6. Your lordship cannot but discern, how the whole tenor of his book 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 laboured 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 ♦Γλυκύπικρον ἔρωτος (bittersweet of love) to many expressions in the _canticles_? (On which undoubtedly he supposes _the fair circassian_ to be a very just paraphrase!) “Ay, say they, the very case: stay me with apples: for I am _sick of love_.”
♦ “Γλυακύπικρον” replaced with “Γλυκύπικρον”
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 really 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 shew under each, what is true, as well as what is false 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 endeavour 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 any thing, yet your lordship perceives, this does not in any degree affect the point in question. Still it behoves 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 incountering 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, ¹_Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him_. And yet I saw there must be an exception in some cases, as the words immediately following shew. _Answer a fool according to his folly, 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.
¹ Proverbs xxvi. 45.
10. One good effect of my thus meeting him on his own ground, is visible already. Instead of endeavouring to defend, he intirely 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, “Pertness, scurrility, effrontery, and in subjoining that deep remark, ‘Paper and time would be wasted on such stuff.’”¹
¹ Third part, Preface, page 15.