what little remained of the window-frames and shutters, and damaged a considerable part of his goods.

Friday 25, and again on Saturday 26, one Roger O'Ferrall fixed up an advertisement at the public exchange, (as he had also done for several days before,) "That he was ready to head any mob, in order to pull down any house that should dare to harbour a Swaddler." 23. Sunday 27, I wrote the following letter to the mayor : MR. MAYOR,

AN hour ago I received "a letter to Mr. Butler," jsut reprinted at Cork. The publishers assert, "It was brought down from Dublin to be distributed among the society. But Mr. Wesley called in as many as he could." Both these assertions are absolutely false. read some lines of that letter when I was in Dublin, but never read it over before this morning. Who the author of it is I know not. But this I know; I never called in one; neither concerned myself about it; much less brought any down to distribute among the society.

Yet I cannot but return my hearty thanks to the gentlemen who have distributed them through the town. I believe it will do more good than they are sensible of. For though I dislike its condemning the magistrates and clergy in general, (several of whom were not concerned in the late proceedings,) yet I think the reasoning is strong and clear. And that the facts referred to therein, are not at all misrepresented, will sufficiently appear in due time.

I fear God and honour the king. I earnestly desire to be at peace with all men. I have not willingly given any offence, either to the magistrates, the clergy, or any of the inhabitants, of the city of Cork, neither do I desire any thing of them, but to be treated (I will not say, as a clergyman, a gentleman, or a Christian) but with such justice and humanity as are due, to a Jew, a, Turk, or a Pagan.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

J. WESLEY.

II. 1. Your performance is dated May 28th, the most material parts of which I am now to consider.

It contains, first, a charge against the Methodist preachers; secondly, a defence of the corporation and clergy of Cork.

With regard to your charge against those preachers, may I take the liberty to inquire, why you drop six out of the eleven that have been at Cork. viz. Mr. Swindells, Wheatly, Larwood, Skelton, Tucker, and Haughton: can you glean up no story concerning these? Or is it out of mere compassion that you spare them?

2. But before I proceed, I must beg leave to ask, who is this Evidence against the other five? Why, one that neither dares show his face, nor tell his name, or the place of his abode : one that is ashamed (and truly not without cause) of the dirty work he is employed in: so that we could not even conjecture who he was but that his speech bewrayeth him. How much credit is due to such an evidence, let any man of reason judge.

3. This worthy witness falls foul upon Mr. Cownley, (p. 13,) and

miserably murders a tale he has got by the end. Sir, Mr. M. is no→ thing obliged to you, for bringing the character of his niece into question. He is perfectly satisfied that Mr. C. acted in that whole affair, with the strictest regard both to honour and conscience.

You next aver, that "Mr. Reeves asked a young woman, whether she had a mind to go to hell with her father!" (p. 16.) It is possible. I will neither deny nor affirm it without some better proof. But suppose he did; unless I know the circumstances of the case I could not say, whether he spoke right or wrong.

4. But what is this to the "Monstrous, shocking, amazing blasphemy, spoken by Mr. Charles Wesley? Who one day," you say, "preaching on Hammond's Marsh, called out, 'Has any of you got the Spirit?' And when none answered, said, 'I am sure some of you have got it: for I feel virtue go out of me,'" (p. 18.) Sir, do you expect any one to believe this story? I doubt it will not pass even at Cork, -unless with your wise friend, who said, "Methodists? Ay, they are the people who place all their religion, in wearing long whiskers."

5. In the same page you attack Mr. Williams, for applying those. words, I, thy Maker, am thy husband.' Sir, by the same rule that you conclude "these expressions could only flow from a mind full of lascivious ideas," you may conclude the 45th Psalm, to be only a wanton sonnet, and the Canticles a counterpart to Rochester's poems.

And the

But you say, he likewise "made use of unwarrantable expressions, particularly with regard to faith and good works. next day denied that he had used them." (p. 10, 11.) Sir, your word is not proof of this. Be pleased to produce proper vouchers of the facts and I will then give a farther answer.

Likewise, as to his "indecent and irreverent behaviour at church, turning all the preacher said into ridicule, so that numbers asked in your hearing, why the church-wardens did not put the profane, wicked scoundrels in the stocks !" my present answer is, I doubt the facts. "men of undoubted character" be so good as to attest

Will your

them?

6. Of all these, Mr. Williams, Cownley, Reeves, Haughton, Larwood, Skelton, Swindells, Tucker, and Wheatly, you pronounce in the lump, that they are "a parcel of vagabond, illiterate babblers." Of whom "every body that has the least share of reason must know," that though they amuse the populace with nonsense, ribaldry, and blasphemy, they are not capable of writing orthography or good sense," (p. 3, 4.) Sir, that is not an adjudged case. Some who have a little share of reason, think they are capable both of speaking and writing good sense. But if they are not, if they cannot write or read, they can save souls from death: they can, by the grace of God, bring sinners from darkness to light, and from power of Satan unto God.'

the

7. But they "made a woman plunder her poor, old husband, and another absent herself from her husband and children,” (p. 24, 25.) Pray, what are their names? Where do they live? And how may

one come to the speech of them? I have heard so many plausible tales of this kind, which on examination vanished away, that I cannot believe one word of this, till I have more proof than your bare assertion.

8. So far I have been pleading for others. But I am now called to answer for myself. For" Theophilus and John Wesley," say you, "seem to me the same individual person," (p. 4.) They may seem so to you: but not to any who knows either my style or manner of writing. Besides, if it had been mine, it would have borne my name. For I do not love fighting in the dark.

But were not "a great number" of those books "brought from Dublin, to be dispersed throughout the city?" Not by me. Not by my order; nor, to my knowledge. However I thank you again for dispersing them.

9. But "while charity stands in the front of Christian graces, the author of such a book can have none of that grace. For you must allow the vulgar to think," (p. 26.) Mal-a-propo enough, a lively saying. But for any use it is of, it may stand either in the front or rear of the sentence. The argument itself is something new. A man knocks me down. I cry, Help! Help, or I shall be murdered.' He replies, "While charity stands in the front of Christian graces, the author of such a cry can have none of that grace."

So now you have shown to all the world, "the uncharitable and consequently unchristian spirit of Methodism." What! Because the Methodists cry out for help, before you have quite beat out their brains? What grimace is this? His majesty's quiet, loyal, Protestant subjects are abused, insulted, outraged, beaten, covered with dirt, rolled in the mire, bruised, wounded with swords and hangers, murdered, have their houses broke open, their goods destroyed, or carried away before their face and all this in open day, in the face of the sun, yet without any remedy! And those who treat them thus are charitable men! Brimful of a Christian spirit! But if they who are so treated, appeal to the common sense and reason of mankind, you gravely cry, "See the uncharitable, the unchristian spirit of Methodism!"

10. You proceed. "But pray, what are those facts, which you say are not misrepresented? Do you mean, that Butler was hired and paid by the corporation and clergy? Or that this remarkable loyal city, is disaffected to the present government? And that a papist was supported, nay, hired by the chief magistrates, to walk the streets, threatening bloodshed and murder? Declare openly, whether these are the facts." Sir, I understand you well. But for the present I beg to be excused. There is a time and a place for all things."

11. I rejoice to hear the city of Cork is so "remarkably loyal!" So entirely "well-affected to the present government." I presume you mean this chiefly of "The Friendly Society," (in whom the power of the city is now lodged,) erected some time since, in opposition to that body of Jacobites, commonly called, "The Hanover Club." I suppose that zealous Anti-methodist, who some days ago, A a a 2

stabbed the Methodist preacher in the street, and then cried out, 'Damn king George, and all his armies !' did this as a specimen of his eminent loyalty.

6

It cannot be denied, that this loyal subject of King George (Simon Rawlins, by name) was upon oath made of those words, committed to jail, on May the 31st. And it was not till days after, that he walked in procession through the town, with drums beating, and colours flying, and declared at the head of his mob, He would never rest, till he had driven all these false prophets out of Cork.' How sincere they were in their good wishes to King George and his armies, they gave a clear proof the tenth of this instant, June: when, as ten or twelve soldiers were walking along, in a very quiet and inoffensive manner, the mob fell upon them, swore they would have their lives, knocked them down, and beat them to such a degree, that on June the 12th, one of them died of his wounds, and another was not then expected to live many hours.

12. But you have more proofs of my uncharitableness, that is, supposing I am the author of that pamphlet. For you read there, Riches, ease, and honour, are what the clergy set their hearts upon. But the souls for whom Christ died, they leave to the tender mercies of hell.' Sir, Can you deny it? Is it not true? Literally true, concerning some of the clergy? You ask, "But ought we to condemn all, for the faults of a few ?" (p. 20.) I answer, No; no more than I will condemn all, in the affair of Cork, for the faults of a few. It is you that do this. And if it were as you say, if they were all concerned in the late proceedings, then it would be no uncharitableness to say, They were in a miserable state indeed.' Then they would doubtless be kicking against the pricks, contending with heaven, fighting against God."

13. I come now to the general charge against me, independent on the letter to Mr. Butler. And, 1st, You charge me with "a frontless assurance, and a well dissembled hypocrisy," (p. 22.) Sir, I thank you. This is as kind, as if you were to call me (with Mr. Williams) a profane, wicked scoundrel." I am not careful to answer in this matter: shortly we shall both stand at a higher bar.

66

14. You charge me, secondly with being an "harebrained enthusiast," (p. 7.) Sir, I am your most obedient servant. But you will prove me an enthusiast. "For," you say, (those are your words,) "you are sent of God to inform mankind, of some other revelation of his will, than what has been left by Christ and his apostles," (p. 28.) Not so. I never said any such thing. When I do this, then call for miracles. But at present your demand is quite unreasonable. There is no room for it at all. What I advance, I prove by the words of Christ, or his apostles. If not, let it fall to the ground.

15. You charge me, thirdly, with being employed in "promoting the cause of arbitrary popish power," (p. 7.) Sir, I plead not guilty. Produce your witnesses. Prove this, and I will allow all the rest.

You charge me, fourthly, with holding " Midnight Assemblies," (p. 24.) Sir, did you never see the word Vigil in your common prayer

book? Do you know what it means? If not, permit me to tell you, that it was customary with the ancient Christians, to spend whole nights in prayer: and that these nights were termed Vigilia, or Vigils. Therefore for spending a part of some nights in this manner, in public and solemn prayer, we have not only the authority of our own national church, but of the universal church, in the earliest ages.

16. You charge me, fifthly, with "being the cause of all that Butler has done," (p. 17.) True: just as Latimer and Ridley (if I may dare to name myself with those venerable men) were the cause of all that bishop Bonner did. In this sense, the charge is true. It has pleased God, (unto him be all the glory,) even by my preaching or writings, to convince some of the old Christian scriptural doctrine, which till then they knew not. And while they declared this to others, you showed them the same love, as Edmund of London did to their forefathers. Only the expressions of your love, were not quite the same; because (blessed be God) you had not the same

power.

17. You affirm, sixthly, that I " rob and plunder the poor, so as to leave them neither bread to eat, nor raiment to put on." (p. 8.) A heavy charge, but without all colour of truth. Yea, just the reverse is true. Abundance of those in Cork, Bandon, Limerick, Dublin, as well as in all parts of England, who a few years ago, either through sloth or profaneness, had not bread to eat, or raiment to put on, have now by means of the preachers called Methodists, a sufficiency of both. Since by hearing these, they have learned to fear God, they have learned also to work with their hands, as well as to cut off every needless expense, to be good stewards of the mammon of unrighteousness.

18. You assert, seventhly, that I am "myself as fond of riches, as the most worldly clergyman," (p. 21.) "Two thousand pence a week! A fine yearly revenue from assurance and salvation-tickets?” (p. 8.) I answer, 1. What do you mean by assurance and salvationtickets? Is not the very expression a mixture of nonsense and blasphemy? 2. How strangely do you under-rate my revenue, when you wrote in the person of George Fisher? You then allowed me only a hundred pounds a year! What is this to two thousand pence a week! 3. "There is not a clergyman," you say, "who would not willingly exchange his livings, for your yearly penny contributions," (p. 21.) And no wonder: For according to a late computation, they amount to no less every year, than eight hundred, eighty-six thousand pounds, beside some odd shillings and pence in comparison of which the revenues of his grace of Armagh, or of Canterbury, is a very trifle. And yet, Sir, so great is my regard for you and my gratitude for your late services, that if you will only resign your curacy of Christ's Church, I will make over to you my whole revenue in Ireland.

19. But the honour I gain," you think "is even greater than profit." Alas, Sir, I have not generosity enough to relish it, I was always of Juvenal's mind,