blood, till God by us said unto them, live.

Sir, I willingly put the whole cause on this issue: what are the general consequences of this preaching? Are there more tares or wheat? More good men destroyed (that is the proper question) or wicked men saved? The last place where we began constant preaching, is a part of Wiltshire and Somersetshire, near Bath. Now let any man enquire at Rhode, Bradford, Rexal, or among the colliers at Coleford, 1. What kind of people were those, before they followed these men? 2. What are the main doctrines they have been teaching for this twelvemonth? 3. What effect have these doctrines upon their followers? What manner of lives do they lead now? And if you do not find, 1. That three in four of these were two years ago notoriously wicked men. 2. That the main doctrines they have heard since were, “Love God and your neighbour, and carefully keep his commandments.” And 3. That they have since exercised themselves herein, and continue so to do: I say, if you or any reasonable man, who will be at the pains to enquire, does not find this to be an unquestionable fact: I will openly acknowledge myself an enthusiast, or whatsoever else you shall please to stile me.

Only one caution I would give to such an enquirer, let him not ask the colliers of Coleford, Were not the generality of you, before you followed these men, serious, regular, well-disposed people? Were you not offended at the prophaneness and debauchery of the age? And was it not this disposition, which at first made you liable to receive these impressions? (page 103.) Because if he talk thus to some of those who do not yet follow these men, perhaps he will not live to bring back their answer.

* But will this, or a thousand such instances as this, stop the mouths of all adversaries at once? O Sir, would one expect such a thought as this, in one that had read the bible? What if you could convert as many sinners as St. Paul himself? Would that stop the mouths of all your adversaries? Yea, if you could convert three thousand at one sermon, still you would be so far from stopping all their mouths at once, that the greater part of them would gnash upon you with their teeth, and cry, “Away with such a fellow from the earth.”

I never therefore expect to persuade the world, the majority of mankind, that I have been for some years advancing nothing but what has a clear, immediate connexion with the true knowledge and love of God: that God hath been pleased to use me, a weak, vile worm, in reforming many of my fellow sinners, and making them, at this day, living witnesses of inward and pure religion: and that many of these, from living in all sin, are quite changed, are become so far holy, that though they are not free from all sin, yet no sin hath dominion over them. And yet I do firmly believe, it is nothing but downright prejudice, to deny or oppose any of these particulars. Preface, page v.

* Allow Mr. Wesley, you say, but these few points, and he will defend his conduct​――beyond exception​――That is most true. If I have indeed been advancing nothing but the true knowledge and love of God: if God has made me an instrument in reforming many sinners, and bringing them to inward and pure religion: and if many of these continue holy to this day, and free from all wilful sin, then may I, even I, use those awful words, He that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. But I never expect the world to allow me one of these points. However, I must go on, as God shall enable me. I must lay out whatsoever he intrusts me with, (whether others will believe I do it or no) in advancing the true Christian knowledge of God, and the love and fear of God among men: in reforming (if so be it please him to use me still) those who are yet without God in the world; and in propagating inward and pure religion, righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.

10. But you believe, “I only corrupt those who were good Christians before, teaching them to revile and censure their neighbours, and to abuse the clergy, notwithstanding all their meekness and gentleness, as I do myself.” I must declare (say you) we have, in general, answered your pretence, with all meekness and temper​――the railing and reviling has been chiefly on the side of the Methodists, page 16.

Your first charge ran thus, (Remarks, page 15.) How have such abuses as these been thrown out by you​――against our​――regular clergy, not the highest or the worthiest excepted!​――I answered, “I am altogether clear in this matter, as often as it has been objected: neither do I desire to receive any other treatment from the clergy, than they have received from me to this day.” page 30.

You reply, 1. One instance of your misrepresenting and injuring a preacher of our church I mentioned, (page 105.) Mentioned! Well: but did you prove it was an injury or misrepresentation? I know not that you once attempted it. 2. You next quote part of a letter from the third journal; (page 36.) wherein (according to your account) the most considerable of our clergy are abused, and at once accused in a very gross manner. (page 106.) Set down the whole paragraph, and I will prove, that this also is naked truth, and no abuse at all. You say, 3. You approved of Whitefield’s railing against the clergy​――i. e. I say, “Mr. Whitefield preached, concerning the Holy Ghost which all who believe are to receive; not without a just, though severe censure of those, who preach as if there were no Holy Ghost,” (Journal 3. page 65.) Nor is this railing, but melancholy truth. I have myself heard several preach in this manner. 4. You cite my words, “Woe unto you, ye blind leaders of the blind! How long will you pervert the right ways of the Lord?”​――And add, I appeal to yourself, whether you did not design this reflection against the clergy in general who differ from you? No more than I did against Moses and Aaron. I expresly specify whom I design: “Ye who tell the mourners in Zion, Much religion hath made you mad.” You say, 5. (with a N. B.) All the clergy who differ from you, you stile so, page 82. in which and the foregoing page you causelesly slander them, as speaking of their own holiness​――as that for the sake of which, on account of which we are justified before God.

Let any serious person read over those pages. I therein slander no man. I speak what I know; what I have both heard and read. The men are alive, and the books are extant. And the same conclusion I now defend, touching that part of the clergy who preach or write thus, viz. “If they preach the truth as it is in Jesus, I am found a false witness before God. But if I preach the way of God in truth, then they are blind leaders of the blind”. 6. You quote those words, “Nor can I be said to intrude into the labours of those who do not labour at all; but suffer thousands of those for whom Christ died, to perish for lack of knowledge.” (3 Journal page 69.) I wrote that letter near Kingswood. I would to God the observation were not terribly true! 7. The first passage you cite from the Earnest Appeal, page 36. evidently relates to a few only among the clergy: and if the charge be true, but of one in five hundred, it abundantly supports my reasoning. 8. In the next, (page 47.) I address all those, and those only, who affirm that I preach for gain.

You conclude, The reader has now before him the manner in which you have been pleased to treat the clergy​――and your late sermon​――is too fresh an instance of​――the like usage of the universities​――(page 107.) It is an instance of speaking the truth in love. So I desire all mankind may use me. Nor could I have said less either to the university or the clergy, without sinning against God and my own soul.

* 11. But I must explain myself a little on that practice, which you so often term abusing the clergy. I have many times great sorrow and heaviness in my heart, on account of these my brethren. And this sometimes constrains me to speak to them, in the only way which is now in my power: and sometimes (though rarely) to speak of them; of a few, not all, in general. In either case, I take an especial care, 1. To speak nothing but the truth. 2. To speak this with all plainness; and, 3. With love, and in the spirit of meekness. Now if you will call this, abusing, railing, or reviling, you must. But still I dare not refrain from it. I must thus rail, thus abuse sinners of all sorts and degrees, unless I will perish with them.

When I first read your declaration, That our brethren in general had treated us with all meekness and temper, I had thoughts of spreading before you a few of the flowers which they have strewed upon us with no sparing hand. But on reflection, I judged it better to forbear. Let them die and be forgotten!

As to those of the people called Methodists, whom you suppose to rail at and abuse the clergy, and to revile and censure their neighbours, I can only say, Which are they? Shew me the men. And if it appear, that any of those under my care, habitually censure or revile others, whether clergy or laity, I will make them an example, for the benefit of all the rest.

Touching you, I believe I was afraid without cause. I do not think you advanced a wilful untruth. This was a rash word. I hereby openly retract it, and ask pardon of God and you.

To draw toward a conclusion. Whosoever they are that despise me, and make no account of my labours, I know that they are not in vain in the Lord, and that I have not fought as one that beateth the air. I still see (and I praise the Father of lights, from whom every good and perfect gift descendeth) a continual increase of pure religion, and undefiled, of the love of God and man, of the wisdom which is pure and peaceable, gentle and easy to be intreated, full of mercy, and of good fruits. I see more and more of those “who before lived in a thorough contempt of God’s ordinances, and of all duties, now zealously discharging their duties to God and man, and walking in all his ordinances blameless.” A few indeed I have seen draw back to perdition, chiefly through a fear of being righteous over-much. And here and there one has fallen into Calvinism, or turned aside to the Moravians. But I doubt not, these “are in a better state than they were before they heard us. Admit they are in error, yea and die therein, yet who dares affirm, they will perish everlastingly? But had they died in gross sin, we are sure they had fallen into the fire that never shall be quenched.”

I have now considered, as far as my time would permit, (not every thing in your letter, whether of moment or no, but) those points, which I conceived to be of the greatest weight. That God may lead us both into all truth, and that we may not drop our love in the pursuit of it, is the continual prayer of,

Reverend Sir,

Your friend and servant for Christ’s sake,

JOHN WESLEY.

June 17, 1746.

---

A

LETTER

To the Right Reverend the

Lord Bishop of LONDON:

Occasioned by his Lordship’s late charge to his Clergy.

My Lord,

1. WHEN abundance of persons have for several years laid to my charge things that I knew not, I have generally thought it my duty to pass it over in silence, to be as one that heard not. But the case is different, when a person of your lordship’s character calls me forth to answer for myself. Silence now might be interpreted contempt. It might appear like a sullen disregard, a with-holding honour from him to whom honour is due, were it only on account of his high office in the church. More especially, when I apprehend so eminent a person as this, to be under considerable mistakes concerning me. Were I now to be silent, were I not to do what was in my power for the removal of those mistakes, I could not have a conscience void of offence, either towards God or towards man.

2. But I am sensible, how difficult it is to speak in such a manner as I ought, and as I desire to do. When your lordship published those queries, under the title of observations, I did not lie under the same difficulty; because, as your name was not inscribed, I had “the liberty to stand, as it were, on even ground.” But I must now always ♦remember to whom I speak. And may the God whom I serve in the gospel of his Son, enable me to do it with deep seriousness of spirit, with modesty and humility; and at the same time, with the utmost plainness of speech; seeing we must both stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

3. In this then I intreat your lordship to bear with me: and in particular, when I speak of myself, (how tender a point!) just as freely as I would of another man. Let not this be termed boasting. Is there not a cause? Can I refrain from speaking, and be guiltless? And if I speak at all, ought I not to speak (what appears to me to be) the whole truth? Does not your lordship desire, that I should do this? I will then, God being my helper. And you will bear with me in my folly (if such it is) with my speaking in the simplicity of my heart.

4. Your lordship begins, There is another species of enemies, who​――give shameful disturbance to the parochial clergy, and use very unwarrantable methods, to prejudice their people against them, and to seduce their flocks from them​――the Methodists and Moravians, who​――agree in annoying the established ministry; and in drawing over to themselves the lowest and most ignorant of the people, by pretences to greater sanctity​――page 4.

But have no endeavours been used to shew them their error? Yes: your lordship remarks, Endeavours have not been wanting​――But though these endeavours have caused some abatement in the pomp and grandeur with which these people for some time acted (truly, one would not have expected it from them!) yet they do not seem​――to have made an impression upon their leaders. page 6.

Your lordship adds, Their innovations in points of discipline, I do not intend to enter into at present​――But to enquire what the doctrines are which they spread, page 7.​――Doctrines big with pernicious influences upon practice, page 8.

Six of these your lordship mentions, after having premised, It is not at all needful, to the end of guarding against them, to charge the particular tenets upon the particular persons among them, page 7. Indeed, my lord, it is needful in the highest degree. For if the minister who is to guard his people, either against Peter Bohler, Mr. Whitefield, or me, does not know what our particular tenets are, he must needs run, as uncertainly, and fight, as one that beateth the air.

I will fairly own, which of these belong to me. The indirect practices which your lordship charges upon me, may then be considered; together with the consequences of these doctrines, and your lordship’s instructions to the clergy.

5. The first that I shall take notice of (says your lordship) is the antinomian doctrine. page 8. The second, That Christ has done all, and left nothing for us to do, but to believe. page 9. These belong not to me. I am unconcerned therein. I have earnestly opposed, but did never teach or embrace them.

There is another notion (your lordship says) which we find propagated throughout the writings of those people, and that is, the making inward, secret and sudden impulses the guides of their actions, resolutions and designs. page 14. Mr. Church urged the same objection before. Instead of making the word of God the rule of his actions, he follows only his secret impulse​――I beg leave to return the same answer. “In the whole compass of language there is not a proposition which less belongs to me than this. I have declared again and again, that I make the word of God the rule of all my actions; and that I no more follow any secret impulse instead thereof, than I follow Mahomet or Confucius.” Answer to Mr. Church, page 38.

6. Before I proceed, suffer me to observe, here are three grievous errors, charged on the Moravians, Mr. Whitefield and me conjointly, in none of which I am any more concerned, than in the doctrine of the Metempsychosis! But it was not needful to charge particular tenets on particular persons. Just as needful, my lord, as it is not to put a stumbling-block in the way of our brethren: not to lay them under an almost insuperable temptation, of condemning the innocent with the guilty. I beseech your lordship to answer in your own conscience before God, whether you did not foresee how many of your hearers would charge these tenets upon me? Nay, whether you did not design they should? If so, my lord, is this Christianity? Is it humanity? Let me speak plain. Is it honest heathenism?

7. I am not one jot more concerned in instantaneous justification, as your lordship explains it, viz. A sudden instantaneous justification, by which the person receives from God, a certain seal of his salvation, or absolute assurance of being saved at last, page 11. Such an instantaneous working of the Holy Spirit, as finishes the business of salvation once for all, ibid. I neither teach nor believe ♦it, and am therefore clear of all the consequences that may arise therefrom. I believe, a gradual improvement in grace and goodness, I mean, in the knowledge and love of God, is a good testimony of our present sincerity towards God: although I dare not say, it is the only true ground of humble assurance, or the only foundation on which a Christian builds his hopes of acceptance and salvation. For I think other foundation of these can no man lay, than that which is laid, even Jesus Christ.

8. To the charge of holding sinless perfection as your lordship states it, I might likewise plead, not guilty: seeing one ingredient thereof, in your lordship’s account, is freedom from temptation, page 17. Whereas I believe, “there is no such perfection in this life, as implies an entire deliverance from manifold temptations.” But I will not decline the charge. I will repeat once more my coolest thoughts upon this head; and that in the very terms which I did several years ago, as I presume your lordship cannot be ignorant.

“What, it may be asked, do you mean by one that is perfect, or, one that is as his master? We mean, one in whom is the mind which was in Christ, and who so walketh as he walked; a man that hath clean hands and a pure heart; or that is cleansed from all filthiness of flesh and spirit: one in whom there is no occasion of stumbling, and who accordingly doth not commit sin. To declare this a little more particularly, we understand by that scriptural expression, a perfect man, one in whom God hath fulfilled his faithful word, from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you​――I will also save you from all your uncleanness. We understand hereby, one whom God hath sanctified throughout, even in body, soul and spirit: one who walketh in the light, as he is in the light, in whom is no darkness at all; the blood of Jesus Christ his Son having cleansed him from all sin.”

“This man can now testify to all mankind, I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet I live not; but Christ liveth in me. He is holy, as God who called him is holy, both in life, and in all manner of conversation. He loveth the Lord his God with all his heart, and serveth him with all his strength. He loveth his neighbour (every man) as himself; yea, as Christ loved us: them in particular that despitefully use him and persecute him, because they know not the Son, neither the Father. Indeed his soul is all love, filled with bowels of mercies, kindness, meekness, gentleness, long-suffering. And his life agreeth thereto, full of the work of faith, the patience of hope, the labour of love. And whatsoever he doth, either in word or deed, he doth it all in the name, in the love and power of the Lord Jesus. In a word, he doth the will of God on earth, as it is done in heaven.”

“This is to be a perfect man, to be sanctified throughout, created anew in Jesus Christ: even ‘to have a heart so all-flaming with the love of God,’ (to use archbishop Usher’s words,) ‘as continually to offer up every thought, word, and work, as a spiritual sacrifice, acceptable unto God through Christ.’ In every thought of our hearts, in every word of our tongues, in every work of our hands, to shew forth his praise who hath called us out of darkness into his marvellous light. O that both we, and all who seek the Lord Jesus in sincerity, may thus be made perfect in one.”

9. I conjure you, my lord, by the mercies of God, if these are not the words of truth and soberness, point me out wherein I have erred from the truth: shew me clearly, wherein I have spoken either beyond or contrary to the word of God. But might I not humbly intreat, that your lordship, in doing this, would abstain from such expressions as these, If they will put themselves under their direction and discipline,​――after their course of discipline is once over, page 15. as not suitable either to the weight of the subject, or the dignity of your lordship’s character. And might I not expect something more than these loose assertions, that this is a delusion altogether groundless, page 15. A notion contrary to the whole tenor, both of the old and new testament; that the scriptures forbid all thought of it, as vain, arrogant and presumptuous; that they represent all mankind, without distinction, as subject to sin and corruption (subject to sin and corruption! strong words!) during their continuance in this world: and require no more than an honest desire and endeavour, to find ourselves less and less in a state of imperfection? page 16.

Is it not from your lordship’s intirely mistaking the question, not at all apprehending what perfection I teach, that you go on to guard against the same imaginary consequences, as your lordship did in the Observations? Surely, my lord, you never gave yourself the trouble to read the answer given in the Farther Appeal, to every objection which you now urge afresh! seeing you do not now appear to know any more of my sentiments, than if you had never proposed one question, nor received one answer upon the subject!

10. If your lordship designed to shew my real sentiments concerning the last doctrine which you mention, as one would imagine by your adding, these are his own words, page 18. should you not have cited all my own words? At least all the words of that paragraph, and not have mangled it, as Mr. Church did before?

It runs thus (Journal III. page 47.) “Saturday 28. I shewed at large (in order to answer those who taught, that none but they who are full of faith and the Holy Ghost, ought ever to communicate) 1. That the Lord’s supper was ordained by God, to be a means of conveying to men either preventing, or justifying, or sanctifying grace, according to their several necessities. 2. That the persons for whom it was ordained, are all those who know and feel that they want the grace of God, either to restrain them from sin, or to shew their sins forgiven, or to renew their souls in the image of God. 3. That in as much as we come to his table, not to give him anything, but to receive whatsoever he sees best for us, there is no previous preparation indispensably necessary, but a desire to receive whatsoever he pleases to give. And 4. that no fitness is required at the time of communicating, but a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness: every one who knows he is fit for hell, being just fit to come to Christ, in this as well as all other ways of his appointment.”

In the second letter to Mr. Church, page 26. I explain myself farther on this head. “I am sorry to find you still affirm, that with regard to the Lord’s supper also, I advance many injudicious, false and dangerous things. Such as, 1. That a man ought to communicate, without a sure trust in God’s mercy through Christ, page 117.” You mark these as my words; but I know them not. 2. “That there is no previous preparation indispensably necessary, but a desire to receive whatsoever God pleases to give.” But I include abundantly more in that desire, than you seem to apprehend; even a willingness to know and do the whole will of God. 3. That no fitness is required at the time of communicating, (I recite the whole sentence) “but a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness! Every one who knows he is fit for hell, being just fit to come to Christ, in this, as well as in all other ways of his appointment.” But neither can this sense of our utter sinfulness and helplessness subsist, without earnest desires of universal holiness.

10. And now what can I say? Had your lordship never seen this? That is hardly to be imagined. But if you had, how was it possible your lordship should thus explicitly and solemnly charge me, in the presence of God and all my brethren (only, the person so charged was not present) with meaning by those words to set aside self-examination and repentance for sins past, and resolutions of living better for the time to come, as things no way necessary to make a worthy communicant! page 18.

If an evidence at the bar should swerve from truth, an equitable judge may place the thing in a true light. But if the judge himself shall bear false witness, where then can we find a remedy?

Actual preparation was here intirely out of the question. It might be absolutely and indispensably necessary, for any thing I had either said or meant to the contrary. For it was not at all in my thoughts. And the habitual preparation which I had in terms declared to be indispensably necessary, was “a willingness to know and to do the whole will of God,” and “earnest desires of universal holiness.” Does your lordship think, this is meant to set aside all repentance for sins past, and resolutions of living better for the time to come?

11. Your lordship next falls with all your might upon that strange assertion, as you term it, “We come to his table, not to give him any thing, but to receive whatsoever he sees best for us”. Whereas, says your lordship, in the exhortation at the time of receiving, the people are told, that they must give most humble and hearty thanks,​――and immediately after receiving, both minister and people join, in offering and presenting themselves before God, pages 20, 21. O God! in what manner are the most sacred things here treated! The most venerable mysteries of our religion! What quibbling, what playing upon words is here! “Not to give him any thing,”​――“Yes, to give him thanks.” O my lord, are these the words of a father of the church?

12. Your lordship, goes on, To the foregoing account of these modern principles and doctrines​――it may not be improper to subjoin a few observations upon the indirect practices of the same people in gaining proselytes, pages 23, 24.

---

I. They persuade the people, that the established worship, with a regular attendance upon it, is not sufficient to answer the ends of devotion.

Your lordship mentioned this likewise in the observations. In your fourth query it stood thus: “Whether a due and regular attendance on the public offices of religion, paid in a serious and composed way, does not answer the true ends of devotion?” Suffer me to repeat part of the answer then given.

“I suppose, by devotion you mean public worship; by the true ends of it, the love of God and man: and by a due and regular attendance on the public offices of religion, paid in a serious and composed way, the going as often as we can to our parish church, and to the sacrament there administered. If so, the question is, ‘Whether this attendance on those offices, does not produce the love of God and man’? I answer sometimes it does; and sometimes it does not. I myself thus attended them for many years; and yet am conscious to myself, that during that whole time, I had no more of the love of God than a stone. And I know many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of serious persons, who are ready to testify the same thing.”

I subjoined, 1. “We continually exhort all who attend on our preaching, to attend the offices of the church. And they do pay a more regular attendance there than ever they did before. 2. Their attending the church did not, in fact, answer those ends at all, till they attended this preaching also. 3. It is the preaching remission of sins through Jesus Christ, which alone answers the true ends of devotion.”

---

II. 13. They censure the clergy, says your lordship, as less zealous than themselves, in the several branches of the ministerial function​――For this they are undeservedly reproached by these noisy, itinerant leaders, pages 24, 25.

My lord, I am not conscious to myself of this. I do not willingly compare myself with any man, much less do I reproach my brethren of the clergy, whether they deserve it or not. But it is needless to add any more on this head than what was said above a year ago. [2d letter to Mr. Church, page 78.]

“I must explain myself a little on that practice, which you so often term abusing the clergy. I have many times great sorrow and heaviness in my heart, on account of these my brethren. And this sometimes constrains me to speak to them, in the only way which is now in my power: and sometimes (though rarely) to speak of them; of a few, not all in general. In either case, I take an especial care, 1. To speak nothing but the truth. 2. To speak this with all plainness; and, 3. With love, and in the spirit of meekness. Now, if you will call this abusing, railing, or reviling, you must. But still I dare not refrain from it. I must thus rail, thus abuse sinners of all sorts and degrees, unless I will perish with them.”

---

III. 14. ♦They value themselves upon extraordinary strictnesses and severities in life, and such as are beyond what the rules of Christianity require. They captivate the people by such professions and appearances of uncommon sanctity​――But that which can never fail of a general respect​――is a quiet and exemplary life, free from the many follies and indiscretions which those restless and vagrant teachers are apt to fall into, page 25.

By “extraordinary strictnesses and severities,” I presume your lordship means, the abstaining from wine and animal food; which, it is sure, Christianity does not require. But if you do, I fear your lordship is not throughly informed of the matter of fact. I began to do this, about twelve years ago, when I had no thought of “annoying parochial ministers,” or of “captivating any people” thereby, unless it were the Chicasaw or Choctau Indians. But I resumed the use of them both, about two years after, for the sake of some who thought I made it a point of conscience; telling them, I will eat flesh while the world standeth, rather than make my brother to offend. Dr. Cheyne advised me, to leave them off again, alluring me, “Till you do, you will never be free from fevers.” And since I have taken his advice, I have been free (blessed be God) from all bodily disorders.¹ Would to God I knew any method of being equally free from all follies and indiscretions. But this I never expect to attain, till my spirit returns to God.

15. But in how strange a manner does your lordship represent this? What a construction do you put upon it? Appearances of an uncommon sanctity, in order to captivate the people​――Pretensions to more exalted degrees of strictness, to make their way into weak minds and fickle heads, page 25. Pretences to greater sanctity, whereby they draw over to themselves the most ignorant of the people, page 4. If these are appearances of uncommon sanctity (which indeed might bear a dispute) how does your lordship know, that they are only appearances? That they do not spring from the heart? Suppose these were exalted degrees of strictness, is your lordship absolutely assured, that we practise them only to make our way into weak minds and fickle heads? Where is the proof, that these pretences to greater sanctity (as you lordship is pleased to phrase them) are mere pretences, and have nothing of reality or sincerity in them?

My lord, this is an accusation of the highest nature. If we are guilty, we are not so much as moral Heathens. We are monsters, not only unworthy of the Christian name, but unfit for human society. It tears up all pretences to the love of God and man: to justice, mercy, or truth. But how is it proved? Or does your lordship read the heart, and so pass sentence without any proof at all? O my lord, ought an accusation of the lowest kind to be thus received, even against the lowest of the people? How much less can this be reconciled with the apostolical advice to the bishop of Ephesus, Against a presbyter, receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses; and those face to face. When it is thus proved, them that sin, rebuke before all. Your lordship, doubtless remembers the words that follow (how worthy to be written in your heart!) I charge thee, before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things, without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality, 1 Timothy v. 19, 20, 21.

---

IV. 16. They mislead the people into an opinion of the high merit of punctual attendances on their performances, to the neglect of the business of their station, page 26. My lord, this is not so. You yourself, in this very charge, have cleared us from one part of this accusation. You have born us witness, page 10. that we ♦disclaim all merit, even in (really) good works: how much more, in such works as we continually declare are not good, but very evil? Such as the attending sermons, or any public offices, whatever, to the neglect of the business of our station.

When your lordship urged this before, in the observations, I openly declared my belief (Farther Appeal, part I. page 19.) “That true religion cannot lead into a disregard or disesteem of the common duties and offices of life: that, on the contrary, it leads men to discharge all those duties with the strictest and closest attention: that Christianity requires this attention and diligence, in all stations and in all conditions: that the ♦performance of the lowest offices of life, as unto God, is truly a serving of Christ; and that this is the doctrine I preach continually;” a fact, whereof any man may easily be informed. Now if after all this, your lordship will repeat the charge, as if I had not once opened my mouth concerning it, I cannot help it. I can say no more. I commend my ♠cause to God.

17. Having considered what your lordship has advanced, concerning dangerous doctrines and indirect practices, I now come to the instructions your lordship gives to the clergy of your diocese.

* How awful a thing is this! the very occasion carries in it a solemnity not to be expressed. Here is an angel of the church of Christ, one of the stars in God’s right-hand, calling together all the subordinate pastors, for whom he is to give an account to God; and directing them (in the name and by the authority of the great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ, the first begotten from the dead, the Prince of the kings of the earth) how to make full proof of their ministry, that they may be pure from the blood of all men; how to take heed unto themselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers; how to feed the flock of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood! To this end they are all assembled together. And what is the substance of all his instructions? “Reverend ♦brethren, I charge you all, lift up your voice like a trumpet! and warn and arm and fortify all mankind​――against a people called Methodists.”

True it is, your lordship gives them several advices; but all in order to this end. You direct them, to inculcate the excellency of our liturgy, as a wise, grave and serious service: to shew their people, that a diligent attendance on their business, is a serving of God; punctually to perform both the public offices of the church, and all other pastoral duties: and to engage the esteem of their parishioners, by a constant regularity of life. But all these your lordship recommends eo nomine, as means to that great end, “The arming and fortifying their people against the Moravians or Methodists, and their doctrines.”

Is it possible! Could your lordship discern no other enemies of the gospel of Christ? Are there no other heretics or schismatics on earth? Or even within the four ♦seas? Are there no papists, no deists in the land? Or are their errors of less importance? Or, are their numbers in England less considerable? Or less likely to increase? Does it appear then that they have lost their zeal for making proselytes? Or, are all the people so guarded against them already, that their labour is in vain? Can your lordship answer these few, plain questions, to the satisfaction of your own conscience?

Have the Methodists (so called) already monopolized all the sins, as well as errors, in the nation? Is Methodism the only sin, or the only fatal or spreading sin, to be found within the bills of mortality! Have two thousand (or more) ambassadors of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God, no other business than to guard, warn, arm, and fortify their people against this? O my lord, if this engrosses their time and strength (as it must, if they follow your lordship’s instructions) they will not give an account with joy, either of themselves or of their flock in that day!

11. Your lordship seems in some measure sensible of this, when you very gently condemn their opinion, who think the Methodists might better be disregarded and despised, than taken notice of and opposed​――if it were not for the disturbance they give to the parochial ministers, and their unwarrantable endeavours to seduce the people from their lawful pastors, page 22. The same complaint with which your lordship opened your charge. They give shameful disturbances to the parochial clergy​――they annoy the established ministry, using very unwarrantable methods, first, to prejudice their people against them, and then to seduce their flocks from them, page 4.

Whether we seduce them or no (which will be presently considered) I am sorry your lordship should give any countenance to that low, senseless, and now generally exploded slander, that we do it for a maintenance. This your lordship insinuates, by applying to us those words of bishop Saunderson, “And all this, to serve their own belly, to make a prey of the poor deluded proselytes: for by this means the people fall unto them, and thereout suck they no small advantage,” page 15. Your lordship cannot but know, that my fellowship, and my brother’s studentship, afford us more than sufficient for life and godliness: especially, for that manner of life which we chuse, whether out of ostentation or in sincerity.

19. But do we willingly annoy the established ministry, or give disturbance to the parochial clergy? My lord, we do not. We trust, herein, to have a conscience void of offence. Nor do we designedly prejudice their people against them. In this also our heart condemneth us not. But you seduce their flocks from them. No, not even from those who feed themselves, not the flock. All who hear us attend the service of the church, at least as much as they did before. And for this very thing, are we reproached as “bigots to the church,” by those of most other denominations.

* Give me leave, my lord, to say, you have mistook and misrepresented this whole affair from the top to the bottom. And I am the more concerned to take notice of this, because so many have fallen into the same mistake. It is indeed, and has been from the beginning, the πρῶτον ψεῦδος, the capital blunder of our bitterest adversaries: though how they can advance it, I see not, without loving, if not making a lie. It is not our care, endeavour, or desire, to proselyte any from one man to another, or from one church (so called) from one congregation, or society to another: (we would not move a finger to do this; to make ten thousand such proselytes) but from darkness to light, from Belial to Christ; from the power of Satan to God. Our one aim is, to proselyte sinners to repentance, the servants of the devil to serve the living and true God. If this be not done in fact, we will stand condemned; not as well-meaning fools, but as devils incarnate. But if it be, if the instances glare in the face of the sun, if they increase daily, maugre all the power of earth and hell: then, my lord, neither you nor any man beside (let me use great plainness of speech) can oppose and fortify people against us, without being found even to fight against God.

20. I would fain set this point in a clearer light. Here are, in and near Moorfields, ten thousand poor souls for whom Christ died, rushing headlong into hell. Is Dr. Bulkely, the parochial minister, both willing and able to stop them? If so, let it be done, and I have no place in these parts. I go and call other sinners to repentance. But if after all he has done, and all he can do, they are still in the broad way to destruction, let me see if God will put a word, even in my mouth. True, I am a poor worm that of myself can do nothing. But if God sends, by whomsoever he will send, his word shall not return empty. All the messenger of God asks, is Δὸς ποῦ στῶ; (no help of man!) καὶ γῆν κινήσω· The arm of the Lord is revealed. The lion roars, having the prey plucked out of his teeth. And there is joy in the presence of the angels of God, over more than one sinner that repenteth.

21. Is this any annoyance to the parochial minister? Then what manner of spirit is he of? Does he look on this part of his flock as lost, because they are found of the great Shepherd?​――My lord, great is my boldness toward you. You speak of the consequences of our doctrines. You seem well pleased with the success of your endeavours against them, because (you say) they have pernicious consequences, are big with pernicious influences upon practice,​――dangerous to religion and the souls of men, pages 8, 22. In answer to all this, I appeal to plain fact. I say once more, “What have been the consequences (I would not speak, but I dare not refrain) of the doctrines I have preached for nine years last past? By the fruits shall ye know those of whom I speak: even the cloud of witnesses, who at this hour experience the gospel which I preach, to be the power of God unto salvation. The habitual drunkard, that was, is now temperate in all things. The whoremonger now flees fornication. He that stole steals no more, but works with his hands. He that cursed or swore, perhaps at every sentence, has now learned to serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice unto him with reverence. Those formerly inslaved to various habits of sin, are now brought to uniform habits of holiness. These are demonstrable facts. I can name the men, with their places of abode. One of them was an avowed ♦Atheist for many years; some were Jews; a considerable number Papists: the greatest part of them as much strangers to the form, as to the power of godliness.”

My lord, can you deny these facts? I will make whatever proof of them you shall require. But if the facts be allowed, who can deny the doctrines to be (in substance) the gospel of Christ? For is there any other name under heaven given to men, whereby they may thus be saved? Or is there any other word that thus commendeth itself to every man’s conscience in the sight of God?

* 22. But I must draw to a conclusion. Your lordship has without doubt had some success in opposing this doctrine. Very many have, by your lordship’s unwearied endeavours, been deterred from hearing at all: and have thereby probably escaped the being seduced into holiness, have lived and died in their sins. My lord, the time is short. I am past the noon of life, and my remaining years flee away as a shadow. Your lordship is old and full of days, having past the usual age of man. It cannot therefore be long before we shall both drop this house of earth, and stand naked before God: no, nor before we shall see the great white throne coming down from heaven, and him that sitteth thereon. On his left-hand shall be those who are shortly to dwell in everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. In that number will be all who died in their sins: and among the rest, those whom you preserved from repentance. Will you then rejoice in your success? The Lord God grant it may not be said in that hour, “These have perished in their iniquity: but their blood I require at thy hands.”

I am,

Your lordship’s dutiful
son and servant,

JOHN WESLEY.

London,
June 11, 1747.

---

A

LETTER

To a CLERGYMAN.

---

Tullamore, May 4, 1748.

Rev. Sir,

I HAVE at present neither leisure nor inclination to enter into a formal controversy: but you will give me leave, just to offer a few loose hints, relating to the subject of last night’s conversation.

1. Seeing life and health are things of so great importance, it is, without question, highly expedient, that physicians should have all possible advantages of learning and education.

2. That trial should be made of them by competent judges, before they practise publicly.

3. That after such trial, they be authorized to practise by those who are impowered to convey that authority.

4. And that while they are preserving the lives of others, they should have what is sufficient to sustain their own.

5. But supposing a gentleman bred at the university in Dublin, with all the advantages of education: after he has undergone all the usual trials, and then been regularly authorized to practise.

6. Suppose, I say, this physician settles at ―― for some years, and yet makes no cures at all: but after trying his skill on five hundred persons, cannot shew that he has healed one; many of his patients dying under his hands, and the rest remaining just as they were before he came.

7. Will you condemn a man, who having some little skill in physic, and a tender compassion for those who are sick or dying all-around him, cures many of those, without fee or reward, whom the doctor could not cure?

8. At least, did not (which is the same thing as to the case in hand) were it only for this reason, because he did not go to them, and they would not come to him.

9. Will you condemn him, because he has not learning? Or has not had an university education?

What then? He cures those whom the man of learning and education cannot cure.

10. Will you object, That he is no physician, nor has any authority to practise?

I cannot come into your opinion. I think, he is a physician who heals; Medicus est qui medetur: and that every man has authority to save the life of a dying man.

But if you only mean, he has no authority to take fees, I contend not: for he takes none at all.

11. Nay, and I am afraid it will hold, on the other hand, Medicus non est qui non medetur: I am afraid, if we use propriety of speech, he is no physician who works no cure.

12. “O, but he has taken his degree of doctor of physic, and therefore has authority.”

Authority to do what? “Why, to heal all the sick that will employ him.” But (to wave the case of those who will not employ him: and would you have even their lives thrown away?) He does not heal those that do employ him. He that was sick before, is sick still; or else he is gone hence, and is no more seen.

Therefore his authority is not worth a rush; for it serves not the end for which it was given.

13. And surely he has no authority to kill them, by hindering another from saving their lives!

14. If he either attempts or desires to hinder him, if he condemns or dislikes him for it, it is plain to all thinking men, he regards his own fees, more than the lives of his patients.

---

II. Now to apply. 1. Seeing life everlasting and holiness, or health of soul, are things of so great importance, it is highly expedient, that ministers being physicians of the soul, should have all advantages of education and learning.

2. That full trial should be made of them, in all respects, and that by the most competent judges, before they enter on the public exercise of their office, The saving souls from death.

3. That after such trial, they be authorized to exercise that office, by those who are impowered to convey that authority: (I believe, bishops are impowered to do this, and have been so, from the apostolic age.)

4. And that those whose souls they save, ought mean time to provide them what is needful for the body.

5. But suppose a gentleman bred at the university in Dublin, with all the advantages of education: after he has undergone the usual trials, and been regularly authorized to save souls from death.

6. Suppose, I say, this minister settles at ―― for some years, and yet saves no soul at all; saves no sinners from their sins; but after he has preached all this time to five or six hundred persons, cannot shew, that he has converted one from the error of his ways.

Many of his parishioners dying as they lived and the rest remaining just as they were before he came.

7. Will you condemn a man, who having compassion on dying souls, and some knowledge of the gospel of Christ, without any temporal reward, saves many from their sins, whom the minister could not save?

8. At least did not: nor ever was likely to do it; for he did not go to them, and they would not come to him.

9. Will you condemn such a preacher, because he has not learning? Or has not had an university education?

What then? He saves those sinners from their sins, whom the man of learning and education cannot save.

A peasant being brought before the college of physicians at Paris, a learned doctor accosted him, “What, friend, do you pretend to prescribe to people that have agues? Dost thou know what an ague is?”

He replied, “Yes, Sir, an ague is, what I can cure, and you cannot.”

10. Will you object, “But he is no minister; nor has any authority to save souls?”

I must beg leave to dissent from you in this. I think, he is a true, evangelical minister, διάκονος, servant of Christ and his church, who οὕτως διακονεῖ, so ministers, as to save souls from death, to reclaim sinners from their sins: and that every Christian, if he is able to do it, has authority to save a dying soul.

But if you only mean, he has no authority to take tythes, I grant it. He takes none. As he has freely ♦received, so he freely gives.

11. But to carry the matter a little farther, I am afraid, it will hold on the other hand, with regard to the soul as well as the body, Medicus non est qui non medetur. I am afraid, reasonable men will be much inclined to think, he that saves no souls is no minister of Christ.

12. “O, but he is ordained, and therefore has authority.”――

Authority to do what? To save all the souls that will put themselves under his care. True; but (to wave the case of them that will not. And would you desire that even those should perish?) he does not, in fact, save them that are under his care. Therefore, what end does his authority serve? He that was a drunkard, is a drunkard still. The same is true of the sabbath-breaker, the thief, the common swearer. This is the best of the case: for many have died in their iniquity, and their blood will God require at the watchman’s hand.

13. For surely he has no authority to murder souls: either by his neglect, by his smooth if not false doctrine, or by hindering another from plucking them out of the fire, and bringing them to life everlasting.

14. If he either attempts or desires to hinder him, if he condemns or is displeased with him for it, how great reason is there to fear, that he regards his own profit, more than the salvation of souls?

I am, Rev. Sir,

Your affectionate brother,

J. W.

---

A

LETTER

To the AUTHOR of the

Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists compared.

Sir,

1. IN your late pamphlets you have undertaken to prove, that Mr. Whitefield and I, are gross enthusiasts; and that our ¹whole conduct is but a counter-part of the most wild fanaticisms of the most abominable communion in its most corrupt ages.

You endeavour to support this charge against us, by quotations from our own writings: compared with quotations from celebrated writers of the Romish communion.

2. It lies upon me answer for one. But I must not burden you with too long an answer; lest ¹(for want either of leisure or inclination) you should not give this, any more than my other tracts, a reading. In order therefore to spare both you and myself, I shall at present consider only your first part; and that as briefly as possible. Accordingly I shall not meddle with your other quotations; but leaving them to whom they may concern, shall only examine, whether those you have made from my writings, prove the charge of enthusiasm, or no.

This, I conceive, will be abundantly sufficient, to decide the question between you and me. If these do prove the charge, I am cast: if they do not, if they are the words of truth and soberness, it will be an objection of no real weight, against sentiments just in themselves, though they should also be found in the writings of Papists: yea, of Mahometans or Pagans.

3. Let the eight pages you borrow, stand as they are. I presume they will do neither good nor harm. In the tenth you say, The Methodists act on the same plan with the Papists​――not perhaps from compact and design; but a similar configuration and texture of brain, or the fumes of imagination producing similar effects. From a commiseration of horror, arising from the grievous corruptions of the world, perhaps from a real motive of sincere piety, they both set out with warm pretences to a reformation. Sir, this is an uncommon thought! That sincere piety should arise from the configuration and texture of the brain! As well as, that pretences to a reformation should spring from a real motive of sincere piety!

4. You go on, ¹both commonly begin their adventures with field-preaching. Sir, do you condemn field-preaching toto genere, as evil in itself? Have a care! or you (I should say, the gentleman that assists you) will speak a little too plain, and betray the real motives of his sincere antipathy to the people called Methodists.

Or do you condemn the preaching on Hannam-mount, in particular, to the colliers of Kingswood? If you doubt, whether this has done any real good, it is a very easy thing to be informed. And I leave it with all impartial men, whether the good which has in fact been done by preaching there, and which could not possibly have been done any other way, does not abundantly ¹justify the irregularity of it.

5. But you think I am herein inconsistent with myself. For I say, “The uncommonness is the very circumstance that recommends it.” (I mean that recommended it to the colliers in Kingswood:) And yet I said, but a page or two before, “We are not suffered to preach in the churches: else we should prefer them to any places whatsoever.”

Sir, I still aver both the one and the other. I do prefer the preaching in a church when I am suffered: and yet, when I am not, the wise providence of God over-rules this very circumstance for good: many coming to hear, because of the uncommonness of the thing, who would otherwise not have heard at all.

6. Your second charge is, That I ¹abuse the clergy, throw out so much gall of bitterness against them! And impute this black art of calumny to the spirit and power given from God.

Sir, I plead not guilty to the whole charge. And you have not cited one line to support it. But, if you could support it, what is this to the point in hand? I presume calumny is not enthusiasm. Perhaps you will say, “But it is something as bad.” True: but it is nothing to the purpose: even the imputing this to the Spirit of God, as you here represent it, is an instance of art, not of enthusiasm.

7. You charge me thirdly, with ¹putting on a sanctified appearance, in order to draw followers, by a demure look, precise behaviour, and other marks of external piety. For which reason, you say, Mr. Wesley made and renewed that noble resolution, not willingly to indulge himself in the least levity of behaviour, or in laughter, no, not for a moment​――to speak no word not tending to the glory of God; and not a tittle of worldly things.

Sir, You miss the mark again. If this sanctified appearance was put on to draw followers, if it was for this reason, (as you flatly affirm it was) that Mr. Wesley made and renewed that noble resolution: (it was made eleven or twelve years before, about the time of my removal to Lincoln-College) then it can be no instance of enthusiasm, and so does not fall within the design of your present work.​――Unless your title page does not belong to your book: for that confines you to the enthusiasm of the Methodists.

8. But to consider this point in another view. You accuse me of putting on a sanctified appearance, a demure look, precise behaviour, and other marks of external piety. How are you assured, Sir, this was barely external? And that it was a bare appearance of sanctity? You affirm this as from personal knowledge. Was you then acquainted with me three or four and twenty years ago? He made and renewed that noble resolution, in order to draw followers.​――Sir, How do you know that? Are you in God’s place, that you take upon you to be the searcher of hearts? That noble resolution, not willingly to indulge himself in the least levity of behaviour. Sir, I acquit you of having any concern in this matter. But I appeal to all who have the love of God in their hearts, whether this is not a rational, scriptural resolution, worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called​――or in laughter, no, not for a moment. No, nor ought I to indulge it at all: if I am conscious to myself, it hurts my soul. In which, let every man judge for himself. To speak no word not tending to the glory of God​――A peculiar instance of enthusiasm this! And not a tittle of worldly things. The words immediately following are, Others may, nay must. But what is that to me? (Words which in justice you ought to have inserted) who was then entirely disengaged from worldly business of every kind. Notwithstanding which, I have often since engaged therein, when the order of Providence plainly required it.

9. Though I did not design to meddle with them, yet I must here take notice of three of your instances of Popish enthusiasm. The first, is, That ¹Mechtildis tortured herself, for having spoken an idle word. (The point of comparison lies not in torturing herself; but in her doing it, on such an occasion;) the second, That not a word fell from St. Katharine of Sienna, that was not religious and holy: the third, That the lips of Magdalen di Pazzi, were never opened but to chant the praises of God. I would to God the comparison between the Methodists and Papists would hold in this respect! Yea, that you, and all the clergy in England, were guilty of just such enthusiasm.

10. You cite as a fourth instance of my enthusiasm, that I say, ¹A Methodist (a real Christian) cannot adorn himself on any pretence, with gold or costly apparel. If this be enthusiasm, let the apostle look to it. His words are clear and express. If you can find a pretence to set them aside, do: I cannot; nor do I desire it.

11. My ¹seeming contempt of money you urge as a fifth instance of enthusiasm. Sir, I understand you. You was obliged to call it seeming, lest you should yourself confute the allegation brought in your title-page. But if it be only seeming, whatever it prove besides, it cannot prove that I am an enthusiast.

12. Hitherto you have succeeded extremely ill. You have brought five accusations against me: and have not been able to make one good. However, you are resolved to throw dirt enough, that some may stick. So you are next to prove upon me, ¹a restless impatience and insatiable thirst of travelling, and undertaking dangerous voyages, for the conversion of infidels; together with a declared contempt, of all dangers, pains and sufferings: and the designing, loving and praying for ill usage, persecution, martyrdom, death and hell.

In order to prove this uncommon charge, you produce ¹four scraps of sentences, which you mark as my words, though as they stand in your book, they are neither sense nor grammar. But you do not refer to the page or even the treatise, where any one of them may be found. Sir, ’tis well you hide your name: or you would be obliged to hide your face, from every man of candour, or even common humanity.

13. ¹Sometimes indeed, you say, Mr. Wesley complains of the scoffs both of the great vulgar and the small: to prove which, you disjoint and murder (as your manner is) another of my sentences. But at other times the note is changed, and “till he is despised no man is in a state of salvation.” The note is changed! How so? When did I say otherwise than I do at this day, viz. “That none are children of God, but those who are hated, or despised by the children of the devil.”

I must beg you, Sir, in your third part to inform your reader, that whenever any solecism or mangled sentences, appear in the quotations from my writings, they are not chargeable upon me: that if the sense be mine (which is not always; sometimes you do me too much honour, even in this:) yet I lay no claim to the manner of expression: the English is all your own.

14. ¹Corporal severities or mortification by tormenting the flesh, is the next thing you charge upon me. Almost two sentences you bring in proof of this. The one, “Our bed being wet (it was in a storm at sea) I laid me down on the floor, and slept sound till morning: and I believe I shall not find it needful to go to bed, as ’tis called, any more.” But whether I do or not, how will you prove, that my motive is, To gain a reputation for sanctity? I desire (if it be not too great a favour) a little evidence for this.

The other fragment of a sentence speaks, ¹of bearing cold on the naked head, rain and wind, frost and snow.” True; but not as matter of mortification, by tormenting the flesh. Nothing less. These things are not spoken of there, as voluntary instances of mortification: (you yourself know perfectly well, they are not; only you make free with your friend:) but as some of the unavoidable inconveniences, which attend preaching in the open air.

Therefore you need not be so ¹sure that the apostle condemns that ἀφειδία σώματος, not sparing the body, as useless and superstitious, and that it is a false shew of humility. Humility is entirely out of the question, as well as chastity; in the case of hardships endured (but not properly chosen) out of love to the souls for which Christ died.

15. You add a word or two of my ardent desire of going to hell, which you think, I ¹adopted from the Jesuit Nieremberg. Sir, I know not the man. I am wholly a stranger both to his person and to his doctrine. But if this is his doctrine, I disclaim it from my heart. I ardently desire, that both you and I may go to heaven.

But Mr. Wesley says, “¹A poor old man decided the question of disinterested love.​――He said, I do not care what place I am in. Let God put me where he will, or do with me what he will, so I may set forth his honour and glory.”

He did so. And what then? Do these words imply, an ardent desire of going to hell? I do not suppose the going to hell ever entered into his thoughts. Nor has it any place in my notion of disinterested love. How you may understand that term, I know not.

But you will prove, I have this desire, whether I will or no. You are sure, this was my ¹original meaning, in the words cited by Mr. Church,

God’s power or justice, you say, must be intended; because he speaks of God’s love in the very next lines,

Sir, I will tell you a secret. Those lines are not mine. However, I will once more venture to defend them, and to aver, that your consequence is good for nothing, “If this love is spoken of in the latter lines, then it is not in the former.” No! Why not? I take it to be spoken of in both. The plain meaning of which is, “If thou art not love, I am content to perish. But if thou art, let me find the effects thereof: let me be saved by grace.”

16. You next accuse me of maintaining a stoical insensibility. This objection also you borrow from Mr. Church. You ought likewise to have taken notice, that I had answered it, and openly disowned that doctrine: I mean, according to the rules of common justice. But that is not your failing.

17. Part of your thirty-ninth page runs thus: with respect to all this patient enduring hardships, &c. it has been remarked by learned authors, “That some persons by constitutional temper, have been fond of bearing the worst that could befall them: that others from a sturdy humour, and the force of education, have made light of the most exquisite tortures: that when enthusiasm comes in, in aid of this natural ♦or acquired sturdiness, and men fancy they are upon God’s work, and intituled to his rewards, they are immediately all on fire, for rushing into sufferings and pain.”

I take knowledge of your having faithfully abridged, your own book shall I say? Or the learned Dr. Middleton’s? But what is it you are endeavouring to prove?

Quorsum hæc tam putida tendunt?

The paragraph seems to point at me. But the plain, natural tendency of it, is to invalidate that great argument for Christianity, which is drawn from the constancy of the martyrs. Have you not here also spoken a little too plain? Had you not better have kept the mask on a little longer?

Indeed you lamely add, The solid and just comforts which a true martyr receives from above, are groundlesly applied to the counterfeit. But this is not enough even to save appearances.

18. You subjoin a truly surprizing thought. ¹It may moreover be observed, that both antient and modern enthusiasts always take care to secure some advantage by their sufferings. O rare enthusiasts! So they are not such fools neither, as they are vulgarly supposed to be. This is just of a piece with the cunning epileptic demoniacs, in your other performance. And do not you think (if you would but speak all that is in your heart, and let us into the whole secret) that there was a compact, likewise between bishop Hooper and his executioner, as well as between the ventriloquist and the exorcist?

But what advantage do they take care to secure? A good salary? A handsome fortune? No; quite another matter: ¹free communications with God, and fuller manifestations of his goodness. I dare say, you do not envy them: no more than you do those self-interested enthusiasts of old, who were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.

19. You proceed to prove my enthusiasm from my notions of conversion. And here great allowances are to be made: because you are talking of things quite out of your sphere: you are got into an unknown world! Yet you still talk as magisterially, as if you was only running down the fathers of the primitive church.

And, first, you say, I ¹represent conversion as sudden and instantaneous. Soft and fair! Do you know what conversion is? (A term indeed which I very rarely use, because it rarely occurs in the New Testament.) “Yes; it is, To ²start up perfect men at once.” (Indeed, Sir, it is not. A man is usually converted, long before he is a perfect man.) ’Tis probable, most of those Ephesians, to whom St. Paul directed his epistle, were converted. Yet they were not come (few, if any) to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.

20. I do not, Sir, indeed, I do not undertake to make you understand these things. I am not so vain as to think it is in my power. ’Tis the utmost of my hope, to convince you, or at least, those who read your works, that you understand just nothing about them.

To put this out of dispute, you go on, ¹Thus faith and being born of God, are said to be an instantaneous work, at once, and in a moment, as lightning. Justification, the same as regeneration, and having a lively faith, this always in a moment. I know not which to admire most, the English or the sense, which you here father upon me: but in truth ’tis all your own: I do not thus confound faith and being born of God. I always speak of them as different things: ’tis you that thus jumble them together. ’Tis you who discover justification also to be the same as regeneration, and having a lively faith. I take them to be three different things; so different as not ever to come under one genus. And yet ’tis true, that each of these, “as far as I know,” is at first experienced suddenly: although two of them (I leave you to find out which) gradually increase from that hour.

21. ¹After these sudden conversions, say you they receive their assurances of salvation. Sir, Mr. Bedford’s ignorance in charging this doctrine upon me, might be involuntary, and I am persuaded was real. But yours cannot be so. It must be voluntary; if it is not rather affected. For you had before you, while you wrote, the very tract, wherein I corrected Mr. Bedford’s mistake, and explicitly declared, “The assurance whereof I speak, is not an assurance of salvation.” And the very passages you cite from me, prove the same: every one of which (as you yourself know in your own conscience) relates wholly and solely to present pardon, not to future salvation.

Of ¹Christian perfection I shall not say any thing to you, till you have learned a little Heathen honesty.

22. That this is a lesson you have not yet learned, appears also from your following section: wherein you roundly affirm, Whatever they think, say, or do, (i. e. the Methodists, according to their own account) is from God. And whatever opposeth, is from the devil. I doubt not, but Mr. Church believed this to be true when he asserted it. But this is no plea for you: who having read the answer to Mr. Church, still assert what you know to be false.

¹Here we have, say you, the true spirit and very essence of enthusiasm, which sets men above carnal reasoning, and all conviction of plain scripture. It may, or may not; that is nothing to me. I am not above either reason or scripture. To either of these I am ready to submit. But I cannot receive scurrilous invective, instead of scripture: nor pay the same regard to low buffoonery, as to clear and cogent reasons.

23. With your two following pages, I have nothing to do. But in the 52d, I read as follows. A Methodist, says Mr. Wesley, went to receive the sacrament​――when God was pleased to let him see a crucified Saviour. Very well; and what is this brought to prove? Why, 1. That I am an enthusiast: 2. That I encourage the notion of the real, ♦corporal presence, in the sacrifice of the mass. How so? Why ¹this is as good an argument for transubstantiation, as several produced by Bellarmin. Very likely it may; and as good as several produced by you, for the enthusiasm of the Methodists.

24. In that seraphic rhapsody of divine love, as you term it, which you condemn in the lump, as rant and madness, there are several scriptural expressions, both from the Old and New Testament. At first I imagined you did nor know them; those being books which you did not seem to be much acquainted with. But upon laying circumstances together, I rather suppose, you was glad of so handsome an opportunity, to make as if you aimed at me, that you might have a home stroke at some of those old enthusiasts.

25. The next words which you cite from me, as a proof of my enthusiasm, are, ¹The power of God was in an unusual manner present. I mean, many found an unusual degree of that peace, joy and love, which St. Paul terms, the fruit of the Spirit. And all these, in conformity to his doctrine, I ascribe to the power of God. I know you, in conformity to your principles, ascribe them to the power of nature. But I still believe, according to the old, scriptural hypothesis, that whenever in hearing the word of God, men are filled with peace and love, God confirms that word by the Holy Ghost given unto those that hear it.

26. As a further proof of my enthusiasm you mention ¹special directions, missions, and calls by immediate revelation. For an instance of which, you cite those words, “I know, and am assured, that God sent forth his light and his truth.” I did know this. But do I say, by immediate revelation? Not a tittle about it. This is your own ingenious improvement upon my words.

“However, it was by a special direction.” For your own words in the same paragraph are, ¹From the direction I received from God this day, touching an affair of the greatest importance.

What, are these words in the same paragraph with those, I know, and am assured, God sent forth his light and his truth? Why then do you tear the paragraph in two, and put part in your 67th, part in your 68th and 69th pages? O, for a plain reason: to make it look like two instances of enthusiasm, otherwise it could have made but one at the most.

But you cannot make out one, till you have proved, that these directions were by immediate revelation. I never affirmed they were. I now affirm they were not. Now, Sir, make your best of them.

You add, ¹Let me mention a few directions coming by way of command​――Mr. Wesley says, “I came to Mr. Delamotte’s, where I expected a cool reception. But God had prepared the way before me.” What by a command to Mr. Delamotte? Who told you so? Not I: nor any one else: only your own fruitful imagination.

27. Your next discovery is more curious still: that ¹“itinerants order what they want at a public house, and then tell the landlord, that he will be damned, if he takes any thing of them.”

I was beating my brain, to find out what itinerant this should be! as I could not but imagine, some silly man or other, probably stiling himself a Methodist, must some where or other have given some ground for a story so punctually delivered. In the midst of this, a letter from Cornwall informed me, it was I: I myself was the very man, and acquainted me with the place, and the person to whom I said it. But as there are some particulars in that letter (sent without a name) which I did not well understand, I transcribe a few words of it, in hopes that the author will give me fuller information.

“As to the bishop’s declaring, what the landlord of Mitchel says, in respect to your behaviour, I do not at all wonder at the story.” The bishop’s declaring! Whom can he mean? Surely not the Right Reverend Dr. George Lavington, lord bishop of Exeter! When, or to whom did he declare it? At Truro, in Cornwall? Or in Plymouth, at his visitation? To all the clergy who were assembled before God, to receive his pastoral instructions? His lordship of Exeter must certainly have more regard to the dignity of the episcopal office!

28. But to proceed. I was not offended with the Moravians, for warning men, ¹against mixing nature with grace; but for their doing it in such a manner as tended to destroy all the work of grace in their souls. I did not blame the thing itself, but their manner of doing it. And this you know perfectly well. But with you, truth must always give way to wit. At all events, you must have your jest.

29. Had you had any regard to truth, or any desire to represent things as they really are, when you repeated Mr. Church’s objection concerning lots, you would have acknowledged, that I have answered it at large. When you have replied to that answer, I may add a word more.

30. You are sadly at a loss under the article of extasies and raptures, to glean up any thing that will serve your purpose. At last, from ten or twelve tracts, you pick out two lines; and those the same you had mentioned before. “My soul was got up into the holy mount. I had no thought of coming down again into the body.” And truly you might as well have let these alone. For if by extasy you mean trance, here is no account of any such: but only of one rejoicing in God with joy unspeakable and full of glory.

With the ¹girl of seven years old, I have nothing to do: though you honestly tack that relation to the other, in order to make me accountable for both. But all is fair toward a Methodist.

31. What I assert concerning ¹Peter Wright, is this, 1. That he gave me that relation (whether I believed it no, I did not say.) 2. That he died within a month after. Now, Sir, give us a cast of your office. From these two propositions, extract a proof of my being an enthusiast.

You may full as easily prove it from these, as from the words you quote next, ¹God does now give remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, and often in dreams and visions of God. But afterwards, you say, I speak more distrustfully. Indeed I do not. But I guard against enthusiasm, in those words, part of which you have recited. The whole paragraph runs thus,

“From those words, Beloved, believe not every spirit; but try the spirits, whether they be of God: I told them, they were not to judge of the spirit whereby any one spoke, either by appearances, or by common report, or by their own inward feelings: no, nor by any dreams, visions, or revelations, supposed to be made to their souls, any more than by their tears, or any involuntary effects wrought upon their bodies. I warned them, all these were in themselves of a doubtful, disputable nature: they might be from God, and they might not, and were therefore not simply to be relied on (any more than simply to be condemned) but to be tried by a farther rule; to be brought to the only certain test, the law and the testimony.” Sir, can you shew them a better way?

32. The last proof that you produce of my enthusiasm is, ¹My talking of the great work which God is now beginning to work upon earth. I own the fact. I do talk of such a work. But I deny the consequence. For if God has begun a great work, then the saying he has, is no enthusiasm.

To bring sinners to repentance, to save them from their sins, is allowed by all to be the work of God. Yea, and to save one sinner is a great work of God: much more to save many.

But many sinners are saved from their sins at this day, in London, in Bristol, in Kingswood, in Cornwall: in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in Whitehaven, in many other parts of England: in Wales, in Ireland, in Scotland: upon the continent of Europe: in Asia, and in America. This I term a great work of God; so great, as I have not read of for several ages.

You ask, how I know, so great a work is wrought now? By inspiration? No; but by common sense. I know it by the evidence of my own eyes and ears. I have seen a considerable part of it: and I have abundant testimony, such as excludes all possible doubt, for what I have not seen.

33. But you are so far from acknowledging any thing of this, as to conclude, in full triumph, ¹That this new dispensation is a composition of enthusiasm, superstition, and imposture. It is not clear what you mean by a new dispensation. * But the clear, and undeniable fact stands thus​――A few years ago, Great Britain and Ireland, were covered with vice from sea to sea. Very little of even the form of religion was left: and still less of the power of it. Out of this darkness God commanded light to shine. In a short space, he called thousands of sinners to repentance. They were not only reformed from their outward vices, but likewise changed in their dispositions and tempers; filled with a serious, sober sense of true religion, with love to God and all mankind, with an holy faith producing good works of every kind, works both of piety and mercy.

What could the god of this world do in such a case, to prevent the spreading of this serious, sober religion? The same that he has done from the beginning of the world. To hinder the light of those whom God hath thus changed, from shining before men, he gave them all in general a nick-name: he called them Methodists. And this name, as insignificant as it was in itself, effectually answered his intention. For by this means, that light was soon obscured by prejudice, which could not be withstood by scripture or reason. By the odious and ridiculous ideas affixed to that name, they were condemned in the gross, without ever being heard. So that now any scribbler, with a middling share of low wit, not incumbered with good nature or modesty, may raise a laugh on those whom he cannot confute, and run them down whom he dares not look in the face. By this means even a comparer of Methodists and Papists, may blaspheme the great work of God, not only without blame, but with applause; at least, from readers of his own stamp. But it is high time, Sir, you should leave your skulking place. Come out, and let us look each other in the face. I have little leisure and less inclination for controversy. Yet I promise, if you will set your name to your third part, I will answer all that shall concern me, in that, as well as the preceding. Till then I remain, Sir,

Your friend and well-wisher,

JOHN WESLEY.

Canterbury,
February 1, 1749‒50.

---

POSTSCRIPT.

WHEN you come to relate those horrid and shocking things, there may be a danger you are not aware of. Even you yourself may fall (as little as you intend or suspect it) into seriousness. And I am afraid, if once you put off your fool’s coat, if you stand naked before cool and sober reason, you yourself may appear as inconsiderable a creature​――to use your own phrase, “as if your name was Perronet.”

---

A SECOND

LETTER

To the AUTHOR of the

Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists compared.

Ecce iterum Chrispinus!
Juvenal.

To the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

My Lord,

1. I WAS grieved when I read the following words, in the third part of the enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists compared. “A sensible, honest woman told the bishop of Exeter, in presence of several witnesses, That Mr. John Wesley came to her house, and questioned her, whether she had an assurance of her salvation?” Her answer was, that “she hoped she should be saved, but had no absolute assurance of it.” Why then, replied he, you are in hell, you are damned already. This so terrified the poor woman, who was then with child, that she was grievously afraid of miscarrying, and could not in a long time, recover her right mind. For this, and the Methodists asking her to live upon free cost, she determined to admit no more of them into her house. So much is her own account to his lordship, on whose authority it is here published.”

2. This renewed the concern I felt sometime since, when I was informed (in letters which I have still by me) of your lordship’s publishing this account, both at Plymouth, in Devonshire, and at Truro, in Cornwall, before the clergy assembled from all parts of those counties, at the solemn season of your lordship’s visiting your diocese. But I was not informed, that your lordship shewed a deep concern for the honour of God, which you supposed to be so dreadfully violated, or a tender compassion for a presbyter whom you believed to be rushing into everlasting destruction.

3. In order to be more fully informed, on Saturday, August 25, 1750, Mr. Trembath, of St. Ginneys, Mr. Hame, of Shaftesbury, and I, called at Mr. Morgan’s at Mitchell. The servant telling me her master was not at home, I desired to speak with her mistress, the “honest, sensible woman.” ♦I immediately asked, “Did I ever tell you or your husband, that you would be damned, if you took any money of me?” (So the story ran in the first part of the comparison: it has now undergone a very considerable alteration.) “Or did you or he ever affirm (another circumstance related at Truro) that I was rude with your maid?” She replied vehemently, “Sir, I never said you was, or that you said any such thing. And I do not suppose my husband did. But we have been belied as well as our neighbours.” She added, “When the bishop came down last, he sent us word, that he would dine at our house. But he did not, being invited to a neighbouring gentleman’s. He sent for me thither, and said, ‘Good woman, do you know these people that go up and down? Do you know Mr. Wesley? Did not he tell you, you would ♠be damned, if you took any money of him? And did not he offer rudeness to your maid?’” I told him, “No, my lord. He never said any such thing to me, nor to my husband that I know of. He never offered any rudeness to any maid of mine. I never saw or knew any harm of him. But a man told me once (who I was told was a Methodist preacher) that I should be damned, if I did not know my sins were forgiven.”

4. This is her own account given to me. And an account it is, irreconcileably different (notwithstanding some small resemblance in the last circumstance) from that she is affirmed to have given your lordship. Whether she did give that account to your lordship or no, your lordship knows best. That the comparer affirms it, is no proof at all; since he will affirm any thing that suits his purpose.

5. Yet I was sorry to see your lordship’s authority cited on such an occasion; inasmuch as many of his readers, not considering the man, may think your lordship did really countenance such a writer: one that turns the most serious, the most awful, the most venerable things into mere farce; that makes the most essential parts of real, experimental religion, matter of low buffoonery; that beginning at the very rise of it in the soul, namely, Repentance towards God, a broken and a contrite heart, goes on to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, whereby he that believeth is born of God, to the love of God shed abroad in the heart, attended with peace and joy in the Holy Ghost; to our subsequent wrestling not only with flesh and blood, but with principalities and powers and wicked spirits in high places, and thence to perfect love, the loving the Lord our God, with all our heart, mind, soul and strength: and treats every one of these sacred topics with the spirit and air of a merry-andrew. What advantage the common enemies of Christianity may reap from this, your Lordship cannot be insensible.

6. Your lordship cannot but discern, how the whole tenor of his book tends to destroy the holy scriptures, to render them vile in the eyes of the people, to make them stink in the nostrils of infidels. For instance. After reading his laboured ridicule of the sorrow and fear which usually attend the first repentance (called by St. Chrysostom, as well as a thousand other writers, The pangs or throes of the new birth) what can an infidel think of those and the like expressions in scripture, I have roared for the very disquietness of my heart? Fearfulness and trembling are come upon me, and an horrible dread hath overwhelmed me? After his flood of satire on all kind of conflicts with Satan, what judgment can a Deist form, of what St. Paul speaks concerning the various wrestlings of a Christian with the wicked one? Above all, how will his bringing the lewd Heathen poets, to expose the pure and spiritual love of God, naturally cause them to look with the same eyes on the most elevated passages of the inspired writings? What can be more diverting to them, than to apply his ♦Γλυκύπικρον ἔρωτος (bittersweet of love) to many expressions in the canticles? (On which undoubtedly he supposes the fair circassian to be a very just paraphrase!) “Ay, say they, the very case: stay me with apples: for I am sick of love.”

7. Probably the comparer will reply, “No; I do not ridicule the things themselves: repentance, the new birth, the fight of faith, or the love of God; all which I know are essential to religion: but only the folly and the enthusiasm which are blended with these by the Methodists.” But how poor a pretence is this? Had this really been the case, how carefully would he have drawn the line under each of these heads, between the sober religion of a Christian, and the enthusiasm of a Methodist? But has he done this? Does he take particular care to shew under each, what is true, as well as what is false religion? Where the former ends and the latter begins? What are the proper boundaries of each? Your lordship knows he does not so much as endeavour it, or take any pains about it: but indiscriminately pours the flood out of his unclean mouth, upon all repentance, faith, love and holiness.

8. Your lordship will please to observe, that I do not here touch in the least on the merits of the cause. Be the Methodists what they may, fools, madmen, enthusiasts, knaves, impostors, papists, or any thing, yet your lordship perceives, this does not in any degree affect the point in question. Still it behoves every Christian, nay every reasonable Heathen to consider the subject he is upon, and to take care, not to bring this into contempt (especially if it be of the last importance) however inexcusable or contemptible his opponents may be.

9. This consideration, my Lord, dwelt much upon my mind when I read the former parts of the comparison. I immediately saw there was no incountering a buffoon, by serious reason and argument. This would naturally have furnished both him and his admirers with fresh matter of ridicule. On the other hand, if I should let myself down to a level with him, by a less serious manner of writing than I was accustomed to, I was afraid of debasing the dignity of the subject. Nay, and I knew not but I might catch something of his Spirit. I remembered the advice, ¹Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. And yet I saw there must be an exception in some cases, as the words immediately following shew. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. I conceive, as if he had said, Yet it is needful in some cases, to answer a fool according to his folly, otherwise he will be wiser in his own conceit, than seven men that can render a reason. I therefore constrained myself to approach as near as I dared, to his own manner of writing. And I trust the occasion will plead my excuse with your Lordship, and all reasonable men.

10. One good effect of my thus meeting him on his own ground, is visible already. Instead of endeavouring to defend, he intirely gives up the first part of his comparison. Indeed I did not expect this, when I observed, that the third part was addressed to me. I took it for granted, that he had therein aimed at something like a reply to my answer. But going on, I found myself quite mistaken. He never once attempts a reply to one page, any otherwise than by screaming out, “Pertness, scurrility, effrontery, and in subjoining that deep remark, ‘Paper and time would be wasted on such stuff.’”¹

11. I cannot but account it another good effect, that he is something less confident than he was before. He is likewise (not more angry or more bitter, for that cannot be) but a few degrees more serious. So that I plainly perceive, this is the way I am to take, if I should have leisure to answer the third part; although it is far from my desire to write in this manner; it is as contrary to my inclination as to my custom.

12. But is it possible, that a person of your lordship’s character, should countenance such a performance as this? It cannot be your lordship’s desire, to put contempt on all that is truly venerable among men! To stab Christianity to the heart, under the colour of opposing enthusiasm! And to increase and give a sanction to the prophaneness, which already overspreads our land as a flood.

13. Were the Methodists ever so bad, yet are they not too despicable and inconsiderable for your lordship’s notice? Against whom is the king of Israel come out? Against a flea? Against a partridge upon the mountains? Such they undoubtedly are, if that representation of them be just which the comparer has given. Against whom (if your lordship espouses his cause) are you stirring up the supreme power of the nation? Against whom does your lordship arm the ministers of all denominations, particularly our brethren of the established church; inciting them to paint us out to their several congregations, as not fit to live upon the earth? The effects of this have already appeared in many parts both of Devonshire and Cornwall. Nor have I known any considerable riot in any part of England, for which such preaching did not pave the way.

14. I beg leave to ask, would it be a satisfaction to your lordship, if national persecution were to return? Does your lordship desire to revive the old laws, De hæretico comburendo? Would your lordship rejoice, to see the Methodists themselves, tied to so many stakes in Smithfield? Or would you applaud the execution, though not so legally or decently performed by the mob of Exeter, Plymouth-Dock or Launceston? My lord, what profit would there be in our blood? Would it be an addition to your lordship’s happiness? Or any advantage to the Protestant cause? Or any honour either to our church or nation?

15. The comparer doubtless would answer, “Yes; for it would prevent the horrid consequences of your preaching.” My lord, give me leave to say once more, “I willingly put the whole cause upon this issue. What are the general consequences of our preaching?” Are there more tares or wheat? More good men destroyed, (as Mr. Church once supposed) or wicked men saved? The last places in your lordship’s diocese, where we began constant preaching, are near Liskeard in Cornwall, and at Tiverton in Devonshire. Now let any man enquire here, 1. What kind of people were those a year ago, who now constantly hear this preaching? 2. What are the main doctrines the Methodists have been teaching this twelvemonth? 3. What effect have these doctrines had upon their hearers? And if you do not find, 1. That the greater part of these were a year or two ago notoriously wicked men, 2. Yet the main doctrines they have heard since were, “Love God and your neighbour, and carefully keep his commandments,” and 3. That they have since exercised themselves herein, and continue so to do: I say, if any reasonable man, who will be at the pains to inquire does not find this to be an unquestionable fact, I will openly acknowledge myself an enthusiast, or whatever else he shall please to stile me.

16. I beg leave to conclude this address to your lordship with a few more words transcribed from the same letter. ¹“Allow Mr. Wesley, says Mr. Church, but these few points, and he will defend his conduct beyond expectation.” That is most true. If I have indeed been advancing nothing but the true knowledge and love of God; if God has made me an instrument in reforming many sinners, and bringing them to inward and pure religion; and if many of these continue holy to this day, and free from all wilful sin: then may I, even I, use those awful words, He that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. But I never expect the world to allow me one of these points. However, I must go on as God shall enable me. I must lay out whatsoever talents he intrusts me with (whether others will believe I do it or no) in advancing the true Christian knowledge of God, and the love and fear of God among men; in reforming (if so be it please him to use me still) those who are yet without God in the world; and in propagating inward and pure religion, righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.”

Sincerely wishing your lordship all happiness in time and in eternity,

I remain,

Your lordship’s most Obedient servant,

JOHN WESLEY.

November 27, 1750.

---

SIR,

1. YOU have undertaken to prove (as I observed in my former letter, a few sentences of which I beg leave to repeat) That the ¹whole conduct of the Methodists, is but a counter-part of the most wild fanaticisms of popery.

You endeavour to support this charge, by quotations from our own writings, compared with quotations from Popish authors.

It lies upon me to answer for one. But in order to spare both you and myself, I shall at present consider only your second part, and that as briefly as possible. Accordingly I shall not meddle with your other quotations, but leaving them to whom they may concern, shall examine, Whether those you have made from my writings, prove the charge for which they were made or no.

If they do, I submit. But if they do not, if they are the words of truth and soberness, it is an objection of no real weight, against any sentiment, just in itself, though it should also be found in the writings of Papists; yea, of Mahometans or Pagans.

2. In your first section, in order to prove the “Vain boasting of the Methodists,” you quote a part of the following sentence. “When hath religion, I will not say, since the reformation, but since the time of Constantine the Great, made so large a progress in any nation, within so short a space?” (I beg any impartial person to read the whole passage, from the 84th to the 90th page of the Third Appeal.) I repeat the question, giving the glory to God. And, I trust, without either boasting or enthusiasm.

In your second, you cite (and murder) four or five lines ¹from one of my journals, “as instances of the persuasive eloquence of the Methodist preachers.” But it unfortunately happens, that neither of the sentences you quote, were spoke by any preacher at all. You know full well, the one was used only in a private letter; the other by a woman on a bed of sickness.

3. You next undertake to prove ¹“the most insufferable pride and vanity of the Methodists.” For this end you quote five passages from my journals, and one from the Third Appeal.

The ¹first was wrote in the anguish of my heart, to which I gave vent (between God and my own soul) by breaking out, not into “confidence of boasting,” as you term it, but into those expressions of bitter sorrow. “I went to America to convert the Indians. But O! who shall convert me!”​――Some of the words which follow, you have picked out, and very honestly laid before your reader, without either the beginning or end, or one word of the occasion or manner wherein they were spoken.

Your next quotation is equally fair and generous. ¹“Are they read in philosophy? So was I, &c.” This whole “string of self-commendation,” as you call it, being there brought, ex professo, to prove, that notwithstanding all this, which I once piqued myself upon, I was at that hour in a state of damnation!

¹The third is a plain narrative of the manner wherein many of Bristol expressed their joy on my coming unexpectedly into the room, after I had been some time at London. And this, I conceive, will prove the charge of high treason, as well as that of “insufferable pride and vanity.”

You say, fourthly, A dying woman, who had earnestly desired to see me, cried out, as I entered the room, “Art thou come, thou blessed of the Lord?” ¹She did so. And what does this prove?

The fifth passage is this: “In applying which, my soul was so inlarged, that methought I could have cried out (in another sense than poor, vain ♦Archimedes) ‘Give me where to stand, and I will shake the earth.’” My meaning is, I found such freedom of thought and speech (jargon, stuff, enthusiasm to you) that methought could I have then spoken to all the world, they would all have shared in the blessing.

The passage which you quote from the Third Appeal, I am obliged to relate more at large.

“There is one more excuse for denying this work of God, taken from the instruments employed therein: that is, that they are wicked men; and a thousand stories have been handed about to prove it.”

“Yet I cannot but remind considerate men, in how remarkable a manner the wisdom of God, has, for many years, guarded against this pretence, with regard to my brother and me in particular.” This pretence i. e. “of not employing fit instruments.” These words are yours, though you insert them as mine. The pretence I mentioned, was, “That they were wicked men.” And how God guarded against this, is shewn in what follows. “From that time, both my brother and I (utterly against our will) came to be more and more observed and known; till we were more spoken of than perhaps two so inconsiderable persons ever were before in the nation. To make us more public still, as honest madmen at least, by a strange concurrence of providences, overturning all our preceding resolutions, we were hurried away to America.”

Afterward it follows, “What persons could in the nature of things, have been (antecedently) less liable to exception, with regard to their moral character at least, than those the all-wise God hath now employed? Indeed I cannot devise what manner of men could have been more unexceptionable on all accounts. Had God indued us with greater natural or acquired abilities, this very thing might have been turned into an objection. Had we been remarkably defective, it would have been matter of objection on the other hand. Had we been dissenters of any kind, or even Low-Church-Men (so called) it would have been a great stumbling-block in the way of those who are zealous for the church. And yet, had we continued in the impetuosity of our high-church zeal, neither should we have been willing to converse with dissenters, nor they to receive any good at our hands.” Sir, Why did you break off your quotation in the middle of this paragraph, just at “more unexceptionable on all accounts?” Was it not on purpose to give a wrong turn to the whole? To conceal the real and obvious meaning of my words, and put one upon them that never entered into my thoughts?

5. You have reserved your strong reason for the last, namely, my own confession. “Mr. Wesley says himself, ‘by the most infallible of proofs, inward feeling, I am convinced of pride, &c.’” Sir, he pleased to decypher that, &c. Or I will spare you the pains and do it myself, by reciting the whole sentence.

“By ¹the most infallible of proofs, inward feeling, I am convinced,

1. “Of unbelief, having no such faith in Christ as will prevent my heart from being troubled, which it could not be, if I believed in God, and rightly believed also in him.”

2. “Of pride throughout my life past, inasmuch as I thought I had, what I find I have not.”

Now, Sir, you have my whole confession. I intreat you to make the best of it.

“But I myself acknowledge, three Methodists, to have fallen into pride.” Sir, I can tell you of three more. And yet it will not follow, that the doctrines I teach, “lead men into horrid pride and blasphemy.”

6. In the close of your fourth section, you charge me with “shuffling and prevaricating, with regard to extraordinary gifts, and miraculous powers.” Of these I shall have occasion to speak by and by. At present I need only return the compliment, by charging you with gross, wilful prevarication, from the beginning of your book to the end. Some instances of this have appeared already. Many more will appear in due time.

7. Your ¹fifth, charges me with an affectation of prophesying. Your first proof of it is this.

“It was about this time that the soldier was executed. For some time I had visited him every day. But when the love of God was shed abroad in his heart, I told him, do not expect to see me any more.​――I believe Satan will separate us for a season. Accordingly, the next day, I was informed, the commanding officer had given strict orders, that neither Mr. Wesley, nor any of his people, should be admitted.” I did believe so, having seen many such things before: yet without affecting a spirit of prophecy.

But that I do claim it, you will prove, secondly, from my mentioning “the great work, which God intends, and is now beginning to work over all the earth.” By what art you extract such a conclusion out of such premises, I know not. That God intends this, none, who believe the scripture, doubt. And that he has begun it, both in Europe and America, any who will make use of their eyes and ears, may know without any “miraculous gift of prophesying.”

8. In your sixth section, you assert, ¹That I lay claim to other miraculous gifts. As you borrow this objection from Mr. Church, I need only give the same answer I gave before.

¹“I shall give (says Mr. Church) but one account more, and that is, what you give of yourself.” The sum whereof is, “At two several times, being ill, and in violent pain, I prayed to God, and found immediate ease.” I did so. I assert the fact still. But if these (you say) are not miraculous cures, all this is rank enthusiasm.

“I will put your argument in form:”

He that believes those are miraculous cures, which are not, is a rank enthusiast.

But you believe those to be miraculous cures, which are not:

Therefore you are a rank enthusiast.

“Before I answer, I must know what you mean by miraculous? If you term every thing so, which is not strictly accountable for, by the ordinary course of natural causes: then I deny the latter part of the second proposition. And unless you can make this good, unless you can prove the effects in question are strictly accountable for, by the ordinary course of natural causes, your argument is nothing worth.”

Having largely answered your next objection relating to what I still term ¹“a signal instance of God’s particular providence,” I need only refer you to those answers, not having leisure to say the same thing ten times over.

Whether I sometimes claim, and sometimes disclaim miracles, will be considered by and by.

In your seventh section, you say, “¹I shall now give some account, of their grievous conflicts and combats with Satan.” O, Sir, spare yourself, if not the Methodists! Do not go so far out of your depth. This is a subject you are as utterly unacquainted with, as with justification, or the new-birth.

But I attend your motions. “Mr. Wesley, you say, was advised, to a very high degree of silence.​――And he spoke to none at all for two days, and travelling fourscore miles together.”

“The same whim (you go on) has run through several of the religious orders​――Hence St. Bonaventura says, That silence in all the religious, is necessary to perfection​――St. Agatho held a stone in his mouth for three years, till he had learned taciturnity​――St. Alcantara carried several pebbles in his mouth for three years likewise, and for the same reason​――Theon observed a continual silence for thirty years.​――St. Francis observed it himself, and enjoined it upon his brethren. The rule of silence was religiously observed by St. Dominic.”

I have repeated more of your words than I otherwise should, in order to shew to a demonstration, that a man of a lively imagination, may run a parallel to any length, without any foundation in nature.

You begin, “The same whim (which led Mr. Wesley to observe an absolute silence for two days) and so run on to St. Bonaventura, St. Agatho, and I know not whom.” But did Mr. Wesley “observe an absolute silence for two days?” No; not for one hour. My words, “I ¹spoke to none at all for fourscore miles together,” imply neither more nor less, than that I spoke to none “concerning the things of God,” as it is in the words immediately preceding. And you know this as well as I. But it is all one for that. Wit, not truth, is the point you aim at.

My supposed inconsistency, with regard to the Moravians, which you likewise drag in (as they say) by head and shoulders, I have shewn again and again, to be no inconsistency at all: particularly in both the letters to Mr. Church.

10. Well, but as to conflicts with Satan. “Nor can Mr. Wesley, you say, escape the attacks of this infernal spirit,” namely, suggesting distrustful thoughts, and buffeting him with inward temptations.” Sir, did you never hear of any one so attacked, unless among the Papists or Methodists? How deeply then are you experienced both in the ways of God, and the devices of Satan?

You add, with regard to a case mentioned in the ¹fourth journal, “Though I am not convinced that these fits of laughing, are to be ascribed to Satan, yet I entirely agree, that they are involuntary and unavoidable.” I am glad we agree so far. But I must still go farther; I cannot but ascribe them to a preternatural agent: having observed so many circumstances attending them which cannot be accounted for by any natural causes.

Under the head of conflicts with Satan, you observe farther, “Mr. Wesley says, while he was preaching, the devil knew his kingdom shook, and therefore stirred up his servants to make a noise: that, September 18, the prince of the air made another attempt, in defence of his tottering kingdom: and that another time, ‘the devil’s children fought valiantly for their master.’” I own the whole charge, I did say all this. Nay, and if need were, I should say it again.

You cite one more instance from my fourth journal, “The many-headed beast began to roar again.” So your head is so full of the subject, that you construe even poor Horace’s Bellua multorum capitum into the devil!

These are all the combats and conflicts with Satan, which you can prove I ever had. O, Sir, without more and greater conflicts than these, none shall see the kingdom of God.

11. In the following sections, you are equally out of your element. The ¹first of them relates to spiritual desertions; all which you make the subject of dull ridicule, and place to the account of enthusiasm. And the case of all you give in the following words, “We may look upon enthusiasm as a kind of drunkenness, filling and intoxicating the brain with the heated fumes of spirituous particles. Now no sooner does the inebriation go off, but a coldness and dulness takes place.”

12. As wildly do you ¹talk of the doubts and fears incident to those who are weak in faith. I cannot prevail upon myself, to prostitute this awful subject, by entering into any debate concerning it, with one who is innocent of the whole affair. Only I must observe, that a great part of what you advance concerning me, is intirely wide of the question. Such is all you quote from the first, and a considerable part of what you quote from my second journal. This you know in your own conscience; for you know I speak of myself, during the whole time, as having no faith at all. Consequently, the “risings and fallings” I experienced then, have nothing to do with those “doubts and fears, which many go through, after they have by faith received remission of sins.”

The next words which you cite, “thrown into great perplexities,” I cannot find in the page you refer to: neither those that follow. The sum of them is, that “at that time I did not feel the love of God, but found deadness and wanderings in public prayer, and coldness even at the holy communion.” Well, Sir, and have you never found in yourself, any such coldness, deadness and wanderings? I am persuaded you have. And yet surely your brain is always cool and temperate! Never “intoxicated with the heated fumes of spirituous particles!”

13. If you quote not incoherent scraps (by which you may make any thing out of any thing) but intire connected sentences, it will appear that the rest of your quotations make no more for your purpose than the foregoing. Thus, although I allow, that on ¹May 24, “I was much buffeted with temptations, but I cried to God and they fled away; that they returned again and again; I as often lifted up my eyes, and he sent me help from his holy place:” it will only prove the very observation I make myself. “I was fighting both under the law and under grace. But then I was sometimes, if not often, conquered: now I was always conqueror.”

That sometime after, I “was strongly assaulted again, and after recovering peace and joy, was thrown into perplexity afresh by a letter, asserting, that no doubt or fear could consist with true faith: that my weak mind could not then bear, to be thus sawn asunder:” Will not appear strange to any who are not utter novices in experimental religion. No more than that one night the next year, “I had no life or spirit in me, and was much in doubt, whether God would not lay me aside, and send other labourers into his harvest.”

14. You add, “He owns his frequent relapses into sin, for near twice ten years. Such is the case of a person who tells us, that he carefully considered every step he took; one of intimate communication with the Deity.” Sir, I did not tell you that: though, according to custom, you mark the words as mine. It is well for you, that forging quotations is not felony.

My words are, “O what an hypocrite have I been (if this be so) for near twice ten years! But I know it is not so. I know every one under the law, is even as I was;” namely, from the time I was twelve years old, till considerably above thirty.

“And is it strange (you say) that such a one should be destitute of means to resolve his scruples? Should be ever at variance with himself, and find no place to fix his foot?”

Good Sir, not too fast. You quite out-run the truth again. Blessed be God, this is not my case. I am not destitute of means to resolve my scruples. I have some friends, and a little reason left. I am not ever at variance with myself; and have found a place to fix my foot.

And yet one of your assertions I cannot deny: namely, that you “could run the parallel between me and numbers of fanatical papists.” And that not only with regard to my temper, but my stature, complexion, yea (if need were) the very colour of my hair.

15. In your ¹next section, you are to give an account of the “spiritual succours and advantages received either during these trials or very soon after.” It is no wonder you make as lame work with these, as with the conflicts which preceded them. As the heart knoweth its own bitterness, so a stranger doth not intermeddle with his joy. But it is no business of mine, as you have not done me the honour to cite any of my words in this section.

16. “The ¹unsteadiness of the Methodists both in sentiments and practice,” is what you next undertake to prove. Your loose declamation with which you open the cause, I pass over, as it rests on your own bare word; and haste to your main reason, drawn from my sentiments and practice, with regard to the Moravians.

“He represents them, you say, in the blackest colours; yet declares, in the main they are some of the best people in the world. His love and esteem for them, increases more and more. His own disciples among the Methodists go over to them in crowds. But still Methodism is the strongest barrier against the Moravian doctrines and principles.”

Sir, I bear you witness, you have learnt one principle at least, from those with whom you have lately conversed; namely, that no faith is to be kept with hereticks; of which you have given us abundant proof. For you know I have fully answered every article of this charge, which you repeat, as if I had not opened my lips about it. You know, that there is not one grain of truth, in several things which you here positively assert. For instance, “His love and esteem of them, increases more and more.” Not so, no more than my love and esteem for you. I love you both; but I do not much esteem either. Again, “His own disciples among the Methodists, go over to them in crowds.” When? Where? I know not that ten of my disciples, as you call them, have gone over to them for twice ten months. O Sir, consider! How do you know, but some of your disciples may tell your name?

17. With the same veracity you go on. “In the character of a Methodist, those of the sect are described as having all the virtues that can adorn the Christian profession. But in their journals you find them waspish, condemning all the world, except themselves; and among themselves, perpetual broils and confusions, with various other irregularities and vices.”

I answer, 1. The tract you refer to (as is expresly declared in the preface) does not describe what the Methodists are already: but what they desire to be, and what they will be then, when they fully practise the doctrine they hear. 2. Be pleased to point the pages in my journals which mention those “various irregularities and vices.” Of their “perpetual broils and confusions” I shall speak under their proper head.

You add, “Sometimes they are so far from fearing death, that they wish it. But the keenness of the edge is soon blunted. They are full of dreadful apprehensions, that the clergy intend to murther them.” Do you mean me, Sir? I plead not guilty. I never had any such apprehension. Yet I suppose, you designed the compliment for me, by your dragging in two or three broken sentences from my first journal. But how little to the purpose? Seeing at the time that was written, I had never pretended to be above the fear of death. So that this is no proof of the point in view, of the “unsteadiness of my sentiments or practice.”

18. You proceed, “One day, they fancy it their duty to preach; the next, they preach with great reluctance.” Very true! But they fancy it their duty still; else they would not preach at all. This therefore does not prove any inequality either of sentiment or practice.

“Mr. Wesley is sometimes quite averse from speaking, and then perplext with the doubt, is it a prohibition from the good Spirit? or a temptation from nature and the evil one?”

Just of a piece with the rest. The sentence runs thus, “I went several times with a design to speak to the sailors, but could not.” I mean, I was quite averse from speaking. Is not this what men commonly mean by, “I could not speak?” And is this a sufficient cause of silence, or no? Is it a prohibition from the good Spirit? Or a temptation from nature or the evil one? Sir, I was in no doubt at all on the occasion. Nor did I intend to express any in these words; but to appeal to mens conscience, whether what they call a prohibition from the good Spirit, be not a mere temptation from nature or the evil-one?

19. In the ¹next section you are to shew, “the art, cunning, and sophistry of the Methodists, who, when hard prest by argument, run themselves into inconsistency and self-contradiction; and occasionally either defend or give up some of their favourite notions and principal points.”

I dare say, Sir, you will not put them to the trial. Argument lies out of the way of one.

But to the proof. “Mr. Wesley, you say, at one time declares for a disinterested love of God: at another, declares, There is no one caution in all the bible, against the selfish love of God.”

Nay, Sir, I will tell you what is stranger still. Mr. Wesley holds at one time, both sides of this contradiction. I now declare, both that “all true love is disinterested, seeketh not her own: and that there is no one caution in all the bible, against the selfish love of God.”

What have I the art to slip out of your hands again? “Pardon me (as your old friend says) for being jocular.”

20. You add, (altius insurgens) “but it is a considerable offence to charge another wrongfully and contradict himself about the doctrine of assurance.” To prove this upon me, you bring my own words. “The ¹assurance we preach, is of quite another kind from that Mr. Bedford writes against. We speak of an assurance of our present pardon; not, as he does, of our final perseverance.”

“Mr. Wesley might have considered (you say) that when they talk of assurance of pardon and salvation, the world will extend the meaning of the words, to our eternal state.” I do consider it, Sir. And therefore I never use that phrase either in preaching or writing. Assurance of pardon and salvation is an expression that never comes out of my lips. And if Mr. Whitfield does use it, yet he does not preach such an assurance, as the privilege of all Christians.

“But Mr. Wesley himself says, that though a full assurance of faith doth not necessarily imply a full assurance of our future perseverance,” yet “some have both the one and the other.” And now what becomes of his charge against Mr. Bedford? And is it not mere evasion to say afterwards, “This is not ♦properly an assurance of what is future?”

Sir, this argument presses me very hard! May I not be allowed a little evasion now? Come, for once I will try to do without it, and to answer flat and plain.

And I answer, 1. That faith is one thing; the full assurance of faith another: 2. That even the full assurance of faith, does not imply the full assurance of perseverance. This bears another name; being stiled by St. Paul, the full assurance of hope. 3. Some Christians have only the first of these. They have faith: but mixt with doubts and fears. Some have also the full assurance of faith; a full conviction of present pardon: and yet not the full assurance of hope; not a full conviction of their future perseverance. 4. The faith which we preach, as necessary to all Christians, is the first of these, and no other. Therefore, 5. It is no evasion at all to say, “This (the faith which we preach as necessary to all Christians) is not properly an assurance of what is future.” And consequently, my charge against Mr. Bedford stands good, “That his sermon on assurance, is an ♦ignoratio elenchi (an ignorance of the point in question) from beginning to end.” Therefore neither do I “charge another wrongfully, nor contradict myself, about the doctrine of assurances.”

21. To prove my art, cunning and evasion, you instance next in the case of impulses, and impressions. You begin “With what pertinacious confidence, have impulses, impressions, feelings, &c. been advanced into certain rules of conduct? Their followers have been taught to depend upon them, as sure guides and infallible proofs.”

To support this weighty charge, you bring one single scrap, about a line and a quarter from one of my journals. The words are these. “By the most infallible of proofs, inward feeling, I am convinced.” Convinced of what? It immediately follows, “Of unbelief, having no such faith as will prevent my heart from being troubled.”

I here assert, that inward feeling or consciousness, is the most infallible of proofs, of unbelief, of the want of such a faith, as will prevent the heart’s being troubled. But do I here “advance impressions, impulses, feelings, &c. into certain rules of conduct?” Or any where else? You may just as well say, I advance them into certain proofs of transubstantiation.

Neither in writing, nor in private conversation, have I ever “taught any of my followers, to depend upon them as sure guides or infallible proofs” of any thing.

Nay, you yourself own, I have taught quite the reverse: and that at my very first setting out. Then as well as ever since, I have told the societies, “They were not to judge by their own inward feelings. I warned them, all these were in themselves of a doubtful, disputable nature. They might be from God, or they might not, and were therefore to be tried by a farther rule, to be brought to the only certain test, the law and the testimony”.¹

This is what I have taught from first to last. And now, Sir, what becomes of your heavy charge? On which side lies the “pertinacious confidence” now? How clearly have you made out, my inconsistency and self-contradiction? And that I “occasionally either defend or give up, my favourite notions and principal points?”

22. “¹Inspiration and the extraordinary calls and guidances of the Holy Ghost, are what you next affirm to be given up.” Not by me. I do not give up one tittle on this head, which I ever maintained. But observe. Before you attempt to prove my giving them up, you are to prove, that I laid claim to them: that I laid claim to some extraordinary inspiration, call, or guidance of the Holy Ghost.

You say, “My concessions on this head (to Mr. Church) are ambiguous and evasive.” Sir, you mistake the fact. I make no concessions at all, either to him or you. I give up nothing that ever I advanced on this head. But when Mr. Church charged me with what I did not advance, I replied, “I claim no other direction of God’s, but what is common to all believers.” I pretend to be no otherwise inspired, than you are, if you love God. Where is the ambiguity or evasion in this? I meant it for a flat denial of the charge.

23. ¹Your next section, Spirat tragicum satis, charges the Methodists; “with scepticism and infidelity, with doubts and denials of the truth of revelation, and atheism itself.” The passages brought from my journals to prove this charge, which you have prudently transposed, I beg leave to consider in the same order, as they stand there.

The first, you preface thus: “Upon the people’s ill usage (or supposed ill usage) of Mr. Wesley in Georgia, and their speaking of all manner of evil, falsely (as he says) against him; and trampling under foot the word, after having been very attentive to it: what an emotion in him is hereby raised? ‘I do hereby bear witness against myself, that I could scarce refrain from giving the lie to experience and reason and scripture all together.’”

The passage, as I wrote it, stands thus: “Sunday, March 7. I entered upon my ministry at Savannah. In the second lesson, Luke 18. was our Lord’s prediction of the treatment which he himself, and consequently his followers, were to meet with from the world.”

“Yet notwithstanding these plain declarations of our Lord, notwithstanding my own repeated experience, notwithstanding the experience of all the sincere followers of Christ, whom I ever talked with, read or heard of, nay and the reason of the thing, evincing to a demonstration, that all who love not the light, must hate him who is continually labouring to pour it in upon them: I do here bear witness against myself, that when I saw the number of people crowding into the church, the deep attention with which they received the word, and the seriousness that afterwards sat on all their faces: I could scarce refrain from giving the lie to experience, and reason, and scripture, all together. I could hardly believe, that the greater, the far greater part of this attentive, serious people, would hereafter trample underfoot that word, and say all manner of evil falsely of him that spoke it.”

Sir, does this prove me guilty of scepticism or infidelity? Of doubting or denying the truth of revelation? Did I speak this, “upon the peoples using me ill, and saying all manner of evil against me”? Or am I here describing any emotion, raised in me hereby? Blush, blush, Sir, if you can blush. You had here no possible room for mistake. You grosly and wilfully falsify the whole passage, to support a groundless, shameless accusation.

¹24. The second passage (written January 24, 1737‒8,) is this. “In a storm I think, What if the gospel be not true? Then thou art of all men most foolish. For what hast thou given thy goods, thy ease, thy friends, thy reputation, thy country, thy life? For what art thou wandering over the face of the earth? A dream? A cunningly devised fable?”

I am here describing the thoughts which past through my mind, when I was confessedly an unbeliever. But even this implies no scepticism, much less atheism; no denial of the truth of revelation: but barely such transient doubts as I presume may assault any thinking man that knows not God.

The third ¹passage, (which you tack to the former, as if they were one and the same) runs thus. “I have not such a peace as excludes the possibility either of doubt or fear. When holy men have told me, I had no faith, I have often doubted whether I had or no? And those doubts have made me very uneasy, till I was relieved by prayer and the holy scriptures.”

Speak frankly, Sir, does this prove me guilty of scepticism, infidelity or atheism? What else does it prove? Just nothing at all, but the “pertinacious confidence” of him that cites it.

25. You recite more at large one passage more. The whole paragraph stands thus.

¹“St. Paul tells us, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, temperance. Now although by the grace of God in Christ, I find a measure of some of these in myself, viz. of peace, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, temperance; yet others I find not. I cannot find in myself the love of God or of Christ. Hence my deadness and wanderings in public prayer. Hence it is, that even in the holy communion, I have rarely any more than a cold attention. Hence when I hear of the highest instance of God’s love, my heart is still senseless and unaffected. Yea, at this moment (October 14, 1738,) I feel no more love to him, than one I had never heard of.”

To any who knew something of inward religion I should have observed, that this is what serious divines mean by desertion. But all expressions of this kind are jargon to you. So allowing it to be whatever you please, I ask only, do you know how long I continued in this state? How many years, months, weeks or days? If not, how can you infer, what my state of mind is now, from what it was above eleven years ago?

Sir, I do not tell you, or any man else, that “I cannot now find the love of God in myself:” or that now, in the year 1751, “I rarely feel more than a cold attention in the holy communion.” So that your whole argument, built on this supposition, falls to the ground at once.

26. Sensible, I presume, of the weakness of this reason, you immediately apply to the passions, by that artful remark, “Observe, reader, this is the man, who charges our religion, as no better than the Turkish pilgrimages to Mecca, or the Popish worship of our Lady of Loretto!” Our religion! How naturally will the reader suppose, that I fix the charge either on the Protestant religion in general, or on that of the church of England in particular? But how far is this from the truth?

My words concerning those who are commonly called religious, are, ¹“Wherein does their religion consist? In righteousness and true holiness? In love stronger than death? Fervent gratitude to God, and tender affection to all his creatures? Is their religion the religion of the heart? A renewal of the soul in the image of God? Do they resemble him they worship? Are they free from pride, from vanity, from malice, from envy? From ambition and avarice, from passion and lust, from every uneasy and unlovely temper? Alas! I fear neither they (the greater part at least) nor you have any more notion of this religion, than the peasant that holds the plow, of the religion of a Gymnosophist.”

“’Tis well if the genuine religion of Christ, has any more alliance with what you call religion, than with the Turkish pilgrimages to Mecca, or the Popish worship of our lady of Loretto. Have not you substituted in the place of the religion of the heart, something (I do not say, equally sinful, but) equally vain and foreign to the worshipping of God in spirit and in truth? What else can be said even of prayer, public or private, in the manner wherein you generally perform it? As a thing of course, running round and round, in the same dull track, without either the knowledge or the love of God? Without one heavenly temper, either attained or improved?”

Now, Sir, what room is there for your “own exclamations,” what sort of heavenly temper is his? How can he possibly, consistently with charity, call “this our general performance?” Sir, I do not. I only appeal to the conscience of you (and each particular reader) whether this is, or is not, the manner wherein you (in the singular number) generally perform public or private prayer. “How possibly, without being omniscient, can he affirm, that we (I presume you mean all the members of our church) pray without one heavenly temper? Or know any thing at all of our private devotions? How monstrous is all this!” Recollect yourself, Sir. If your terror is real, you are more afraid than hurt. I do not affirm any such thing. I do not take upon me, to know, any thing at all of your private devotions. But I suppose, I may inquire, without offence, and beg you seriously to examine yourself before God.

So you have brought no one proof, “That scepticism, infidelity and atheism, are either constituent parts or genuine consequences of Methodism.” Therefore your florid declamation in the following pages, is intirely out of its place. And you might have spared yourself the trouble of accounting for what has no being, but in your own imagination.

27. You charge the Methodists next, with ¹“an uncharitable spirit.” All you advance in proof of this, as if it were from my writings, but without naming either page or book, I have nothing to do with. But whatever you tell me where to find, I shall carefully consider.

I observe but one single passage of this sort. And that you have worn thread-bare already. “By the most infallible of proofs, inward feeling, I am convinced​――of levity and luxuriancy of spirit​――by speaking words not tending to edify; but most by my manner of speaking of my enemies.” Sir, you may print this, not only in Italics, but in CAPITALS, and yet it would do you no service. For what I was convinced of then was not uncharitableness, but as I expressly mentioned, “Levity of Spirit.”

28. ¹Of the same uncharitable nature, you say, is “their application of divine judgments to their opposers.” You borrow two instances from Mr. Church. But you omit the answers, which I shall therefore subjoin.

His words are, “You describe heaven as executing judgments, immediate punishments, on those who oppose you. You say, ‘Mr. Molther was taken ill this day. I believe it was the hand of God that was upon him.’” I do. But I do not say as a judgment for opposing me. That you say for me.¹

Again, “you mention, says Mr. Church, as an ‘awful providence, the case of a poor wretch, who was last week cursing and blaspheming, and had boasted to many, that he would come on Sunday, and no man should stop his mouth​――but on Friday, God laid his hand upon him, and on Sunday he was buried.’ I do look on this as a manifest judgment of God, on a hardened sinner, for his complicated wickedness.”

To repeat these objections, without taking the least notice of the answers, is one of the usual proofs of your charitable spirit.

29. You ¹pass on to “the Methodist’s uncharitable custom of summoning their opponents to the bar of judgment.”

You bring two passages from my writings to prove this. The first is, “Calling at Newgate (in Bristol) I was informed, that the poor wretches under sentence of death, were earnestly desirous to speak with me; but that alderman Beecher had sent an express order, that they should not. I cite alderman B. to answer for these souls, at the judgment seat of Christ.”

Why do you leave out those words, for these souls? Because they shew the sentence means neither more nor less, than “if these souls perish, he, not I, must answer for them at the great day.”

The second passage is still more wide from the point. The whole of it is as follows.

¹“I have often inquired, Who were the authors of such report (that I was a Papist) and have generally found, they were either bigotted dissenters, or (I speak it without fear or favour) ministers of our own church. I have also frequently considered, what possible ground or motive they could have thus to speak: seeing few men in the world have had occasion so clearly and openly to declare their principles, as I have done both by preaching, printing and conversation, for several years last past. And I can no otherwise think, than that either they spoke thus (to put the most favourable construction upon it) from gross ignorance; they knew not what Popery was: they knew not what doctrines these are which the Papists teach: or they wilfully spoke what they knew to be false, probably thinking thereby to do God service. Now take this to yourselves, whoever ye are, high or low, dissenters or churchmen, clergy or laity, who have advanced this shameless charge, and digest it how you can.”

“But how have ye not been afraid, if ye believe there is a God, and that he knoweth the secrets of your hearts (I speak now to you preachers, more especially, of whatever denomination) to declare so gross, palpable a lie, in the name of the God of truth? I cite you all before the Judge of all the earth, either publicly to prove your charge; or by publicly retracting it, to make the best amends you can, to God, to me, and to the world.”

Sir, Do I here “summon my opponents to the bar of judgment?” So you would make me do, by quoting only that scrap, “I cite you all before the Judge of all the earth!” You then add, with equal charity and sincerity, “Here you have the true spirit of an enthusiast, flushed with a modest assurance of his own salvation, and the charitable prospect of the damnation of others.” O Sir, never name modesty more!

Here end your laboured attempts to shew the uncharitable spirit of the Methodists; who, for any thing you have shewn to the contrary, may be the most charitable people under the sun.

30. You charge the Methodists next ¹“with violation and contempt of order and authority,” namely, the authority of the governors of the church. I have answered every article of this charge, in the second and third parts of the Farther Appeal, and the letter to Mr. Church. When you have been so good as to reply to what is there advanced, I may possibly say something more.

What you offer of your own upon this head, I shall consider without delay.

“Women and boys are actually employed in this ministry of public preaching.” Please to tell me where? I know them not, nor ever heard of them before.

You add, what is more marvellous still, “I speak from personal knowledge, that sometimes, a little before delivering of the elements at the communion, three or four Methodists together will take it into their heads to go away: that sometimes while the sentences of the offertory were reading, they have called out to the minister who carried the bason, reproaching him for asking alms of them: that sometimes when the minister has delivered the bread into their hands, instead of eating it they would flip it into their pockets.” Sir, you must shew your face, before these stories will find credit on your bare asseveration.

“Yet they are surprized, you say, that every man in his senses, don’t without the least hesitation join them.”

Sir, I am surprized (unless you are not in your senses) at your advancing such a barefaced falshood.

31. You go on. “Under this head may not improperly be considered, their undutiful behaviour to the civil powers.” What proof have you of this? Why a single sentence, on which I laid so little stress myself, that it is only inserted by way of parenthesis, in the body of another sentence. “Ye learned in the law, what becomes of Magna Charta, and of English liberty and property? Are not these mere sounds, while on any pretence, there is such a thing as a press-gang suffered in the land?”

Upon this you descant: “The legislature has at several times made acts for pressing men. But no matter for this; touch but a Methodist, and all may perish, rather than a soldier be prest.​――He who had before bound himself, not to speak a tittle of worldly things, is now bawling for liberty and property.”

(Very lively this!) But I hope, Sir, you do not offer it by way of argument. You are not so unlearned in the law, as not to know, that the legislature is out of the question. The legislature six years ago did not appoint press-gangs, but legal officers, to press men. Consequently this is no proof (and find another if you can) of our undutiful behaviour to the civil powers.

32. ¹“Another natural consequence (you say) of Methodism, is their mutual jealousies and envyings, their manifold divisions, fierce and rancorous quarrels, and ♦accusations of one another.”

I shall carefully attend whatever you produce on this head. And if you prove this, I will grant you all the rest.

You first cite those words: “Musing on the things that were past, and reflecting how many that came after me, were preferred before me, I opened my testament on those words, The Gentiles which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness; but Israel which followed after the law of righteousness, have not attained to the law of righteousness.”

And how does this prove the manifold divisions and rancorous quarrels of the Methodists?

Your second argument is, “Mr. ¹Whitefield told me, he and I preached two different gospels: (his meaning was, that he preached particular, and I universal redemption) and therefore he would, not join with me, but publicly preach against me.”

Well, Sir, here was doubtless a division for a time; but no fierce and rancorous quarrel yet.

You say thirdly, “They write and publish against each other.” True; but without any degree either of fierceness or rancor.

You assert fourthly, “Mr. Wesley in his sermon on Free-Grace, opposes the other for the horrible blasphemies of his horrible doctrine.”

Sir, away with your flourishes and write plain English. I opposed the doctrine of predestination which he held. But without any degree either of rancor or fierceness. Still therefore you miss the mark.

You quote fifthly these words, “¹I spent an hour with Mr. Stonehouse. O what πιθανολογία (persuasiveness of speech) is here! Surely all the deceivableness of unrighteousness.” But there was no fierceness or rancor on either side.

The passage, a fragment of which you produce as a sixth argument, stands thus. “¹A few of us had a long conference together. Mr. C. now told me plainly, he could not agree with me, because I did not preach the truth, particularly with regard to election.” He did so; but without any rancor. We had a long conference; but not a fierce one.

You seventhly observe, “What scurrility of language the Moravians throw out against Mr. Wesley.” Perhaps so. But this will not prove, that “the Methodists quarrel with each other.”

“And how does he turn their own artillery upon them?” This is your eighth argument. But if I do, this no more proves the “mutual quarrels of the Methodists,” than my turning your own artillery upon you.

33. Having by these eight irrefragable arguments, clearly carried the day, you raise your crest, and cry out, “is this Methodism”?

“And reign such mortal feuds in heavenly minds?”

Truly, Sir, you have not yet brought one single proof (and yet I dare say, you have brought the very best you have) of any such feuds among the Methodists, as may not be found among the most heavenly-minded men on earth.

But you are resolved to pursue your victory, and so go on. “What are we to think of these charges, of Whitefield and Wesley and the Moravians, one against another?” The Moravians, Sir, are out of the question; for they are no Methodists. And as to the rest, Mr. Whitefield charges Mr. Wesley with holding universal redemption, and I charge him with holding particular redemption. This is the standing charge on either side. And now, Sir, what are we to think! Why, that you have not proved one point of this charge against the Methodists.

However you stumble on. “Are these things so? Are they true, or are they not true? If not true, they are grievous calumniators; if true, they are detestable sectarists. Whether true or false, the allegation stands good, of their fierce and rancorous quarrels, and mutual heinous accusations.”

Sir, has your passion quite extinguished your reason? Have fierceness and ♦rancour left you no understanding? Otherwise how is it possible you should run on at this senseless, shameless rate? These things are true which Mr. Whitefield and Wesley object to each other. He holds the decrees; I do not. Yet this does not prove us “detestable sectarists.” And whether these things are true or false, your “allegation of our fierce and rancorous quarrels, and mutual heinous accusations” cannot stand good, without better proof than you have yet produced.

34. Yet with the utmost confidence, quasi re bene gesta, you proceed, “And how stands the matter among their disciples? They are all together by the ears, embroiled and broken with unchristian quarrels and confusions.”

How do you prove this? Why thus. “Mr. Wesley’s fourth journal is mostly taken up, in enumerating their wrath, dissentions and apostasies.” No, Sir, not a tenth part of it: although it gives a full and explicit account of the greatest dissentions which ever were among them.

But to come to particulars. You first cite these words, “At Oxford but a few who had not forsaken them.”

My words are. “Monday, October 1, 1738, I rode to Oxford, and found a few who had not yet forsaken the assembling themselves together.” This is your first proof, “that the Methodists are all together by the ears.” Your second is its very twin-brother. “Tuesday 2. ¹I went to many who once heard the word with joy; but when the sun arose, they withered away.”

Your third is this. ¹“Many were induced (by the Moravians) to deny the gift of God, and affirm, they never had any faith at all.” You are at liberty to enjoy this argument also: and let it prove what it can prove.

You fourthly cite these words. ¹“Many of our sisters are shaken, grievously torn by reasonings. But few come to Fetter-lane, and then after their names are called over they presently depart. Our brethren here (those who were proselytes to the Moravians) have neither wisdom enough to guide, nor prudence enough to let it alone. They (the Moravians) have much confounded some of our sisters, and many of our brothers are much grieved.”

This proves thus much, that one society was at that time divided: but not “that the Methodists in general, were even then, all together by the ears.”

The passage you quote, in the fifth place, is, ¹“I believe​――are determined to go on according to Mr. Molther’s direction, and I suppose (says the writer of the letter) above half our brethren are on their side. But they are so very confused, they do not know how to go on, and yet are unwilling to be taught, except by the Moravians.”

Add to this, (I recite the whole passages in order; not as you had mangled, and then jumbled them together:) “Wednesday, December 19. I came to London, though with a heavy heart. Here I found every day the dreadful effects of our brethrens reasoning and disputing with each other. Scarce one in ten retained his first love: and most of the rest were in the utmost confusion” (they were so more or less, for several months) “biting and devouring one another.”

This also proves so much, neither more nor less, that some of the Methodists were then in confusion. And just so much is proved by your sixth quotation. ¹“Many were wholly unsettled (by the Moravians, taking advantage of my absence) and lost in vain reasonings and doubtful disputations:​――Not likely to come to any true foundation.”

Your seventh quotation (I recite the whole sentence) runs thus. “April 19. I received a letter​――informing me, that our poor brethren at Fetter-lane, were again in great confusion.” This quotation proves just as much as the preceding: or as the following. ¹The plague (of false stillness) was now spread to them also​――namely to the “little society at Islington.”

Your ninth is this. “¹I went to the society, but I found their hearts were quite estranged. Friday 4. I met a little handful of them, who still stand in the old paths.”

Thus far you have been speaking of the Methodists in London. And what have you proved concerning them? Only that the Moravians mixing with them twelve years ago, while they were young and unexperienced, set them a disputing with each other, and thereby occasioned much confusion for several months. But you have not proved, That “the Methodists in general, were even then, all together by the ears”: and much less, that they have been so ever since, and that they are so now.

35. I now attend you to Kingswood. Not to “Bristol and Kingswood,” which you artfully join together. The society at Bristol was no more concerned with the disputes in Kingswood, than with those in London.

Here the first quotation, though containing but two lines, is extracted from three different paragraphs; in one of which I say, ¹“I had many unpleasing accounts (in December, 1740) concerning our little society in Kingswood”: in the second, “I went to Kingswood, if haply I might repair the breaches which had been made” (by the predestinarian preachers:) in the third, “I laboured to heal the jealousies and misunderstandings which had arisen.”

The second passage, part of which you quote, is this: ¹“I returned early in the morning to Kingswood. But my congregation was gone to hear Mr. C. So that I had not above two or three men and as many women.”

The third is, ¹“January 1. I explained, If any man be in Christ he is a new creature. But many of our brethren had no ears to hear, having disputed away both their faith and love.”

The fourth: ¹“February 21. I inquired concerning the divisions and offences which began afresh to break out in Kingswood. In the afternoon I met a few of the bands; but it was a cold, uncomfortable meeting.”

You have picked out here and there a word from several pages, in order to furnish out a fifth quotation. The most material part of it is this: Saturday 28. ¹I read the following paper at Kingswood; “For their scoffing at the word and ministers of God, for their backbiting and evil-speaking, I​――declare the persons above-mentioned, to be no longer members of this society.”――

“And ¹we had great reason to bless God, that after fifty-two were withdrawn, we had still upwards of ninety left.”

Who those other “forty were that, you say, left them,” I know not. Perhaps you may inform me.

Upon the whole, all these quotations prove only this: that about eleven years ago, Mr. C. falling into predestination, set the society in Kingswood a disputing with each other, and occasioned much confusion for some months. But still you have not gone one step toward proving (which is the one point in question) “That the Methodists in general were even then, all together by the ears;” and much less, “that they have been so ever since, and that they are so now.”

However you fail not to triumph (like Louis le Grand, after his victory at Blenheim,) “What shall we say now? Are these the fruits of Methodism?” No, Sir. They are the fruits of opposing it. They are the tares sown among the wheat. You may hear of instances of the same kind, both in earlier and later ages.

You add, “This is bad enough; but it is not the worst. For consider what becomes of those that leave them?” Why, Sir, what if their last end be worse than their first? Will you charge this upon me? By the same rule you must have charged upon the apostles themselves, whatever befel those who having known the way of righteousness, afterwards turned back from the holy commandment once delivered to them.

36. You conclude this section, “Mr. Wesley will probably say, ‘Must I be answerable for the Moravians, against whom I have preached and written?’ True, since he and the Moravians quarrelled. But who gives them a box on the ear with the one hand, and embraces them with the other? Who first brought over this wicked generation? Who made a Moravian his spiritual guide? Who fanaticised his own followers, and deprived them of their senses? Whose societies (by his own confession) run over in shoals to Moravianism, forty or fifty at a time? Would they have split upon this rock, if they had not been first Methodists? Lastly, Where is the spawn of Moravianism so strongly working, as in the children of Methodism?”

Sir, you run very fast. And yet I hope to overtake you by and by. “Mr. Wesley, you say, has preached against the Moravians, since he quarrelled with them.” Sir, I never quarrelled with their persons yet. I did with some of their tenets long ago. He “gives them a box on the ear with the one hand, and embraces them with the other.” That is, I embrace what is good among them, and at the same time reprove what is evil. “Who first brought over this wicked generation?” Not I, whether they be wicked or not. I once thought I did; but have since then seen and acknowledged my mistake. “Who made a Moravian his spiritual guide?” Not I: though I have occasionally consulted several. “Who fanaticised his own followers, and deprived them of their senses?” Not I. Prove it upon me if you can. “Whose societies (by his own confession) run over in shoals to Moravianism, forty or fifty at a time?” Truly not mine. Two and fifty of Kingswood society ran over to Calvinism, and a year before, part of Fetter-lane society gradually went over to the Moravians. But I know none of ours that went over in shoals. They never, that I remember, gained five at a time: nor fifty in all (to the best of my knowledge) for these last ten years. “Would they (of Fetter-lane) have split on this rock, if they had not first been Methodists.” Undoubtedly they would; for several of them had not first been Methodists. Mr. Viney, for instance (as well as several others) was with the Germans, before ever he saw me. “Lastly, Where is the spawn of Moravianism working so strongly as in the children of Methodism?” If you mean the errors of Moravianism, they are not working at all in the generality of the children of Methodism: the Methodists in general being thoroughly apprized of, and fully guarded against them.

So much for your modest assertion, “That the Methodists in general, are all together by the ears:” the very reverse of which is true. They are, in general, in perfect peace. They enjoy in themselves the peace of God, which passeth all understanding. They are at peace with each other. And as much as lieth in them, they live peaceably with all men.

37. Your next charge is, That “Methodism ¹has a tendency to undermine morality and good works.” To prove this you assert, “1. That the Methodists are trained up to wait in quietness for sudden conversion; whence they are naturally led, to neglect the means of salvation.” This is a mistake all over. For neither are they taught to wait in quietness (if you mean any more than patience by that term) for either sudden or gradual conversion: neither do they, in fact, neglect the means. So far from it, that they are eminently exact in the use of them.

You assert, 2. “The doctrine of assurance of pardon and salvation, present and future, causes a false security, to the neglect of future endeavours.” Blunder upon blunder again. That all Christians have an assurance of future salvation is no Methodist doctrine: and an assurance of present pardon, is so far from causing negligence, that it is of all others the strongest motive to vigorous endeavours after universal holiness.

You assert, 3. “Impulses and impressions, being made the rule of duty, will lead into dangerous errors.” Very true. But the Methodists do not make impulses and impressions the rule of duty. They totally disclaim any other rule of duty, than the written word.

You assert 4. “A claim of unsinning perfection,” (I mean by perfection, the loving God with all our heart) “drives some into phrensies, others into despair.” Sir, I doubt the fact.

You assert 5. “The Moravian Methodists trample down morality, and multitudes of the Wesleyans have been infected.” The Moravian Methodists! You may as will say the Presbyterian Papists. The Moravians have no connexion with the Methodists. Therefore whatever they do (though you slander them too) they and not we are to answer for. The Methodists at present, blessed be God, are as little infected with this plague (of condemning or neglecting good works) as any body of people in England or Ireland.

38. From these loose assertions you proceed to quotations from my writings, every one of which I shall consider, to shew that not in one or two, but in every one you are a wilful prevaricator and false accuser of your neighbour.

You say first, “the Moravians.”​――Hold, good Sir! You are out of the way already. You well know, the Moravians are to answer for themselves. Our present question concerns the Methodists only.

You say secondly, “A ¹general temptation prevails among the societies of Methodists, of leaving off good works.” Sir, you are wrong again. The societies of Methodists are not there spoken of: but the single society of Fetter-lane. Among these only that temptation then prevailed.

You quote thirdly, as my words, “The poor confused, shattered society, had erred from the faith.” My own words are, ¹“I told the poor, confused, shattered society, wherein they had erred from the faith:” Namely, with regard to the ordinances: nor in general, as your way of expressing it naturally imports. Nor had all the society erred even in this point. Many of them were still unshaken.

You quote fourthly, “A woman of Deptford spoke great words and true. She ordered Mr. Humphreys to leave off doing good.”

Must not every reader suppose, as you have placed these words, that they were all spoke at one time? And that “the great words and true” were those, whereby she “ordered Mr. Humphreys to leave off doing good?”

What then must every honest man think of you, when he observes, that one half of the sentence (which you thus artfully put together) stands in another page, and at a considerable distance from the other? And that I immediately subjoin to the latter clause, “we talked largely with her, and she was humbled to the dust, under a deep sense of the advantage Satan had gained over her.”

You quote fifthly, a part of the following sentence, to prove that I “undermine morality and good works.”

“His judgment concerning holiness is new. He no longer judges it to be an outward thing, to consist either in doing no harm, in doing good, or in using the ordinances of God.” (And yet how strongly do I insist upon all these? Sir, do not you know this?) “He sees, it is the life of God in the soul, the image of God fresh stampt on the heart.” It is so. Sir, can you deny it? What then will you prove by this?

You quote sixthly, part of these words:

“They ¹speak of holiness, as if it consisted, chiefly if not wholly, in these two points, first the doing no harm, secondly the doing good (as it is called) i. e. the using the means of grace, and helping our neighbour.”

And this you term “disparaging good works!” Sir, these things, considered barely as to the opus operatum, are not good works. There must be something good in the heart, before any of our works are good. Insomuch that, though I give all my goods to feed the poor, and have not this, it profiteth me nothing.

You observe, by the way, “the mystic divinity was once the Methodists doctrine.” Sir, you have stepped out of the way, only to get another fall. The mystic divinity was never the Methodists doctrine. They could never swallow either John Tauler or Jacob Behme: although they often advised with one that did.

39. You say seventhly, “I do not find, that Mr. Wesley has ever cited those express passages of St. James.” Sir, what if I had not? (I mean, in print) I do not cite every text from Genesis to the Revelation. But it happens I have. Look again, Sir; and by and by you may find where.

You say eighthly, Mr. Wesley affirms, that the condition of our justification, is faith alone and not good works.” Most certainly I do. And I learnt it from the 11th and 12th article, and from the homilies of our church. If you can confute them do. But I subscribe to them, both with my hand and heart.

You say ninthly, “Give me leave to make a remark. The Methodists wandered many years, in the new path of salvation by faith and works, which was the time too of their highest glory and popularity. During this time, they were seducing their disciples into the most destructive errors.” Excuse me, Sir. While they preached salvation by faith and works, they had no disciples at all; (unless you term a few pupils such) nor had they any popularity at all. They then enjoyed (what they always desired) a quiet, retired life. But whatever disciples we had, they were not seduced by us, into the error of justification by works. For they were in it, before ever they saw our face, or knew there were such men in the world.

You say tenthly, “Mr. Wesley only contends, that it is possible, to use them without trusting in them.” Not in that page; ¹because the proposition I am confuting is, “’Tis not possible to use them without trusting in them.”

You added, “And now, are not such disparaging expressions, (a mere possibility of using them, without trusting in them) a great discouragement to practice?”

O Sir, when will you deviate into truth? Dare you affirm, without any regard to God or man, “Mr. Wesley only contends for a mere possibility of using the means, without trusting in them?”

To go no farther than the very first ¹page you refer to: my express words are these.

“I believe the way to attain faith is, to wait for Christ, in using all the means of grace.”

“Because I believe, these do ordinarily convey God’s grace (even) to unbelievers.” Is this “contending only for a mere possibility of using them without trusting in them?”

Not only in this, and many other parts of the journals, but in a sermon wrote professedly on the subject, I contend, that all the ordinances of God are the stated channels of his grace to man; and that it is our bounden duty to use them all, at all possible opportunities. So that to charge the Methodists in general, or me in particular, with undervaluing or disparaging them, shews just as much regard for justice and truth, as if you was to charge us with Mahometanism.

40. Tedious as it is to wade through so many dirty pages, I will follow you, step by step, a little farther. Your eleventh proof that we “undermine morality and good works,” is drawn from the following passage.

¹“I know every one under the law is even as I was, for near twice ten years. Every one when he begins to see his fallen state, and to feel the wrath of God abiding on him, relapses into the sin that most easily besets him, soon after repenting of it. Sometimes he avoids, and at many other times he cannot persuade himself to avoid the occasions of it. Hence his relapses are frequent, and of consequence his heart is hardened more and more. Nor can he, with all his sincerity, avoid any one of these four marks of hypocrisy, till being justified by faith, he hath peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

You, Sir, are no competent judge in the cause. But to any who has experienced what St. Paul speaks in his seventh chapter to the Romans, I willingly submit this whole question. You know by experience, that if anger was the sin that did so easily beset you, you relapsed into it (for days, or months, or years) soon after repenting of it. Sometimes you avoided the occasions of it: at other times you did not. Hence your relapses were frequent, and your heart was hardened more and more. And yet all this time you was sincerely striving against sin, you could say, without hypocrisy, the thing which I do, I allow not; the evil which I would not, that I do. To will is even now present with me; but how to perform that which is good, I find not.

But the Jesuits, you think, “could scarce have granted salvation upon easier terms. Have no fear, ye Methodists.” Sir, I do not grant salvation (as you call it) upon so easy terms. I believe a man in this state, is in a state of damnation. “Have no fear!” Say you? Yea, but those who are thus under the law, are in fear all the day long. “Was there ever so pleasing a scheme?” Pleasing with a vengeance! As pleasing as to be in the belly of hell. So totally do you mistake the whole matter, not knowing what you speak, nor whereof you affirm.

You are indeed somewhat pitiable in speaking wrong on this head, because you do it in ignorance. But this plea cannot be allowed, when you gravely advance that trite, threadbare objection concerning the Lord’s supper, without taking any notice, that I have answered it again and again, both to Mr. Church and to the late Lord bishop of London.

41. Your thirteenth proof is this: “Mr. Wesley has taught us, that infirmities are no sins.” Sir, you have taught me to wonder at nothing you assert; else I should wonder at this. The words, I suppose you refer to, stand, in The sermon on salvation by ¹faith; (though you do not chuse, for a plain reason, to shew your reader where they may be found.) “He that is by faith born of God sinneth not; 1. By any habitual sin, nor 2. By any wilful sin; nor 3. By any sinful desire; for he continually desireth the holy and perfect will of God; nor 4. Doth he sin by infirmities, whether in act, word or thought. For his infirmities have no concurrence of his will, and without this, they are not properly sins.” And this you seriously declare, “is a loop-hole to creep out of every moral and religious obligation!”

In the same paragraph you say, I have strongly affirmed, that “all ¹our works and tempers are evil continually: that our ²whole heart is altogether corrupt and abominable, and consequently our whole life; all our ³works, the most specious of them, our righteousness, our prayers, needing an atonement themselves.”

I do strongly affirm this. But of whom? In all these places, but the last, of myself only. In every one, but this, I speak in the singular number, and of myself, when confessedly an unbeliever. And of whom do I speak in that last place? Of unbelievers and them only. The words are, “All our tempers and works in our natural state are only evil continually.”

Now, Sir, where is your loop-hole to creep out? If you have none, I fear every impartial man will pass sentence upon you, that you have no regard either to moral or religious obligations.

I have now weighed every argument you have brought, to prove “that the Methodists undermine morality and good works.” A grievous charge indeed! But the more inexcusable is he, who advances it, but is not able to make it good, in any one single instance. Pardon my pertness, Sir, in not barely affirming (that is your manner) but proving this: nay, and in telling you, that you cannot make amends to God, to me, or to the world, without a ♦retractation as public as your calumny.

42. You add, “How the case stands in fact, as to the number of converts among the Methodists, and real reformation of life to the certain and known duties of the gospel, is matter of difficult determination.” Not at all. What is easier to be determined, than 1. That A. B. of Exeter or Tiverton, was for many years a notorious drunkard, common-swearer, or sabbath-breaker? 2. That he is not so now; that he is really reformed from drunkenness, swearing, sabbath-breaking, to sobriety, and the other certain and known duties of the gospel!

“But from what inquiry you can make, there is no reason to think them, for the generality, better than their neighbours.” Better than their neighbours? Why are they no worse than their neighbours? Then what have you been doing all this time? But whether they are better or worse than their neighbours, they are undeniable better than themselves: I mean, better than they were before they heard this preaching, in the certain and known duties of the gospel.

But you desire us to “consider their black art of calumny; their uncharitableness; their excessive pride and vanity; their scepticism, doubts and disbelief of God and Christ; their disorderly practices and contempt of authority; their bitter envying and inveterate broils among themselves; their coolness for good works.” Sir, we will consider all these, when you have proved them. Till then, this is mere brutum fulmen.

43. You ♦proceed. “If we take Mr. Wesley’s own account, it falls very short of any considerable reformation.” You mean; if we take that part of his account, which you are pleased to transcribe. Atticam elegantiam! But let any impartial man read my whole account, and then judge.

However hence you infer, that “the new reformers have made but a slow and slight progress in the reformation of manners.”

As a full answer to this, I need only transcribe a page or two from the last Appeal, page 127, &c.

“God begins a glorious work in our land. You set yourself against it with your might; to prevent its beginning where it does not yet appear, and to destroy it wherever it does. In part you prevail. You keep many from hearing the word that is able to save their souls. Others who have heard it, you induce to turn back from God, and to list under the devil’s banner again. Then you make the success of your own wickedness an excuse for not acknowledging the work of God! You urge, ‘That not many sinners were reformed! And that some of those are now as bad as ever!’”

“Whose fault is this? Is it ours? Or your own? Why have not thousands more been reformed? Yea, for every one who is now turned to God, why are there not ten thousand? Because you and your associates laboured so heartily in the cause of hell: because you and they spared no pains, either to prevent or to destroy the work of God. By using all the power and wisdom you had, you hindered thousands from hearing the gospel, which they might have found to be the power of God unto salvation. Their blood is upon your heads. By inventing or countenancing or retailing lies, some refined, some gross and palpable, you hindered others from profiting by what they did hear. You are answerable to God for these souls also. Many who began to taste the good word and run the way of God’s commandments, by various methods you prevailed on to hear it no more. So they soon drew back to perdition. But know, that for every one of these also, God will require an account of you in the day of judgment!

“And yet in spite of all the malice and wisdom and strength, not only of men, but of principalities and powers, of the rulers of the darkness of this world, of the wicked spirits in high places; there are thousands found, who are turned from dumb idols to serve the living and true God. What a harvest then might we have seen before now, if all who say they are on the Lord’s side, had come, as in all reason they ought, to the help of the Lord against the mighty? Yea, had they only not opposed the work of God, had they only refrained from his messengers, might not the trumpet of God have been heard long since, in every corner of our land? And ♦what thousands of sinners in every county, been brought to fear God and honour the king?”

44. ¹Without any regard to this, your next assertion is, That the Methodists are “carrying on the work of popery.” This also being a charge of a very high nature, I shall particularly consider whatever you advance in defence of it.

Your first argument is, “they have a strain of Jesuitical sophistry, artifice and craft, evasion, reserve, equivocation and prevarication.” So you say. But you do not so much as aim at any proof.

Your second argument is, “Mr. Wesley says, where a Methodist was receiving the sacrament, God was pleased to let him see a crucified Saviour.” Sir, Mr. W. does not say this. It is one that occasionally wrote to him. But if he had, what would you infer? That he is a papist? Where is the consequence? Why, you say, “was not this as good an argument for transubstantiation, as several produced by the papists?” Yes, exactly as good as either their arguments or yours. That is, just good for nothing.

Your third argument runs thus, “We may see in Mr. W.’s writings that he was once a strict church-man, but gradually put on a more catholic spirit, tending at length to Roman catholic. He rejects any design to convert others from any communion; and consequently not from popery.”

This is half true (which is something uncommon with you) and only half false. It is true, that for thirty years last past, I have “gradually put on a more catholic spirit,” finding more and more tenderness for those who differed from me, either in opinions or modes of worship. But it is not true, That I “reject any design of converting others from any communion.” I have by the blessing of God, converted several from popery, who are now alive and ready to testify it.

Your fourth argument is, That in a collection of prayers, I cite the words of an ancient liturgy, “for the faithful departed.” Sir, whenever I use those words in the burial service, I pray to the same effect. “That we, with all those who are departed in thy faith and fear, may have our perfect consummation of bliss, both in body and soul.” Yea, and whenever I say, Thy kingdom come; for I mean both the kingdom of grace and glory. In this kind of general prayer therefore, for the faithful departed, I conceive myself to be clearly justified, both by the earliest antiquity, by the church of England, and by the Lord’s prayer: although the Papists have corrupted this scriptural practice, into praying for those who die in their sins.

45. Your fifth argument is, “That they use private confession, in which every one is to speak the state of his heart, with his several temptations and deliverances, and answer as many searching questions as may be. And what scene, say you, is hereby disclosed? What a filthy jakes opened, when the most searching questions are answered without reserve?” Hold, Sir, unless you are answering for yourself. This undoubtedly you have a right to do. You can tell best, what is in your own heart. And I cannot deny what you say; it may be a very filthy jakes, for ought I know. But pray do not measure others by yourself. The hearts of believers are purified through faith. When these open their hearts one to another, there is no such scene disclosed. Yet temptations to pride in various kinds, to self-will, to unbelief in many instances, they often feel in themselves (whether they give any place to them or no) and occasionally disclose to their brethren.

But this has no resemblance to Popish confession; of which you are very sensible. For you cite my own words: “The Popish confession is, the confession made by a single person to a priest. Whereas this is, the confession of several persons conjointly, not to a priest, but to each other.” You add, “Will Mr. W. abide by this, and freely answer a question?” I will. For I desire only by manifestation of the truth, to commend myself to every man’s conscience, in the sight of God.

Your question is, “After private confessions taken in their bands, are not reports made to Mr. W.?” I answer, no: No reports are made to me, of the particulars mentioned in private bands. “Are no delinquents, male and female, brought before him separately, and confessed by him?” No: none at all. You ask, “How then do I know the outward and inward states of those under my care?” I answer, by examining them once a quarter, more or less, not separately, but ten or fifteen together.

Therefore every unprejudiced person must see that there is no analogy between the Popish confession to a priest, and our confessing our faults one to another, and praying one for another, as St. James directs. Consequently neither does this argument, though urged with all your art and force, amount to any shadow of proof, that “the Methodists are carrying on the work of popery.”

46. Your sixth argument, such as it is, stands thus. “Another tendency to Popery appears, by the notion of a single drop of Christ’s blood being a sufficient atonement for the sins of the whole world. For however pious this may appear, it is absolutely false and papistical.” Sir, this argument is perfectly new, and intirely your own. It were great pity to disturb you in the enjoyment of it.

A seventh argument you ground on those words in the Plain account of the people called Methodists, “’Tis a point we chiefly insist upon, that orthodoxy or right opinions, is a very slender part of religion, if any part of it at all.” “The plain consequence whereof is (so you affirm) that teaching and believing the fundamental errors of popery, with the whole train of their abominations and idolatries, are of very little moment, if any.” Strain again, Sir: pull hard; or you will never be able to drag this conclusion out of these premises.

I assert, “1. That in a truly religious man, right opinions are a very slender part of religion. 2. That in an irreligious, a profane man, they are not any part of religion at all: such a man not being one jot more religious, because he is orthodox.” Sir, it does not follow from either of these propositions, that wrong opinions are not an hindrance to religion: and much less, that “teaching and believing the fundamental errors of popery, with the whole train of their abominations and idolatries (practised, I presume you mean, as well as taught and believed) are of very little moment, if any.”

I am so far from saying or thinking this, that in my printed letter to a priest of that communion (did you never read it, or hear of it before?) are these express words, “I pity you much, having the same assurance, that Jesus is the Christ, and that no Romanist can expect to be saved, according to the terms of his covenant.” 3d journal page 77. Do you term this “An extenuation of their abominations? A reducing them to almost a ♦mere nothing.”

47. You argue, eighthly, thus; “The Methodist doctrine of impressions and assurances, holds equally for popish enthusiasts.” This needs no answer; I have already shewn, that the Methodist doctrine in these respects is both scriptural and rational.

Your ninth argument is, “Their sudden conversions stand upon the same footing with the popish.” You should say, “Are a proof that they are promoting popery.” I leave you to enjoy this ♦argument also.

But the dreadful one you reserve for the last, namely, our “recommending popish books. One is the life of Mr. de Renty, of which Mr. Wesley has published an extract.” To prove your inimitable fairness here, you scrape up again all the trash, wherein the weak writer of that life abounds, and which I had pared off and thrown away. Sir, could you find nothing to your purpose in the extract itself? I fancy you might; for I have purposely left in two or three particulars, to shew of what communion he was, which I did not think it right to conceal.

You go on. “Francis of Sales is another papist, much commended by Mr. W.; and who he doubts not is in Abraham’s bosom. He is the Methodist’s bosom friend.”

I believe he is in Abraham’s bosom. But he is no bosom friend of the Methodists. I question whether one in five hundred of them, ♦has so much as heard his name. And as for me, neither do I “commend him much, nor recommend” him at all. His life I never saw, nor any of his works, but his “Introduction to a Holy Life.” This the late Dr. Nichols translated into English, published and strongly recommended. Therefore if this be a proof of promoting popery, that censure falls not on me but him.

I have now considered all the arguments you have brought to prove, “That the Methodists are carrying on the work of popery.” And I am persuaded, every candid man, who rightly weighs what has been said, with any degree of attention, will clearly see not only, that no one of those arguments is of any real force at all, but that you do not believe yourself; you do not believe the conclusion, which you make as if you would prove. Only you keep close to your laudable resolution, of throwing as much dirt as possible.

48. It remains only to gather up some of your fragments, as still further proofs of your integrity.

You graciously say, “I do not lay much stress upon the charge of some of the angry Moravians, against Mr. W. and brother, for preaching popery.” Sir, if you had, you would only have hurt yourself. For 1. The Moravians never, that I know of, brought this charge at all. 2. When Mr. C. and two other predestinarians (these were the persons) affirmed “they had heard both my brother and me preach popery:” they meant neither more nor less thereby, than the doctrine of universal redemption.

“Some connection between the doctrines of the Methodists and Papists, hath been shewn through this whole comparison.” Shewn! But how? By the same art of wiredrawing and decyphering, which would prove an equal connection between the Methodists and Mahometans.

“Jesuits have often mingled, and been the ringleaders among our enthusiastic sectaries.” Sir, I am greatly obliged to you for your compliment, as well as for your parallel of Mr. Faithful Commin.

And pray, Sir, at what time do you think it was, that I first mingled with those enthusiastic sectaries? When I came back from Germany? Or when I returned from Georgia? Or while I was at Lincoln-College?​――Although the plot itself might be laid before, when I was at Christ-Church, or at the Charter-house school.

But “a Jesuit’s or enthusiast’s declaring against popery, is no test of their sincerity.” Most sure; nor is a nameless person’s declaring against Methodism, any proof that he is not a Jesuit. I remember well, when a well-dressed man, taking his stand not far from Moorfields, had gathered a large company, and was vehemently asserting, That “those rogues the Methodists were all Papists:” till a gentleman coming by, fixed his eye on him and cried, “Stop that man: I know him personally: he is a Romish priest.”

I know not that any thing remains on this head, which bears so much as the face of an argument. So that of all the charges you have brought (and truly you have not been sparing) there is not one wherein your proof falls more miserably short, than in this, That “the Methodists are advancing popery.”

49. I have at length gone through your whole performance, weighed whatever you cite from my writings, and shewn at large how far those passages are from proving all, or any part of your charge. So that all you attempt to build on them, ¹“of the pride and vanity of the Methodists; of their ²shuffling and prevaricating, of their ³affectation of prophesying, ⁴laying claim to the miraculous favours of heaven, unsteadiness ⁵of temper, ⁶unsteadiness in sentiment and practice, ⁷art and cunning, ⁸giving up inspiration and extraordinary calls, ⁹scepticism, infidelity, atheism, ¹⁰uncharitableness to their opponents, ¹¹contempt of order and authority, ¹²and fierce, rancorous quarrels with each other, ¹³of the tendency of Methodism to undermine morality and good works, and to ¹⁴carry on the good work of popery:” all this fabric falls to the ground at once, unless you can find some better foundation to support it.

50. These things being so, what must all unprejudiced men think of you and your whole performance? You have advanced a charge, not against one or two persons only, but indiscriminately against a whole body of people, of his Majesty’s subjects, Englishmen, protestants, members I suppose, of your own church: a charge containing abundance of articles, and most of them of the highest and blackest nature. You have prosecuted this with unparalleled bitterness of spirit and acrimony of language; using sometimes the most coarse, rude, scurrilous terms, sometimes the keenest sarcasms you could devise. The point you have steadily pursued in thus prosecuting this charge, is, first, To expose the whole people to the hatred and scorn of all mankind; and next, to stir up the civil powers against them. And when this charge comes to be fairly weighed, there is not a single article of it true! The passages you cite to make it good, are one and all such, as prove nothing less than the points in question: most of them such as you have palpably maimed, corrupted, and strained to a sense never thought of by the writer: many of them such as are flat against you, and overthrow the very point they are brought to support. What can they think, but that this is the most shocking violation of the Christian rule, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; the most open affront to all justice, and even common humanity, the most glaring insult upon the common sense and reason of mankind, which has lately appeared in the world.

If you say, “But I have proved the charge upon Mr. Whitefield:” admit you have (which I do not allow) Mr. Whitefield is not the Methodists; no, nor the societies under his care; they are not a third, perhaps not a tenth part of the Methodists. What then can excuse your ascribing their faults (were they proved) to the whole body? You indict ten men. Suppose you prove the indictment upon one, will you therefore condemn the other nine? Nay, let every man bear his own burden, since every man must give an account of himself to God.

I had occasion once before to say to an opponent, you know not to shew mercy. Yet that gentleman did regard truth and justice. But you regard neither mercy, justice nor truth. To vilify, to blacken is your one point. I pray God, it may not be laid to your charge! May he shew you mercy, though you shew none!

I am, Sir,

Your friend and well-wisher,

JOHN WESLEY.

The End of the Sixteenth Volume.