And yet this does not prove, that I "separate reason from grace," that I "discard reason from the service of religion." I do continually" employ it to distinguish between right and wrong opinions." I never affirmed, "this distinction to be of little consequence," or denied, "the gospel to be a reasonable service." p. 158.

But "the apostle Paul considered right opinion, as a full third part, at least, of religion. For he says, 'the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth.' By goodness is meant the conduct of particulars to the whole, and consists in habits and social virtue, and this refers to Christian practice. By righteousness is meant the conduct of the whole, to particulars, and consists in the gentle use of church authority. And this refers to Christian discipline. By truth is meant the conduct of the whole, and of particulars to one another, and consist in orthodoxy or right opinion; and this refers to Christian doctrine." p. 159.

My objections to this account are, 1. It contradicts St. Paul. It contradicts itself.

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

Secondly, That interpretation contradicts itself; and that in every article. For, 1. If by goodness be meant the conduct of " particulars to the whole," then it does not consist in habits of "social virtue." For "social virtue" regulates the conduct of particulars, not so properly to the whole as to each other. 2. If by righteousness be meant the conduct of "the whole to particulars," then it cannot consist in the gentleness of church-authority; unless church governors are the whole church, or the parliament the whole nation. 3. If by truth be meant, the conduct of the whole, and of particulars to one another, then it cannot possibly consist in "orthodoxy or right opinion.' For opinion, right or wrong, is not conduct. They differ toto genere. If then it be orthodoxy, it is not "the conduct of the governors and governed towards each other. If it be their conduct toward each other, it is not orthodoxy.”

Although, therefore, it be allowed, that right opinions are a great help, and wrong opinions a great hinderance to religion, yet till stronger proof be brought against it, that proposition remains unshaken, "right opinions are a slender part of religion, if any part of it at all." p. 160.

As to the affair of the Abbe Paris, whoever will read over, with calmness and impartiality, but one volume of Monsieur Montgeron, will then be a competent judge. Mean time I would just observe,

that if these miracles were real, they would strike at the root of the whole papal authority; as having been wrought in direct opposition to the famous Bull Unigenitus. p. 161.

Yet I do not say, "Errors in faith have little to do with religion;" or that they "are no let or impediment to the Holy Spirit.” (p. 162.) But still it is true, that "God (generally speaking) begins his work at the heart." (ibid.) Men usually feel desires to please God, before they know how to please him. Their heart says, "What must I do to be saved?" before they understand the way of salvation. But see "the character he gives his own saints!" "The more I converse with this people the more I am amazed. That God hath wrought a great work is manifest, (by saving many sinners from their sins.) And yet the "main of them are not able to give a rational account of the plainest principles of religion.' They were not able then, as there had not been time to instruct them. But the case is far different now.

Again, did I "give this character" even then, of the people called Methodists, in general? No, but of the people of a particular town in Ireland, where nine in ten of the inhabitants are Romanists.

"Nor is the observation confined to the people. He had made a proselyte of Mr. D. vicar of B. And to show he was no discredit to his master, he gives him this character; "He seemed to stagger at nothing, though as yet his understanding is not opened."" p. 162.

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

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

In drawing the parallel between the work God has wrought in England and in America, I do not so much as "insinuate, the understanding has nothing to do in the work." (p. 165.) Whoever is engaged therein will find full employment for all the understanding which God has given him.

"On the whole, therefore, we conclude, that wisdom which divests the Christian faith of its truth, and the test of it, reason-and resolves all religion into spiritual mysticism and ecstatic raptures, cannot be the wisdom from above, whose characteristic is purity." p. 166.

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

2. "Our next business is to apply the other marks to these pretending sectaries. The first of these, purity, res; ects the nature of the wisdom from above,' or in other words, the doctrine taught." (p. 167.) Not in the least. It has no more to do with doctrine, than the whole text has with prophets. "All the rest concern the manner of teaching" Neither can this be allowed. They no farther concern either teaching or teachers, than they concern all mankind.

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

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

*

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

And it being generally believed that I was able to give the clearest account of these things, (as having been one of the first to whom the name was given, and the person by whom the rest were supposed to be directed,) I have been called upon in all manner of ways, and with the utmost earnestness so to do. I yield at last to the continual importunity, both of friends and enemies; and do now give the clearest account I can, in the presence of the Lord, the Judge of heaven and earth, of the principles and practice whereby those who are called Methodists are distinguished from other men.

'I say, those who are called Methodists; for let it be well observed, that this is not a name which they take upon themselves, but one fixed on them by way of reproach, without their approbation or consent. It was first given to three or four young men at Oxford, by a student of Christ's Church; either in allusion to the ancient sect of physicians so called, (from their teaching, that almost all diseases might be cured by a specific method of diet and exercise) or from their observing a more regular method of study and behaviour than was usual with those of their age and station.'

I need only add, that this nick-name was imposed upon us before this manner of preaching had a being. Yea, at a time when I thought it as lawful to cut a throat as to preach out of a church.

"Why then will Mr. W. so grossly misrepresent his adversaries, as to say, that when they speak against Methodism, they speak against the plain, old doctrine of the Church of England ?" (ibid.)

* Preface to The Character of a Methodist,

This is no misrepresentation. Many of our adversaries, all over the kingdom, speak against us, eo nomine, for preaching these doctrines, justification by faith in particular.

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

Confusion heard the voice, and wild uproar,

Stood rul'd, and order from disorder sprung.

"But St. James, who delivers the test for the trial of these men's pretensions," (the same mistake still) "unquestionably thought a fanatic spirit did more mischief in the mode of teaching than in the matter taught: since of six marks, one only concerns doctrine, all the rest the manners of the teacher." (p. 170.) Nay, all six concern doctrine as much as one. The truth is, they have nothing to do either with doctrine or manner.

"From St. Paul's words, Be instant, in season, out of season,' he infers more than they will bear; and misapplies them into the bargain." (p. 171.) When and where? I do not remember applying them at all.

"When seasonable times are appointed for holy offices, to fly to unseasonable, is factious." (p. 172.) But it is not clear, that five in the morning and seven in the evening (our usual times) are unseasonable.

"The wisdom

We come now directly to the second article. from above is peaceable.' But the propagation of Methodism has occasioned many and great violations of peace. (p. 173.) In order to know where the blame hereof lies, let us inquire into the temper which makes for peace. For we may be assured the fault lies not there, where such a temper is found." Thus far we are quite agreed. "Now the temper which makes for peace is prudence." This is one of the tempers which make for peace; others are kindness, meekness, patience. "This our Lord recommended by his own example. (p. 174-177.) But this Mr. W. calls the mystery of iniquity, and the offspring of hell.'" (p. 178.) No, not this: not the prudence which our Lord recommends. I call that so, and that only, which the world, the men who know not God, style Christian prudence. By this I mean subtilty, craft, dissimulation; study to please man rather than God; the art of trimming between God and the world, of serving God and mammon. Will any serious man defend this? And this only do I condemn.

"But you say, 'good sort of men, as they are called, are the bane of all religion." (p. 179, 180.) And I think so. By this good sort of men, I mean, persons who have a liking to, but no sense of religion: no real fear or love of God; no truly Christian tempers. "These steal away the little zeal he has, that is, persuade him to be peaceable." No; persuade him to be like themselves; without love either to God or man.

"Again, speaking of one, he says, Indulging himself in harmless company,' (vulgarly so called,) He first made shipwreck of his zeal, then of his faith.' In this I think he is right. The zeal and faith of a fanatic are such exact tallies, that neither can exist alone. They came into the world together, to disturb society and dishonour religion."

By zeal I mean the flame of love, or fervent love to God and man; by faith the substance or confidence of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Is this the zeal and faith of a fanatic? Then St. Paul was the greatest fanatic on earth. Did these come into the world to disturb society and dishonour religion?

"On the whole, we find Mr. W. by his own confession, entirely destitute of prudence. (p. 181.) Therefore it must be ascribed to the want of this, if his preaching be attended with tumult and disorder." By "his own confession?" Surely no. Tis I confess, and this only what is falsely called prudence, I abhor: but true prudence I love and admire.

However, "you set at naught the discipline of the church, by invading the province of the parochial minister." (p. 182.) Nay, if ever I preach at all, it must be in the province of some parochial minister: "by assembling in undue places, and at unfit times." I know of no times unfit for those who assemble. And I believe Hanham Mount and Rosegreen were the most proper places under heaven for preaching to the colliers in Kingswood: "by scurrilous invectives against the governors and pastors of the national church." This is an entire mistake. I dare not make any "scurrilous invectives" against any man. "Insolencies of this nature provoke warm

men to tumult." But these "insolencies" do not exist. So that whatever tumult either warm or cold men raise, I am not chargeable therewith.

"To know the true character of Methodism." The present point is, to know the true character of John Wesley. Now in order to know this, we need not inquire what others were, before he was born. All, therefore, that follows, (p. 184-186,) of old Precisians,. Puritans, and Independents, may stand just as it is.

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

I love, and desire to

tion would not come

live peaceably with all men.'

"But persecu

at his call." However, it came uncalled: and