Chapter VIII: Part 8

3. Let the eight pages you _borrow_, stand as they are. I presume they will do neither good nor harm. In the tenth you say, _The_ Methodists _act on the same plan with the_ Papists――――_not perhaps from compact and design; but a similar configuration and texture of brain, or the fumes of imagination producing similar effects. From a commiseration of horror, arising from the grievous corruptions of the world, perhaps from a real motive of sincere piety, they both set out with warm pretences to a reformation._ Sir, this is an uncommon thought! That sincere piety should arise from the _configuration and texture of the brain_! As well as, that _pretences_ to a reformation should spring from a _real motive_ of _sincere piety_!

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

¹ Enthusiasm, &c. page 11.

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

¹ Page 15.

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

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

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

¹ Page 15.

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

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

¹ Pages 18, 19.

Sir, You miss the mark again. If this _sanctified appearance_ was _put on_ to _draw followers_, if it was for _this reason_, (as you flatly affirm it was) that _Mr._ Wesley _made and renewed that noble resolution_: (it was made eleven or twelve years before, about the time of my removal to _Lincoln-College_) then it can be no instance of _enthusiasm_, and so does not fall within the design of your present work.――――Unless your title page does not belong to your book: for that confines you to the _enthusiasm_ of the _Methodists_.

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

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

¹ Page 19.

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

¹ Page 21.

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

¹ Page 26.

12. Hitherto you have succeeded extremely ill. You have brought five accusations against me: and have not been able to make one good. However, you are resolved to throw dirt enough, that some may stick. So you are next to prove upon me, ¹_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 the _designing, loving and praying for ill usage, persecution, martyrdom, death and hell_.

¹ Page 27.

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

¹ Page 31.

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

¹ Page 32.

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

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

¹ Page 31.

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

¹ Page 32.

Therefore you need not be so ¹_sure that the apostle condemns that_ ἀφειδία σώματος, _not sparing the body, as useless and superstitious, and that it_ is _a false shew of humility. Humility_ is entirely out of the question, as well as _chastity_; in the case of hardships endured (but not properly chosen) out of _love_ to the souls for which Christ died.

¹ Page 33.

15. You add a _word or two_ of my _ardent desire of going to hell_, which you think, I ¹_adopted from the Jesuit_ Nieremberg. Sir, I know not the man. I am wholly a stranger both to his person and to his doctrine. But if this is his doctrine, I disclaim it from my heart. I ardently desire, that both you and I may go to heaven.

¹ Page 34.

But _Mr._ Wesley _says_, “¹_A poor old man decided the question of disinterested love.――――He said, I do not care what place I am in. Let_ God _put me where he will, or do with me what he will, so I may set forth his honour and glory._”

¹ Page 35.

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

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

“Doom if thou canst to endless pain,
Or drive me from thy face;”

God’s _power or justice_, you say, _must be intended; because he speaks of God’s love in the very next lines_,

“But if thy stronger love constrains,
Let me be sav’d by grace.”

¹ Page 36.

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

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

17. Part of your thirty-ninth page runs thus: _with respect to all this patient enduring hardships_, &c. _it has been remarked by_ learned _authors_, “_That some persons by_ constitutional temper, _have been fond of bearing the worst that could befall them: that others from_ a sturdy humour, _and the force of_ education, _have made light of the most exquisite tortures: that when_ enthusiasm _comes in, in aid of this natural ♦or acquired_ sturdiness, _and men fancy they are upon_ God’s work, _and intituled to his_ rewards, _they are immediately all on fire, for rushing into sufferings and pain_.”

♦ added the word “or” per Errata

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

_Quorsum hæc tam putida tendunt?_

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

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

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

¹ Page 40.

But what _advantage_ do _they take care to secure_? A good salary? A handsome fortune? No; quite another matter: ¹_free communications with_ God, and _fuller manifestations of his goodness_. I dare say, you do not envy them: no more than you do those _self-interested enthusiasts_ of old, who _were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection_.

¹ Ibid.

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

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

¹ Page 40.

² Page 41.

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

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

¹ Page 42.

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

¹ Page 43.

Of ¹_Christian perfection_ I shall not say any thing to _you_, till you have learned a little Heathen honesty.

¹ Page 45.

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

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

¹ Page 49.

23. With your two following pages, I have nothing to do. But in the 52d, I read as follows. _A Methodist, says Mr._ Wesley, _went to receive the sacrament――――when_ God _was pleased to let him see a crucified Saviour_. Very well; and what is this brought to prove? Why, 1. That I am an enthusiast: 2. That _I encourage the notion of the real, ♦corporal presence, in the sacrifice of the mass_. How so? Why ¹_this is as good an argument for transubstantiation, as several produced by Bellarmin_. Very likely it may; and as good as several produced by you, for the enthusiasm of the _Methodists_.

♦ “corporeal” replaced with “corporal” per Errata

¹ Page 57.

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

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

¹ Page 61.

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

¹ Page 67.

“However, it was by a _special direction_.” For your own words in the same paragraph are, ¹_From the direction I received from_ God _this day, touching an affair of the greatest importance_.

¹ Pages 68, 99.

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

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

You add, ¹_Let me mention a few directions coming by way of command ――――Mr._ Wesley _says_, “_I came to Mr._ Delamotte_’s, where I expected a cool reception. But_ God _had prepared the way before me_.” What by a command to Mr. _Delamotte_? Who told you so? Not I: nor any one else: only your own fruitful imagination.

¹ Page 69.

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

¹ Page 69.

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

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

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

¹ Page 71.

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

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

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

¹ Page 77.

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

¹ Page 79.

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

¹ Page 79.

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

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

¹ Page 80.

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

But many sinners are saved from their sins at this day, in _London_, in _Bristol_, in _Kingswood_, in _Cornwall_: in _Newcastle-upon-Tyne_, in _Whitehaven_, in many other parts of _England_: in _Wales_, in _Ireland_, in _Scotland_: upon the continent of _Europe_: in _Asia_, and in _America_. This I term _a great work of_ God; so great, as I have not read of for several ages.

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

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

¹ Page 81.

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

_Your friend and well-wisher_,
JOHN WESLEY.

_Canterbury_,
February 1, 1749‒50.

POSTSCRIPT.

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

A SECOND
LETTER

To the AUTHOR of the
_Enthusiasm_ of _Methodists_ and _Papists_ compared.

_Ecce iterum Chrispinus!_
JUVENAL.

To the Right Reverend the LORD BISHOP of EXETER.

_My Lord_,

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

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

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

♦ added word “I” per Errata

♠ “de” replaced with “be”

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

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

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

♦ “Γλυακύπικρον” replaced with “Γλυκύπικρον”

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

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

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

¹ Proverbs xxvi. 45.

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

¹ Third part, Preface, page 15.

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Second letter to Mr. Church, page 74.

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

_I remain_,
_Your lordship’s most Obedient servant_,
JOHN WESLEY.

_November 27, 1750._

* * * * *

_SIR_,

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

¹ Preface to the first part, page 3.

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Pages 1, 9.

3. You next undertake to prove ¹“the most insufferable _pride_ and _vanity_ of the _Methodists_.” For this end you quote five passages from my _journals_, and one from the _Third Appeal_.

¹ Section 3, page 12, &c.

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

¹ 1 Journal, page 67, &c.

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

¹ Ibid. page 68, &c.

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

¹ 4 Journal, page 85.

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

¹ 4 Journal, page 96.

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

♦ “Archimede” replaced with “Archimedes” per Errata

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

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

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

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