To the Editor of 'Lloyd's Evening Post' TO MR. SOMEBODY, alias PHILODEMUS, alias T. H. Date: LONDON, December 1, 1760. SIR, I am very happy in having given you 'infinite pleasure by my animadversions upon your letter,' and therefore cannot but add a few more, hoping they may give you still farther satisfaction. It is, indeed, great condescension in you to bestow a thought upon me, since 'it is only losing time' (as you observe in your last), as you 'judge arguing with Methodists is like pounding fools in a mortar.' However, do not despair; perhaps, when you have pounded me a little more, my foolishness may depart from me. I really was so foolish as to think that by saying' We Churchmen' you assumed the character of a clergyman. Whether you retain to the theatre or no is easily shown: tell your name, and the doubt is cleared up. See letter of Nov. 17. But who or what you are affects not me: I am only concerned with what you say. But you complain, I have 'passed over the most interesting and material circumstances' in your letter. I apprehend just the contrary: I think nothing in it is passed over which is at all material. Nor will I knowingly pass over anything material in this; though I am not a dealer in many words. You say: (1) 'You have impiously apostatized from those principles of religion which you undertook to defend.' I hope not. I still (as I am able) defend the Bible, with the Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies of our Church; and I do not defend or espouse any other principles, to the best of my knowledge, than those which are plainly contained in the Bible as well as in the Homilies and Book of Common Prayer.

You blame me (2) for teaching heterodox doctrine concerning faith and good works (I am obliged to put the meaning of many of your straggling sentences together as well as I can). As to the former, which you still awkwardly and unscripturally style the grace of assurance (a phrase I never use), you say: 'You have given it a true Methodistical gloss. But where are the proofs from Scripture Not one single text.' Sir, that is your ignorance. I perceive the Bible is a book you are not acquainted with. Every sentence in my account is a text of Scripture. I purposely refrained from quoting chapter and verse, because I expected you would bewray your ignorance, and show that you was got quite out of your depth. As your old friend Mr. Vellum says, 'You will pardon me for being jocular.' To one who seriously desired information on this point I would explain it a little farther. Faith is an evidence or conviction of things not seen, of God, and the things of God. This is faith in general. More particularly it is a divine evidence or conviction that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me. This directly leads us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling; not with slavish, painful fear, but with the utmost diligence, which is the proper import of that expression. When this evidence is heightened to exclude all doubt, it is the plerophory or full assurance of faith. But any degree of true faith prompts the believer to be zealous of good works.

On this head you say: 'Your definition of good works' (truly I gave none at all) 'is still more extraordinary. You shall have it in your own words, where you quarrel with me for esteeming them meritorious, No, neither does ours or any other Protestant Church; but meantime they hold it their bounder duty as they have time to do good unto all men. And they know the day is coming wherein God will render to every man according to his works. Admirable contradiction! Was you intoxicated, or jure diving mad Is man to be judged for his deeds done in this life, when it is immaterial whether he does any or not These are your own words, sir.' What That 'it is immaterial whether he does any good works or not' Hey-day! How is this O, I cry your mercy, sir, now I find where the shoe pinches. You have stumbled on an hard word which you do not understand. But give me leave, sir, to assure you (you may take my word for once) that meritorious and material are not all one. Accordingly not only the Church of England but all other Protestant Churches allow good works to be material, and yet (without any contradiction) deny them to be meritorious. They all likewise allow that the genuine fruit of faith is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost; and consequently that cheerfulness or serenity of spirit (a mixture of that peace and joy) is so far from being a crime, that it is the undoubted privilege of every real Christian. I know no Methodist (so called) who is of another mind: if you do, tell me the man. I believe 'it is not your intention to do this.' But you must either do it or bear the blame. You blame me (3) for allowing of lay preachers. This is too knotty a point to be settled at present. I can only desire those who want farther information therein to read calmly A Letter to a Clergyman See letter of May 4, 1748, and Works, viii. 221-6 or the latter part of the third Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion.

You blame me (4) for acting from 'a lucrative principle,' though you 'deny you used the word robbing.' (True; for you only said, 'To rob and plunder.') In proof of this you refer to the houses I have built (in Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne). But don't you know, sir, those houses are none of mine I made them over to trustees long ago. I have food to eat and raiment to put on; and I will have no more till I turn Turk or Pagan. I am, sir, in very good humour, Your well-wisher. PS. It is not very material whether T. H., Somebody, and Philodemus are the same individual or not. I have subjoined his Questions with my Answers; though they have all been answered fifty times before. Q. 1. Whether a very considerable body of the Methodists do not declare that there can be no good hopes of salvation without Assurance A. Yes: if you mean by that term a divine evidence or conviction that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me. Q. 2. Whether they do not put a greater confidence in what they call Regeneration than in the moral or social duties of life A. No. They hold the due discharge of all these duties to be absolutely necessary to salvation. The latter part of this query, 'of the mercy of the Divine Being,' seems to have lost its way. Q. 3. Whether the Stage in later years has ever ridiculed anything really serious A. Yes; a thousand times. Who that reads Dryden's, Wycherley's, or Congreve's plays can doubt it Q. 4. Whether anything can be religious that has not right reason to countenance it A. No. True religion is the highest reason. It is indeed wisdom, virtue, and happiness in one.