I HAVE perused your _anonymous Pamphlet_; and though upon some accounts it does not deserve an answer, yet, as it may serve a good purpose, and be a means of rectifying some mistakes, I shall trouble you with a few remarks upon it.
Who, or what you are, the world is left to guess. If a _clergyman_, you have done well to conceal yourself, the whole strain of your performance discovering a levity unbecoming such a character. You yourself seem conscious of its needing an apology: for in your preface, after having just hinted at the “_extravagant freaks of Methodism_,” you add, “And if in proving it, I am sometimes guilty of a levity of expression, ’tis to be hoped some allowance will be made, in consideration of the nature of the subject, it being no easy matter to keep one’s countenance, and be steadily serious, where others are ridiculous.” Assure yourself, Sir, I shall make all the allowance you can reasonably desire; but at the same time must observe to you, that if others are ridiculous, that is no reason why you should make yourself so; and if recovering the persons concerned out of their extravagant freaks, be only a remote design of your composition, you have unhappily fixed upon a most improbable, ineffectual remedy; I mean, _irreligious banter_.
However this be, your principal design is obvious, “As a caution to all Protestants, to draw a comparison between the wild and pernicious ENTHUSIASMS of some of the most _eminent Saints_ in the _Popish communion_, and those of the _Methodists_ in our own country:” And who those eminent saints are you specify, page 9, section 2. “the most wild, and extravagant, the most ridiculous strolling, fanatical, delirious, and mischievous of all the saints in the _Romish_ communion.” For otherwise, you say, “the parallel would not hold, but come off defective; the whole conduct of the Methodists (not any one branch, it seems, to be excepted) being but a counter-part of the most wild fanaticism of the most abominable communion,” in its most corrupt ages. _Vid. Pref._ This is avowedly your principal design (which though I think somewhat too restrained to answer exactly to your title page) must be acknowledged to be a very expedient one; if, besides cautioning protestants, you intended, at the same time, to expose the Methodists, and to have them looked upon and treated as Papists.
How you have succeeded in this attempt, will appear when we come to examine the parallel you have drawn between them. To this I shall confine myself, and consequently, on purpose, omit making any direct reply to the account you give of the _Montanists_; it being not only quite foreign to the title page and principal design of your tract (as you say, “they arose in the second century, before popery had a being,”) but at the best very precarious, being not founded upon writings of their own, which, as you inform us, are long since lost.
To come then to your more direct comparison between _popish_ and _methodistical enthusiasts_: “From a commiseration or 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 reformation:” page 10. section 2. And is not this commendable, whether in Methodists or in Papists? Or ought any one, think you, to take upon him holy orders, and witness that good confession before many witnesses, “That he is inwardly moved thereto by the Holy Ghost,” without having a real motive of sincere piety, and a warm intention at least (if that be what you mean by a pretence) to promote, as much as in him lies, a real reformation? If by pretence, you would have us understand a mere hypocritical pretence, you are then guilty of a self-contradiction: for how can pretence and reality be reconciled? Which of the two was the case of the Methodists at their first setting out, if you please, we will leave to the great day, to be determined by Him who is appointed to be judge of quick and dead; to whom alone all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid. Actions are cognizable by us, and not intentions. Let us see how your parallel holds good in respect to these.