To the Author of the 'Westminster Journal' The New Weekly Miscellany, or Westminster Journal. Date: LONDON, January 7, 1761. SIR, I hope you are a person of impartiality; if so, you will not insert what is urged on one side of a question only, but likewise what is offered on the other. Your correspondent is doubtless a man of sense, and he seems to write in a good humour; but he is extremely little acquainted with the persons of whom he undertakes to give an account. There is 'gone abroad,' says he, 'an ungoverned spirit of enthusiasm, propagated by knaves and embraced by fools.' Suffer me now to address the gentleman himself. Sir, you may call me both a knave and a fool; but prove me either the one or the other if you can. 'Why, you are an enthusiast.' What do you mean by the term? A believer in Jesus Christ? An asserter of His equality with the Father and of the entire Christian revelation? Do you mean one who maintains the antiquated doctrines of the New Birth and Justification by Faith? Then I am an enthusiast. But if you mean anything else, either prove or retract the charge. The enthusiasm which has lately gone abroad is faith which worketh by love. Does this 'endanger government itself'? Just the reverse. Fearing God, it honours the King. It teaches all men to be subject to the higher powers, not for wrath, but for conscience' sake.

But 'no power in England ought to be independent of the supreme power.' Most true; yet 'the Romanists own the authority of a Pope, independent of civil government.' They do, and thereby show their ignorance of the English Constitution. 'In Great Britain we have many popes, for so I must call all who have the souls and bodies of their followers devoted to them.' Call them so, and welcome. But this does not touch me; nor Mr. Whitefield, Jones, Thomas Jones, M.A., of St. Saviour's, Southwark, died of fever on June 6, 1762, in his thirty-third year. He set up a weekly lecture in his church: but before long this was stopped by his enemies. See letter to Wesley in Arminian Mag. 1780, p. 165; Tyerman's Wesley, ii. 324-5. or Romaine; nor any whom I am acquainted with. None of us have our followers thus devoted to us. Those who follow the advice we constantly give are devoted to God, not man. But 'the Methodist proclaims he can bring into the field twenty-five thousand men.' What Methodist? Where and when? Prove this fact, and I will allow you I am a Turk.

(1) 'But it is said they are all good subjects. Perhaps they are; because under a Protestant Government they have all the indulgence they can wish for.' And do you seriously wish for a Popish Government to abridge them of that indulgence? 'But has not a bad use been made of this? Has not the decency of religion been perverted?' Not in the least: the decency of religion is never so well advanced as by advancing inward and outward religion together. (2) 'Have not the minds of the vulgar been darkened to a total neglect of their civil and social duties?' Just the contrary. Thousands in London as well as elsewhere have been enlightened to understand and prevailed on to practice those duties as they never did before. (3) 'Has not the peace of many families been ruined?' The lost peace of many families has been restored. In others a furious opposition to true religion has occasioned division, as our Lord foretold it would. (4) 'Have not the circumstances of many industrious tradesmen been hurt?' I believe not. I know no instance; but I know an hundred tradesmen in London who began to be industrious since they began to fear God, and their circumstances, low enough till then, are now easy and affluent. I am almost ashamed to spend time upon these threadbare objections, which have been answered over and over. But if they are advanced again, they must be answered again, lest silence should pass for guilt. 'But how can the Government distinguish between tenderness of conscience and schemes of interest?' Nothing more easy. 'They may withdraw the licenses of such.' Sir, you have forgot the question. Before they withdraw them they are to distinguish whether they are such or no. And how are they to do this? 'Oh, it is very easy'! So you leave them as wise as they were before.

But 'the Methodist who pretends to be of the Church of England in forms of worship and differs from her in point of doctrine is not, let his presences be what they will, a member of that Church.' Alas, sir! your friends will not thank you for this. You have broke their heads sadly. Is no man of the Church, let him pretend what he will, who differs from her in point of doctrine? Au! obsecro; cave dixeris! Terence's Eunuchus, IV. iii. 14: 'Stop, I beseech you; beware what you say.' I know not but you may stumble upon scandalum magnatum. Terence's Adelphi, 111. iv. 12: 'Libel against persons of exalted rank.' But stay; you will bring them off quickly. 'A truly good man may scruple signing and swearing to Articles that his mind and reason cannot approve of.' But is he a truly good man who does not scruple signing and swearing to Articles which he cannot approve of? However, this does not affect us, for we do not differ from our Church in point of doctrine. But all do who deny justification by faith; therefore, according to you, they are no members of the Church of England. 'Methodists preachers', you allow, 'practice, sign, and swear whatever is required by law' a very large concession; 'but the reserves they have are incommunicable and unintelligible.' Favour us, sir, with a little proof of this; till then I must plead, Not guilty. In whatever I sign or swear to I have no reserve at all. And I have again and again communicated my thoughts on most heads to all mankind; I believe intelligibly, particularly in the Appeals to Men of Reason and Religion. But 'if Methodism, as its professors pretend, be a new discovery in religion' This is a grievous mistake; we pretend no such thing. We aver it is the one old religion; as old as the Reformation, as old as Christianity, as old as Moses, as old as Adam.

'They ought to discover the whole ingredients of which their nostrum is composed; and have it enrolled in the public register, to be perused by all the world.' It is done. The whole ingredients of Methodism (so called) have been discovered in print over and over; and they are enrolled in a public register, the Bible, from which we extracted them at first. 'Else they ought not to be tolerated.' We allow it, and desire toleration on no other terms. 'Nor should they be suffered to add or alter one grain different from what is so registered.' Most certainly. We ought neither to add or diminish, nor alter whatever is written in that Book. I wish, sir, before you write concerning the Methodists again, you would candidly read some of their writings. Common report is not a sure rule of judging; I should be unwilling to judge of you thereby. To sum up the matter. The whole ingredients of our religion are love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, temperance. Against these, I think, there is no law; and, therefore, I still apprehend they may be tolerated at least, in a Christian country. I am, sir, Your sincere well-wisher.