Chapter IX: Part 9

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 1 Journal, page 64.

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.

¹ 4 Journal, page 30.

“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 Page 45, &c.

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._

¹ First Letter to Mr. _Church_, page 45.

“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.

¹ A Letter to Mr. _Church_, page 42. 2 Letter, page 46.

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.

¹ Page 51, &c.

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.

¹ 4 Journal, page 86.

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 ¹_fourth 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.

¹ Page 37.

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.”

¹ Section 8, page 75, &c.

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.”

¹ Section 9, page 79, &c.

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 ¹_May 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.”

¹ 3 Journal, pages 30, 31.

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.

“Now I have found the ground wherein
Firm my soul’s anchor may remain;
The wounds of Jesus, for my sin
Before the world’s foundation slain.”

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.

¹ Section 10, page 29, &c.

16. “The ¹_unsteadiness_ 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_.

¹ Section 11, page 95, &c.

“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.”

¹ Section 12, page 102.

I dare say, Sir, you will not put them to the trial. _Argument_ lies out of the way of one.

――――Solutos
Qui captat risus hominem famamque dicacis.

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.”

¹ 3 Journal, page 9.

“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_?”

♦ “porperly” replaced with “properly”

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.”

♦ “ingoratio” replaced with “ignoratio” per Errata

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

¹ 3 Journal, pages 60, 61.

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. “¹_Inspiration 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.

¹ Section 13, page 106, &c.

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.

¹ Section 14, page 110, &c. 1 Journal, page 14.

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?”

¹ 1 Journal, page 67.

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.”

¹ 3 Journal, page 12.

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.”

¹ 3 Journal, pages 11, 12.

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_.”

¹ Farther Appeal, third Part, page 82.

“’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.

¹ Section 15, page 115, &c.

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.

¹ Section 16, page 119, &c.

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

¹ First letter to Mr. Church, page 42.

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_.”

¹ Section 17, page 123. &c.

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.”

¹ Journal, pages 75, 76.

“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.

¹ Section 18, page 124.

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.”

¹ 4 Journal, page 14.

♦ “accusation” replaced with “accusations” per Errata

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. ¹_Whitefield_ 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.”

¹ Section 19, page 341, &c.

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.

¹ 4 Journal, page 63.

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.

¹ 4 Journal, page 77.

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_”?

♦Ibid. page 59.

♦ Unmarked in text.

“_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.

♦ “racour” replaced with “rancour” per Errata

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_.”

¹ 3 Journal, page 84.

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.

¹ 3 Journal, page 85.

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.”

¹ 4 Journal, page 8.

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_.”

¹ 4 Journal, page 18.

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.”

¹ 4 Journal, pages 21, 22.

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_.”

¹ 4 Journal, page 34.

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.”

¹ Ibid. page 36.

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.”

¹ 4 Journal, page 62.

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.”

¹ Ibid. page 64.

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.”

¹ Ibid. page 65.

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.”

¹ 4 Journal, page 70.

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.”――――

¹ Ibid. page 73.

“And ¹we had great reason to bless God, that after fifty-two were withdrawn, we had still upwards of ninety left.”

¹ Page 74.

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_.