Wesley’s Letters: 1750

To ‘Amicus Veritatis’

SIR, -- 1. I did not see till to-day your letter of November 13 inserted in the Weekly Intelligencer.[The original appeared in the Bristol Weekly Intelligencer.] Of your former I had not designed to take any note. But I now send you a few thoughts upon both.

2. You affirm, first, that ‘Methodism injures the lower class of people by filling their heads with imaginary nonsense; whereas it would be better were they to spend the time they now do in dancing after the pipes of their instructors in their respective vocations.’

3. I know, sir, you count Christianity imaginary nonsense. But I account it the wisdom of God and the power of God; and shall not fail (so far as I am able to fill~ therewith both the heads and hearts of all mankind. Yet I do not hinder either those of an higher or lower class from attending their respective vocations. Nor can they be charged with neglecting those who daily attend thereon, from six in the morning till seven in the evening.

4. You affirm, secondly: ‘Enthusiasm is the fountain from whence this evil (Methodism) flows’ I cannot allow this without some proof that either Christianity or Methodism (another name for the same thing) flows from enthusiasm or is any way contrary to reason.

5. You affirm thirdly: ‘These gloomy wretches (the Christians or Methodists) swallow whatever nonsense their leaders promulgate. Then from barren rocks and deserts they conjure up spirits and witches, angry brings and terrible devils.’ I conceive these pretty and lively assertions require no other answer than, They do not.

6. You affirm, fourthly: ‘They pretend heavenly revelations, inspirations, and divine missions, which has been the cant of the predecessors of this kind in all the ages,’ -- i.e. of those called prophets and apostles. Sir, your meaning is tolerably plain. But the proof of it you have forgot. Thus say you, they make an absolute conquest of the properties and souls of their believers. You are so good as to retract this in your second letter. So it may stand here as it is.

7. You affirm, fifthly: ‘This (Christianity or Methodism) has done infinite mischief to mankind. It has taught them to believe senseless doctrines and to practice idle tricks as religious duties’ Be pleased, sir, to instance in particulars; generals prove nothing.

8. You affirm, sixth: ‘God h not pleased with absurd opinions or ridiculous ceremonies.’ Agreed. But which are they? The opinion that God was made man? Or the ceremonies of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper?

9. You affirm, seventh: ‘That the doing as we would be done by is the rule Christ, the great Author of our holy religion (for whom you have a very peculiar regard), recom­mends to His disciples; that God has given us passions and appetites; that to use these moderately is right, to indulge them immoderately is wrong.’ Observations undeniably true! ‘Tis much they were never made before.

10. This is the sum of the first testimony you have borne against error. In your second letter you undertake to prove, farther, ‘that the leaders and minority of the members are absolutely enthusiasts’

An enthusiast, you say, is one who implicitly entertains a set of religious principles which cannot be controlled by reason, strictly adhering to his own opinion, and thinking all who differ from him in an absolute state of perdition.

Then by your own account I am no enthusiast. For (1) I did not implicitly entertain any set of religious principles. I weighed every principle of Christianity again and again, refusing to take it upon any man's word. (2) I am still willing to be controlled by reason. Bring me stronger reasons for Infidefity than I have for receiving the Christian system, and I will come over to you to-morrow. (3) I do not think all who differ from me in an absolnte state of perdition; I believe many of them are in a state of salvation. Therefore according to your account, I am not an enthusiast.

11. By what arguments do you prove that I am? Your first is, ‘I humbly imagine it is indisputable.’ Your second, ‘I never heard it once questioned.’ A third, ‘If the Methodists are not enthusiasts, the word in my opinion has no meaning’ All these I leave to stand in their full force.

A fourth is, ‘They meet at midnight.’ (You should say, They sometimes continue till midnight praising God.) ‘They meet at five in the morning, winter and summer.’ Some of them do, and it conduces to bodily as well as spiritual health. ‘They meet twice or thrice more in every day of the year’ Sir, you know they do not. You know the bulk of the Methodists meet only twice on common days; and that most of them do not meet once a day, unless on Sunday.

‘Then their 1ovefeasts and confessing their sins to each other’ Sir you forget you are personating a Christian. You must not now condemn these things in the gross. If you do, the mask drops off. ‘All their other little tricks and rules,’ which you say none but a member can enumerate, are enumerated to your hand in a small tract entitled A Plain Account of the People called Methodists. [See letter in Dec. 1748 to Vincent Perronet.]

12. I am obliged to you for believing that I ‘have no sinister or lucrative views’ in what I do, and that ‘the collections made among us are applied justly to defray the necessary expenses of the Society.’ Yet I grant ‘this does not clear me of enthusiasm.’ But neither do you prove it upon me: no more than ‘the learned and honest Dr. Middleton [See letter of Jan. 4, 1749.] (as you style him) proves it upon ‘the Fathers of the primitive Church.’ How ‘learned’ he may be in other respects I know not. But this I take it upon me to say, either that he is not an ‘honest’ man or that he does not understand Greek.

13. A ‘virtuous and sober’ life (I mean an uniform practice of justice mercy, and truth) I allow is the ‘true test of a good conscience’ of the bring God and all mankind And in this practice I desire to be guided by right reason, under the influence of the Spirit of God. May He lead you and me into all truth! --I am, sir,

Your humble servant.

To John Bennet [1]

LONDON January 23, 1750.

There ties before me a transcript from a letter of yours sent lately to John Haughton in Ireland. Some of the words are: ‘I was married to Grace Murray on Tuesday by the advice of Mr. C. Wesley and G. Whitefield. But when Mr. Wesley came to hear it and saw us, he was so enraged as if he had been mad, for he himself was inflamed with love and lust unto her.’ I saw you first at William Shents. [In Leeds on Oct. 6, 1749, three days after the marriage, when he kissed him and uttered no word of reproach. See letter of Nov. 3, 1749.] Was I then so enraged as if I had been mad? Or was it when I saw her and you together in the chamber at Mr. Towers? [See Journal, iii. 330.]

How came you to know that I ‘was inflamed with lust’? Did your wife tell you so? If she did not, you would not have so roundly affirmed it. If she did, she has made me a fair return. If you only, after having robbed me, had stabbed me to the heart, I might have perhaps endeavored to defend myself But I can now only cover my face and say, ‘Art thou also among them? Art thou! my daughter!’

To Dr. Lavington, Bishop of Exeter [2]

Agedum! Pauca accipe contra. [Horace's Satire, I. iv. 38: ‘Now hear a few things in reply.’]

CANTERBURY, February 1, 1750.

SIR, -- 1. In your late pamphlets you have undertaken to prove that Mr. Whitefield and I are gross enthusiasts, and that our whole ‘conduct is but a counterpart of the most wild fanaticisms of the most abominable communion in its most corrupt ages’ (Preface, p. 3).

You endeavor to support this charge against us by quotations from our own writings compared with quotations from celebrated writers of the Romish communion.

2. It lies upon me to answer for one. But I must not burthen you with too long an answer, lest ‘for want either of leisure or inclination’ (page 5) you should not give this any more than my other tracts a reading. In order, therefore, to spare both you and myself, I shall consider only your First Part, and that as briefly as possible. Accordingly I shall not meddle with your other quotations; but, leaving them to whom they may concern, shall only examine whether those you have made from my writings prove the charge of enthusiasm or no.

This I conceive will be abundantly sufficient to decide the question between you and me. If these do prove the charge, I am cast; if they do not, if they are the words of truth and sober­ness, it will be an objection of no real weight against sentiments just in themselves, though they should also be found in the writings of Papists -- yea, of Mahometans or Pagans.

3. Let the eight pages you borrow stand as they are. I presume they will do neither good nor harm. In the tenth you say: ‘The Methodists act on the same plan with the Papists; not perhaps from compact and design, but a similar configuration and texture of brain or the fumes of imagination producing similar effects. From a commiseration of horror, arising from the grievous corrup­tions of the world, perhaps from a real motive of sincere piety, they both set out with warm pretences to a reformation.’ Sir, this is an uncommon thought -- that sincere piety should arise from the ‘configuration and texture of the brain’ I as well as that ‘pretences to a reformation’ should spring from ‘a real motive of sincere piety’!

4. You go on: ‘Both commonly begin their adventures with field-preaching’ (Enthusiasm, &c., p. 11). Sir, do you condemn field-preaching toto genere, as evil in itself? Have a care! or you (I should say the gentleman that assists you) will speak a little too plain, and betray the real motives of his sincere antipathy to the people called Methodists.

Or do you condemn the preaching on Hahham Mount -- in particular, to the colliers of Kingswood? If you doubt whether this has done any real good, it is a very easy thing to be informed. And I leave it with all impartial men whether the good which has in fact been done by preaching there, and which could not possibly have been done any other way, does not abundantly ‘justify the irregularity of it’ (page 15).

5. But you think I am herein inconsistent with myself. For I say, ‘The uncommonness is the very circumstance that recommends it.’ (I mean, that recommended it to the colliers in Kingswood.) And yet I said but a page or two before, ‘We are not suffered to preach in the churches, else we should prefer them to any places whatsoever.’

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

6. Your second charge is that I ‘abuse the clergy, throw out so much gall of bitterness against them, and impute this black art of calumny to the Spirit and power given from God’ (page 15).

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

7. You charge me, thirdly, with ‘putting on a sanctified appear­ance, in order to draw followers, by a demure look, precise behavior, and other marks of external piety. For which reason,’ you say, ‘Mr. Wesley made and renewed that noble resolution not willingly to indulge himself in the least levity of behavior or in laughter -- no, not for a moment; to speak no word not tending to the glory of God, and not a little of worldly things.’ (Pages 18-19.)

Sir, you miss the mark again. If this ‘sanctified appearance was put on to draw followers’; if it was for ‘this reason’ (as you flatly affirm it was) that ‘Mr. Wesley made and renewed that noble resolution’ (it was made eleven or twelve years before, about the time of my removal to Lincoln College), then it can be no instance of enthusiasm, and so does not fall within the design of your present work; unless your title-page does not belong to your book, for that confines you to the enthusiasm of the Methodists.

8. But to consider this point in another view: you accuse me of ‘putting on a sanctified appearance, a demure look, precise behavior, and other marks of external piety.’ How are you assured, sir, this was barely external, and that it was a bare appear­ance of sanctity? You affirm this as from personal knowledge. Was you, then, acquainted with me three - or four - and-twenty years ago? ‘He made and renewed that noble resolution’ in order to ‘draw followers.’ Sir, how do you know that? Are you in God's place, that you take upon you to be the searcher of hearts? ‘That noble resolution not willingly to indulge himself in the least levity of behavior.’ Sir, I acquit you of having any concern in this matter. But I. appeal to all who have the love of God in their hearts whether this is not a rational, scriptural resolution, worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called. ‘Or in laughter -- no, not for a moment.’ No, nor ought I to indulge it at all, if I am conscious to myself it hurts my soul. In which let every man judge for himself. ‘To speak no word not tending to the glory of God.’ A peculiar instance of enthusiasm this! ‘And not a little of worldly things.’ The words immediately following are, ‘Others may, nay must. But what is that to me?’ (words which in justice you ought to have inserted), who was then entirely disengaged from worldly business of every kind. Notwithstanding which, I have often since engaged therein when the order of Providence plainly required it.

9. Though I did not design to meddle with them, yet I must here take notice of three of your instances of Popish enthusiasm. The first is that ‘Mechtildis tortured herself for having spoken an idle word’ (page 19). (The point of comparison lies, not in torturing herself, but in her doing it on such an occasion.) The second, that ‘not a word fell from St. Katharine of Sienna that was not religious and holy.’ The third, that ‘the lips of Magdalen di Pazzi were never opened but to chant the praises of God.’ I would to God the comparison between the Methodists and Papists would hold in this respect! yea, that you and all the clergy in England were guilty of just such enthusiasm!

11. You cite as a fourth instance of my enthusiasm that I say, ‘A Methodist (a real Christian) cannot adorn himself on any pretence with gold or costly apparel’ (page 21). If this be enthusi­asm, let the Apostle look to it. His words are clear and express. If you can find a pretence to set them aside, do. I cannot; nor do I desire it.

11. My ' seeming contempt of money' (page 26) you urge as a fifth instance of enthusiasm. Sir, I understand you. You was obliged to call it seeming, lest you should yourself confute the allegation brought in your title-page. But if it be only seeming, whatever it prove besides, it cannot prove that I am an enthusiast.

12. Hitherto you have succeeded extremely ill. You have brought five accusations against me, and have not been able to make one good. However, you are resolved to throw dirt enough that some may stick. So you are next to prove upon me ‘a restless impatience and insatiable thirst of traveling and undertaking dangerous voyages for the conversion of infidels; together with a declared contempt of all dangers, pains, and sufferings; and the designing, loving, and praying for ill usage, persecution, martyrdom, death, and hell’ (page 27).

In order to prove this uncommon charge, you produce four scraps of sentences (page 31), which you mark as my words, though, as they stand in your book, they are neither sense nor grammar. But you do not refer to the page or even the treatise where any one of them may be found. Sir, it is well you hide your name, or you would be obliged to hide your face from every man of candor or even common humanity.

13. ‘Sometimes indeed,’ you say, ‘Mr. Wesley complains of the scoffs both of the great vulgar and the small’ (page 32); to prove which you disjoint and murder (as your manner is) another of my sentences. ‘But at other times the note is changed, and “till he is despised no man is in a state of salvation.”’ ‘The note is changed’! How so? When did I say otherwise than I do at this day -- namely, ‘that none are children of God but those who are hated or despised by the children of the devil’?

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

14. ‘Corporal severities or mortification by tormenting the flesh’ (page 31) is the next thing you charge upon me. Almost two sentences you bring in proof of this. The one, ‘Our bed being wet’ (it was in a storm at sea), ‘I laid me down on the floor, and slept sound till morning; and I believe I shall not find it needful to go to bed, as it is called, any more.’ But whether I do or not, how will you prove that my motive is to ' gain a reputa­tion for sanctity’? I desire (if it be not too great a favor) a little evidence for this.

The other fragment of a sentence speaks ‘of bearing cold on the naked head, rain and wind, frost and snow’ (page 32). True; but not as matter of ‘mortification by tormenting the flesh.’ Nothing less. These things are not spoken of there as voluntary instances of mortification (you yourself know perfectly well they are not, only you make free with your friend), but as some of the unavoidable inconveniences which attend preaching in the open air.

Therefore you need not be so ‘sure that the Apostle condemns that ’afe?d?a s?µat??, “not sparing the body,” as useless and superstitious, and that it is a false show of humility’ (page 33). Humility is entirely out of the question, as well as chastity, in the case of hardships endured (but not properly chosen) out of love to the souls for which Christ died.

15. You add a word or two of my ‘ardent desire of going to hell,’ which, you think, I ‘adopted from the Jesuit Nieremberg’ (page 34). Sir, I know not the man. I am wholly a stranger both to his person and to his doctrine. But if this is his doctrine, I disclaim it from my heart. I ardently desire that both you and I may go to heaven.

But ‘Mr. Wesley says, “A poor old man decided the question of disinterested love. He said, I do not care what place I am in: let God put me where He will or do, with me what He will, so I may set forth His honor and glory.”’ (Page 35.)

He did so. And what then? Do these words imply ‘an ardent desire of going to hell’? I do not suppose the going to hell ever entered into his thoughts. Nor has it any place in my notion of disinterested love. How you may understand that term I know not.

But you will prove I have this desire, whether I will or no. You are sure this was my ‘original meaning (page 36), in the words cited by Mr. Church [See letter of June 17, 1746, sect. II. 8.] --

Doom, if Thou canst, to endless pain,

Or drive me from Thy face.

‘God’s power or justice,’ you say, ‘must be intended; because he speaks of God's love in the very next lines --

But if Thy stronger love constrains,

Let me be saved by grace.’

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

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

17. Part of your thirty-ninth page runs thus: ‘With respect to all this patient enduring hardships, &c., it has been remarked by learned authors that “some persons by constitutional temper have been fond of bearing the worst that could befall them; that others from a sturdy humor and the force of education have made light of the most exquisite tortures; that when enthusiasm comes in, in aid of this natural or acquired sturdiness, and men fancy they are upon God's work and entitled to His rewards, they are immediately all on fire for rushing into sufferings and pain.”’

I take knowledge of your having faithfully abridged -- your own book, shall I say, or the learned Dr. Middleton’s? But what is it you are endeavoring to prove?

Quorsum haec tam putida tendant? [Horace's Satires, II. vii. 21: ‘Whither tends this putid stuff?’]

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

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

18. You subjoin a truly surprising thought: ‘It may, more­over, be observed that both ancient and modern enthusiasts always take care to secure some advantage by their sufferings’ (page 40). Oh rare enthusiasts! So they are not such fools neither, as they are vulgarly supposed to be. This is just of a piece with the ‘cunning epileptic demoniacs’ in your other performance. And do not you think (if you would but speak all that is in your heart, and let us into the whole secret) that there was a compact likewise between Bishop Hooper and his executioner, as well as between the ventriloquist and the exorcist? [See letter of Jan. 4, 1749, IV. sect. III. to Dr. Conyers Middleton.]

But what ‘advantage do they take care to secure’? a good salary? a handsome fortune? No; quite another matter: ‘free communications with God and fuller manifestations of His goodness’ (ibid.). I dare say you do not envy them, no more than you do those ‘self-interested enthusiasts’ of old who, were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.’

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

And, first, you say I ‘represent conversion as sudden and instantaneous’ (ibid.). Soft and fair! Do you know what con­version is? (A term, indeed, which I very rarely use, because it rarely occurs in the New Testament.) ‘Yes; it is to “start up perfect men at once”’ (page 41). Indeed, sir, it is not. A man is usually converted long before he is a perfect man. It is probable most of those Ephesians to whom St. Paul directed his Epistle were converted; yet they were not ‘come’ (few, if any) ‘to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.’

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

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

21. ‘After these sudden conversions,’ say you, ‘they receive their assurances of salvation’ (page 43). Sir, Mr. Bedford’s [See letter of Sept. 28, 1738.] ignor­ance in charging this doctrine upon me might be involuntary, and I am persuaded was real. But yours cannot be so. It must be voluntary, if it is not rather affected. For you had before you while you wrote the very tract wherein I corrected Mr. Bedford's mistake and explicitly declared, ‘The assurance whereof I speak is not an assurance of salvation.’ And the very passages you cite from me prove the same; every one of which (as you yourself know in your own conscience) relates wholly and solely to present pardon, not to future salvation.

Of Christian perfection (page 45) I shall not say anything to you, till you have learned a little heathen honesty.

22. That this is a lesson you have not yet learned appears also from your following section, wherein you roundly affirm, ‘What­ever they think, say, or do’ (that is, the Methodists, according to their own account) ‘is from God. And whatever opposeth is from the devil.’ I doubt not but Mr. Church believed this to be true when he asserted it. But this is no plea for you, who, having read the answer to Mr. Church, still assert what you know to be false.

‘Here we have,’ say you, ‘the true spirit and very essence of enthusiasm, which sets men above carnal reasoning and all conviction of plain Scripture’ (page 49). It may or may not: that is nothing to me. I am not above either reason or Scripture. To either of these I am ready to submit. But I cannot receive scurrilous invective instead of Scripture, nor pay the same regard to low buffoonery as to clear and cogent reasons.

23. With your two following pages I have nothing to do. But in the fifty-second I read as follows: ‘ “A Methodist,” says Mr. Wesley, “went to receive the sacrament, when God was pleased to let him see a crucified Savior.”’ Very well; and what is this brought to prove? Why (1) that I am an enthusiast; (2) that I ‘encourage the notion of the real, corporal presence in the sacrifice of the Mass.’ How so? why, ‘this is as good an argument for transubstantiation as several produced by Bellarmine’ (page 57). Very likely it may; and as good as several produced by you for the enthusiasm of the Methodists.

24. In that ‘seraphic rhapsody of divine love,’ as you term it, which you condemn in the lump as rant and madness, there are several scriptural expressions both from the Old and New Testament. At first I imagined you did not know them, those being books which you did not seem to be much acquainted with. But, upon laying circumstances together, I rather suppose you was glad of so handsome an opportunity to make as if you aimed at me, that you might have a home-stroke at some of those old enthusiasts.

25. The next words which you cite from me as a proof of my enthusiasm are, ‘The power of God was in an unusual manner present’ (page 61). I mean many found an unusual degree of that peace, joy, and love which St. Paul terms ‘the fruit of the Spirit.’ And all these, in conformity to his doctrine, I ascribe to the power of God. I know you, in conformity to your principles, ascribe them to the power of nature. But I still believe, accord­ing to the old, scriptural hypothesis, that whenever, in hearing the word of God, men are filled with peace and love, God ‘confirms that word by the Holy Ghost given unto those that hear it.’

26. As a farther proof of my enthusiasm you mention ‘special directions, mission, and calls by immediate revelation’ (page 67); for an instance of which you cite those words, ‘I know and am assured that God sent forth His light and His truth.’ I did know this. But do I say ‘by immediate revelation’? Not a little about it. This is your own ingenious improvement upon my words.

‘However, it was by a special direction; for your own words in the same paragraph are, “From the direction I received from God this day, touching an affair of the greatest importance”’ (pages 68-9).

What, are these words in the same paragraph with those, ‘I know and am assured God sent forth His light and His truth’? Why, then, do you tear the paragraph in two, and put part in your sixty-seventh, part in your sixty-eighth and sixty-ninth pages? Oh for a plain reason -- to make it look like two instances of enthusiasm, otherwise it could have made but one at the most!

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

You add: ‘Let me mention a few directions coming by way of command. Mr. Wesley says, “I came to Mr. Delamotte's, where I expected a cool reception; but God had prepared the way before me.”’ (Page 69.) What, by a command to Mr. Delamotte? Who told you so? Not I, nor any one else, only your own fruitful imagination.

27. Your next discovery is more curious still -- that ‘itinerants order what they want at a public-house, and then tell the landlord that he will be damned if he takes anything of them’ (page 69).

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

‘As to the Bishop's declaring what the landlord of Mitchell says in respect to your behavior, I do not at all wonder at the story.’ ‘The Bishop's declaring’! Whom can he mean? Surely not the Right Reverend Dr. George Lavington, Lord Bishop of Exeter! When or to whom did he declare it? at Truro in Corn­wall? or in Plymouth, at his Visitation? to all the clergy who were assembled before God to receive his pastoral instructions? His Lordship of Exeter must certainly have more regard to the dignity of the episcopal office!

28. But to proceed: I was not ‘offended with the Moravians’ for warning men ‘against mixing nature with grace’ (page 71), but for their doing it in such a manner as tended to destroy all the work of grace in their souls. I did not blame the thing itself, but their manner of doing it; and this you know perfectly well: but with you truth must always give way to wit -- at all events, you must have your jest.

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

30. You are sadly at a loss under the article of ecstasies and raptures to glean up anything that will serve your purpose. At last, from ten or twelve tracts, you pick out two lines; and those the same you had mentioned before; My soul was got up into the holy mount. I had no thought of coming down again into the body.’ And truly you might as well have let these alone; for if by ‘ecstasy’ you mean trance, here is no account of any such, but only of one ‘rejoicing’ in God ‘with joy unspeakable and full of glory.’

With the ‘girl of seven years old’ (page 77) I have nothing to do; though you honestly tack that relation to the other, in order to make me accountable for both. But all is fair toward a M

Methodist.

31. What I assert concerning Peter Wright (page 79) is this: (1) that he gave me that relation (Whether I believed it or no, I did not say); (2) that he died within a month after. [] Now, sir, give us a cast of your office. From these two propositions extract a proof of my being an enthusiast.

You may full as easily prove it from these as from the words you quote next: ‘God does now give remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost, and often in dreams and visions of God.’ ‘But afterwards,’ you say, ‘I speak more distrustfully’ (page 79). Indeed, I do not; but I guard against enthusiasm in those words, part of which you have recited. The whole paragraph runs thus:

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

Sir, can you show them a better way?

32. The last proof that you produce of my enthusiasm is my ‘talking of the great work which God is now beginning to work upon earth' (page 80). I own the fact. I do talk of such a work. But I deny the consequence; for if God has begun a great work, then the saying He has is no enthusiasm.

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

But many sinners are saved from their sins at this day in London, in Bristol, in Kingswood, in Cornwall, in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in Whitehaven, in many other parts of England, in Wales, in Ireland, in Scotland, upon the continent of Europe, in Asia, and in America. This I term ‘a great work of God’ -- so great as I have not read of for several ages.

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

33. But you are so far from acknowledging anything of this, as to conclude in full triumph that 'this new dispensation is a composition of enthusiasm, superstition, and imposture’ (page 81). It is not dear what you mean by a new dispensation. But the clear and undeniable fact stands thus: A few years ago Great Britain and Ireland were covered with vice from sea to sea. Very little of even the form of religion was left, and still less of the power of it. Out of this darkness God commanded light to shine. In a short space He called thousands of sinners to repentance. They were not only reformed from their outward vices, but likewise changed in their dispositions and tempers; filled with ‘a serious, sober sense of true religion,’ with love to God and all mankind, with an holy faith, producing good works of every kind, works both of piety and mercy.

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

Your friend and well-wisher.

PS. -- When you come to relate those ‘horrid and shocking things,’ there may be a danger you are not aware of. Even you yourself may fall (as little as you intend or suspect it) into seriousness. And I am afraid, if once you put off your fool’s coat, if you stand naked before cool and sober reason, you yourself may appear as inconsiderable a creature (to use your own phrase) ‘as if your name was Perronet.’

To Christopher Hopper [3]

LONDON February 6, 1750.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- John Bennet has wrote foolishly both to Newcastle and to Ireland. [] If you do not help him, he will hurt you. I wish he would give Mr. Carmichael the guinea I promised, and send the rest of the book-money he has in his hands to me.

To John Bennet [4]

LONDON, February 9, 1750.

MY DEAR BROTHER,--Poor William Darney! I suspected as much (although I could hardly believe it), and therefore purposely wrote in the manner I did. If he could be so weak as to show any one that letter he must take it for his pains. As to those Societies unless they desire it I have no desire to see them any more. I have employment enough elsewhere. So that, if they will acquit me of a part of my charge, I shall thank them and bless God. I have wrote to Mr. Grimshaw this afternoon. I dare not consent to any person’s talking nonsense either in verse or prose to any who remain under my inspection. What account do you hear of Eleazer Webster? How does he behave? [See letter of Nov. 25, 1748.]

There has been little order in the Yorkshire Societies yet, and this has occasioned their want of money. If they are regulated thoroughly, that want will cease. But I should think they should not yet attempt so expensive a work.

There can be no good understanding between you and me so long as you encourage those tale, bearers. A villain most certainly he was whoever sent you that account from London. I doubt he is the same person I have traced through several parts of England -- a smooth, fawning, bad man, and not only a tale-bearer, but a liar and slanderer. Such are enough to separate chief friends.

From the time I left you I have continually set a watch before my lips. I spoke my heart once, and no more, between Cheshire and London, where my brother had spoke; there I spoke, just as much as I believed the glory of God required. And all to whom I spoke said with one voice, ‘You are still as much prejudiced in favor of her as ever.’

I have been equally wary in all my letters. Even when the copy of your letter was sent me from Limerick, the sharpest word I wrote in answer was, ‘John Bennet is not wise.’

My brothel beware you do not hurt yourself. I have not found God so present with me for so long a lime, ever since I was twelve years old. [When he was a boy at Charterhouse. This throws welcome light on his religious life at school. See sect. 14 of letter in Dec. 1751 to Dr. Lavington.] If I have any choice of anything left, it is that God would lighten my burden as to these Societies, if He sees good, by taking me to Himself. Adieu!

To Mrs. Bennet

[On the same sheet he wrote these few words to Mrs. Bennet:]

MY DEAR SISTER, -- God forbid that I should cease to pray for you as long as I am in the body. This morning my eyes were filled with tears of joy from an hope that my time here is short. Many times in a day I commend you to God. May His grace supply all your wants!

To James Brewster [5]

LONDON, February 22, 1750.

SIR, -- I return you my sincere thanks for your plain dealing, and doubt not but it springs from an upright heart.

With regard to my political principles, I have never had any doubt since I read Mr. Higden’s View of the English Constitution, which I look upon as one of the best-wrote books I have ever seen in the English tongue. [William Higden (died 1715); Prebendary of Canterbury 1713; defended taking oaths to the Revolution monarchy 1709 and 1710.]

Yet I do not approve of the imposing that oath, no more than of many other things which yet are not mentioned in the Appeal. The design of that tract not only did not require but did not admit of my mentioning them; for I was there arguing with every man on his own allowed principles, not contesting the principles of any man.

Besides my conscience not only did not require but forbade my mentioning this in a tract of that nature. I dare not thus ‘speak evil’ of the rulers of my people whether they, deserve it or not. John Baptist no more authorizes me to do this than it does. He did not tell the faults of Herod to the multitude but to Herod himself. If occasion were given, I trust God would enable me to ‘go and do like-wise.’

I admit none but those to our lovefeasts who have ‘the love of God’ already ‘shed abroad in their hearts,’ because all the psalms and prayers and exhortations at that time are suited to them, and them alone.

Any farther advices which you are pleased to favor me with will be acceptable to, sir,

Your very humble servant.

To the Sheffield Society [6]

LONDON February 23, [1750].

I do not find that John Maddern makes any complaints of Sheffield. You did most of you run well. Why should you turn back? The prize and the crown are before you.O let not your hands hang down! Begin afresh. Set out with one heart. Let no more angel or bitterness, or clamour, or evil-speaking be ever found among you. Let the leaders be as parents to all in their classes, watching over them in love bearing their infirmities, praying with them and for them, ready to do and suffer all things for their sake.

--I am, &.

To Joseph Cownley [7]

DUBLIN, April 12, 1750.

MY DEAR BROTHR, -- I doubt you are in a great deal more danger from honor than from dishonor. So it is with me. I always find there is most hazard in sailing upon smooth watch When the winds blow and the seas rage, even the sleepers will rise and call upon God.

From Newcastle to London and from London to Bristol God is everywhere reviving His work. I find it is so now in Dublin; although there has been great imprudence in some whereby grievous wolves have lately crept in amongst us, not sparing the flock; by whom some souls have been utterly destroyed, and others wounded who are not yet recovered. Those who ought to have stood in the gap did not; but I trust they will be wiser for the time to come. After a season I think it will be highly expedient for you to labor in Ireland again. Mr. Lunell has been on the brink of the grave by a fever. Yesterday we had hopes of his recovery.

I see a danger you are in, which perhaps you do not see yourself. Is it not most pleasing to me as well as you to be always preaching of the love of God? And is there not a time when we are peculiarly led thereto, and find a peculiar blessing therein? Without doubt so it is. But yet it would be utterly wrong and unscriptural to preach of nothing else. Let the law always prepare for the gospel. I scarce ever spoke more earnestly here of the love of God in Christ than last night; but it was after I had been tearing the unawakened in pieces. Go thou and do likewise. It is true the love of God in Christ alone feeds His children; but even they are to be guided as well as fed -- yea, and o~en physicked too: and the bulk of our hearers must be purged before they are fed; else we only feed the disease Beware of all honey. It is the best extreme; but it is an extreme. – I am

Your affectionate brother.

To Gilbert Boyce [8]

BANDON, May 22, 1750.

DEAR SIR, -- I do not think either the Church of Eng­land, or the People called Methodist or any other particular Society under heaven to be the True Church of Christ. For that Church is but one and contains all the true believers on earth. But I conceive every society of true believers to be a branch of the one true Church of Christ.

‘Tis no wonder that young and unlearned preachers use some improper expressions. I trust, upon friendly advice, they will lay them aside. And as they grow in years they will increase in knowledge.

I have neither inclination nor time to draw the saw of controversy. But a few here remarks I would make in order to our understanding and (I hope) loving one another the better.

You think the mode of baptism is ‘necessary to salvation’: I deny that even baptism itself is so; if it were, every Quaker must be damned which I can in no wise believe.

I hold nothing to be (strictly speaking) necessary to salva­tion but the mind which was in Christ. If I did not think you had a measure of this, I could one love you as an heathen man or a publican.

They who believe with the faith working by love are God's children.

I don't wonder that God permits (not causes) smaller evils among these when I observe far greater evils among them; for sin is an infinitely greater evil than ignorance.

I do not conceive that unity in the outward modes of worship is so necessary among the children of God that they cannot be children of God without it, although I once thought it was.

I do make use (so far as I know) of all the means of grace God has ordained exactly as God has ordained them. But here is your grand mistake: you think my design is ‘to form a Church.’ No: I have no such design. It is not my deign or desire that any who accept of my help should leave the Church of which they are now member. Were I converting Indians, I would take every step St. Paul took: but I am not; therefore some of those steps I am not to take. There­fore I still join with the Church of England so far, as I can; at the same time that I and my friends use several prudential helps which our Church neither enjoins nor forbids, as being in themselves of a purely indifferent nature.

What I affirm of the generality both of teachers and people in the Church of England, I affirm of teaches and people of every other denomination -- I mean so far as I have known them; and I have known not a few both in Europe and America. I never saw an unmixed communion yet, unless perhaps among the Moravian Brethren or the Methodists. Yet that God does bless us even when we receive the Lord's Supper at St. Paul's, I can prove by numberless in­stances.

If I were in the Church of Rome, I would conform to all her doctrines and practices as far as they were not contrary to plain Scripture. And, according to the best of my judgment, I conform so far only to those of the Church of England. I have largely explained myself in the third volume of Sermons touching the stress which I judge is to be laid on opinions. This likewise I have learned by dear experience. However, I thank God that I have learned it at any price. I am not conscious of embracing any opinion or practice which is not agreeable to the Word of God and I do believe the doctrine, worship, and discipline (so far as it goes) of the Church of England to be agreeable thereto.

I wish your zeal was better employed than in persuading men to be either dipped or sprinkled. I will employ mine by the grace of God in persuading them to love God with all their hearts and their neighbor as themselves.

I cannot answer it to God to spend any part of that precious time, every hour of which I can employ in what directly tends to the promoting this love among men, in oppugning or defending this or that form of Church govern­ment. I have ‘proved all things’ of that kind for more than twenty years: I now ‘hold fast that which is good’ -- that which in my judgment is not only not contrary to Scripture but strictly agreeable thereto But I upon fixed principle absolutely refuse to enter into a formal controversy upon the head. Herein I also am at a point. And if on this account you judge me to be a Papist or a Turk, I cannot help it.

I am thoroughly convinced that you did not speak from anger but from a zeal for your own opinion and mode of worship; and it might be worth while for another man to dispute these prints with you. But for me it is not. I am called to other work; not to make Church of England men or Baptists, but Christians, men of faith and love. That God may fill you therewith is the prayer of, dear sir,

Your affectionate friend and brothen

To tie Mayor of Cork [9]

BANDON, May 27, 1750.

MR. MAYOR, -- An hour ago I received A Letter to Mr. Butler, just reprinted at Cork. The publishers assert, ‘It was brought down from Dublin, to be distributed among the Society; but Mr. Wesley called in as many as he could.’ Both these assertions are absolutely false. I read some lines of that letter when I was in Dublin, but never read it over before this morning. Who the author of it is I know not; but this I know, I never called in one, neither concerned myself about it, much less brought any down to distribute amongst the Society.

Yet I cannot but return my hearty thanks to the gentlemen who have distributed them through the town. I believe it will do more good than they are sensible of; for though I dislike its condemning the magistrates and clergy in general (several of whom were not concerned in the late proceedings), yet I think the reasoning is strong and deal and that the facts referred to therein are not at all misrepresented well sufficiently appear in later time.

I fear God and honor the King. I earnestly desire to be at peace with all men. I have not willingly given any offence either to the magistrates, the clergy, or any of the inhabitants of the city of Cork; neither do I desire anything of them but to be treated, I will not say as a clergyman, a gentleman, or a Christian, but with such justice and humanity as are due to a Jew, a Turk, or a Pagan. -- I am sir,

Your obedient servant.

To Edward Perronet [10]

IRELAND, [May] 1750.

I have abundance of complaints to make as well as to hear. I have scarce any one on whom I can depend when I am an hundred miles off. ’Tis well if I do not run away soon, and leave them to cut and shuffle for themselves. Here is a glorious people; but oh! where are the shepherds? The Society at Cork have fairly [Probably after the terrible riots in May. He left Ireland on July 22.] sent me word that they will take care of themselves and erect themselves into a Dissenting congregation. I am weary of these sons of Zeruiah; they are too hard for me. Dear Ted, stand fast, whether I stand or fall.

[In another letter he says:]

Charles and you behave as I want you to do; but you cannot or will not preach where I desire. Others can and will preach where I desire; but they do not behave as I want them to do. I have a fine time between the one and the other.

[And again in a third:]

I think both Charles and you have in the general a right sense of what it is to serve as sons in the gospel; and if all our helpers had had the same, the work of God would have prospered better both in England and Ireland.

[About a fortnight afterwards he writes thus on the same subject:]

You put the thing right. I have not one preacher with me, and not six in England, whose wills are broken enough to serve me as sons in the gospel.

Come on, now. you have broken the ice, and tell me the other half of your mind. I always blamed you for speaking too little, not too much. When you spoke most freely, as at Whitehaven, [In Sept. 1749 (Journal, iii 430.)] it was best for us both. I did not always disbelieve when I said nothing. But I would not attempt a thing till I could carry it. Tu qued scis, nescis is an useful rule, till I can remedy what I know. As you observe many things are remedied already; and many more will be. But you consider I have none to second me. They who should do it start aside as a broken bow.

[For the letter of June 8,1750, to the Rev. John Baily, of Kilcully, Cork, see pp. 272-294.]

To John Baily [11]

LIMERICK, June 8, 1750.

REVEREND SIR, -- 1. Why do you not subscribe your name to a performance so perfectly agreeing both as to the matter and form with the sermons you have been occasionally preaching for more than a year last past? As to your seeming to disclaim it by saying once and again, ‘I am but a plain, simple man,’ and ‘The doctrine you teach is only a revival of the old Antinomian heresy, I think they call it,’ I presume it is only a pious fraud. But how came so plain and simple a man to know the meaning of the Greek word Philalethes? Sir, this is not of a piece. If you did not care to own your child, had not you better have subscribed the second (as well as the first) letter George Fisher? [The letter thus subscribed was published in Cork on May 30, 1750.]

2. I confess you have timed your performance well. When the other pointless thing was published, I came unluckily to Cork on the selfsame day. But you might now suppose I was at a convenient distance. However, I will not plead this as an excuse for taking no notice of your last favor; although, to say the truth, I scarce know how to answer it, as you write in a language I am not accustomed to. Both Dr. Tucker, Dr. Church, and all the other gentlemen who have wrote to me in public for some years have wrote as gentlemen, having some regard to their own, what­ever my character was. But as you fight in the dark, you regard not what weapons you use. We are not, therefore, on even terms: I cannot answer you in kind; I am constrained to leave this to your good allies of Blackpool and Fair Lane. [Celebrated parts of Cork.]

I shall first state the facts on which the present controversy turns, and then consider the most material parts of your performance.

I. I am to state the facts. But here I am under a great disadvantage, having few of my papers by me. Excuse me, therefore, if I do not give so full an account now, as I may possibly do hereafter; if I only give you for the present the extracts of some papers which were lately put into my hands,

1. ' THOMAS JONES, of Cork, merchant, deposes,

‘That on May 3, 1749, Nicholas Butler, ballad-singer, came before the house of this deponent, and assembled a large mob: that this deponent went to Daniel Crone, Esq., then Mayor of Cork, and desired that he would put a stop to those riots; asking at the same time whether he gave the said Butler leave to go about in this manner: that Mr. Mayor said he neither gave him leave, neither did he hinder him: that in the evening Butler gathered a larger mob than before, and went to the house where the people called Methodists were assembled to hear the word of God, and as they came out threw dirt and hurt several of them.

That on May 4 this deponent with some others went to the Mayor and told what had been done; adding, “If your Worship pleases only to speak three words to Butler, it will all be over”: that the Mayor gave his word and honor there should be no more of it, he would put an entire stop to it: that, notwithstanding, a larger mob than ever came to the house the same evening: that they threw much dirt and many stones at the people, both while they were in the house and when they came out: that the mob then fell upon them, both on men and women, with clubs, hangers, and swords; so that many of them were much wounded and lost a considerable quantity of blood.

‘That on May 5 this deponent informed the Mayor of all, and also that Butler had openly declared there should be a greater mob than ever there was that night: that the Mayor promised he would prevent it: that in the evening Butler did bring a greater mob than ever: that this deponent, hearing the Mayor designed to go out of the way, set two men to watch him, and when the riot was begun went to the ale-house and inquired for him: that the woman of the house denying he was there, this deponent insisted he was, declared he would not go till he had seen him, and began searching the house: that Mr. Mayor then appearing, he demanded his assistance to suppress a riotous mob: that when the Mayor came in sight of them, he beckoned to Butler, who immediately came down from the place where he stood: that the Mayor then went with this deponent, and looked on many of the people covered with dirt and blood: that some of them still remained in the house, fearing their lives, till James Chatterton and John Reilly, Esqrs., Sheriffs of Cork, and Hugh Millard, jun., Esq., Alderman, turned them out to the mob and nailed up the doors.’

2. ‘ELIZABETH HOLLERAN, of Cork, deposes,

‘That on May 3, as she was going down to Castle Street, she saw Nicholas Butler on a table, with ballads in one hand and a Bible in the other: that she expressed some concern thereat; on which Sheriff Reilly ordered his bailiff to carry her to Bridewell: that afterward the bailiff came and said his master ordered she should be carried to jail: and that she continued in jail from May 3, about eight in the evening, till between ten and twelve on May 5.’

3. ‘JOHN STOCKDALE, of Cork, tallow-chandler, deposes,

‘That on May 5, while he and others were assembled to hear the word of God, Nicholas Butler came down to the house where they were, with a very numerous mob: that when this deponent came out, they threw all manner of dirt and abundance of stones at him: that they then beat, bruised, and cut him in several places; that, seeing his wife on the ground and the mob abusing her still, he called out and besought them not to kill his wife: that on this one of them struck him with a large stick, as did also many others, so that he was hurt in several parts, and his face in a gore of blood.’

4. ‘ DANIEL SULLIVAN, of Cork, baker, deposes,

‘That every day but one, from the 6th to the 16th of May, Nicholas Butler assembled a riotous mob before this deponent's house: that they abused all who came into the shop, to the great damage of this deponent's business: that on or about the 15th Butler swore he would bring a mob the next day and pull down his house: that accordingly on the 16th he did bring a large mob, and beat or abused all that came to the house: that the Mayor walked by while the mob was so employed, but did not hinder them: that afterwards they broke his windows, threw dirt and stones into his shop, and spoiled a great quantity of his goods.

‘Daniel Sullivan is ready to depose farther,

‘That from the 16th of May to the 28th the mob gathered every day before his house: that on Sunday, 28, Butler swore they would come the next day and pull down the house of that heretic dog, and called aloud to the mob, “Let the heretic dogs indict you; I will bring you all off without a farthing cost.”

‘That accordingly on May 29 Butler came with a greater mob than before: that he went to the Mayor and begged him to come, which he for some time refused to do, but after much importunity rose up and walked with him down the street: that when they were in the midst of the mob, the Mayor said aloud, “It is your own fault for entertaining these preachers. If you will turn them out of your house, I will engage there shall be no more harm done; but if you will not turn them out, you must take what you will get”: that upon this the mob set up an huzza and threw stones faster than before: that he said, “This is fine usage under a Protestant Government! If I had a priest saying mass in every room of it, my house would not be touched”: that the Mayor replied, “The priests are tolerated, but you are not; you talk too much; go in, and shut up your doors”: that, seeing no remedy, he did so; and the mob continued breaking the windows and throwing stones in till near twelve at night.

‘That on May 31 the said Sullivan and two more went and informed the Mayor of what the mob was then doing: that it was not without great importunity they brought him as far as the Exchange: that he would go no farther, nor send any help, though some that were much bruised and wounded came by: that some hours after, when the mob had finished their work, he sent a party of soldiers to guard the walls.

5. ‘JOHN STOCKDALE deposes farther,

‘That on May 31 he with others was quietly hearing the word of God, when Butler and his mob came down to the house: that, as they came out, the mob threw showers of dirt and stones: that many were hurt, many beat, bruised, and cut; among whom was this deponent, who was so bruised and cut that the effusion of blood from his head could not be stopped for a considerable time.’

6. ‘JOAN M'NERNEY, of Cork, deposes,

That on the 31st of May last, as this deponent with others was hearing a sermon, Butler came down with a large mob: that the stones and dirt, coming in fast, obliged the congregation to shut the doors and lock themselves in: that the mob broke open the door; on which this deponent endeavored to escape through a window: that, not being able to do it, he returned into the house, where he saw the mob tear up the pews, benches, and floor; part of which they afterwards burned in the open street, and carried away part for their own use.’

7. ‘DANIEL SULLIVAN is ready to depose farther,

'That Butler with a large mob went about from street to street and from house to house, abusing, threatening, and beat­ing whomsoever he pleased, from June 1 to the 16th, when they assaulted, bruised, and cut Ann Jenkins; and from the 16th to the 30th, when a woman whom they had beaten miscarried and narrowly escaped with life.’

8. Some of the particulars were as follows :-

‘THOMAS BURNET, of Cork, nailer, deposes,

‘That on or about the 12th of June, as this deponent was at work in his master’s shop, Nicholas Butler came with a great mob to the door, and, seeing this deponent, told him he was an heretic dog, and his soul was burning in hell: that this deponent asking, "Why do you use me thus?” Butler took up a stone and struck him so violently on the side that he was thereby rendered incapable of working for upwards of a week: that he hit this deponent's wife with another stone without any kind of provocation; which so hurt her that she was obliged to take to her bed, and has not been right well since.

‘ANN COOSHEA, of Cork, deposes,

‘That on or about the 12th of June, as she was standing at her father's door, Nicholas Butler with a riotous mob began to abuse this deponent and her family, calling them heretic bitches, saying they were damned and all their souls were in hell: that then, without any provocation, he took up a great stone and threw it at this deponent, which struck her on the head with such force that it deprived her of her senses for some time.

‘ANN WRIGHT, Of Cork, deposes,

‘That on or about the 12th of June, as this deponent was in her own house, Butler and his mob came before her door, calling her and her family heretic bitches, and swearing he would make her house hotter than hell-fire: that he threw dirt and stones at them, hit her in the face, dashed all the goods about which she had in her window, and she really believes would have dashed out her brains had she not quitted her shop and fled for her life.

‘MARGARET GRIFFIN, of Cork, deposes,

‘That on the 24th of June, as this deponent was about her business, Butler and his mob came up, took hold on her, tore her clothes, struck her several times, and cut her mouth: that, after she broke from him, he and his mob pursued her to her house, and would have broken in had not some neighbors interposed: that he had beat and abused her several times before, and one of those times to such a degree that she was all in a gore of blood and continued spitting blood for several days after.

‘JACOB CONNER, clothier, of Cork, deposes,

‘That on the 24th of June, as he was employed in his lawful business, Butler and his mob came up and, without any manner of provocation, fell upon him: that they beat him till they caused such an effusion of blood as could not be stopped for a considerable time: and that he verily believes, had not a gentleman interposed, they would have killed him on the spot.’

9. ‘ANN HUGHES, of Cork, deposes,

‘That on the 29th of June she asked Nicholas Butler why he broke open her house on the 21st: that hereon he called her many abusive names (being attended with his usual mob), dragged her up and down, tore her clothes in pieces, and with his sword stabbed and cut her in both her arms.

‘DANIEL FILTS, blacksmith, of Cork, deposes,

‘That on the 29th of June Butler and a riotous mob came before his door, called him many abusive names, drew his hanger, and threatened to stab him: that he and his mob the next day assaulted the house of this deponent with drawn swords: and that he is persuaded, had not one who came by prevented, they would have taken away his life.’

10. ‘MARY FULLER, of Cork, deposes,

‘That on the 30th of June Butler at the head of his mob came between nine and ten at night to the deponent's shop with a naked sword in his hand: that he swore he would cleave the deponent's skull, and immediately made a full stroke at her head; whereupon she was obliged to fly for her life, leaving her shop and goods to the mob, many of which they hacked and hewed with their swords, to her no small loss and damage.

‘HENRY DUNKLE, joiner, of Cork, deposes,

‘That on the 30th of June, as he was standing at the widow Fuller's shop window, he saw Butler accompanied with a large mob, who stopped before her shop: that, after he had grossly abused her, he made a full stroke with his hanger at her head, which must have cleft her in two had not this deponent received the guard of the hanger on his shoulder: that presently after, the said Butler seized upon this deponent: that he seized him by the collar with one hand, and with the other held the hanger over his head, calling him all manner of names and tearing his shirt and clothes: and that, had it not been for the timely assistance of some neighbors, he verily believes he should have been torn in pieces.

‘MARGARET TRIMNELL, Of Cork, deposes,

‘That on the 30th of June John Austin and Nicholas Butler with a numerous mob came to her shop: that, after calling her many names, Austin struck her with his club on the right arm, so that it has been black ever since from the shoulder to the elbow: that Butler came next, and with a great stick struck her a violent blow across the back: that many of them then drew their swords, which they carried under their coats, and cut and hacked her goods, part of which they threw out into the street, while others of them threw dirt and stones into the shop, to the considerable damage of her goods and loss of this deponent.’

11. It was not for those who had any regard either to their persons or goods to oppose Mr. Butler after this. So the poor people patiently suffered whatever he and his mob were pleased to inflict upon them till the Assizes drew on, at which they doubted not to find a sufficient though late relief.

Accordingly twenty-eight depositions were taken (from the foul copies of some of which the preceding account is mostly transcribed), and laid before the Grand Jury, August 19. But they did not find any one of these bills. Instead of this, they made that memorable presentment which is worthy to be preserved in the annals of Ireland to all succeeding generations:

‘We find and present Charles Wesley to be a person of ill fame, a vagabond, and a common disturber of His Majesty's peace; and we pray he may be transported.

‘We find and present James Williams, &c,

‘We find and present Robert Swindle, &c.

‘We find and present Jonathan Reeves, &c.

‘We find and present James Wheatly, &c.

‘We find and present John Larwood, &c.

‘We find and present Joseph M'Auliff, &c.

‘We find and present Charles Skelton, &c.

‘We find and present William Tooker, &c.

‘We find and present Daniel Sullivan, &c.’

12. Mr. Butler and his mob were now in higher spirits than ever. They scoured the streets day and night, frequently hallooing as they went along, ‘Five pounds for a Swaddler's [A name first given to John Cennick, from his preaching on those words, ‘Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling-clothes, lying in a manger.’ See Journal, iii. 472; C. Wesley's Journal, i. 457; and letter of July 3, 1756.] head!’ their chief declaring to them all he had full liberty now to do whatever he would, even to murder, if he pleased; as Mr. Swain, of North Abbey, and others are ready to testify.

13. The Sessions, held at Cork on the 5th of October following, produced another memorable presentment:

‘We find and present John Horton to be a person of ill fame, a vagabond, and a common disturber of His Majesty's peace; and we pray that he may be transported.’

But, complaint being made of this above as wholly illegal, it vanished into air.

14. Some time after, Mr. Butler removed to Dublin, and began to sing his ballads there. But having little success, he returned to Cork, and in January began to scour the streets again, pursuing all of ‘this way’ with a large mob at his heels, armed with swords, staves, and pistols. Complaint was made of this to William Holmes, Esq., the present Mayor of Cork. But there was no removal of the thing complained of: the riots were not suppressed nay, they not only continued, but increased.

15. From the beginning of February to the end His Majesty's peace was preserved just as before; of which it may be proper to subjoin two or three instances for the information of all thinking men:

‘WILLIAM JEWELL, clothier, of Shundon Church Lane, deposes,

‘That Nicholas Butler with a riotous mob several times assaulted this deponent's house: that particularly on the 23rd of February he came thither with a large mob, armed with clubs and other weapons: that several of the rioters entered the house, and swore the first who resisted they would blow their brains out: that the deponent's wife, endeavoring to stop them, was assaulted and beaten by the said Butler; who then ordered his men to break the deponent's windows, which they did with stones of a considerable weight.

'MARY' PHILIPS, of St. Peter's Church Lane, deposes,

‘That on the 26th of February, about seven in the evening, Nicholas Butler came to her house with a large mob, and asked where her husband was: that as soon as she appeared he first abused her in the grossest terms, and then struck her on the head so that it stunned her; and she verily believes, had not some within thrust to and fastened the door, she should have been murdered on the spot.’

It may suffice for the present to add one instance more:

‘ELIZABETH GARDELET, wife of Joseph Gardelet, corporal in Colonel Pawlet's regiment, Captain Charlton's company, deposes,

‘That on February 28, as she was going out of her lodgings, she was met by Butler and his mob: that Butler, without any manner of provocation, immediately fell upon her, striking her with both his fists on the side of the head, which knocked her head against the wall: that she endeavored to escape from him; but he pursued her and struck her several times in the face: that she ran into the schoolyard for shelter; but he followed, and caught hold of her, saying, “You whore, you stand on consecrated ground,’ and threw her with such force across the lane that she was driven against the opposite wall: that, when she had recovered herself a little, she made the best of her way to her lodging; but Butler still pursued, and overtook her as she was going up the stairs: that he struck her with his fist on the stomach, which stroke knocked her down backwards: that, falling with the small of her back against the edge of one of the stairs, she was not able to rise again: that her pains immediately came upon her, and about two in the morning she miscarried.’

16. These, with several more depositions to the same effect, were in April laid before the Grand Jury. Yet they did not find any of these bills. But they found one against Daniel Sullivan the younger (no preacher, but an hearer of the people called Metho­dists), who, when Butler and his mob were discharging a shower of stones upon him, fired a pistol without any ball over their heads. If any man has wrote this story to England in a quite different manner, and fixed it on a young Methodist preacher, let him be ashamed in the presence of God and man, unless shame and he have shook hands and parted.

17. Several of the persons presented as vagabonds in autumn appeared at the Lent Assizes. But, none appearing against them, they were discharged, with honor to themselves and shame to their prosecutors; who, by bringing the matter to a judicial determination, plainly showed there is a law even for Methodists; and gave His Majesty's Judge a full occasion to declare the utter illegality of all riots, and the inexcusableness of tolerating (much more causing) them on any pretence whatsoever.

18. It was now generally believed there would be no more riots in Cork; although I cannot say that was my opinion. On May 19 I accepted the repeated invitation of Mr. Alderman Pembrock, and came to his house. Understanding the place where the preaching usually was would by no means contain those who desired to hear me, at eight in the morning I went to Hammond's Marsh. The congregation was large and deeply attentive. A few of the rabble gathered at a distance; but by little and little they drew near and mixed with the congregation. So that I have seldom seen a more quiet and orderly assembly at any church in England or Ireland.

19. In the afternoon, a report being spread abroad that the Mayor designed to hinder my preaching on the Marsh, I desired Mr. Skelton and Jones to wait upon him and inquire concerning it. Mr. Skelton asked if my preaching there would be offensive to him; adding, ‘If it would, Mr. Wesley would not do it.’ He replied warmly, ‘Sir, I will have no mobbing.’ Mr. Skelton said, ‘Sir, there was none this morning.’ He answered, ‘There was. Are there not churches and meeting-houses enough? I will have no more mobs and riots.’ Mr. Skelton replied, ‘Sir, neither Mr. Wesley nor they that heard him made either mobs or riots.’ He answered plain, ‘I will have no more preaching; and if Mr. Wesley attempts to preach, I am prepared for him.’

I did not conceive till now that there was any real meaning in what a gentleman said some time since; who, being told, ‘Sir, King George tolerates Methodists,’ replied, ‘Sir, you shall find the Mayor is King of Cork.’

20. I began preaching in our own house soon after five. Mr. Mayor meantime was walking in the ‘Change, where he gave orders to the drummers of the town and to his sergeants -- doubtless to go down and keep the peace! They came down with an innumerable mob to the house. They continued drumming and I continued preaching till I had finished my discourse. When I came out, the mob immediately closed me in. I desired one of the sergeants to protect me from the mob; but he replied, ‘Sir, I have no orders to do that.’ When I came into the street, they threw whatever came to hand. I walked on straight through the midst of them, looking every man in the face, and they opened to the right and left, till I came near Dant’s Bridge. A large party had taken possession of this, one of whom was bawling’ out, ‘Now, heigh for the Romans!’ When I came up, these likewise shrunk back, and I walked through them into Mr. Jenkins's house.

But many of the congregation were more roughly handled; particularly Mr. Jones, who was covered with dirt, and escaped with his life almost by miracle. The main body of the mob then went to the house, brought out all the seats and benches, tore up the floor, the door, the frames of the windows, and whatever of woodwork remained, part of which they carried off for their own use, and the rest they burnt in the open street.

21. Monday, 2L I rode on to Bandon. From three in the afternoon till after seven the mob of Cork marched in grand procession, and then burnt me in effigy near Dant’s Bridge.

Tuesday, 22. The mob and drummers were moving again between three and four in the morning. The same evening the mob came down to Hammond's Marsh, but stood at a distance from Mr. Stockdale's house, till the drums beat and the Mayor's sergeants beckoned to them, on which they drew up and began the attack. The Mayor, being sent for, came with a party of soldiers. Mr. Stockdale earnestly desired that he would disperse the mob, or at least leave the soldiers there to protect them from the rioters. But he took them all away with him; on which the mob went on and broke all the glass and most of the window-frames in pieces.

22. Wednesday, 23. The mob was still patrolling the streets, abusing all that were called Methodists, and threatening to murder them and pull down their houses if they did not leave ‘this way.’

Thursday, 24. They again assaulted Mr. Stockdale's house, broke down the boards he had nailed up against the windows, destroyed what little remained of the window-frames and shutters, and damaged a considerable part of his goods.

Friday, 25, and again on Saturday, 26, one Roger O'Ferrall fixed up an advertisement at the public Exchange (as he had also done for several days before) that he was ready to head any mob in order to pull down any house that should dare to harbor a Swaddler.

23. Sunday, 27. I wrote the following letter to the Mayor.

[See letter of May 27, 1750.]

II. 1. Your performance is dated May 28, the most material parts of which I am now to consider.

It contains (1) a charge against the Methodist preachers; (2) a defense of the Corporation and clergy of Cork.

With regard to your charge against those preachers, may I take the liberty to inquire why you drop six out of the eleven that have been at Cork--namely, Mr. Swindells, wheatIcy, Larwood, Skelton, Tucker, and Haughton? Can you glean up no story con­cerning these? or is it out of mere compassion that you spare them?

2. But, before I proceed, I must beg leave to ask, who is this evidence against the other five? Why, one that neither dares show his face nor tell his name or the place of his abode; one that is ashamed (and truly not without cause) of the dirty work he is employed in, so that we could not even conjecture who he was but that his speech bewrayeth him. How much credit is due to such an evidence let any man of reason judge.

3. This worthy witness falls foul upon Mr. Cownley, and miserably murders a tale he has got by the end (page 13). Sir, Mr. M[assiot] is nothing obliged to you for bringing the character of his niece into question. He is perfectly satisfied that Mr. Cownley acted in that whole affair with the strictest regard both to honor and conscience.

You next aver that Mr. Reeves ‘asked a young woman whether she had a mind to go to hell with her father’ (page 16). It is possible. I will neither deny nor affirm it without some better proof. But suppose he did; unless I know the circumstances of the case, I could not say whether he spoke right or wrong.

4. But what is this to the ‘monstrous, shocking, amazing blasphemy spoken by Mr. Charles Wesley? who one day,’ you say, ‘preaching on Hammond's Marsh, called out, “Has any of you got the Spirit?” and when none answered said, “I am sure some of you have got it; for I feel virtue go out of me”’ (page 18). Sir, do you expect any one to believe this story? I doubt it will not pass even at Cork; unless with your wise friend who said, ‘Methodists! Aye, they are the people who place all their religion in wearing long whiskers.’

5. In the same page you attack Mr. Williams for applying those words, ‘I thy Maker am thy husband.’ Sir, by the same rule that you conclude ‘these expressions could only flow from a mind full of lascivious ideas,’ you may conclude the 45th Psalm to be only a wanton sonnet and the Canticles a counterpart to Rochester's poems. [John Wilmot, second Earl of Rochester (1647-80), poet and liber­tine, friend of Charles II and the second Duke of Buckingham, wrote amorous lyrics.]

But you say he likewise' made use of unwarrantable expressions, particularly with regard to faith and good works, and the next day denied that he had used them’ (pages 10-11). Sir, your word is not proof of this. Be pleased to produce proper vouchers of the facts, and I will then give a farther answer.

Likewise, as to his ‘indecent and irreverent behavior at church, turning all the preacher said into ridicule, so that numbers asked in your hearing why the churchwardens did not put the profane, wicked scoundrel in the stocks,’ my present answer is, I doubt the facts. Will your ‘men of undoubted character’ be so good as to attest them?

6. Of all these, Mr. Williams, Cownley, Reeves, Haughton, Larwood, Skelton, Swindells, Tucker, and Wheatley, you pronounce in the lump that they are ‘a parcel of vagabond, illiterate babblers’ (pages 3-4), of whom ‘everybody that has the least share of reason must know’ that, though ‘they amuse the populace with non­sense, ribaldry, and blasphemy, they are not capable of writing orthography or good sense.’ Sir, that is not an adjudged case. Some who have a little share of reason think they are capable both of speaking and writing good sense. But if they are not, if they cannot write or read, they can save souls from death; they can by the grace of God bring sinners from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God.

7. But they ‘made a woman plunder her poor old husband, and another absent herself from her husband and children’ (pages 24-5), Pray, what are their names, where do they live, and how may one come to the speech of them? I have heard so many plausible tales of this kind which on examination vanished away, that I cannot believe one word of this till I have more proof than your bare assertion.

8. So far I have been pleading for others. But I am now called to answer for myself; for ‘Theophilus [A letter signed 'Theophilus' appeared in the Gentleman’s Magaxine, 1751, p. 115, affirming that Whitefield and others had taught ‘that man by nature is half brute and half devil.’ See Green's Anti-Methodist Publications, No. 228.] and John Wesley,’ say you, ‘seem to me the same individual person’ (page 4). They may seem so to you, but not to any who knows either my style or manner of writing. Besides, if it had been mine, it would have borne my name; for I do not love fighting in the dark.

But were not ‘a great number’ of those books ‘brought from Dublin to be dispersed throughout the city’? Not by me, not by my order, nor to my knowledge. However, I thank you again for dispersing them.

9. But ‘while charity stands in the front of Christian graces, the author of such a book can have none of that grace; for you must allow the vulgar to think’ (page 16). Malapropos enough, a lively saying; but, for any use it is of, it may stand either in the front or rear of the sentence.

The argument itself is something new. A man knocks me down; I cry, ‘Help I help I or I shall be murdered!’ He replies, ‘While charity stands in the front of Christian graces, the author of such a cry can have none of that grace.’

So now you have shown to all the world ‘the uncharitable and consequently unchristian spirit of Methodism.’ What l because the Methodists cry out for help before you have beat out their brains?

What grimace is this! His Majesty's quiet, loyal, Protestant subjects are abused, insulted, outraged, beaten, covered with dirt, rolled in the mire, bruised, wounded with swords and hangers, murdered, have their houses broke open, their goods destroyed, or carried away before their face; and all this in open day, in the face of the sun, yet without any remedy! And those who treat them thus are ‘charitable’ men! brimful of a Christian spirit ! But if they who are so treated appeal to the common sense and reason of mankind, you gravely cry, ‘See the uncharitable, the unchristian spirit of Methodism!’

10. You proceed: ‘But pray what are those facts which you say are not misrepresented? Do you mean that Butler was hired and paid by the Corporation and clergy?’ or ‘that this’ remark­ably loyal’ city is disaffected to the present Government’? and that ‘a Papist was supported, nay hired, by the Chief Magistrate to walk the streets, threatening bloodshed and murder? Declare openly whether these are the facts.’ Sir, I understand you well; but for the present I beg to be excused. There is a time and a place for all things.

11. I rejoice to hear the city of Cork is so ‘remarkably loyal,’ so entirely ‘well-affected to the present Government.’ I presume you mean this chiefly of the Friendly Society (in whom the power of the city is now lodged) erected some time since in opposition to that body of Jacobites commonly called ‘The Hanover Club.’ I suppose that zealous anti-Methodist who some days ago stabbed the Methodist preacher in the street, and then cried out, ‘Damn King George and all his armies!’ did this as a specimen of his ‘eminent loyalty.’

It cannot be denied that this loyal subject of King George, Simon Rawlins by name, was, upon oath made of those words, committed to jail on May 31; and it was not till six days after, that he walked in procession through the town, with drums beating and colors flying, and declared at the head of his mob he would never rest till he had driven all these false prophets out of Cork. How sincere they were in their good wishes to King George and his armies they gave a clear proof the 10th of this instant June, when, as ten or twelve soldiers were walking along in a very quiet and inoffensive manner, the mob fell upon them, swore they would have their lives, knocked them down, and beat them to such a degree that on June x2 one of them died of his wounds and another was not then expected to live many hours.

12. But you have more proofs of my uncharitableness -- that is, supposing I am the author of that pamphlet; for you read there, ‘Riches, ease, and honor are what the clergy set their hearts upon; but the souls for whom Christ died they leave to the tender mercies of hell.’ Sir, can you deny it? Is it not true, literally true, concerning some of the clergy? You ask, ‘But ought we to condemn all for the faults of a few?’ (page 20). I answer, No; no more than I will condemn all in the affair of Cork for the faults of a few. It is you that do this; and if it were as you say, if they were all concerned in the late proceedings, then it would be no uncharitableness to say, ‘They were in a miserable state indeed’; then they would doubtless be ‘kicking against the pricks, contending with heaven, fighting against God.’

13. I come now to the general charge against me, independent on the letter to Mr. Butler. And, first, you charge me with ‘a frontless assurance and a well-dissembled hypocrisy’ (page 22). Sir, I thank you. This is as kind as if you was to call me (with Mr. Williams) ' a profane, wicked scoundrel.’ I am not careful to answer in this matter: shortly we shall both stand at a higher bar.

14. You charge me, secondly, with being an ‘hare-brained enthusiast’ (page 7). Sir, I am your most obedient servant.

But you will prove me an enthusiast; ‘for you say’ (those are your words) ‘you are sent of God to inform mankind of some other revelation of His will than what has been left by Christ and His Apostles’ (page 28). Not so. I never said any such thing. When I do this, then call for miracles; but at present-your demand is quite unreasonable: there is no room for it at all. What I advance, I prove by the words of Christ or His Apostles. If not, let it fall to the ground.

15. You charge me, thirdly, with being employed in ‘promoting the cause of arbitrary Popish power’ (page 7). Sir, I plead, Not guilty. Produce your witnesses. Prove this, and I will allow all the rest.

You charge me, fourthly, with holding ‘midnight assemblies’ (page 24). Sir, did you never see the word ‘Vigil’ in your Common Prayer Book? Do you know what it means? If not, permit me to tell y