45. Your fifth argument is, “That they use _private confession_, in which every one is to speak the state of his heart, with his several temptations and deliverances, and answer as many searching questions as may be. And what scene, say you, is hereby disclosed? What a filthy jakes opened, when the most searching questions are answered without reserve?” Hold, Sir, unless you are answering for yourself. This undoubtedly you have a right to do. You can tell best, what is in your own heart. And I cannot deny what you say; it may be a very filthy jakes, for ought I know. But pray do not measure others by yourself. The hearts of believers _are purified through faith_. When these open their hearts one to another, there is no such scene disclosed. Yet temptations to pride in various kinds, to self-will, to unbelief in many instances, they often feel in themselves (whether they give any place to them or no) and occasionally disclose to their brethren.
But this has no resemblance to _Popish confession_; of which you are very sensible. For you cite my own words: “The Popish confession is, the confession made by a single person to a priest. Whereas this is, the confession of several persons conjointly, not to a priest, but to each other.” You add, “Will Mr. _W._ abide by this, and freely answer a question?” I will. For I desire only _by manifestation of the truth, to commend myself to every man’s conscience, in the sight of God_.
Your question is, “After private confessions taken in their bands, are not _reports_ made to Mr. _W._?” I answer, no: No _reports_ are made to me, of the particulars mentioned in private bands. “Are no delinquents, male and female, _brought before him separately, and confessed_ by him?” No: none at all. You ask, “How then do I know the outward and inward states of those under my care?” I answer, by examining them once a quarter, more or less, not separately, but ten or fifteen together.
Therefore every unprejudiced person must see that there is no analogy between the Popish confession to a priest, and our _confessing our faults one to another, and praying one for another_, as St. _James_ directs. Consequently neither does this argument, though urged with all your art and force, amount to any shadow of proof, that “the _Methodists_ are carrying on the work of popery.”
46. Your sixth argument, such as it is, stands thus. “Another tendency to _Popery_ appears, by the notion of _a single drop of Christ’s blood being a sufficient atonement for the sins of the whole world_. For however pious this may appear, it is absolutely false and papistical.” Sir, this argument is perfectly new, and intirely your own. It were great pity to disturb you in the enjoyment of it.
A seventh argument you ground on those words in the _Plain account of the people called_ Methodists, “’Tis a point we chiefly insist upon, that _orthodoxy_ or right opinions, is _a very slender part_ of religion, if _any part of it at all_.” “The plain consequence whereof is (so you affirm) that teaching and believing the fundamental errors of popery, with the whole train of their abominations and idolatries, are of very little moment, if any.” Strain again, Sir: pull hard; or you will never be able to drag this conclusion out of these premises.
I assert, “1. That in a truly religious man, right opinions _are a very slender part_ of religion. 2. That in an irreligious, a profane man, they are not _any part of religion at all_: such a man not being one jot more religious, because he is _orthodox_.” Sir, it does not follow from either of these propositions, that _wrong opinions_ are not an hindrance to religion: and much less, that “teaching and believing the fundamental errors of popery, _with the whole train of their abominations and idolatries_ (practised, I presume you mean, as well as taught and believed) are of very little moment, if any.”
I am so far from saying or thinking this, that in my printed letter to a priest of that communion (did you never read it, or hear of it before?) are these express words, “I pity you much, having the same assurance, that Jesus is the Christ, and that no _Romanist_ can expect to be saved, according to the terms of his covenant.” 3d _journal_ page 77. Do you term this “An extenuation of their abominations? A reducing them to almost a ♦mere nothing.”
♦ “meer” replaced with “mere”
47. You argue, eighthly, thus; “The _Methodist_ doctrine of impressions and assurances, holds equally for popish _enthusiasts_.” This needs no answer; I have already shewn, that the _Methodist_ doctrine in these respects is both scriptural and rational.
Your ninth argument is, “Their sudden conversions stand upon the same footing with the _popish_.” You should say, “Are a proof that they are promoting _popery_.” I leave you to enjoy this ♦argument also.
♦ “argment” replaced with “argument” per Errata