fortnight, as usual, in examining the Society, a heavy, but necessary labour.

"Monday 17, I sent the following letter:

"To the Editor of Lloyd's Evening Post. «SIR, Nov. 17, 1760. "In your last paper we had a letter from a very angry Gentleman, (though he says, he had put himself into as good humour as possible,') who personates a Clergyman, but is, I presume, in reality a Retainer to the Theatre. He is very warm against the people, vulgarly termed Methodists, ' ridiculous impostors,' 'religious buffoons,' as he stiles them: Saint Errants' (a pretty and quaint phrase) full of ♦ inconsiderateness, madness, melancholy, enthusiasm :' teaching a knotty and unintelligible System' of Religion, yea, a' contradictory or self-contradicting;' nay, 'a mere illusion,' a 'destructive scheme and of pernicious consequence' since an hypothesis is a very slippery foundation to hazard our all upon.'

"Methinks the gentleman has a little mistaken his character: he seems to have exchanged the sock for the buskin. But, be this as it may, general charges prove nothing; let us come to particulars. Here they are. 'The basis of Methodism is the Grace of Assurance,' (excuse a little impropriety of expression) ' Regeneration being only a preparative to it.' Truly this is somewhat knotty and unintelligible.' I will endeavour to help him out. The fundamental doctrine of the people called Methodists is, Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the true faith: the faith which works by love, which, by means of the love of God and our neighbour, produces both inward and outward holiness. This faith is an evidence of things not seen; and he that thus believes, is regenerate, or born of God. And he has the witness in himself; (call it Assurance, or what you please.) The Spirit itself witnesses with his spirit, that he is a child of God: from what scripture' every one of these propositions is collected,' any common Concordance will shew.

"This is the true portraiture of Methodism,' so called. A religion superior to this,' (the love of God and man,) none can enjoy,' either in time or in eternity.

"But the Methodists do not hold Good works meritorious.' No, neither does ours, nor any other Protestant Church. But meantime, they hold it is their bounden duty, as they have time, to do good unto all men; and they know the day is coming wherein God will reward every man according to his works.

"But they act with sullenness and sourness, and account innocent gaiety and cheerfulness a crime almost as heinous as sacrilegé.' Who does? Name the men. I know them not, and therefore doubt the fact: though it is very possible you account that kind of gaiety innocent, which I account both foolish and sinful.

"I know none who denies, that true religion; that is, love, the love of God and our neighbour, elevates our spirits, and renders our minds cheerful and serene.' It must, if it be accompanied, as we believe it always is, with peace and joy in the Holy Ghost; and if it produce a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man.

"But they preach up religion only to accomplish a lucrative design, to fleece their hearers, to accumulate wealth, to rob and plunder, which they esteem meritorious.' We deny the fact. Who is able to prove it? Let the affirmer produce his witnesses, or retract.

"This is the sum of your Correspondent's charge, not one article of which can be proved. But, whether it can or not, We have made them,' says he, a theatrical scoff, and the common jest and scorn of every chorister in the street.' It may be so; but whether you have done well herein, may still admit of a question. However, you cannot but wish, we had some formal Court of Judicature erected, (happy Portugal and Spain!) to take cognizance of such matters.' Nay, cur optas quod habes? Why do you wish for what you have already? The court is erected; the holy, devout Play-house is become the House of Mercy! and does take cognizance hereof, of all pretenders to

sanctity, and happily furnishes us with a discerning spirit to distinguish betwixt right and wrong.' But I do not stand to their sentence; I appeal to Scripture and Reason, and by these alone consent to be judged. I am, Sir,

"Your humble Servant,

"JOHN WESLEY.”

Saturday 22, I was obliged to trouble him with another letter, as follows:

SIR,

"Just as I had finished the letter published in your last Friday's Paper, four tracts came to my hands: one written, or procured to be written, by Mrs. Downes; one, by a clergyman in the county of Durham; the third, by a gentleman of Cambridge; and the fourth, by a member (I suppose, dignitary) of the Church of Rome. How gladly would I leave all these to themselves, and let them say just what they please! As my day is far spent, and my taste for controversy is utterly lost and gone. But this would not be doing justice to the world, who might take silence for a proof of guilt. I shall therefore say a word concerning each. I may, perhaps, some time, say more to one or two of them.

"The letter which goes under Mrs. Downes's name, scarcely deserves any notice at all, as there is nothing extraordinary in it, but an extraordinary degree of virulence and scurrility. Two things only I remark concerning it, (which I suppose the writer of it knew as well as I,) 1, That my letter to Mr. Downes was both written and printed before Mr. Downes died. 2, That when I said, Tibi parvula res est, (your ability is small,) I had no view to his fortune, which I knew nothing of; but, as I there expressly say, to his wit, sense, and talents, as a writer.

"The tract written by the gentleman in the North, is far more bulky than this. But it is more considerable for its bulk than for its matter, being little more than a dull repetition of what was published some years ago, in The Enthusiasm of the Methodists and Papists compared. I do not find the author adds any thing new; unless we may bestow that epithet

on a sermon annexed to his Address, which, I presume will do neither good nor harm. So I leave the Durham' gentleman, with Mrs. Downes, to himself and his admirers.

"The author of the letter to Mr. Berridge is a more considerable writer. In many things I wholly agree with him, though not in admiring Dr.Taylor: but there is a bitterness, even in him, which I should not have expected, in a gentleman and a scholar. So in the very first page I read, The Church, which most of your graceless fraternity have deserted.' Were the fact true, (which it is not) yet is the expression to be commended ? Surely Dr. G. himself thinks it is not. I am sorry too for the unfairness of his quotations. For instance; he cites me, (p. 53) as speaking of Faith shed abroad in men's hearts like lightning." Faith shed abroad in men's hearts! I never used such an expression in my life: I do not talk after this rate. Again, he quotes, as from me, p. 57, (so I presume, Mr. W. means) A behaviour does not pretend to add the least to what Christ has done.' But be these words whose they may, they are none of mine. I never spoke, wrote, no, nor read them before. Once more; is it well judged, for any writer to shew such an utter contempt of his opponents, as you affect to do, with regard to the whole body of people, vulgarly termed Methodists? You may keep up, (say you) a little bushfighting in controversy. You may skirmish a while with your feeble body of irregulars: but you must never trust to your skill in reasoning,' p. 77. Upon this I would ask, 1, If these are such poor, silly creatures, why does so wise a man set his wit to them? Shall the king of Israel go out against a flea? 2, If it should happen, that any one of these silly bush-fighters steps out into the plain, engages hand to hand, and foils this champion by mere dint of reason, will not his defeat be so much the more shameful, as it was more unexpected? But I say the less at present, not only because Mr. Berridge is able to answer for himself, but because the title page bids me expect a letter, more immediately addressed to myself.

"The last Tract, entitled, 4 Caveat against the Me

thodists,' is, in reality, a Caveat against the Church of England; or rather against all the Churches in Europe who dissent from the Church of Rome. Nor do I apprehend the writer to be any more disgusted at the Methodists, than at Protestants of every denomination: as he cannot but judge it equally unsafe, to join to any Society but that of Rome. Accordingly all his arguments are levelled at the Reformed Churches in general and conclude just as well, if you put the word Protestant throughout in the place of the word Methodist. Although, therefore, the author borrows my name, to wound those who suspect nothing less, yet I am no more concerned to refute him, than any other Protestant in England: and still the less, as those arguments are refuted over and over, in books which are still common among us.

"But is it possible any Protestants, nay, Protestant Clergymen, should buy these Tracts to give away? Is then the introducing of Popery the only way to overthrow Methodism? If they know this, and choose Popery as the smaller evil of the two, they are consistent with themselves.. But if they do not intend this, I wish them more seriously to consider what they do.

"I am, Sir, your humble servant, "JOHN WESLEY." Monday 24, I visited as many as I could of the sick. How much better is it, when it can be done, to carry relief to the poor, than to send it? And that both for our own sake and their's. For their's, as it is so much more comfortable to them, and as we may then assist them in spirituals as well as temporals. And for our own, as it is far more apt to soften our hearts, and to make us naturally care for each other.

Monday, December 1, I went in the Machine to Canterbury. In going and returning, I read over The Christian Philosopher. It is a very extraordinary book, containing among many (as some would be apt to term them) wild thoughts, several fine and striking observations, not to be found in any other treatise. Wed. 3, I rode to Dover: