6. Religion itself (I chuse to use the very words, wherein I described it long ago) we define, “The loving God with all our heart, and our neighbour as ourselves, and in that love abstaining from all evil, and doing all possible good to all men.” The same meaning we have sometimes expressed a little more at large, thus: “Religion we conceive to be no other than love; the love of God and of all mankind: the loving God with all our heart, and soul, and strength, as having first loved us, as the fountain of all the good we have received, and of all we ever hope to enjoy: and the loving every soul which God hath made, every man on earth as our own soul.
“This love we believe to be the medicine of life, the never-failing remedy for all the evils of a disordered world, for all the miseries and vices of men. Wherever this is, there are virtue and happiness, going hand in hand. There is humbleness of mind, gentleness, long-suffering, the whole image of God, and at the same time, a peace that passeth all understanding, and joy unspeakable, and full of glory.
“This religion we long to see established in the world, a religion of love, and joy, and peace; having its seat in the heart, in the inmost soul, but ever shewing itself by its fruits: continually springing forth, not only in all innocence (for love worketh no ill to his neighbour) but likewise in every kind of beneficence, spreading virtue and happiness all around it.”
If this can be proved by scripture or reason, to be enthusiastic or erroneous doctrine, we will then plead guilty to the indictment, of _teaching error and enthusiasm_. But if this be the genuine religion of Christ, then will all who advance this charge against us, be found false witnesses before God, in the day when he shall judge the earth.
7. However, with regard to the fruits of our teaching, you say, _It is to be feared, the numbers of serious men who have been perplext and deluded, are much greater than the numbers of notorious sinners, who have been brought to repentance and good life_, (page 113.) _Indeed, if you could prove,――――that the_ Methodists _were in general, very wicked people before they followed you, and that all you have been teaching them is, the love of God and their neighbour, and a care to keep his commandments, which accordingly they have done since, you would――――stop the mouths of all adversaries at once. But――――we have great reason to believe, that the generality of_ Methodists, _before they became so, were serious, regular, and well-disposed people_, page 103.
If the question were proposed, _Which are greater, the numbers of serious men who have been perplext and deluded, or of notorious sinners who have been brought to repentance and good life_ by these preachers, throughout _England_, within seven years: it might be difficult for you to fix the conclusion. For _England_ is a place of wide dimensions; nor is it easy to make a satisfactory computation, unless you confine yourself within a smaller compass. Suppose then we were to contract the question, in order to make it a little less ♦unwieldy. We will bound our enquiry, for the present, within a square of three or four miles. It may be certainly known by candid men, both what has been, and what is now done within this distance. And from hence they may judge of those fruits elsewhere, which they cannot be so particularly informed of.
♦ “unweildly” replaced with “unwieldy”
* Enquire then, _Which are greater, the numbers of serious men, perplext and deluded by these teachers, or of notorious sinners brought to repentance and good life_, within the forest of _Kingswood_? Many indeed of the inhabitants are nearly as they were; are not much better or worse for their preaching: because the neighbouring clergy and gentry have successfully laboured to deter them from hearing it. But between three and four hundred of those who would not be deterred, are now under the care of those preachers. Now, what number of these were _serious Christians_ before? Were fifty? Were twenty? Were ten? Peradventure, there might five such be found. But ’tis a question, whether there could or no. The remainder were gross, open sinners, common swearers, drunkards, sabbath-breakers, whoremongers, plunderers, robbers, implacable, unmerciful, wolves and bears in the shape of men. Do you desire instances of more _notorious sinners_ than these? I know not if _Turkey_ or _Japan_ can afford them. And what do you include in _repentance and good life_? Give the strictest definition thereof that you are able: and I will undertake, these once notorious sinners, shall be weighed in that balance, and not found wanting.