You say ninthly, “Give me leave to make a remark. The _Methodists_ wandered many years, in the new path of salvation by faith and works, which was the time too of their highest _glory and popularity_. During this time, they were _seducing their disciples into_ the most destructive errors.” Excuse me, Sir. While they preached salvation by faith and works, they had no disciples at all; (unless you term a few pupils such) nor had they any _popularity_ at all. They then enjoyed (what they always desired) a quiet, retired life. But whatever disciples we had, they were not _seduced by us, into_ the error of justification by works. For they were in it, before ever they saw our face, or knew there were such men in the world.
You say tenthly, “Mr. _Wesley_ only contends, that it is _possible_, to _use_ them without _trusting_ in them.” Not in that page; ¹because the proposition I am confuting is, “’Tis _not possible to use_ them without _trusting_ in them.”
¹ 4 Journal, page 20.
You added, “And now, are not such disparaging expressions, (a _mere possibility of using_ them, without _trusting_ in them) a great discouragement to practice?”
O Sir, when will you deviate into truth? Dare you affirm, without any regard to God or man, “Mr. _Wesley_ only contends for a _mere possibility_ of _using_ the means, without trusting in them?”
To go no farther than the very first ¹page you refer to: my express words are these.
¹ 3 Journal, pages 78, 79.
“I believe the way to attain faith is, to wait for Christ, in using all the means of grace.”
“Because I believe, these do ordinarily convey God’s grace (even) to unbelievers.” Is this “contending only for a _mere possibility_ of _using_ them without _trusting_ in them?”
Not only in this, and many other parts of the journals, but in a sermon wrote professedly on the subject, I contend, that all the ordinances of God are the stated channels of his grace to man; and that it is our bounden duty to use them all, at all possible opportunities. So that to charge the _Methodists_ in general, or me in particular, with undervaluing or disparaging them, shews just as much regard for justice and truth, as if you was to charge us with _Mahometanism_.
40. Tedious as it is to wade through so many dirty pages, I will follow you, step by step, a little farther. Your eleventh proof that we “undermine morality and good works,” is drawn from the following passage.
¹“I know every one _under the law_ is even as I was, for near twice ten years. Every one when he begins to see his fallen state, and to feel the wrath of God abiding on him, relapses into the sin that most easily besets him, _soon after_ repenting of it. Sometimes he avoids, and at many other times he cannot persuade himself to _avoid_ the _occasions_ of it. Hence his relapses are _frequent_, and of consequence his _heart is hardened_ more and more. Nor can he, with all his _sincerity_, avoid any one of these four marks of _hypocrisy_, till _being justified by faith_, he _hath peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ_.”
¹ 3 Journal, pages 78, 79.
You, Sir, are no competent judge in the cause. But to any who has experienced what St. _Paul_ speaks in his _seventh chapter_ to the _Romans_, I willingly submit this whole question. _You_ know by experience, that if anger was the sin that did so easily beset you, you relapsed into it (for days, or months, or years) _soon after_ repenting of it. Sometimes you _avoided the occasions_ of it: at other times you did not. Hence your relapses were _frequent_, and your heart was _hardened_ more and more. And yet all this time you was _sincerely_ striving against sin, you could say, without _hypocrisy_, _the thing which I do, I allow not; the evil which I would not, that I do. To will is even now present with me; but how to perform that which is good, I find not._
But the _Jesuits_, you think, “could scarce have granted salvation upon easier terms. Have no fear, ye Methodists.” Sir, I do not grant salvation (as you call it) upon so easy terms. I believe a man in this state, is in a state of damnation. “Have no fear!” Say you? Yea, but those who are thus _under the law_, are in fear all the day long. “Was there ever so pleasing a scheme?” Pleasing with a vengeance! As pleasing as to be in the belly of hell. So totally do you mistake the whole matter, _not knowing what_ you _speak, nor whereof_ you _affirm_.
You are indeed somewhat pitiable in speaking wrong on this head, because you do it in ignorance. But this plea cannot be allowed, when you gravely advance that trite, threadbare objection concerning the Lord’s supper, without taking any notice, that I have answered it again and again, both to Mr. _Church_ and to the late Lord bishop of _London_.