would make me do, by quoting only that scrap, “I cite you all before
the Judge of all the earth!” You then add, with equal charity and
sincerity, “Here you have the _true spirit of an enthusiast_, flushed
with a _modest_ assurance of his own _salvation_, and the _charitable_
prospect of the _damnation_ of others.” O Sir, never name modesty more!
Here end your laboured attempts to shew the _uncharitable spirit_ of
the _Methodists_; who, for any thing you have shewn to the contrary,
may be the most charitable people under the sun.
30. You charge the _Methodists_ next ¹“with _violation and contempt of
order and authority_,” namely, the authority of the governors of the
church. I have answered every article of this charge, in the second and
third parts of the _Farther Appeal_, and the letter to Mr. _Church_.
When you have been so good as to reply to what is there advanced, I may
possibly say something more.
¹ Section 18, page 124.
What you offer of _your own_ upon this head, I shall consider without
delay.
“_Women and boys_ are actually employed in this ministry of _public
preaching_.” Please to tell me where? I know them not, nor ever heard
of them before.
You add, what is more marvellous still, “I speak from _personal
knowledge_, that sometimes, a little before delivering of the elements
at the communion, three or four _Methodists_ together will take it
into their heads to go away: that sometimes while the sentences of the
_offertory_ were reading, they have _called out_ to the minister who
carried the bason, _reproaching_ him for asking _alms of them_: that
sometimes when the minister has delivered the bread into their hands,
instead of _eating_ it they would flip it into their _pockets_.” Sir,
you must shew your face, before these stories will find credit on your
bare asseveration.
“Yet they are surprized, you say, that every man in his senses, don’t
without the least hesitation _join_ them.”
Sir, I am surprized (unless you are not in your senses) at your
advancing such a barefaced falshood.
31. You go on. “Under this head may not improperly be considered, their
undutiful behaviour to the _civil powers_.” What proof have you of
this? Why a single sentence, on which I laid so little stress myself,
that it is only inserted by way of parenthesis, in the body of another
sentence. “Ye learned in the law, what becomes of _Magna Charta_, and
of _English_ liberty and property? Are not these mere sounds, while on
any pretence, there is such a thing as a _press-gang_ suffered in the
land?”
Upon this you descant: “The legislature has at several times made acts
for pressing men. But no matter for this; touch but a _Methodist_, and
all may perish, rather than a soldier be prest.――――He who had before
bound himself, not to speak a tittle of worldly things, is now bawling
for liberty and property.”
(Very lively this!) But I hope, Sir, you do not offer it by way of
_argument_. You are not so unlearned in the law, as not to know, that
the legislature is out of the question. The legislature six years
ago did not appoint _press-gangs_, but legal officers, to press men.
Consequently this is no proof (and find another if you can) of our
_undutiful_ behaviour to the _civil powers_.
32. ¹“Another natural consequence (you say) of _Methodism_, is their
mutual _jealousies_ and _envyings_, their manifold _divisions_, _fierce
and rancorous quarrels_, and ♦accusations of one another.”
¹ 4 Journal, page 14.
♦ “accusation” replaced with “accusations” per Errata
I shall carefully attend whatever you produce on this head. And if you
prove this, I will grant you all the rest.
You first cite those words: “Musing on the things that were past, and
reflecting how many that came after me, were preferred before me, I
opened my testament on those words, _The Gentiles which followed not
after righteousness, have attained to righteousness; but Israel which
followed after the law of righteousness, have not attained to the law
of righteousness_.”
And how does this prove the manifold _divisions_ and _rancorous
quarrels_ of the Methodists?
Your second argument is, “Mr. ¹_Whitefield_ told me, he and I preached
two different gospels: (his meaning was, that he preached particular,
and I universal redemption) and therefore he would, not join with me,
but publicly preach against me.”
¹ Section 19, page 341, &c.
Well, Sir, here was doubtless a _division_ for a time; but no _fierce
and rancorous quarrel_ yet.
You say thirdly, “They write and publish against each other.” True; but
without any degree either of _fierceness_ or _rancor_.
You assert fourthly, “Mr. _Wesley_ in his sermon on _Free-Grace_,
opposes the other for the horrible blasphemies of his horrible
doctrine.”
Sir, away with your flourishes and write plain _English_. I opposed the
doctrine of predestination which he held. But without any degree either
of _rancor_ or _fierceness_. Still therefore you miss the mark.
You quote fifthly these words, “¹I spent an hour with Mr. _Stonehouse_.
O what πιθανολογία (persuasiveness of speech) is here! Surely all the
deceivableness of unrighteousness.” But there was no _fierceness_ or
_rancor_ on either side.
¹ 4 Journal, page 63.
The passage, a fragment of which you produce as a sixth argument,
stands thus. “¹A few of us had a long conference together. Mr. _C._
now told me plainly, he could not agree with me, because I did not
preach the truth, particularly with regard to election.” He did so; but
without any rancor. We had a long conference; but not a _fierce_ one.
¹ 4 Journal, page 77.
You seventhly observe, “What scurrility of language the _Moravians_
throw out against Mr. _Wesley_.” Perhaps so. But this will not prove,
that “the _Methodists_ quarrel with each other.”
“And how does he turn their own artillery upon them?” This is your
eighth argument. But if I do, this no more proves the “_mutual
quarrels_ of the _Methodists_,” than my turning your own artillery
upon _you_.
33. Having by these eight irrefragable arguments, clearly carried
the day, you raise your crest, and cry out, “is this _Methodism_”?
♦Ibid. page 59.
♦ Unmarked in text.
“_And reign such mortal feuds in heavenly minds?_”
Truly, Sir, you have not yet brought one single proof (and yet I dare
say, you have brought the very best you have) of any such feuds among
the _Methodists_, as may not be found among the most heavenly-minded
men on earth.
But you are resolved to pursue your victory, and so go on. “What are
we to think of these charges, of _Whitefield_ and _Wesley_ and the
_Moravians_, one against another?” The _Moravians_, Sir, are out of
the question; for they are no _Methodists_. And as to the rest, Mr.
_Whitefield_ charges Mr. _Wesley_ with holding universal redemption,
and I charge him with holding particular redemption. This is the
standing charge on either side. And now, Sir, what are we to think!
Why, that you have not proved one point of this charge against the
_Methodists_.
However you stumble on. “Are these things so? Are they true, or are
they not true? If not true, they are grievous _calumniators_; if true,
they are detestable _sectarists_. Whether true or false, the allegation
stands good, of their _fierce_ and _rancorous quarrels_, and mutual
_heinous accusations_.”
Sir, has your passion quite extinguished your reason? Have _fierceness_
and ♦_rancour_ left you no understanding? Otherwise how is it possible
you should run on at this senseless, shameless rate? These things
_are true_ which Mr. _Whitefield_ and _Wesley_ object to each
other. He holds the decrees; I do not. Yet this does not prove us
“detestable sectarists.” And whether these things are true or false,
your “allegation of our _fierce_ and _rancorous quarrels_, and mutual
_heinous accusations_” cannot stand good, without better proof than you
have yet produced.
♦ “racour” replaced with “rancour” per Errata
34. Yet with the utmost confidence, _quasi re bene gesta_, you proceed,
“And how stands the matter among their disciples? They are _all_
together by the ears, embroiled and broken with _unchristian quarrels
and confusions_.”
How do you prove this? Why thus. “Mr. _Wesley’s fourth journal_ is
mostly taken up, in enumerating their _wrath_, _dissentions_ and
_apostasies_.” No, Sir, not a tenth part of it: although it gives a
full and explicit account of the greatest dissentions which ever were
among them.
But to come to particulars. You first cite these words, “At _Oxford_
but a few who _had not forsaken them_.”
My words are. “_Monday, October 1, 1738_, I rode to _Oxford_, and found
a few who _had not yet forsaken the assembling themselves together_.”
This is your first proof, “that the _Methodists_ are _all_ together by
the ears.” Your second is its very twin-brother. “_Tuesday 2._ ¹I went
to many who once heard the word with joy; but _when the sun arose, they
withered away_.”
¹ 3 Journal, page 84.
Your third is this. ¹“Many were induced (by the _Moravians_) to deny
the gift of God, and affirm, they never had any faith at all.” You are
at liberty to enjoy this argument also: and let it prove what it can
prove.
¹ 3 Journal, page 85.
You fourthly cite these words. ¹“Many of our sisters are shaken,
grievously torn by reasonings. But few come to _Fetter-lane_, and then
after their names are called over they presently depart. Our brethren
here (those who were proselytes to the _Moravians_) have neither
wisdom enough to guide, nor prudence enough to let it alone. They (the
_Moravians_) have much confounded some of our sisters, and many of our
brothers are much grieved.”
¹ 4 Journal, page 8.
This proves thus much, that _one_ society was _at that time_ divided:
but not “that the _Methodists_ in general, were even _then, all_
together by the ears.”
The passage you quote, in the fifth place, is, ¹“I believe――――are
determined to go on according to Mr. _Molther_’s direction, and I
suppose (says the writer of the letter) above half our brethren are on
their side. But they are so very confused, they do not know how to go
on, and yet are unwilling to be taught, except by the _Moravians_.”
¹ 4 Journal, page 18.
Add to this, (I recite the whole passages in order; not as you had
mangled, and then jumbled them together:) “_Wednesday, December 19._
I came to _London_, though with a heavy heart. Here I found every day
the dreadful effects of our brethrens reasoning and disputing with each
other. Scarce one in ten retained his first love: and most of the rest
were in the utmost confusion” (they were so more or less, for several
months) “biting and devouring one another.”
This also proves so much, neither more nor less, that _some_ of the
_Methodists_ were then in confusion. And just so much is proved by
your sixth quotation. ¹“Many were wholly unsettled (by the _Moravians_,
taking advantage of my absence) and lost in vain reasonings and
doubtful disputations:――――Not likely to come to any true foundation.”
¹ 4 Journal, pages 21, 22.
Your seventh quotation (I recite the whole sentence) runs thus. “_April
19._ I received a letter――――informing me, that our poor brethren at
_Fetter-lane_, were again in great confusion.” This quotation proves
just as much as the preceding: or as the following. ¹The plague (of
false stillness) was now spread to them also――――namely to the “little
society at _Islington_.”
¹ 4 Journal, page 34.
Your ninth is this. “¹I went to the society, but I found their hearts
were quite estranged. _Friday 4._ I met a little handful of them, who
still stand in the old paths.”
¹ Ibid. page 36.
Thus far you have been speaking of the _Methodists_ in _London_. And
what have you proved concerning them? Only that the _Moravians_ mixing
with them _twelve years_ ago, while they were young and unexperienced,
set them a disputing with each other, and thereby occasioned much
confusion for _several months_. But you have not proved, That “the
_Methodists in general_, were even _then, all_ together by the ears”:
and much less, that they have been so _ever since_, and that they are
so _now_.
35. I now attend you to _Kingswood_. Not to “_Bristol_ and _Kingswood_,”
which you artfully join together. The society at _Bristol_ was no more
concerned with the disputes in _Kingswood_, than with those in _London_.
Here the first quotation, though containing but two lines, is extracted
from three different paragraphs; in one of which I say, ¹“I had many
unpleasing accounts (in _December, 1740_) concerning our little society
in _Kingswood_”: in the second, “I went to _Kingswood_, if haply I
might repair the breaches which had been made” (by the predestinarian
preachers:) in the third, “I laboured to heal the jealousies and
misunderstandings which had arisen.”
¹ 4 Journal, page 62.
The second passage, part of which you quote, is this: ¹“I returned
early in the morning to _Kingswood_. But my congregation was gone to
hear Mr. _C._ So that I had not above two or three men and as many
women.”
¹ Ibid. page 64.
The third is, ¹“_January 1._ I explained, _If any man be in Christ
he is a new creature_. But many of our brethren had no ears to hear,
having disputed away both their faith and love.”
¹ Ibid. page 65.
The fourth: ¹“_February 21._ I inquired concerning the divisions
and offences which began afresh to break out in _Kingswood_. In the
afternoon I met a few of the bands; but it was a cold, uncomfortable
meeting.”
¹ 4 Journal, page 70.
You have picked out here and there a word from several pages, in order
to furnish out a fifth quotation. The most material part of it is this:
_Saturday 28._ ¹I read the following paper at _Kingswood_; “For their
scoffing at the word and ministers of God, for their backbiting and
evil-speaking, I――――declare the persons above-mentioned, to be no
longer members of this society.”――――
¹ Ibid. page 73.
“And ¹we had great reason to bless God, that after fifty-two were
withdrawn, we had still upwards of ninety left.”
¹ Page 74.
Who those other “forty were that, you say, left them,” I know not.
Perhaps you may inform me.
Upon the whole, all these quotations prove only this: that about eleven
years ago, Mr. _C._ falling into predestination, set the society in
_Kingswood_ a disputing with each other, and occasioned much confusion
for some months. But still you have not gone one step toward proving
(which is the one point in question) “That the _Methodists_ in general
were even then, _all_ together by the ears;” and much less, “that they
have been so ever since, and that they _are_ so _now_.”
However you fail not to triumph (like _Louis le Grand_, after his
victory at _Blenheim_,) “What shall we say now? Are these the fruits of
_Methodism_?” No, Sir. They are the fruits of opposing it. They are the
tares sown among the wheat. You may hear of instances of the same kind,
both in earlier and later ages.
You add, “This is bad enough; but it is not the worst. For consider
what becomes of those that leave them?” Why, Sir, what if _their last
end be worse than their first_? Will you charge this upon _me_? By the
same rule you must have charged upon the apostles themselves, whatever
befel those who having _known the way of righteousness_, afterwards
_turned back from the holy commandment once delivered to them_.
36. You conclude this section, “Mr. _Wesley_ will probably say, ‘Must
I be answerable for the _Moravians_, against whom I have preached
and written?’ True, since he and the _Moravians_ quarrelled. But who
gives them a box on the ear with the one hand, and embraces them with
the other? Who first brought over this wicked generation? Who made a
_Moravian_ his spiritual guide? Who _fanaticised_ his own followers,
and deprived them of their senses? Whose societies (by his own
confession) run over in shoals to _Moravianism_, forty or fifty at a
time? Would they have split upon this rock, if they had not been first
_Methodists_? Lastly, Where is the spawn of _Moravianism_ so strongly
working, as in the children of _Methodism_?”
Sir, you run very fast. And yet I hope to overtake you by and by.
“Mr. _Wesley_, you say, has preached against the _Moravians_, since he
quarrelled with them.” Sir, I never quarrelled with their persons yet.
I did with some of their tenets long ago. He “gives them a box on the
ear with the one hand, and embraces them with the other.” That is, I
embrace what is good among them, and at the same time reprove what is
evil. “Who _first_ brought over this wicked generation?” Not I, whether
they be wicked or not. I once thought I did; but have since then seen
and acknowledged my mistake. “Who made a _Moravian_ his spiritual
guide?” Not I: though I have occasionally consulted several. “Who
_fanaticised_ his own followers, and deprived them of their senses?”
Not I. Prove it upon me if you can. “Whose societies (by his own
confession) run over in shoals to _Moravianism_, forty or fifty at a
time?” Truly not mine. Two and fifty of _Kingswood_ society ran over to
_Calvinism_, and a year before, part of _Fetter-lane_ society gradually
went over to the _Moravians_. But I know none of ours that went over
_in shoals_. They never, that I remember, gained five at a time: nor
fifty in all (to the best of my knowledge) for these last ten years.
“Would they (of _Fetter-lane_) have split on this rock, if they had not
first been _Methodists_.” Undoubtedly they would; for several of them
had not first been _Methodists_. Mr. _Viney_, for instance (as well as
several others) was with the _Germans_, before ever he saw me. “Lastly,
Where is the spawn of _Moravianism_ working so strongly as in the
children of _Methodism_?” If you mean the errors of _Moravianism_, they
are not working at all in the generality of the children of _Methodism_:
the _Methodists_ in general being thoroughly apprized of, and fully
guarded against them.
So much for your modest assertion, “That the _Methodists in general_,
are _all_ together by the ears:” the very reverse of which is true.
They are, _in general_, in perfect peace. They enjoy in themselves the
peace of God, which passeth all understanding. They are at peace with
each other. And as much as lieth in them, they live peaceably with all
men.
37. Your next charge is, That “Methodism ¹has a tendency to undermine
morality and good works.” To prove this you assert, “1. That the
_Methodists_ are trained up to wait _in quietness_ for sudden
conversion; whence they are naturally led, to neglect _the means of
salvation_.” This is a mistake all over. For neither are they taught to
wait in _quietness_ (if you mean any more than patience by that term)
for either sudden or gradual conversion: neither do they, in fact,
neglect _the means_. So far from it, that they are eminently exact in
the use of them.
¹ Section 20, page 146, &c.
You assert, 2. “The doctrine of _assurance of pardon and salvation_,
present and future, causes a false security, to the neglect of future
endeavours.” Blunder upon blunder again. That all Christians have an
assurance of _future salvation_ is no _Methodist_ doctrine: and an
assurance of present _pardon_, is so far from causing negligence, that
it is of all others the strongest motive to vigorous endeavours after
universal holiness.
You assert, 3. “_Impulses_ and _impressions_, being made the _rule
of duty_, will lead into dangerous errors.” Very true. But the
_Methodists_ do not make _impulses and impressions_ the _rule of duty_.
They totally disclaim any other rule of duty, than the written word.
You assert 4. “A claim of unsinning perfection,” (I mean by perfection,
the loving God with all our heart) “drives some into phrensies, others
into despair.” Sir, I doubt the fact.
You assert 5. “The _Moravian Methodists_ trample down morality, and
multitudes of the _Wesleyans_ have been infected.” The _Moravian
Methodists_! You may as will say the _Presbyterian Papists_. The
_Moravians_ have no connexion with the _Methodists_. Therefore whatever
they do (though you slander them too) they and not we are to answer for.
The _Methodists_ at present, blessed be God, are as little infected
with this plague (of condemning or neglecting good works) as any body
of people in _England_ or _Ireland_.
38. From these loose assertions you proceed to quotations from my
writings, every one of which I shall consider, to shew that not in
one or two, but in every one you are a wilful prevaricator and false
accuser of your neighbour.
You say first, “the _Moravians_.”――――Hold, good Sir! You are out of
the way already. You well know, the _Moravians_ are to answer for
themselves. Our present question concerns the _Methodists_ only.
You say secondly, “A ¹general temptation prevails among _the societies
of Methodists_, of leaving off good works.” Sir, you are wrong again.
_The societies of Methodists_ are not there spoken of: but the _single
society_ of _Fetter-lane_. Among these only that temptation _then_
prevailed.
¹ 4 Journal, page 39.
You quote thirdly, as my words, “The poor confused, shattered society,
_had erred_ from the faith.” My own words are, ¹“I told the poor,
confused, shattered society, _wherein they had erred_ from the faith:”
Namely, with regard to the ordinances: nor in general, as your way of
expressing it naturally imports. Nor had _all_ the society erred even
in this point. Many of them were still unshaken.
¹ 4 Journal, page 39.
You quote fourthly, “A woman of _Deptford_ spoke great words and true.
She ordered Mr. _Humphreys_ to leave off doing good.”
Must not every reader suppose, as you have placed these words, that
they were all spoke at one time? And that “the great words and true”
were those, whereby she “ordered Mr. _Humphreys_ to leave off doing
good?”
What then must every honest man think of you, when he observes, that
one half of the sentence (which you thus artfully put together) stands
in another page, and at a considerable distance from the other? And
that I immediately subjoin to the latter clause, “we talked largely
with her, and she was humbled to the dust, under a deep sense of the
advantage Satan had gained over her.”
You quote fifthly, a part of the following sentence, to prove that I
“undermine morality and good works.”
“His judgment concerning holiness is new. He no longer judges it to be
an outward thing, to consist either in doing no harm, in doing good, or
in using the ordinances of God.” (And yet how strongly do I insist upon
all these? Sir, do not you know this?) “He sees, it is the life of God
in the soul, the image of God fresh stampt on the heart.” It is so. Sir,
can you deny it? What then will you prove by this?
You quote sixthly, part of these words:
“They ¹speak of holiness, as if it consisted, chiefly if not wholly,
in these two points, first the doing no harm, secondly the doing good
(as it is called) _i. e._ the using the means of grace, and helping our
neighbour.”
¹ 4 Journal, page 82.
And this you term “disparaging good works!” Sir, these things,
considered barely as to the _opus operatum_, are not good works. There
must be something good in the heart, before any of our works are good.
Insomuch that, _though I give all my goods to feed the poor, and have
not_ this, _it profiteth me nothing_.
You observe, by the way, “the _mystic divinity_ was once the
_Methodists doctrine_.” Sir, you have stepped out of the way, only
to get another fall. The _mystic divinity_ was never the _Methodists
doctrine_. They could never swallow either _John Tauler_ or _Jacob
Behme_: although they often advised with one that did.
39. You say seventhly, “I do not find, that Mr. _Wesley_ has ever cited
those express passages of St. _James_.” Sir, what if I had not? (I mean,
in print) I do not cite every text from _Genesis_ to the _Revelation_.
But it happens I have. Look again, Sir; and by and by you may find
where.
You say eighthly, Mr. _Wesley_ affirms, that the condition of our
justification, is faith alone and not good works.” Most certainly
I do. And I learnt it from the 11th and 12th _article_, and from the
_homilies_ of our church. If you can confute them do. But I subscribe
to them, both with my hand and heart.