You add, “This is bad enough; but it is not the worst. For consider what becomes of those that leave them?” Why, Sir, what if _their last end be worse than their first_? Will you charge this upon _me_? By the same rule you must have charged upon the apostles themselves, whatever befel those who having _known the way of righteousness_, afterwards _turned back from the holy commandment once delivered to them_.
36. You conclude this section, “Mr. _Wesley_ will probably say, ‘Must I be answerable for the _Moravians_, against whom I have preached and written?’ True, since he and the _Moravians_ quarrelled. But who gives them a box on the ear with the one hand, and embraces them with the other? Who first brought over this wicked generation? Who made a _Moravian_ his spiritual guide? Who _fanaticised_ his own followers, and deprived them of their senses? Whose societies (by his own confession) run over in shoals to _Moravianism_, forty or fifty at a time? Would they have split upon this rock, if they had not been first _Methodists_? Lastly, Where is the spawn of _Moravianism_ so strongly working, as in the children of _Methodism_?”
Sir, you run very fast. And yet I hope to overtake you by and by. “Mr. _Wesley_, you say, has preached against the _Moravians_, since he quarrelled with them.” Sir, I never quarrelled with their persons yet. I did with some of their tenets long ago. He “gives them a box on the ear with the one hand, and embraces them with the other.” That is, I embrace what is good among them, and at the same time reprove what is evil. “Who _first_ brought over this wicked generation?” Not I, whether they be wicked or not. I once thought I did; but have since then seen and acknowledged my mistake. “Who made a _Moravian_ his spiritual guide?” Not I: though I have occasionally consulted several. “Who _fanaticised_ his own followers, and deprived them of their senses?” Not I. Prove it upon me if you can. “Whose societies (by his own confession) run over in shoals to _Moravianism_, forty or fifty at a time?” Truly not mine. Two and fifty of _Kingswood_ society ran over to _Calvinism_, and a year before, part of _Fetter-lane_ society gradually went over to the _Moravians_. But I know none of ours that went over _in shoals_. They never, that I remember, gained five at a time: nor fifty in all (to the best of my knowledge) for these last ten years. “Would they (of _Fetter-lane_) have split on this rock, if they had not first been _Methodists_.” Undoubtedly they would; for several of them had not first been _Methodists_. Mr. _Viney_, for instance (as well as several others) was with the _Germans_, before ever he saw me. “Lastly, Where is the spawn of _Moravianism_ working so strongly as in the children of _Methodism_?” If you mean the errors of _Moravianism_, they are not working at all in the generality of the children of _Methodism_: the _Methodists_ in general being thoroughly apprized of, and fully guarded against them.
So much for your modest assertion, “That the _Methodists in general_, are _all_ together by the ears:” the very reverse of which is true. They are, _in general_, in perfect peace. They enjoy in themselves the peace of God, which passeth all understanding. They are at peace with each other. And as much as lieth in them, they live peaceably with all men.
37. Your next charge is, That “Methodism ¹has a tendency to undermine morality and good works.” To prove this you assert, “1. That the _Methodists_ are trained up to wait _in quietness_ for sudden conversion; whence they are naturally led, to neglect _the means of salvation_.” This is a mistake all over. For neither are they taught to wait in _quietness_ (if you mean any more than patience by that term) for either sudden or gradual conversion: neither do they, in fact, neglect _the means_. So far from it, that they are eminently exact in the use of them.
¹ Section 20, page 146, &c.
You assert, 2. “The doctrine of _assurance of pardon and salvation_, present and future, causes a false security, to the neglect of future endeavours.” Blunder upon blunder again. That all Christians have an assurance of _future salvation_ is no _Methodist_ doctrine: and an assurance of present _pardon_, is so far from causing negligence, that it is of all others the strongest motive to vigorous endeavours after universal holiness.
You assert, 3. “_Impulses_ and _impressions_, being made the _rule of duty_, will lead into dangerous errors.” Very true. But the _Methodists_ do not make _impulses and impressions_ the _rule of duty_. They totally disclaim any other rule of duty, than the written word.
You assert 4. “A claim of unsinning perfection,” (I mean by perfection, the loving God with all our heart) “drives some into phrensies, others into despair.” Sir, I doubt the fact.