Chapter X: Part 10

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.

¹ Section 20, page 146, &c.

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.

¹ 4 Journal, page 39.

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.

¹ 4 Journal, page 39.

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.”

¹ 4 Journal, page 82.

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.”

¹ 4 Journal, page 20.

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.

¹ 3 Journal, pages 78, 79.

“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_.”

¹ 3 Journal, pages 78, 79.

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!”

¹ 2 Journal, page 9.

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.”

² 1 Journal, page 69.

³ 2 Journal, page 23. 3 Journal, pages 10, 70.

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.

♦ “retraction” replaced with “retractation” per Errata

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.

♦ “proved” replaced with “proceed” per Errata

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_?”

♦ added word “what” per Errata

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.

¹ Section 21, page 164, &c.

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.”

♦ “meer” replaced with “mere”

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.

♦ “argment” replaced with “argument” per Errata

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.

♦ “have” replaced with “has” per Errata

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.

¹ Section 3.

² Section 4.

³ Section 5.

⁴ Section 6.

⁵ Section 9.

⁶ Section 11.

⁷ Section 12.

⁸ Section 13.

⁹ Section 14.

¹⁰ Section 15, &c.

¹¹ Section 18.

¹² Section 19, &c.

¹³ Section 20.

¹⁴ Section 21.

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.

ERRATA, Volume XVI.

Page 9, line 3, replace Consider_ing_

Page 24, _After_ line 28, insert _Five paragraphs are left out,
which stand in the 24th Volume_, page 32 _to_ 35

Page 28, line 7, replace now _only_

Page 59, line 10, replace _with_ a

Page 79, line 22, replace wretch_les_ness

Page 91, line 2, replace _w_rought

Page 94, line 14, replace re_sist_ing

Page 96, line 7, replace M_a_y

Page 96, line 17, replace re_sist_ing

Page 97, line 8, replace both _the_

Page 117, line 22, replace any _wise_

Page 122, line 7, replace _has_

Page 150, line 8, replace _Part_ of

Page 158, line 5, replace appoint_ing_

Page 168, line 24, replace _a_pposite

Page 177, line 24, delete _that_

Page 180, line 23, replace invect_ive_

Page 185, line 19, replace _si_nce

Page 196, line 10, replace could _not_

Page 227, line 1, replace believe _it_

Page 239, line 9, replace c_au_se

Page 240, line 19, replace se_a_s

Page 264, line 20, replace natural _or_

Page 268, line _penultimate_, replace corpo_ral_

Page 279, line 1, replace _I_ immediately

Page 290, line 18, replace Archimede_s_

Page 307, line 6, replace i_gnor_atio

Page 321, line 2, replace accusation_s_

Page 323, line _antepenultimate_, replace ra_n_cour

Page 340, line 27, replace retract_at_ion

Page 341, line _penultimate_, replace pro_ce_ed

Page 343, line 28, replace _what_ thousands

Page 349, line 5, replace arg_u_ment.

Page 349, line 25, replace _has_ so