I.

as if any such zeal, anything contrary to love, could consist with true wisdom. “This wisdom descendeth not from above; but is earthly, sensual, devilish: For where bitter zeal and strife are, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom which is from above,” — which every one that hath is a real Christian, and he only, — “is first pure,” free from all that is earthly, sensual, devilish: “then peaceable,” benign, loving, making peace; “gentle,” soft, mild, yielding, not morose, or sour; “easy to be entreated,” to be persuaded or convinced, not stubborn, self-willed, or self-conceited; “full of mercy,” of tenderness and compassion; “and good fruits,” both in the heart and life. Two of these are immediately specified; “without partiality,” loving and doing good to all, without respect of persons; “and without hypocrisy,” sincere, frank, open.

I desire to be tried by this test. I try myself by it continually: Not, indeed, whether I am a Prophet, (for it has nothing to do with this,) but whether I am a Christian.

I.

The present question then is, (not what is Mr. Law, or what are the Moravians, but) what is John Wesley? And,

(1.) Is he pure or not? “Not pure; for he separates reason from grace.” (Page 156.) A wonderful proof! But I deny the fact. I never did separate reason from grace. “Yes, you do; for your own words are, ‘The points we chiefly insisted on were four:

(2.) That orthodoxy, or right opinion, is at best but a very slender part of religion; if it call be allowed to be any part of it at all.’” (Page 157.) After premising that it is our bounden duty to labor after a right judgment in all things, as a wrong judgment naturally leads to wrong practice, I say again, right opinion is at best but a very slender part of religion, (which properly and directly consists in right tempers, words, and actions,) and frequently it is no part of religion. For it may be where there is no religion at all; in men of the most abandoned lives; yea, in the devil himself. And yet this does not prove that I “separate reason from grace;” that I “discard reason from the service of religion.” I do continually “employ it to distinguish between right and wrong opinions.” I never affirmed “this distinction to be of little consequence,” or denied “the gospel to be a reasonable service.” (Page 158.)

But “the Apostle Paul considered right opinions as a full third part, at least, of religion. For he says, ‘The fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth.’ By goodness is meant the conduct of particulars to the whole, and consists in habits of social virtue; and this refers to Christian practice. By righteousness is meant the conduct of the whole to particulars, and consists in the gentle use of church authority; and this refers to Christian discipline. By truth is meant the conduct of the whole, and of particulars to one another, and consists in orthodoxy or right opinion; and this refers to Christian doctrine.” (Page 159.) My objections to this account are, First, It contradicts St. Paul; Secondly, It contradicts itself.

First. It contradicts St. Paul. It fixes a meaning upon his words, foreign both to the text and context. The plain sense of the text, taken in connection with the context, is no other than this: (Ephesians 5:9:) “The fruit of the Spirit” (rather, “of the light,” which Bengelius proves to be the true reading, opposite to “the unfruitful works of darkness,” mentioned verse 11) “is,” consists, “in all goodness, kindness, tender-heartedness,” (Ephesians 4:32 4:32,) — opposite to “bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, evil speaking;” (verse 31;) “in all righteousness,” rendering unto all their dues, — opposite to “stealing;” (verse 28;) “and in all truth,” veracity, sincerity, — opposite to “lying.” (verse 25.)

Secondly. That interpretation contradicts itself; and that in every article. For,

1. If by “goodness” be meant “the conduct of particulars to the whole,” then it does not consist in habits of social virtue. For social virtue regulates the conduct of particulars, not so properly to the whole as to each other.

2. If by “righteousness” be meant “the conduct of the whole to particulars,” then it cannot consist in the gentleness of Church authority; unless Church Governors are the whole Church, or the Parliament the whole nation.

3. If by “truth” be meant “the conduct of the whole, and of particular to one another,” then it cannot possibly consist in orthodoxy or right opinion. For opinion, right or wrong, is not conduct: They differ toto genere. If, then, it be orthodoxy, it is not “the conduct of the governors and governed toward each other.” If it be their conduct toward each other, it is not orthodoxy.

Although, therefore, it be allowed that right opinions are a great help, and wrong opinions a great hindrance, to religion, yet, till stronger proof be brought against it, that proposition remains unshaken, “Right opinions are a slender part of religion, if any part of it at all.” (Page 160.) “(As to the affair of Abbe Paris, whoever will read over with calmness and impartiality but one volume of Monsieur Montgeron, will then be a competent judge. Meantime I would just observe, that if these miracles were real, they strike at the root of the whole Papal authority; as having been wrought in direct opposition to the famous Bull Unigenitus.)” (Page 161.)

Yet I do not say, “Errors in faith have little to do with religion;” or that they are “no let or impediment to the Holy Spirit.” (Page 162.) But still it is true, that “God generally speaking, begins his work at the heart.” (Ibid.) Men usually feel desires to please God, before they know how to please him. Their heart says, “What must I do to be saved?” before they understand the way of salvation.

But see “the character he gives his own saints! ‘The more I converse with this people, the more I am amazed. That God hath wrought a great work is manifest, by saving many sinners from their sins. And yet the main of them are not able to give a rational account of the plainest principles of religion.’” They were not able then, as there had not been time to instruct them. But the case is far different now.

Again: Did I “give this character,” even then, of the people called Methodists, in general? No, but of the people of a particular town in Ireland, where nine in ten of the inhabitants are Romanists. “Nor is the observation confined to the people. He had made a proselyte of Mr. D., Vicar of B. And, to show he was no discredit to his master, he gives him this character: ‘He seemed to stagger at nothing, though as yet his understanding is not opened.’” (Page 162.)

Mr. D. was never a proselyte of mine; nor did I ever see him before or since. I endeavored to show him that we are justified by faith. And he did not object; though neither did he understand.

“But in the first propagation of religion, God began with the understanding, and rational conviction won the heart.” (Page 163.) Frequently, but not always. The jailer’s heart was touched first, then he understood what he must do to be saved. In this respect then there is nothing new in the present work of God. So the lively story from Moliere is just nothing to the purpose.

In drawing the parallel between the work God has wrought in England and in America, I do not so much as “insinuate that the understanding has nothing to do in the work.” (Page 165.) Whoever is engaged therein will find full employment for all the understanding which God has given him. “On the whole, therefore, we conclude, that wisdom which divests the Christian faith of its truth, and the test of it, reason, and resolves all religion into spiritual mysticism and ecstatic raptures, cannot be the wisdom from above, whose characteristic is purity.” (Page 166.)

Perhaps so, but I do not “divest faith either of truth or reason:” much less do I resolve all into “spiritual mysticism and ecstatic raptures.” Therefore suppose purity here meant sound doctrine, (which it no more means than it does a sound constitution,) still it touches not me, who, for anything that has yet been said, may teach the soundest doctrine in the world.

(3.) “Our next business is to apply the other marks to these pretending sectaries. The First of these, purity, respects the nature of the ‘wisdom from above,’ or, in other words, the doctrine taught.” (Page 167.) Not in the least. It has no more to do with “doctrine,” than the whole text has with “Prophets.” “All the rest concern the manner of teaching.” Neither can this be allowed. They no farther concern either teaching or teachers, than they concern all mankind.

But to proceed: “Methodism signifies only the manner of preaching; not either an old or a new religion; it is the manner in which Mr. W. and his followers attempt to propagate the plain old religion.” (Page 168.) And is not this sound doctrine? Is this “spiritual mysticism and ecstatic raptures?”

“Of all men, Mr. W. should best know the meaning of the term; since it was not a nick-name imposed on the sect by its enemies, but an appellation of honor bestowed upon it by themselves.” In answer to this, I need only transcribe what was published twenty years ago: —

“Since the name first came abroad into the world, many have been at a loss to know what a Methodist is; what are the principles and practice of those who are commonly called by that name; and what are the distinguishing marks of the sect, which ‘is everywhere spoken against.’

“And it being generally believed that I was able to give the clearest account of these things, (as having been one of the first to whom the name was given, and the person by whom the rest were supposed to be directed,) I have been called upon, in all manner of ways, and with the utmost earnestness, so to do. I yield at last to the continued importunity both of friends and enemies; and do now give the clearest account I can, in the presence of the Lord, the Judge of heaven and earth, of the principles and practice whereby those who are called Methodists are distinguished from other men. “I say, those who are called Methodists; for, let it be well observed, that this is not a name which they take upon themselves, but one fixed on them by way of reproach, without their approbation or consent. It was first given to three or four young men at Oxford, by a Student of Christ’s Church; either in allusion to the ancient sect of Physicians, (so called from their teaching that almost all diseases might be cured by a specific method of diet and exercise,) or from their observing a more regular method of study and behavior than was usual with those of their age and station.” (Preface to “the Character of a Methodist.”)

I need only add, that this nickname was imposed upon us before “this manner of preaching” had a being; yea, at a time when I thought it as lawful to cut a throat, as to preach out of a church.

“Why then will Mr. W. so grossly misrepresent his adversaries, as to say, that, when they speak against Methodism, they speak against the plain, old doctrine of the Church of England?” (Tract, p. 169.) This is no misrepresentation. Many of our adversaries, all over the kingdom, speak against us, eo nomine, f26 for preaching these doctrines, justification by faith in particular.

However, a “fanatic manner of preaching, though it were the doctrine of an Apostle, may do more harm to society at least, than reviving old heresies, or inventing new. It tends to bewilder the imaginations of some, to inflame the passions of others, and to spread disorder and confusion through the whole community.” (Page 169.) I would gladly have the term defined. What is a “fanatic manner of preaching?” Is it field-preaching? But this has no such effect, even among the wildest of men. This has not “bewildered the imagination” even of the Kingswood colliers, or “inflamed their passions.” It has not spread disorder or confusion among them, but just the contrary. From the time it was heard in that chaos, Confusion heard the voice, and wild uproar

Stood ruled, and order from disorder sprang.

“But St. James, who delivers the test for the trial of these men’s pretensions,” (the same mistake still,) “unquestionably thought a fanatic spirit did more mischief in the mode of teaching, than in the matter taught; since of six marks, one only concerns doctrine, all the rest the manner of the Teacher.” (Page 170.) Nay, all six concern doctrine, as much as one. The truth is, they have nothing to do either with doctrine or manner. “From St. Paul’s words, ‘Be instant in season, out of season,’ he infers more than they will bear; and misapplies them into the bargain.” (Page 171.) When and where? I do not remember applying them at all. “When seasonable times are appointed for holy offices, to fly to unseasonable is factious.” (Page 172.) But it is not clear, that five in the morning, and seven in the evening, (our usual times,) are unseasonable.

2. We come now directly to the second article. “‘The wisdom from above is peaceable.’ But the propagation of Methodism has occasioned many and great violations of peace. In order to know where the blame hereof lies, let us inquire the temper which ‘makes for peace.’ For we may be assured the fault lies not there, where such a temper is found.” (Page 173.) Thus far we are quite agreed. “Now, the temper which makes for peace is prudence.” This is one of the tempers which make for peace; others are kindness, meekness, patience. “This our Lord recommended by his own example.” (Page 174-177.) “But this Mr. W. calls, ‘the mystery of iniquity, and the offspring of hell.’” (Page 178.) No, not this; not the prudence which our Lord recommends. I call that so, and that only, which the world, the men who know not God, style Christian prudence. By this I mean subtlety, craft, dissimulation; study to please man rather than God; the art of trimming between God and the world, of serving God and mammon. Will any serious man defend this? And this only do I condemn. But you “say, ‘Good sort of men,’ as they are called, are ‘the bane of all religion.’” (Pages 179, 180.) And I think so. By this “good sort of men,” I mean, persons who have a liking to, but no sense of, religion; no real fear or love of God; no truly Christian tempers. “These steal away the little zeal he has, that is, persuade him to be peaceable.” No; persuade me to be like themselves, — without love either to God or man.

“Again, speaking of one, he says, ‘Indulging himself in harmless company,’” (vulgarly so-called,) “‘ he first made shipwreck of his zeal, then of his faith.’ In this I think he is right. The zeal and faith of a fanatic are such exact tallies, that neither can exist alone. They came into the world together, to disturb society: and dishonor religion.” By zeal, I mean the flame of love, or fervent love to God and man; by faith, the substance or confidence of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Is this the zeal and faith of a fanatic? Then St. Paul was the greatest fanatic on earth. Did these come into the world to “disturb society and dishonor religion?”

“On the whole, we find Mr. W., by his own confession, entirely destitute of prudence. Therefore it must be ascribed to the want of this, if his preaching be attended with tumult and disorder.” (Page 181.) By his own confession? Surely no. This I confess, and this only: What is falsely called prudence, I abhor; but true prudence I love and admire. However, “You set at nought the discipline of the Church, by invading the province of the parochial Minister:” (Page 182.) Nay, if ever I preach at all, it must be in the province of some parochial Minister. “By assembling in undue places, and at unfit times.” I know of no times unfit for those who assemble. And I believe Hannam Mount and Rose Green were the most proper places under heaven for preaching to the colliers in Kingswood. “By scurrilous invectives against the Governors and Pastors of the National Church.” This is an entire mistake. I dare not make any “scurrilous invectives” against any man. “Insolencies of this nature provoke warm men to tumult.” But these insolencies do not exist. So that whatever tumult either warm or cool men raise, I am not chargeable therewith.

“To know the true charter of Methodism.” The present point is, to know the true character of John Wesley. Now, in order to know this, we need not inquire what others were before he was born. All therefore that follows, of old Precisians, Puritans and Independents, may stand just as it is. (Pages 181-186.)

But “Mr. W. wanted to be persecuted.” (Page 187.) As this is averred over and over, I will explain myself upon it, once for all. I never desired or wanted to be persecuted.

Lives there who loves his pain?

I love and desire to “live peaceably with all men.” “But persecution would not come at his call.” However, it came uncalled; and, more than once or twice, it was not “mock persecution.” It was not only the huzzas of the mob; showers of stones are something more than huzzas. And whosoever saw the mob either at Walsal or Cork, (to instance in no more,) saw that they were not “in jest,” but in great earnest, eagerly athirst, not for sport, (as you suppose,) but for blood.

But though I do not desire persecution, I expect it. I must, if I believe St. Paul: “All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution;” (2 Timothy 3:12;) either sooner or later, more or less, according to the wise providence of God. But I believe, “all these things work together for good to them that love God.” And from a conviction of this, they may even rejoice when they are “persecuted for righteousness’ sake.” Yet, as I seldom “complain of ill treatment,” so I am never “dissatisfied with good.” (Page 188.) But I often wonder at it: And I once expressed my wonder nearly in the words of the old Athenian: “What have we done, that the world should be so civil to us?”

You conclude the head: “As he who persecutes is but the tool of him that invites persecution,” (I know not who does,) “the crime finally comes home to him who set the rioter at work.” (Page 191.) And is this all the proof that I am not peaceable? Then let all men judge if the charge is made good.

3. “The next mark of the celestial wisdom is, it is ‘gentle, and easy to be entreated;’ compliant and even obsequious to all men.” And how does it appear that I am wanting in this? Why, he is “a severe condemner of his fellow-citizens, and a severe exactor of conformity to his own observances.” Now, the proof:

(1.) “He tells us this in the very appellation he assumes.” (Page 192.) Nay, I never assumed it at all.

(2.) But “you say, ‘Useless conversation is an abomination to the Lord.’ And what is this, but to withstand St. Paul to the face?” Why, did St. Paul join in or condemn useless conversation? I rather think he reproves it. He condemns as saprov logov “putrid, stinking conversation,” all that is not good, all that is not “to the use of edifying,” and meet to “minister grace to the hearers (Ephesians 4:29.)

(3.) Mr. Wesley “resolved never to laugh, nor to speak a tittle of worldly things;” (page 193;) — “though others may, nay, must.” Pray add that, with the reason of my so resolving, namely, that I expected to die in a few days. If I expected it now, probably, I should resume the resolution. But, be it as it may, this proves nothing against my being both gentle, and easy to be entreated.

(4.) “He says, Mr. G—— was a clumsy, overgrown, hardfaced man.” (Page 194.) So he was. And this was the best of him. I spare him much in saying no more. But he is gone; let his ashes rest.

(5.) “I heard a most miserable sermon, full of dull, senseless, improbable lies.” It was so, from the beginning to the end. I have seldom heard the like.

(6.) “‘The persecution at St. Ives’” (which ended before I came; what I saw I do not term persecution) “‘was owing to the indefatigable labors of Mr. H. and Mr. S., gentlemen worthy to be had in everlasting remembrance.’ Here he tells us, it is his purpose to gibbet up the names of his two great persecutors to everlasting infamy,” (Page 195.) These gentlemen had occasioned several innocent people to be turned out of their livelihood; and others to be outraged in the most shocking manner, and beat only not to death. My purpose is, by setting down their names, to make others afraid so to offend. Yet I say still, God forbid that I should rail, either at a Turk, infidel, or heretic. But I will bring to light the actions of such Christians, to be a warning to others. And all this I judge to be perfectly consistent with “the spirit of meekness.” (Page 196.)

4. “The Fourth mark is, ‘full of mercy and good fruits.’ Let us inquire into the ‘mercy and good fruits’ of Mr. W.” (Page 198.)

(1.) And, First: “He has no mercy on his opposers. They pass with him under on other title, than that of the devil’s servants, and the devil’s children.” (Ibid.) This is far from true. Many have opposed and do oppose me still, whom I believe to be children and servants of God. “We have seen him dispatching the principal of these children of the devil, without mercy, to their father.” (Page 199.) No, not one. This has been affirmed over and over, but never proved yet. I fling about no exterminating judgments of God; I call down no fire from heaven. “But it would be for the credit of these new saints, to distinguish between rage and zeal.” That is easily done. Rage is furious fire from hell; zeal is loving fire from heaven.

(2.) “If what has been said above does not suffice, turn again to Mr. W.’s Journals: ‘Mr. S., while he was speaking to the society against my brother and me, was struck raving mad.’” (Page 200.) He was so, before a hundred witnesses; though I was the last to believe it. “But, it seems, God is at length entreated for him, and has restored him to a sound mind.” And is my relating this fact an instance of “dooming men to perdition?”

(3.) “John Haydon cried aloud, ‘Let the world see the just judgment of God.’” (Page 201.) He did. But let John Haydon look to that. It was he said so, not I.

(4.) “I was informed of an awful providence. A poor wretch, who was here the last week, cursing and blaspheming, and laboring with all his might to hinder the word of God, had afterwards boasted, 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 202.) And was not this an awful providence? But yet I do not doom even him to perdition.

(5.) “I saw a poor man, once joined with us, who wanted nothing in this world. A day or two before, he hanged himself, but was cut down before he was dead. He has been crying out ever since, God had left him, because he had left the children of God.” This was his assertion, not mine. I neither affirm nor deny it.

(6.) The true account of Lucy Godshall is this: “I buried the body of Lucy Godshall. After pressing toward the mark for more than two years, since she had known the pardoning love of God, she was for some time weary, and faint in her mind, till I put her out of the Bands. God blessed this greatly to her soul, so that, in a short time, she was admitted again. Soon after, being at home, she felt the love of God in an unusual manner poured into her heart. She fell down upon her knees, and delivered up her soul and body into the hands of God. In the instant, the use of all her limbs was taken away, and she was in a burning fever. For three days, she mightily praised God, and rejoiced in him all the day long. She then cried out, ‘Now Satan hath desired to have me, that he may sift me as wheat.’ Immediately darkness and heaviness fell upon her, which continued till Saturday, the 4th instant. On Sunday the light shone again upon her heart. About ten in the evening, one said to her, ‘Jesus is ready to receive your soul.’ She said, ‘Amen! Amen!’ closed her eyes, and died.” (Vol. I. p. 397.) Is this brought as a proof of my inexorableness, or of my dooming men to perdition?

(7.) “I found Nicholas Palmer in great weakness of body, and heaviness of spirit. We wrestled with God in his behalf; all our labor was not in vain. His soul was comforted; and a few hours after he quietly fell asleep.” A strange proof this likewise, either of inexorableness, or of “dooming men to perdition!” Therefore this charge too stands totally unsupported. Here is no proof of my unmercifulness yet.

“Good fruits come next to be considered, which Mr. Wesley’s idea of true religion does not promise. He saith,” (I will repeat the words a little at large, that their true sense may more clearly appear,) “‘In explaining those words, The kingdom of God, or true religion, is not meats and drinks, I was led to show, that religion does not properly consist in harmlessness, using the means of grace, and doing good, that is, helping our neighbors, chiefly by giving alms; but that a man might both be harmless, use the means of grace, and do much good, and yet; have not religion at all.’” (Tract, p. 203.) He may so. Yet whoever has true religion, must be “zealous of good works.” And zeal for all good works is, according to my idea, an essential ingredient of true religion.

“Spiritual cures are all the good fruits he pretends to.” (Pages 204, 205.) Not quite all, says William Kirkman, with some others. “A few of his spiritual cures we will set in a fair light: ‘The first time I preached at Swalwell,’” (chiefly to colliers, and workers in the iron work,) “‘none seemed to be convinced, only stunned.’” I mean amazed at what they heard, though they were the first principles of religion. “But he brings them to their senses with a vengeance.” No, not them. These were different persons. Are they lumped together, in order to set things in a fair light? The whole paragraph runs thus: “I carefully examined those who had lately cried out in the congregation. Some of these, I found, could give no account at all, how or wherefore they had done so; only that of a sudden they dropped down, they knew not how; and what they afterward said or did they knew not. Others could just remember, they were in fear, but could not tell what they were in fear of. Several said they were afraid of the devil; and this was all they knew. But a few gave a more intelligible account of the piercing sense they then had of their sins, both inward and outward, which were set in array against them round about; of the dread they were in of the wrath of God, and the punishment they had deserved, into which they seemed to be just falling, without any way to escape. One of them told me, ‘I was as if I was just falling down from the highest place I had ever seen. I thought the devil was pushing me off, and that God had forsaken me. Another said, ‘I felt the very fire of hell already kindled in my breast; and all my body was in as much pain, as if I had been in a burning fiery furnace. ‘What wisdom is this which rebuketh these, that they should hold their peace? Nay, let such an one cry after Jesus of Nazareth, till he saith,’ Thy faith hath made thee whole.”’ (Journal, Vol. I. p. 407.)

Now follow the proofs of my driving men mad:

(1.) “Another of Dr. Monro’s patients came to ask my advice. I found no reason to believe she had been any otherwise mad, than every one that is deeply convinced of sin.” (Tract, p. 208.) Let this prove all that it can prove.

(2.) “A middle-aged woman was really distracted.” Yes, before I ever saw her, or she me.

(3.) “I could not but be under some concern with regard to one or two persons, who were tormented in an unaccountable manner, and seemed to be indeed lunatic, as well as sore vexed.” True; for a time. But the deliverance of one of them is related in the very next paragraph.

(4.) “Two or three are gone quite distracted; that is, they mourn and refuse to be comforted till they have redemption.” (Page 209.)

(5.) “I desired one to visit Mrs. G in Bedlam, put in by her husband, as a madwoman.” but she never was mad in any degree, as he himself afterwards acknowledged.

(6.) “One was so deeply convinced of her ungodliness, that she cried out day and night, ‘Lord, save, or I perish!’ All the neighbors agreed she was stark mad.” But I did not make her so. For this was before she ever saw my face. Now, let every one judge, whether here is yet a single proof that I drive men mad.

“The time when this spiritual madness was at its height, he calls a glorious time.” (Page 210.) I call that a glorious time when many notorious sinners are converted to God; (whether with any outward symptoms or none, for those are no way essential;) and when many are in the triumph of faith, greatly rejoicing in God their Savior.

“But though Mr. Wesley does so well in turning fools into madmen, yet his craftmaster is certainly one Mr. Wheatley, of whom he gives this extraordinary account:” (Page 211:)

“A poor woman (on Wednesday, September 17, 1740) said, it was four years (namely, in September 1736, above a year before I left Georgia) since her son, by hearing a sermon of Mr. Wheatley’s fell into great uneasiness. She thought he was ill, and would have sent for a Physician. But he said, ‘No, no; send for Mr. Wheatley.’ He was sent for, and came; and after asking a few questions, told her, ‘The boy is mad. Get a coach, and carry him to Dr. Monro. Use my name. I have sent several such to him.’ Who this Mr. Wheatley is, I know not.” He was Lecturer at Spitalfields Church. The event was, after the Apothecary had half murdered him, he was discharged, and the lad soon recovered his strength. His senses he never had lost. The supposing this was a blunder from the beginning.

“These are the exploits which Mr. Wesley calls blessings from God.” (Page 212.) Certainly I do, both repentance and faith. “And which therefore we may call the good fruits of his ministry.” May God increase them an hundred fold! “What the Apostle calls ‘good fruits,’ namely, doing much good, Mr. Wesley tells us belongs not to true religion.” I never told any man so yet. I tell all men just the contrary.

I may then safely leave all mankind to judge, whether a single article of the charge against me has yet been made good. So much for the first charge, that I am a madman. Now for the second, that I am a knave.

5. The proof is short: “Every enthusiast is a knave; but he is an enthusiast; therefore he is a knave.” I deny both the first and second proposition. Nay, the first is proved thus: “Enthusiasm must always be accompanied with craft and knavery.” (Page 213.) It is often so, but not always; for there may be honest enthusiasts. Therefore the whole account of that odd combination which follows is ingenious, but proves nothing. (Pages 214-218.)

Yet I must touch upon one or two parts of it. “An enthusiast thinks he is dispensed with in breaking, nay, that he is authorized to break, the common laws of morality.” Does every enthusiast? Then I am none; for I never thought any such thing. I believe no man living is authorized to break, or dispense with in breaking, any law of morality. I know, whoever (habitually) breaks one of the least of these, “shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.”

“Can any but an enthusiast believe, that he may use guile to promote the glory of God? “Yes, ten thousand that are no enthusiasts firmly believe this. How few do we find that do not believe it! that do not plead for officious lies! How few will subscribe to St. Augustine’s declaration, (to which I assent; with my whole heart,) “I would not tell a wilful lie, to save the souls of the whole world!”

But to return: “‘The wisdom from above is without partiality and without hypocrisy.’ Partiality consists in dispensing an unequal measure in our transactions with others; hypocrisy, in attempting to cover that unequal measure by prevarication and false pretenses.”

The former of these definitions is not clear; the latter neither clear nor adequate to the defined.

But let this pass. My partiality is now the point. What are the proofs of it?

(1.) “His followers are always the children of God, his opposers the children of the devil.” (Page 220.) Neither so, nor so. I never affirmed either one or the other universally. That some of the former are children of God, and some of the latter children of the devil, I believe. But what will this prove?

“His followers are directed by inward feelings, the impulses of an inflamed fancy;” (no more than they are directed by the Alcoran;) “his opposers, by the Scripture.” What, while they are cursing, swearing, blaspheming; beating and maiming men that have done them no wrong; and treating women in a manner too shocking to be repeated?

(2.) The next proof is very extraordinary. My words are, “I was with two persons, who, I doubt, are properly enthusiasts: For, first, they think to attain the end without the means, which is enthusiasm properly so called. Again, they think themselves inspired of God, and are not. But false imaginary inspiration is enthusiasm. That theirs is only imaginary inspiration appears hence, — it contradicts the law and the testimony.” (Page 221.)

Now, by what art of man can this be made a proof of my partiality? Why thus: “These are wise words. But what do they amount to? Only to this; that these two persons would not take out their patents of inspiration from his office.” But what proof is there of this round assertion? Truly, none at all.

(3.) Full as extraordinary is the third proof of my partiality. “Miss Gr—— told Mrs. Sp——, Mr. Wesley was a Papist. Upon this Miss Gr—— is anathematized. And we are told that, in consequence, she had lately been raving mad, and, as such, was tied down in her bed. Yet all these circumstances of madness have befallen his favorite saints, whom he has vindicated from the opprobrium.” (Page 222.) The passage in my Journal stands thus: “Mrs. Spa—— told me, two or three nights since, ‘Miss Gr—— met me, and said, I assure you, Mr. Wesley is a Papist.’ Perhaps I need observe no more upon this, than that Miss Gr—— had lately been raving mad, in consequence of a fever;” (not of an anathema, which never had any being;) “that, as such, she was tied down in her bed; and as soon as she was suffered to go abroad, went to Mr. Whitefield, to inquire of him whether she was not a Papist. But he quickly perceived she was only a lunatic; the nature of her disorder soon betraying itself.” Certainly then my allowing her to be mad is no proof of my partiality. I will allow every one to be so who is attended with “all these circumstances of madness.”

(4.) “He pronounces sentence of enthusiasm upon another, and tells us wherefore, without any disguise: ‘Here I took leave of a poor, mad, original enthusiast, who had been scattering lies in every quarter.’” It was the famous John Adams, since confined at Box, whose capital lie, the source of the rest, was, that he was a prophet, greater than Moses, or any of the Apostles. And is the pronouncing him a madman a proof of my partiality?

(5.) “I had much conversation with Mr. Simpson, an original enthusiast. I desired him in the evening to give an exhortation. He did so, and spoke many good things, in a manner peculiar to himself:” — without order or connection, head or tail; and in a language very near as mystical as that of Jacob Behmen. “When he had done, I summed up what he had said, methodizing and explaining it. O what a pity it is, this well-meaning man should ever speak without an interpreter!” (Page 223.)

Let this passage likewise stand as it is, and who can guess how it is to prove my partiality? But by a slight-of-hand the thing is done. “How differently does Mr. Wesley treat these two enthusiasts! The first is accused of spreading lies of his master.” (No, he never was any disciple of mine.) “On which Mr. W. took his leave of him; — a gentle expression, to signify the thrusting him out, head and shoulders, from the society of saints.” It signifies neither more nor less than that I went out of the room and left him. “The other’s enthusiasm is made to consist only in want of method.” No. His enthusiasm did not consist in this. It was the cause of it. But he was quite another man than John Adams; and, I believe, a right honest man.

(6.) “I was both surprised and grieved at a genuine instance of enthusiasm. I. B., who had received a sense of the love of God a few days before, came riding through the town, hallooing and shouting, and driving all the people before him, telling them God had told him he should be a King, and should tread all his enemies under his feet. I sent him home immediately to his work; and advised him to cry day and night to God that he might be lowly in heart, lest Satan should again ‘get an advantage over him.’”

What this proves, or is intended to prove, I cannot tell. Certainly, neither this, nor any of the preceding passages, prove the point now in question, — my partiality. So this likewise is wholly unproved still. “We shall end, where every fanatic leader ends, with his hypocrisy.” (Page 227.) Five arguments are brought in proof of this. I shall take them in their order.

(1.) “After having heaped up miracles one upon another, he sneaks away under the protection of a puny wonder: ‘About five I began near the Keelmall’s Hospital, many thousands standing round. The wind was high just before, but scarce a breath was felt all the time we assembled before God. I praise God for this also. Is it enthusiasm to see God in every benefit we receive?’ It is not; the enthusiasm consists in believing those benefits to be conferred through a change in the established course of nature. But here he insinuates, that he meant no more by his miracles, than the seeing God in every benefit we receive.” (Pages 228, 229.) That sudden and total ceasing of the wind I impute to the particular providence of God. This I mean by seeing God therein. But this I knew many would count enthusiasm. In guarding against it, I had an eye to that single incident, and no other. Nor did I insinuate anything more than I expressed in as plain a manner as I could.

A little digression follows: “A friend of his advises, not to establish the power of working miracles, as the great criterion of a divine mission; seeing the agreement of doctrines with Scripture is the only infallible rule.” (Page 230.) “But Christ himself establishes the power of working miracles, as the great criterion of a divine mission.” (Page 231.) True, of a mission to be the Savior of the world; to put a period to the Jewish, and introduce the Christian, dispensation. And whoever pretends to such a mission will stand in need of such credentials.

(2.) “He shifts and doubles no less” (neither less nor more) “as to the ecstasies of his saints. Sometimes they are of God, sometimes of the devil; but he is constant in this, — that natural causes have no hand in them.” This is not true: In what are here termed ecstasies, strong joy or grief, attended with various bodily symptoms, I have openly affirmed, again and again, that natural causes have a part: Nor did I ever shift or double on the head. I have steadily and uniformly maintained, that, if the mind be affected to such a degree, the body must be affected by the laws of the vital union. The mind I believe was, in many of those cases, affected by the Spirit of God, in others by the devil, and in some by both; and, in consequence of this, the body was affected also.

(3.) “Mr. W. says, ‘I fear we have grieved the Spirit of the jealous God by questioning his work, and by blaspheming it, by imputing it to nature, or even to the devil.’” (Pages 232, 233.) True; by imputing the conviction and conversion of sinners, which is the work of God alone, (because of these unusual circumstances attending it,) either to nature or to the devil. This is flat and plain. No prevarication yet. Let us attend to the next proof of it: “Innumerable cautions were given me, not to regard visions or dreams, or to fancy people had remission of sins because of their cries, or tears, or outward professions. The sum of my answer was, You deny that God does now work these effects; at least that he works them in this manner. I affirm both. I have seen very many persons changed in a moment from a spirit of fear, horror, despair, to a spirit of love, joy, peace. What I have to say touching visions and dreams is this: I know several persons in whom this great change was wrought in a dream, or during a strong representation to the eye of their mind of Christ, either on the cross, or in glory. This is the fact; let any judge of it as they please. And that such a change was then wrought, appears (not from their shedding tears only, or falling into fits, or crying out; these are not the fruits, as you seem to suppose, whereby I judge, but) from the whole tenor of their life; till then many ways wicked, from that time holy, and just, and good.” “Nay, he is so convinced of its being the work of God, that the horrid blasphemies which ensued, he ascribes to the abundance of joy which God had given to a poor mad woman.” (Page 234.) Do I ascribe those blasphemies to her joy in God? No; but to her pride. My words are, “I met with one, who, having been lifted up with the abundance of joy which God had given her, had fallen into such blasphemies and vain imaginations as are not common to men. In the afternoon I found another instance, nearly, I fear, of the same kind; one who set her private revelations, so called, on the self-same foot with the written word.” (Page 235.)

But how is this to prove prevarication? “Why, on a sudden, he directly revokes all he had advanced. He says, ‘I told them they were not to judge of the spirit whereby any one spoke, either by appearances, or by common report, or by their own inward feelings; no, nor by any dreams, visions, or revelations, supposed to be made to the soul, any more than by their tears, or any involuntary effects wrought upon their bodies. I warned them that all these things were in themselves of a doubtful, disputable nature: They might be from God, or they might not; and were therefore not simply to be relied on, any more than simply to be condemned; but to be tried by a farther rule, to be brought to the only certain test, the law and the testimony.’ Now, is not this a formal recantation of what he had said just above?” (Page 235.) Nothing less, as I will show in two minutes, to every calm, impartial man. What I say now, I have said any time this thirty years; I have never varied therefrom for an hour: “Everything disputable is to be brought to the only certain test, ‘the law and the testimony.’” “But did not you talk just now of visions and dreams?” Yes; but not as of a test of any thing; only as a channel through which God is sometimes pleased to convey “love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, temperance,” the indisputable fruit of his Spirit: And these, we may observe, wherever they exist, must be inwardly felt. Now where is the prevarication, where the formal recantation? They are vanished into air.

But here is more proof: “At length he gives up all these divine agitations to the devil: ‘I inquired,’ says he, ‘into the case of those who had lately cried out aloud during the preaching.’ I found this had come upon every one of them in a moment, without any previous notice. In that moment they dropped down, lost all their strength, and were seized with violent pain. Some said they felt as if a sword were running through them; others, as if their whole body was tearing in pieces. These symptoms I can no more impute to any natural cause, than to the Spirit of God. I make no doubt but it was Satan tearing them as they were coming to Christ.” (Page 236.) “Now, these were the very symptoms which he had before ascribed to the Spirit of God.” (Page 237.) Never in my life. Indeed some of them I never met with before. Those outward symptoms which I had met with before, bodily agitations in particular, I did not ascribe to the Spirit of God, but to the natural union of the soul and body. And those symptoms which I now ascribe to the devil, I never ascribed to any other cause. The Second proof of my prevarication or hypocrisy is therefore just as conclusive as the First.

3. Now for the Third: “Mr. W. before spoke contemptuously of orthodoxy, to take in the Sectaries. But when he would take off Churchmen, then orthodoxy is the unum necessarium” f27 Did I ever say so? No more than, in the other extreme, speak contemptuously of it. “Yes, you say, ‘I described the plain, old religion of the Church of England, which is now almost everywhere spoken against under the new name of Methodism.’” Very well; and what shadow of prevarication is here? May I not still declare the plain, old religion of the Church of England, and yet very consistently aver, that right opinion is a very slender part of it?

4. The next passage, I am sorry to say, is neither related with seriousness nor truth: “We have seen him inviting persecution.” Never; though I “rejoiced,” in the instance alleged, at having an opportunity of calling a multitude of the most abandoned sinners to repentance.

What is peculiarly unfair, is, the lame, false account is palmed upon me, by “So he himself tells the story.” I must therefore tell the story once more, in as few words as I can: —

“Sunday, August 7, 1737. I repelled Mrs. W. from the communion. Tuesday, 9. I was required by Mr. Bailiff Parker to appear at the next court. Thursday, 11. Mr. Causton, her uncle, said to me, ‘Give your reasons for repelling her before the whole congregation.’ I answered: ‘Sir, if you insist upon it, I will.’ But I heard no more of it. Afterward he said, (but not to me,) ‘Mr. W. had repelled Sophy out of revenge, because he had made proposals of marriage to her, which she rejected.’ Tuesday, 16. Mrs. W. made affidavit of it. Thursday, September 1. A Grand Jury, prepared by Mr. Causton, found, that ‘John Wesley had broken the laws of the realm, by speaking and writing to Mrs. W. against her husband’s consent, and by repelling her from the communion.’

“Friday, 2, was the third court-day at which I appeared, since my being required so to do by Mr. Parker. I moved for an immediate hearing, but was put off till the next court-day. On the next court-day I appeared again, as also at the two courts following; but could not be heard. Thursday, November 3, I appeared in court again; and yet again on Tuesday, November 22, on which day Mr. C. desired to speak with me, and read me an affidavit, in which it was affirmed, that I ‘abused Mr. C. in his own house, calling him liar, villain, and so on.’ It was likewise repeated, that I had been reprimanded at the last court, by Mr. C., as an enemy to, and hinderer of, the public peace.

“My friends agreed with me, that the time we looked for was now come. And the next morning, calling on Mr. C., I told him, I designed to set out for England immediately.

“Friday, December 2, I proposed to set out for Carolina about noon. But about ten, the magistrates sent for me, and told me, I must not go out of the province; for I had not answered the allegations laid against me. I replied, ‘I have appeared at six or seven courts, in order to answer them. But I was not suffered so to do.’ After a few more words, I said, ‘You use me very ill. And so you do the Trustees. You know your business, and I know mine.’ “In the afternoon, they published an order, forbidding any to assist me in going out of the province. But I knew I had no more business there. So as soon as Evening Prayer was over, the tide then serving, I took boat at the Bluff, for Carolina.”

This is the plain account of the matter. I need only add a remark or two on the pleasantry of my censurer. “He had recourse, as usual, to his revelations. ‘I consulted my friends, whether God did not call me to England.”’ (Page 242.) Not by revelations; these were out of the question; but by clear, strong reasons. “The Magistrate soon quickened his pace, by declaring him an enemy to the public peace.” No; that senseless assertion of Mr. C. made me go neither sooner nor later. ‘The reader has seen him long languish for persecution.’” What, before November, 1737? I never languished for it, either before or since. But I submit to what pleases God. “To hide his poltroonery in a bravado, he gave public notice of his apostolical intention.” (Page 243.) Kind and civil! I may be excused from taking notice of what follows. It is equally serious and genteel. “Had his longings for persecution been without hypocrisy.” The same mistake throughout. I never longed or professed to long for it at all. But if I had professed it ever since I returned from Georgia, what was done before I returned could not prove that profession to be hypocrisy. So all this ribaldry serves no end; only to throw much dirt, if haply some may stick. Meantime, how many untruths are here in one page!

(1.) “He made the path doubly perplexed for his followers.

(2.) He left them to answer for his crimes.

(3.) He longed for persecution.

(4.) He went as far as Georgia for it.

(5.) The truth of his mission was questioned by the Magistrate, and

(6.) decried by the people,

(7.) for his false morals.

(8.) The gospel was wounded through the sides of its pretended Missionary.

(9.) The first Christian Preachers offered up themselves.” So did I. “Instead of this, our paltry mimic.” (Page 244.) Bona verba! Surely a writer should reverence himself, how much soever he despises his opponent. So, upon the whole, this proof of my hypocrisy is as lame as the three former.

5. “We have seen above, how he sets all prudence at defiance.” None but false prudence. “But he uses a different language when his rivals are to be restrained.” No; always the same, both with regard to false prudence and true.

“But take the affair from the beginning. He began to suspect rivals in the year thirty-nine; for he says, ‘Remembering how many that came after me were preferred before me.’” The very next words show in what sense. They “had attained unto the law of righteousness;” I had not. But what has this to do with rivals?

However, go on: “At this time, December 8, 1739, his opening the Bible afforded him but small relief. He sunk so far in his despondency, as to doubt if God would not lay him aside, and send other laborers into his harvest.” But this was another time. It was June 22; and the occasion of the doubt is expressly mentioned: “I preached, but had no life or spirit in me, and was much in doubt,” on that account. Not on account of Mr. Whitefield. He did not “now begin to set up for himself.” We were in full union; nor was there the least shadow of rivalry or contention between us. I still sincerely “praise God for his wisdom in giving different talents to different Preachers;” (page 250;) and particularly for his giving Mr. Whitefield the talents which I have not.

6. What farther proof of hypocrisy? Why, “he had given innumerable flirts of contempt in his Journals against human learning.” (Pages 252, 253.) Where? I do not know. Let the passages be cited; else, let me speak for it even so much, it will prove nothing. “At last he was forced to have recourse to what he had so much scorned, I mean, prudence.” (Page 255.) All a mistake. I hope never to have recourse to false prudence; and true prudence I never scorned.

“He might have met Mr. Whitefield half way; but he was too formidable a rival. With a less formidable one he pursues this way. ‘I labored,’ says he, ‘to convince Mr. Gr——,’” (my assistant, not rival,) “that he had not done well, in confuting, as he termed it, the sermon I preached the Sunday before. I asked, Will you meet me half way?’” (The words following put my meaning beyond all dispute:) “‘I will never publicly preach against you. Will not you against me?’ Here we see a fair invitation to Mr. Gr—— to play the hypocrite with him.” (Ibid.) Not in the least. Each might simply deliver his own sentiments without preaching against the other. “We conclude that Mr. Wesley, amidst his warmest exclamations against all prudence, had still a succedaneum, which indeed he calls prudence; but its true name is craft.” (Page 257.) Craft is an essential part of worldly prudence. This I detest and abhor. And let him prove it upon me that can. But it must be by better arguments than the foregoing. Truly Christian prudence, such as was recommended by our Lord, and practiced by Him and his Apostles, I reverence, and desire to learn, being convinced of its abundant usefulness. I know nothing material in the argument which I have left untouched. And I must now refer it to all the world, whether, for all that has been brought to the contrary, I may not still have a measure of the “wisdom from above,