Chapter X: Preface (8)

We have therefore desired our reverend and dear brethren, Mr. _Andrew Tristram_, minister at _Clent_, Mr. _Henry Oasland_, minister at _Bewdley_, and Mr. _Thomas Baldwin_, minister at _Wolverly_, and Mr. _Joseph Treble_, minister at _Church Lench_, to undertake this work, and that each of them will be pleased every fourth Lord’s-day to preach twice in those places, where they shall judge their labours to be most necessary: and as we doubt not but their own congregations will so far consent for the good of others; so do we hereby request of you our brethren, that when any of them shall offer their labours for your congregations, in preaching the said lecture, you will receive them, and to your power further them in the work. For as we have no thoughts of obtruding their help upon you, without your consent, so we cannot but undoubtedly expect, that men fearing GOD, and desiring their people’s everlasting good, will chearfully and gratefully entertain such assistance. And we hope, that none will think it needless, or take it as an accusing the ministry of insufficiency: for the LORD doth variously bestow his gifts: all that are upright are not equally fitted for the work: and many that are learned, judicious, and more able to teach the riper sort, are yet less able to condescend to the ignorant, and so convincingly and fervently to rouze up the secure, as some that are below them in other qualifications: and many that are able in both respects, have a barren people; and the ablest have found by experience that GOD hath sometimes blest the labours of a stranger to do that, which their own hath not done. We beseech you therefore interpret not this as an accusation of any, which proceedeth from the charity of our worthy country-men in _London_, and from the earnest desires of them and us, to further the salvation of as many as we can. And that you may have no jealousies of the persons deputed to this work; we assure you that they are approved men, orthodox, sober, peaceable, and of upright lives, happily qualified for their ministerial work, and zealous and industrious therein; and so far from being likely to sow any errors or cause divisions, or to draw the hearts of people from their own faithful Pastors, that they will be forward to assist you against any such distempers in your flocks. Not doubting therefore, but as you serve the same Master, and are under the same obligations as we, so as many as are heartily addicted to his service, will readily promote so hopeful a work, we commend you and your labours to the blessing of the LORD.

Your brethren and fellow-labourers in the work of the gospel.

_Kiderminster._

In the name and at the desire of the ministers
of this association.

_Evesham._
_Richard Baxter_, _John Boraston_, _Jarvis Bryant_.

In the name of the ministers of this association.

_Giles Collier_, _George Hopkins_, _John Dolphin_.”

This is and shall be my endeavour, and was so when I was here last, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, notwithstanding some of my expressions have been made to speak things, and convey ideas which I never intended. And therefore, Gentlemen, judge ye, whether you have said right in page 11th, “And now is it possible, that we should not look upon him (Mr. _W._) as the blameable cause of all the quarrels on the account of religion, which the churches are now engaged in: and this not only on account of his own behaviour, but also as the coming of those _hot men_ afterwards (who together with the exhorters that accompanied them, cultivated the same uncharitable dispositions in our churches) was wholly owing to his influence and example?” Is this, Gentlemen, a fair way of arguing? Is it not enough for me to answer for myself, without having the faults of others that came after me, laid to my charge also? Did not the papists as justly, who charged _Luther_ with all the imprudencies of his adherents, and the confusions that attended the reformation? Besides, I do not understand, who you mean by those hot men. Surely you do not include the reverend Mr. _Tennent_. GOD did make me an instrument of sending him to _New-England_. I thank him for it, as I believe several of _Harvard College_, many ministers, and thousands of the common people, in the several parts of _New-England_, will be found to do, through the ages of eternity. As for others, I knew nothing of their coming, neither do I well know who you mean, and consequently can be no more justly charged with their misconduct, than the first founder of _Harvard College_ can be charged with all the bad principles and practices which any of the members of that society have been guilty of, since his decease. That Mr. _Tennent_’s labours and mine were remarkably blessed, the reverend Mr. President himself testified in the fore-mentioned sermon, page 23, wherein are these words: “Indeed those _two pious and valuable men of God_, who have been lately labouring more abundantly among us, have been greatly instrumental in the hands of GOD, to revive this blessed work; and many, no doubt, have been savingly converted from the error of their ways, many more have been convicted, and all have been in some measure roused from their lethargy.” And even in this testimony, you are all pleased to say, page 3, that “by a certain faculty which he hath of raising the passions, he hath been a means of rousing many from their stupidity, and setting them on thinking, whereby some may have been made really better.” And if these things are so; if many have been roused from their stupidity, and made really better; if the blessed work of GOD was revived, and there is no doubt but many have been savingly converted from the error of their ways, many more convicted, and all in some measure roused from their lethargy; is it to be wondered at, that many of the people should be strongly attached to such an instrument, though it should be most evident (as you say, page _ibid._) “that he hath not any superior talent at instructing the mind, or shewing the force and energy of those arguments for a religious life, which are directed to in the everlasting gospel?” For, is it not natural for people to love their spiritual Father? Would not the _Galatians_ have plucked out even their own eyes, and have given them to _Paul_? And is it not the bounden duty of all that love JESUS, to love those who labour in the word and doctrine, and are made greatly instrumental in the hands of GOD to revive his blessed work amongst them? And supposing that they have not any superior talent at instructing the mind, &c. ought they not the more to thank and adore the sovereignty of their heavenly father, who sends by whom he will send, and chuses the weak things of this world to confound the strong, and hides those things from the wise and prudent, which he is pleased to reveal unto babes?

Gentlemen, I profess myself a _Calvinist_ as to principle, and preach no other doctrines than those which your pious ancestors, and the founders of _Harvard College_, preached long before I was born. And I am come to _New-England_, with no intention to meddle with, much less to destroy the order of the _New-England_ churches, or turn out the generality of their ministers, or re-settle them with ministers from _England_, _Scotland_, and _Ireland_, as hath been hinted in a late letter written by the reverend Mr. _Clap_, Rector of _Yale-College_: such a thought never entered my heart; neither, as I know of, has my preaching the least tendency thereunto. I am determined to know nothing among you, but JESUS CHRIST and him crucified. I have no intention of setting up a party for myself, or to stir up people against their Pastors. Had not illness prevented, I had some weeks ago departed out of these coasts. But as it is not a season of the year for me to undertake a very long journey, and I have reason to think the great GOD daily blesses my poor labours, I think it my duty to comply with the invitations that are sent me; and, as I am enabled, to be instant in season and out of season, and to preach among poor sinners the unsearchable riches of JESUS CHRIST. This indeed I delight in. It is my meat and my drink. I esteem it more than my necessary food. This I think I may do, as a minister of the King of kings, and a subject to his present Majesty King _George_, upon whose royal head I pray GOD, the crown may long flourish. And as I have a right to preach, so I humbly apprehend the people, as christians, as men, and _New-England_ men in particular, have a right to invite and hear. If pulpits should be shut, blessed be GOD! the fields are open, and I can go without the camp, bearing the Redeemer’s sacred reproach: this I am used to, and glory in; believing that if I suffer for it, I shall suffer for righteousness sake. At the same time I desire to be humbled, and ask public pardon for any rash word I have dropped, or any thing I have written or done amiss. This leads me also to ask forgiveness, Gentlemen, if I have done you or your society, in my journal, any wrong. Be pleased to accept unfeigned thanks for all tokens of respect you shewed me when here last. And if you have injured me in the testimony you have published against me and my conduct (as I think, to say no more, you really have) it is already forgiven without asking, by Gentlemen,

Your affectionate humble servant,

_G. W._

_P. S._ I have been obliged to be very brief, on account of the variety of business in which I am necessarily engaged, and my daily calls to preach the everlasting gospel.

REMARKS
ON A
PAMPHLET,
ENTITLED,
The Enthusiasm of METHODISTS
and PAPISTS compared;

WHEREIN

Several Mistakes in some Parts of my past Writings and Conduct
are acknowledged, and my present Sentiments concerning the
METHODISTS explained.

IN A
LETTER to the AUTHOR.

_Out of the eater came forth meat._
Judges xiv. 4.

REMARKS, &c.

SIR,

I HAVE perused your _anonymous Pamphlet_; and though upon some accounts it does not deserve an answer, yet, as it may serve a good purpose, and be a means of rectifying some mistakes, I shall trouble you with a few remarks upon it.

Who, or what you are, the world is left to guess. If a _clergyman_, you have done well to conceal yourself, the whole strain of your performance discovering a levity unbecoming such a character. You yourself seem conscious of its needing an apology: for in your preface, after having just hinted at the “_extravagant freaks of Methodism_,” you add, “And if in proving it, I am sometimes guilty of a levity of expression, ’tis to be hoped some allowance will be made, in consideration of the nature of the subject, it being no easy matter to keep one’s countenance, and be steadily serious, where others are ridiculous.” Assure yourself, Sir, I shall make all the allowance you can reasonably desire; but at the same time must observe to you, that if others are ridiculous, that is no reason why you should make yourself so; and if recovering the persons concerned out of their extravagant freaks, be only a remote design of your composition, you have unhappily fixed upon a most improbable, ineffectual remedy; I mean, _irreligious banter_.

However this be, your principal design is obvious, “As a caution to all Protestants, to draw a comparison between the wild and pernicious ENTHUSIASMS of some of the most _eminent Saints_ in the _Popish communion_, and those of the _Methodists_ in our own country:” And who those eminent saints are you specify, page 9, section 2. “the most wild, and extravagant, the most ridiculous strolling, fanatical, delirious, and mischievous of all the saints in the _Romish_ communion.” For otherwise, you say, “the parallel would not hold, but come off defective; the whole conduct of the Methodists (not any one branch, it seems, to be excepted) being but a counter-part of the most wild fanaticism of the most abominable communion,” in its most corrupt ages. _Vid. Pref._ This is avowedly your principal design (which though I think somewhat too restrained to answer exactly to your title page) must be acknowledged to be a very expedient one; if, besides cautioning protestants, you intended, at the same time, to expose the Methodists, and to have them looked upon and treated as Papists.

How you have succeeded in this attempt, will appear when we come to examine the parallel you have drawn between them. To this I shall confine myself, and consequently, on purpose, omit making any direct reply to the account you give of the _Montanists_; it being not only quite foreign to the title page and principal design of your tract (as you say, “they arose in the second century, before popery had a being,”) but at the best very precarious, being not founded upon writings of their own, which, as you inform us, are long since lost.

To come then to your more direct comparison between _popish_ and _methodistical enthusiasts_: “From a commiseration or 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 reformation:” page 10. section 2. And is not this commendable, whether in Methodists or in Papists? Or ought any one, think you, to take upon him holy orders, and witness that good confession before many witnesses, “That he is inwardly moved thereto by the Holy Ghost,” without having a real motive of sincere piety, and a warm intention at least (if that be what you mean by a pretence) to promote, as much as in him lies, a real reformation? If by pretence, you would have us understand a mere hypocritical pretence, you are then guilty of a self-contradiction: for how can pretence and reality be reconciled? Which of the two was the case of the Methodists at their first setting out, if you please, we will leave to the great day, to be determined by Him who is appointed to be judge of quick and dead; to whom alone all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid. Actions are cognizable by us, and not intentions. Let us see how your parallel holds good in respect to these.

“For the better advancement of their purposes, both, commonly (you say, page 11. section 4.) begin their _adventures_ with _field preaching_. In which particular, though the practice of the Methodists be notorious, it may not be amiss to produce some of their own words, were it only for the sake of the comparison.” But, good Sir, ought any one, merely for the sake of making a comparison, (though ever so just) to exceed the bounds of truth, which you have here confessedly done? For what words have you produced, or indeed can you produce, to prove that the Methodists began their adventures with field-preaching? If we may believe your own words, is not the quite contrary notorious? For, section 5. page 15. you tell us, “That after the Methodists had traduced the clergy, as long as they were permitted to do it, in their own churches and pulpits, they set about this pious work of defamation more heartily in the fields.”

Here then your parallel fails at first setting out, you yourself being judge. And here I would dismiss this article, being founded on a mistake, was it not proper to take notice of a cursory remark or two, which you have thought proper to make upon it. You ask, page 14. “How comes Mr. _Whitefield_ to say, there was never any such thing as field-preaching before? Was it from the mere vanity of being thought the founder of it? Or was he ignorant of the practice several years ago, and even in our own nation?” I thank you, Sir, for informing me better, and am glad to find that field-preaching was practised in our nation several years ago. Why then such a noise about it now?

From what degrees of vanity my expressing myself in that manner might proceed, I cannot now remember: but if, as you insinuate, page 33. “It is easy to foresee there is to be some future _calendar_ or _legend of the saints_,” (I presume you mean _Methodist saints_) I care not if the following article ♦be inserted concerning me. “Such a day the Reverend _George Whitefield_, having had an university education, and been regularly ordained deacon and priest of the Church of _England_, and invited to preach in most churches of the cities of _Gloucester_, _Bristol_, _Westminster_, and _London_, in the last of which places he collected near a thousand pounds for the charity children, being causelesly denied the further use of the churches, because he preached up the necessity of the new birth, and justification in the sight of GOD by faith alone in the imputed righteousness of JESUS CHRIST, _began to preach the same doctrines in the fields_.”

♦ removed duplicate word “be”

This is the real truth: and whether I was the _founder_ or _reviver_ of such field-preaching in this nation, need I be ashamed, merely because St. _Peter_ of _Verona_, St. _Nicholas_ of _Nolasco_, St. _Anthony_ of _Padua_, and St. _Ignatius_ were field-preachers before me? Can you recollect no earlier, or more unexceptionable field-preachers than these? What do you think of JESUS CHRIST and his Apostles? Were they not field-preachers? Was not the best sermon that was ever delivered, delivered from a _Mount_? Was not another very excellent one preached from a place called _Mars-Hill_? And did not _Peter_ and _John_ preach above seventeen hundred years ago in _Solomon’s Porch_, and elsewhere, though the clergy of that generation commanded them to speak no more in the name of JESUS? These were the persons that I had in view, when I begun my _adventures_ of field-preaching. Animated by their example, when causelesly thrust out, I took the field; and if this be my shame, I glory in it: for, (to make use of the words of the late great Colonel _Gardiner_, when he once looked upon the spot where this adventure was carried on; and O that I may speak it with a becoming humility,) “I am persuaded it will be said at the great day of this and that man, that they were brought to GOD there.”

Another of your cursory remarks on field-preaching, is this; “Have not the Methodist preachers, as well as St. _Anthony_, been attended with a _sturdy set_ of followers, as their guards, armed with clubs under their cloaths, menacing and terrifying such as should dare to speak lightly of their apostle?” You add, “I have heard it often affirmed.” And so might the heathens have said, that they heard it often affirmed, “that when the primitive christians received the blessed sacrament, they killed a young child, and then sucked its blood.” But was that any reason why they should believe it? It is true indeed, some of the Methodist preachers have more than once been attended with a _sturdy set_ of followers armed with clubs and other weapons, not as their guards, but opposers, and persecutors; and who have not only menaced and terrified, but actually abused and beat many of those, who came to hear him, whom you, I suppose, would call their apostle. Both Methodist preachers and Methodist hearers too, for want of better arguments, have often felt the weight of such _irresistible power_, which, literally speaking, hath struck many of them dumb; and I verily believe, had it not been for some superior invisible guard, must have struck them dead. These are all the sturdy set of armed followers, that the Methodists know of. Other guards, besides those common to all christians, they desire none. And whatever you may unkindly insinuate, about my being aware of a turbulent spirit, a fighting enthusiasm amongst them, because I said, “I dread nothing more than the false zeal of my friends in a suffering hour;” I think many years experience may convince the world, that the weapons of their warfare, like those of their blessed Redeemer and his apostles, have not been carnal: but thanks be to GOD, however you may ridicule his irresistible power, they have, through him, been mighty to the pulling down of Satan’s strong-holds, in many a sturdy sinner’s heart.

But to return to the church, where in reality the Methodist adventures were begun. Section 5th, page 15, you tell the world, “that after they had traduced the clergy, as long as they were permitted to do it, in their own churches and pulpits, in order to seduce their flocks, and collect a staring rabble, (pretty language this, Sir,) they set about this pious work of _defamation_ mere heartily in the fields.” I was reading further, expecting to find your parallel. But I see it is wanting. Are the Methodists then originals in this particular? Or could you, among all the histories of your eminent saints, find no instances of St. _Anthony_’s, St. _Francis_’s, and St. _Ignatius_’s carrying on this pious work of defamation in their days? Will you suffer me to supply the deficiency, by laying before you some examples, which, though of an earlier date, may, by unprejudiced persons, be esteemed as suitable, as any of a popish extraction? In the New Testament, (a book you seem to have laid aside, or at least little adverted to, when writing your pamphlet) we are informed, That when _John Baptist_, “saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” The same book tells us, that St. _Stephen_ being full of the _Holy Ghost_, and within a few moments of his death, said to the whole _Jewish_ sanhedrim, “Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in hearts and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye.” And our LORD JESUS CHRIST himself, the master of both these, in one chapter denounces no less than thirteen woes against the scribes and pharisees, whose chief power of doing good, and promoting the common salvation, he well knew, depended upon their character, as much as any clergy in any age of the church whatsoever. Not that I would be understood by this to insinuate, that all which the Methodist preachers have spoken against the clergy, was spoken in the same Spirit, or with the like divine authority, as our LORD, his harbinger, and his protomartyr, spoke. That would be carrying the parallel too far indeed. There is generally much, too much severity in our first zeal. At least there was in mine. All I would therefore infer is this, that what some (not to say you, Sir,) may term “Gall of bitterness and black art of calumny,” may be nothing but an honest testimony against the corruptions of a degenerate church, and may, without any degree of wickedness, be supposed to come from the “Spirit and power given from GOD.” If we deny this, not only _Isaiah_, _Jeremiah_, and almost all the prophets, but likewise JESUS CHRIST and his Apostles, must be looked upon by us, (as I suppose they were by the men in whose day they lived) as great _slanderers_, and dealing much in this black art of calumny and defamation.

But, if the Methodists have been so much to blame, for carrying on this pious work of defamation, in the church and their journals; will that authorise you in practising the same _black art_ in your pamphlet? Give me leave (since you have taken that liberty with me) to gather some of your flowers on this occasion.

“This dangerous and presumptuous sect; ♦strolling predicants; itinerant enthusiasts; methodistical enthusiasts;” with many other flowers of a like nature, though not of a very scriptural scent, may be picked off almost every page of your performance. Upon the review of which, I suppose you will own, that you are at least even with the Methodists. Only it must be allowed, there is this difference; you are taking up a trade, which they, as far as I know to the contrary, have for some time laid down.

♦ “stroling” replaced with “strolling”

And why must you disturb the dead on this occasion? Were there not flowers enough to be gathered out of Mr. _Wesley_’s Journal and mine, without calling up Mr. _Seward_’s ghost (as you have in effect done, by quoting his Journal) in order to terrify your readers? Good man! He has long since entered into his rest, and consequently cannot now answer for himself. Permit me to speak a word or two in behalf of my deceased friend. He was certainly a serious warm christian, but (like his fellow-traveller) in the heat of his zeal, spoke and wrote some unguarded things. His and my treatment of Archbishop _Tillotson_, was by far too severe. We condemned his state, when we ought only in a candid manner, (which I would do again if called to it) to have mentioned what we judged wrong in his doctrines. I do not justify it. I condemn myself most heartily, and ask pardon for it; as, I believe, he would do, was he now alive. But then, do not you still go on, Sir, to imitate us in our faults: Let the surviving Methodists answer for themselves: let _Seward_ and _Tillotson_ lie undisturbed. And if you think me blameworthy (as I certainly was) to write so disrespectful of the one; why should you, by making an ill-natured quotation, rake as it were into the very ashes of the dead, only for the poor gratification of digging up a flower, to blacken the memory of the other?

But to proceed. For several pages, you go on imitating us in this same _pious work of defamation_. If you can bear to read your own words, I will transcribe a few of them: section 6. page 17. “But though these strolling predicants have allured some itching ears, and drawn them aside by calumniating their proper pastors, they have sense enough to know the itch will go off, and their trade not continue long, unless they can produce something novel or uncommon; what the wandering sheep have not been used to in their churches. Therefore they must find out, or rather revive such peculiarities, as have formally attended enthusiasms, and are most likely to captivate the vulgar. Hence their”――But hold, Sir;――and before you run yourself quite out of breath, I intreat you to stop a little, whilst I put to you one or two questions. Believe you these things of the Methodists? I suppose you believe them: otherwise, Why assert them so strongly? How then can you put even a _perhaps_ to your supposition of their “setting out with a _real motive_ of sincere piety?” Had not you best alter the title of your book, or at least make some addition to it? Let it run thus: “The enthusiasm and _imposture_ of the Methodists and Papists compared.” For surely, unless persons were arrived at a very high degree of imposture, they could not purposely (as you seem to infer they did) design these things.

By your leave, we will examine the evidence you produce in proof of these bold assertions: “The first necessary point for drawing followers, is to put on a _sanctified appearance_, by a demure look, and precise behaviour, in discourse or silence, in apparel and food; and other marks of external piety.” Section 7. page 18. Again, section 8. page 20. “At first, the Methodists, as a _shew of humility_, made it a point not to ride, either on horseback or in a coach, though occasionally, and for conveniency-sake, they have since thought proper to deviate from their rule.” Well, Sir, you see then they are not altogether incorrigible. Let them alone; and who knows but for their conveniency-sake, and it may be from a deeper knowledge of the world, of themselves, and of GOD, they may be reformed in some other particulars?

“Upon the same account, you say, section 9. page _ibid._ _fine cloaths_ and _rich furniture_ stand absolutely condemned:” (not by me, it seems, for I find no quotations out of my Journals annexed) “But oh! (as a part or consequence of this) how good and saint-like it is, to go dirty, ragged, and slovenly! And how piously did Mr. _Whitefield_ therefore take care of the outward man! My apparel was mean, &c.” Section 10. page 21. Really, Sir, whilst I read this part of your performance, I could not help thinking, that a person of your turn of mind, would have been apt to have joined with those naughty boys, who, when they saw that demure, rough, hairy, slovenly enthusiast, called _Elijah_, followed after him, and cried, “Go up, thou bald pate, go.” Or, if you had lived in _John Baptist_’s time, and seen him come preaching in the wilderness, with a camel-hair garment, and a leathern girdle about his loins; especially if you had heard, that his meat was only locusts and wild honey; would you not have been tempted, think you, to give in your verdict amongst those who said, “He had a devil?” Know you not, that these are extremes which young awakened persons are apt to run into when under a sense of sin, and influenced by what the Apostle calls the _spirit of bondage_? Do I not mention them as such? And are they not things which of themselves fall off, when persons are brought into the comforts of religion, and have received the _spirit of adoption_, whereby they cry, Abba, Father? But I shall leave you at present, to make as merry as you will with the sanctified appearances, and dirty ragged cloaths of these enthusiastical Methodists. Let us pass on to your 11th section, page 22. “Of this nature likewise, is their utter condemnation of all _recreation_, in every kind and degree. Mr. _Whitefield_ laments,” (indeed I do, Sir, even now I am grown older) “that in his younger days he was not convinced of the absolute unlawfulness of playing at cards, and of reading and seeing plays.” And if you are in advanced years, and a _clergyman_ too, and are not convinced of the unlawfulness of cards, and can find time from your other studies and duties of your calling, to see or read such plays as the generality of ours are, I think you ought to lament it too. For what says our church in her 75th canon? “No ecclesiastical persons shall at any time, other than for their honest necessities, resort to any _taverns_ or _alehouses_; neither shall they board or lodge in any such places. Furthermore, they shall not give themselves to any base or servile labour, or to _drinking_ or _riot_, spending their time idly by day or night, playing at _dice_, _cards_, or _tables_, or any _other unlawful game_; but at all times convenient, they shall hear or read somewhat of the Holy Scriptures, or shall occupy themselves with some other honest study or exercise, always doing the things which shall appertain to honesty, and endeavouring to profit the church of GOD; having always in mind, that they ought to excel all others in purity of life, and should be examples to the people to live well and christianly, under pain of ecclesiastical censures to be inflicted with severity, according to the qualities of their offences.” O when shall this once be!

In your 12th section page 24. you go on to rally these enthusiastical Methodists for their _seeming contempt of money_. And again, section 13. page 26. you say, “Another bait to catch admirers, and very common among enthusiasts, is a 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 then, after drawing your usual comparison between these enthusiastical Methodists and popish saints, you make this judicious remark, “The windmill is indeed in all their heads.”

Had I a mind to return your false and low wit, I might reply, “There is a greater windmill in thine own;” but at present, I am too serious to make sport with my own deceivings. Surely, Sir, you forget yourself, or you never would write thus at random: for is there any thing, that the blessed Author of our religion more recommends to his disciples, than to “take heed and beware of covetousness,” and to “take heed, lest at any time their hearts should be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, or the cares of this life?” What said St. _Peter_? “Silver and gold have I none.” What says St. _Paul_? “But thou, O man of GOD, flee these things.” And in respect to contempt, and sufferings for the gospel, does not our LORD command us to expect, to prepare for, and rejoice in them? Nay, does he not bid us to leap for joy, and be exceeding glad, when we have all manner of evil spoken against us falsely for his name’s sake? In obedience to this command, did not the great Apostle of the _Gentiles_ declare, that he took pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for CHRIST’s sake? Did he not, like his LORD, go about doing good? Was he not filled with a holy restless impatience and insatiable thirst of _travelling_, and undertaking _dangerous voyages_ for the conversion of infidels? And had he not a declared contempt of all dangers, pains, and sufferings, when, like a true christian hero, he said to his mourning friends, “What mean ye to weep and break my heart? I am ready not only to be bound, but to die also for the LORD JESUS?” Dare you, Sir, call the Apostles enthusiasts? Or think you all this was only a _bait_ to catch admirers? And yet, what have you done less, by asserting, that an insatiable thirst of travelling, &c. is very common among enthusiasts? I add, among our LORD and his Apostles also: and can we copy after more unexceptionable examples?

“But the Methodists contempt of money is only a _seeming contempt_.” That is more than you know. Here you are again invading the divine prerogative. The great day will determine this. In the mean while, I would observe to you, that whatever can be produced out of any of my writings, to prove that I have desired, or prayed for ill usage, persecution, martyrdom, death, &c. I retract it with all my heart, as proceeding from the overflowings of an irregular, though well-meant zeal. However it might be with me formerly, I now find myself no ways disposed to say with _Peter_, “Though all men deny thee, yet will not I.” Alas! alas! we know not what feathers we shall be, when tossed in the wind of temptation! Sufferings for the cause and cross of CHRIST, will come fast enough of themselves, without our praying for them. But should the Methodists be called even to die for the cause in which they are embarked, as I am verily persuaded it is the cause of GOD, so I doubt not but suffering grace will be given for suffering times, and the Spirit of CHRIST and of glory will rest upon the sufferers souls.

But it is time to follow you to your 14th section page 31. “The pious cruelty of _corporal severities_, or mortification by tormenting the flesh, is another common method of gaining a reputation for sanctity. Such as long and rigorous fastings, gashing and flaying the body with scourges, armed with rowels and sharp tags, and rolling naked in thorns and thistles.” But these last particulars, you say, “Our own _disciplinarians_ cannot, in any tolerable measure, pretend to come up to.” What occasion was there then for mentioning them? Only to cast a popular odium upon these enthusiastical Methodists. _Hoc est æerugo mera._ “However, something of this kind we have from their own relation.” And something of this kind we have in the Evangelist’s relation of the life of JESUS of _Nazareth_; who, as we are informed, before he came out into his public ministry, underwent a long and rigorous fasting, even of forty days and forty nights. And something of this kind we have in the relation that disciplinarian the Apostle _Paul_ gives of himself; for he tells us he was in fastings often. It is true he does condemn (as you observe, page 33.) that ἀφειδία σώματος, the not sparing of the body, as useless and superstitious, when done in order to recommend us to the favour of GOD, or put in the place, or joined with the merits of JESUS CHRIST. Yet elsewhere, he informs us, that he made it his common practice to keep his body under, (ὑπωπιάζω) and bring it into subjection: and think you all this was only to “gain a reputation for sanctity?” If you will believe himself, it was for a nobler and more important end, “Lest while he preached to others, he himself should be a cast-away.” And how do you know but these Methodists might, at their first setting out, have used, and even now may use abstinence for the same purpose? Nay, that this very motive led them into some extremes in it, which however must be esteemed an error of the right side? Why will you still persist in taking the keys out of the hands of Omniscience, and presumptuously judge the intentions of people’s hearts? If we had a mind to imitate you in this rash way of judging, might not we suspect, (as your pamphlet came out in that season) that in order to wound our church governors through the sides of the Methodists, you intended this part of your pamphlet as a burlesque upon them, for enjoining such a _long and rigorous fasting_, as that of forty days, commonly called _Lent_?

I should now proceed, in order, to the examination of your 15th, 16th, and 17th sections; but as these, together with ♦the 19th, wholly refer to Mr. _Wesley_, I shall leave you to his correction, if he thinks proper to take you in hand. However, there is something so extraordinary in your 17th section, that, I think, it calls for a cursory remark. “But, previous to this elevated state, that we may not wander too far from the saints progress, comes their _conversion_; which, as another instance of fanatical peculiarities, they represent as sudden and _instantaneous_.” Instantaneous conversion, a fanatical peculiarity! I presume instantaneous regeneration must be a _fanatical peculiarity_ also. What then becomes of that _Diana_ of the present age, _baptismal regeneration_? Which must be instantaneous, and that always too, if every child is really regenerated when baptized?

♦ removed duplicate word “the”

But this only by the by. In your 18th section, page 43. you return to me. “After these _sudden conversions_, usually they receive their _assurances of salvation_; and these (as also the proofs of their conversion) are certainly known, heard, seen or felt; they can ascertain the particular time and place of their receiving them; as so many seals of the Spirit.” These you call, page 44. “_Presumptuous imaginations_.” Is assurance of faith then, in your opinion, a presumptuous imagination? For you not only ridicule the Methodists way of expressing it, which in several respects may have been unguarded; nor are you content with asserting, that some who really had not this assurance, have presumptuously imagined they had it, which we readily grant; for there is counterfeit as well as current coin: but you seem to explode the thing itself. And yet you intend in this pamphlet, to draw a _parallel_ between the Methodists and Papists. Could you give a greater proof of your symbolizing with the Papists yourself? Or need you be informed, that one grand article of the council of _Trent_ is this, “That there is no such thing as a person’s knowing that his sins are forgiven him, or being assured of his salvation;” and that with good reason: for if there be such a thing as being assured of the forgiveness of our sins by the internal testimony, whether mediate or immediate, of the Spirit of GOD; and if a person ought to be satisfied only with that, then how could the people be brought to believe in, and trust to the mere external _verbal absolution of a priest_? Our church, on the contrary, in one of her homilies, says, that a true faith “is a sure trust and confidence in GOD, that by the merits of CHRIST, his sins are forgiven, and he reconciled to the favour of GOD.” And that the Scriptures every where promise to believers, a sure and internal witness from the Spirit of GOD, to witness with their spirits that they are his children, is so evident, that he who runs may read. What says our LORD? “He that believeth in me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” This spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. What says St. _Paul_? “Because ye are sons, GOD hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our Spirit, that we are the children of GOD.” Saith another, “He that believeth hath the witness in himself.” And a third exhorts all “to give diligence to make their calling and election sure.” Art thou a master in _Israel_, a protestant minister, and a minister of the Church of _England_, and knowest not these things?

But to come nearer to a close. Your 20th section is introduced thus: “And where will these bold enthusiasts _stop_?” I answer for one, in order to relieve both myself and you, even _here_, Sir. And without giving you the trouble of taking a flight after us to heaven, from whence, you say, page 48. “These methodistical enthusiasts have taken the sacred light and fire, in order to compass effectually their own, and others delusion,” I will freely and readily acknowledge, that you and others have had too much occasion for reflection, by several things that have been _unwarily dropped_ up and down in my Journals.

These, you inform us in your preface, are what you have chiefly consulted. In this you have acted wisely enough for your purpose; though whether _candidly_ or not, I will leave you and the world to judge, since there were later writings of mine, which might as easily have been procured. My Journals were some of my most _early performances_, wrote too in the very heights of my first popularity (which is apt to make the strongest head run giddy) in the midst of which, persons very often do things, which after-experience and riper judgment teach them to correct and amend.

This is true, however, in respect to myself; and, to convince you that this is the real language of my heart, and not extorted from me by your pamphlet, I will lay before you an extract of a letter written by me to a worthy friend in _South-Carolina_, in my late return from _Bermudas_, and published, with very little alteration, in _Scotland_ months ago¹.

¹ Vide the Letter at full length, volume ii. page 143.

_On board the Brigg Betsey, June 24, 1748._

“_Reverend Sir_,

――――YESTERDAY I made an end of revising all my Journals. Blessed be GOD for letting me have leisure to do it. I purpose to have a new edition before I see _America_. Alas! alas! in how many things have I judged, and acted wrong! I have been too rash and hasty in giving characters both of places and persons. Being fond of scripture language, I have often used a style too apostolical, and at the same time I have been too bitter in my zeal, wild-fire has been mixed with it; and I find that I have frequently written and spoken too much in my own spirit, when I thought I was writing and speaking entirely by the assistance of the Spirit of GOD. I have likewise too much made impressions, without the written word, my rule of acting; and too soon, and too explicitly, published what had better been kept in longer, or left to have been told after my death. By these things, I have given some wrong touches to GOD’s ark, hurt the blessed cause I would defend, and stirred up needless opposition. This has humbled me much since I have been on board, and made me think of a saying of Mr. _Henry_’s, “_Joseph_ had more _honesty_ than he had _policy_, or he never would have told his dreams.” At the same time, I cannot but bless, and praise, and magnify that good and gracious GOD, who imparted to me so much of his holy fire, and carried me, a poor weak youth, through such a torrent both of popularity and contempt, and set so many seals to my unworthy ministrations. I bless him for ripening my judgment a little more, for giving me to see, confess, and I hope in some degree to correct and amend some of its mistakes. I thank GOD for giving me grace to embark in such a blessed cause, and pray him to give me strength to hold on, and increase in zeal and love to the end. Thus, dear Sir, I have unburdened my heart to you. I look upon you to be my _Fidus Achates_, and therefore deal thus freely. If I have time and freedom before we land, I think to begin and write a short account of what has happened for these seven years last past; and when I get on shore, GOD willing, I purpose to revise and correct the first part of my life.”

This I am now about, and when finished, shall send it into the world, I hope in a more unexceptionable dress; though I am fully satisfied before-hand, that write or speak of the things of GOD as unexceptionably as may be, they will be always esteemed foolishness by the natural man, because they can only be spiritually discerned. However, the way of duty is the way of safety. Let me but be found in that, and I can then chearfully leave the consequences with GOD. In the mean while, I thank you, Sir, for pointing out to me a very wrong expression in the last part of my life. My words are these; “I could no longer walk on foot as usual; but was constrained to go in a coach, to avoid the _Hosanna_’s of the multitude.” Your remark runs thus, section 8. page 20. “_Very profane_, unless it be a false print for _huzza_’s.” I could wish it had been so; but the word was my own; and though not intended to convey a _profane idea_, was very wrong and unguarded, and I desire may be buried in oblivion, unless you, or some other kind person, are pleased to remind me of it, in order to lay me low before GOD and man.

A review of all this, together with my having dropped some too strong expressions concerning _absolute reprobation_; and more especially, my mentioning Mr. _Wesley_’s casting a lot on a private occasion, known only to GOD and ourselves, have put me to great pain. Speaking of this last, you say, page 75. “A more _judicious sentiment_, perhaps, never dropt from Mr. _Whitefield_’s pen.” I believe, Sir, the advice given was right and good; but then it was wrong in me to publish a private transaction to the world; and very ill judged, to think the glory of GOD could be promoted by unnecessarily exposing my friend. For this I have asked both GOD and him pardon years ago. And though I believe both have forgiven me, yet I believe I shall never be able to forgive myself. As it was a public fault, I think it should be publicly acknowledged; and I thank a kind providence for giving me this opportunity of doing it.

As for the _letters_, out of which you, and the author of the “Observations on the conduct and behaviour of the _Methodists_,” have taken so many extracts, I acknowledge that many things in them were very exceptionable, though good in the main; and therefore they have been suppressed some time. _Casting lots_, I do not now approve of, nor have I for several years; neither do I think it a safe way (though practised, I doubt not, by many good men) to make a _lottery of the scriptures_, by dipping into them upon every occasion.

And now, Sir, I am somewhat prepared to hear what follows in your 48th page. “Nothing less than _inspirations_, _revelations_, _illuminations_, and all the extraordinary and immediate actions of all the persons in the _sacred Trinity_, will serve their turn. So that now every flash of zeal and devotion; every wild pretension, scheme, tenet, and over-bearing dictate; impulses, impressions, feelings, impetuous transports and raptures; intoxicating vapours, and fumes of imagination; phantoms of a crazy brain, &c. all are ascribed, with an amazing presumption, to the extraordinary interposition of heaven setting its seal to their mission.”

Judge you now, Sir, whether I am one of those, of whom you are pleased to speak thus, page 49. “In short, whatever they think, say, or do, is from GOD; and whatever opposeth, and stands in their way, is from the Devil.” No, Sir, my mistakes have been too many, and my blunders too frequent, to make me set up for infallibility. I came soon into the world; I have carried high sail, whilst running through a whole torrent of popularity and contempt; and, by this means, have sometimes been in danger of oversetting. But many and frequent as my mistakes have been, or may be, as I have no part to act, if I know any thing of my heart, but to promote GOD’s glory, and the good of souls, as soon as I am made sensible of them, they shall be publicly acknowledged and retracted.

At the same time, I should lie against reason, scripture, and above fourteen years experience, if I denied, that GOD has been pleased, from time to time, to vouchsafe me _comfortable assistance_ and _supports_; or that a great and glorious work (if the _conversion of souls_ may be termed so) has been begun, and is now carrying on in these, and several other parts of the world, by the instrumentality of those whom you stile enthusiastical Methodists.

Indeed, the ingenious author of the “Considerations upon the conversion and apostleship of St. _Paul_,” speaking of the enthusiasm that appears not only in the lives of some enthusiastical heretics, but even some of the methodists now, ventures to say, that “all the divine communications, illuminations, and extacies to which they have pretended, evidently sprung from much self-conceit, working together with the vapours of melancholy upon a warm imagination.” That the mentioning these divine communications so freely to the world, might be mixed with some degrees of unobserved vanity, or want of caution, may be probable. But roundly to assert, that all their communications were _only pretended_, and sprung from no other sources but self-conceit, vapours of melancholy, and a warm imagination, is I think unbecoming so _young a convert_ as that author, is a blemish to his performance, and a mistake which, I trust, he himself will be happily convinced of, when he comes to experience more of the power of that Redeemer’s resurrection, which the Apostle, of whose conversion he in the main so excellently treats, longed so much to know.

Without running such lengths in judging others, or needlessly fearing to be accounted enthusiasts or methodists ourselves; when writing in defence of christianity, I think we may rationally allow, that there may be much light and assistance given from GOD, though at the same time something of our own imaginations may possibly be blended with it.

This I take to be true with respect to the Methodists. That imagination has mixed itself with the work, cannot be denied; and is no more than what must necessarily be expected; for whoever saw fire without some smoke? but that the work itself is of GOD; and as good Bishop _Latimer_ said, when the papists laid a lighted faggot at Dr. _Ridley_’s feet, so we may venture to affirm, “a candle is lighted in _England_ (through the instrumentality of the Methodists,) which will not easily be put out.”