30. You charge the _Methodists_ next ¹“with _violation and contempt of order and authority_,” namely, the authority of the governors of the church. I have answered every article of this charge, in the second and third parts of the _Farther Appeal_, and the letter to Mr. _Church_. When you have been so good as to reply to what is there advanced, I may possibly say something more.
¹ Section 18, page 124.
What you offer of _your own_ upon this head, I shall consider without delay.
“_Women and boys_ are actually employed in this ministry of _public preaching_.” Please to tell me where? I know them not, nor ever heard of them before.
You add, what is more marvellous still, “I speak from _personal knowledge_, that sometimes, a little before delivering of the elements at the communion, three or four _Methodists_ together will take it into their heads to go away: that sometimes while the sentences of the _offertory_ were reading, they have _called out_ to the minister who carried the bason, _reproaching_ him for asking _alms of them_: that sometimes when the minister has delivered the bread into their hands, instead of _eating_ it they would flip it into their _pockets_.” Sir, you must shew your face, before these stories will find credit on your bare asseveration.
“Yet they are surprized, you say, that every man in his senses, don’t without the least hesitation _join_ them.”
Sir, I am surprized (unless you are not in your senses) at your advancing such a barefaced falshood.
31. You go on. “Under this head may not improperly be considered, their undutiful behaviour to the _civil powers_.” What proof have you of this? Why a single sentence, on which I laid so little stress myself, that it is only inserted by way of parenthesis, in the body of another sentence. “Ye learned in the law, what becomes of _Magna Charta_, and of _English_ liberty and property? Are not these mere sounds, while on any pretence, there is such a thing as a _press-gang_ suffered in the land?”
Upon this you descant: “The legislature has at several times made acts for pressing men. But no matter for this; touch but a _Methodist_, and all may perish, rather than a soldier be prest.――――He who had before bound himself, not to speak a tittle of worldly things, is now bawling for liberty and property.”
(Very lively this!) But I hope, Sir, you do not offer it by way of _argument_. You are not so unlearned in the law, as not to know, that the legislature is out of the question. The legislature six years ago did not appoint _press-gangs_, but legal officers, to press men. Consequently this is no proof (and find another if you can) of our _undutiful_ behaviour to the _civil powers_.
32. ¹“Another natural consequence (you say) of _Methodism_, is their mutual _jealousies_ and _envyings_, their manifold _divisions_, _fierce and rancorous quarrels_, and ♦accusations of one another.”
¹ 4 Journal, page 14.
♦ “accusation” replaced with “accusations” per Errata
I shall carefully attend whatever you produce on this head. And if you prove this, I will grant you all the rest.
You first cite those words: “Musing on the things that were past, and reflecting how many that came after me, were preferred before me, I opened my testament on those words, _The Gentiles which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness; but Israel which followed after the law of righteousness, have not attained to the law of righteousness_.”
And how does this prove the manifold _divisions_ and _rancorous quarrels_ of the Methodists?
Your second argument is, “Mr. ¹_Whitefield_ told me, he and I preached two different gospels: (his meaning was, that he preached particular, and I universal redemption) and therefore he would, not join with me, but publicly preach against me.”
¹ Section 19, page 341, &c.
Well, Sir, here was doubtless a _division_ for a time; but no _fierce and rancorous quarrel_ yet.
You say thirdly, “They write and publish against each other.” True; but without any degree either of _fierceness_ or _rancor_.
You assert fourthly, “Mr. _Wesley_ in his sermon on _Free-Grace_, opposes the other for the horrible blasphemies of his horrible doctrine.”
Sir, away with your flourishes and write plain _English_. I opposed the doctrine of predestination which he held. But without any degree either of _rancor_ or _fierceness_. Still therefore you miss the mark.
You quote fifthly these words, “¹I spent an hour with Mr. _Stonehouse_. O what πιθανολογία (persuasiveness of speech) is here! Surely all the deceivableness of unrighteousness.” But there was no _fierceness_ or _rancor_ on either side.
¹ 4 Journal, page 63.