The PRINCIPLES of a METHODIST Farther explained: (continued 2)

And yet I believe I yielded too much, and what might too much favour your assertion, that there is a great difference between particular providences and such extraordinary interpositions.​――Pray, Sir, shew me what this difference is. It is a subject that deserves your coolest thoughts​――I know no ground​――to hope or pray for such immediate reliefs.​――These things must be represented either as common accidents or as miracles. I do not throughly understand your terms. What is a common accident? That a sparrow falls to the ground? Or something more inconsiderable than the hairs of your head? Is there no medium between accident and miracle? If there be, what is that medium?​――When we are agreed with regard to these few points, I shall be glad to resume the subject.

6. The fourth instance of my enthusiasm was this, that I related judgments inflicted on my opposers. As to Mr. Molther, I must observe once more, that I do believe there was a particular providence in his sickness. But I do not believe, (nor did I design to insinuate) that it was a judgment, for opposing me.

You go on. Again, you mention “as an awful providence, the case of a poor wretch who was last week cursing and blaspheming, and had boasted to many, that he would come again on Sunday, and no man should stop his mouth then​――But on Friday God laid his hand upon him, and on Sunday he was buried.” (page 66.) I answered, “I look on this as a manifest judgment of God, on a hardened sinner, for his complicated wickedness”. (page 42.) You reply, page 133. Add, if you please, “His labouring with all his might to hinder the word of God.” Here therefore is a confest judgment, for his opposition to you.​――There is, for his thus opposing with curses and blasphemy. This was part of his complicated wickedness. Here then you think I plead guilty.​――Not of enthusiasm; till you prove, this was not “an awful providence.”

Again, “One was just going to beat his wife (which he frequently did) when God smote him in a moment, so that his hand dropped, and he fell down upon the ground, having no more strength than a new-born child.” Have we any warrant either from scripture, or the common dispensations of providence, to interpret misfortunes of this nature as judgments? page 67. I answered, “Can you, Sir, consider this, as one of the common dispensations of providence? Have you known a parallel one in your life? But it was never cited by me (as it is by you) as an immediate punishment on a man for opposing me”. page 42.​――You reply, As if what is not common, or what I have not known, must be a miraculous judgment.​――I believe it was, whether miraculous or no, a judgment mixed with mercy.

You now add to the rest the following instance: “One John Haydon, a man of a regular life and conversation, being informed, that people fell into strange fits at the societies, came to see and judge for himself. But he was still less satisfied than before; insomuch that he went about to his acquaintance one after another, and laboured above measure to convince them, it was a delusion of the devil. We were going home, when one met us in the street, and informed us, that J. H. was fallen raving mad. It seems he had sat down to dinner, but had a mind first to end the sermon on salvation by faith. In reading the last page he changed colour, fell off his chair, and began screaming terribly, and beating himself against the ground. The neighbours were alarmed, and flocked into the house. I came in and found him upon the floor, ♦the room being full of people, whom his wife would have kept without, but he cried aloud, No; let them all come; let all the world see the just judgment of God. Two or three men were holding him as well as they could. He immediately fixed his eyes upon me, and cried, Ay, this is he, who I said was a deceiver of the people. But God has overtaken me. I said, it was all a delusion. But this is no delusion. He then roared out, O thou devil! Thou cursed devil! Yea, thou legion of devils! Thou canst not stay! Christ will call thee out. I know his work is begun. Tear me to pieces if thou wilt, but thou canst not hurt me. He then beat himself against the ground again, his breast heaving at the same time, as in the pangs of death, and great drops of sweat trickling down his face. We all betook ourselves to prayer. His pangs ceased, and both his body and soul were set at liberty.” Journal 3. page 44.

If you had pleased, you might have added from the next paragraph, “Returning to J. H. we found his voice was lost, and his body weak as that of an infant. But his soul was in peace, full of love, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God.”

You subjoin, this you may desire for ought I know, to pass as a trifle too. (page 134.) No: it is so terrible an instance of the judgment of God, (tho’ at length mercy rejoiced over judgment) as ought never to be forgotten by those who fear God, so long as the sun or moon endureth.

7. The account of people falling down in fits you cite as a fifth instance of my enthusiasm: it being plain, you say, that I look upon both the disorders, and the removals of them to be supernatural. (page 67.) I answered, “It is not quite plain. I look upon some of these cases, as wholly natural: on the rest, as mixt: both the disorders and the removals, being partly natural and partly not.” (page 43.) You reply, It would have been kind, to have let us know your rule, by which you distinguish these.​――I will. I distinguish them, by the circumstances, that precede, accompany, and follow. However some of these you here allow, to be in part, supernatural. Miracles therefore are not wholly ceased. Can you prove they are? By scripture, or reason?​――You then refer to two or three cases related in the 42d and 43d pages of the third journal. I believe there was a supernatural power, on the minds of the persons there mentioned, which occasioned their bodies to be so affected by the natural laws of the vital union. This point therefore you have to prove, or here is no enthusiasm; that there was no supernatural power in the case.

Hereon you remarked, You leave no room to doubt that you would have these cases considered, as those of the demoniacks in the new Testament, in order, I suppose, to parallel your supposed cures of them, with those highest miracles of Christ and his disciples, the casting out devils​――(Remarks, page 68.) I answered, “I should once have wondered at your making such a supposition. But I now wonder at nothing of the kind.” You reply, Why so? What have I done lately, to take off your surprize? Have I forfeited my character for ingenuous and fair dealing with you? (2d Letter, page 135.) Since you ask me the question, I will answer it (I hope, in love and in the spirit of meekness.) I scarce know, of all who have wrote against me, a less ingenuous dealer: or one who has shewn a more steady, invariable disposition, to put an ill construction on whatever I say.

But why would you not particularly explain these cases?​――I will explain myself upon them once for all. For more than three hundred years after Christ, you know demoniacks were common in the church: and I suppose, ♦you are not unapprised, that during this period, ♠(if not much longer) they were continually relieved by the prayers of the faithful. Nor can I doubt, but demoniacks will remain, so long as Satan is the God of this world. I doubt not, but there are such at this day. And I believe John Haydon was one. But of whatever sort his disorder was, that it was removed by prayer is undeniable. Now, Sir, you have only two points to prove, and then your argument will be conclusive. 1. That to think or say, “There are demoniacks now, and they are now relieved by prayer,” is enthusiasm: 2. That to say “Demoniacks were or are relieved, on prayer made by Cyprian, or their parish-minister,” is to parallel the actions of Cyprian, or that minister, with the highest miracles of Christ and his disciples.”

8. You remarked, It will be difficult to persuade any sober person, that there is any thing supernatural in these disorders, Remarks, page 69. The remainder of that paragraph I abridged thus. You attempt to account for those fits, by obstructions or irregularities of the blood and spirits; hysterical disorders; watchings, fastings; closeness of rooms, great crouds, violent heat. And lastly by terrors, perplexities and doubts, in weak and well-meaning men; which you think in many of the cases before us, have quite overset their understandings, Remarks, page 43.

I answered, “As to each of the rest, let it go as far as it can go. [Let it be supposed to have some influence in some cases; perhaps, fully to account for one in a thousand.] But I require proof of the last way, whereby you would account for these disorders.”​――Why, the instances, you say, of religious madness have much increased, since you began to disturb the world.​――“I doubt the fact.”​――You reply, This no way disproves it, page 137.​――Yes it does, till you produce some proof. For a bare negation is the proper and sufficient answer to a bare affirmation. I add, “If these instances had increased daily, ’tis easy to account for them another way,” (as is done in the first part of the Farther Appeal, at the 101st and following pages.) You say, Most have heard of or known, several of the Methodists, thus driven to distraction: I answered, “You may have heard of five hundred. But how many have you known? Be pleased to name eight or ten of them. I cannot find them, no, not one of them to this day, either man, woman, or child,” page 44. You reply, “This (the naming them) would be very improper and unnecessary, page 138.” However, Sir, it is extremely necessary, that you should name them to me in private, I will then, if required, excuse you to the public; which till then I cannot do.

The person I mentioned whom you threw into much doubt and perplexity, then lived in the parish of St. Ann, Westminster. I related the case just as she related it to me. But she is able and ready to answer for herself.

9. You go on. It is the most charitable supposition we can make, that many of the cases you have mentioned in your journals, and some of which have been represented above, are of this kind, i. e. instances of madness,​――2d Letter, page 138. O tender charity! But cannot your charity reach one hair’s breadth farther than this?​――No: for otherwise [i. e. if those persons were not mad] the presumption and despair are terrible indeed.​――But what if you were to suppose John Haydon (to instance in one) was not mad, but under a temporary possession? And that others were deeply convinced of sin, and of the wrath of God abiding on them? I should think this supposition (be it true or false) was full as charitable as the other.

I said, “I cannot find one such instance to this day.” You reply, Yet once you could not but be under some “Concern, with regard to one or two persons, who seemed to be indeed lunatic, as well as sore vexed”.​――“So they seemed: but it soon appeared, they were not.” The very next paragraph mentions, that one of these within a few hours, was “filled with the spirit of love, and of a sound mind.” Journal 3. page 88.

But you are resolved, come what will, to carry this point: and so add, Toward the end of your Farther Appeal, [the first part, page 101.] You say, “You have seen one instance of real, lasting madness. This was one whom you took with you to Bristol, who was afterwards prejudiced against you, and began a vehement ♦invective both against your person and doctrines. In the midst of this he was struck raving mad.” Add, “And so he continued till his friends put him into Bedlam: and probably laid his madness to my charge.”​――If they did not, it is now done to their hands.

10. As to the cure of these fits, I observed (so you, page 139. proceed) that you had frequently represented them as miraculous, as the instantaneous consequences of your prayers.​――My former answer to this was, “I have set down the facts just as they were, passing no judgment upon them myself, and leaving every man else to judge as he pleases.”

I am glad you give me an occasion of reviewing this answer; for upon reflection, I do not like it at all. It grants you more than I can in conscience do. As it can be proved by abundance of witnesses, that these cures were frequently, (indeed almost always) the instantaneous consequences of prayer; your inference is just. I cannot, dare not affirm, that they were purely natural. I believe they were not. I believe many of them were wrought by the supernatural power of God. That of John Haydon in particular: (I fix on this, and will join issue with you upon it when you please) and yet this is not bare-faced enthusiasm. Nor can you prove it any enthusiasm at all, unless you can prove, that this is falsely ascribed to a supernatural power.

The next case, you say, relates to the spotted fever, which you represent as being extremely mortal; but​――you believe there was not one with whom you were but recovered. I allowed, that here is no intimation of any thing miraculous (Remarks page 72.) You ask, (Answer, page 45.) “Why then is this cited as an instance of my enthusiasm?”​――You sure cannot think, that false pretences to miracles are the whole of enthusiasm. No; but I think they are that part of enthusiasm, which you here undertook to prove upon me. You are here to prove, that I boast of curing bodily distempers by prayer, without the use of any other means. (Remarks, page 71.) But if there is no intimation in my account of any thing miraculous, or that proper remedies had not been applied: how is this a proof, that I boast of curing bodily distempers, without applying any remedies at all?

But you seem to desire to have it believed, that an extraordinary blessing attended your prayers. Whereas if the circumstances could be particularly inquired into, most probably it would appear, that either the fury of the distemper was abated, or the persons you visited were seized with it in a more favourable degree, or were by reason of a good constitution, more capable of going through it. Neither do I believe, that they would have failed of an equal blessing and success, had they had the assistance and prayers of their own parish ministers.

There, Sir; now I have done as you require: I have quoted your whole remark. But does all this prove, that I boast of curing bodily distempers by prayer, without the use of any other means? If you say, although it does not prove this, it proves that you seem to desire to have it believed, that an extraordinary blessing attended your prayers: and this is another sort of enthusiasm:​――’tis very well: so it does not prove the conclusion you designed; but it proves another, which is as good!

11. The two last instances of my enthusiasm which you bring (Remarks, 72, 73.) I had summed up in two lines thus: “At two several times, being ill and in violent pain, I prayed to God, and found immediate ease.” (Answer, page 45.) But since you say, I must not hope to escape so; these instances must once more be laid before me particularly, page 140. I must yield to necessity, and set them down from the beginning to the end.

“Saturday, March 21. I explained in the evening the 33d chapter of Ezekiel: in applying which, I was seized with such a pain in my side, I could not speak. I knew my remedy, and immediately kneeled down. In a moment the pain was gone.” Journal 4. page 77.

“Friday, May 8. I found myself much out of order, however I made shift to preach in the evening. But on Saturday my bodily strength failed, so that for several hours I could scarce lift up my head. Sunday 10. I was obliged to lie down most part of the day, being easy only in that posture.​――In the evening​――beside the pain in my back and head, and the fever which still continued upon me, just as I began to pray, I was seized with such a cough, that I could hardly speak. At the same time came strongly into my mind, These signs shall follow them that believe.​――I called on Jesus aloud, To increase my faith, and to confirm the word of his grace. While I was speaking, my pain vanished away, the fever left me, my bodily strength returned, and for many weeks I felt neither weakness nor pain. Unto thee, O Lord, do I give thanks.” Journal 4. page 83.

When you first cited these as proofs of enthusiasm, I answered, “I will put your argument into form.

“He that believes those are miraculous cures which are not so, is a rank enthusiast: but

“You believe those are miraculous cures which are not so, therefore, you are a rank enthusiast.”

――“What do you mean by miraculous? If you term every thing so, which is not strictly accountable for by the ordinary course of natural causes, then I deny the latter part of the minor proposition. And unless you can make this good, unless you can prove, the effects in question, are strictly accountable for by the ordinary course of natural causes, your argument is nothing worth.”

You reply, Your answer to the objection is very evasive, though you pretend to put my argument in form. You mistake the major proposition which should have been:

He that represents those cures as the immediate effects of his own prayers, and as miraculous, which are not so, is a rank enthusiast, if sincere:

But, This you have done: Ergo, &c.

To this clumsy syllogism I rejoin, 1. That the words, “if sincere,” are utterly impertinent: for if insincerity be supposed, enthusiasm will be out of the question. 2. That those words, “as the effects of his own prayers,” may likewise be pared off; for they are unnecessary and cumbersome, the argument being compleat without them. 3. That with or without them, the proposition is false; unless so far as it co-incides with that you reject. For it is the believing those to be miracles which are not, that constitutes an enthusiast: not the representing them one way or the other; unless so far as it implies such a belief.

12. Upon my answer to the syllogism first proposed, you observe, Thus (by denying the latter part of the minor) you clear yourself from the charge of enthusiasm, by acknowledging the cures to be supernatural and miraculous​――Why then would you not speak out, and directly say, that you can work real and undoubted miracles? This would put the controversy between you and your opposers on a short foot, and be an effectual proof of ♦the truth of your pretences, page 142.

V. 1. I have in some measure explained myself on the head of miracles, in the third part of the Farther Appeal. But ♦since you repeat the demand (tho’ without taking any notice of the arguments there advanced) I will endeavour once more to give you a distinct, full and determinate answer.

And first, I acknowledge, that I have seen with my eyes, and heard with my ears, several things, which, to the best of my judgment, cannot be accounted for by the ordinary course of natural causes, and which, I therefore believe ought to be ascribed to the extraordinary interposition of God. If any man chuse to stile these miracles, I reclaim not. I have diligently inquired into the facts. I have weighed the preceding and following circumstances. I have strove to account for them in a natural way. I could not, without doing violence to my reason. Not to go far back, I am clearly persuaded, that the hidden deliverance of John Haydon, was one instance of this kind, and my own recovery, on May the tenth, another. I cannot account for either of these in a natural way. Therefore I believe they were both supernatural.

* I must, secondly, observe, That the truth of these facts is supported by the same kind of proof, as that of all other facts is wont to be, namely, the testimony of competent witnesses: and that the testimony here is in as high a degree as any reasonable man can desire. Those witnesses were many in number: they could not be deceived themselves; for the facts in question they saw with their own eyes, and heard with their own ears. Nor is it credible, that so many of them would combine together, with a view of deceiving others; the greater part being men that feared God; as appeared by the general tenor of their lives. Thus, in the case of John Haydon, this thing was not contrived and executed in a corner, and in the presence of his own family only, or three or four persons prepared for the purpose. No; it was in an open street of the city of Bristol, at one or two in the afternoon. And the doors being all open from the beginning, not only many of the neighbours from every side, but several others, (indeed whosoever desired it) went in, till the house could contain no more. Nor yet does the account of my own illness and recovery depend, as you suppose, on my bare word. There were many witnesses both of my disorder on Friday and Saturday, and of my lying down most part of Sunday (a thing which they were well satisfied could not be the effect of a slight indisposition.) And all who saw me that evening, plainly discerned (what I could not wholly conceal) that I was in pain: about two hundred of whom were present when I was seized with that cough, which cut me short, so that I could speak no more; till I cried out aloud, “Lord, increase my faith: Lord, confirm the word of thy grace.” The same persons saw and heard, that at that instant I changed my posture, and broke out into thanksgiving: that quickly after I stood upright (which I could not before) and shewed no more sign either of sickness or pain.

* Yet I must desire you well to observe, thirdly, That my will, or choice, or desire, had no place either in this, or any case of this kind, that has ever fallen under my notice. Five minutes before I had no thought of this. I expected nothing less. I was willing to wait for a gradual recovery, in the ordinary use of outward means. I did not look for any other cure, till the moment before I found it. And it is my belief, that the case was always the same, with regard to the most real and undoubted miracles. I believe God never interposed his miraculous power, but according to his own sovereign will: not according to the will of man; neither of him by whom he wrought, nor of any other man whatsoever. The wisdom as well as the power are his: nor can I find, that ever, from the beginning of the world, he lodged this power in any mere man, to be used whenever that man saw good. Suppose therefore, there was a man now on earth, who did work real and undoubted miracles; I would ask, by whose power doth he work these? And at whose pleasure? His own, or God’s? Not his own; but God’s. But if so, then your demand is not made on man, but on God. I cannot say it is modest, thus to challenge God; or well suiting the relation of a creature to his Creator.

2. However, I cannot but think, there have been already so many plain interpositions of divine power, as will shortly leave you without excuse, if you either deny or despise them. We desire no favour, but the justice that diligent enquiry may be made concerning them. We are ready to name the persons on whom that power was shewn, which belongeth to none but God; (not one or two, or ten or twelve only) to point out their places of abode: and we engage they shall answer every pertinent question, fairly and directly; and, if required, shall give all those answers upon oath, before any who are impowered so to receive them. It is our particular request, that the circumstances which went before, which accompanied, and which followed after, the facts under consideration, may be thoroughly examined, and punctually noted down. Let but this be done (and is it not highly needful it should? at least, by those who would form an exact judgment) and we have no fear, that any reasonable man should scruple to say, This hath God wrought!

As there have been already so many instances of this kind, far beyond what we had dared to ask or think, I cannot take upon me to say, whether or no it will please God to add to their number. I have not herein known the mind of the Lord, neither am I his counsellor. He may, or he may not; I cannot affirm or deny. I have no light, and I have no desire either way. It is the Lord, let him do what seemeth him good. I desire only to be as clay in his hand.

* 3. But what if there were now to be wrought ever so many real and undoubted miracles? (I suppose you mean by undoubted, such as being sufficiently attested, ought not to be doubted of.) Why, this, you say, would put the controversy on a short foot, and be an effectual proof of the truth of your pretences. By no means. As common as this assertion is, there is none upon earth more false. Suppose a teacher were now, on this very day, to work real and undoubted miracles: this would extremely little shorten the controversy between him and the greater part of his opposers. For all this would not force them to believe; but many would still stand just where they did before: seeing men may harden their hearts against miracles, as well as against arguments.

So men have done, from the beginning of the world: even against such signal, glorious miracles, against such interpositions of the power of God, as may not be again till the consummation of all things. Permit me to remind you only of a few instances; and to observe, that the argument holds a fortiori: for who will ever be impowered of God again, to work such miracles as these were? Did Pharaoh look on all that Moses and Aaron wrought, as an effectual proof of the truth of their pretences? Even when the Lord made the sea to be dry-land, and the waters were divided: when the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea, and the waters were a wall, on the right and on the left? Exodus xiv. 21, 22. Nay;

The wounded dragon rag’d in vain;

And fierce the utmost plague to brave,

Madly he dar’d the parted main,

And sunk beneath th’ o’erwhelming wave.

Was all this an effectual proof of the truth of their pretences, to the Israelites themselves? It was not. They were still disobedient, at the sea; even at the red sea! Was the giving them day by day bread from heaven, an effectual proof to those two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown, who said, with Dathan and Abiram, Wilt thou put out the eyes of these men? We will not come up. Numbers xvi. 14. Nay, when the ground clave asunder that was under them, and the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up: (verse 32.) Neither was this an effectual proof to those who saw it with their eyes, and heard the cry of those that went down into the pit: but the very next day they murmured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of the Lord! (verse 41.)

Was not the case generally the same with regard to the prophets that followed? Several of whom stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, did many mighty works; yet their own people received them not. Yet they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword; they were destitute, afflicted, tormented! Utterly contrary to the commonly-received supposition, that the working real undoubted miracles, must bring all controversy to an end, and convince every gainsayer.

Let us come nearer yet. How stood the case between our Lord himself and his opposers? Did he not work real and undoubted miracles? And what was the effect? Still when he came to his own, his own received him not. Still he was despised and rejected of men. Still it was a challenge not to be answered, Have any of the rulers, or of the pharisees believed on him?​――After this, how can you imagine, that whoever works miracles, must convince all men of the truth of his pretences?

* I would just remind you of only one instance more. There sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother’s womb who never had walked. The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed, said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.​――Here was so undoubted a miracle, that the people lifted up their voices, saying​――The Gods are come down in the likeness of men. But how long were even these convinced of the truth of his pretences? Only till there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium; and then they stoned him (as they supposed) to death! Acts xiv. 1, &c. So certain it is, that no miracles whatever, which were ever yet wrought in the world, were effectual to prove the most glaring truth, to those that hardened their hearts against it.

* 4. And it will equally hold in every age and nation. If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced (of what they desire not to believe) tho’ one rose from the dead. Without a miracle, without one rising from the dead, ἐαν τις θέλει ποιεῖν· if any man be willing to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God. But if he is not willing to do his will, he will never want an excuse, a plausible reason for rejecting it. Yea, tho’ ever so many miracles were wrought to confirm it. For let ever so much light come into the world, it will have no effect (such is the wise and just will of God) on those who love darkness rather than light? It will not convince those who do not simply desire to do the will of their Father which is in heaven: those who mind earthly things; who (if they do not continue in any gross outward sin, yet) love pleasure or ease; yet seek profit or power, preferment, or reputation. Nothing will ever be an effectual proof to these of the holy and acceptable will of God, unless first their proud hearts be humbled, their stubborn wills bowed down, and their desires brought, at least in some degree, into obedience to the law of Christ.

Hence altho’ it should please God to work a-new, all the wonders that ever were wrought on the earth, still these men, however wise and prudent they may be in things relating to the present world, would fight against God and all his messengers, and that in spite of all these miracles. Mean while God will reveal his truth unto babes, unto those who are meek and lowly, whose desires are in heaven, who want to know nothing save Jesus Christ and him crucified.​――These need no outward miracle, to shew them his will: they have a plain rule, the written word. And the anointing which they have received of him, abideth in them, and teacheth them of all things. (1 John ii. 27.) Thro’ this they are enabled to bring all doctrines to the law and to the testimony. And whatsoever is agreeable to this they receive, without waiting to see it attested by miracles. As on the other hand, whatever is contrary to this they reject: nor can any miracles move them to receive it.

* 5. Yet I do not know, that God hath any way precluded himself from thus exerting his sovereign power, from working miracles in any kind or degree, in any age to the end of the world. I do not recollect any scripture, wherein we are taught, that miracles were to be confined within the limits either of the apostolic or the cyprianic age; or of any period of time, longer or shorter, even till the restitution of all things. I have not observed, either in the Old Testament or the New, any intimation at all of this kind. St. Paul says indeed once, concerning two of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit (so, I think, that text is usually understood) whether there be prophecies, they shall fail, whether there be tongues, they shall cease. But he does not say, either that these or any other miracles shall cease, till faith and hope shall cease also: till they all be swallowed up in the vision of God, and love be all in all.

I presume you will allow, there is one kind of miracles (loosely speaking) which are not ceased; namely, τέρατα ψεύδους, lying wonders, diabolical miracles; or works beyond the virtue of natural causes, wrought by the power of evil spirits. Nor can you easily conceive that these will cease, as long as the father of lies is the prince of this world. And why should you think, that the God of truth is less active than him, or that he will not have his miracles also? Only, not as man wills, neither when he wills; but according to his own excellent wisdom and greatness.

6. But even if it were supposed, that God does now work beyond the operation of merely natural causes, yet what impression would this make upon you, in the disposition your mind is now in? Suppose the trial were repeated, were made again to-morrow. One informs you the next day, “While a clergyman was preaching yesterday, where I was, a man came who had been long ill of an incurable distemper. Prayer was made for him, and he was restored to perfect health.”

Suppose now, that this were real fact, perhaps you would scarce have patience to hear the account of it: but would cut it short, in the midst, with, “Do you tell this as something supernatural? Then miracles are not ceased!” But if you should venture to ask, where was this? And who was the person that prayed? And it was answered, “At the Foundery near Moorfields; the person who prayed was Mr. Wesley:” What a damp comes at once! What a weight falls on your mind, at the very first setting out? ’Tis well if you have any heart or desire to move one step further. Or if you should, what a strong additional propensity do you now feel to deny the fact? And is there not a ready excuse for so doing? “O! they who tell the story, are doubtless his own people: most of whom, we may be sure, will say any thing for him, and the rest will believe any thing.”​――But if you at length allowed the fact, might you not find means to account for it by natural causes? Great crouds, violent heats, with obstructions and irregularities of the blood and spirits, will do wonders.​――If you ♦could not but allow, it was more than natural, might not some plausible reason be found for ranking it among the lying wonders, for ascribing it to the devil rather than God? And if, after all, you was convinced it was the finger of God, must you not still bring every doctrine advanced, to the law and to the testimony, the only sure and infallible test of all?​――What then is the use of this continual demand, “Shew us a sign, and we will believe?” What will you believe? I hope no more than is written in the book of God. And thus far you might venture to believe, even without a miracle.

7. Let us consider this point yet a little farther. “What is it you would have us prove by miracles? The doctrines we preach?” We prove these by scripture and reason; and, if need be, by antiquity. What else is it then we are to prove by miracles? At length we have a distinct reply​――Wise and sober men will not otherwise be convinced (i. e. unless you prove this by miracles) that God is, by the means of such teachers, and such doctrines, working a great and extraordinary work in the earth. Preface, page 6.

So then the determinate point which you, in their name, call upon us to prove by miracles, is this, That God is, by these teachers, working a great and extraordinary work in the earth.

What I mean by a great and extraordinary work, is, the bringing multitudes of gross notorious sinners, in a short space, to the fear, and love, and service of God, to an entire change of heart and life.

Now then, let us take a nearer view of the proposition, and see which part of it we are to prove by miracles.

“Is it, 1. That A. B. was, for many years, without God in the world, a common swearer, a drunkard, a sabbath-breaker?

“Or, 2. That he is not so now.

“Or, 3. That he continued so, till he heard these men preach, and from that time was another man?

“Not so. The proper way to prove this fact, is, by the testimony of competent witnesses. And these witnesses are ready, whenever required, to give full evidence of them.

“Or would you have us prove by miracles,

“4. That this was not done by our own power or holiness? That God only is able to raise the dead, to quicken those who are dead in trespasses and sins?”

Surely no. Whosoever believes the scriptures, will want no new proof of this.

Where then is the wisdom of those men, who demand miracles in proof of such a proposition? One branch of which, “That such sinners were reformed by the means of these teachers,” being a plain fact, can only be proved by testimony, as all other facts are: and the other, “That this is a work of God, and a great and more than ordinary work,” needs no proof, as carrying its own evidence to every thinking man.

* 8. To sum up this. No truly wise or sober man can possibly desire or expect miracles, to prove, either, 1. That these doctrines are true: this must be decided by scripture and reason; or, 2. That these facts are true: this can only be proved by testimony; or, 3. That to change sinners from darkness to light, is the work of God alone; only using what instruments he pleases: this is glaringly self-evident; or, 4. That such a change wrought in so many notorious sinners, within so short a time, is a great and extraordinary work of God. This also carries its own evidence. What then is it which remains to be proved by miracles? Perhaps you will say, it is this: “That God hath called or sent you to do this.” Nay, this is implied in the third of the foregoing propositions. If God has actually used us therein, if his work hath in fact prospered in our hands, then he hath called or sent us to do this. I intreat reasonable men to weigh this throughly, whether the fact does not plainly prove the call: whether he who enables us thus to save souls alive, does not commission us so to do? Whether by giving us the power to pluck these brands out of the burning, he does not authorize us to exert it?

O that it were possible for you to consider calmly, whether the success of the gospel of Jesus Christ, even as it is preached by us, the least of his servants, be not itself a miracle, never to be forgotten! One which cannot be denied, as being visible at this day, not in one but a hundred places: one which cannot be accounted for, by the ordinary course of any natural cause whatsoever: one which cannot be ascribed with any colour of reason, to diabolical agency; and lastly, one which will bear the infallible test, the trial of the written word.

VI. 1. But here I am aware of abundance of objections. You object, first, that to speak any thing of myself, of what I have done, or am doing now, is mere boasting and vanity. This charge you frequently repeat. So, page 102. The following page is full of boasting​――Page 113. You boast very much of the numbers you have converted: and again, As to myself, I hope I shall never be led to imitate you in boasting.​――I think therefore it is needful, once for all, to examine this charge throughly; and to shew distinctly, what that good thing is, which you disguise under this bad name.

From the year 1725 to 1729, I preached much, but saw no fruit of my labour. Indeed it could not be that I should; for I neither laid the foundation of repentance, nor of believing the gospel: taking it for granted, that all to whom I preached, were believers; and that many of them needed no repentance. 2. From the year 1729 to 1734, laying a deeper foundation of repentance, I saw a little fruit. But it was only a little; and no wonder. For I did not preach faith in the blood of the covenant. 3. From 1734 to 1738, speaking more of faith in Christ, I saw more fruit of my preaching, and visiting from house to house, than ever I had done before: though I know not, if any of those who were outwardly reformed, were inwardly and throughly converted to God. 4. From 1738 to this time, speaking continually of Jesus Christ, laying him only for the foundation of the whole building, making him all in all, the first and the last: preaching wholly on this plan, The kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye and believe the gospel: The word of God ran as fire among the stubble; it was glorified more and more: multitudes crying out, What must we do to be saved? And afterwards witnessing, By grace we are saved through faith. * 5. I considered deeply with myself, what I ought to do? Whether to declare the things I had seen or not? I consulted the most serious friends I had. They all agreed, I ought to declare them: that the work itself was of such a kind, as ought in no wise to be concealed; and indeed, that the unusual circumstances now attending it, made it impossible that it should. 6. This very difficulty occurred, “Will not my speaking of this be boasting? At least, will it not be counted so?” They replied, “if you speak of it as your own work, it will be vanity and boasting all over: but if you ascribe it wholly to God, if you give him all the praise, it will not. And if, after this, some will account it so still, you must be content, and bear the burden.” 7. I yielded, and transcribed my papers for the press; only labouring, as far as possible, to render unto God the things which are God’s, to give him the praise of his own work.

* 2. But this very thing you improve into a fresh objection. If I ascribe any thing to God, it is enthusiasm. If I do not (or if I do) it is vanity and boasting, supposing me to mention it at all. What then can I do to escape your censure? “Why, be silent, say nothing at all.” I cannot. I dare not. Were I thus to please men, I could not be the servant of Christ.

* You do not appear to have the least idea or conception of what is in the heart of one, whom it pleases him that worketh all in all, to employ in a work of this kind. He is in no wise forward to be at all employed therein; he starts back, again and again: not only, because he readily foresees, what shame, care, sorrow, reproach, what loss of friends and of all that the world accounts dear, will inevitably follow: but much more, because he (in some measure) knows himself. This chiefly it is which constrains him to cry out, (and that many times, in the bitterness of his soul, when no human eye seeth him,) “O Lord! Send by whom thou wilt send! Only, send not me!​――What am I? A worm! A dead dog! A man unclean in heart and lips!”​――And when he dares no longer gainsay or resist, when he is at last thrust out into the harvest, he looketh on the right hand, and on the left, he takes every step with fear and trembling, and with the deepest sense (such as words cannot express) of, who is sufficient for these things? Every gift which he has received of God, for the furtherance of his word, whether of nature or grace, heightens this fear, and increases his jealousy over himself: knowing that so much the stricter must the enquiry be, when he gives an account of his stewardship. He is most of all jealous over himself, when the work of the Lord prospers in his hand. He is then amazed and confounded before God. Shame covers his face. Yet when he sees, that he ought to praise the Lord for his goodness, and to declare the wonders which he doth for the children of men, he is in a strait between two: he knows not which way to turn: he cannot speak: he dares not be silent. It may be, for a time he keeps his mouth with a bridle; he holds his peace even from good. But his heart is hot within him, and constrains him, at length, to declare what God hath wrought. And this he then doth in all simplicity, with great plainness of speech, desiring only to commend himself to him, who searcheth the heart and trieth the reins: and, (whether his words are the savour of life or of death to others) to have that witness in himself, as of sincerity, as of God, in the sight of God, speak we in Christ.​――If any man counts this boasting, he cannot help it. It is enough, that a higher judge standeth at the door.

3. But you may say, “Why do you talk of the success of the gospel in England, which was a Christian country before you was born?” Was it indeed? Is it so at this day? I would explain myself a little on this head also.

And 1. None can deny, that the people of England, in general are called Christians. They are called so, a few only accepted, by others, as well as by themselves. But I presume no man will say, that the name makes the thing; that men are Christians, barely because they are called so. It must be 2. allowed, that the people of England, generally speaking, have been christened or baptized. But neither can we infer, these were once baptized; therefore they are Christians now. It is 3. allowed, that many of those who were once baptized, and are called Christians to this day, hear the word of God, attend public prayers, and partake of the Lord’s supper. But neither does this prove, that they are Christians. For notwithstanding this, some of them live in open sin: and others (though not conscious to themselves of hypocrisy, yet) are utter strangers to the religion of the heart: are full of pride, vanity, covetousness, ambition; of hatred, anger, malice or envy; and consequently, are no more scriptural Christians, than the open drunkard or common swearer.

Now these being removed, where are the Christians, from whom we may properly term England a Christian country? The men who have the mind which was in Christ, and who walk as he also walked? Whose inmost soul is renewed after the image of God; and who are outwardly holy, as he who hath called them is holy? There are doubtless a few such to be found. To deny this, would be want of candor. But how few? How thinly scattered up and down? And as for a Christian, visible church, or a body of Christians, visibly united together, where is this to be seen?

Ye different sects, who all declare,

Lo! here is Christ, or Christ is there;

Your stronger proofs divinely give,

And shew me, where the Christians live!

* And what use is it of, what good end does it serve, to term England a Christian country? (although ’tis true, most of the natives are called Christians, have been baptized, frequent the ordinances: and although a real Christian is here and there to be found, as a light shining in a dark place:) Does it do any honour to our great Master, among those who are not called by his name? Does it recommend Christianity to the Jews, the Mahometans, or the avowed Heathens? Surely no one can conceive it does. It only makes Christianity stink in their nostrils. Does it answer any good end with regard to those on whom this worthy name is called? I fear not; but rather an exceeding bad one. For does it not keep multitudes easy in their Heathen practice? Does it not make or keep still greater numbers, satisfied with their Heathen tempers? Does it not directly tend to make both the one and the other imagine, that they are what indeed they are not? That they are Christians, while they are utterly without Christ and without God in the world?​――To close this point: if men are not Christians, till they are renewed after the image of Christ, and if the people of England in general are not thus renewed, why do we term them so? The God of this world hath long blinded their hearts. Let us do nothing to increase that blindness: but rather labour to recover them from that strong delusion, that they may no longer believe a lie.

4. Let us labour to convince all mankind, that to be a real Christian, is, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and to serve him with all our strength; to love our neighbour as ourselves, and therefore do unto every man as we would he should do unto us. Nay, you say, Had you confined yourselves to these great points, there would have been no objection against your doctrine. But the doctrines you have distinguished yourselves by​――are not the love of God and man, but many false and pernicious errors. (page 104.)

I have again and again, with all the plainness I could, declared, what our constant doctrines are; whereby we are distinguished only from Heathens, or nominal Christians; not from any that worship God in Spirit and in truth. Our main doctrines, which include all the rest, are three, that of repentance, of faith, and of holiness. The first of these we account, as it were, the porch of religion; the next, the door; the third religion itself.

That repentance, or conviction of sin, which is always previous to faith (either in a higher or lower degree, as it pleases God) we describe in words to this effect:

“When men feel in themselves the heavy burthen of sin, see damnation to be the reward of it, behold with the eye of their mind, the horror of hell: they tremble, they quake, and are inwardly touched with sorrowfulness of heart, and cannot but accuse themselves, and open their grief unto Almighty God, and call unto him for mercy. This being done seriously, their mind is so occupied, partly with sorrow and heaviness, partly with an earnest desire to be delivered from this danger of hell and damnation, that all desire of meat and drink is laid apart, and loathing of all worldly things and pleasure cometh in place. So that nothing then liketh them more, than to weep, to lament, to mourn, and both with words and behaviour of body, to shew themselves weary of life.”

Now permit me to ask, what if before you had observed, that these were the very words of our own church, one of your acquaintance or parishioners had come and told you, that ever since he heard a sermon at the Foundery, he saw damnation before him, and beheld with the eye of his mind the horror of hell? What, if he had trembled and quaked, and been so taken up, partly with sorrow and heaviness, partly with an earnest desire to be delivered from the danger of hell and damnation, as to weep, to lament, to mourn, and both with words and behaviour, to shew himself weary of life? Would you have scrupled to say, Here is another deplorable instance of the Methodists driving men to distraction! See, into what excessive terrors, frights, doubts and perplexities, they throw weak and well-meaning men! Quite over-setting their understandings and judgments, and making them liable to all these miseries.

I dare not refrain from adding one plain question, which I beseech you to answer, not to me, but to God. Have you ever experienced this repentance yourself? Did you ever feel in yourself that heavy burthen of sin? Of sin in general; more especially, inward sin? Of pride, anger, lust, vanity? Of (what is all sin in one) that carnal mind, which is enmity, essential enmity against God? Do you know by experience what it is, To behold with the eye of the mind, the horror of hell? Was your mind ever so taken up, partly with sorrow and heaviness, partly with an earnest desire to be delivered from this danger of hell and damnation, that even all desire of meat and drink was taken away, and you loathed all worldly things and pleasure?​――Surely if you had known what it is, to have the arrows of the Almighty thus sticking fast in you, you could not so lightly have condemned those who now cry out, The pains of hell come about me: the sorrows of death compass me, and the overflowings of ungodliness make me afraid.

5. Concerning the gate of religion (if I may be allowed so to speak) the true, Christian, saving faith, we believe it implies abundantly more than an assent to the truth of the bible. “Even the devils believe, that Christ was born of a virgin; that he wrought all kind of miracles; that for our sakes he suffered a most painful death to redeem us from death everlasting. These articles of our faith the very devils believe, and so they believe all that is written in the Old and New Testament. And yet for all this faith, they be but devils. They remain still in their damnable estate, lacking the very true Christian faith.

“The right and true Christian faith is. Not only to believe that the holy scriptures and the articles of our faith are true, but also to have a sure trust and confidence to be saved from everlasting damnation through Christ.” Perhaps it may be expressed more clearly thus, “A sure trust and confidence which a man hath in God, that by the merits of Christ his sins are forgiven, and he reconciled to the favour of God.”

For giving this account of Christian faith (as well as the preceding account of repentance, both which I have here also purposely described, in the very terms of the homilies) I have been again and again, for near these eight years past, accused of enthusiasm; sometimes by those who spoke to my face, either in conversation, or from the pulpit: but more frequently by those who chose to speak in my absence; and not seldom from the press. I wait for those who judge this to be enthusiasm, to bring forth their strong reasons. Till then, I must continue to account all these, the words of truth and soberness.

6. Religion itself (I chuse to use the very words, wherein I described it long ago) we define, “The loving God with all our heart, and our neighbour as ourselves, and in that love abstaining from all evil, and doing all possible good to all men.” The same meaning we have sometimes expressed a little more at large, thus: “Religion we conceive to be no other than love; the love of God and of all mankind: the loving God with all our heart, and soul, and strength, as having first loved us, as the fountain of all the good we have received, and of all we ever hope to enjoy: and the loving every soul which God hath made, every man on earth as our own soul.

“This love we believe to be the medicine of life, the never-failing remedy for all the evils of a disordered world, for all the miseries and vices of men. Wherever this is, there are virtue and happiness, going hand in hand. There is humbleness of mind, gentleness, long-suffering, the whole image of God, and at the same time, a peace that passeth all understanding, and joy unspeakable, and full of glory.

“This religion we long to see established in the world, a religion of love, and joy, and peace; having its seat in the heart, in the inmost soul, but ever shewing itself by its fruits: continually springing forth, not only in all innocence (for love worketh no ill to his neighbour) but likewise in every kind of beneficence, spreading virtue and happiness all around it.”

If this can be proved by scripture or reason, to be enthusiastic or erroneous doctrine, we will then plead guilty to the indictment, of teaching error and enthusiasm. But if this be the genuine religion of Christ, then will all who advance this charge against us, be found false witnesses before God, in the day when he shall judge the earth.

7. However, with regard to the fruits of our teaching, you say, It is to be feared, the numbers of serious men who have been perplext and deluded, are much greater than the numbers of notorious sinners, who have been brought to repentance and good life, (page 113.) Indeed, if you could prove,​――that the Methodists were in general, very wicked people before they followed you, and that all you have been teaching them is, the love of God and their neighbour, and a care to keep his commandments, which accordingly they have done since, you would​――stop the mouths of all adversaries at once. But​――we have great reason to believe, that the generality of Methodists, before they became so, were serious, regular, and well-disposed people, page 103.

If the question were proposed, Which are greater, the numbers of serious men who have been perplext and deluded, or of notorious sinners who have been brought to repentance and good life by these preachers, throughout England, within seven years: it might be difficult for you to fix the conclusion. For England is a place of wide dimensions; nor is it easy to make a satisfactory computation, unless you confine yourself within a smaller compass. Suppose then we were to contract the question, in order to make it a little less ♦unwieldy. We will bound our enquiry, for the present, within a square of three or four miles. It may be certainly known by candid men, both what has been, and what is now done within this distance. And from hence they may judge of those fruits elsewhere, which they cannot be so particularly informed of.

* Enquire then, Which are greater, the numbers of serious men, perplext and deluded by these teachers, or of notorious sinners brought to repentance and good life, within the forest of Kingswood? Many indeed of the inhabitants are nearly as they were; are not much better or worse for their preaching: because the neighbouring clergy and gentry have successfully laboured to deter them from hearing it. But between three and four hundred of those who would not be deterred, are now under the care of those preachers. Now, what number of these were serious Christians before? Were fifty? Were twenty? Were ten? Peradventure, there might five such be found. But ’tis a question, whether there could or no. The remainder were gross, open sinners, common swearers, drunkards, sabbath-breakers, whoremongers, plunderers, robbers, implacable, unmerciful, wolves and bears in the shape of men. Do you desire instances of more notorious sinners than these? I know not if Turkey or Japan can afford them. And what do you include in repentance and good life? Give the strictest definition thereof that you are able: and I will undertake, these once notorious sinners, shall be weighed in that balance, and not found wanting.

8. Not that all the Methodists (so called) were very wicked people before they followed us. There are those among them, and not a few, who are able to stop the boasting of those that despise them, and to say, Wherein soever any of you is bold, I am bold also: only they count all these things but loss, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus. But these we found, as it were, when we sought them not. We went forth to seek that which was lost: (more eminently lost) to call the most flagrant, hardened, desperate sinners to repentance. To this end we preached in the Horsefair at Bristol, in Kingswood, in Newcastle: among the colliers in Staffordshire, and the tinners in Cornwall: in Southwark, Wapping, Moorfields, Drury-Lane, at London. Did any man ever pick out such places as these, in order to find serious, regular, well-disposed people? How many such might then be in any of them I know not. But this I know, that four in five of those who are now with us, were not of that number, but were wallowing in their blood, till God by us said unto them, live.

Sir, I willingly put the whole cause on this issue: what are the general consequences of this preaching? Are there more tares or wheat? More good men destroyed (that is the proper question) or wicked men saved? The last place where we began constant preaching, is a part of Wiltshire and Somersetshire, near Bath. Now let any man enquire at Rhode, Bradford, Rexal, or among the colliers at Coleford, 1. What kind of people were those, before they followed these men? 2. What are the main doctrines they have been teaching for this twelvemonth? 3. What effect have these doctrines upon their followers? What manner of lives do they lead now? And if you do not find, 1. That three in four of these were two years ago notoriously wicked men. 2. That 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 you or any reasonable man, who will be at the pains to enquire, does not find this to be an unquestionable fact: I will openly acknowledge myself an enthusiast, or whatsoever else you shall please to stile me.

Only one caution I would give to such an enquirer, let him not ask the colliers of Coleford, Were not the generality of you, before you followed these men, serious, regular, well-disposed people? Were you not offended at the prophaneness and debauchery of the age? And was it not this disposition, which at first made you liable to receive these impressions? (page 103.) Because if he talk thus to some of those who do not yet follow these men, perhaps he will not live to bring back their answer.

* But will this, or a thousand such instances as this, stop the mouths of all adversaries at once? O Sir, would one expect such a thought as this, in one that had read the bible? What if you could convert as many sinners as St. Paul himself? Would that stop the mouths of all your adversaries? Yea, if you could convert three thousand at one sermon, still you would be so far from stopping all their mouths at once, that the greater part of them would gnash upon you with their teeth, and cry, “Away with such a fellow from the earth.”

I never therefore expect to persuade the world, the majority of mankind, that I have been for some years advancing nothing but what has a clear, immediate connexion with the true knowledge and love of God: that God hath been pleased to use me, a weak, vile worm, in reforming many of my fellow sinners, and making them, at this day, living witnesses of inward and pure religion: and that many of these, from living in all sin, are quite changed, are become so far holy, that though they are not free from all sin, yet no sin hath dominion over them. And yet I do firmly believe, it is nothing but downright prejudice, to deny or oppose any of these particulars. Preface, page v.

* Allow Mr. Wesley, you say, but these few points, and he will defend his conduct​――beyond exception​――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 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.

10. But you believe, “I only corrupt those who were good Christians before, teaching them to revile and censure their neighbours, and to abuse the clergy, notwithstanding all their meekness and gentleness, as I do myself.” I must declare (say you) we have, in general, answered your pretence, with all meekness and temper​――the railing and reviling has been chiefly on the side of the Methodists, page 16.

Your first charge ran thus, (Remarks, page 15.) How have such abuses as these been thrown out by you​――against our​――regular clergy, not the highest or the worthiest excepted!​――I answered, “I am altogether clear in this matter, as often as it has been objected: neither do I desire to receive any other treatment from the clergy, than they have received from me to this day.” page 30.

You reply, 1. One instance of your misrepresenting and injuring a preacher of our church I mentioned, (page 105.) Mentioned! Well: but did you prove it was an injury or misrepresentation? I know not that you once attempted it. 2. You next quote part of a letter from the third journal; (page 36.) wherein (according to your account) the most considerable of our clergy are abused, and at once accused in a very gross manner. (page 106.) Set down the whole paragraph, and I will prove, that this also is naked truth, and no abuse at all. You say, 3. You approved of Whitefield’s railing against the clergy​――i. e. I say, “Mr. Whitefield preached, concerning the Holy Ghost which all who believe are to receive; not without a just, though severe censure of those, who preach as if there were no Holy Ghost,” (Journal 3. page 65.) Nor is this railing, but melancholy truth. I have myself heard several preach in this manner. 4. You cite my words, “Woe unto you, ye blind leaders of the blind! How long will you pervert the right ways of the Lord?”​――And add, I appeal to yourself, whether you did not design this reflection against the clergy in general who differ from you? No more than I did against Moses and Aaron. I expresly specify whom I design: “Ye who tell the mourners in Zion, Much religion hath made you mad.” You say, 5. (with a N. B.) All the clergy who differ from you, you stile so, page 82. in which and the foregoing page you causelesly slander them, as speaking of their own holiness​――as that for the sake of which, on account of which we are justified before God.

Let any serious person read over those pages. I therein slander no man. I speak what I know; what I have both heard and read. The men are alive, and the books are extant. And the same conclusion I now defend, touching that part of the clergy who preach or write thus, viz. “If they preach the truth as it is in Jesus, I am found a false witness before God. But if I preach the way of God in truth, then they are blind leaders of the blind”. 6. You quote those words, “Nor can I be said to intrude into the labours of those who do not labour at all; but suffer thousands of those for whom Christ died, to perish for lack of knowledge.” (3 Journal page 69.) I wrote that letter near Kingswood. I would to God the observation were not terribly true! 7. The first passage you cite from the Earnest Appeal, page 36. evidently relates to a few only among the clergy: and if the charge be true, but of one in five hundred, it abundantly supports my reasoning. 8. In the next, (page 47.) I address all those, and those only, who affirm that I preach for gain.

You conclude, The reader has now before him the manner in which you have been pleased to treat the clergy​――and your late sermon​――is too fresh an instance of​――the like usage of the universities​――(page 107.) It is an instance of speaking the truth in love. So I desire all mankind may use me. Nor could I have said less either to the university or the clergy, without sinning against God and my own soul.

* 11. But I must explain myself a little on that practice, which you so often term abusing the clergy. I have many times great sorrow and heaviness in my heart, on account of these my brethren. And this sometimes constrains me to speak to them, in the only way which is now in my power: and sometimes (though rarely) to speak of them; of a few, not all, in general. In either case, I take an especial care, 1. To speak nothing but the truth. 2. To speak this with all plainness; and, 3. With love, and in the spirit of meekness. Now if you will call this, abusing, railing, or reviling, you must. But still I dare not refrain from it. I must thus rail, thus abuse sinners of all sorts and degrees, unless I will perish with them.

When I first read your declaration, That our brethren in general had treated us with all meekness and temper, I had thoughts of spreading before you a few of the flowers which they have strewed upon us with no sparing hand. But on reflection, I judged it better to forbear. Let them die and be forgotten!

As to those of the people called Methodists, whom you suppose to rail at and abuse the clergy, and to revile and censure their neighbours, I can only say, Which are they? Shew me the men. And if it appear, that any of those under my care, habitually censure or revile others, whether clergy or laity, I will make them an example, for the benefit of all the rest.

Touching you, I believe I was afraid without cause. I do not think you advanced a wilful untruth. This was a rash word. I hereby openly retract it, and ask pardon of God and you.

To draw toward a conclusion. Whosoever they are that despise me, and make no account of my labours, I know that they are not in vain in the Lord, and that I have not fought as one that beateth the air. I still see (and I praise the Father of lights, from whom every good and perfect gift descendeth) a continual increase of pure religion, and undefiled, of the love of God and man, of the wisdom which is pure and peaceable, gentle and easy to be intreated, full of mercy, and of good fruits. I see more and more of those “who before lived in a thorough contempt of God’s ordinances, and of all duties, now zealously discharging their duties to God and man, and walking in all his ordinances blameless.” A few indeed I have seen draw back to perdition, chiefly through a fear of being righteous over-much. And here and there one has fallen into Calvinism, or turned aside to the Moravians. But I doubt not, these “are in a better state than they were before they heard us. Admit they are in error, yea and die therein, yet who dares affirm, they will perish everlastingly? But had they died in gross sin, we are sure they had fallen into the fire that never shall be quenched.”

I have now considered, as far as my time would permit, (not every thing in your letter, whether of moment or no, but) those points, which I conceived to be of the greatest weight. That God may lead us both into all truth, and that we may not drop our love in the pursuit of it, is the continual prayer of,

Reverend Sir,

Your friend and servant for Christ’s sake,

JOHN WESLEY.

June 17, 1746.