But the dreadful one you reserve for the last, namely, our “recommending popish books. One is the life of Mr. _de Renty_, of which Mr. _Wesley_ has published _an extract_.” To prove your inimitable fairness here, you scrape up again all the trash, wherein the weak writer of that life abounds, and which I had pared off and thrown away. Sir, could you find nothing to your purpose in the _extract_ itself? I fancy you might; for I have purposely left in two or three particulars, to shew of what communion he was, which I did not think it right to conceal.
You go on. “_Francis_ of _Sales_ is another papist, much commended by Mr. _W._; and who he doubts not is in _Abraham_’s bosom. He is the _Methodist_’s bosom friend.”
I believe he is in _Abraham_’s bosom. But he is no bosom friend of the _Methodists_. I question whether one in five hundred of them, ♦has so much as heard his name. And as for me, neither do I “commend him much, nor recommend” him at all. His life I never saw, nor any of his works, but his “Introduction to a Holy Life.” This the late Dr. _Nichols_ translated into _English_, published and strongly _recommended_. Therefore if this be a proof of promoting popery, that censure falls not on me but him.
♦ “have” replaced with “has” per Errata
I have now considered all the arguments you have brought to prove, “That the _Methodists_ are carrying on the work of popery.” And I am persuaded, every candid man, who rightly weighs what has been said, with any degree of attention, will clearly see not only, that no one of those arguments is of any real force at all, but that you do not believe yourself; you do not believe the conclusion, which you _make as if_ you would prove. Only you keep close to your laudable resolution, of throwing as much dirt as possible.
48. It remains only to gather up some of your fragments, as still further proofs of your integrity.
You graciously say, “I do not lay much stress upon the charge of some of the angry _Moravians_, against Mr. _W._ and brother, for preaching popery.” Sir, if you had, you would only have hurt yourself. For 1. The _Moravians_ never, that I know of, brought this charge at all. 2. When Mr. _C._ and two other predestinarians (these were the persons) affirmed “they had heard both my brother and me preach _popery_:” they meant neither more nor less thereby, than the doctrine of universal redemption.
“Some connection between the doctrines of the _Methodists_ and _Papists_, hath been shewn through this whole comparison.” Shewn! But how? By the same art of wiredrawing and decyphering, which would prove an equal connection between the _Methodists_ and _Mahometans_.
“_Jesuits_ have often mingled, and been the ringleaders among our _enthusiastic sectaries_.” Sir, I am greatly obliged to you for your compliment, as well as for your parallel of Mr. _Faithful Commin_.
And pray, Sir, at what time do you think it was, that I first _mingled with those enthusiastic sectaries_? When I came back from _Germany_? Or when I returned from _Georgia_? Or while I was at _Lincoln-College_? ――――Although the plot itself might be laid before, when I was at _Christ-Church_, or at the _Charter-house_ school.
But “a _Jesuit_’s or enthusiast’s declaring against _popery_, is no test of their sincerity.” Most sure; nor is a nameless person’s declaring against _Methodism_, any proof that he is not a _Jesuit_. I remember well, when a well-dressed man, taking his stand not far from _Moorfields_, had gathered a large company, and was vehemently asserting, That “those rogues the _Methodists_ were all _Papists_:” till a gentleman coming by, fixed his eye on him and cried, “Stop that man: I know him personally: he is a _Romish priest_.”
I know not that any thing remains on this head, which bears so much as the face of an argument. So that of all the charges you have brought (and truly you have not been sparing) there is not one wherein your proof falls more miserably short, than in this, That “the _Methodists_ are advancing _popery_.”
49. I have at length gone through your whole performance, weighed whatever you cite from my writings, and shewn at large how far those passages are from proving all, or any part of your charge. So that all you attempt to build on them, ¹“of the pride and vanity of the _Methodists_; of their ²shuffling and prevaricating, of their ³affectation of prophesying, ⁴laying claim to the miraculous favours of heaven, unsteadiness ⁵of temper, ⁶unsteadiness in sentiment and practice, ⁷art and cunning, ⁸giving up inspiration and extraordinary calls, ⁹scepticism, infidelity, atheism, ¹⁰uncharitableness to their opponents, ¹¹contempt of order and authority, ¹²and fierce, rancorous quarrels with each other, ¹³of the tendency of _Methodism_ to undermine morality and good works, and to ¹⁴carry on the good work of _popery_:” all this fabric falls to the ground at once, unless you can find some better foundation to support it.
¹ Section 3.
² Section 4.
³ Section 5.