wandered many years, in the new path of salvation by faith and works,
which was the time too of their highest _glory and popularity_.
During this time, they were _seducing their disciples into_ the most
destructive errors.” Excuse me, Sir. While they preached salvation
by faith and works, they had no disciples at all; (unless you term
a few pupils such) nor had they any _popularity_ at all. They then
enjoyed (what they always desired) a quiet, retired life. But whatever
disciples we had, they were not _seduced by us, into_ the error of
justification by works. For they were in it, before ever they saw our
face, or knew there were such men in the world.
You say tenthly, “Mr. _Wesley_ only contends, that it is _possible_, to
_use_ them without _trusting_ in them.” Not in that page; ¹because the
proposition I am confuting is, “’Tis _not possible to use_ them without
_trusting_ in them.”
¹ 4 Journal, page 20.
You added, “And now, are not such disparaging expressions, (a _mere
possibility of using_ them, without _trusting_ in them) a great
discouragement to practice?”
O Sir, when will you deviate into truth? Dare you affirm, without
any regard to God or man, “Mr. _Wesley_ only contends for a _mere
possibility_ of _using_ the means, without trusting in them?”
To go no farther than the very first ¹page you refer to: my express
words are these.
¹ 3 Journal, pages 78, 79.
“I believe the way to attain faith is, to wait for Christ, in using all
the means of grace.”
“Because I believe, these do ordinarily convey God’s grace (even) to
unbelievers.” Is this “contending only for a _mere possibility_ of
_using_ them without _trusting_ in them?”
Not only in this, and many other parts of the journals, but in a sermon
wrote professedly on the subject, I contend, that all the ordinances
of God are the stated channels of his grace to man; and that it is
our bounden duty to use them all, at all possible opportunities. So
that to charge the _Methodists_ in general, or me in particular, with
undervaluing or disparaging them, shews just as much regard for justice
and truth, as if you was to charge us with _Mahometanism_.
40. Tedious as it is to wade through so many dirty pages, I will
follow you, step by step, a little farther. Your eleventh proof that
we “undermine morality and good works,” is drawn from the following
passage.
¹“I know every one _under the law_ is even as I was, for near twice ten
years. Every one when he begins to see his fallen state, and to feel
the wrath of God abiding on him, relapses into the sin that most easily
besets him, _soon after_ repenting of it. Sometimes he avoids, and at
many other times he cannot persuade himself to _avoid_ the _occasions_
of it. Hence his relapses are _frequent_, and of consequence his _heart
is hardened_ more and more. Nor can he, with all his _sincerity_, avoid
any one of these four marks of _hypocrisy_, till _being justified by
faith_, he _hath peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ_.”
¹ 3 Journal, pages 78, 79.
You, Sir, are no competent judge in the cause. But to any who has
experienced what St. _Paul_ speaks in his _seventh chapter_ to the
_Romans_, I willingly submit this whole question. _You_ know by
experience, that if anger was the sin that did so easily beset you, you
relapsed into it (for days, or months, or years) _soon after_ repenting
of it. Sometimes you _avoided the occasions_ of it: at other times
you did not. Hence your relapses were _frequent_, and your heart was
_hardened_ more and more. And yet all this time you was _sincerely_
striving against sin, you could say, without _hypocrisy_, _the thing
which I do, I allow not; the evil which I would not, that I do. To will
is even now present with me; but how to perform that which is good, I
find not._
But the _Jesuits_, you think, “could scarce have granted salvation
upon easier terms. Have no fear, ye Methodists.” Sir, I do not grant
salvation (as you call it) upon so easy terms. I believe a man in
this state, is in a state of damnation. “Have no fear!” Say you? Yea,
but those who are thus _under the law_, are in fear all the day long.
“Was there ever so pleasing a scheme?” Pleasing with a vengeance! As
pleasing as to be in the belly of hell. So totally do you mistake the
whole matter, _not knowing what_ you _speak, nor whereof_ you _affirm_.
You are indeed somewhat pitiable in speaking wrong on this head,
because you do it in ignorance. But this plea cannot be allowed, when
you gravely advance that trite, threadbare objection concerning the
Lord’s supper, without taking any notice, that I have answered it again
and again, both to Mr. _Church_ and to the late Lord bishop of _London_.
41. Your thirteenth proof is this: “Mr. _Wesley_ has taught us, that
_infirmities are no sins_.” Sir, you have taught me to wonder at
nothing you assert; else I should wonder at this. The words, I suppose
you refer to, stand, in _The sermon on salvation by ¹faith_; (though
you do not chuse, for a plain reason, to shew your reader where they
may be found.) “He that is by faith born of God sinneth not; 1. By any
habitual sin, nor 2. By any wilful sin; nor 3. By any sinful desire;
for he continually desireth the holy and perfect will of God; nor 4.
Doth he sin by infirmities, whether in act, word or thought. For his
infirmities have no concurrence of his will, and without this, they are
not properly sins.” And this you seriously declare, “is a loop-hole to
creep out of every moral and religious obligation!”
¹ 2 Journal, page 9.
In the same paragraph you say, I have strongly affirmed, that “all
¹our works and tempers are evil continually: that our ²whole heart is
altogether corrupt and abominable, and consequently our whole life; all
our ³works, the most specious of them, our righteousness, our prayers,
needing an atonement themselves.”
² 1 Journal, page 69.
³ 2 Journal, page 23. 3 Journal, pages 10, 70.
I do strongly affirm this. But of whom? In all these places, but the
last, _of myself only_. In every one, but this, I speak in the singular
number, and of myself, when confessedly _an unbeliever_. And of whom do
I speak in that last place? Of _unbelievers_ and them only. The words
are, “All our tempers and works _in our natural state_ are only evil
continually.”
Now, Sir, where is _your_ loop-hole to creep out? If you have none, I
fear every impartial man will pass sentence upon you, that you have no
regard either to _moral_ or _religious obligations_.
I have now weighed every argument you have brought, to prove “that
the _Methodists undermine morality and good works_.” A grievous charge
indeed! But the more inexcusable is he, who advances it, but is not
able to make it good, in any one single instance. Pardon my pertness,
Sir, in not barely _affirming_ (that is _your_ manner) but _proving_
this: nay, and in telling you, that you cannot make amends to God, to
me, or to the world, without a ♦retractation as public as your calumny.
♦ “retraction” replaced with “retractation” per Errata
42. You add, “How the case stands in _fact_, as to the number of
converts among the _Methodists_, and _real reformation of life_ to
the _certain and known duties_ of the _gospel_, is matter of difficult
determination.” Not at all. What is easier to be determined, than
1. That _A. B._ of _Exeter_ or _Tiverton_, was for many years a
notorious drunkard, common-swearer, or sabbath-breaker? 2. That he is
not so now; that he is _really reformed_ from drunkenness, swearing,
sabbath-breaking, to sobriety, and the other _certain and known duties_
of the _gospel_!
“But from what inquiry you can make, there is no reason to think them,
for the generality, better than their neighbours.” Better than their
neighbours? Why are they no worse than their neighbours? Then what have
you been doing all this time? But whether they are better or worse than
their neighbours, they are undeniable better than themselves: I mean,
better than they were before they heard this preaching, in the _certain
and known duties_ of the gospel.
But you desire us to “consider their black art of calumny; their
uncharitableness; their excessive pride and vanity; their scepticism,
doubts and disbelief of God and Christ; their disorderly practices and
contempt of authority; their bitter envying and inveterate broils among
themselves; their coolness for good works.” Sir, we will consider all
these, when you have proved them. Till then, this is mere _brutum
fulmen_.
43. You ♦proceed. “If we take Mr. _Wesley_’s own account, it falls very
short of any _considerable reformation_.” You mean; if we take _that
part_ of his account, which you are pleased to transcribe. _Atticam
elegantiam_! But let any impartial man read my whole account, and then
judge.
♦ “proved” replaced with “proceed” per Errata
However hence you infer, that “the new reformers have made but a _slow
and slight progress_ in the reformation of manners.”
As a full answer to this, I need only transcribe a page or two from the
_last Appeal_, page 127, &c.
“God begins a glorious work in our land. You set yourself against it
with your might; to prevent its beginning where it does not yet appear,
and to destroy it wherever it does. In part you prevail. You keep many
from hearing the word that is able to save their souls. Others who
have heard it, you induce to turn back from God, and to list under the
devil’s banner again. Then you make the success of your own wickedness
an excuse for not acknowledging the work of God! You urge, ‘That not
_many_ sinners were reformed! And that _some_ of those are now as bad
as ever!’”
“Whose fault is this? Is it ours? Or your own? Why have not thousands
more been reformed? Yea, for every one who is now turned to God, why
are there not ten thousand? Because you and your associates laboured
so heartily in the cause of hell: because you and they spared no pains,
either to prevent or to destroy the work of God. By using all the power
and wisdom you had, you hindered thousands from hearing the gospel,
which they might have found to be the power of God unto salvation.
Their blood is upon your heads. By inventing or countenancing or
retailing lies, some refined, some gross and palpable, you hindered
others from profiting by what they did hear. _You_ are answerable to
God for these souls also. Many who began to taste the good word and run
the way of God’s commandments, by various methods you prevailed on to
hear it no more. So they soon drew back to perdition. But know, that
for every one of these also, God will require an account of _you_ in
the day of judgment!
“And yet in spite of all the malice and wisdom and strength, not only
of men, but of _principalities and powers_, of the _rulers of the
darkness of this world_, of the _wicked spirits in high places_; there
are thousands found, who are _turned from dumb idols to serve the
living and true God_. What a harvest then might we have seen before
now, if all who say they are _on the Lord’s side_, had come, as in all
reason they ought, _to the help of the Lord against the mighty_? Yea,
had they only _not opposed_ the work of God, had they only _refrained
from_ his messengers, might not the trumpet of God have been heard long
since, in every corner of our land? And ♦what thousands of sinners in
every county, been brought to _fear God and honour the king_?”
♦ added word “what” per Errata
44. ¹Without any regard to this, your next assertion is, That the
Methodists are “carrying on the work of popery.” This also being a
charge of a very high nature, I shall particularly consider whatever
you advance in defence of it.
¹ Section 21, page 164, &c.
Your first argument is, “they have a strain of Jesuitical sophistry,
artifice and craft, evasion, reserve, equivocation and prevarication.”
So you _say_. But you do not so much as aim at any proof.
Your second argument is, “Mr. _Wesley_ says, where a Methodist was
receiving the sacrament, God was pleased to let him see a crucified
Saviour.” Sir, Mr. _W._ does not say this. It is one that occasionally
wrote to him. But if he had, what would you infer? That he is a papist?
Where is the consequence? Why, you say, “was not this as good an
argument for transubstantiation, as several produced by the papists?”
Yes, exactly as good as either their arguments or yours. That is, just
good for nothing.
Your third argument runs thus, “We may see in Mr. _W._’s writings
that he was once a _strict church-man_, but gradually put on a more
_catholic spirit_, tending at length to _Roman catholic_. He rejects
any design to convert others from _any communion_; and consequently
_not from popery_.”
This is half true (which is something uncommon with you) and only half
false. It is true, that for thirty years last past, I have “gradually
put on a more _catholic spirit_,” finding more and more tenderness for
those who differed from me, either in _opinions_ or _modes of worship_.
But it is not true, That I “reject any design of converting others
_from any communion_.” I have by the blessing of God, converted several
from _popery_, who are now alive and ready to testify it.
Your fourth argument is, That in a collection of prayers, I cite the
words of an ancient liturgy, “for the faithful departed.” Sir, whenever
I use those words in the burial service, I pray to the same effect.
“That we, with all those who are departed in thy faith and fear, may
have our perfect consummation of bliss, both in body and soul.” Yea,
and whenever I say, _Thy kingdom come_; for I mean both the kingdom
of grace and glory. In this kind of general prayer therefore, for the
faithful departed, I conceive myself to be clearly justified, both by
the earliest antiquity, by the church of _England_, and by the Lord’s
prayer: although the _Papists_ have corrupted this scriptural practice,
into praying for those who die in their sins.
45. Your fifth argument is, “That they use _private confession_, in
which every one is to speak the state of his heart, with his several
temptations and deliverances, and answer as many searching questions
as may be. And what scene, say you, is hereby disclosed? What a filthy
jakes opened, when the most searching questions are answered without
reserve?” Hold, Sir, unless you are answering for yourself. This
undoubtedly you have a right to do. You can tell best, what is in your
own heart. And I cannot deny what you say; it may be a very filthy
jakes, for ought I know. But pray do not measure others by yourself.
The hearts of believers _are purified through faith_. When these open
their hearts one to another, there is no such scene disclosed. Yet
temptations to pride in various kinds, to self-will, to unbelief in
many instances, they often feel in themselves (whether they give any
place to them or no) and occasionally disclose to their brethren.
But this has no resemblance to _Popish confession_; of which you are
very sensible. For you cite my own words: “The Popish confession is,
the confession made by a single person to a priest. Whereas this is,
the confession of several persons conjointly, not to a priest, but to
each other.” You add, “Will Mr. _W._ abide by this, and freely answer
a question?” I will. For I desire only _by manifestation of the truth,
to commend myself to every man’s conscience, in the sight of God_.
Your question is, “After private confessions taken in their bands, are
not _reports_ made to Mr. _W._?” I answer, no: No _reports_ are made to
me, of the particulars mentioned in private bands. “Are no delinquents,
male and female, _brought before him separately, and confessed_ by
him?” No: none at all. You ask, “How then do I know the outward and
inward states of those under my care?” I answer, by examining them once
a quarter, more or less, not separately, but ten or fifteen together.
Therefore every unprejudiced person must see that there is no analogy
between the Popish confession to a priest, and our _confessing our
faults one to another, and praying one for another_, as St. _James_
directs. Consequently neither does this argument, though urged with
all your art and force, amount to any shadow of proof, that “the
_Methodists_ are carrying on the work of popery.”
46. Your sixth argument, such as it is, stands thus. “Another tendency
to _Popery_ appears, by the notion of _a single drop of Christ’s blood
being a sufficient atonement for the sins of the whole world_. For
however pious this may appear, it is absolutely false and papistical.”
Sir, this argument is perfectly new, and intirely your own. It were
great pity to disturb you in the enjoyment of it.
A seventh argument you ground on those words in the _Plain account
of the people called_ Methodists, “’Tis a point we chiefly insist
upon, that _orthodoxy_ or right opinions, is _a very slender part_ of
religion, if _any part of it at all_.” “The plain consequence whereof
is (so you affirm) that teaching and believing the fundamental errors
of popery, with the whole train of their abominations and idolatries,
are of very little moment, if any.” Strain again, Sir: pull hard; or
you will never be able to drag this conclusion out of these premises.
I assert, “1. That in a truly religious man, right opinions _are a very
slender part_ of religion. 2. That in an irreligious, a profane man,
they are not _any part of religion at all_: such a man not being one
jot more religious, because he is _orthodox_.” Sir, it does not follow
from either of these propositions, that _wrong opinions_ are not an
hindrance to religion: and much less, that “teaching and believing
the fundamental errors of popery, _with the whole train of their
abominations and idolatries_ (practised, I presume you mean, as well
as taught and believed) are of very little moment, if any.”
I am so far from saying or thinking this, that in my printed letter
to a priest of that communion (did you never read it, or hear of it
before?) are these express words, “I pity you much, having the same
assurance, that Jesus is the Christ, and that no _Romanist_ can expect
to be saved, according to the terms of his covenant.” 3d _journal_ page
77. Do you term this “An extenuation of their abominations? A reducing
them to almost a ♦mere nothing.”
♦ “meer” replaced with “mere”
47. You argue, eighthly, thus; “The _Methodist_ doctrine of impressions
and assurances, holds equally for popish _enthusiasts_.” This needs no
answer; I have already shewn, that the _Methodist_ doctrine in these
respects is both scriptural and rational.
Your ninth argument is, “Their sudden conversions stand upon the same
footing with the _popish_.” You should say, “Are a proof that they are
promoting _popery_.” I leave you to enjoy this ♦argument also.
♦ “argment” replaced with “argument” per Errata
But the dreadful one you reserve for the last, namely, our
“recommending popish books. One is the life of Mr. _de Renty_, of which
Mr. _Wesley_ has published _an extract_.” To prove your inimitable
fairness here, you scrape up again all the trash, wherein the weak
writer of that life abounds, and which I had pared off and thrown away.
Sir, could you find nothing to your purpose in the _extract_ itself? I
fancy you might; for I have purposely left in two or three particulars,
to shew of what communion he was, which I did not think it right to
conceal.
You go on. “_Francis_ of _Sales_ is another papist, much commended
by Mr. _W._; and who he doubts not is in _Abraham_’s bosom. He is the
_Methodist_’s bosom friend.”
I believe he is in _Abraham_’s bosom. But he is no bosom friend of the
_Methodists_. I question whether one in five hundred of them, ♦has so
much as heard his name. And as for me, neither do I “commend him much,
nor recommend” him at all. His life I never saw, nor any of his works,
but his “Introduction to a Holy Life.” This the late Dr. _Nichols_
translated into _English_, published and strongly _recommended_.
Therefore if this be a proof of promoting popery, that censure falls
not on me but him.
♦ “have” replaced with “has” per Errata
I have now considered all the arguments you have brought to prove,
“That the _Methodists_ are carrying on the work of popery.” And I am
persuaded, every candid man, who rightly weighs what has been said,
with any degree of attention, will clearly see not only, that no one
of those arguments is of any real force at all, but that you do not
believe yourself; you do not believe the conclusion, which you _make as
if_ you would prove. Only you keep close to your laudable resolution,
of throwing as much dirt as possible.
48. It remains only to gather up some of your fragments, as still
further proofs of your integrity.
You graciously say, “I do not lay much stress upon the charge of some
of the angry _Moravians_, against Mr. _W._ and brother, for preaching
popery.” Sir, if you had, you would only have hurt yourself. For 1.
The _Moravians_ never, that I know of, brought this charge at all. 2.
When Mr. _C._ and two other predestinarians (these were the persons)
affirmed “they had heard both my brother and me preach _popery_:” they
meant neither more nor less thereby, than the doctrine of universal
redemption.
“Some connection between the doctrines of the _Methodists_ and
_Papists_, hath been shewn through this whole comparison.” Shewn! But
how? By the same art of wiredrawing and decyphering, which would prove
an equal connection between the _Methodists_ and _Mahometans_.
“_Jesuits_ have often mingled, and been the ringleaders among our
_enthusiastic sectaries_.” Sir, I am greatly obliged to you for your
compliment, as well as for your parallel of Mr. _Faithful Commin_.
And pray, Sir, at what time do you think it was, that I first _mingled
with those enthusiastic sectaries_? When I came back from _Germany_?
Or when I returned from _Georgia_? Or while I was at _Lincoln-College_?
――――Although the plot itself might be laid before, when I was at
_Christ-Church_, or at the _Charter-house_ school.
But “a _Jesuit_’s or enthusiast’s declaring against _popery_, is
no test of their sincerity.” Most sure; nor is a nameless person’s
declaring against _Methodism_, any proof that he is not a _Jesuit_.
I remember well, when a well-dressed man, taking his stand not far
from _Moorfields_, had gathered a large company, and was vehemently
asserting, That “those rogues the _Methodists_ were all _Papists_:”
till a gentleman coming by, fixed his eye on him and cried, “Stop that
man: I know him personally: he is a _Romish priest_.”
I know not that any thing remains on this head, which bears so much as
the face of an argument. So that of all the charges you have brought
(and truly you have not been sparing) there is not one wherein your
proof falls more miserably short, than in this, That “the _Methodists_
are advancing _popery_.”
49. I have at length gone through your whole performance, weighed
whatever you cite from my writings, and shewn at large how far
those passages are from proving all, or any part of your charge. So
that all you attempt to build on them, ¹“of the pride and vanity of
the _Methodists_; of their ²shuffling and prevaricating, of their
³affectation of prophesying, ⁴laying claim to the miraculous favours
of heaven, unsteadiness ⁵of temper, ⁶unsteadiness in sentiment and
practice, ⁷art and cunning, ⁸giving up inspiration and extraordinary
calls, ⁹scepticism, infidelity, atheism, ¹⁰uncharitableness to their
opponents, ¹¹contempt of order and authority, ¹²and fierce, rancorous
quarrels with each other, ¹³of the tendency of _Methodism_ to undermine
morality and good works, and to ¹⁴carry on the good work of _popery_:”
all this fabric falls to the ground at once, unless you can find some
better foundation to support it.
¹ Section 3.
² Section 4.
³ Section 5.
⁴ Section 6.
⁵ Section 9.
⁶ Section 11.
⁷ Section 12.
⁸ Section 13.
⁹ Section 14.
¹⁰ Section 15, &c.
¹¹ Section 18.
¹² Section 19, &c.
¹³ Section 20.
¹⁴ Section 21.