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 ’afeda sat, “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 you that it was customary with the ancient Christians to spend whole nights in prayer, and that these nights were termed Vigiliae, or Vigils. Therefore, for spending a part of some nights in this manner, in public and solemn prayer, we have not only the authority of our own national Church, but of the universal Church in the earliest ages.

16. You charge me, fifthly, with ‘being the cause of all that Butler has done’ (page 17). True; just as Latimer and Ridley (if I may dare to name myself with those venerable men) were the cause of all that Bishop Bonner did. In this sense the charge is true. It has pleased God (unto Him be all the glory!) even by my preaching or writings to convince some of the old Christian scriptural doctrine, which till then they knew not. And while they declared this to others you showed them the same love as Edmund of London did to their forefathers. Only the expressions of your love were not quite the same, because (blessed be God) you had not the same power.

17. You affirm, sixthly, that I ‘rob and plunder the poor, so as to leave them neither bread to eat nor raiment to put on’ (page 8). An heavy charge, but without all color of truth -- yea, just the reverse is true. Abundance of those in Cork, Bandon, Limerick, Dublin, as well as in all parts of England, who a few years ago, either through sloth or profuseness, had not bread to eat or raiment to put on, have now, by means of the preachers called Methodists, a sufficiency of both. Since, by hearing these, they have learned to fear God, they have learned also to work with their hands, as well as to cut off every needless expense, to be good stewards of the mammon of unrighteousness.

18. You assert, seventhly, that I am ‘myself as fond of riches as the most worldly clergyman’ (page 21). ‘Two thousand pence a week! a fine yearly revenue from assurance and salvation tickets!’ (page 8). I answer: (1) What do you mean by ‘assurance and salvation tickets’ Is not the very expression a mixture of nonsense and blasphemy (2) How strangely did you under-rate my revenue when you wrote in the person of George Fisher! You then allowed me only an hundred pounds a year, What is this to two thousand pence a week (3) ‘There is not a clergyman,’ you say, ‘who would not willingly exchange his livings for your yearly penny contributions’ (page 21). And no wonder: for, according to a late computation, they amount to no less every year than eight hundred eighty-six thousand pounds, besides some odd shillings and pence; in comparison of which the revenue of his Grace of Armagh or of Canterbury is a very trifle. And yet, sir, so great is my regard for you and my gratitude for your late services that, if you will only resign your curacy of Christ's Church, I will make over to you my whole revenue in Ireland.

19. But ‘the honor’ I gain, you think, is even ‘greater than the profit.’ Alas, sir, I have not generosity enough to relish it! I was always of Juvenal's mind, --

Gloria quantalibet, quid erit, si gloria tanrum est[ Satires, vii. 81: ‘What is glory without profit too’]

And especially while there are so many drawbacks, so many dead flies in the pot of ointment. Sheer honor might taste tolerably well; but there is gall with the honey, and less of the honey than the gall. Pray, sir, what think you Have I more honor or dishonor Do more people praise or blame me How is it in Cork nay (to go no farther) among your own little circle of acquaintance Where you hear one commend, do not ten cry out, ‘Away with such a fellow from the earth’

Above all, I do not love honor with dry blows. I do not find it will cure broken bones. But perhaps you may think I glory in these. Oh how should I have gloried, then, if your good friends at Dant's Bridge had burnt my person instead of my effigy!

We are here to set religion out of the question. You do not suppose I have anything to do with that. Why, if so, I should rather leave you the honor, and myself sleep in an whole skin. On that supposition I quite agree with the epigrammatist:

Virgihi in tumulo, divini praemia vatis,

Explicat en viridem laurea laeta comam.

Quid te defunctum juvat haec Felicior olim

Sub patulae fagi tegmine vivus eras.

[‘See, the green laurel rears her graceful head

O'er Virgil's tomb! But can this cheer the dead

Happier by far thou wast of old, when laid

Beneath thy spreading beech’s ample shade!’]

20. Your last charge is that ‘I profess myself to be a member of the Established Church, and yet act contrary to the commands of my spiritual governors and stab the Church to the very vitals’ (page 27). I answer: (1) What ‘spiritual governor’ has commanded me not to preach in any part of His Majesty's dominions I know not one to this very day, either in England or Ireland. (2) What is it to ‘stab the Church to the very vitals’ Why, to deny her fundamental doctrines. And do I or you do this Let any one who has read her Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies judge which of us two denies that ‘we are justified by faith alone’; that every believer has ‘the inspiration of God's Holy Spirit’; that all who are strong in faith do ‘perfectly love Him and worthily magnify His holy name’: he that denies this is ‘the treacherous son who stabs this affectionate and tender mother.’

If you deny it, you have already disowned the Church. But, as for me, I neither can nor will; though I know you sincerely desire I should.

Hoc Ithacus velit, et magno mercentur Atridae.

[Virgil's Aeneid, ii. 104: ‘This Ithacus desires, And Atreus’ sons with vast rewards shall buy.’]

But I choose to stay in the Church, were it only to reprove those who ‘betray’ her ‘with a kiss.’

21. I come now to your defense of the Corporation and clergy. But sure such a defense was never seen before. For whereas I had said, ‘I dislike the condemning the magistrates or clergy in general, because several of them’ (so I charitably supposed) ‘were not concerned in the late proceedings,’ you answer, ‘Pray by all means point them out, that they may be distinguished by some mark of honor above their brethren’ (pages 29-30). What do you mean If you mean anything at all, it must be that they were all concerned in the late proceedings. Sir, if they were (of which I own you are a better judge than I), was it needful to declare this to all the world especially in so plain terms as these Did not your zeal here a little outrun your wisdom

22. ‘But the magistrate,’ you say, was only ‘endeavoring to secure the peace of the city’ (page 6). A very extraordinary way of securing peace! Truly, sir, I cannot yet believe, not even on your word, that ‘all the magistrates except one’ (pages 29-30) were concerned in this method of securing peace. Much less can I believe that ‘all the clergy’ were concerned in thus ‘endeavoring to bring back their flock led astray by these hirelings’ (an unlucky word) ‘into the right fold.’

23. Of the clergy you add, ‘What need have they to rage and foam at your preaching Suppose you could delude the greater part of their flocks, this could not affect their temporal interest.’ (Page 7.) We do not desire it should. We only desire to delude all mankind (if you will term it a delusion) into a serious concern for their eternal interest, for a treasure which none can take away.

Having now both stated the facts to which you referred, and considered the most material parts of your performance, I have only to subjoin a few obvious reflections, naturally arising from a view of those uncommon occurrences, partly with regard to the motives of those who were active therein, partly to their manner of acting.

1. With regard to the former, every reasonable man will naturally inquire on what motives could any, either of the clergy or the Corporation, ever think of opposing that preaching by which so many notoriously vicious men have been brought to an eminently virtuous life and conversation.

You supply us yourself with one unexceptionable answer: ‘Those of the clergy with whom I have conversed freely own they have not learning sufficient to comprehend your scheme of religion’ (page 30). If they have not, I am sorry for them. My scheme of religion is this: Love is the fulfilling of the law. From the true love of God and man, directly flows every Christian grace, every holy and happy temper; and from these springs uniform holiness of conversation, in conformity to those great rules, ‘Whether ye eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God,’ and ‘Whatsoever you would that men should do unto you, even so do unto them.’ But this, you say, ‘those of the clergy with whom you converse have not learning enough to comprehend.’ Consequently their ignorance or not understanding our doctrine is the reason why they oppose us.

2. I learn from you that ignorance of another kind is a second reason why some of the clergy oppose us: they, like you, think us enemies to the Church. The natural consequence is that, in proportion to their zeal for the Church, their zeal against us will be.

3. The zeal which many of them have for orthodoxy, or right opinions, is a third reason for opposing us. For they judge us heterodox in several points, maintainers of strange opinions. And the truth is, the old doctrines of the Reformation are now quite new in the world. Hence those who revive them cannot fail to be opposed by those of the clergy who know them not.

4. Fourthly. Their honor is touched when others pretend to know what they do not know themselves, especially when unlearned and (otherwise) ignorant men lay claim to any such knowledge. ‘What is the tendency of all this,’ as you observe on another head, ‘but to work in men’s minds a mean opinion of the clergy’ But who can tamely suffer this None but those who have the mind that was in Christ Jesus.

5. Again: will not some say, ‘Master, by thus acting, thou reproachest us’ by preaching sixteen or eighteen times a week, and by a thousand other things of the same kind Is not this in effect reproaching us, as if we were lazy and indolent as if we had not a sufficient love to the souls of those committed to our charge

6. May there not likewise be some (perhaps unobserved) envy in the breast even of men that fear God How much more in them that do not, when they hear of the great success of these preachers, of the esteem and honor that are paid to them by the people, and the immense riches which they acquire! What wonder if this occasions a zeal which is not the flame of fervent love

7. Add to this a desire in some of the inferior clergy of pleasing their superiors; supposing these (which is no impossible supposition) are first influenced by any of these motives. Add the imprudence of some that hear those preachers, and perhaps needlessly provoke their parochial ministers. And when all these things are considered, none need be at a loss for the motives on which many of the clergy have opposed us.

8. But from what motives can any of the Corporation oppose us I must beg the gentlemen of this body to observe that I dare by no means lump them all together, as their awkward defender has done. But this I may say without offence, there are some even among you who are not so remarkably loyal as others, not so eminently well-affected to the present Government. Now, these cannot but observe (gentlemen, I speak plain, for I am to deliver my own soul in the sight of God) that, wherever we preach, many who were his enemies before became zealous friends to His Majesty. The instances glare both in England and Ireland. Those, therefore, who are not so zealously his friends have a strong motive to oppose us; though it cannot be expected they should own this to be the motive on which they act.

9. Others may have been prejudiced by the artful misrepresentations these have made, or by those they have frequently heard from the pulpit. Indeed, this has been the grand fountain of popular prejudice. In every part both of England and Ireland the clergy, where they were inclined so to do, have most effectually stirred up the people.

10. There has been another reason assigned for the opposition that was made to me in particular at Cork -- namely, that the Mayor was offended at my preaching on Hammond's Marsh, and therefore resolved I should not preach at all; whereas, if I had not preached abroad, he would have given me leave to preach in the house. Would Mr. Mayor have given me leave to preach in my own house I return him most humble thanks. But should he be so courteous as to make me the offer even now, I should not accept it on any such terms. Greater men than he have endeavored to hinder me from calling sinners to repentance in that open and public manner; but hitherto it has been all lost labor. They have never yet been able to prevail; nor ever will, till they can conquer King George and his armies. To curse them is not enough.

11. Lastly. Some (I hope but a few) do cordially believe that ‘private vices are public benefits.’ I myself heard this in Cork when I was there last. These consequently think us the destroyers of their city, by so lessening the number of their public benefactors, the gluttons, the drunkards, the dram-drinkers, the Sabbath-breakers, the common swearers, the cheats of every kind, and the followers of that ancient and honorable trade, adultery and fornication.

12. These are the undeniable motives to this opposition. I come now to the manner of it.

When some gentlemen inquired of one of the bishops in England, ‘My Lord, what must we do to stop these new preachers’ he answered, ‘If they preach contrary to Scripture, confute them by Scripture; if contrary to reason, confute them by reason. But beware you use no other weapons than these, either in opposing error or defending the truth.’

Would to God this rule had been followed at Cork I But how little has it been thought of there! The opposition was begun with lies of all kinds, frequently delivered in the name of God; so that never was anything so ill-judged as for you to ask, ‘Does Christianity encourage its professors to make use of lies, invectives, or low, mean abuse, and scurrility, to carry on its interest’ No, sir, it does not. I disclaim and abhor every weapon of this kind. But with these have the Methodist preachers been opposed in Cork above any other place. In England, in all Ireland, have I neither heard nor read any like those gross, palpable lies, those low, Billingsgate invectives, and that inexpressibly mean abuse and base scurrility which the opposers of Methodism (so called) have continually made use of, and which has been the strength of their cause from the beginning.

13. If it be not so, let the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Cork (for he too has openly entered the lists against the Methodists), the Rev. Dr. Tisdale, or any other whom his lordship shall appoint, meet me on even ground, writing as a gentleman to a gentleman, a scholar to a scholar, a clergyman to a clergyman. Let him thus show me wherein I have preached or written amiss, and I will stand reproved before all the world.

14. But let not his lordship or any other continue to put persecution in the place of reason; either private persecution stirring up husbands to threaten or beat their wives, parents their children, masters their servants; gentlemen to ruin their tenants, laborers, or tradesmen, by turning them out of their farms or cottages, employing or buying of them no more because they worship God according to their own conscience; or open, barefaced, noonday, Cork persecution, breaking open the houses of His Majesty's Protestant subjects, destroying their goods, spoiling or tearing the very clothes from their backs; striking, bruising, wounding, murdering them in the streets; dragging them through the mire, without any regard to age or sex; not sparing even those of tender years--no, nor women, though great with child; but, with more than Pagan or Mahometan barbarity, destroying infants that were yet unborn.

15. Ought these things so to be Are they right before God or man Are they to the honor of our nation I appeal unto Caesar -- unto His gracious Majesty King George, and to the Governors under him, both in England and Ireland. I appeal to all true, disinterested lovers of this their native country. Is this the way to make it a flourishing nation happy at home, amiable and honorable abroad Men of Ireland, judge! Nay, and is there not some weight in that additional consideration--that this is not a concern of a private nature Rather, is it not a common cause

If the dams are once broken down, if you tamely give up the fundamental laws of your country, if these are openly violated in the case of your fellow subjects, how soon may the case be your own! For what protection then have any of you left for either your liberty or property what security for either your goods or lives, if a riotous mob is to be both judge, jury, and executioner

16. Protestants! What is become of that liberty of conscience for which your forefathers spent their blood Is it not an empty shadow, a mere, unmeaning name, if these things are suffered among you Romans, such of you as are calm and candid men, do you approve of these proceedings I cannot think you yourselves would use such methods of convincing us, if we think amiss. Christians of all denominations, can you reconcile this to our royal law, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’ O tell it not in Gath! Let it not be named among those who are enemies to the Christian cause, lest that worthy name whereby we are called be still more blasphemed among the heathen!

To Thomas Walsh [12]

[DUBLIN, June 19,] 1750

My DEAR BROTHR, -- It is hard to judge what God has called you to till trial is made. Therefore, when you have an opportunity you may go to Shronell, and spend two or three days with the people there. Speak to them in Irish.

To Joshua Strangman [13]

BIRR, June 28, 1750.

You did not expect this from me; but I am constrained to write, for you are much upon my heart. God has given you strong desires, and you see the nature of religion. But, O my friend, do you experience it In some measure I hope you do. Yet I am often afraid lest the good seed should be choked. Whom have you to stir you up to press you forward to strengthen your hands in God Do not most who speak to you think you religious enough God forbid you should think so yourself! O what is the fairest form of godliness either the Methodist form or the Quaker form I want you to experience all the power, all the life, all the spirit of religion; to be all dead to the world, all alive to God; a stranger, a sojourner on earth, but an inhabitant of heaven; living in eternity, walking in eternity. Possibly I may not see you any more till we meet in our own country, for my day is far spent. Take this, then, as a little token of the affection wherewith I am

Your sincere friend and brother.

To John Bennet [14]

[June 1750]

You do entirely right in speaking your mind freely. To keep anything back is indeed to poison our own soul. It was chiefly this -- the being close, the not speaking your mind -- which had wellnigh overthrown you. If you had opened yourself at the beginning either to --- or any other things would not have gone so far. But it is the artifice of the devil to make us disaffected to those very persons who might be of the greatest use to our soul.

It is a great blessing that you are thus far delivered. But you are not beyond the danger of a relapse nor will you be (I fear) till you are farther from home. It is not good (no, not for your body) to be so long in one place. I believe it would help you every way, for a while either to change with --- or come to London. Write freely. Peace be with you.

Adieu.

To Mrs. Gallatin [15]

DUBLIN, July 19, 1750.

MADAM, -- I did not receive your favor of June 24 before last night. By what means it was delayed I know not.

The reason why we refused for several years to license any of the places wherein we preached was this. [Wesley was reluctant to license his meeting-places; but the action of his opponents compelled such a course in many cases. See Journal vii. 339; Large Minutes 1770 Works, viii. 331.] We supposed it could not be done without styling ourselves Dissenters. But the Recorder of Chester showed us this was a mistake and procured a license for Thomas Sidebotham’s house in that county, although he (then as well as at all other times) professes himself a member of the Established Church. Since then we have licensed the house at Leeds and some others. The manner of doing it is this. At the Quarter Sessions a note with these or the like words is presented to the Justices: ‘A. B. desires his house in C. D. may be licensed for public worship.’ By order of the Bench this is registered, and sixpence paid to the clerk.

I cannot doubt but a blessing has attended Mr. Whitefield's ministry in Manchester. [Whitefield wrote from Manchester on June 8 to Lady Gertrude Hotham: ‘Thousands and thousands for some time past have flocked to hear the Word every day, and the power of God has attended it in a glorious manner.’] It is necessary for me to visit the Societies in the West of England, unless my brother can exchange with me. He proposed going into the North himself. If he visits Cornwall, I can go northward; and if I do, I shall certainly do myself the pleasure to wait upon Mr. Gallatin and you.

I expected Mr. Hopper here on Tuesday night. [Christopher Hopper went with Wesley to Ireland on April 6, 1750. He arrived in Dublin soon after this letter was written, spent a few days there, and sailed with Wesley for England on June 22. He reached Bristol on the 25th, and went thence to Newcastle. See Wesley’s Veterans i. 135; and letter of Feb. 6.] If he had come, we might have embarked together for Bristol, and he would have gone by Manchester to Newcastle. I do not know but he may do so still. I trust you will never be ashamed of the gospel of Christ, but that He who has supported you hitherto will do it to the end. – I am, madam,

Your most obedient servant.

To Mrs. Gallatin, In Manchester.

To Ebenezer Blackwell [16]

DUBLIN, July 21, 1750.

DEAR SIR, -- I have had so hurrying a time for two or three months, as I scarce ever had before - such a mixture of storms and clear sunshine, of huge applause and huge opposition. Indeed, the Irish in general keep no bounds I think there is not such another nation in Europe so

Impetuous in their love and in their hate.

That any of the Methodist preachers are alive is a clear proof of an overruling Providence; for we know not where we are safe. A week or two ago in a time of perfect peace twenty people assaulted one of our preachers, and a few that were riding with him, near Limerick. He asked their captain what they intended to do, who calmly answered, ‘To murder you!’ and accordingly presented a pistol, which snapped twice or thrice Mr. Fenwick [Michael Fenwick, See letter of Sept. 12, 1755.] then rode away. The other pursued and fired after him, but could not overtake him. Three of his companions they left for dead. But some neighboring Justice of the Peace did not take it well; so they procured the cut-throats to be apprehended; and it is supposed they will be in danger of transportation, though murder is a venial sin in Ireland. -- I am, dear sir.

To Mrs. Madan [17]

LONDON November 9, 1750.

There h much difficulty in knowing how to act in such a situation as yours is. You are not at liberty to choose what is, absolutely speaking, the most excellent way, which is to cut off all superfluity of every kind -- to expend all our time and all our substance in such a manner as will most conduce to the glory of God and our own eternal happiness. Nor is it easy to say how far you may vary from this: Something must be allowed to the circumstances you are in. But who can say how much Only the Spirit of God, only the unction from above which teacheth us of all things.

But perhaps this in general may be said -- all the time you can redeem from fashionable folly you should redeem. Consequentially it is right to throw away as little as possible of that precious talent on dressing, visits of form, useless diversions, and trifling conversation.

Hebert well observes:

If so thou spend thy time, the sun will cry

Against thee; for his light was only lent. [The Temple, The Church Porch, XIV, where it reads ‘If those take up thy day.’]

And I can’t but think if you earnestly cry to Him who with every temptation can make a way to escape, [Mrs. Madan here adds a note: ‘And this, I bless God without any alteration of worldly circumstances or my situation of life, was done.’] He will deliver you from abundance of that impertinence which has hithero swallowed up so many of your precious moments.

To Dr. Lavington, Bishop of Exeter

Ecce iterum Crispinus! [Juvenals Satires, iv. 1: ‘Again Crispinus comes!’]

LONDON November 27, 1750.

MY LORD, -- 1. I was grieved when I read the following words in the Third Part of the Enthusiasm of Methodist and Papists Compared [See letters of Feb. 1, 1750, and Dec. 1751, to him.]: ‘A sensible, honest woman told the Bishop of Exeter, in presence of several witness, that Mr. John Wesley came to her house and questioned her whether she had “an assurance of her salvation.” Her answer was that “she hoped she should be saved but had no absolute assurance of it.” “Why, then,” replied he, “you are in hell, you are damned already.” This so terrified the poor woman, who was then with child, that she was grievously aired of miscarrying, and could not in a long time recover her right mind. For this, and the Methodists asking her to live upon free cost, she determined to admit no more of them into her house. So much is her own account to his Lordship, on whose authority it is here published.’

2. This renewed the concern I felt some time since when I was informed (in letters which I have still by me of your Lordship's publishing this account, both at Plymouth in Devonshire and at Truro in Cornwall, before the clergy assembled from all parts of those counties, at the solemn season of your Lordship’s visiting your diocese. But I was not informed that your Lordship showed a deep concern for the honor of God, which you supposed to be so dreadfully violated, or a tender compassion for a presbyter whom you believed to be rushing into everlasting destruction.

3. In order to be more fully informed, on Saturday, August 25, 1750, Mr. Trembath of St. Gennys, Mr. Haime of Shaftesbury, and I called at Mr. Morgan's at Mitchell. The servant telling me her master was not at home, I desired to speak with her mistress, the ‘honest, sensible woman.’ I immediately asked, ‘Did I ever tell you or your husband that you would be damned if you took any money of me’ (So the story ran in the First Part of the Comparison; it has now undergone a very considerable alteration.) ‘Or did you or he ever affirm’ (another circumstance related at Truro) ‘that I was rude with your maid’ She replied vehemently, ‘Sir, I never said you was or that you said any such thing. And I do not suppose my husband did. But we have been belied as well as our neighbors.’ She added: ‘When the Bishop came down last, he sent us word that he would dine at our house; but he did not, being invited to a neighboring gentleman’s He sent for me thither and said, “Good woman, do you know these people that go up and down Do you know Mr. Wesley Did not he tell you you would be damned if you took any money of him And did not he offer rudeness to your maid” I told him, “No, my Lord; he never said any such thing to me, nor to my husband that I know of. He never offered any rudeness to any maid of mine. I never saw or knew any harm of him; but a man told me once (who, I was told, was a Methodist preacher) that I should be damned if I did not know my sins were forgiven.”’

4. This is her own account given to me. And an account it is irreconcilably different (notwithstanding some small resemblance in the last circumstance) from that she is affirmed to have given your Lordship. Whether she did give that account to your Lordship or no, your Lordship knows best. That the comparer affirms it is no proof at all, since he will affirm anything that suits his purpose.

5. Yet I was sorry to see your Lordship’s authority cited on such an occasion; inasmuch as many of his readers, not considering the man, may think your Lordship did really countenance such a writer; -- one that turns the most serious, the most awful, the most venerable things into mere farce; that makes the most essential parts of real, experimental religion matter of low buffoonery; that, beginning at the very rise of it in the soul, namely, ‘repentance towards God, a broken and a contrite heart,’ goes on to ‘faith in our Lord Jesus Christ’ whereby ‘he that believeth is born of God,’ to ‘the love of God shed abroad in the heart,’ attended with ‘peace and joy in the Holy Ghost,’ to our subsequent ‘wrestling not’ only ‘with flesh and blood, but with principalities and powers and wicked spirits in high places,’ and thence to ‘perfect love’ the ‘loving the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength’; and treats on every one of these sacred topics with the spirit and air of a merry-andrew. What advantage the common enemies of Christianity may reap from this your Lordship cannot be insensible.

6. Your Lordship cannot but discern how the whole tenor of his hook tends to destroy the Holy Scriptures, to render them vile in the eyes of the people, to make them stink in the nostrils of infidels. For instance: after reading his labored ridicule of the sorrow and fear which usually attend the first repentance (called by St. Chrysostom as well as a thousand other writers ‘the pangs or throes of the new birth’), what can an infidel think of those and the like expressions in Scripture’ I have roared for the very disquietness of my heart; fearfulness and trembling are come upon me and an horrible dread hath overwhelmed me’ After his flood of satire on all kind of conflicts with Satan, what judgment can a Deist form of what St. Paul speaks concerning the various wrestlings of a Christian with the wicked one Above all, how will his bringing the lewd heathen poets to expose the pure and spiritual love of God naturally cause them to look with the same eyes on the most elevated passages of the inspired writings! What can be more diverting to them than to apply his p ’t ‘bitter-sweet of love,’ to many expressions in the Canticles (On which undoubtedly he supposes the fair Circassian to be a very just paraphrase!) ‘Aye,’ say they, ‘the very case: “Stay me with apples; for I am sick of love.”’

7. Probably the comparer will reply: ‘No; I do not ridicule the things themselves --repentance, the new birth, the fight of faith, or the love of God; all which I know are essential to religion, -- but only the folly and the enthusiasm which are blended with these by the Methodists.’ But how poor a pretence is this! Had this ready been the case how carefully would he have drawn the line under each of these heads -- between the sober religion of a Christian and the enthusiasm of a Methodist! But has he done this Does he take particular care to show under each what is true as well as what is fake religion where the former ends and the latter begins what are the proper boundaries of each Your Lordship knows he does not so much as endeavor it or take any pains about it, but indiscriminately pours the flood out of his unclean mouth upon all repentance, faith, love and holiness.

8. Your Lordship will please to observe that I do not here touch in the least on the merits of the cause. Be the Methodists what they may, fools, madmen, enthusiasts, knaves, impostors, Papists, or anything yet your Lordship perceives this does not in any degree affect the point in question: still it behooves every Christian, nay, every reasonable heathen, to consider the subject he is upon, and to take care not to bring this into contempt (especially if it be of the last importance), however inexcusable or contemptible his opponents may be.

9. This consideration, my Lord, dwelt much upon my mind when I read the former parts of the Comparison. I immediately saw there was no encountering a buffoon by serious reason and argument. This would naturally have furnished both him and his admirers with fresh matter of ridicule. On the other hand, if I should let myself down to a level with him by a less serious manner of writing than I was accustomed to, I was afraid of debasing the dignity of the subject -- nay, and I knew not but I might catch something of his spirit. I remembered the advice, ‘Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him’ (Prov. xxvi. 4). And yet I saw there must be an exception in some cases, as the words immediately following show: ‘Answer a fool according to his foly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.' I conceive as if he had said, ‘Yet it is needful in some cases to “answer a fool according to his folly,” otherwise he will be “wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason.’” I therefore constrained myself to approach, as near as I dared, to his own manner of writing. And I trust the occasion will plead my excuse with your Lordship and all reasonable men.

10. One good effect of my thus meeting him on his own ground is visible already. Instead of endeavoring to defend he entirely gives up the First Part of his Comparison. Indeed, I did not expect this, when I observed that the Third Part was addressed to me. I took it for granted that he had therein aimed at something like a reply to my answer; but, going on, I found myself quite mistaken. He never once attempts a reply to one page, any otherwise than by screaming out, ‘Pettiness, scurrility, effrontery,’ and in subjoining that deep remark, ‘Paper and time would be wasted on such stuff' (Third Part, Preface, p. 15).

11. I cannot but account it another good effect that he is something less confident than he was before. He is likewise not more angry or more bitter, for that cannot be, but a few degrees more serious. So that I plainly perceive this is the way I am to take if I should have leisure to answer the Third Part; although it is far from my desire to write in this manner: it is as contrary to my inclination as to my custom.

12. But is it possible that a person of your Lordship's character should countenance such a performance as this It cannot be your Lordship's desire to pour contempt on all that is truly venerable among men! to stab Christianity to the heart under the color of opposing enthusiasm, and to increase and give a sanction to the profaneness which already overspreads our land as a flood!

13. Were the Methodists ever so bad, yet are they not too despicable and inconsiderable for your Lordship’ notice

‘Against whom is the King of Israel come out against a flea against a partridge upon the mountains ‘Such they undoubtedly are, ff that representation of them be just which the comparer has given. Against whom (if your Lordship espouses his cause) are you stirring up the supreme power of the nation Against whom does your Lordship arm the ministers of all denominations, particularly our brethren of the Established Church inciting them to point us out to their several congregations as not fit to live upon the earth. The effects of this have already appeared in many parts both of Devonshire and Cornwall. Nor have I known any considerable riot in any part of England for which such preaching did net pave the way.

14. I beg leave to ask, Would it be a satisfaction to your Lordship if national persecution were to return Does your Lordship desire to revive the old laws de haeretico comburendo [‘Concerning the burning of heretics.’] Would your Lordship rejoice to see the Methodists themselves tied to so many stakes in Smithfield Or would you applaud the execution, though not so legally or decently performed by the mob of Exeter Plymouth Dock, or Launceston My Lord, what profit would there be in our blood Would it be an addition to your Lordship’s happiness, or any advantage to the Protestant cause, or any honor either to our Church or nation

15. The comparer, doubtless, would answer: ‘Yes; for it would prevent the horrid consequences of your preaching.’ My Lord, give me leave to say once more, I willingly put the whole cause upon this issue. What are the general consequences of our preaching Are there more tares or wheat more good men destroyed (as Mr. Church once supposed) or wicked men saved The last places in your Lordship's diocese where we began constant preaching are near Liskeard in Cornwall and at Tiverton in Devonshire. Now, let any man inquire here (1) what kind of people were those a year ago who now constantly hear this preaching (2) what are the main doctrines the Methodists have been teaching this twelvemonth (3) what effect have these doctrines had upon their hearers And if you do not find (1) that the greater part of these were a year or two ago notoriously wicked men; (2) yet the main doctrines they have heard since were, ‘Love God and your neighbor, and carefully keep His commandments'; and (3) that they have since exercised themselves herein and continue so to do; -- I say, if any reasonable man, who will be at the pains to inquire, does not find this to be an unquestionable fact, I will openly acknowledge myself an enthusiast or whatever rise he shah please to style me.

16. I beg leave to conclude the address to your Lordship with a few more words transcribed from the same letter. ‘Allow Mr. Wesley,’ says Mr. Church, ‘but these few points, and he will defend his conduct beyond exception.’ [See letter of June 17, 1746, sect. vi. 9.] That is most true. If I have indeed been advancing nothing but the true knowledge and love of God; if God has made me an instrument in reforming many sinners and brining them to inward and pure religion; and if many of these continue holy to this day and free from all willful sin, --t hen may I, even I, use those awful words, ‘He that despiseth me despiseth Him that sent me.’ But I never expect the world to allow me one of these points. However, I must go on as God shall enable me. I must lay out whatsoever talents He entrusts me with (whether others will believe I do it or no) in advancing the true Christian knowledge of God, and the love and fear of God among men; in reforming (if so be it please Him to use me still) those who are yet without God in the world; and in propagating inward and pure religion, ‘righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.’

Sincerely wishing your Lordship all happiness in time and in eternity, I remain

Your Lordship's most obedient servant.

To George James Stonehouse [18]

COOKHAM, November 27 1750.

DEAR SIR, -- Several times I have designed to speak to you at large concerning some things which have given me uneasiness. And more than once I have begun to speak, but your good humor quite disarmed me; so that I could not prevail upon myself to give you pain, even to remove a greater evil. But I cannot delay any longer, and therefore take this way (as less liable to disappointment) of laying before you with all freedom and unreserve the naked sentiments of my heart.

You seem to admire the Moravians much. I love them, but cannot admire them (although I did once, perhaps more than you do now); and that for the following reasons :--

First. I do not admire the names they assume to themselves. They commonly style themselves ‘The Brethren’ or ‘The Moravian Church.’ Now, the former of these, ‘The Brethren,’ either implies that they are the only Christians in the world (as they were who were so styled in the days of the Apostles), or at least that they are the best Christians in the world, and therefore deserve to be emphatically so called. But is not even this a very high encomium upon themselves I should, therefore, more admire a more modest appellation.

‘But why should they not call themselves the Moravian Church’ Because they are not the Moravian Church; no more (at the utmost) than a part is the whole, than the Romish Church is the Church of Christ. A congregation assembled in St. Paul's might with greater propriety style themselves the Church of England -- yea, with far greater: (1) because these are all Englishmen born; (2) because they have been baptized as members of the Church of England; and (3) because as far as they know, they adhere both to her doctrine and discipline. Whereas (1) Not a tenth part of Count Zinzendorf's Brethren are so much as Moravian born; not two thousand out of twenty thousand (quaere, if two hundred adults if fifty men). (2) Not one-tenth of them were baptized as members of the Moravian Church (perhaps not one till they left Moravia), but as members of the Romish Church. (3) They do not adhere either to the doctrines or discipline of the Moravian Church. They have many doctrines which the Church never held and an entirely new scheme and discipline. (4) The true Moravian Church, of which this is a very small part, if it be any part at all, is still subsisting not in Endand or Germany, but in Polish Prussia.’ Therefore I cannot admire their assuming the name to themselves; I cannot reconcile it either with modesty or sincerity.

If you say, ‘But the Parliament has allowed it,’ I answer, I am sorry for it. The putting so palpable a cheat upon so august an assembly, with regard to a notorios matter of fact, I conceive does not redound to their own any more than to the honor of our nation.

If you add, ‘But you yourself once styled them thus,’ I grant I did; but I did it in ignorance. I took it on their word; and I now freely and openly testify my mistake.

Secondly. I do not admire their doctrine in the particulars that follow:

1. That we are to do nothing in order to salvation, but barely to believe.

2. That there is but one duty now, but one command--to believe in Christ.

3. That Christ has taken away all other commands and duties, having wholly abolished the law.

(The sermon Count Zinzendorf preached at Fetter Lane on John viii. 11 places this in a strong light. He roundly began: ‘Christ says, I came not to destroy the law. But He did destroy the law. The law condemned this woman to death; but He did not condemn her. And God Himself does not keep the law. The law forbids lying; but God said, Forty days and Nineveh shall be destroyed; yet Nineveh was not destroyed.’)

4. That there is no such thing as degrees in faith or weak faith; since he has no faith who has any doubt or fear.

(How to reconcile this with whith what I heard the Count assert at large, ‘that a man may have justifying faith and not know it,’ I cannot tell.)

5. That we are sanctified wholly the moment we are justified, and are neither more nor less holy to the day of our death.

6. That a believer has no holiness in himself at all; all his holiness being imputed, not inherent.

7. That a man may feel a peace that passeth all understanding may rejoice with joy fun of glory, and have the love of God and of all mankind, with dominion over all sin; and yet all this may be only nature, animal spirits, or the force of imagination.

8. That if a man regards prayer, or searching the Scriptures, or communicating as matter of duty; if he judges himself obliged to do these things, or is troubled when he neglects them, -- he is in bondage, he is under the law, he has no faith, but is still seeking salvation by works.

9. That, therefore, till we believe, we ought to be still - that is, not to pray, search the Scriptures, or communicate.

10. That their Church cannot err, and of consequence ought to be implicitly believed and obeyed.

Thirdly. I approve many things in their practice; yet even this I cannot admire in the following instances:

1. I do not admire their conforming to the word by useless, trifling conversation; by suffering sin upon their brother, without reproving even that which is gross and open; by levity in the general tenor of their behavior, not walking as under the eye of the great God; and, lastly, by joining in the most trifling diversions in order to do good.

2. I do not admire their dose, dark, reserved behavior, particularly toward strangers. The spirit of secrecy is the spirit of their community, often leading even into guile and dissimulation. One may observe in them much cunning, much art, much evasion and disguise. They often appear to be what they are not, and not to be what they are. They so study to become all things to all men, as to take the color and shape of any that are near them directly contrary to that openness, frankness, and plainness of speech so manifest in the Apostles and primitive Christians.

3. I do not admire their confining their beneficence to the narrow bounds of their own Society. This seems the more liable to exception as they boast of possessing so immense riches. In his late book the Count particularly mentions how many hundred thousand florins a single member of their Church has lately expended and how many hundred thousand crowns of yearly rent the nobility and gentry only of his Society enjoy in one single country. Meantime do they, all put together, expend one hundred thousand, yea, one thousand or one hundred, in feeding the hungry or clothing the naked of any sorry but their own

4. I do not admire the manner wherein they treat their opponents. I cannot reconcile it either to love, humility or sincerity. Is utter contempt or settled disdain consistent with love or humility And can it consist with sincerity to deny any charge which they know in their conscience is true to say those quotations are unjust which are literally copied from their own books to affirm their doctrines am mis-represented when their own sense is given in their own words to cry, ‘Poor man! He is quite dark; he is utterly blind; he knows nothing of our doctrines!’ though they cannot point out one mistake this blind man has made or confute one assertion he has advanced

Fourthly. I least of all admire the effects their doctrine has had on some who have lately begun to hear them. For –

1. It has utterly destroyed their faith, their inward ‘evidence of things not seen,’ the deep conviction they once had that the Lamb of God had taken away their sins. Those who before had the witness in themselves of redemption in the blood of Christ, who had the Spirit of God clearly witnessing with their spirit that they were the children of God, after hearing these but a few times, began to doubt; then reasoned themselves into utter darkness; and in a while affirmed, first, that they had no faith now (which was true), and soon after, that they never had any. And this was not the accidental but natural effect of that doctrine that there are no degrees in faith, and that none has any faith who is liable at any time to any degree of doubt or fear; as well as of that dark, unintelligible, unscriptural manner wherein they affect to speak of it.

I expect you will answer: ‘Nay, they are the most plain, simple preachers of any in the whole world. Simplicity is their peculiar excellence.’ I grant one sort of simplicity is; a single specimen whereof may suffice. One of their eminent preachers, describing at Fetter Lane ‘the childhood of the Lamb,’ observed that ‘His mother might send Him out one morning for a halfpenny-worth of milk; that, making haste back, He might fall and break the porringer; and that He might work a miracle to make it whole again, and gather up the milk into it.’ Now, can you really admire this kind of Simplicity or think it does honor to ‘God manifest in the flesh’

2. Their preaching has destroyed the love of God in many souls; which was the natural effect of destroying their faith, as well as of teaching them to grieve the Holy Spirit of God by ascribing His gift to imagination and animal spirits; and of perplexing them with senseless, unscriptural cautions against the selfish love of God; in which it is not easy to say whether nonsense or blasphemy is the chief ingredient.

3. This preaching has greatly impaired, if not destroyed, the love of their neighbor in many souls. They no longer burn with love to all mankind, with desire to do good to all. They are straitened in their own bowels, their love is confined to narrower and narrower bounds, till at length they have no desire or thought of doing good to any but those of their own community. If a man was before a zealous member of our Church, groaning for the prosperity of our Zion, it is past; all that zeal is at an end: he regards the Church of England no more than the Church of Rome; his tears no longer fall, his prayers no longer ascend, that God may shine upon her desolations. The friends that were once as his own soul are now more to him than other men. All the bands of that formerly endeared affection are as threads of tow that have touched the fire. Even the ties of filial tenderness are dissolved. The child regards not his own parent; he no longer regards he womb that bare or the paps that gave him suck. Recent instances of this also are not wanting. I will particularize if required. Yea, the son leave his aged father, daughter her mother, in want of the necessities of life. I know the persons; I have myself relieved them more than once: for that was ‘corban’ whereby they should have been profited.

4. These humble preachers utterly destroy the humility of their hearers, who are quickly wiser than all their former teachers; not because they ‘keep Thy commandments’ (as the poor man under the law said), but because they allow no commandments at all. In a few days they are ‘wiser in their own eyes than seven men that can render a reason.’ ‘Render a reason! Aye, there it is. Your carnal reason destroys you. You are for reason: I am for faith.’ I am for both. For faith to perfect my reason, that, by the Spirit of God not putting out the eyes of my understanding, but enlightening them more and more, I may ‘be ready to give’ a clear scriptural ‘answer to every man that asketh’ me ‘a reason of the hope that is in’ me.

5. This preaching destroys true, genuine simplicity. Let a plain, open-hearted man, who hates controversy and loves the religion of the heart, go but a few times to Fetter Lane, and he begins to dispute with every man he meets; he draws the sword and throws away the scabbard; and if he happens to be hard-pressed by Scripture or reason, he has as many turns and fetches as a Jesuit; so that it is out of the power of a common man even to understand, much more to confute him.

6. Lastly, I have known a short attendance on this preaching destroy both gratitude, justice, mercy, and truth. Take one only, but a terrible proof of this. One whom you know was remarkably exact in keeping his word. He is now (after hearing them but a few months) as remarkable for breaking it; being infinitely more afraid of a legal than of a lying spirit! more jealous of the works of the law than of the works of the devil! He was cutting off every possible expense in order to do justice to all men: he is now expending large sums in mere superfluities. He was merciful after his power if not beyond his power --

Listening attentive to the wretch’s cry,

The groan low-murmured and the whispered sigh. [From the Poems of Samuel Wesley jun., ‘To the Memory of Dr. Gastrell Bishop of Chester.’ The original reads thus: Listening attentive to the wretch's cry, The griefs low-whispered, and the stifled sigh. See W.H. S. v. 115.]

But the bowels of his compassion are now shut up; he has been in works too long already; so now, to prove his faith, he lets the poor brother starve, for whom Christ died! If he loved any one under the sun more than his own soul, it was the instrument by whom God had raised him from the dead; he assured him to the utmost of his power; he would defend him even before princes. But he is now unconcerned whether he sinks or swims; he troubles not himself about it. Indeed, he gives him -- good words; that is, before his face: but behind his back he can himself rail at him by the hour, and vehemently maintain, not that he is mistaken in a few smaller point, but that he ‘preaches another God, not Jesus Christ.’

Art thou the man If you are not go and hear the Germans again next Sunday.

Editor’s Introductory Notes

[1] Bennet had written unadvisedly to John Haughton one of the preachers in Ireland (see letters of February 6 and 9). He replied to Wesley on March 5 that he had sent for a copy of it. In September 1785, when Grace Bennet wrote to the Rev. Charles Manning, Vicar of Hayes, Middlesex, she says of Wesley ‘I love and honor him as a father, and shall do while I have a being’ She was left a widow in 1759, with five sons the youngest of them not yet seven. Wesley saw Mrs. Bennet only once after the week of March-April 1752, when she visited one of her sons in London in 1788. See Telford’s Wesley, p. 250; and letter of March 12, 1751.

[2] George Lavington (1684-1762) was made Bishop of Exeter in 1747. Miss Wedgwood says: ‘Bishop Lavington, the anonymous author’ (of The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compared), ‘deserves to be coupled with the men who flung dead cats and rotten eggs at the Methodists, not with those who assailed their tenets with arguments, or even serious rebuke’ (John Wesley, p. 313). It is pleasant to add that in August 1752, a fortnight before the Bishop's death, Wesley was at Exeter Cathedral, and writes: ‘I was well pleased to partake of the Lord's supper with my old opponent Bishop Lavington. Oh may we sit down together in the kingdom of our Father!' (Journal, iv. 527). See letter of November 27, 1750, to him.

[3] Christopher Hopper had given up his portion as schoolmaster because Methodist work in the Dales made such demand on his time. At the end of 1749 he left home for Bristol, preaching at Manchester and other places on his way. John Bennet upbraids Wesley on March 6 for having enclosed the following letter in one to Adam Oldham of Manchester, who had read it and handed it about. Bennet adds, ‘I cannot but think you had a design to blacken my character amongst the people.’ He had been asked in Manchester, ‘What is there between Mr. Wesley and you Surely something is amiss! ‘Bennet went into Cheshire, hoping to see Hopper, but found that, to meet other calls, he and John Brown had ‘gone away in haste, and the people were neglected.’ Oldham left the Society for a time; but Charles Wesley readmitted him and his wife on October 31, 1756.

[4] William Darney, a Scots peddler and shoemaker, began to preach about Bradford in 1745. He was a Calvinist, of blunt manners, but with great energy and perseverance. He formed Religious Societies in Yorkshire and Lancashire and found a friend and patron in William Grimshaw, Curate of Haworth, who gave out hymns and prayed at his services, and was called ‘Mad Grimshaw, Scotch Will’s clerk.’ He published some verse, exceedingly rude and unpolished. At Darney's earnest request Wesley began examining his Societies on May 4, 1747. After talking with him, Charles Wesley refused to admit Darney to the Coherence of preachers in Leeds on September 11, 1751; and he was told that unless he abstained from railing begging and printing nonsense he would not be allowed to preach in any of the Methodist Societies and meeting-houses. Bennet replied to Wesley’s letter on March 6: ‘The Yorkshire Societies want regulating and putting into order. I began to inspect the classes when I was there, but soon found the task too great, unless I could have stayed a month or more.' He reports that his circuit enlarges daily, and that he has to fide nearly two hundred miles a fortnight. He suggests that a preaching-house should be built at Manchester, where ‘I doubt not but Brother Hopper has been an instrument of great good to some.’ See Journal, iii. 293-4n; Jackson’s Charles Wesley, i. 583; and letter of January 9, 1749.

[5] In the Arminian Magazine for 1779 a letter appears from ‘Mr. J. Brewster, a friendly Nonjuror.’ It is dated 'Stoke-Green near Windsor Feb. 15, 1750’ He says: ‘Until I happily met with your Appeal, no one in the kingdom entertained stronger prejudices against you than myself’ The Earnest Appeal leads him to ask that volumes i.-iv. of the Sermons and i. and ii. of the Divine Poems should be sent to ‘our exemplary sister Margaret Groom,’ who would pay for them and deliver them to him. Mr. Brewster was not a member of the Church of England, but had thought that Wesley’s principles and practices tended to sap the constitution ‘of your mother the Church of England.’ In printing the letter Wesley adds a note: ‘And could Mr. Brewster think that I had no better work than to write against the Oath of Abjuration Truly it had never once came into my mind!’ He did not publish this reply which was found amongst the papers of Bishop Eden. See Methodist Recorder Winter Number 1899 p. 53.

[6] Thee were the early days of what was to become a great Methodist center. George Story speaks of a revival at Sheffield in 1749 but found the Methodists there few and feeble John Maddrtn a Cornishman traveled from 1742 to 1756 and was English master at Kingswood till 1760. He was present at the Conference of 1747. Wesley sheltered in ‘Mrs. Madderns house’ during the Falmouth riot of July 4, 1745. See Journal, iii. 190; Everett's Methodism in Sheffield, p. 77; Wesley' s Veterans ii. 233; and letter of July 28, 1762.

[7] Joseph Cownley had labored in Ireland in 1748-49, and was now in Newcastle. Roger Ball the Antinomian teacher, had insinuated himself into the Dublin Society and had done much mischief Wesley marveled that only three persons were turned out of the way. See Journal, iii. 453; C. Wesley’s Journal, ii. 129, 131-7; Crookshank's Methodism in Ireland i. 62; and letter of January 10, 1756.

[8] Gilbert Boyce was Baptist minister at Coningsby, on the edge of the Fens. Wesley was his guest on July 5, 1748 and had a close discussion on Baptism with him for an hour and a half (Journal ii. 360). A correspondence followed, and this is Wesley’s reply to certain positions maintained by his friend.

In 1770 Boyce published ‘an abstract of what I sent to him many years ago in manuscript’: A Serious Reply to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley in particular and to the People called Methodists in general; in much love and Christian friendship recommended to his and their very Serous Consideration: by Gilbert Boyce (Boston: C. Preston). It consists of 198 pages and is an answer to the letters, ‘to something you said to me when you was at my house’ and to particular passages in Wesley’s Notes upon the New Testament.

Boyce had said, ‘I do not know whether I ever heard any people more positive and dogmatical in my life than some of Wesley’s followers’; and he contrasts Wesley’s ways of speaking with those of certain preachers ‘who have not, it is evident, yet rightly learned that important lesson humility.’ As to his views on Baptism, he says: ‘You are entirely mistaken; I think no such thing. It is not so much the mode of baptism as baptism itself I insist upon…. You call that baptism which is no baptism, nor hath any resemblance or likeness to it’ (See page 28 of his book) He really denies the validity of infant baptism.

Wesley's third volume of Sermons (1750) contains the one on the Catholic Spirit. It is not ‘an indifference to all opinions,’ but love to ‘all, of whatever opinion or worship or congregation, who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; who love God and man; who, rejoicing to please and fearing to offend God, are careful to abstain from evil and zealous of good works’ (Works, v. 502-4).

[9] Nicholas Butler, a ballad-singer, had gone through the streets of Cork on May 3, 1749, dressed in a parson’s gown and bands, with ballads in one hand and a Bible in the other, calling on the people to exterminate the Methodist heretics; and many outrages followed. On May 20, 1750 when Wesley was preaching, the Mayor came with the city drummed and an immense rabble. The drumming went on all the time Wesley preached and as he left he was hemmed in by the crowd. He escaped; but the mob wrecked the preaching-room for the third time and next day burnt Wesley in effigy. See Crookshank's Methodism in Ireland i. 64; and letters of June 17, 1749, and June 8 1750.

[10] Edward and Charles were the sons of the Rein Vincent Perronet. They were men of education and zeal, and were a valuable addition to the band of Wesleyan preachers. In 1755 they took an active part in the agitation for the administration of the Sacrament by Methodist preachers. Edward Perronet settled in Canterbury, where he became minister of an Independent Church. See Tyrman's Wesley, ii. 254; and letter of June 20, 1755.

Whitehead in his Life of Wesley, ii. 259-60, gives these extracts from the letters lent to him by Mr. Shrubsole, into whose hands they came after Edward Perronet's death in 1792.

[11] This letter to the Rector of Kilcully, Cork, is dated June 8; but it was transcribed on the 16th, when Wesley rested after what he thought the longest day’s journey he ever rode -- about ninety miles. Mr. Baily's slanders in letters signed ‘George Fisher’ and ‘Philalethes’ were of the coarsest. They were published in Cork in 1750. The depositions concerning the Butler riots throw a lurid light on that time of outrage.

Dr. Josiah Tucker (1712-99), Vicar of All Saints’, Bristol, was domestic chaplain to Bishop Butler, and was made Dean of Gloucester in 1758. Wesley was much comforted by his sermon at All Saints’ on Good Friday 1740, and by his ‘affectionate seriousness’ in the Communion Service (Journal, ii. 341). The Principles of a Methodist, Wesley's first appearance ‘in controversy properly so called,’ was an answer to Tucker’s Brief History of the Principles of Methodism, 1742 (Works, viii. 359-74; Green’s Bibliography, No. 35, and Anti-Methodist Publications, No. 150). -- Joseph Cownley preached in Cork at the end of November 1748 at the peril of his life, and traveled in Ireland until the autumn of 1749. He returned six months later. -- Dr. Jemmett Brown, Bishop of Cork and Ross, afterwards Archbishop of Tuam, received Charles Wesley very graciously on August 26, 1748, and invited him to dinner; but he was afterwards unfriendly to the Methodists. -- Dr. Tisdale may have been the son of Dr. W. Tisdale, Vicar of Belfast, who died in 1735.

[12] Thomas Walsh was living at Newmarket, eight miles from Limerick where he joined the Methodist Society on September 29, 1749. Wesley visited the village on June 4, 1750 when Walsh asked his advice as to preaching, which ‘he sweetly and humbly gave me: adding, withal, that I might write to him afterwards. I did so giving him a brief account of my conversion to God, and of what I experienced in my soul concerning preaching. His answer was as follows.’ Walsh went in July to Shronell with one of his brothers and a friend, and became one of Wesley’s most gifted and saintly preachers. See Wesley’s Veterans v. 34-5; and letter of April 5, 1758, n.

[13] Mr. Strangeman was a Quaker living at Mountmellick. Wesley talked with him for two hours on June 27, 1749. He afterwards married Ann Toft, of Leek Staffs; and Wesley dined with him there in 1774. See, Journal iii, 407, vi. 33; Wesleyan Methodist Magazene, 1874, p. 767; W.H.S. v. 224.

[14] Whittefield had been in Newcastle in September 1749 where his visit had borne much fruit. Bennet wrote to him to complain of Wesley’s discipline and doctrine. Whitefield sent a wise reply on June 29 1750. ‘Home’ seems to refer to the Chester and Lancashire Round where he was very useful. Bennet spoke bitterly of Wesley at Bolton and accused him of preaching nothing but Popery. See Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 42; and letter of November 3, 1749.

[15] This letter was the beginning of a happy friendship. Colonel Gallatin was then stationed in Manchester. In 1751 he was at Musselburgh. At his invitation Wesley visited Scotland with Christopher Hopper, and preached at Musselburgh. Mrs. Gallatin was at West Street on November 25, 1753, and thought Wesley ‘would have expired at the altar.’ Charles Wesley stayed with Captain Gallatin at Lakenham, near Norwich, in July 1754. On December 18, 1778, Wesley visited the Colonel in London: ‘The fine gentleman, the soldier, is clean gone sunk into a feeble, decrepit old man; not able to rise off his seat, and hardly able to speak.’ Charles Wesley's hymn on his death calls him ‘Our bosom friend,’ ‘gentle, generous and sincere.’ See Journal, iii. 523; C. Wesley's Journal, ii. 96.

[16] Wesley had been in Ireland since April 6. On June 21 he wrote in his Journal (iii. 479), ‘Oh who should drag me into a great city, if I did not know there is another world! How gladly could I spend the remainder of a busy life in solitude and retirement!’

[17] Mrs. Madan (Judah Cowper) was the wife of Colonel Madan and mother of the Rev. Martin Madan and Mrs. Mitland (see letter of May 12, 1763). She says in her notes for her daughter: ‘Being in the year 1750 under many inexpressible difficulties from a conviction (which I bless God had been some years gaining ground in my heart) of the infinite importance of religion, I entreated a few lines from that person who had by God’s grace been the instrument of much good to my soul to instruct and direct me. The world and every discouragement threatened me. The everlasting consequence of a better and God's gracious invitation to sinners in His sacred Word encouraged and called me. This, my dear Maria, may perhaps give you some idea of the state of my mind, when my honored friend the truly Revd. Mr. John Wesley sent me as follows in answer to my request.’ See W.H.S. v. 141-6, where there is also an account of Wesley’s visit to them at Hertingfordbury Park in 1752.

[18] This is probably George James Stonehouse, who had been Vicar of Islington, but sold the living to join the Moravians to whose Stillness he had become a convert. Wesley visited him on August 23, 1781. ‘Perhaps, if I had his immense fortune, I might be as great an oddity as he.’ See Journal, iii. 3, v. 442, 522, vi. 331.

Edited by Michael Mattei 2000 Wesley Center for Applied Theology. All rights reserved. No for-profit use of this text is permitted without the express, written consent of the Wesley Center for Applied Theology of Northwest Nazarene College, Nampa, Idaho 83686 USA. Contact the webmaster for permission.