To Mr. G. R., alias R. A., alias M. K., alias R. W. Date: LONDON, February 17, 1761. DEAR SIR, As you are stout, be merciful; or I shall never be able to stand it. Four attacks in one month! and pushed so home! Well, I must defend myself as I can. Indeed, your first attack under the character of G. R. is not very desperate. You first give a short history of Montanism, and innocently say: 'It would fill a volume to draw a parallel between Montanism and Methodism.' According as it was drawn; but if it contained nothing but truth, it would not fill a nutshell. You add: 'Such a crude composition is this Methodism, that there is scarce any one pestilent heresy that has infested the Church but what is an actual part of their doctrine.' This is easily said: but, till you can prove it, it will pass for nothing. In your second letter you say: 'The present troublers of our Israel are that heterogeneous mass, the Methodists.' 'Heterogeneous'! an hard word, a very hard word! Pray, sir, what is the meaning of it? 'They are avowed enemies to the doctrine and discipline of the Church.' Surely not avowed enemies (if they are secret ones, which no man can prove): they flatly disavow any such thing. 'Have faithfully copied the worst of men in the worst of times.' This means nothing; it is mere garniture of the dish. 'If such men's enthusiastical notions be the true doctrine of Jesus Christ, better would it be to be a Jew, a Turk, an infidel, than a Christian.' This proves nothing but what was pretty plain before namely, that you are very angry. 'Notions repugnant to common sense and to the first principles of truth and equity.' My fundamental notions are that true religion is love, the love of God and our neighbour; the doing all things to the glory of God, and doing to all men as we would be done to. Are these notions repugnant to common sense or to the first principles of truth and equity? 'What punishment do they deserve?' they who walk by this rule? By nature they deserve hell; but by the grace of God, if they endure to the end, they will receive eternal life.

In your third letter you say: 'None of the principles of the Methodists have a more fatal tendency than the doctrine of Assurance.' I allow it; and it is past your skill to prove that this has any fatal tendency at all, unless as you wonderfully explain it in the following words: 'They insist that themselves are sure of salvation, but that all others are in a damnable state!' Who do? Not I, nor any that I know but Papists. Therefore all that you add to disprove this, which no one affirms, is but beating the air, 'But St. Paul commands us to pass the time of our sojourning here in fear.' Indeed, he does not; your memory fails: but St. Peter does, and that is as well.

Your fourth (for want of a better) is to serve for a reply to my answer. In this you stoutly say: 'Sir, your performance is frivolous and fallacious.' Very well; but others must judge of that. 'Shocks, sir, or violent operations of the Spirit are too fully evidenced by your trances, ecstasies, and I know not what.' I assure you, neither do I; but if you please to tell me, when you do know a little of the matter, I will give you what satisfaction I can. 'These appear in the practices of your followers, and as such must destroy free agency.' Nay, sir, you are now too severe, especially in that keen 'as such.' 'As you then assert such practices, you are (excuse the harshness of the expression) an enemy to religion and a deceiver of the people.' Sir, I do excuse you. I am pretty well used to such expressions: if they hurt not you, they hurt not me. 'Until you publish in plain, intelligible words your scheme of principles, it is impossible to say what you are.' I have done it ten times over, particularly in The Principles of a Methodist, the Appeals to Men of Reason and Religion, and (what I am not without hope might be intelligible even to you) Instructions for Children. 'I must be plain with you: you seem, sir, to have as much knowledge of the Scriptures as a Mahometan.' Sir, I thank you; and I presume you do not expect any other answer to this. 'That you are an enthusiast, a very great enthusiast, not I, let your own Journals demonstrably prove.' Nay, why not you? I fear my Journals will not give such proof as will satisfy any impartial person. 'As to dogmas, I do not know that it is good English: I know it is false dog-Latin.' Now, I really thought it was neither Latin nor English: I took it to be mere heathen Greek. Whenever you please to favour the public with your name and place of abode, you may perhaps (if I have leisure) hear farther from Your humble servant and well-wisher.