The Project Gutenberg eBook of The works of the Rev. John Wesley, Vol. 16 (of 32)
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The works of the Rev. John Wesley, Vol. 16 (of 32)
Author: John Wesley
Release date: August 20, 2026 [eBook #79413]
Language: English
Original publication: Bristol: William Pine, 1771
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/79413
Credits: Richard Hulse and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE WORKS OF THE REV. JOHN WESLEY, VOL. 16 (OF 32) ***
The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, M.A.
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes │
│ │
│ │
│ Punctuation has been standardized. │
│ │
│ Most of the abbreviations used to save space in printing have │
│ been expanded to the non-abbreviated form for easier reading. │
│ │
│ The author has used an asterisk (*) to indicate passages he │
│ considers most worthy of attention. │
│ │
│ The text has quotations embedded within other quotations │
│ using the same type of quotation marks. The transcriber has │
│ alternated embedded quotations between single and double │
│ quotation marks for improved readability. │
│ │
│ Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. │
│ │
│ Non-printable characteristics have been given the following │
│ Italic text: --> _text_ │
│ │
│ This book was written in a period when many words had │
│ not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have │
│ multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in │
│ the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated │
│ with a Transcriber’s Note. │
│ │
│ The symbol ‘‡’ indicates the description in parenthesis has │
│ been added to an illustration. This may be needed if there │
│ is no caption or if the caption does not describe the image │
│ adequately. │
│ │
│ Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript │
│ number and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
│ they appear. │
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the │
│ text or to provide additional information for the modern │
│ reader. These notes are identified by ♦♠♥♣ symbols in the │
│ text and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
│ they appear. │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
THE
WORKS
OF THE
Rev. JOHN WESLEY, M.A.
Late Fellow of _Lincoln-College_, OXFORD.
VOLUME XVI.
BRISTOL:
Printed by WILLIAM PINE, in _Wine-Street_.
MDCCLXXII.
THE
CONTENTS
Of the SIXTEENTH VOLUME.
⭘ _Advice to the people called_ Methodists
⭘ _The principles of a_ Methodist
⭘ _An answer to the Rev. Mr._ Church_’s remarks on the Rev. Mr._
John Wesley_’s last journal, in a letter to that gentleman_
⭘ _The principles of a_ Methodist _farther explained: occasioned
by the Rev. Mr._ Church_’s second letter to Mr._ Wesley: _in
a second letter to that gentleman_
⭘ _A letter to the Right Rev. the_ Lord Bishop of London:
_occasioned by his lordship’s late charge to the clergy_
⭘ _A letter to a_ Clergyman
⭘ _A letter to the author of the enthusiasm of the_ Methodists
_and_ Papists _compared_
⭘ _A second letter to the author of the enthusiasm of the_
Methodists _and_ Papists _compared_
Illustration: (‡ decoration)
ADVICE
To the PEOPLE called
METHODISTS.
_Disce, docendus adhuc quæ censet amiculus._――HORACE.
IT may be needful to specify whom I mean by this ambiguous term; since
it would be lost labour to speak to _Methodists_, so called, without
first describing those to whom I speak.
By _Methodists_ I mean, a people who profess to pursue (in whatsoever
measure they have attained) holiness of heart and life, inward and
outward conformity in all things to the revealed will of God; who place
religion in an uniform resemblance of the great object of it; in a
steady imitation of him they worship, in all his imitable perfections;
more particularly, in justice, mercy, and truth, or universal love
filling the heart, and governing the life.
You, to whom I now speak, believe this love of human kind cannot
spring but from the love of God. You think there can be no instance of
one, whose tender affection embraces every child of man, (though not
endeared to him either by ties of blood, or by any natural or civil
relation) unless that affection flow from a grateful, filial love, to
the common Father of all: to God, considered not only as his Father,
but as the Father of the spirits of all flesh; yea, as the general
parent and friend of all the families, both of heaven and earth.
This filial love you suppose to flow only from faith, which you
describe as a supernatural evidence (or conviction) of things not
seen: so that to him who has this principle,
The things unknown to feeble sense,
Unseen by reason’s glimm’ring ray,
With strong commanding evidence,
Their heav’nly origin display.
Faith lends its realizing light,
The clouds disperse, the shadows fly:
Th’ Invisible appears in sight,
And God is seen by mortal’s eye.
You suppose this faith to imply an evidence that God is merciful to
me a sinner; that he is reconciled to me by the death of his Son, and
now accepts me, for his sake. You accordingly describe the faith of a
real Christian, as, “A sure _trust_ and confidence (over and above his
_assent_ to the sacred writings) which he hath in God, that his sins
are forgiven; and that he is, through the merits of Christ, reconciled
to the favour of God.”
You believe farther, that both this faith and love are wrought in us
by the Spirit of God; nay, that there cannot be in any man, one good
temper or desire, or so much as one good thought, unless it be produced
by the almighty power of God, by the inspiration or influence of the
Holy Ghost.
If you walk by this rule, continually endeavouring to know, and love,
and resemble, and obey the great God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, as the God of love, of pardoning mercy: if from this principle
of loving, obedient faith, you carefully abstain from all evil, and
labour, as you have opportunity, to do good to all men, friends or
enemies: if, lastly, you unite together, to encourage and help each
other, in thus working out your salvation, and for that end watch over
one another in love, you are they whom I mean by _Methodists_.
The first general advice which one who loves your souls, would
earnestly recommend to every one of you, is, _Consider with deep and
frequent attention, the peculiar circumstances wherein you stand_.
One of these is, That you are a _new_ people, your _name_ is new, (at
least, as used in a religious sense) not heard of, till a few years
ago, either in our own, or any other nation. Your _principles_ are new,
in this respect, that there is no other set of people among us (and,
possibly, not in the Christian world) who hold them all, in the same
degree and connection; who so strenuously and continually insist on the
absolute necessity of universal holiness both in heart and life; of a
peaceful, joyous love of God; of a supernatural evidence of things not
seen; of an inward witness that we are the children of God; and of the
inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in order to any good thought, or word,
or work. And perhaps there is no other set of people, (at least not
visibly united together) who lay _so much_ and yet _no more_ stress
than you do, on rectitude of _opinions_, on outward _modes of worship_,
and the use of those _ordinances_ which you acknowledge to be of God.
_So much_ stress you lay even on right _opinions_, as to profess, that
you earnestly desire to have a right judgment in all things, and are
glad to use every means which you know or believe may be conducive
thereto; and yet _not so much_ as to condemn any man upon earth, merely
for thinking otherwise than you do; much less to imagine, that God
condemns him for this, if he be upright and sincere of heart. On those
outward _modes of worship_, wherein you have been bred up, you lay _so
much_ stress as highly to approve them; but not so much as to lessen
your love to those who conscientiously dissent from you herein. You
likewise lay _so much_ stress on the use of those _ordinances_, which
you believe to be of God, as to confess there is no salvation for
_you_, if you wilfully neglect them. And yet you do not judge them that
are otherwise minded; you determine nothing concerning those, who, not
believing those ordinances to be of God, do, out of principle, abstain
from them.
Your _strictness_ of life, taking the whole of it together, may
likewise be accounted new. I mean, your making it a rule, to abstain
from fashionable _diversions_, from _reading_ plays, romances, or
books of humour, from _singing_ innocent songs, or _talking_ in a
merry, gay, diverting manner; your _plainness_ of dress; your _manner
of dealing_ in trade; your exactness in observing the _Lord’s day_;
your scrupulosity as to things that have _not paid custom_; your total
abstinence from _spirituous liquors_, (unless in cases of necessity,)
your rule, “not to mention the fault of an absent person, in particular,
of _ministers_, or of _those in authority_” may justly be termed new.
Seeing, although some are scrupulous in some of these things, and
others are strict with regard to other particulars; yet we do not
find any other body of the people, who insist on all these rules
together. With respect therefore both to your _name_, _principles_,
and _practice_, you may be considered as a _new_ people.
Another peculiar circumstance of your present situation, is, that you
are _newly united_ together; that you are just gathered, or (as it
seems) gathering rather, out of all other societies or congregations;
nay, and that you have been hitherto, and do still subsist without
_power_, (for you are a low, insignificant people) without _riches_,
(for you are poor almost to a man, having no more than the plain
necessaries of life) and without either any extraordinary gifts of
_nature_, or the advantages of _education_: most even of your teachers
being quite unlearned, and (in other things) ignorant men.
There is yet another circumstance, which is quite peculiar to
yourselves: whereas every other _religious set_ of people, as soon
as they were joined to each other, _separated themselves_ from their
former societies or congregations: you, on the contrary, do not; nay,
you _absolutely disavow_ all desire of separating from them. You openly
and continually declare you have not, nor ever had such a design. And
whereas the congregations to which those separatists belonged, have
generally spared no pains to prevent that separation; those to which
you belong, spare no pains (not to prevent, but) to occasion this
_separation_, to drive you from them, to force you on that division,
to which you declare you have the strongest aversion.
♦Considering these peculiar circumstances wherein you stand, you will
see the propriety of a _second_ advice I would recommend to you, _Do
not imagine you can avoid giving offence_: your very _name_ renders
this impossible. Perhaps not one in a hundred of those who use the term
_Methodist_, have any ideas of what it means. To ninety-nine of them
it is still Heathen _Greek_. Only they think it means something very
bad, either a papist, an heretic, an underminer of the church, or some
unheard of monster; and in all probability, the farther it goes, it
must gather up more and more evil. It is vain therefore for any that
is called a _Methodist_, ever to think of not giving offence.
♦ “Consider” replaced with “Considering” per Errata
And as much offence as you give by your _name_, you will give still
more by your _principles_. You will give offence to the _bigots for_
opinions, modes of worship and ordinances, by laying _no more_ stress
upon them: to the _bigots against_ them, by laying _so much_: to _men
of form_, by insisting so frequently and strongly on the inward _power_
of religion: to _moral men_, (so called) by declaring the absolute
necessity of _faith_, in order to acceptance with God: to men of
_reason_ you will give offence, by talking of inspiration and receiving
the Holy Ghost: to drunkards, sabbath-breakers, common swearers, and
other _open sinners_, by refraining from their company, as well as by
that disapprobation of their behaviour, which you will often be obliged
to express. And indeed your life must give them continual offence;
your sobriety is grievously offensive to a drunkard; your serious
conversation is equally intolerable to a gay impertinent; and in
general, that “you are grown so precise and _singular_, so monstrously
_strict_, beyond all sense and reason, that you _scruple_ so many
harmless things, and fancy you are _obliged_ to do so many others which
you need not,” cannot but be an offence to abundance of people, your
friends and relations in particular. Either therefore you must consent
to give up your _principles_, or your fond hope of pleasing men.
What makes even your _principles_ more offensive is, this _uniting_
of yourselves _together_: because this union renders you more
_conspicuous_, placing you more in the eye of men; more _suspicious_,
I mean, liable to be suspected of carrying on some sinister design,
(especially by those who do not, or _will_ not, know your inviolable
attachment to his present Majesty;) more _dreadful_, to those of a
fearful temper, who imagine you have any such design; and more _odious_
to men of zeal, if their zeal be any other than fervent love to God and
man.
This offence will sink the deeper, because you are gathered out of so
many other congregations: for the warm men in each will not easily be
convinced, that you do not _despise_ either them or their teachers; nay,
will probably imagine, that you utterly _condemn_ them, as though they
could not be saved. And this occasion of offence is now at the height,
because you are just gathered, or gathering rather, so that they know
not where it will end: but the fear of losing (so they account it)
more of their members, gives an edge to their zeal, and keeps all their
anger and resentment in its strength.
Add to this, that you _do not leave_ them quiet, you still rank
yourselves among their members, which, to those who know not that you
do it for conscience sake, is also a provoking circumstance. “If you
would but get out of their sight!” But you are a continual thorn in
their side, as long as you remain with them.
And (which cannot but anger them the more) you have neither _power_,
nor _riches_, nor _learning_; yet, with all their power, and money, and
wisdom, they can gain no ground against you.
You cannot but expect, that the offence continually arising from such
a variety of provocations, will gradually ripen into hatred, malice,
and all other unkind tempers. And as they who are thus affected will
not fail to represent you to others in the same light as you appear to
them, sometimes as madmen and fools, sometimes as wicked men, fellows
not fit to live upon the earth; the consequence, humanly speaking, must
be, that, together with your reputation, you will lose, first the love
of your friends, relations and acquaintance, even those who once loved
you the most tenderly: then your business; for many will employ you no
longer, nor “buy of such an one as you are;” and, in due time, (unless
he who governs the world interpose) your health, liberty, and life.
What further advice can be given to persons in such a situation? I
cannot but advise you, _thirdly, consider deeply with yourself, is the
God whom I serve able to deliver me_? I am not able to deliver myself
out of these difficulties; much less am I able to bear them. I know not
how to give up my reputation, my friends, my substance, my liberty, my
life. _Can_ God give me to rejoice in doing this? And may I depend upon
him, that he _will_? Are the hairs of my head all numbered? And does he
never fail them that trust in him? Weigh this throughly; and if you can
trust God with your all, then go on, in the power of his might.
Go on, I would earnestly advise you, _fourthly_, keep in the very path
wherein you now tread. _Be true to your principles._ Never rest again
in the dead _formality_ of religion. Pursue with your might inward
and outward holiness; a steady imitation of him you worship; a still
increasing resemblance of his imitable perfections, his justice, mercy,
and truth.
Let this be your manly, noble, generous religion, equally remote from
the meanness of _superstition_, (which places religion in doing what
God hath not enjoined, or abstaining from what he hath not forbidden)
and from the unkindness of _bigotry_, (which confines our affection
to our own party, sect, or opinion.) Above all, stand fast in obedient
faith, faith in the God of pardoning mercy, in the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath loved _you_, and given himself for
you. Ascribe to him all the good you find in yourself; all your peace,
and joy, and love; all your power to do and suffer his will, through
the Spirit of the living God. Yet in the mean time, carefully avoid
_enthusiasm_: impute not the dreams of men to the all-wise God; and
expect neither light nor power from him, but in the serious use of all
the means he hath ordained.
Be true also to your principles, touching opinions, and the externals
of religion. Use every _ordinance_ which you believe is of God: but
beware of narrowness of spirit towards those who use them not. Conform
yourself to those _modes of worship_ which you approve; yet love, as
brethren, those who cannot conform. Lay so much stress on _opinions_,
that all your own (if it be possible) may agree with truth and reason;
but have a care of anger, dislike, or contempt towards those whose
opinions differ from yours. You are daily accused of this: (And indeed,
what is it, whereof you are not accused?) But beware of giving any
ground for such an accusation. Condemn no man for not thinking as
you think. Let every one enjoy the full and free liberty of thinking
for himself. Let every man use his own judgment; since every man must
give an account of himself to God. Abhor every approach, in any kind
or degree, to the spirit of _persecution_. If you cannot _reason_ or
_persuade_ a man into the truth, never attempt to _force_ him into it.
If love will not compel him to come in, leave him to God, the Judge of
all.
Yet expect not, that others will deal thus with you. No: some will
endeavour to _fright_ you out of your principles; some to _shame_
you into a more popular religion, to laugh and rally you out of your
singularity: but from none of these will you be in so great danger, as
from those who assault you with quite different weapons, with softness,
good nature, and earnest professions of (perhaps real) good-will.
Here you are equally concerned, to avoid the very appearance of anger,
contempt, or unkindness, and to hold fast the whole truth of God, both
in principle and in practice.
This indeed will be interpreted as unkindness. Your former acquaintance
will look upon this, that you will not _sin_ or _trifle_ with them,
as a plain proof of your coldness towards them; and this burthen you
must be content to bear: but labour to avoid all real unkindness, all
disobliging words, or harshness of speech, all shyness or strangeness
of behaviour. Speak to them with all the tenderness and love, and
behave with all the sweetness and courtesy you can; taking care not to
give any needless offence, to neighbour or stranger, friend or enemy.
Perhaps on this very account, I might advise you _fifthly_, _not to
talk much of what you suffer_; “of the _persecution_ you endured at
such a time, and the wickedness of your _persecutors_.” Nothing more
tends to exasperate them than this: and therefore, (although there is
a time when these things must be mentioned, yet) it might be a general
rule, to do it as seldom as you can with a safe conscience. For
(besides its tendency to inflame them) it has the appearance of evil,
of ostentation, of magnifying yourselves. It also tends to puff you
up with pride, and to make you think yourselves some great ones, as it
certainly does to excite or increase in your heart ill-will, anger, and
all unkind tempers. It is, at best, loss of time; for instead of the
wickedness of men, you might be talking of the goodness of God: nay,
it is, in truth, an open wilful sin; it is tale-bearing, back-biting,
evil-speaking, (a sin you can never be sufficiently watchful against,
seeing it steals upon you in a thousand shapes.) Would it not be far
more profitable for your souls, instead of speaking against them, to
pray for them? To confirm your love towards those unhappy men, whom you
believe to be fighting against God, by crying mightily to him in their
behalf, that he may open their eyes and change their hearts.
I have now only to commend you to the care of him who hath all power
in heaven and in earth: beseeching him, that in every circumstance of
life, you may stand “firm as the beaten anvil to the stroke:” desiring
nothing on earth, accounting all things but dung and dross, that you
may win Christ; and always remembering, “It is the part of a good
champion, to be flead alive and to conquer!”
OCTOBER 10, 1745.
The PRINCIPLES of a
METHODIST.
Written in 1740.
Occasioned by a late pamphlet, intitled, A brief
_history of the principles of_ METHODISM.
_To the READER._
1. I _HAVE often wrote on_ controverted points _before; but not with an
eye to_ any _particular person. So that this is the first time I have
appeared in_ controversy, _properly so called. Indeed I have not wanted
occasion to do it before. Particularly when after many stabs in the
dark, I was publicly attacked, not by an open enemy, but by_ my own
familiar friend. _But I_ could _not answer_ him. _I could only cover my
face and say,_ Καὶ σὺ εἶ ἐκείνων: Καὶ σὺ, τέκνον; _Art thou also among
them? Art thou, my son?_
2. _I now tread an untried path with fear and trembling; fear, not of
my adversary, but of myself. I fear my own spirit, lest I “fall, where
many mightier have been slain.” I never knew one (or but one) man write
controversy, with what I thought a right spirit. Every disputant seems
to think (as every soldier) that he_ may _hurt his opponent as much
as he can; nay, that he ought to_ do his worst _to him, or he cannot_
make the best _of his own cause: that, so he do not bely or wilfully
misrepresent him, he_ must expose _him as far as he is able. It is
enough, we suppose, if we do not shew heat or passion against our
adversary. But, not to despise him, or endeavour to make others do so,
is quite a work of supererogation._
3. _But ought these things to be so? (I speak on the Christian scheme.)
Ought we not to love our neighbour as ourselves? And does a man cease
to be our neighbour, because he is of a different opinion? Nay, and
declares himself so to be? Ought we not, for all this, to do to him as
we would he should do to us? But do we ourselves love to be_ exposed,
_or_ set in the worst light? _Would we willingly be treated with
contempt? If not, why do we treat others thus? And yet who scruples
it? Who does not hit every blot he can, however foreign to the merits
of the cause? Who, in controversy, casts the mantle of love over the
nakedness of his brother? Who keeps steadily and uniformly to the
question, without ever striking at the person? Who shews in every
sentence that he loves his brother, only less than the truth?_
4. _I have made a little faint essay towards this. I have a brother who
is as my own soul. My desire is, in every word I say, to look upon Mr._
Tucker, _as in his place; and to speak no tittle concerning the one in
any other spirit, than I would speak concerning the other. But whether
I have attained this or no, I know not; for my heart is_ deceitful and
desperately wicked. _If I have spoken any thing in another spirit, I
pray God it may not be laid to my charge! And that it may not condemn
me in that day, when the secrets of all hearts shall be made manifest!
Mean while my heart’s desire, and prayer to God is, that both I and all
who think it their duty to oppose me, may_ put on bowels of mercies,
kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering: forbearing one
another, and forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath
forgiven us.
* * * * *
1. THERE has lately appeared in the world a tract intitled, _A brief
history of the principles of Methodism_. I doubt not, but the writer’s
design was good, and believe he has a real desire to know the truth.
And the manner wherein he pursues that design, is, generally, calm and
dispassionate. He is indeed in several mistakes: but as many of these
are either of small consequence in themselves, or do not immediately
relate to me, it is not my concern to mention them. All of any
consequence which relates to me, I think, falls under three heads:
First, That I believe justification by faith alone;
Secondly, That I believe sinless perfection: and
Thirdly, that I believe inconsistencies.――――Of each of these I will
speak as plainly as I can.
2. First, that I believe _justification by faith alone_. This I allow.
For I am firmly persuaded, that every man of the offspring of _Adam_
is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature,
inclined to evil: that this corruption of our nature, in every person
born into the world, deserves God’s wrath and damnation, that therefore
if ever we receive the remission of our sins, and are accounted
righteous before God, it must be only for the merit of Christ, by
faith, and not for our own works or deservings of any kind. Nay, I am
persuaded, that all works done before justification, have in them the
nature of sin: and that, consequently, till he is justified, a man has
no power to do any work which is pleasing and acceptable to God.
3. To express my meaning a little more at large. I believe, three
things must go together in our justification: upon God’s part, his
great mercy and grace; upon Christ’s part, the satisfaction of God’s
justice, by the offering his body and shedding his blood, and upon
our part, true and living faith in the merits of Jesus Christ. So
that in our justification there is not only God’s mercy and grace,
but his justice also. And so the grace of God does not shut out the
righteousness of God in our justification, but only shuts out the
righteousness of man, that is, the righteousness of our works.
4. And therefore St. _Paul_ requires nothing on the part of man,
but _only a true and living faith_. Yet this faith does not shut out
repentance, hope, and love, which are joined with faith in every man
that is justified. But it shuts them out from the office of justifying.
So that although they are all present together in him that is justified,
yet they justify not all together.
5. Neither does faith shut out good works, necessarily to be done
afterwards. But _we may not do them to this intent, to be justified by
doing them_. Our justification comes freely, of the mere mercy of God:
for whereas all the world was not able to pay any part towards their
ransom, it pleased him, without any of our deserving, to prepare for
us Christ’s body and blood, whereby our ransom might be paid, _and his
justice satisfied_. Christ therefore is now the righteousness of all
them that truly believe in him.
6. But let it be observed, the true sense of those words, _We are
justified by faith in Christ only_, is not, that this our own act, _To
believe in Christ_, or this our faith which is within us, justifies
us, (for that were, to account ourselves to be justified by some act
or virtue that is within us) but that although we have faith, hope and
love within us, and do never so many good works, yet we must renounce
the merit of all, of faith, hope, love, and all other virtues and good
works, which we either have done, shall do, or can do, as far too weak
to deserve our justification: for which therefore we must trust only in
God’s mercy, and the merits of Christ. For it is he alone that taketh
away our sins. To him alone are we to go for this; forsaking all our
virtues, good words, thoughts and works, and putting our trust in
Christ only.
7. In strictness therefore, neither our faith nor our works justify us,
_i. e._ deserve the remission of our sins. But God himself justifies
us, of his own mercy, through the merits of his Son only. Nevertheless,
because by faith we embrace the promise of God’s mercy and of the
remission of our sins, therefore the scripture says, That _faith does
justify_, yea, _faith without works_. And it is all one to say, _Faith
without works_, and _faith alone justifies us_, therefore the antient
fathers from time to time speak thus: _Faith alone justifies us_. And
because we receive faith, through the only merits of Christ, and not
through the merit and virtue we have, or work we do; therefore in that
respect we renounce, as it were, again, faith, works, and all other
virtues. For our corruption through original sin is so great, that
all our faith, charity, words and works, cannot merit or deserve
any part of our justification for us. And therefore we thus speak,
humbling ourselves before God, and giving Christ all the glory of our
justification.
8. But it should also be observed, what that faith is, whereby we are
justified. Now that faith which brings not forth good works, is not a
living faith, but a dead and devilish one. For even the devils believe,
“That Christ was born of a virgin, that he wrought all kind of miracles,
declaring himself to be very God, that for our sakes he died and rose
again, and ascended into heaven, and at the end of the world shall come
again, to judge the quick and the dead.” This the devils believe, and
so they believe all that is written in the Old and New Testament. And
yet still, for all this faith, they are but devils. They remain still
in their damnable estate, lacking the true Christian faith.
9. The true Christian faith is, not only to believe the holy scriptures
and the articles of our faith are true; but also, to have _a sure
trust and confidence to be saved from everlasting damnation by Christ_,
whereof doth follow a loving heart, to obey his commandments. And this
faith neither any devil hath, nor any wicked man. No ungodly man hath
or can have this _sure trust and confidence in God, that by the merits
of Christ his sins are forgiven and he reconciled to the favour of God_.
10. This is what I believe (and have believed for some years)
concerning _justification by faith alone_. I have chose to express
it in the words of a little treatise, published several years ago; as
being the most authentic proof, both of my past and present sentiments.
If I err herein, let those who are better informed calmly point out my
error to me: and I trust, I shall not shut my eyes against the light,
from whatsoever side it comes.
11. The second thing laid to my charge is, that _I believe sinless
perfection_. I will simply declare what I do believe, concerning this
also, and leave unprejudiced men to judge.
12. My last and most deliberate thoughts on this head were published
but a few months since, in these words.
1. “Perhaps the general prejudice against _Christian perfection_
may chiefly arise from a misapprehension of the _nature_ of it. We
willingly allow, and continually declare, there is no _such_ perfection,
in this life, as implies either a dispensation from doing good and
attending all the ordinances of God; or a freedom from ignorance,
mistake, temptation, and a thousand infirmities necessarily connected
with flesh and blood.”♦
♦ _Five paragraphs are left out, which stand in the 24th
Volume_, page 32 _to_ 35 per Errata.
13. If there be any thing unscriptural in these words, any thing wild
or extravagant, any thing contrary to the analogy of faith, or the
experience of adult Christians, let them _smite me friendly and reprove
me_; let them impart to me of the clearer light God has given them.
How knowest thou, O man, _but thou mayest gain thy brother_? But he may
at length come to the knowledge of the truth? And thy labour of love,
shewn forth with meekness of wisdom, may not be in vain!
14. There remains yet another charge against me, that I believe
_inconsistencies_: that my tenets, particularly concerning
justification, are _contradictory to themselves_: that Mr. _Wesley_
“since his return from _Germany_, has _improved_ in the Spirit of
_inconsistency_. ‘For then he published two treatises, Dr. _Barnes_’s,
the calvinist, or dominican rather, who suffered 1541;’ [Let us spare
the ashes of the dead. Were I _such_ a _dominican_ as he was, I should
rejoice too to die in the flames] ‘the first on _justification by faith
only_, the other on _the sinfulness of man’s natural will, and his
utter inability to do works acceptable to God, until he be justified_.
Which principles if added to his former tenets’ (nay they need not be
_added to_ them, for they are the very same) ‘will give the whole a
_new vein_ of _inconsistency_, and make the contradictions more gross
and glaring than before.’”
15. It will be necessary to speak more largely on this head, than on
either of the preceding. And in order to speak as distinctly as I can,
I propose taking the paragraphs one by one, as they lie before me.
16. (1) It is “_asserted_ that Mr. _Law_’s system was the _Creed_ of
the Methodists.” But it is not _proved_. I had been eight years at
_Oxford_, before I read any of Mr. _Law_’s writings: and when I did,
I was so far from making them my _creed_, I had objections to almost
every page. But all this time my manner was, to spend several hours
a day, in reading the scripture in the original tongues. And hence my
system (so termed) was wholly drawn, according to the light I then had.
17. It was in my passage to _Georgia_, I met with those _teachers_,
who _would_ have taught me the way of God more perfectly. But I
understood them not. Neither _on my arrival there_, did they _infuse_
any _particularities into me_, either _about justification_ or any
thing else. For I came back with the same notions I went. And this I
have explicitly acknowledged in my second journal, where some of my
words are these.¹ “When _Peter Bohler_, as soon as I came to _London_,
affirmed of true faith in Christ, (which is but one) that it had these
two fruits inseparably attending it, ‘Dominion over sin, and constant
peace from a sense of forgiveness,’ I was quite amazed, and looked upon
it as a _new gospel_. If this was so, it was clear, I had no faith. But
I was not willing to be convinced of this. Therefore I disputed with
all my might, and laboured to prove, that faith might be where these
were not: especially, where that sense of forgiveness was not: for
all the scriptures relating to this, I had been long since taught to
construe away, and to call all _presbyterians_ who spoke otherwise.
Besides, I well saw, no one could, (in the nature of things) have such
a sense of forgiveness, and not _feel_ it. But I felt it not. If then
there was no faith without this, all my pretensions to faith dropt at
once.”
¹ Page 32.
18. (2) Yet it was not _Peter Bohler_, who convinced me that
_conversion_ (I mean justification) _was_ an _instantaneous work_.
On the contrary, when I was convinced of the nature and fruits of
justifying faith, still “¹I could not comprehend what he spoke of _an
instantaneous work_. I could not understand, how this faith should
be given in a moment; how a man could _at once_ be thus turned from
darkness to light, from sin and misery to righteousness and joy in the
Holy Ghost. I searched the scriptures again, touching this very thing,
particularly the _Acts of the apostles_. But to my utter astonishment,
I found scarce any instances there of other than _instantaneous_
conversions; scarce any other so slow as that of St. _Paul_, who was
three days in the pangs of the new birth. I had but _one_ retreat left;
_viz._ ‘_Thus_ I grant, God wrought in the _first ages_ of Christianity:
but the times are changed. What reason have I to believe, he works in
the same manner _now_’?
¹ See journal, page 19.
“But on _Sunday 22_, I was beat out of this retreat too, by the
concurring evidence of several living witnesses, who testified God
_had thus wrought in themselves_: giving them _in a moment_, such a
faith in the blood of his Son, as translated them out of darkness into
light, out of sin and fear into holiness and happiness. Here ended
my disputing. I could ♦only cry out, ‘Lord, help thou my unbelief.’”
――――The remaining part of this section; with the third and fourth,
contain my own words, to which I still subscribe.
♦ “now” replaced with “only” per Errata
And if there is a mistake in the fifth it is not material.
♦20. (6) It is true, that “on _Wednesday, July 12_, the Count spoke to
this effect:
♦ Number 19. not shown in text.
“1. Justification is the forgiveness of sins:
“2. The moment a man flies to Christ, he is justified:
“3. And has peace with God, but not always joy:
“4. Nor perhaps may he know he is justified, till long after:
“5. For the assurance of it is distinct from justification itself:
“6. But others may know he is justified, by his power over sin, by his
seriousness, his love of the brethren, and his hunger and thirst after
righteousness, which alone proves the spiritual life to be begun.
“7. To be justified is the same thing as to be born of God: when a man
is awakened, he is begotten of God, and his fear and sorrow, and sense
of the wrath of God, are the pangs of the new birth.”
It is true also, that I then recollected what _P. Bohler_ had often
said on this head, which was to this effect:
1. When a man has living faith in Christ, then he is justified:
2. This is always given in a moment:
3. And in that moment, he has peace with God:
4. Which he cannot have without knowing that he has it:
5. And being born of God he sinneth not:
6. Which deliverance from sin he cannot have without knowing that he
has it.
21. I did not apprehend it possible, for any man living to have
imagined, that I believed _both these accounts_: the words whereof I
had purposely so ranged, and divided into short sentences, that the
gross, irreconcileable difference between them, might be plain to the
meanest reader. I cannot therefore but be a little surprised, at the
strength of that prejudice, which could prevent any one’s seeing, that
in opposition to the Count’s opinion (which in many respects I wholly
disapproved of) I quoted the words of one of his own church, which, if
true, overturn it altogether.
22. I have nothing to object to the quotations made in the 7th, 8th,
and 9th sections. In the 10th are these words: “Now since Mr. ♦_Wesley_
went so far, to gather such materials together, let us see what was the
_system_ (or rather the _medley_) of principles he had to return with
to _England_.”
♦ “Westley” replaced with “Wesley”
_Of the_ Assurance _of justification_.
I believe that conversion is an instantaneous work. And that the moment
a man is converted, or has living faith in Christ, he is justified.
Which faith a man cannot have, without knowing that he hath it.
Yet I believe he may not know that he is justified (_i. e._ that he has
living faith) till a long time after.
I believe also that the moment a man is justified, he has peace with
God.
Which he cannot have without knowing that he has it.
“Yet I believe he may not know that he is justified (_i. e._ that he
has peace with God) till a long time after.
“I believe when a man is justified, he is born of God.
“And being born of God he sinneth not.
“Which deliverance from sin he cannot have without knowing it.
“Yet I believe he may not know that he is justified (_i. e._ delivered
from sin) till a long time after.
“Though I believe that others may know that he is justified by his
power over sin, his seriousness, and love of the brethren.”
23. “_Of the_ Conditions _of justification_.
“I believe that Christ _formed in us_ subordinately to Christ _given
for us_ (_i. e._ our own _inherent_ righteousness subordinate to
Christ’s _merits_) ought to be insisted upon, as necessary to our
justification.
“And it is just and right that a man should be humble and penitent, and
have a broken and contrite heart (_i. e._ should have Christ _formed in
him_) before he can expect to be justified.
“And that this penitence and contrition is the work of the Holy Ghost.”
“Yet I believe that all this is nothing towards, and has no influence
on, our justification.
“Again, I believe that in order to justification, I must go strait to
Christ, with all my ungodliness, and plead nothing else.
“Yet I believe that we should not insist upon any thing we _do_ or
_feel_, as if it were necessarily _previous_ to justification.”
24. “_Of the_ Effects _of justification_.
“I believe, that justification is the same thing as to be born of God.
Yet a man may have a _strong assurance_, that he is justified, and not
be able to affirm, that he is born of God.
“A man may be fully assured that his sins are forgiven, yet may not be
able to tell the hour, or day, when he received this full assurance,
because it may grow up in him by degrees.――――Though he can remember
that from the time this full assurance was confirmed in him, he never
lost it, no not for a moment.
“A man may have a weak faith at the same time that he hath peace with
God, _not one uneasy thought_, and freedom from sin, _not one unholy
desire_.
“A man may be justified (♦_i. e._ born of God) who has not a clean
heart (_i. e._ is not sanctified.)
♦ “e. i.” replaced with “i. e.”
“He may be justified (_i. e._ born of God) and not have the indwelling
of the Spirit.”
25. I entirely agree, “That the foregoing creed is a very
_extraordinary and odd composition_.” But it is not mine. I neither
composed it, nor believe it: as I doubt not every impartial reader will
be fully convinced, when we shall have gone over it, once more, step by
step.
The parts of it which I do believe, I shall barely repeat: on the
others it will be needful to add a few words.
_Of the_ Assurance _of justification_.
“I believe that conversion” (meaning thereby justification) “is an
instantaneous work: and that the moment a man has living faith in
Christ, he is converted or justified. (So the proposition must be
expressed to make it sense.) Which faith he cannot have, without
knowing that he has it.”
“Yet I believe he may not know that he has it till long after.” This I
deny: I believe no such thing.
“I believe the moment a man is justified he has peace with God:”
“Which he cannot have, without knowing that he has it:
“Yet I believe, he may not know he has it till long after.” This again
I deny. I believe it not. Nor _Michael Linner_ neither. To clear whom
intirely, one need only read his own words.
“About fourteen years ago, I was more than ever convinced, that I was
wholly different from what God required me to be. I consulted his word
again and again; but it spoke nothing but condemnation; till at last
I could not read, nor indeed do any thing else, having no hope and
no spirit left in me. I had been in this state for several days, when
being musing by myself, those words came strongly into my mind, _God so
loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, to the end that all
who believe in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life_.” I
thought, “_All!_ Then I am one. Then _he_ is given for _me_. But I am
a sinner. And he came to save sinners.” Immediately my burden dropped
off, and my heart was at rest.
“But the full assurance of faith I had not yet, nor for the two years I
continued in _Moravia_. When I was driven out thence by the _Jesuits_,
I retired hither, and was soon after received into the church. And here
after some time it pleased our Lord to manifest himself more clearly
to my soul; and give me that full sense of acceptance in him, which
excludes all doubt and fear.
“Indeed the leading of the Spirit is different in different souls. His
more usual method, I believe, is, to give in one and the same moment,
forgiveness of sins, and a full assurance of that forgiveness. Yet in
many he works as he did in me: give first the remission of sins, and
after some weeks or months or years, the full assurance of it.”¹
¹ Second _Journal_, Pages 65, 66.
All I need observe is, that the _first sense of forgiveness_ is often
mixed with doubt or fear. But the _full assurance of faith_, excludes
all doubt and fear, as the very term implies.
Therefore instead of, “He may not know that he has peace with God till
long after,” it should be (to agree with _Michael Linner_’s words)
“He may not have till long after the full assurance of faith, which
excludes all doubt and fear.”
“I believe a man is justified at the same time that he is born of God.
“And he that is born of God sinneth not.
“Which deliverance from sin he cannot have, without knowing that he has
it.”
“Yet I believe he may not know it till long after.” This also I utterly
deny.
26. _Of the_ Conditions _of justification_.
“I believe, that Christ _formed in us_ ought to be _insisted on, as
necessary to our justification_.”
I no more believe this than _Christian David_ does, whose words
concerning it are these:
“It pleased God to shew me, that Christ _in us_, and Christ _for us_,
ought to be both insisted on:”
But I clearly saw _we ought not to insist on_ any thing _we feel_, any
more than any thing _we do_, as if it were _necessary_ previous to _our
justification_.
“And before a man can expect to be justified, he should be humble and
penitent, and have a broken and contrite heart, that is, should have
Christ _formed in him_.” No; that is quite another thing. I believe
every man is _penitent_, before he is _justified_; he _repents_, before
he _believes_ the gospel. But it is never _before_, he is justified,
that Christ is _formed in him_.
“And that this penitence and contrition is the work of the Holy Ghost.”
“Yet I believe that all this is nothing towards, and has no influence
on our justification.”
_Christian David_’s words are, “Observe, this is not the foundation. It
is not this by which (for the sake of which) you are justified. This is
not the righteousness, this is no part of the righteousness, by which
you are reconciled to God, You grieve for ♦your sins. You are deeply
humbled. Your heart is broken. Well: but _all this is nothing to your
justification_.” (The words immediately following fix the sense of
this otherwise exceptionable sentence) “The remission of your sins _is
not owing to this cause_, either in whole or in part. Your humiliation
_has no influence on that_.” Not _as a cause_; so the very last words
explain it.
♦ “you” replaced with “your”
“Again, I believe that in order to obtain justification, I must go
strait to Christ, with all my ungodliness, and plead _nothing else_.”
“Yet I believe we should not insist upon any thing we _do_ or _feel_,
as if it were necessarily previous to justification.” No, nor on any
thing _else_. So the whole tenor of _Christian David_’s words implies.
_Of the_ Effects _of justification_.
27. “I believe a man may have a strong assurance he is justified, and
not be able to affirm he is a child of God.”
_Feder_’s words are these: “I found my heart at rest, _in good hope
that my sins were forgiven_; of which I had a _strong assurance_ six
weeks after.” (True, _comparatively stronger_, though still mixt with
doubt and fear.) “But I dare not affirm, I am a child of God.” I see
no inconsistency in all this. Many such instances I know at this day.
I myself was one, for some time.
“A man may be fully assured, that his sins are forgiven, yet may not be
able to tell the day, when he received this full assurance; because it
grew up in him by degrees.” (Of this also I know a few other instances)
“But from the time this full assurance _was confirmed in him_, he never
lost it.” Very true, and I think, consistent.
_Neuser_’s own words are, “In him I found true rest to my soul, being
fully assured, that all my sins were forgiven. Yet I cannot tell the
hour or day, when I first received that full assurance. For it was not
given me at first, neither at once;” (not in its fulness) “but grew up
in me by degrees. And _from the time it was confirmed in me_, I have
never lost it, having never since doubted, no, not for a moment.”
“A man may have a weak faith, at the same time that he has peace with
God, and no unholy desires.”
A man may be justified, who has not a clear heart.
28. (11) Not in the full sense of the word. This I do verily believe
is _sound_ divinity, agreeable both to scripture and experience.
And I believe it is consistent with itself. As to the “hundred other
absurdities which _might be_ fully and fairly made out,” it will be
time enough to consider them, when they are produced.
29. (12, 13.) But whether I have succeeded in attempting to ♦reconcile
these things or no, I verily think Mr. _Tucker_ has. I desire not a
more consistent account of my principles, than he has himself given in
the following words:
♦ “econcile” replaced with “reconcile”
“Our spiritual state should be considered distinctly under each of
these views.”
1. “Before _justification_; in which state we may be said to be
_unable_ to do any thing _acceptable_ to God: because then we can
_do nothing but come to_ Christ. Which ought not to be considered
_as doing_ any thing, but as _supplicating_ (or waiting) to receive
a _power of doing_ for the time to come.”
“For the preventing grace of God, which is common to all, is sufficient
to _bring_ us to Christ, though it is not sufficient to carry us any
_further_, ’till we are justified.”
2. “After _justification_. The moment a man comes to Christ (by
faith) he is justified, and born again; that is, he is born again in
the _imperfect_ sense (for there are two, [if not more] degrees of
regeneration) and he has _power over_ all the stirrings and motions of
sin, but not a total _freedom from_ them. Therefore he hath not yet, in
the full and proper sense, a _new_ and _clean heart_. But being exposed
to various temptations, he may, and will fall again from this condition,
if he doth not attain to a more excellent gift.”¹
¹ “Mr. _Charles Wesley_, (the note says) was not persuaded of
the truth of the _Moravian faith_, till some time after his
brother’s return from _Germany_.” There is a great mistake
in this. I returned not from _Germany_ till _Saturday,
September 16_. Whereas my brother was fully persuaded of
the truth of the _Moravian faith_ (so called) on _Wednesday,
May 3_, preceding. The note adds, “This (_i. e._ justifying
faith) he received but very lately.” This also is a mistake.
What we believe to be justifying faith, he received _May 21,
1738_.
See second _Journal_, pages 20, 26.
3. Sanctification; the last and highest state of _perfection_ in this
life. For then are the faithful born again in the full and perfect
sense. Then is there given unto them a new and clear heart; and the
struggle between the _old_ and _new_ man is over.¹
¹ The next note runs thus, “Mr. _Wesley_ has such a _peculiar
turn_ and _tendency_ towards the inconsistencies in his
principles, that in his preface to _Haliburton_’s life
(wrote _February 9, 1738‒9, just after_ his return from
_Germany_) he contradicts all that he has said elsewhere
for this _sinless perfection_, viz. ‘But it may be said _the
gospel covenant does not promise entire freedom from sin_.’
What do you mean by the word sin? The infection of nature?
Or those numberless weaknesses and follies, sometimes
(improperly) termed _sins of infirmity_? If you mean only
this, you say most true. We shall not put off these, but
with our bodies. But if you mean, it does not promise entire
freedom from sin, in its proper sense, or from committing
sin: this is by no means true, unless the scriptures be
false. _For thus it is written, Whosoever is born of God,
doth not commit sin._ (Unless he lose the spirit of adoption,
if not finally, yet for a while, as did this child of God)
_For his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because
he is born of God._ He cannot sin, _so long as he keepeth
himself_, for then _the wicked one toucheth him not_.”
The question is not, whether this be right or wrong: but
whether it contradict anything I have said elsewhere. Thrice
I have spoken expresly on this subject; in a sermon, and in
two prefaces. If in any of these I have contradicted what I
said before, I will own the former assertion as a mistake.
30. (14.) That I may say many things which have been said before,
and perhaps by _Calvin_ or _Arminius_, by _Montague_ or _Barclay_,
or the archbishop of _Cambray_, is highly probable. But it cannot
thence be inferred, that I hold “a _medley_ of all their principles;
_Calvinism_, _Arminianism_, _Montanism_, _Quakerism_, _Quietism_,
all thrown together.” There might as well have been added _Judaism_,
_Mahometanism_, _Paganism_. It would have made the period rounder, and
been full as easily _proved_, I mean _asserted_. For no other proof is
not yet produced.
31. I pass over the smaller mistakes which occur in the 15th and 16th
paragraphs, together with the prophecy or prognostication, concerning
the approaching divisions and downfal of the _Methodists_. What
follows to the end, concerning the ground of our hope, is indeed of
greater importance. But we have not as yet the strength of the cause.
The dissertation promised, is still behind. Therefore as my work is
great, and my time short, I wave that dispute for the present. And
perhaps, when I shall have received farther light, I may be convinced,
that “gospel-holiness (as Mr. _Tucker_ believes) is a necessary
qualification, antecedent to justification.” This appears to me now
to be directly opposite to the gospel of Christ. But I will endeavour,
impartially, to consider, what shall be advanced in defence of it. And
may he who knoweth my simpleness, teach me his way, and give me a right
judgment in all things!
AN
ANSWER
TO THE
Rev. Mr. _Church_’s REMARKS on the
Rev. Mr. _John Wesley_’s last JOURNAL.
In a LETTER to that GENTLEMAN.
_Let not him that putteth on his harness, boast himself
as he that putteth it off._ 1 Kings xx. 11.
Reverend Sir,
1. MY first desire (and prayer to God) is, That I may live peaceably
with all men. My next, That if I must dispute at all, it may be with
a man of understanding. Thus far therefore I rejoice on the present
occasion. I rejoice also in that I have confidence of your sincerity,
of your real desire, to promote the glory of God, by peace and
good-will among men. I am likewise thankful to God, for your calm
manner of writing; (a few paragraphs excepted:) and yet more for this,
That _such_ an opponent, should by writing in _such_ a manner, give
me an opportunity of explaining myself on those very heads, whereon I
wanted an occasion so to do.
2. I do not want indeed (though perhaps you think I do) to widen the
breach between us, or to represent the difference of the doctrines we
severally teach, as greater than it really is. So far from it, that
I earnestly wish, there were none at all: or if there must be some,
that it may be as small as possible: being fully persuaded, that could
we once agree in doctrines, other differences would soon fall to the
ground.
3. In order to contribute, as I am able, to this, it will be my
endeavour, to acknowledge what I think you have spoken right, and
to answer what I cannot think right as yet, with what brevity and
clearness I can. I desire to do this, in as inoffensive a manner, as
the nature of the thing will bear; and consistently with that brotherly
love, which I cannot deny you, without wronging my own soul.
4. You sum up your charge thus: _You have now, Sir, my sentiments――――It
is impossible for you to put an entire stop, to the enormities of the_
Moravians, _while you still_, I. _Too much commend these men_, II.
_Hold principles in common with them, from which these enormities
naturally follow, and_ III. _Maintain other errors more than theirs,
and are guilty of enthusiasm to the highest degree_.¹
¹ Remarks, pages 73, 74.
I. 1. You, first, charge me with _too much commending the_ Moravians.
That the case may be fully understood, I will transcribe the passages
which you cite from the journal concerning them, and then give a
general answer.
“She told me, Mr. _Molther_ had advised her, till she received faith,
to be _still, ceasing from outward works_――――In the evening, Mr. _Bray_
also was highly commending the being _still_――――He likewise spoke
largely, of the _great danger_ that attended the doing of _outward
works_, and of the _folly_ of people that keep _running about to church
and sacrament_.”¹
¹ 4th Journal, page 7.
“_Sunday November 4._ Our society met, and continued _silent_ till
eight.”¹
¹ Ib. page 42.
“_Sunday June 22._ I spoke thus: Eight or nine months ago, certain
men arose, who affirmed, that there is no such thing as any _means of
grace_――――and that we ought to leave off these _works of the law_.”¹
¹ Page 42.
_N. B._ The sentences quoted from the _Remarks_, are all
printed in _italicks_.
“You (Mr. _Molther_) believe, that the way to attain faith, is, not
to go to church, not to communicate, not to fast, not to use _so much_
private prayer, not to read the scripture; not to do temporal good, or
attempt to do spiritual good.”¹
¹ Page 20.
“You undervalue _good works_, especially works of _outward mercy_,
never publicly insisting on the necessity of them.”¹
¹ Page 108.
“Some of our brethren asserted, 1. That till they had true faith, they
ought to be _still_, that is (as they explained themselves) to abstain
from the _means of grace_, as they are called, the Lord’s supper in
particular. 2. That the ordinances are not _means of grace_, there
being no other means than Christ.”¹
¹ Page 8.
“I could not agree, either that none has any faith, so long as he
is liable to any doubt or fear, or that till we have it, we ought to
abstain from the ordinances of God.”¹
¹ Ib.
“Mr. _Br――――d_ speaks so slightly of the _means of grace_, that many
are much grieved to hear him. But others are greatly delighted with
him. Ten or fourteen of them meet at our brother _Clark_’s, with
Mr. _Molther_, and make a ♦mere jest of going to church or to the
sacrament.”¹
♦ “meer” replaced with “mere”
¹ Page 17.
“You (Mr. _Molther_) believe, it is impossible for a man to _use these
means_, without _trusting in them_.”¹
¹ Page 20.
“Believers (said Mr. _Simpson_) are _not subject_ to ordinances, and
unbelievers have nothing to do with them.”¹
¹ Page 34.
“Believers _need not_, and unbelievers _may not_ use them. These _do
not_ sin when they _abstain_ from them; but those _do sin_, when they
do not abstain.”¹
¹ Page 43.
“For one who is not born of God, to read the scriptures, or to pray, or
to communicate, or to do any outward work is _deadly poison_.――――If he
does any of these things, he _destroys_ himself.”¹
¹ Page 48.
“Mr. _Bell_ earnestly defended this.”
“At eight the society (at _Nottingham_) met; I could not but
observe――――that not one who came in, used any prayer at all.――――I
looked for one of our hymn books, but both that and the bible were
vanished away, and in the room thereof lay, the _Moravian_ hymns and
the _Count’s sermons_.”¹
¹ Page 88.
“One of our _English_ brethren, joined with you, said in his public
expounding, ‘As many go to hell by _praying_, as by _thieving_.’
Another, ‘I knew one, who leaning over the back of a chair, received a
great gift. But he must kneel down, to give God thanks. So he lost it
immediately. And I know not whether he will ever have it again.’ And
yet another, ‘You have lost your first joy. Therefore you pray. That is
the devil. You read the bible. That is the devil. You communicate. That
is the devil.’”¹
¹ Page 106.
“They affirmed, that there is _no commandment_ in the New Testament,
but to _believe_; that no other _duty_ lies upon us; and, that when a
man does believe, he is not _bound_ or _obliged_, to do any thing which
is commanded there.”¹
¹ Page 41.
“Mr. _St――――_ told me, No one has _any degree_ of faith, till he is
perfect as God is perfect.”¹
¹ Page 35.
“You believe there are _no degrees_ in faith.”¹
¹ Ib.
“I have heard Mr. _Molther_ affirm, that there is no justifying faith,
where there is ever any doubt.”¹
¹ Page 105.
“The moment a man is justified, he is sanctified wholly. Thenceforth,
till death, he is neither more nor less holy.”¹
¹ Page 100.
“We are to grow in grace, but not in holiness.”¹
¹ Page 101.
♦2. I have frequently observed, that I wholly disapprove, of all these
positions, “That there are _no degrees_ in faith”; “That in order to
attain faith, we must _abstain_ from all the _ordinances_ of God”;
“That a believer does not _grow in holiness_”, and “That he is not
_obliged_ to keep the commandments of God.” But I must also observe,
1. That you ought not to charge the _Moravian_ church with the first
of these; since in the very page from which you quote those words,
“There is no justifying faith where there is ever any doubt” that note
occurs, “In the preface to the second journal, the _Moravian_ church
is cleared from this mistake.” 2. That with respect to the ordinances
of God, their practice is better than their principle. They do use
them themselves, I am a witness; and that with reverence and godly
fear. Those expressions however, of our own countrymen, are utterly
indefensible: as, I think are Mr. _Molther_’s also; who was quickly
after recalled into _Germany_. The great fault of the _Moravian_
church seems to lie in not openly disclaiming all he had said: which in
all probability they would have done, had they not leaned to the same
opinion. I must 3. observe, that I never knew one of the _Moravian_
church, but that single person affirm, “That a believer does not
grow in holiness.” And perhaps he would not affirm it, on reflection.
But I am still afraid their whole church is tainted with _Quietism_,
_Universal Salvation_, and _Antinomianism_: “I speak (as I said
elsewhere) of _Antinomian opinions_, abstracted from practice, good or
bad.”
♦ Number 1. not shown in text.
3. But I should rejoice if there lay no other objection against
them, than that of erroneous opinions. I know in some measure, how
to have compassion on the ignorant: I know the incredible force of
pre-possession. And God only knows, what ignorance or error (all things
considered) is invincible; and what allowance his mercy will make in
such cases, to those who desire to be lead into all truth. But how far
what follows may be imputed to invincible ignorance or pre-possession,
I cannot tell.
Many of “¹you greatly, yea above measure, exalt yourselves (as a
church) and despise others:
¹ 4th journal, pages 107, 108.
“I have scarce heard one _Moravian_ brother own _his church_ to be
wrong in any thing:
“Many of you I have heard speak of it, as if it were infallible;” “Some
of you have set it up, as the judge of all the earth, of all persons as
well as doctrines:
“Some of you have said, that there is no _true church_ but yours; yea,
that there are no _true Christians_ out of it:
“And your own members you require to have _implicit faith_ in her
decisions, and to pay _implicit_ obedience to her directions.”
I can in no degree justify these things. And yet neither can I look
upon them in the same light that you do, as ¹_some of the very worst
things which are objected to the church of_ Rome. They are exceeding
great mistakes: yet in as great mistakes, have holy men both lived and
died: _Thomas a Kempis_, for instance, and _Francis Sales_. And yet I
doubt not, they are now in _Abraham_’s bosom.
¹ Remarks, page 7.
4. I am more concerned for their “¹Despising and decrying self-denial:”
for their “²extending Christian liberty beyond all warrant of holy
writ;” for their “³Want of zeal for good works;” and above all for their
supposing, that “³we may, on some accounts use guile:” in consequence
of which they do “⁴use guile or dissimulation in many cases.” “⁵Nay,
in many of them I have found” (not in all, nor in most) “much subtlety,
much evasion and disguise; so _becoming all things to all men_, as to
take the colour and shape of any that were near them.”
¹ Journal, page 80.
² Page 80.
³ Page 21.
⁴ Page 111.
⁵ Page 104.
I can neither defend nor excuse those among the _Moravians_, whom I
have found guilty of this. But neither can I condemn _all_ for the sake
of _some_. _Every man shall give an account of himself to God._
But you say, ¹_Your protesting against some of their opinions, is not
sufficient to discharge you――――Have you not prepared the way for these_
Moravians, _by――――countenancing and commending them: and by still
speaking of them as if they were in the main the best Christians in the
world, and only deluded or mistaken in a few points?_
¹ Remarks, pages 11, 12.
I cannot speak of them otherwise than I think. And I still think 1.
That God has some thousands in our own church, who have the faith and
love which is among them, without those errors either of judgment or
practice; 2. That next to these, _the body_ of the _Moravian_ church,
however _mistaken some of them_ are, are _in the main_, of all whom I
have seen, the _best Christians_ in the world.
5. Because I am continually charged with inconsistency herein, even by
the _Moravians_ themselves, it may be “needful to give a short account
of what has occurred between us from the beginning.”
“¹My first acquaintance with the _Moravian_ brethren began in my voyage
to _Georgia_. Being then with many of them in the same ship, I narrowly
observed their whole behaviour. And I greatly approved of all I saw.”
(The particulars are related in the first journal.)
¹ These are the words of the 4th journal, page 109, &c.
“From _February 14, 1735_, to _December 2, 1737_, being with them
(except when I went to _Frederica_ or _Carolina_) twice or thrice every
day, I loved and esteemed them more and more. _Yet a few things I could
not approve of._ These I mentioned to them from time to time, and then
commended the cause to God.”
“In _February_ following I met with _Peter Bohler_. My heart clave to
him as soon as he spoke. And the more we conversed, so much the more
did I esteem, both him and the _Moravian_ church. So that I had no
rest in my spirit, till I executed the design, which I had formed long
before; till after a short stay in _Holland_, I hastened forward, first
to _Marienbourn_, and then to _Hernhuth_.”
It may be observed, that I had before seen _a few things_ in the
_Moravians which I could not approve of_. In this journey I saw _a few
more_, in the midst of many excellent things: in consequence whereof,
“In _September 1738_, soon after my return to _England_, I began
the following letter to the _Moravian_ church. But being fearful of
trusting my own judgment, I determined, to wait yet a little longer,
and so laid it by unfinished,”
“My Dear Brethren,
“I Cannot but rejoice in your stedfast faith, in your love to
our blessed Redeemer, your deadness to the world, your meekness,
temperance, chastity, and love of one another. I greatly approve of
your conferences and ¹bands, of your methods of instructing children;
and in general, of your great care of the souls committed to your
charge.
¹ The band society in London, began May 1, some time before I
set out for Germany.
“But of some other things I stand in doubt, which I will mention in
love and meekness. And I wish that, in order to remove those doubts,
you would, on each of those heads, first, plainly answer, whether the
fact be as I suppose; and if so, secondly, consider, whether it be
right?
“Is not the Count all in all among you?
“Do you not magnify your own church too much?
“Do you not use guile and dissimulation in many cases?
“Are you not of a close, dark, reserved temper and behaviour?”――――
“It may easily be seen, that my objections then were nearly the same
as now.” (Only with this difference; I was not then assured, that the
facts were as I supposed.) “Yet I cannot say my affection was lessened
at all, (for I did not dare to determine any thing.) But from _November
1_, I could not but see more and more things which I could not
reconcile with the gospel.”
“These I have set down with all simplicity.――――Yet do I this, because
I love them not? God knoweth: yea, and _in part_, I esteem them still:
because I verily believe, they have a sincere desire to serve God;
because many of them have tasted of his love, and some retain it in
simplicity; because they love one another; because they have _so much_
of the truth of the gospel, and _so far_ abstain from outward sin.
And lastly, because their discipline is, _in most respects_, so truly
excellent: (notwithstanding that visible blemish, the paying _too much_
regard, to their great patron and benefactor, Count _Zinzendorf_.)
“6. I believe if you coolly consider this account, you will not find,
either that it is inconsistent with itself; or that ♦it lays you under
any necessity of speaking in the following manner: ¹_What charms there
may be in a demure look, and a sour behaviour, I know not. But sure
they must be in your eye very extraordinary, as they can be sufficient
to cover such a multitude of errors and crimes, and keep up the same
regard and affection for the authors and abettors of them. I doubt your
regard for them was not lessened, till they began to interfere with
what you thought your province.――――You was influenced, not by a just
resentment to see the honour of religion and virtue so injuriously
and scandalously trampled upon, but by a fear of losing your own
authority._”
♦ “is” replaced with “it”
¹ Remarks, pages 18, 19.
I doubt, there is scarce one line of all these, which is consistent
either with truth or love. But I will transcribe a few more, before I
answer. _How could you so long and so intimately converse with, so much
commend, and give such countenance to, such desperately wicked people,
as the_ Moravians, _according to your own account, were known by you to
be?――――And you still speak of them, as if they were, in the main, the
best Christians in the world.――――In one place you say, “A few things
I could not approve of.” But in God’s name, Sir, is the contempt of
almost the whole of our duty, of every Christian ordinance, to be
so gently touched? Can detestation in such a case, be too strongly
exprest? Either they are some of the vilest wretches in the world, or
you are the falsest accuser in the world. Christian charity has scarce
an allowance to make for them as you have described them. If you have
done this truly, they ought to be discouraged, by all means that can be
imagined._
7. Let us now weigh these assertions. _They_ (i. e. _the charms of
their_ sour _behaviour_) _must be in your eye very extraordinary._
――――Do not you stumble at the threshold? The _Moravians_ excel in
_sweetness_ of behaviour――――_as they can be sufficient to cover such
a_ multitude _of_ errors _and_ crimes――――Such a _multitude_ of _errors_
and _crimes_! I believe, as to errors, they hold _universal salvation_,
and are partly _Antinomians_ (in opinion), and partly _Quietists_. And
for this cause I cannot join with them. But where is the _multitude_ of
errors? Whosoever knows 2 or 300 more, let him please to mention them.
Such a _multitude_ of _crimes_ too! That some of them have used guile,
and are of a close, reserved behaviour, I know. And I excuse them not.
But to this multitude of crimes I am an utter stranger. Let _him_ prove
this charge upon them who _can_. For _me_, I declare, I _cannot_.
_To keep up_ the same _regard and affection_.――――Not so. I say, my
affection was _not lessened, till_ after September 1739, till I had
proof of what I had _feared_ before. But I had not the same degree
of regard for them, when I saw the dark as well as the bright side of
their character. _I doubt your regard for them was not lessened, till
they began to interfere with what you thought your province._ If this
were only a _doubt_, it were not much amiss; but it presently shoots
up into an _assertion_: equally groundless; for my _regard_ for them
_lessened_, even while I was in _Georgia_. But it increased again,
after my return from thence, especially while I was at _Hernhuth_. And
it gradually _lessened_ again for some years, as I saw more and more
which I approved not. How then does it _appear_, that _I was influenced
herein, by a fear of losing my own authority? Not by a just resentment
to see the honour of religion and virtue so scandalously trampled upon.
――――Trampled upon!_ By whom? Not by the _Moravians_: I never saw any
such thing among them.
* But what do you mean by a just resentment? I hope you do not mean,
what is _commonly_ called _Zeal_: a flame which often _sets on fire the
whole course of nature, and is in itself set on fire of hell!――――Rivers
of water run from my eyes, because men keep not thy law._ This
resentment on such an occasion I understand. From all other may God
deliver me!
8. You go on. _How could you so long and so intimately converse
with――――such desperately wicked people, as the_ Moravians, _according
to_ your own account, _were known by you to be_? O Sir, what another
assertion is this? _The_ Moravians, _according to your_ own account,
_were_ known _by you to be desperately wicked people, while you
intimately conversed with them_! Utterly false and injurious. I never
gave any such account. I conversed intimately with them, both at
_Savannah_ and _Hernhuth_. But neither then, nor at any other time,
did I _know_, or think, or say, they were desperately wicked people.
I think and say, nay, you blame me for saying, just the reverse,
viz. That though I soon “found among them a few things which I could
not approve,” yet I believe they are _in the main some of the best
Christians in the world_.
You surprize me yet more in going on thus: _In God’s name, Sir, is the
contempt of almost the whole of our duty, of every Christian ordinance,
to be so very gently touched?_ Sir, this is not the case. This charge
no more belongs to the _Moravians_, than that of murder. Some of
our countrymen spoke very wicked things. The _Moravians_ did not
sufficiently disavow them. These are the ♦premises. By what art can
you extort so dreadful a conclusion from them?
♦ “premisses” replaced with “premises”
_Can detestation, in such a case, be too strongly exprest?_――――Indeed
it can; even were the case as you suppose――――_either they are some
of the vilest wretches in the world, or you are the falsest accuser
in the world_――――neither one, nor the other; though I prove what I
alledge, yet they may be, in the main, good men――――_charity has scarce
an allowance to make for them, as you have described them_.――――I have
described them, as of a mixt character, with much evil among them, but
more good. Is it not a strange kind of charity, which cannot find an
allowance, to make in such a case?――――_If you have described them truly,
they ought to be discouraged by all means that can be imagined_――――By
all means! I hope not by fire and faggot: though the _house of mercy_
imagines these to be of all means most effectual.
9. You proceed. ¹_How can you justify the many good things you say of
the_ Moravians, _notwithstanding this character?――――You say they love
God.――――But how can this be, when they even plead against keeping
most of his commandments?――――You say, you believe, they have a sincere
desire to serve_ God.――――_How then can they despise his service in
so many instances?――――You declare some of them much holier than any
people you had yet known. Strange! if they fail in so many prime points
of Christian duty, and this not only habitually and presumptuously,
but even to the denying their use and necessity. You praise them,
for trampling under foot the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye,
and the pride of life.――――And yet you make them a close, reserved,
insincere, deceitful people._
¹ Remarks, pages 20, 21.
_How you will explain those things, I know not._――――By nakedly
declaring each thing as it is. They are, I believe, the most
self-inconsistent people, now under the sun: and I describe them just
as I find them, neither better nor worse, but leaving the good and
bad together. Upon this ground I can very easily justify, the saying
_many good things_ of them, as well as bad. For instance, I am still
persuaded, that _they_ (many of them) _love_ God: although many others
of them ignorantly _plead against the keeping_, not _most_, but _some
of his commandments_. I believe, _they have a sincere desire to serve_
God. And yet, in several instances, some of them (I think) _despise_
that manner _of serving him_, which I know God hath ordained. I believe
_some of them are much holier than any people I had known_ in _August
1740_. Yet sure I am, that others among them _fail_, not indeed in the
_prime points of Christian duty_ (for these are faith and the love of
God and man) but in several points of no small importance. Not that
they herein sin _presumptuously_ neither; for they are _fully_ (though
erroneously) _persuaded in their own minds_. From the same persuasion
they act, when they (in some sense) _deny the use or necessity of
those_ ordinances. How far that persuasion will justify or excuse
them, I leave to him who knoweth their hearts. Lastly, I believe _they
trample under foot_, in a good degree, the _lust of the flesh, the lust
of the eye, and the pride of life_. And yet many of them _use reserve_,
yea _guile_. Therefore my soul mourns for them in secret places.
10. But I _must observe_, you say, that ¹_you fall not only into
inconsistencies, but into direct contradictions.――――You commend them
for “loving one another, in a manner the world knoweth not of.” And
yet you charge them with being “in the utmost confusion, biting and
devouring one another.” You say, “They caution us against natural love
of one another――――And had well-nigh destroyed brotherly love from among
us.”_
¹ Remarks, pages 21, 22.
_You praise them, for “using no diversions but such as become saints,”
and for “not regarding outward adorning.” Yet you say, they “conform to
the world in wearing gold and costly apparel: and by joining in worldly
diversions, in order to do good._”
_You call their discipline, “in most respects, truly excellent.” I
wish you had more fully explained yourself――――I am sure, it is no
sign of good discipline, to permit such abominations. And you tell
them yourself, “I can shew you such a subordination, as answers all
Christian purposes, and yet is as distant from that among you, as the
heavens are from the earth.”_
_You mention it as a good effect of their discipline, that “every one
knows and keeps his proper rank.” Soon after, as if it were ♦with a
design to confute yourself, you say, “Our brethren have neither wisdom
enough to guide, nor prudence enough to let it alone.”_
♦ “a” replaced with “with a” per Errata
_And now, Sir――――how can you reconcile these opposite descriptions?_
――――Just as easily as those before, by simply declaring the thing as
it is. _You “¹commend them_ (the _Moravians_) _for loving one another.
And yet charge them with biting ²and devouring one another.”_ Them!
whom? Not the _Moravians_; but the _English_ brethren of _Fetter-lane_,
before their union with the _Moravians_. Here then is no shadow of
contradiction. For the two sentences do not relate to the same persons.
¹ Journal, page 4.
² Page 18.
_You say, ¹“They had well-nigh destroyed brotherly love from among
us;”_ partly by “_cautions ¹against natural love_.” It is a melancholy
truth; so they had. But _we_ had then no connexion with _them_. Neither
therefore does this contradict “their _loving one another_, in a manner
the world knoweth not of.”
¹ Page 108.
_You praise them for ¹using no diversions but such as become saints:
and yet say_, (I recite the whole sentence) “²_I have heard some of
you affirm, that Christian salvation implies liberty to conform to the
world, by joining in worldly diversions, in order to do good._”――――And
both these are true. The _Moravians_, in general, “use no diversions
but such as become saints:” and yet I have heard some of them affirm
(in contradiction to their own practice) that “One then mentioned did
well, when he joined in _playing at tennis_, in order to do good.”
¹ Page 5.
² Page 103.
11. _You praise them for not “¹regarding outward adorning.”_――――So I
do, the bulk of the congregation――――_And yet you say_ (I again recite
the whole sentence) “_I ²have heard some of you affirm, that Christian
salvation implies liberty to conform to the world, by putting on of
gold and costly apparel._” I have so. And I blame them the more, became
they are condemned by the general practice of their own church.
¹ Page 5.
² Page 103.
_You call their discipline “in most respects truly excellent.”¹ I
could wish you had more fully explained yourself_――――I have, in the
second journal, from the 44th to the 82d page. _It is no sign of good
discipline, to permit such abominations_, (i. e. error, in opinion,
and guile, in practice:) true, it is not; nor is it any demonstration
against it. For there may be _good discipline_ even in a college of
_Jesuits_.――――Another fault is, too great a deference to the Count.
And yet, “in _most respects_, their discipline is truly excellent.”
¹ Page 5.
_You mention it as a good effect of their discipline, that “¹every one
knows and keeps his proper rank.” Soon after, as it were with a design
to confute yourself, you say, “Our brethren have neither wisdom enough
to guide, nor prudence enough to let it alone.”_² Pardon me, Sir. I
have no design either to confute or to contradict myself in these words.
The former sentence is spoken of the _Moravian_ brethren: the latter,
of the _English_ brethren of _Fetter-lane_.
¹ Page 5.
² Page 17.
* 12. You need not therefore ¹_imagine, that either the strong
pretences or warm professions of the_ Moravians, or their _agreeing
with me in some favourite topicks_ (for my love to them was antecedent
to any such _agreement_) _induce me to overlook their iniquity, and
to forgive their other crimes_. No. I love them upon quite different
grounds: even, because I believe (notwithstanding all their faults)
they _love the_ Lord Jesus _in sincerity_, and have a measure of _the
mind that was in_ him. And I am _in_ great _earnest when I declare_
once more, That I have a deep, abiding conviction, by how many degrees
the good which is among them, overbalances the evil: That I cannot
speak of them but with _tender affection_, were it only for the
benefits I have received from them: and that at this hour, _I desire
union with them_ (were those stumbling-blocks once put away, which have
hitherto made that desire ineffectual) _above all things under heaven_.
¹ Remarks, page 23.
II. 1. Your second charge is, _That I hold, in common with them,
principles from which their errors naturally follow_. You mean,
justification by faith alone. To set things in the clearest light I
can, I will, first, observe, what I hold, and what you object, and then
enquire, what the consequences have been?
First, As to what I hold, my latest thoughts upon justification, are
exprest in the following words:¹
¹ Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, pages 1, 2, 3.
“Justification sometimes means our acquittal at the last day. But this
is out of the present question: that justification whereof our articles
and homilies speak, meaning present pardon, and acceptance with God:
who therein _declares his righteousness and mercy_, by or _for the
remission of the sins_ that are past.――――
“I believe, the condition of this is faith: I mean not only, that
without faith we cannot be justified; but also, that as soon as any
one has true faith, in that moment he is justified.
“_Good works_ follows this faith, but cannot go before it. Much less
can sanctification, which implies a continued course of good works,
springing from holiness of heart. But――――entire sanctification goes
before our justification at the last day.
“It is allowed, that repentance and _fruits meet for repentance_,
go before faith. Repentance _absolutely_ must go before faith:
_fruits meet for it_, if there be opportunity. By _repentance_ I mean,
conviction of sin, producing real desires and sincere resolutions of
amendment: and by _fruits meet for repentance_, forgiving our brother,
ceasing from evil, doing good, using the ordinances of God, and in
general, obeying him according to the measure of grace which we have
received. But these I cannot, as yet term _good works_; because they
do not spring from faith and the love of God.”
2. “Faith in general is, a divine, supernatural ἔλεγχος (evidence or
conviction) of things not seen, not discoverable by our bodily senses,
as being either past, future, or spiritual. Justifying faith implies,
not only a divine ἔλεγχος, that God _was in_ Christ, _reconciling the
world unto himself_, but a sure trust and confidence, that Christ died
for _my_ sins, that he loved _me_, and gave himself for _me_. And the
moment a _penitent_ sinner _thus_ believes, God _pardons_ and absolves
him.”
¹Now, it being allowed, that both inward and outward holiness are the
stated conditions of final justification: what more can you desire,
who have hitherto opposed _justification by faith alone_, merely upon a
principle of conscience; because you was zealous for holiness and good
works? Do I not effectually secure these from contempt, at the same
time that I defend the doctrines of the church? I not only allow, but
vehemently contend, that none shall ever enter into glory, who is not
holy on earth, as well in heart, as _in all manner of conversation_.
I cry aloud, _Let all that have believed, be careful to maintain good
works_: and, _Let every one that nameth the name of_ Christ, _depart
from all iniquity_. I exhort even those who are conscious they do not
believe, _Cease to do evil, learn to do well. The kingdom of heaven
is at hand_; therefore, _repent, and bring forth fruits meet for
repentance_. Are not these directions the very same, in substance,
which you yourself would give to persons so circumstanced?――――
¹ Ibid. pages 13, 14, 15.
3. “Many of those who are perhaps as zealous of good works as you,
think I have allowed you too much――――Nay, my brethren, but how can we
help allowing it, if we allow the scriptures to be from God? For is it
not written, and do not you yourselves believe, _Without holiness no
man shall see the_ Lord? And how then, without fighting about words,
can we deny, that holiness is a condition of final acceptance? And
as to the first acceptance or pardon, does not all experience as well
as scripture prove, that no man ever yet truly _believed the gospel_,
who did not first _repent_.――――Repentance therefore we cannot deny, to
be necessarily previous to faith. Is it not equally undeniable, that
the running back into wilful, known sin (suppose it were drunkenness
or uncleanness) stifles that repentance or conviction? And can that
repentance come to any good issue in his soul, who resolves, not
to forgive his brother? Or who obstinately refrains from what God
convinces him is right, whether it be prayer or hearing his word? Would
you scruple yourself to tell one of these――――_Unto him that hath shall
be given: but from him that hath not_, i. e. uses it not, _shall be
taken even that which he hath_. Would you scruple to say this?――――But
in saying this, you allow all which I have said, viz. That previous to
justifying faith, there _must_ be repentance, and if opportunity permit,
_fruits meet for repentance_.”
“And yet I allow you this, That although both repentance and the fruits
thereof are in _some sense_ necessary before justification, yet neither
the one nor the other is necessary in the _same sense_, or in the _same
degree_ with faith; for in whatever moment a man believes, (in the
Christian sense of the word) he is justified, his sins are blotted out,
_his faith is counted to him for righteousness_. But it is not so, at
whatever moment he repents, or brings forth any or all the fruits of
repentance. Faith alone therefore justifies; which repentance alone
does not; much less any outward work. And consequently, none of these
are necessary to justification, in the _same degree_ with faith.
“Nor in the _same sense_. For none of these has so direct, immediate
a relation to justification as faith. This is _proximately_ necessary
thereto; repentance, _remotely_, as it is necessary to the increase
or continuance of repentance. And even in this sense, these are only
necessary on supposition――――if there be time and opportunity for
them: for in many instances there is not; but God cuts short his
work, and faith prevents the fruits of repentance. So that the general
proposition is not overthrown, but clearly established by these
concessions; and we conclude still――――That faith alone is the proximate
condition of justification.”
* 4. This is what I hold concerning justification. I am next, briefly
to observe what you object. ¹_If faith, say you, is the sole condition
of justification, then it is our sole duty._ I deny the consequence.
Faith may be (in the sense above described) the sole condition of
justification, and yet not only repentance be our duty _before_, but
all obedience _after_ we believe.
¹ Remarks, page 25.
* You go on. _If ¹good works are not conditions of our justification,
they are not conditions of our (final) salvation._ I deny the
consequence again. _Good works_ (properly so called) cannot be the
conditions of justification: because it is impossible to do any good
work, _before_ we are justified. And yet notwithstanding, good works
may be (and are) conditions of final salvation. For who will say it is
impossible to do any good work, _before_ we are finally saved?
¹ Ibid.
You proceed. ¹_Can we be saved, in the contemptuous neglect of
repentance, prayer, &c.?_ No: nor justified neither; but while they
are previous to faith, these are not allowed to be _good works_.
¹ Page 26.
You afterwards argue from my own concessions, thus.――――¹_Your notion
of true stillness is, “A patient waiting upon_ God, _by lowliness,
meekness, resignation, in all the ways of his holy law, and the works
of his commandments.――――But how is it possible to reconcile to this the
position, that these duties are not conditions of our justification?
If we are justified without them, we may be saved without them.――――This
consequence cannot be too often repeated._”
¹ Page 26.
Let it be repeated ever so often, it is good for nothing. For, far
other qualifications are required, in order to our standing before God
in glory, than were required in order to his giving us faith and pardon.
In order to this, nothing is _indispensably_ required, but repentance,
or conviction of sin. But in order to the other it is indispensably
required, that we be fully _cleansed from all sin_: that the very God
_of peace_ sanctify us wholly, even to τὸ ὁλέκληρον ἡμῶν, our entire
body, soul, and spirit. It is not necessary therefore (nor indeed
possible) that we should _before_ justification, _patiently wait upon_
God, _by lowliness, meekness, and resignation, in all the ways of
his holy law_. And yet it is necessary in the highest degree, that we
should thus wait upon him _after_ justification. Otherwise, how shall
we be _meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light_?
5. ¹Soon after you add, _In the passages last cited, you plead for the
necessity of a good life. But in others, the force of your principles
shews itself.――――An answer approved by you is, “My heart is desperately
wicked. But I have no doubt or fear. I know my Saviour loves me and I
love him.”――――Both these particulars are impossible, if the scripture
be true._
¹ Remarks, page 29.
You amaze me! Is it possible you should be ignorant, that your own
heart is desperately wicked? Yet I dare not say, either that God does
not love you; or that you do not love him.
¹_Again, You say “you described the state of those who have forgiveness
of sins, but not a clean heart”_; (not in the full, proper sense)
Very true: but even then, they had power over both inward and outward
corruptions: far from being, as you suppose, _still wedded to their
vices, and resolved to continue in them_.
¹ Page 30.
¹_In another place, after having observed, that “Sin does_ remain _in
one that is justified, though it has not_ dominion _over him,” you go
on, “But fear not, though you have an evil heart; yet a little while
and you shall be endued with power from on high, whereby ye may purify
yourselves, even as he is pure.”――――Sinners, if they believe this, may
be quite secure, and imagine they have nothing to fear, though they
continue in their iniquities.――――For God’s sake, Sir, speak out.――――If
they that have an evil heart have not, who has reason to fear_?――――All
who have not _dominion_ over sin: all who _continue in their
iniquities_. You, for one, if any sin has dominion over you. If so, I
testify against you this day, (and you will not be _quite secure, if
you believe me_.) _The wrath of God abideth on you!_
¹ Page 31.
¹_What do you mean by “Sin remains in one that is justified?” That he
is guilty of any known, wilful, habitual sin?_――――Judge by what has
gone before――――I mean the same as our church means, by “Sin remains in
the regenerate.”
¹ Page 32.
6. You proceed to another passage, which in the journal stands thus:¹
¹ Page 41.
“After we had wandered many years, in the _new path_ of _salvation
by faith and works_, about two years ago it pleased God, to shew us
the _old way_ of _salvation by faith only_. And many soon tasted of
this _salvation_, being justified freely, having _peace_ with God,
_rejoicing_ in hope of the glory of God, and having his love shed
abroad in their hearts.” Thus I define what I mean by _this salvation_,
viz. righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
But you object, ¹_Here you deny the necessity of good works, in order
to salvation_――――I deny the necessity, nay possibility, of _good works_
as previous to _this_ salvation; as previous to faith or those fruits
of faith, righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. This is
my _real sentiment_, not _a slip of my pen_, neither _any proof of my_
want of accuracy.
¹ Page 33.
7. ¹_I shall now, you say, consider the account you give in this
journal, of the doctrine of justification._
¹ Remarks, page 30.
I will recite the whole, just as it stands, together with the occasion
of it.
“In ¹the afternoon I was informed, how many who cannot, in terms, deny
it――――_explain_ justification by faith. They say 1. Justification is
_two-fold_; the _first_, in this life, the _second_, at the last day.
2. Both these are by _faith alone_, that is, by _objective faith_, or
by the merits of Christ which are the object of our faith. And this,
they say, is all that St. _Paul_ and the church mean by, _We are
justified by faith only_. But they add, 3. We are not justified by
_subjective faith_ alone, that is, by the faith which is in us. But
good works also must be added to this faith, as a _joint_ condition
both of the _first_ and _second_ justification.
¹ Journal, pages 16, 17.
“In flat opposition to this, I cannot but maintain (at least till I
have clearer light) 1. That the justification which is spoken of by
St. _Paul_ to the _Romans_, and in our articles, is not two-fold. It is
one and no more. It is the present remission of our sins, or our first
acceptance with God. 2. It is true, that the merits of Christ are the
sole cause of this our justification. But it is not true, that this
is all which St. _Paul_ and our church mean, by our being justified by
faith only: neither is it true, that either St. _Paul_ or the church
mean by faith, the merits of Christ. But 3. By our being justified by
faith only, both St. _Paul_ and the church mean, that the condition of
our justification, is faith alone, and not good works: inasmuch as all
works done before justification, have in them the nature of sin. Lastly,
That faith which is the sole condition of justification, is the faith
which is wrought in us, by the grace of God. It is a sure trust which
a man hath, that Christ hath loved _him_ and died for _him_.”
8. To the first of these propositions you object, “That ¹justification
is not only two-fold, but manifold. For a man may possibly sin many
times, and as many times be justified or forgiven.”
¹ Remarks, pages 37, 38, 39.
I grant it. I grant also, that justification some times means, a
_state_ of acceptance with God. But all this, does not in the least
affect my assertion, that “_that justification_ which is spoken of by
St. _Paul_ to the _Romans_, and by our church in the 11th, 12th, and
13th articles, is not _our acquittal_ at the last day, but the _present
remission_ of our sins.”
You add, ¹_You write in other places so variously about this matter,
that I despair to find any consistency. Once you held “a degree of
justifying faith, short of_ the full assurance _of faith, the_ abiding
witness _of the Spirit, or the clear perception that Christ abideth
in him.”――――And yet you afterwards “warned all, not to think they were
justified before they had a_ clear assurance, _That God had forgiven
their sins.”――――What difference there is between_ this clear assurance,
_and the former_ full assurance _and_ clear perception, _I know not_.
¹ Page 40.
Let us go on step by step, and you will know. _Once you held a_ “Degree
_of justifying faith, short of the_ full assurance _of faith_, the
abiding _witness of the Spirit, or the_ clear perception that Christ
abideth _in him_.” And so I hold still, and have done for some years.
_And yet you afterwards warned all, not to think they were justified,
before they had a clear assurance that God had forgiven their
sins_――――I did so――――_What difference there is between this_ clear
assurance, _and that_ full assurance and clear perception, _I know
not_――――Sir, I will tell you. The one is, an _assurance_ that _my_ sins
are forgiven, _clear_ at first, but soon clouded with doubt or fear.
The other is, such a plerophory, or full assurance, that I am forgiven,
and so clear a perception, that Christ abideth in me, as utterly
excludes all doubt and fear, and leaves them no place, no not for an
hour. So that the difference between them is as great as the difference
between the light of the morning and that of the mid-day sun.
9. On the second proposition you remark, 1. That ¹_I ought to have
said, the merits of_ Christ, _are (not the_ sole _cause, but) the_ sole
meritorious _cause of this our justification_. 2. _That_ St. _Paul and
the church, by justifying_ faith _mean, faith in the gospel and merits
of_ Christ. The very thing; so I contend, in flat opposition to those,
who say they mean, only the object of this faith.
¹ Remarks, page 41.
Upon the third proposition, “By our being justified by faith only, both
St. _Paul_ and the church mean, that the condition of our justification,
is _faith alone_ and not good works:” You say, ¹_Neither of them mean
any such thing. You greatly wrong them, in ascribing so mischievous a
sentiment to them._ Let me beg you, Sir, to have patience, and calmly
to consider, 1. What I mean by this proposition. Why should you any
longer run as uncertainly, and fight as one that beateth the air? 2.
What is advanced touching the sentiments of the church, in the tract
referred to above. Till you have done this, it would be mere loss of
time to dispute with you on this head.
¹ Ibid.
I wave therefore, for the present, the consideration of some of your
following pages. Only I cannot quite pass over that (I believe, new)
assertion, ¹_That the 13th article, intitled_,
“_Of Works done before justification_”
_does not speak of works done_ before justification, _but of works_
before grace, _which is a very different thing_! I beseech you, Sir,
to consider the 11th, 12th, and 13th articles, just as they lie, in one
view. And you cannot but see, that it is as absolutely impossible to
maintain that proposition, as it is to prove, that the 11th and 12th
articles _speak not of justification_, but of some _very different
thing_.
¹ Page 45.
10. Against that part of the 4th proposition, “faith is a sure trust
which a man hath, that Christ loved _him_ and died for _him_:” you
object, ¹_This definition is absurd; as it supposes that such a sure
trust can be in one who does not repent of his sins._――――I suppose
quite the contrary, as I have declared over and over: nor therefore is
there any such _danger_ as you apprehend.
¹ Page 48.
But you say, ¹_There is nothing distinguishing enough in this, to point
out the true justifying faith._ I grant it: supposing a man were to
write a book, and say this of it, and no more. But did you ever see any
treatise of mine, wherein I said this of faith, and no more? Nothing
whereby to distinguish _true_ faith from _false_? Touching this journal,
your own quotations prove the contrary. Yea, and I every where insist,
that we are to distinguish them by _their_ fruits, by inward and
outward _righteousness_, by the _peace_ of God filling and ruling the
heart, and by patient, active _joy_ in the Holy Ghost.
¹ Ibid.
You conclude this point; ¹_I have now, Sir, examined at large your
account of justification; and I hope fully refuted the several articles
in which you have comprized it_.――――We differ in our judgment. I do not
apprehend, you have _refuted_ any one proposition of the four. You have
indeed amended the second, by adding the word _meritorious_; for which
I give you thanks.
¹ Page 49.
11. You next give what you stile ¹_The_ Christian scheme of
justification, and afterwards point out the consequences, which you
apprehend to have attended the preaching justification by faith: the
third point into which I was to inquire.
¹ Page 50.
You open the cause thus: ¹_The denying the necessity of good works,
as the condition of justification, directly draws after it, or
rather includes in it, all manner of impiety and vice――――It has often
perplexed and disturbed the minds of men, and in the last century
occasioned great confusions in this nation――――These are points which
are ever liable to misconstructions, and have ever yet been more or
less attended with them. And it appears from what you have lately
published, that since you have preached the doctrine, it has had its
old consequences, or rather worse ones: it has been more misunderstood,
more perverted and abused than ever._
¹ Pages 1, 2.
_The denying the necessity of good works, as the condition of
justification, draws after it, or rather includes in it, all manner of
impiety and vice._ Here stands the proposition: but where is the proof?
Till that appears, I simply say, _It does not_.
_It has often perplexed and disturbed the minds of men._ And so have
many other points in St. _Paul_’s epistles.
But _these are points which are ever liable to misconstructions, and
have ever yet, more or less, been attended with them_――――And what
points of revealed religion are those, which are not ever liable to
misconstructions? Or of what material point can we say, that it has not
ever yet, more or less, been attended with them?
_In the last century it occasioned great confusions in this
nation_――――It occasioned! No; in no wise. It is demonstrable, the
occasions of those confusions were quite of another kind.
_And it appears――――That since you have preached the doctrine, it
has had its old consequences, or rather worse. It has been more
misunderstood, more perverted and abused than ever_――――What! Worse
consequences than regicide, (which you say, was the old one) and making
our whole land a field of blood? Or has it been more perverted and
abused, than when (in your account) it overturned the whole frame both
of church and state?
12. You go on. ¹_The terms of the gospel are, repentance toward God,
and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.――――But when we undervalue
either of these terms, we involve the consciences of the weak in fatal
perplexities; we give a handle to others to justify their impieties; we
confirm the enemies of religion in their prejudices._
¹ Remarks, page 2.
All this I grant. But it affects not me. For I do not undervalue either
faith or repentance.
¹_Was not irreligion and vice already prevailing enough in the nation,
but we must――――throw snares in people’s way, and root out the remains
of piety and devotion, in the weak and well-meaning? That this has been
the case, your own confessions put beyond all doubt. And you even now
hold and teach the principles, from which these dangerous consequences
do plainly and directly follow._
¹ Page 3.
_Was not irreligion and vice already prevailing enough_ (whether I
have increased them, we will consider by and by)――――_but we must throw
snares in people’s way_――――God forbid! My whole life is employed in
taking those snares out of people’s way, which the world and the devil
have thrown there――――_And root out the remains of piety and devotion
in the weak and well-meaning?_ Of whom speaketh the prophet this?
Of himself? Or of some other man?――――_Your own confessions put this
beyond all doubt_――――What? That _I root out the remains of piety and
devotion_? Not so. The sum of them all (recited above) amounts to this
and no more: “That while my brother and I were absent from _London_,
many weak men were tainted with wrong opinions: most of whom we
recovered at our return: but even those who continued therein, did
notwithstanding continue to live a holier life, than ever they did
before they heard us preach.”――――_And you even now hold the principles
from which these dangerous consequences do plainly and directly
follow_――――But I know not where to find these consequences――――Unless it
be in your title-page: there indeed I read of the very fatal tendency
of justification by faith only, _the divisions and perplexities of the_
Methodists, _and the many errors relating both to faith and practice,
which_ (as you conceive) _have already arisen among these deluded
people_.
However ¹_you charitably believe, I was not aware of these consequences
at first_. No, nor am I yet: though ’tis strange I should not, if
they _so naturally succeed that doctrine_. I will go a step farther.
I do not know, neither believe, that they ever did _succeed that
doctrine_: unless perhaps _accidentally_; as they might have succeeded
any doctrine whatsoever. And till the contrary is proved, those
consequences cannot _shew_, that _these principles are not true_.
¹ Remarks, page 4.
13. Another consequence which you charge on my preaching justification
by faith, is, the introducing the errors of the _Moravians_. ¹_Had
the people, say you, gone on in a quiet and regular practice of their
duty, as most of them did before you deluded them, it would have been
impossible for the_ Moravian _tenets to have prevailed among them.
――――But when they had been long and often used to hear good works
undervalued――――I cannot wonder――――that they should plunge into new
errors――――and wax worse and worse._
¹ Remarks, page 12.
This is one string of mistakes. _Had the people gone on in a quiet and
regular practice of their duty, as most of them did before you deluded
them――――Deluded them!_ Into what? Into the love of God and all mankind,
and a zealous care to keep his commandments. I would to God this
delusion (if such it is accounted) may spread to the four corners
of the earth! But how did most of them go on, before they were thus
deluded? Four in five, by a moderate computation, even as other
baptized Heathens; in the works of the devil, in all the ♦wretchlesness
of unclean living――――_In a quiet and regular practice of their
duty_!――――What duty? The duty of cursing and swearing? The duty of
gluttony and drunkenness? The duty of whoredom and adultery? Or of
beating one another, and any that came in their way? In this, (not very
quiet or regular) _practice, did most of_ those _go on before_ they
heard us, who have now _put off the old man with his deeds_, and are
holy in all manner of conversation.
♦ “wretchedness” replaced with “wretchlesness”
Have these, think you, _been long and often used to hear good works
undervalued_? Or, are they _prepared for_ receiving the _Moravian_
errors, by the knowledge and love of God? O Sir, the _Moravians_ know,
if you do not, that there is no such barrier under heaven against
their tenets, as those very people, whom you suppose just prepared for
receiving them.
But _complaints_ (you say) _of their errors, come very ill from you,
because you have occasioned them_. Nay, if it were so, for that very
cause they ought to _come_ from me. If I had _occasioned_ an evil,
surely I am the very person, who ought to _remove_ it as far as I can:
to recover, if possible, those who are hurt already, and to caution
others against it.
14. On some of those complaints (as you term them) you remark as
follows: ¹“_Many of those who once knew in whom they had believed_
(these are my words) _were thrown into idle reasonings, and thereby
filled with doubts and fears_.” _This_, you add, _it is ♦to be
feared, has been too much the case of the_ Methodists _in general.
――――Accordingly we find in this journal, several instances not barely
of doubts and fears, but of the most desperate despair. This is the
consequence of resting so much on sensible impressions.――――Bad men
may be led into presumption thereby: an instance of which you give,
page 66._
¹ Remarks, page 13.
♦ “be” replaced with “to be”
That instance will come in our way again. _Many of those who once knew
in whom they had believed, were thrown_ (by the _Antinomians_) _into
idle reasonings, and thereby filled with doubts and fears. This_, you
_fear, has been the case with the_ Methodists _in general_. You must
mean (to make it a parallel case) “That the generality of the people,
now termed _Methodists_, were true believers till they heard us preach;
but _were_ thereby _thrown into idle reasonings, and filled with_
needless _doubts and fears_.” Exactly contrary to truth in every
particular. For 1. They lived in open sins _till they heard us preach_,
and consequently were no better _believers_ than their father, the
devil. 2. They were not then thrown into _idle reasonings_, but into
_serious thought_, how to flee from the wrath to come. Nor 3. were
they filled with _needless doubts and fears_; but with such as were
_needful_ in the highest degree: such as actually issued in repentance
toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.
_Accordingly we find in this journal several instances, of the most
desperate despair: page 24. 36. 63._
Then I am greatly mistaken. But I will set down at length the several
instances you refer to.
Page 24. “I was a little surprised in going out of the room, at one
who catched hold of me, and said abruptly, ‘I must speak with you and
will. I have sinned against light and against love.’ (N. B. She was
soon after, if not at that very time, a common prostitute) ‘I have
sinned beyond forgiveness. I have been cursing you in my heart, and
blaspheming God, ever since I came here. I am damned. I know it. I
feel it. I am in hell. I have hell in my heart.’ I desired two or three
who had confidence in God, to join in crying to him on her behalf.
Immediately that horrible dread was taken away, and she began to see
some dawnings of hope.”
Page 38. “The attention of all was soon fixed, on poor _L―――― S――――_.
One so violently and variously torn of the evil one, did I never see
before. Sometimes, she laughed till almost strangled; and then broke
out into cursing and blaspheming; then stamped and struggled with
incredible strength, so that four or five could scarce hold her: then
cried out, ‘O eternity! eternity! O that I had no soul! O that I had
never been born!’ At last she faintly called on Christ to help her. And
the violence of her pangs ceased.”
(It should be remembered, that from that time to this, her conversation
has been as becometh the gospel.)
Page 63. _Thursday, December 25._ “I met with such a case as I do not
remember either to have known or heard of before. _L―――― S――――_ (the
same person) after many years of mourning (long before she heard of
us) was filled with peace and joy in believing. In the midst of this,
without any discernable cause, such a cloud suddenly overwhelmed her,
that she could not believe her sins were ever forgiven at all, nor that
there was any such thing as forgiveness of sins. She could not believe,
that the scriptures were true, that there was any heaven, or hell, or
angel, or spirit, or any God. One more I have since found in the same
state. (But observe, neither of these continued therein: nor did I ever
know one that did.) So sure it is, that all faith is the gift of God,
which the moment he withdraws, the evil heart of unbelief will poison
the whole soul.”
Which of these is an _instance of the most desperate despair_? Surely
the _most desperate_ of any, yea, the only one which is properly said
to be desperate at all, is that which produces instant self-murder:
which causes a poor wretch, by a sin which he cannot repent of, to rush
strait through death into hell. But that was not the case in any of
these instances; in all which we have already _seen the end of the_
Lord.
15. That I raise separate ¹_societies against the church_, is a charge
which I need not examine till the evidence is produced. You next cite a
_Moravian_’s words to me (an _Englishman_ joined with the _Moravians_)
_You have eyes full of adultery, and cannot cease from sin; you
take upon you to guide unstable souls, and lead them in the way of
damnation_: and remark, _This is only returning some of your own
treatment upon yourself. Here also you set the pattern._ At what time
and place? When and where were _such abuses as these thrown out by
me, against our universities, and against our regular clergy, not
the highest or the worthiest excepted_? I am altogether clear in
this matter, as often as it has been objected: neither do I desire to
receive any other treatment from the clergy, than they have received
from me to this day.
¹ Remarks, page 14.
You have a note at the bottom of this page which runs thus: _see page
71, 77, and 73, where some_ Methodists _said, they had heard both your
brother and you many times preach popery_.
I am afraid, you advance here a wilful untruth, purely _ad movendam
invidiam_. For you cannot but know, 1. That there is not one word
of _preaching popery_, either in the 71st or 77th page: and, 2. That
when Mr. C. and two other _predestinarians_ (as is related, page 73)
affirmed, _They had heard both my brother and me many times preach
popery_, they meant neither more nor less thereby, than the doctrine
of _universal redemption_.
16. _You proceed_, ¹Kingswood _you call_ your own house. _And when
one Mr._ C. _opposed you there, you reply to him, “You should not
have supplanted me in_ my own house, _stealing the hearts of the
people”――――The parochial clergy may call their several districts their_
own houses, _with much more propriety than you could call_ Kingswood
yours. _And yet how have you supplanted them therein, and laboured to
steal the hearts of the people――――You have suffered by the same ways
you took to discharge your spleen and malice against your brethren._
¹ Remarks, page 15.
_Your brother’s words to Mr._ C. _are――――“Whether his doctrine is true
or false is not the question. But you ought first to have fairly told
him, ‘I preach contrary to you. Are you willing notwithstanding, that
I should continue_ in your house, _gain-saying you?’ Shall I stay here
opposing you, or shall I depart?――――Think you hear this spoken to_ you
_by_ us――――_What can you justly reply?――――Again, if Mr._ C. _had said
thus to you, and you had refused him leave to stay; I ask you, whether
in such a case he would have had reason to resent such a refusal? I
think you cannot say he would. And yet how loudly have you objected our
refusing our pulpits to you!_
So you judge these to be exactly parallel cases. It lies therefore upon
me to shew, that they are not parallel at all: that there is, in many
respects, an essential difference between them.
1. _Kingswood you call your own house._ So I do, that is, the
school-house there. For I bought the ground where it stands, and paid
for the building it, partly from the contribution of my friends (one
of whom contributed fifty pounds) partly from the income of my own
fellowship. No clergyman therefore can call his parish _his own house_,
with _more propriety_ than I can call this house _mine_.
2. _Mr._ C. _opposed you there_. True: but who was Mr. _C._? One I had
sent for, to _assist me there_; a friend that was as my own soul; that
even while he opposed me, lay in my bosom. What resemblance then does
Mr. _C. thus_ opposing _me_ bear, to _me_ opposing (if I really did) a
_parochial minister_?
3. _You said to Mr._ C. _“You should not have supplanted me in my own
house, stealing the hearts of the people. Yet you have supplanted the
clergy in their own houses”――――What_ in the _same manner_ as Mr. _C._
did _me_? Have I done to any of _them_, as he has done to _me_? You
may as justly say, I have cut their throats!――――_Stealing the hearts
of their people_――――Nor are these _their_ people in the _same sense_
wherein those were _mine_, viz. Servants of the devil brought through
my ministry, to be servants and children of God.――――_You have suffered
by the same ways you took to discharge your spleen and malice against
your brethren――――To discharge your spleen and malice!_ Say, your
muskets and blunderbusses. I have just as much to do with one as the
other.
4. _Your brother said to Mr._ C. _“You ought to have told my brother
fairly, I preach contrary to you. Are you willing I should continue in
your house, gain-saying you? Shall I stay here opposing you, or shall
I depart?” Think you hear this spoken to_ you _by_ us――――_What can you
justly reply_?――――I can justly reply, “Sir, Mr. _C._’s case totally
differs from _your’s_. Therefore it makes absolutely nothing to your
purpose.”
17. A farther consequence (you think) of my preaching this doctrine, is
_the ¹introducing that of absolute predestination. And whenever these
errors_, say you, _gain ground, there can be no wonder, that confusion,
presumption and despair, many very shocking instances of all which
you give us among your followers, should be the consequences_.――――You
should by all means have specified a few of those instances, or at
least, the pages where they occur. Till this is done, I can look upon
this assertion, as no other than a flourish of your pen.
¹ Remarks, page 52.
To conclude this head. You roundly affirm once for all, ¹_The grossest
corruptions have ever followed the spreading of this tenet. The
greatest heats and animosities have been raised thereby. The widest
errors have been thus occasioned. And in proportion to its getting
ground, it has never failed――――to perplex the weak, to harden the
wicked, and to please the prophane. Your journal is a proof, that these
terrible consequences have of late prevailed, perhaps more than ever._
――――Suppose that journal gives a true account of facts (which you seem
not to deny) could you find there no other fruits of my preaching, than
these terrible ones you here mention!
“O who so blind, as he that _will_ not see?”
¹ Page 51.
18. But that we may not still talk at large, let us bring this question,
into as narrow a compass as possible. Let us go no farther, as to time,
than seven years last past; as to place, than _London_ and the parts
adjoining: as to persons, than you and me, _Thomas Church_ preaching
one doctrine, _John Wesley_ the other. Now then let us consider with
meekness and fear, what have been the consequences of each doctrine?
* You have preached _justification by faith and works_, at _Battersea_
and _St. Ann’s, Westminster_; while I preached _justification by faith
alone_, near _Moorfields_, and at _Short’s Gardens_. I beseech you then
to consider, in the secret of your heart, how many sinners have you
converted to God? By their fruits we shall know them. This is a plain
rule. By this test let them be tried. How many outwardly and habitually
wicked men, have you brought to uniform habits of outward holiness?
’Tis an awful thought! Can you instance in a hundred? In fifty? In
twenty? In ten?――――If not, take heed unto yourself and to your doctrine.
It cannot be, that both are right before God.
* Consider now (I would not speak; but I dare not refrain) what have
been the consequences of even my preaching the other doctrine? By the
fruits shall we know those of whom I speak: even the cloud of witnesses,
who at this hour experience the gospel I preach, to be the power of
God unto salvation. The habitual drunkard, that was, is now temperate
in all things. The whoremonger, now flees fornication. He that stole,
steals no more, but works with his hands. He that cursed or swore,
perhaps at every sentence, has now learned to serve the Lord with fear,
and rejoice unto him with reverence. Those formerly inslaved to various
habits of sin, are now brought to uniform habits of holiness. These are
demonstrable facts. I can name the men, with their several places of
abode. One of them was an avowed _Atheist_ for many years; some were
_Jews_; a considerable number _Papists_: the greatest part of them as
much strangers to the form, as to the power of godliness.
When you have weighed these things touching the consequences of _my
preaching_, on the one hand, (somewhat different from those set down in
your remarks) and of _your preaching_ on the other, I would earnestly
recommend the following words to your deepest consideration: _Beware
of false prophets; ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather
grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree_ (every
true prophet or teacher) _bringeth forth good fruit――――Every tree that
bringeth not forth good fruit, is hewn down and cast into the fire?_¹
¹ Matthew vi. 15, &c.
III. 1. Having spoken more largely than I designed, on the principle
_I hold in common with the Moravians_, I shall touch very briefly on
¹_those errors_ (so called) which, you say, I _hold, more than theirs_.
¹ Remarks, page 55.
“You name, as the first, my holding, ‘that a ¹man may have a _degree_
of justifying faith, before he has, in the _full, proper_ sense, a new,
a _clean heart_’.”
I have so often explained this, that I cannot throw away time in adding
any more now: only this, That the moment a sinner is justified, his
_heart_ is _cleansed_ in a _low degree_. But yet he has not a _clean
heart_, in the _full, proper_ sense, till he is made _perfect in love_.
2. Another error you mention, is this ¹_doctrine of perfection_. To
save you from a continued _ignoratio elenchi_, I wave disputing on this
point also, till you are better acquainted with my real sentiments. I
have declared them on that head again and again; particularly in the
sermon on _Christian Perfection_.
¹ Page 60.
3. Into this fallacy you plunge from the beginning to the end of what
you speak on my third _error_ (so you term it) relating to the Lord’s
_supper_; confuting, as mine, ¹notions which I know not. I cannot think
any farther answer is needful here, than the bare recital of my own
words.
¹ Remarks, pages 56, 57.
¹“_Friday, June 27._ I preached on, _Do this in remembrance of me_.――――
¹ Journal, pages 46, 47.
“It has been diligently taught among us, that none but those who are
_converted_, who _have received the Holy Ghost_, who are believers in
the full sense, ought to communicate.
“But experience shews the gross falshood of that assertion, That the
Lord’s supper is not a _converting_ ordinance. Ye are witnesses. For
many now present know, the very beginning of your _conversion_ to God,
(perhaps, in some the first deep _conviction_) was ♦wrought at the
Lord’s supper. Now one single instance of this kind, overthrows that
whole assertion.
♦ “brought” replaced with “wrought” per Errata
“The falshood of the other assertion appears both from scripture
――――precept and example. Our Lord commanded those very men who were
then _unconverted_, who had _not_ yet _received the Holy Ghost_, who
(in the full sense of the word) were not _believers_, to _do this
in remembrance of him_. Here the precept is clear. And to these he
delivered the elements with his own hands. Here is example equally
indisputable.
“_Saturday 28._ I shewed at large, 1. That the Lord’s supper
was ordained by God, to be a _means of conveying_ to men, either
_preventing_, or _justifying_, or _sanctifying grace_, according to
their several necessities. 2. That the persons for whom it was ordained,
are all those who know and feel that they _want_ the _grace_ of God,
either to _restrain_ them from sin, or to _shew their sins forgiven_,
or to _renew their souls_ in the image of God. 3. That inasmuch as
we come to his table, not to _give_ him any thing, but to _receive_
whatsoever he sees best for us, there is _no previous preparation_
indispensably necessary; but _a desire_ to receive whatsoever he
pleases to give. And 4. That _no fitness_ is required at the time of
communicating, but _a sense of our state_, of our utter sinfulness
and helplessness: every one who knows he is _fit for hell_, being
just _fit to come to_ Christ, in this as well as all other ways of his
appointment.”
4. ¹_A stoical insensibility_, you add, _is the next error I have to
charge you with. You say, “The servants of_ God _suffer nothing,” and
suppose, that we ought to be here so free, as in the strongest pain,
not once to desire to have a moment’s ease_.
¹ Remarks, page 58.
_At the end of one of your hymns, you seem to carry this notion to the
very height of extravagance and presumption. You say_,
“Doom, if thou canst, to endless pains,
And drive me from thy face.”
_A stoical insensibility is the next error I have to charge you
with_――――And how do you support the charge? Why thus――――_You say ¹“The
servants of_ God _suffer nothing_.” And can you possibly misunderstand
these words, if you read those that immediately follow? “His body
was well nigh torn asunder with pain. But God made all his bed in his
sickness. So that he was continually giving thanks to God, and making
his boast of his praise.”
¹ Journal, page 59.
_You suppose, we ought to be so free, as in the strongest pain, not
once to desire to have a moment’s ease_――――O Sir, with what eyes did
you read those words?
¹“I dined with one who told me in all simplicity, Sir, I thought last
week, there could be no such rest as you describe; none in this world,
wherein we should be so free, as not to desire ease in pain. But God
has taught me better: for on _Friday_ and _Saturday_, when I was in the
strongest pain, I never once had one moment’s desire of ease, but only
that the will of God might be done.” Do I say here, that _we ought not,
in the strongest pain, once to desire to have a moment’s ease_?――――What
a frightful distortion of my words is this? What I say is, “A serious
person affirmed to me, that God kept her for two days in such a state.”
And why not? Where is the absurdity?
¹ Page 51.
_At the end of one of your hymns, you seem to carry this notion, to the
very height of extravagancy and presumption. You say_,
“Doom, if thou canst, to endless pains,
And drive me from thy face.”
“If thou canst”――――i. e. _If thou canst_ deny thyself, _if thou canst_
forget to be gracious, _if thou canst_ cease to be truth and love. So
the lines both preceding and following fix the sense. I see nothing of
_stoical insensibility_, neither of _extravagancy_ or _presumption_ in
this.
5. Your last charge is, that I am _guilty of enthusiasm to the
highest degree. ¹Enthusiasm_ (you say) _is a false persuasion of an
extraordinary divine assistance, which leads men on to such conduct
as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance
――――An enthusiast is then sincere, but mistaken. His intentions are
good――――but his actions most abominable. Instead of making the word of_
God _the rule of his actions, he follows only that secret impulse which
is owing to a warm imagination――――Instead of judging of his spiritual
estate by the improvement of his heart, he rests only on extacies,
&c. He is very liable to err, as not considering things coolly and
carefully. He is very difficult to be convinced, by reason and argument,
as he acts upon a supposed principle superior to it, the directions
of_ God’s _Spirit. Whoever opposes him is charged with ♦resisting the
Spirit. His own dreams must be regarded as oracles.――――Whatever he does,
is to be accounted the work of_ God. _Hence he talks in the stile of
inspired persons: and applies scripture phrases to himself, without
attending to their original meaning, or once considering the difference
of times and circumstances._
¹ Remarks, pages 60, 61.
♦ “rejecting” replaced with “resisting” per Errata
You have drawn, Sir, (in the main) a true picture of an _enthusiast_.
But it is no more like _me_, than I am like a centaur. Yet you say
_they are these very things which have been charged upon you, and which
you could never yet disprove_: I will try for once; and to that end,
will go over these articles, one by one.
Enthusiasm _is, a false persuasion of an extraordinary divine
assistance, which leads men on to such conduct as is only to be
justified by the supposition of such assistance_――――Before this touches
_me_, you are to prove (which I conceive you have not done yet) that
_my_ conduct is such, as is only to be justified by the supposition
of an extraordinary divine assistance. _An enthusiast is then sincere,
but mistaken_, that I am _mistaken_ remains also to be proved――――_His
intentions are good; but his actions most abominable._ Sometimes they
are; yet not _always_. For there may be _innocent_ madmen. But what
actions of mine are _most abominable_? I wait to learn. _Instead of
making the word of_ God _the rule of his actions, he follows only his
secret impulse_.――――In the whole compass of language, there is not a
proposition which less belongs to me than this. I have declared again
and again, that I make the word of God the rule of all my actions:
and that I no more follow any _secret impulse_ instead thereof, than
I follow _Mahomet_ or _Confucius_.
“Not even a word or look
Do I approve or own,
But by the model of thy book,
Thy sacred book alone.”
_Instead of judging of his spiritual estate by the improvement of his
heart, he rests only on extacies_――――Neither is this my case. I rest
not on them at all. Nor did I ever experience any. I do judge of my
spiritual estate by the improvement of my heart and the tenor of my
life conjointly. _He is very liable to err_――――So indeed I am. I find
it every day more and more. But I do not yet find, that this is owing
to my want of _considering things coolly and carefully_. Perhaps you
do not know many persons (excuse my simplicity in speaking it) who more
carefully consider every step they take. Yet I know I am not cool or
careful enough. ♦May God supply this and all my wants! _He is very
difficult to be convinced, by reason and argument, as he acts upon a
supposed principle superior to it, the direction of God’s Spirit._――――I
am very difficult to be convinced, by dry blows or hard names; (both
of which I have not wanted:) but not, by reason and argument. At least
that difficulty cannot spring from the cause you mention. For I claim
no other direction of God’s Spirit, than is common to all believers.
_Whoever opposes him is charged with ♠resisting the Spirit._――――What!
whoever opposes _me, John Wesley_? Do I charge every such person with
rejecting the Spirit? No more than I charge him with robbing on the
highway. I cite you yourself, to confute your own words. For do I
charge _you_ with rejecting the Spirit? _His own dreams must be
regarded as oracles._――――Whose? I desire neither my dreams nor my
waking thoughts, may be regarded at all, unless just so far as they
agree with the oracles of God. _Whatever he does is to be accounted
the works of God._――――You strike quite wide of _me_ still. I never
said so of what I do. I never thought so. Yet I trust what I do is
pleasing to God. _Hence he talks in the stile of_ inspired _persons_.
――――No otherwise inspired, than you are, if you love God. _And
applies scripture phrases to himself, without attending to their
original meaning, or once considering the difference of times and
circumstances._ I am not conscious of any thing like this. I apply
no scripture phrase either to myself or any other, without carefully
considering both ♣the _original_ meaning, and the _secondary_ sense,
wherein (allowing for different times and circumstances) it may be
applied to ordinary Christians.
♦ “My” replaced with “May” per Errata
♠ “rejecting” replaced with “resisting” per Errata
♣ “their” replaced with “the” per Errata
6. So much for the bulk of your charge. But it concerns me likewise,
to gather up the fragments of it. You say, ¹_We desire no more, than
to try your sentiments and proceedings, by the written word_. Agreed.
Begin when and where you please. _We find there good works as strongly
insisted on as faith._――――I do as strongly insist on them as on
faith. But each in its own order. _We find all railing, &c. condemned
therein._――――True; and so you may in all I write or preach. _We are
assured, that the doing what God commands, is the sure way of knowing,
that we have received his Spirit._――――We have doubtless received it,
if we love God (as he commands) with all our heart, mind, soul and
strength: _And not by any sensible impulses or feelings whatsoever.
――――Any sensible impulses whatsoever?_ Do you then exclude _all
sensible impulses_? Do you reject _inward feelings_ toto genere? Then
you reject both the _love_ of God and of our neighbour. For if these
cannot be _inwardly felt_, nothing can. You reject all _joy_ in the
Holy Ghost. For if we cannot be sensible of this, it is no joy at all.
You reject the peace of God, which if it be not felt in the inmost soul,
is a dream, a notion, an empty name. You therefore reject the whole
_inward kingdom of_ God, that is, in effect, the whole gospel of Jesus
Christ.
¹ Remarks, page 63.
You have therefore yourself abundantly shewn (what I do not _insinuate_,
but proclaim on the house-top) that I am charged with _enthusiasm_, for
_asserting the power_ (as well as the form) _of godliness_.
7. You go on ¹_The character of the Enthusiast above drawn, will fit,
I believe, all such of the Methodists as can be thought sincere_.――――I
believe not. I have tried it on one, and it fitted him, just as
_Saul_’s armour did _David_. However, _a few instances_ of enthusiasm,
you undertake to shew _in this very journal_.
¹ Remarks, page 63.
And first, _You give us one_ (these are your words) _of a private
revelation, which you seem to pay great credit to_. You partly relate
this, and then remark, _What enthusiasm is here? To represent the
conjectures of a woman, whose brain appears to have been too much
heated, as if they had been owing to a particular and miraculous spirit
of prophecy?_――――Descant, Sir, as you please on this _enthusiasm_;
on the credit I paid to this private revelation; and my _representing
the conjectures_ of this brain-sick woman, as owing to the miraculous
_power of the Spirit of_ God. And when you have done I will desire you
to read that passage once more, where you will find my express words
are (introducing this account) “_Sunday, 11._ ¹I met with a surprizing
instance, of the _power of the devil_.” Such was the _credit_ I paid to
this revelation! All which I ascribe to _the Spirit of_ God _is_, the
enabling her to strive against the _power of the devil_, and at length
restoring peace to her soul.
¹ Journal, page 66.
8. As a second instance of enthusiasm, you cite those words, “¹I
expounded out of the fulness which was given me.” The whole sentence
is, “Out of the fulness that was given me, I expounded those words of
St. _Paul_ (indeed of every true believer) _To me to live is Christ,
and to die is gain_.” I mean, I had than a _fuller_, deeper sense of
that great truth, than I _ordinarily_ have. And I still think it right,
to ascribe this, not to myself, but to the _giver of every good and
perfect gift_.
¹ Page 65.
You relate what follows as a third ¹_very extraordinary instance of
enthusiasm_. “Tuesday, ²February 17. I left _London_. In the afternoon
I reached _Oxford_, and leaving my horse there (for he was tired, and
the horse-road exceeding bad, and my business admitted of no delay) set
out on foot for _Stanton-harcourt_. The night overtook me in about an
hour, accompanied with heavy rain. Being wet and weary, and not well
knowing my way, I could not help saying in my heart, (tho’ ashamed of
my want of resignation to God’s will) O that thou would’st _stay the
bottles of heaven_! Or at least, give me light or an honest guide! Or
some help, in the manner thou knowest; presently the rain ceased: the
moon broke out, and a friendly man overtook me, who set me on his own
horse, and walked by my side, till we came to Mr. _Gambold_’s door.”
¹ Remarks, page 65.
² Journal, pages 69, 70.
Here you remark, _If you would not have us look on this as miraculous,
there is nothing in it worthy of being related_.――――It may be so; let
it pass then as a trifle not worth relating: but still it is no proof
of enthusiasm. For I _would not have you look on it as miraculous_. I
do not myself look upon it as such; but as a signal instance of God’s
_particular providence_ over all those who call upon him.
9. ¹_In the same spirit of enthusiasm_ (you go on, citing this as a
fourth instance) _You describe heaven as executing judgments, immediate
punishments, on those who oppose you. You say “Mr. Molther was taken
ill this day. I believe it was the hand of God that was upon him”_――――I
do. But I do not say, as a _judgment from_ God, for opposing me. That
_you_ say for me. _Again, you tell us of “one who was exceeding angry,
at those who pretended to be in fits; and was just going to kick one
of them out of the way, when she dropt down herself and was in violent
agonies for an hour.”――――And you say you left her――――under a deep sense
of the_ just judgment _of_ God.――――So she termed it, and so I believe
it was. But observe. Not for _opposing me.――――Again, you mention ‘as an
♦awful providence, the case of a poor wretch, who was last week cursing
and blaspheming, and had boasted to many, that he would come again on
Sunday, and no man should stop his mouth then_ (His mouth was stopped
before, in the midst of the most horrid blasphemies, by asking him,
“If he was stronger than God?”) _But on Friday_, God _laid his hand
upon him, and on Sunday he was buried_.’――――I do look on this, as a
manifest judgment of God, on a hardened sinner, for his complicated
wickedness.――――²_Again, “one being just going to beat his wife, (which
he frequently did)_ God _smote him in a moment: so that his hand
dropped, and he fell down upon the ground, having no more strength
than a new-born child.”_――――And can you, Sir, _consider this, as one
of the common dispensations of providence_? Have you known a parallel
one in your life? But it was never cited by me, as it is by you, as _an
immediate punishment_ on a man for _opposing me_. You have no authority
from any sentence or word of mine, for putting such a construction upon
it: no more than you have for that strange intimation (how remote both
from justice and charity!) That _I ♠paralleled these cases, with those
of_ Ananias and Sapphira, _or of_ Elymas _the sorcerer_!
¹ Remarks, page 66.
♦ “aweful” replaced with “awful”
² Page 67.
♠ “paralled” replaced with “paralleled”
10. You proceed to what you account a 5th instance of enthusiasm.
¹_With regard to people’s falling in fits, it is plain, you look upon
both the disorders and removals of them to be supernatural._ It is not
quite plain. I look upon some of these cases as wholly natural: on the
rest, as mixt; both the disorder and the removal being partly natural
and partly not. Six of these you pick out from, it may be, two hundred,
and add, _From all which you leave no room to doubt, that you would
have these cases considered, as those of the demoniacks in the New
Testament; in order, I suppose, to parallel your supposed cures of
them, with the highest miracles of Christ and his disciples_.――――I
should once have wondered at your making such a supposition: but I now
wonder at nothing of this kind.――――Only be pleased to remember till
this supposition is made good, it is no _confirmation_ at all _of my
enthusiasm_.
¹ Remarks, pages 68, 69.
You then attempt to account for those fits, by _obstructions or
irregularities of the blood and spirits; hysterical disorder; watchings,
fastings; closeness of rooms, great crowds, violent heat_. And lastly,
by _terrors, perplexities and doubts, in weak and well-meaning men_;
which, you think, in many of the cases before us, have _quite overset
their understandings_.
As to each of the rest, let it go as far as it can go. But I require
proof of the last way whereby you would account for these disorders.
Why, _The instances_, you say, _of religious madness, have much
increased since you began to disturb the world_.¹ I doubt the fact.
Although if these instances had increased lately, ’tis easy to account
for them another way. _Most have heard of or known several of the_
Methodists _thus driven to distraction_.――――You may have _heard_ of
five hundred. But how many have you _known_? Be pleased to name eight
or ten of them. I cannot find them, no not one of them to this day,
either man, woman or child. I find some indeed, whom _you told_, “They
_would be distracted_, if they continued to follow these men:” and whom
at that time, you threw into much doubt, and terror, and perplexity.
But though they did continue to hear them ever since, they are not
distracted yet.
¹ Remarks, pages 68, 69.
As for ¹_the abilities, learning and experience_ of Dr. M――――, if you
are personally acquainted with him, you do well to testify them. But if
not, permit me to remind you of the old advice,
Qualem commendes, etiam atq; etiam aspice; ne mox
Incutiant aliena tibi peccata pudorem.
¹ Remarks, page 70.
In endeavouring to account for the people’s recovery from those
disorders you say, ¹_I shall not dispute how far prayer may have
naturally a good effect_. (Nay, I am persuaded, you will not dispute
but it may have supernatural good effects also.) _However, there is no
need of supposing these recoveries miraculous._――――Who affirms there
is? I have set down the facts just as they were, passing no judgment
upon them myself, (consequently here is no foundation for the charge
of _enthusiasm_,) and leaving every man else to judge as he pleases.
¹ Page 71.
11. The next passage you quote as a proof of my _enthusiasm_, taking
the whole together runs thus: “After ¹communicating at St. _James_’s,
our parish church, I visited several of the sick. Most of them were ill
of the spotted fever, which they informed me, had been extremely mortal,
few persons recovering from it. But God had said, _Hitherto shalt thou
come_. I believe there was not one with whom we were, but recovered.”
――――On which you comment thus; _Here is indeed no intimation of any
thing miraculous_.――――No! Not so much as an intimation! Then, why is
this cited as an instance of my _enthusiasm_? Why, _You seem to desire
to have it believed, that an extraordinary blessing attended your
prayers: whereas, I believe they would not have failed of an equal
blessing and success, had they had the prayers of their own parish
ministers_.――――I believe this argument will have extraordinary success,
if it convince any one, that I am an _enthusiast_.
¹ Journal, page 61.
12. You add, ¹_I shall give but one account more, and this is, what
you give of yourself_. The sum whereof is, “At two several times, being
ill and in violent pain, I prayed to God and found immediate ease.”
I did so. I assert the fact still. _Now if these_ (you say) _are not
miraculous cures, all this is rank_ enthusiasm.
¹ Remarks, page 72.
I will put your argument in form:
He that believes those are miraculous cures which are not so, is a rank
enthusiast:
But you believe those to be miraculous cures which are not so:
Therefore, you are a rank enthusiast.
Before I answer, I must know, what you mean by miraculous? If you term
every thing so, which is not strictly accountable for, by the ordinary
course of natural causes; then I deny the latter part of the minor
proposition. And unless you can make this good, unless you can prove
the effects in question are strictly accountable for, by the _ordinary
course_ of natural causes, your argument is nothing worth.
You conclude this head with, ¹_Can you work miracles.――――All your
present pretences to the Spirit, till they are proved by miracles,
cannot be excused, or acquitted from_ enthusiasm.
¹ Page 73.
My short answer is this: I pretend to the Spirit just so far, as
is essential to a state of salvation. And cannot I be acquitted
from enthusiasm, till I prove by miracles, that I am in a state of
salvation?
13. We now draw to a period. _The ¹consequences of_ Methodism (you say)
i. e. of our preaching this doctrine, _which have hitherto appeared,
are bad enough to induce you to leave it. It has in fact introduced
many disorders, Enthusiasm, Antinomianism, Calvinism, a neglect and
contempt of God’s ordinances, and almost all other duties_.
¹ Page 75.
* That whenever God revives his work upon earth, many tares will spring
up with the wheat, both the word of God gives us ground to expect, and
the experience of all ages. But where, Sir, have you been, that you
have heard of the tares only? And that you rank among the consequences
of my preaching, _A neglect and contempt of God’s ordinances, and
almost of all duties_? Does not the very reverse appear, at _London_,
at _Bristol_, at _Kingswood_, at _Newcastle_? In every one of which
places, multitudes of those (I am able to name the persons) who before
lived in a thorough neglect and contempt of God’s ordinances and all
duties, do now zealously discharge their duties to God and man, and
walk in all his ordinances blameless.
* And as to those drunkards, whoremongers, and other servants of
the devil, as they were before, who heard us a while and then fell
to the _Calvinists_ or _Moravians_: are they not even now in a far
better state, than they were before they heard us? Admit they are in
error, yea and die therein, yet who dares affirm, they will perish
everlastingly? But had they died in those sins, we are sure they had
fallen into _the fire that never shall be quenched_.
I hope, Sir, you will rejoice in considering this, how much their gain
still outweighs their loss: as well as in finding the sentiments you
could not reconcile together, clearly and consistently explained. I am
very willing to consider whatever farther you have to offer. May God
give us both a right judgment in all things! I am persuaded you will
readily join in this prayer with,
_Reverend Sir_,
_Your servant for Christ’s sake_,
JOHN WESLEY.
_Bristol, February 2,
1744‒5_.
The PRINCIPLES of a
METHODIST
Farther explained:
Occasioned by the Rev. Mr. CHURCH’s
_Second Letter_ to Mr. WESLEY.
In a _Second Letter_ to that GENTLEMAN.
Reverend Sir,
* 1. AT the time that I was reading your former letter, I expected to
hear from you again. And I was not displeased with the expectation;
believing it would give me a fresh opportunity of weighing the
sentiments I might have too lightly espoused, and the actions which
perhaps I had not enough considered. Viewing things in this light, I
cannot but esteem you, not an enemy, but a friend; and one, in some
respects, better qualified to do me real service than those whom the
world accounts so; who may be hindered, by their prejudice in my favour,
either from observing what is reproveable, or from using that freedom
and plainness of speech, which are requisite to convince me of it.
2. It is at least as much with a view to learn myself, as to shew
others (what I think) the truth, that I intend to set down a few
reflections on some parts of the tract you have lately published. I
say, _some_ parts; for it is not my design to answer every sentence
in this, any more than in the former. Many things I pass over, because
I think them true; many more, because I think them not material:
and some, because I am determined not to engage in a useless, if not
hurtful controversy.
* 3. Fear indeed is one cause of my declining this: fear (as I said
elsewhere¹) not of my _adversary_, but of _myself_. I fear my own
spirit, lest “I fall where many mightier have been slain.” I never
knew one (or but one) man write controversy with what I thought a right
spirit. Every disputant seems to think (as every soldier) that he may
hurt his opponent as much as he can; nay, that he _ought_ to do his
worst to him, or he cannot make the best of his own cause: that so he
do not bely, or wilfully misrepresent him, he must expose him as much
as he is able. It is enough, we suppose, if we do not shew heat or
passion against our adversary. But, not to despite him, or endeavour
to make others do so, is quite a work of supererogation.
¹ In the preface to the answer to Mr. _Tucker_.
* 4. But ought these things to be so? (I speak on the Christian scheme.)
Ought we not to love our neighbour as ourselves? And does a man cease
to be our neighbour, because he is of a different opinion? Nay, and
declares himself so to be? Ought we not, for all this, to do to him as
we would he should do to us? But do we ourselves love to be _exposed_,
or set in the worst light? Would we willingly be treated with contempt?
If not, why do we treat others thus? And yet, who scruples it? Who does
not hit every blot he can, however foreign to the merits of the cause?
Who, in controversy, casts the mantle of love over the nakedness of his
brother? Who keeps steddily and uniformly to the question, without ever
striking at the person? Who shews in every sentence, that he loves his
brother only less than the truth?
5. I fear neither you nor I have attained to this. I believe brotherly
love might have found a better construction than that of _unfairness_,
_art_, or _disingenuity_, to have put either on my not answering _every
part_ of your book (a thing which never once entered my thoughts) or
on my not reciting _all the words_ of those parts which I did answer.
I cannot yet perceive any blame herein. I still account it _fair_ and
_ingenuous_, to pass over both what I believe is right, and what I
believe is not dangerously wrong. Neither can I see any _disingenuity_
at all, in quoting only _that part_ of any sentence, against which
I conceive the objection lies: nor in _abridging_ any part of any
treatise to which I reply, whether in the author’s, or in my own words.
6. If indeed it were so abridged as to alter the sense, this would be
_unfair_. And if this were designedly done, it would be _artful_ and
_disingenuous_. But I am not conscious of having done this at all;
although you speak as if I had done it a thousand times. And yet I
cannot undertake now, either to transcribe your whole book, or every
page or paragraph, which I answer. But I must generally abridge before
I reply: and that not only to save time (of which I have none to spare)
but often to make the argument clearer, which is best understood when
couched in few words.
7. You complain also, of my mentioning, all at once, sentences which
you placed at a distance from each other. I do so; and I think it
quite _fair_ and _ingenuous_, to lay together what was before scattered
abroad. For instance: you now speak of the conditions of justification,
in the 18th and following pages: again, from the 89th to the 102d: and
yet again, in the 127th page. Now I have not leisure to follow you to
and fro. Therefore what I say on one head, I set in one place.
* * * * *
I. 1. This premised, I come to the letter itself. I begin, as before,
with the case of the _Moravians_: of whom you say, ¹_I collected
together the character which you had given of these men; the errors
and vices which you had charged upon them, and the mischiefs――――they
had done among your followers. And I proved, that, in several respects,
you had been the occasion of this mischief; and are therefore, in some
measure, accountable for it. Let us see what answer you give to all
this._ 2d letter, page 79.
¹ Mr. _Church_’s words are printed in _italick_.
“_With regard to the denying degrees in faith, you mentioned, that
the_ Moravian _church was cleared from this mistake.” But did you
not mention this as one of the tenets of the_ Moravians? _Do you
not say, that “you could not agree with Mr._ Spangenberg, _that none
has any faith, so long as he is liable to any doubt or fear?” Do not
you represent Mr._ Molther, _and other_ Moravians _in_ England, _as
teaching the same? In short, I have not charged the_ Moravian _church
with any thing; but only repeat after you. And if you have accused
them, when you knew them to be guiltless, you must bear the blame._
_“They do use the ordinances of God with reverence and godly
fear.”――――You have charged Mr._ Spangenberg _and Mr._ Molther _with
teaching, that we ought to abstain from them. And the same you say in
general of the_ Moravian _brethren, in your letter to them.――――“But
Mr._ Molther _was quickly after recalled into_ Germany.” _This might
be on other accounts. You do not say it was out of any dislike of his
doctrines or proceedings. Nor indeed can you, consistently with your
next words: “The great fault of the_ Moravian _church seems to lie, in
not openly disclaiming all he had said: which in all probability they
would have done, had they not leaned to the same opinion._”
_You “never knew but one of the_ Moravian _church affirm, that a
believer does not grow in holiness.” But who was this? No less a person
than Count_ Zinzendorf, _their great bishop and patron, whose authority
is very high, all in all with them, and to whom you think they pay_ too
much _regard._”
2. This is the whole of your reply to this part of my answer. I will
now consider it, part by part.
First, _With regard to the denying degrees in faith, you mentioned,
“that the_ Moravian _church was cleared from this mistake.” But did
you not mention this as one of the tenets of the_ Moravians?――――No; not
of the _Moravians_ in general?――――_Do you not say, that you “could not
agree with Mr._ Spangenberg, _that none has any faith, so long as he is
liable to any doubt or fear?_”――――I do say so still. But _Spangenberg_
is not the _Moravian church_.――――_Do you not represent Mr._ Molther,
_and other_ Moravians _in_ England, _as teaching the same?_――――I do?
three or four in all. But neither are these, the _Moravian church_.
――――_In short, I have not charged the_ Moravian church _with any thing;
but only repeat after you._――――Indeed you have, in the very case before
us. You charge them, _with denying degrees in faith_. I do not charge
them herewith. I openly cleared them from any such charge near six
years ago.――――_If therefore you have accused them when you knew them to
be guiltless, you must bear the blame._――――In this case, I must intreat
_you_ to bear it in my stead. For I have not _accused them_ (the
_Moravian church_.) It is _you_ that have accused them. I have again
and again declared, they are _not guilty_.
Secondly, “_They do use the ordinances of God with reverence and godly
fear_.”――――_You have charged Mr._ Spangenberg _and Mr._ Molther _with
teaching, that we ought to abstain from them. _――――That _we_? No. That
_unbelievers_ ought. The assertion relates to them only.――――_And the
same you say in general of the_ Moravian _brethren, in your letter._
――――I say, they hold, that “_unbelievers_ ought to abstain from them.”
But yet I know and bear witness, they use them themselves, and that
with reverence and godly fear?”――――“_Mr._ Molther _was quickly after
recalled to_ Germany.”――――_This might be on other accounts. You do not
say, it was out of any dislike of his doctrines or proceedings._――――I
do not say so; because I am not sure; but I believe it was out of a
dislike to _some_ of his proceedings, if not, of his doctrines too.
――――_Nor indeed can you, consistently with your next words: “The great
fault of the_ Moravian church _seems to lie, in not openly disclaiming
all he had said”_ (relating to this head.)――――They did _privately
disclaim_ what he had said, of degrees in faith. But I think, that was
not enough. And I still believe, they would have done more, “had they
not leaned themselves to the same opinion,” touching the ordinances.
Thirdly, _You “never knew but one of the_ Moravian church _affirm, that
a believer does not grow in holiness.”――――But who was this? No less a
person than Count_ Zinzendorf, _their great bishop and patron, whose
authority is very high, all in all with them, and to whom you think
they pay_ “too much _regard_.”――――Do you apprehend, where the stress
of the argument lies? I never heard one _Moravian_ affirm this, but
the Count alone; and him only once; and that once was in the heat of
dispute. And hence I inferred, it is not a doctrine of the _Moravian_
church: nay, I doubt, whether it be the Count’s own settled judgment.
3. But I may not dismiss this passage yet. It is now my turn to
complain of unfair usage; of the exceeding lame, broken, imperfect
manner, wherein you cite my words. For instance; your citation runs
thus: You “_never knew but one of the_ Moravian _church affirm, that
a believer does not grow in holiness_.”――――Whereas my words are these,
“I never knew one of the _Moravian_ church, but that single person,
affirm, that a believer does not grow in holiness: and perhaps he would
not affirm it on reflection.”――――Now why was the former part of the
sentence changed, and the latter quite left out?――――Had the whole stood
in your tract, just as it does in mine, it must have appeared, I do not
here charge the _Moravian church_.
I complain also, of your manner of replying to the first article of
this very paragraph. For you do not cite so much as one line of that
answer, to which you profess to reply. My words are, “You ought not to
charge the _Moravian_ church with the first of these (errors) since in
the very page from which you quote those words, _There is no justifying
faith, where there ever is any doubt_, that note occurs, (viz. 4
_journal_, page 105.) ‘In the preface to the second journal, the
_Moravian_ church is cleared from this mistake.’”――――If you had cited
these words, could you possibly have subjoined, _I have not charged
the_ Moravian _church with any thing; but only repeat after you_!
♦4. I have now considered one page of your reply, in the manner you
seem to require. But sure you cannot expect I should follow you thus,
step by step, through an hundred and forty pages! If you should then
think it worth while, to make a second reply, and to follow me in the
same manner, we might write indeed; but who would read?――――I return
therefore to what I proposed at first, _viz._ To touch only on what
seems of the most importance, and leave the rest just as it lies.
♦ The duplicated number 4. here is probably shown in error.
4. You say, (_page 80._) _With regard to subtlety, evasion, and
disguise, you_ now _would have it thought, that you only found this
“in many of them; not in all, nor in most.”――――You_ now _would have it
thought!_ Yes, and _always_, as well as _now_. For my original charge
was, (_4 journal_, page 104.) “I have found this, in many of you,
_i. e._ much subtlety, much evasion, and disguise.”――――But you add,
_let the reader judge from the following passages, whether you did not
charge the_ Moravians _in general with these crimes. “I had a long
conference with those, whom I esteem very highly in love: but I could
not yet understand them in one point, Christian openness and plainness
of speech. They pleaded for such a reservedness and closeness of
conversation. Yet I scarce know what to think considering they had the
practice of the whole_ Moravian _church on their side_.――――True; in
pleading for such a _reservedness_ of conversation, as I could not in
any ♦wise approve of; but not in using much _subtlety_, _much evasion_
and _disguise_; this I dare not charge on the whole _Moravian church_.”
Those words also, “There is darkness and closeness in all their
behaviour, and guile in almost all their words,” I spoke not of all
the _Moravians_, nor of most: but of those who were then in _England_.”
I could not speak it of them all; for I never found any guile in
_Christian David_, _Michael Linner_, and many others.
♦ “ways” replaced with “wise” per Errata
5. _We are next to see, how you get over the objection I made good in
three several particulars, that you have prepared the way for spreading
of these tenets. The first you say nothing to here;――――the second you
quote very partially thus――――“by countenancing and commending them.”
And why would you not add, “And being the occasion of so many of them
coming over among us.”_――――Because I was not the occasion. I was indeed
the first _Englishman_ that ever was at _Hernhuth_. But before I was
at _Hernhuth_, (I find on later enquiry) the Count himself had been in
_England_.
_You “still think_, (page 81) _That next to some thousands in our own
church, the body of the_ Moravian _church, however mistaken some of
them are, are, in the main, the best Christians in the world.”_ I do;
“of all whom I have seen;” (you should not omit these words.)――――_Those
dreadful errors and crimes are here softened into mistakes._ (I term
them “Errors of judgment and practice.”) _I have proved, that you have
charged the body with such._――――At present, the proof does not amount
to demonstration. There needs a little farther proof, that I charge any
_dreadful crimes on the body of the_ Moravians.
I see no manner of inconsistency still, in those accounts of my
intercourse with the _Moravians_, which you suppose irreconcileable
with each other. Let any one read them in the journal, and judge.
6. _You had said, “Your objections then were nearly the same as now.”
You now add, “only with this difference: I was not then assured,
that the facts were as I supposed; I did not dare to determine any
thing.”――――No! Not when by conversing among them you saw these things!
As indeed the facts are of such a nature, that you could not but be
assured of them, if they were true. Nor do the questions in your letter
really imply any doubt of their truth: but are so many appeals to their
consciences, and equivalent to strong assertions. And if you had not
been assured, if you did not dare to determine any thing concerning
what you saw, your writing bare suspicions to a body of men in such a
manner was inexcusable. This excuse therefore will not serve you_, (83.)
I apprehend it will. “I was not then (in _September 1738_) assured
that the facts were as I supposed. [Therefore] I did not [then] dare
to determine any thing.” Be pleased to add the immediately following
words: “But from _November 1._ [1739] I saw more and more things, which
I could not reconcile with the gospel.”
If you had not omitted these words, you could have had no colour to
remark, on my saying, “I did not dare to determine any thing.”――――_No!
Not when by conversing among them you_ saw _these things._――――No, I
did not _dare to determine, in September 1738_, from what I saw in
_November 1739.――――But the facts are of such a nature, that you could
not but be assured of them if they were true._――――I cannot think so.
“Is not the Count all in all among you? Do not you magnify your own
church too much? Do you not use guile and dissimulation in many cases?”
These facts are by no means of such a nature, as that whoever converses
(even intimately) among the _Moravians_, cannot but be assured of
them.――――_Nor do the questions in your letter really imply any doubt of
their truth._――――No! Are not my very words prefixed to those questions,
“Of some other things I stand in doubt”.――――And I wish that, _in order
to remove those doubts_, you would――――plainly answer, whether the fact
be as I suppose.――――_But_ [these questions] _are so many appeals to
their consciences._――――True.――――_And equivalent to strong assertions._
――――Utterly false.――――_If you had not been assured, if you did not
dare to determine any thing, concerning what you saw_ [fifteen months
after] _your writing bare suspicions to a body of men, in such a manner,
was inexcusable._――――They were _strong presumptions_ then; which yet I
did not _write to a body of men_, whom I so highly esteemed; no, not
even in the _tenderest_ manner, till I was _assured_, they were not
groundless.
7. _In a note at the bottom of_ page 8, _you observe, “the Band-
society in_ London _began_ May 1, _some time before I set out for_
Germany.” _Would you insinuate here, that you did not set it up, in
imitation of the_ Moravians?――――Sir, I will tell you the naked truth.
You had remarked (page 17.) thus――――“You took the trouble of a journey
to _Germany_ to them; and were so much in love with their methods, that,
at _your return_ hither, you set up their bands among your disciples.”
This was an entire mistake: for that society was set up, not only
before I returned, but before I set out. And I designed that note to
insinuate this to you, without telling your mistake to all the world.
_I imagined, that supposing your account of the_ Moravians _true, it
would be impossible for any serious Christian to doubt of their being
very wicked people_.――――I know many serious Christians who suppose it
true, and yet believe they are, in the main, good men.――――_A much worse
character, take the whole body together, cannot be given of a body
of men._――――Let us try. “Here is a body of men who have not one spark
either of justice, mercy, or truth, among them; who are lost to all
sense of right and wrong; who have neither sobriety, temperance, nor
charity: who are, in general, liars, drunkards, gluttons, thieves,
adulterers, murderers.” I cannot but think, that this is a much worse
character than that of the _Moravians_, take it how you will.――――_Let
the reader judge how far you are now able to defend them_――――Just as
far as I did at first. Still I dare not condemn what is good among them;
and I will not excuse what is evil.
8. “_The_ Moravians _excel in sweetness of behaviour_.” _What though
they use guile and dissimulation?_――――Yes.――――“_Where is their
multitude of errors?_” _In your own journal.――――I have taken the pains
to place them in one view in my remarks; the justness of which with
all your art you cannot disprove._――――You have taken the pains to
transcribe many words; all which together amount to this, that they
(generally) hold _universal salvation_, and are partly _Antinomians_
(in opinion) partly _Quietists_. The justness of some of your remarks,
if I mistake not, ♦has been pretty fully disproved. As to what you
speak of my art, subtlety, and so on, in this and many other places,
I look upon it as neither better nor worse than a civil way of calling
names.
♦ “have” replaced with “has” per Errata
“_To this multitude of crimes ¹I am also an utter stranger.” Then you
have charged them wrongfully.――――What do you account guile_, &c.――――I
account guile, despising self-denial, even in the smallest points, and
teaching that those who have not the assurance of faith, may not use
the ordinances of God, the Lord’s supper in particular, (this is the
real, unaggravated charge) to be faults which cannot be excused. But
I do not account them all together _a multitude of crimes_. I conceive
this is a vehement hyperbole.
¹ Second letter, page 84.
_The honour of religion_, said you, _and virtue trampled upon_? I
answered, “_By whom? Not by the_ Moravians.”――――You reply, _And yet you
have accused some of these as decrying all the means of grace_.――――No.
What I accused them of was, teaching that an unbeliever (in their
sense) ought to abstain from them――――“_Neither did I know, or think,
or say, they were desperately wicked people._”――――_Your journal is
before the world; to whom I appeal whether this has not so represented
them._――――But how do you here represent your remark, and my answer? My
paragraph runs thus, page 10.
“You go on――――_How could you so long, and so intimately converse
with――――such desperately wicked people as the_ Moravians, _according
to your own account, were known by you to be_?――――O Sir, what another
assertion is this? _The_ Moravians, _according to_ your own account,
_were_ known _by you to be desperately wicked people, while you
intimately conversed with them_.”――――Utterly false and injurious! I
never gave any such account. I conversed with them intimately both at
_Savannah_ and _Hernhuth_. But neither then, nor at any other time,
did I _know_, or think, or say, they were desperately wicked people. I
think and say――――just the reverse, _viz._ That tho’ I soon “found among
them a few things which I could not approve, yet I believe they are,
_in the main, some of the best Christians in the world_.”――――After this,
are _you_ the person, who complains of _me_, for imperfect and partial
quotations?
I added, “You surprize me yet more in going on thus; _In God’s name_,
Sir, is the contempt of _almost the whole of our duty, of every
Christian ordinance to be so very gently touched_?” “Sir, this is not
the case. This charge no more belongs to the _Moravians_ than that of
murder.” _page 11_.
You reply, _Mr._ Spangenberg _and Mr._ Molther, _are accused by name.
If falsely, I am sorry both for them and you._ Accused? True. But of
what? Of the contempt of every Christian ordinance, of almost the whole
of our duty? By no means. The plain case is, I accuse them of one thing,
_viz._ “Teaching that an unbeliever should abstain from the ordinances.”
You accuse them of another, “contemning every Christian ordinance,
and almost the whole of our duty.” And this you would father upon me.
I desire to be excused.
9. As to what I said in my letter to the _Moravian_ church, “You can
hinder this if you will.――――Therefore if you do not prevent their
speaking thus, you do in effect speak thus yourselves.”――――It may be
observed, 1. That this letter is dated, _August 8, 1741_. 2. That from
that time the _Moravian_ church did in great measure prevent any of
their members speaking thus.
You proceed. _You distinguish between the_ English _♦brethren and the_
Moravians. _These_ English _♠brethren, I presume, were your followers.
Afterwards you represent them as perverted by the_ Moravians. _Before
they had spoke these wicked things, you say, they had joined these men,
and acted under their direction. If they did not learn them from these
new teachers, from whom did they learn them? Not sure from yourself,
or any other Methodists. You cannot therefore bring off the_ Moravians,
_without condemning your own people. Here therefore you have certainly
overshot yourself_, page 85.――――Perhaps not.――――_These_ English
_brethren were, I presume, your followers_.――――No; this is your
first mistake. I was but a single, private member of that society.
――――_Afterwards you represent them as perverted by the_ Moravians.
――――I do; but not yet connected with them.――――_Before they spoke
these wicked things, they had joined these men, and acted under their
direction._――――This is another mistake. They did not join these men,
nor act by their direction, till long after.――――_If they did not learn
them from these new teachers, from whom did they learn them?――――You
cannot bring off the_ Moravians, _without condemning your own people_.
――――They learned them from Mr. _Molther_ chiefly; whom I am not at all
concerned to bring off.――――Now let all men judge, which of us two has
overshot himself!
♦ “brethern” replaced with “brethren”
♠ “brethen” replaced with “brethren”
10. _In answer to my objections against the inconsistent accounts you
have given of the_ Moravians――――_you say, “They are, I believe, the
most self-inconsistent people under the sun.” Would not one imagine,
that you here speak of the same persons, or of the whole body of them
in general?_――――I do, thus far: I ascribe the good to the body, of
them in general; the evil to part only of that body, to _some_ of those
_same persons_.
_Your method of getting over the contradictions I had charged upon
you, is much the same_, (page 86.) _To distinguish either between
the_ Moravians _and the_ English _brethren (tho’ these had been their
disciples_.――――This has been abundantly answered)――――_or between some
of the_ Moravians _and others_.――――I think a very good method; for
propositions are not contradictory, unless they both speak of the same
persons.
However, since you persist to affirm, that I am _guilty of the
contradictions you charged upon me_, (page 87.) I think there cannot
be a sufficient reply, without reciting the several instances.
11. First, _You commend them (the_ Moravians) _for loving one another;
and yet charge them with biting and devouring one another_.――――I
answered, “Them! Whom? Not the _Moravians_, but the _English_ brethren
of _Fetter-lane_, before their union with the _Moravians_. Herein then
is no shadow of contradiction. For the two sentences do not relate to
the same persons.”
You reply, _Would you then have us to think, that so much anger and
contradiction reigned among your_ Methodists――――I would have you think,
this is nothing to the purpose. Prove the contradiction, and you speak
to the point.――――_It is plain they had before this been perverted by
the_ Moravians, _and that――――they were unwilling to be taught by any
others.――――They_――――that is, nearly half of the society. But here is
no proof of the contradiction still.
2. _You say, “They had well nigh destroyed brotherly-love from among us,
partly by cautions against natural love”_ [Partly by occasioning almost
continual disputes]――――So they had. But we had then no connexion with
them. Neither therefore does this contradict their loving one another.
――――You reply, _As if they can truly love each other, who teach you
not to do it, and stir up divisions and disturbances among you._――――You
should say, if you would repeat after me, “Who caution you against
natural love, and occasion many disputes among you.” Well; allowing
they do this, (which is utterly wrong) yet where is the contradiction?
Yet they may love one another.
3. _You “praise them for using no diversions, but such as become saints:
and yet say_ (I recite the whole sentence) _I have heard some of you
affirm, that Christian salvation implies liberty to conform to the
world, by joining in worldly diversions, in order to do good.”_――――And
both these are true. The _Moravians_, in general, “use no diversions
but such as become saints.” And yet I have heard some of them affirm
(in contradiction to their own practice) that “one then mentioned
did well, when he joined in playing at tennis, in order to do good.”
To this you make no reply. Silence then consents, that there is no
contradiction here.
4. _You “praise them for not regarding outward adorning.”_――――So I
do, the bulk of the congregation.――――_And yet you say_ (I again recite
the whole sentence) “_I have heard some of you affirm, that Christian
salvation implies liberty to conform to the world, by putting on gold
and costly apparel_.”――――I have so. And I blame them the more, because
they are condemned by the general practice of their own church.――――To
this also you reply not. So I must count this the fourth contradiction
which you have charged upon me, but have not proved.
5. “_You call their discipline_, in most respects, _truly excellent.
I could wish you had more fully explained yourself_.――――I have in the
2d journal, from the 44th to the 82d page.――――_It is no sign of good
discipline, to permit such abominations_, (i. e. error in opinion,
and guile in practice.)――――True; ’tis not; nor is it any demonstration
against it. For there may be good discipline, even in a college of
_Jesuits_. Another fault is, too great deference to the Count. And yet,
in most respects, their discipline is truly excellent.”
You reply, _Such excellent discipline, for all that I know, they may
have_, [i. e. as the Jesuits;] _but I cannot agree――――that this is
scarce inferior to that of the apostolical age_.――――It may be, for
any thing you advance to the contrary.――――_Here I cited some words of
yours, condemning their subordination_, (page 88.) _which you prudently
take no notice of_.――――Yes; I had just before taken notice of their
too great deference to the Count. But, the contradiction! Where is the
contradiction?
6. “_You mention it as a good effect of their discipline, that every
one knows and keeps his proper rank. Soon after, as it were with a
design to confute yourself, you say, Our brethren have neither wisdom
enough to guide, nor prudence enough to let it alone._”――――I answered,
“Pardon me, Sir, I have no design either to confute or contradict
myself in these words. The former sentence is spoken of the _Moravian_
brethren. The latter of the _English_ brethren of _Fetter-lane_ (not
then united with the _Moravians_, neither acting by their direction.)”
To this likewise you do not reply. Here is then a sixth contradiction,
alledged against me, but not proved.
12. However you add, _Had you――――shewn me mistaken in any point you
have attempted to reply to, still――――you confess errors and wickedness
enough among the_ Moravians, _to render your account of them very
inconsistent. But you have not succeeded in any one answer. You
have not shewn, that I have in any one instance misquoted you, or
misunderstood the character you had given of them, or argued falsely
from what you had said of them. And truly, Sir, all you have done, has
been cavilling at a few particulars. But the argument I was urging all
this while you quite forgot._
Sir, if it be so, you do me too much honour, in setting pen to paper
again. But is it so? _Have I all this while quite forgot the argument
you was urging?_ I hope not. I seem to remember, you _was urging_ some
argument (_Remarks_, page 21.) to prove, that I _fall not only into
inconsistencies, but direct contradictions_; and that I _shewed you
mistaken_ not only in _one_, but in _every_ point which you advanced as
such: that I did not confess any such _errors_ or _wickedness_ of the
_Moravians_, as rendered my account of them _self-inconsistent_: that I
_succeeded_ in more than _one answer_, to the objections you had urged
against it; and that I _shewed_, you had _misquoted or misunderstood
the character I had given of them_, or _argued falsely from it_, not
properly _in one instance_, but from the beginning to the end.
Yet this I think it ♦incumbent upon me to say, that whereinsoever I
have contributed, directly or indirectly, to the spreading of any thing
evil, which is, or has been, among the _Moravians_, I am sorry for it,
and hereby ask pardon, both of God and all the world.
♦ “uncumbent” replaced with “incumbent”
* * * * *
II. 1. I think it appears, by what you yourself observed, that on the
second head, justification by faith, I allow, in the beginning of the
_Farther Appeal_, almost as much as you contend for.
I desire leave to cite part of that passage again, that we may come as
near each other as possible. I would just subjoin a few words on each
head, which I hope may remove more difficulties out of the way.
“That justification whereof our articles and homilies speak, means
present pardon, and acceptance with God: who therein _declares his
righteousness_ or mercy, _by_ or _for the remission of sins that are
past_.”
I say, _past_. For I cannot find any thing in the bible, of the
remission of sins, past, present, and to come.
* “I believe the condition of this is faith: I mean not only, that
without faith we cannot be justified, but also, that as soon as any one
has true faith, in that moment he is justified.”
* You take the word _condition_ in the former sense only, as that
without which we cannot be justified. In this sense of the word, I
think we may allow, that there are several conditions of justification.
* “Good works follow this faith, but cannot go before it. Much less
can sanctification; which implies a continued course of good works,
springing from holiness of heart.”
* Yet such a course is without doubt absolutely necessary to our
continuance in a _state_ of _justification_.
“It is allowed, that repentance and _fruits meet for repentance_,
go before faith. Repentance _absolutely must_ go before faith:
_fruits meet for it_, if there be opportunity. By _repentance_ I mean
conviction of sin, producing real desires and sincere resolutions of
amendment: and by _fruits meet for repentance_, forgiving our brother,
ceasing from evil, doing good, using the ordinances of God, and, in
general, obeying him according to the measure of grace which we have
received. But these I cannot as yet term good works, because they do
not spring from faith and the love of God.” Although the same works are
then good, when they are performed by _those who have believed_.
“Faith in general is, a divine supernatural ἔλεγχος, (evidence, or
conviction) of things not seen, not discoverable by our bodily senses,
as being either past, future or spiritual. Justifying faith implies,
not only a divine ἔλεγχος, that God was in Christ, reconciling the
world unto himself, but a sure trust and confidence, that Christ died
for _my_ sins, that he loved _me_, and gave himself for _me_. And the
moment a _penitent_ sinner _thus_ believes, God pardons and absolves
him.”
I say, a _penitent_ sinner; because justifying faith cannot exist
without previous _repentance_.
――――“Yet although both repentance, and the fruits thereof, are in _some
sense_ necessary before justification, neither the one nor the other
is necessary in the _same sense_, or in the _same degree_ with faith.
Not in the _same degree_. For in whatever moment a man believes, (in
the Christian sense of the word) he is justified.――――But it is not
so, at whatever moment he repents, or brings forth any, or all the
fruits of repentance.――――Consequently, none of these are necessary to
justification, in the same degree with faith.”
“Nor in the _same sense_. For none of these has so direct, immediate
a relation to justification as faith. This is _proximately_ necessary
thereto; repentance _remotely_, as it is necessary to faith (so the
error of the press is to be corrected.) And the fruits of repentance
still _more remotely_, as they are necessary to the increase, or
continuance of repentance. And even in this sense, they are only
necessary on supposition――――if there be time and opportunity for them.
For in many instances there is not, but God cuts short his work, and
faith prevents the fruits of repentance.”
2. Thus far I believe we are nearly agreed. But on those words, “Far
other qualifications are required, in order to our standing before God
in glory, than were required in order to his giving us faith and pardon:
in order to this, nothing is _indispensably_ required, but repentance
or conviction of sin; but in order to the other, it is _indispensably_
required, that we be fully cleansed from all sin:” you remark, _Here,
I apprehend, are two great mistakes, 1. You make too little necessary
before pardon. 2. Too much afterward. You confine repentance within too
narrow limits, and extend holiness beyond its just bounds._ (page 92.)
_First, By repentance you mean only conviction of sin. But this is a
very partial account of it. Every child that has learned his catechism
can tell, that forsaking of sin is also included in it.――――Living in
obedience to God’s will, when there is opportunity; and even when there
is not, a sincere desire and purpose to do so――――and a faith in God’s
mercies through Christ Jesus._
I had said, “In order to God’s giving us faith and pardon, nothing
is indispensably required but repentance,” _i. e._ “Conviction of sin
producing real desires and sincere resolutions of amendment.” But you
_apprehend, that I am here in a great mistake_: that I give a _very
partial account of repentance_; that I ought to _include therein a
sincere desire_ and _purpose_ to obey God.――――I do: I have said so
expressly――――And _living in obedience to God’s will, when there is
opportunity_.――――Very well; but I here speak of what is _indispensably
required_, _i. e._ whether there is opportunity of actual obedience or
no.――――_And a faith in God’s mercies through Christ Jesus._――――A very
great mistake indeed! My not including faith in that _repentance_,
which I say is _indispensably_ required――――_in order_ to faith!
_Secondly, You make sinless perfection necessary after justification,
in order to make us meet for glory._――――And who does not? Indeed men do
not agree in the time. Some believe it is attained before death: some,
in the article of death: some, in an after-state; in the _mystic_, or
the _popish_ purgatory. But all writers, whom I have ever seen till now
(the _Romish_ themselves not excepted) agree, that we must be “fully
cleansed from all sin,” before we can enter into glory.
3. After what has already been allowed, I cannot think it needful, to
dispute farther, on the head of justification.――――Rather suffer me to
close this part of our debate, by transcribing what I assent to, from
that clear recapitulation of your sentiments, which you have given in
your 45th and 46th pages.
“First, Justification is the act of God, pardoning our sins, and
receiving us again to his favour. This was free in him, because
undeserved by us; undeserved, because we had transgressed his law,
and could not, nor even can now, perfectly fulfill it.”
2. “We cannot therefore be justified by our works, because this would
be, to be justified by some merit of our own. Much less can we be
justified by an external shew of religion, or by any superstitious
observances.”
3. “The life and death of our Lord is the sole meritorious cause of
this mercy, which must be firmly believed and trusted in by us. Our
faith therefore in him, though not more meritorious than any other
of our actions, yet has a nearer relation to the promises of pardon
through him, and is the mean and instrument whereby we embrace and
receive them.”
4. “True faith must be lively and productive of good works, which are
its proper fruits, the marks whereby it is known.”
* 5. “Works really good, are such as are commanded by God (springing
from faith) done by the aid of his holy Spirit, with good designs, and
to good ends. These may be considered as internal or external.”
* 6. “The inward ones, such as hope, trust, fear, and love of God and
our neighbour, (which may be more properly termed _good dispositions_
and [are branches of] sanctification) must always be joined with faith,
and consequently be _conditions present_ in justification――――though
they are not the means or instruments of receiving it.”
* 7. “The outward”――――(which are more properly termed good works)
“though there be no immediate opportunity of practising them,
and therefore a sincere desire and resolution to perform them, be
sufficient for the present; yet must follow after as soon as occasion
offers, and will then be necessary conditions of preserving our
justification.”
* 8. “There is a justification conveyed to us in our baptism, or
properly, this state is then begun. But――――should we fall into
sins――――we cannot regain it without true faith and repentance, which
implies (as its fruits) a forsaking of our sins, and amendment of (our
whole) life.”
* I have only one circumstance farther to add, namely, That I am not
_newly_ convinced of these things. For this is the doctrine which I
have continually taught for eight or nine years last past: only, I
abstained from the word _condition_, perhaps more scrupulously than
was needful.
4. With regard to the _consequences_ of my teaching this doctrine, I
desire any who will not account it lost labour, to consult with his own
eyes, seriously and in the fear of God, the 3d and 4th _journals_. And
if he pleases, he may farther read over and compare, from the 25th to
the 29th page of my answer, with your reply, from the 101st (inclusive)
to the 104th page.
Among the consequences you reckoned (in your _Remarks_) besides
_introducing predestination, confusion, presumption, and despair,
many very shocking instances of all which_ (your words are) _you give
us among your followers_――――pages 52, 55――――I answered, “You should
have specified a few of those instances; at least the pages where they
occur.” (Suppose, only three of each sort, out of any, or all the four
_journals_) “Till this is done, I can look upon this assertion as no
other than a flourish of your pen.”
Upon this you exclaim, (_page 111._) _I must beg the reader to observe
your method of citing my words. Many instances of omissions he has
had already. But here is such a one, as I believe few controversies
can parallel.――――Would not any one imagine from the view of these
words [Predestination, confusion, presumption, and despair] that they
occurred all together in page 52, of my_ remarks, _and that I observed
nothing farther concerning this point? Could it be thought, that any
thing intervened between the page referred to, and the last sentence?
And yet so it is, that near three pages intervene!_――――Ha! do _near
three pages intervene_! Prodigious indeed!――――_And this is called an
answer!_――――So it is, for want of a better.
_Your business was to shew, that the_ calvinistical _notions have not
prevailed among the Methodists, or that they were no consequences of
unconditioned justification_.――――No, Sir, It was not my business to
shew this. It was not my business to prove the negative; but yours, to
prove the affirmative. Mr. _Whitefield_ is himself a _Calvinist_. Such
therefore doubtless are many of his followers. But Calvinism has not
prevailed at all, among any other of the Methodists (so called,) nor is
it to this day any consequence of unconditional justification, in the
manner wherein I preach it.
5. You next _take the pains to lay before the reader, an instance or
two of confusion_, &c. The first I read thus: page 11.
“_While we were at the room, Mrs. J. sitting at home, took the bible
to read. But on a sudden, threw it away, saying I am good enough. I
will never read or pray more. She was in the same mind when I came;
often repeating, I used to think, I was full of sin, and that I sinned
in every thing I did. But now I know better. I am a good Christian. I
never did any harm in my life. I do not desire to be any better than I
am; she spake many things to the same effect, plainly shewing, that the
spirit of pride and of lies had the full dominion over her.――――I asked,
do you desire to be healed? She said, I am whole. But do you desire to
be saved? She replied, I am saved, I ail nothing, I am happy.”――――This
is one of the fruits of the present salvation and sinless perfection,
taught by you among the weak and ignorant._
I should wonder if the scarecrow of _sinless perfection_ was not
brought in some way or other. But to the point. You here repeat a
relation as from me, and that _in confirmation_, you say, _of your own
veracity_, and yet leave out both the beginning of that relation, part
of the middle, and the end of it.
I begin thus (4th Journal, page 66.) “Sunday 11. I met with a
surprizing instance of the power of the devil.” These words, of all
others, should not have been left out, being a key to all that follows.
In the middle of the relation, immediately after the words, I am
happy, I add, “Yet it was easy to discern, she was in the most violent
agony both of body and mind: sweating exceedingly, notwithstanding
the severest frost, and not continuing in the same posture a moment.”
A plain proof, that this was no instance of _presumption_, nor a
_natural_ fruit of any teaching whatever.
It ends thus. “About a quarter before six the next morning, after lying
quiet a while, she broke out, ‘Peace be unto thee, (her husband) peace
be unto this house, the peace of God is come to my soul, I know that
my Redeemer liveth.’ And for several days her mouth was filled with
his praise, and her talk was wholly of his wondrous works.”――――Had not
these words been left out, neither could this have past for an instance
of _despair_.――――Though still I do not know but it might have stood for
an _instance of confusion_, &c.
I must not forget, that this was cited at first, as a proof of my
_enthusiasm_: as an instance of _a private revelation, which_ (you
say) _I seem to pay great credit to――――representing the conjectures
of a woman――――whose brain appears to have been too much heated, as if
they had been owing to a particular and miraculous spirit of prophesy._
(Remarks page 64.) I answered, “Descant, Sir, as you please on this
_enthusiasm_; on the _credit_ paid to this _private revelation_; and my
representing the _conjectures_ of this brain-sick woman, as owing to a
miraculous power of the _spirit of prophecy_”. And when you have done,
I will desire you to read the passage once more; where you will find my
express words are (introducing this account.) “Sunday 11. I met with a
surprizing instance of the _power of the devil_.” Such was the credit
I paid to this revelation! All which I ascribe to the Spirit of God
is, the enabling her to strive against the _power of the devil_, and
at length restoring peace to her soul. (Answer, page 41.)
I was in hopes, you had done with this instance. But I am disappointed.
For in your 2d letter I read thus (page 130.)
_The instances of enthusiasm and presumption, which your last journal
had furnished me with, remain now to be reviewed. The first was, of a
private revelation, which you appeared to pay great credit to. You had
represented every thing the woman had spoke in her agony as coming to
pass._――――But I had not represented any thing she spoke then, whether
it came to pass or no, as coming _from the Spirit_ of God, but _from
the devil_.
You say, _When I read this first, I was amazed, and――――impatient to
look again into your journal. But I had no sooner done this, but I was
still more astonished. For you have very grievously misrepresented the
case_――――If I have, then I will bear the blame; but if not, it will
light on _your_ head.
_It is not_ this _account which you had thus introduced; but another,
and a very different one, of what happened a day or two before. Sunday,
you mention her as being guilty of gross presumption,――――which you
attribute to the power of the devil. But on Monday and Tuesday the
opposite revelations happened, which――――you relate without the least
mark of diffidence or blame._ (page 131)
I am grieved that you constrain me to say any more. In the 66th and
67th page of the last journal, I gave an account of Mrs. _Jones_, which
I term, “a surprizing instance of the power of the devil.” It includes
the occurrences of three days. This you brought as a proof of my
enthusiasm. I answer, “the very words that introduce _this account_,”
prove it is no instance of enthusiasm: meaning by _this account_
(as I suppose is plain to every reader,) the following account of
Mrs. _Jones_. You reply. _It is not this account, which you had thus
introduced, but another, and a very different one, of what happened a
day or two before._ Sir, it is the whole account of Mrs. _Jones_ which
I thus introduce; and not _another_; not a _very different_ one. And
I attribute the agony which she (Mrs. _Jones_) was in; and most of the
words which she spoke, both on _Sunday_, _Monday_ and _Tuesday_, not to
the Spirit of God, but to the _power of the devil_.
6. The next instance, which you relate as an instance of despair, is
that of a young woman of _Kingswood_; which you break off with, “_Take
me away_,” &c. (page 112.) But why did you not decypher that, _&c._
Why did you not add the rest of the paragraph? Because it would have
spoiled your whole argument. It would have shewn what the end of the
Lord was, in permitting that severe visitation. The words are, (Journal
3, page 93.) “We interrupted her by calling again upon God, on which
she sunk down as before (as one asleep) and another young woman began
to roar as loud as she had done. My brother now came in, it being about
nine o’clock. We continued in prayer till past eleven: when God in a
moment spoke peace into the soul, first, of the first tormented, and
then of the other. And they both joined in singing praises to him, who
had stilled the enemy and the avenger.”
7. I am sorry to find you still affirm, that with regard to the Lord’s
supper also, I _advance many injudicious, false and dangerous things.
Such as, 1. That “a man ought to communicate, without a sure trust in
God’s mercy through Christ_, (page 117.)” You make these as my words;
but I know them not.――――2. “_That there is no previous preparation_
indispensably _necessary, but a desire to receive whatsoever God
pleases to give_.”――――But I include abundantly more in that desire,
than you seem to apprehend; even a willingness to know and do the
will of God.――――3. “_That no fitness is required at the time of
communicating_, (I recite the whole sentence) _but a sense of our
state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness! Every one who knows
he is fit for hell, being just fit to come to Christ, in this, as well
as in all other ways of his appointment._”――――But neither can this
sense of our utter sinfulness and helplessness subsist, without earnest
desires of universal holiness.――――_There was another passage_ (you
say) _which you chose to omit_. (page 118.) Which this was, I do not
understand. Nor do I perceive any one of these dreadful positions (as
you stile them) to be contrary to the word of God.
8. You will likewise at all hazards stand your ground, as to the charge
of _stoical insensibility_. I answered before, (page 36.) How do you
support the charge? _Why thus,――――You say, the servants of God suffer
nothing._――――And can you possibly misunderstand these words, if you
read those that immediately follow? “His body was well nigh torn
asunder with pain. But God made all his bed in his sickness. So that
he was continually giving thanks to God, and making his boast of his
praise.”
You reply, (118) _If you meant no more than that a man under the
sharpest pains, may be thankful to God, why did you call this a strange
truth_?――――Because I think it is so. I think it exceeding strange, that
one in such a degree of pain, should be continually giving thanks to
God. Not that I suppose him _insensible of his torments_. “His body,
I say, was well nigh torn asunder with pain.” But the love of God so
abundantly overbalanced all pain, that it was nothing to him.
_The next instance is as follows. One told you, Sir, I thought last
week there could be no such rest as you describe; none in this world
wherein we should be so free, as not to desire ease in pain. But God
has taught me better. For on Friday and Saturday, when I was in the
strongest pain, I never once had one moment’s desire of ease_ (add,
“but only that the will of God might be done.”)
Neither has this any resemblance of _stoical insensibility_. I never
_supposed_, that this person did not _feel_ pain: (nor indeed that
there is any state on earth, wherein we shall not feel it.) But that
her soul was filled with the love of God, and thankfully resigned to
his will.
_Another instance is taken from one of your hymns where are these
lines_: (page 119.)
_“Doom if thou canst, to endless pains,_
_And drive me from thy face:”_ (add,
But if thy stronger love constrains,
Let me be sav’d by grace.)
_This I thought the height of insensibility, extravagance and
presumption.――――You see nothing of these in it. And yet you explain
yourself thus, “If thou canst deny thyself, if thou canst forget to
be gracious, if thou canst cease to be truth and love.” All which
in my opinion, is fixing the charge most strongly upon you. For the
supposition that Christ_ can _do these things_――――Are you in earnest,
Sir? Are you really ignorant, that expressions of this kind, do not
suppose he _can_, but quite the reverse? That they are one of the
strongest forms of obtestation, of adjuring God to shew mercy, by all
his grace, and truth, and love? So far is this also from proving the
charge of stoical insensibility.
* * * * *
III. 1. I come now to consider the point of church-communion, of which
you have spoke in the beginning of your treatise. In the entrance you
say, _We teach no other doctrine than has always been taught in our
church.――――Our sentiments concerning justification are reconcileable
to our articles, homilies and service.――――This I apprehend several of
the Methodists have been convinced of, and have_ therefore _left our
communion entirely.――――You give us more instances than one of this in
your last journal._――――(page 2.) No, not one. Nor did I ever yet know
one man, who _therefore left the communion of the church_, because he
was convinced that either her articles, homilies or liturgy opposed his
sentiments concerning justification. Poor Mr. _St._ and Mr. _Simpson_
were induced to leave it, by reasons of quite another kind.
You add, _We cannot wonder, that some Methodists, have withdrawn from
her,――――while they have been used to hear doctrines, which they must
have been sensible, have no place in her articles and service._――――So
far from it, that all I know of them are deeply _sensible_, the
_doctrines they have been used to hear_ daily, are no other than the
genuine doctrines of the church, as exprest both in her articles and
service.
2. But our present question turns not on doctrine but discipline.
――――_My first business_ (you say) _is to consider, some very lax
notions of church-communion, which I find in your last journal._ Page
26, _you say, “Our 20th article defines a true church, a congregation
of faithful people, wherein the true word of God is preached, and the
sacraments duly administered_――――(page 3.) The use I would willingly
make of this definition, (which, observe, is not mine, be it good
or bad) is to stop the boasting of ungodly men, by cutting off their
pretence to call themselves, _of the church_. But you think, they may
call themselves so still. Then let them. I will not contend about it.
But you cannot infer from hence, that my notions of church communion
are either lax or otherwise. The definition which I occasionally cite,
shews nothing of my sentiments on that head. And for any thing which
occurs in this page, they may be strict or loose, right or wrong.
You add, _It will be requisite_, (page 5.) _in order to approve
yourself a minister of our church, that you follow her rules and
orders.――――That you constantly conform to the method of worship she
has prescribed, and study to promote her peace._ All this is good and
fit to be done. But it properly belongs to the following question.
_What led you into such loose notions of church-communion, I imagine,
might be, your being conscious to yourself, that according to the
strict, just account of the church of_ England, _you could not with
any grace maintain your pretensions to belong still to her_.――――Sir,
I have never told you yet, what my notions of the church-communion are.
They may be wrong, or they may be right, for all you know. Therefore,
when you are first supposing that I have told you my notions, and then
assigning the reasons of them, what can be said, but that you imagine
the whole matter?
3. How far I have _acted agreeably to the rules and orders_ of our
church, is a farther question. You think I have acted contrary thereto,
first, By using _extemporary prayer_ in public. _The church_, you
say, _has strongly declared her mind on this point, by appointing
her excellent liturgy, which you have solemnly promised to use――――and
no other_.――――I know not when or where.――――_And whoever――――does not
worship God in the manner she prescribes――――must be supposed to slight
and contemn her offices and rules: and therefore can be no more worthy
to be called her minister._ (page 7.)
I do not _slight or contemn the offices_ of the church. I esteem them
very highly. And yet I do not, at all times, worship God, even in
public, in the very terms of those offices. Nor yet do I knowingly
_slight or contemn her rules_. For it is not clear to my apprehension,
that she has any rule which forbids using extemporary prayer, suppose
between the morning and evening service. And if I am _not worthy to be
called her minister_ (which I dare by no means affirm myself to be) yet
_her minister I am_, and must always be, unless I should be judicially
deposed from my ministry.
Your second argument is this. “If you suppose the scripture enjoins
you to use extemporary prayer, then you must suppose our liturgy to
be inconsistent with scripture, and consequently unlawful to be used.”
That does not follow: unless I supposed the scripture to enjoin, to use
extemporary prayer, _and no other_. Then it would follow, that a form
of prayer was inconsistent with scripture. But this I never did suppose.
Your third argument is to this effect; “You act contrary to the rule
of the church. Allow she in the wrong: yet while you break her rule,
how do you act as her minister?” It ought to be expressed, _how are you
her minister?_ For the conclusion to be proved is, That I am not her
minister.
I answer, 1. I am not convinced, as I observed before, that I do hereby
_break her rule_. 2. If I did, yet should I not _cease_ to be her
minister, unless I were formally _deprived_. 3. I now _actually do_
continue in her communion, and hope that I always shall.
4. You object farther, “That I disobey the governors of the church.”
I answer, I both do, and will obey them in all things, where I do
not apprehend there is some particular law of God to the contrary.
――――_Here_, you say, _you confess that in some things you do not,
and cannot obey your governors_ (page 8.)――――Did I _confess this_?
Then I spoke rashly and foolishly: for I granted more than I can make
good.――――I do certainly apprehend, that the law of God requires me,
both to preach and (sometimes) to pray _extempore_. Yet I do not know
that I disobey the governors of the church herein. For I do not know,
that they have forbidden me to do either.
But your _♦behaviour and method of teaching is irregular.――――Have you
any warrant from scripture for preaching_ up and down thus?――――I think
I have: I think God hath called me to this work _by the laying on of
the hands of the presbytery_, which directs me how to obey that general
command, _While we have time, let us do good unto all men_.
♦ “hehaviour” replaced with “behaviour”
_But we ought to do this agreeably to our respective situations, and
not break in upon each other’s provinces.――――Every private man may
take upon himself the office of a magistrate――――and quote this text as
justly as you have done_, (page 9.) No. The private man is not called
to the office of a _magistrate_; but I am to the office of a _preacher_.
――――_You was indeed authorized to preach the gospel: but it was in
the congregation to which you should be lawfully appointed.――――Whereas
you have many years preached in places whereunto you was not lawfully
appointed; nay, which were intrusted to others, who neither wanted nor
desired your assistance._
Many of them wanted it enough, whether they desired it or no. But I
shall not now debate that point. I rather follow you to the ♦Part of
the _Farther Appeal_, where this objection is considered.
♦ “first” replaced with “Part” per Errata
5. “Our church (it was said) has provided against this preaching up
and down, in the ordination of a priest, by _expresly limiting_ the
exercise of the powers then conferred upon him, to the _congregation_
where he shall be lawfully ♦appointed thereunto.”
♦ “appoined” replaced with “appointed”
I answered, 1. “Your argument proves too much. If it be allowed just
as you propose it, it proves, that no priest has authority either
to preach or administer the sacrament in any other than his own
congregation.” _Farther Appeal_, page 84.
You reply, _Is there no difference between a thing’s being done
occasionally――――and its being done for years together_?――――Yes a great
one. And more inconveniencies may arise from the latter than from the
former. But this is all wide: it does not touch the point. Still if
our church does _expresly limit_ the exercise of the sacerdotal powers,
to _that congregation_ whereunto each priest shall be appointed; this
precludes him from exercising those powers _at all_, in any other than
_that congregation_.
I answered, 2. “Had the powers conferred been so _limited_ when I was
ordained priest, my ordination would have signified just nothing. For
I was not _appointed to any congregation_ at all: but was ordained as
a member of that ‘college of divines,’ (so our statutes express it)
‘founded to overturn all heresies, and defend the catholic faith.’”
You reply, “I presume it was expected you should either continue at
your college, or enter upon some regular cure.”――――Perhaps so; but I
must still insist, that if my sacerdotal powers had been then _expresly
limited_ to _that congregation_ whereunto I should be _appointed_, my
ordination would have _signified nothing_. I mean, I could never, in
virtue of that ordination, have exercised those powers at all: seeing
I never was appointed to any single congregation: at least, not till I
went to _Georgia_.
I answered, 3. “For many years after I was ordained priest, this
limitation was never heard of. I heard not one syllable of it, by way
of objection to my preaching up and down, in _Oxford_ or _London_,
or the parts adjacent: in _Glocestershire_ or _Worcestershire_: in
_Lancashire_, _Yorkshire_, or _Lincolnshire_. Nor did the strictest
disciplinarian scruple suffering me to exercise those powers wherever
I came.”
You reply, _There is great difference between preaching occasionally
――――with the leave of the incumbent, and doing it constantly without
their leave_. I grant there is; and there are objections to the latter,
which do not reach the former case. But they do not belong to this
head. They do not in the least affect this consequence, “If every
priest, when ordained, is _expresly limited_, touching the exercise
of the power then received, to _that congregation_ to which he shall
be appointed; then is he precluded by this _express limitation_,
from preaching, with or without the incumbent’s leave, in _any other
congregation_ whatever.”
I answered, 4. “Is it not, in fact, universally allowed, that every
priest, as such, has a power, in virtue of his ordination, to preach
――――in any congregation, where the curate desires his assistance?”
You reply to this by what you judge a ♦parallel case. But it does not
touch the _restriction_ in question. Either this does, or does not
_expresly limit_ the exercise of the powers conferred upon a priest in
his ordination, to _that congregation_ whereunto he shall be appointed.
If it does not, I am not condemned by this; however faulty I may be on
a thousand other accounts. If it does, then is every priest condemned
who ever preaches out of the _congregation to which he is appointed_.
♦ “parellel” replaced with “parallel”
Your parallel case is this――――_Because a man does not offend against
the law of the land, when I prevail upon him to teach my children_.
――――Therefore _he is impowered to seize_ (read, he does not offend
against the law of the land in seizing) _an apartment in my house, and
against my will and approbation to continue therein, and to direct and
dictate to my family_! page 11.
An exact parallel indeed!――――When therefore I came to live in St.
_Luke_’s parish, was it just the same thing as if I had _seized an
apartment in Dr._ Buckley’s _house_? And was the _continuing therein
against his will and approbation_ (supposing it were so) precisely the
same, as if I had continued _in his house_, whether he would or no? Is
the one exactly the same _offence against the law of the land_ as the
other? Once more. Is the warning _sinners_ in _Moorfields_, to flee
from the wrath to come, the very same with directing the Dr.’s _family,
under his own roof_?――――I should not have answered this, but that I was
afraid you would conclude, it was unanswerable.
I answered the former objector, 5. “Before those words which you
suppose to imply such a restraint――――were those spoken without
any restraint or limitation at all, which I apprehend to convey an
indelible character, receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work
of a priest in the church of God, now committed unto thee, by the
imposition of our hands.”
You reply, _The question is not, whether you are in orders, or not_?
page 12.――――I am glad to hear it. I really thought it was.――――_But
whether you have acted suitably to the directions or rules of the
church of_ England.――――Not suitably to that rule, if it were strictly
to be interpreted, of preaching only in a single congregation. But I
have given my reasons, why I think it cannot be so interpreted. And
those reasons I do not see that you have invalidated.
I would only add, If I am in orders, if I am a minister still, and
yet not a minister of the church of _England_, of what church am
I a minister? Whoever is a minister at all, is a minister of some
particular church. Neither can he cease to be a minister of that church,
till he is cast out of it by a judicial sentence. Till therefore I
am so cast out (which I trust will never be) I must stile myself, a
minister of the church of _England_.
6. Your next objection is, _You not only erect bands, which, after the_
Moravians, _you call the united society_, but also _give out tickets to
those that continue therein_.――――These bands, you think, _have had very
bad consequences――――as was to be expected――――when weak people――――are
made leaders――――of their brethren, and are set upon expounding
scripture_.――――Ibid.
You are in some mistakes here. For, 1. _The bands_ are not called _the
united society_. 2. The _united society_ was originally so called,
not after the _Moravians_, but because it consisted of several smaller
societies _united together_. 3. Neither the bands, nor the leaders
of them, as such, are _set upon expounding scripture_. 4. The good
consequences of their meeting together _in bands_, I know: but the
_very bad consequences_ I know not.
When any members of these, or of the _united society_, are proved to
live in known sin, we then mark and avoid them; we separate ourselves
from every one that walks disorderly. Sometimes, if the case be judged
infectious (though rarely) this is openly declared. And this you
stile _excommunication_, and say, _Does not every one see a separate
ecclesiastical society or communion?_ page 13.――――No. This society
does not _separate_ from the _communion_ of the rest of the church
of _England_. They _continue stedfastly_ with them, both _in the
apostolical doctrine, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayers_
(which neither Mr. _St._ nor Mr. _Si._ does: nor the gentleman who
writes to you in favour of the _Moravians_: who also writes pressingly
to me, to _separate_ myself from the church) a society _over which
you had appointed yourself a governor_.――――No; so far as I governed
them, it was at their own intreaty.――――_And took upon you all the
spiritual authority, which the very highest church governor could
claim._――――What! at _Kingswood_? In _February 1740‒1_? Not so. I took
upon me no other authority (then and there at least) than any steward
of a society exerts by the consent of the other members. I did neither
more nor less than declare, that they who had broken our rules, were no
longer of our society.
_Can you pretend that you received this authority from our church?_
――――Not by ordination; for I did not exert it as a _priest_: but as
one whom that society had voluntarily chosen to be at the head of
them.――――_Or that you exercised it in subjection, or subordination
to her lawful governors?_――――I think so; I am sure I did not exercise
it in any designed opposition to them.――――_Did you ever think proper
to consult or advise with them, about fixing the terms of your
communion?_――――If you mean, about fixing the rules of admitting or
excluding from our society: I never did think it either needful or
proper. Nor do I, at this day.
_How then will you vindicate all these powers?――――All these_ are,
“Declaring those are no longer of our society.” _Here is a manifest
congregation. Either it belonged to the church of_ England, _or
not.――――If it did not――――you set up a separate communion against her.
And how then are you injured, in being thought to have withdrawn from
her?_――――I have nothing to do with this. The antecedent is false.
Therefore the consequent falls of course.――――_If it did belong to the
church, shew where the church gave you such authority of controuling
and regulating it?_――――Authority of putting disorderly members out of
that society? The society itself gave me that authority. _What private
clergyman can plead her commission, to be thus a judge and ordinary,
even in his own parish?_――――Any clergyman or layman, without pleading
her commission, may be thus a judge and ordinary. _Are not these powers
inherent in her governors, and committed to the higher order of her
clergy?_――――No; not the power of excluding members from a private
society,――――unless on supposition of some such rule as ours is, viz.
“That if any man separate from the church, he is no longer a member of
our society.”
7. But you have more proof yet. _The grand jury in_ Georgia _found,
that you had called yourself ordinary of_ Savannah. _Nor was this
fact contradicted even by those of the jury, who you say wrote in your
favour. So that it appears, you have long had an inclination, to be
independent and uncontrouled._――――This argument ought to be good; for
it is far fetched. The plain case was this. That grand jury did assert,
“That in Mr. _Causton_’s hearing, I had called myself ordinary of
_Savannah_.” The minority of the jury, in their letter to the trustees,
refuted the other allegations particularly: but thought this so idle an
one, that they did not deign to give it any farther reply, than
“As to the eighth bill we are in doubt, as not well knowing the meaning
of the word _ordinary_.” See 1 Journal, pages 47, 49.
You add, _I appeal to any reasonable man, whether you have not acted
as an_ ordinary; _nay, a_ bishop _in_ Kingswood.――――If you mean, in
“declaring those disorderly members were no longer of that society.”
I admit your appeal, whether I therein acted as a _bishop_, or as
any _steward_ of a society may. _Nay, you have gone far beyond the
generality of the dissenters themselves; who do not commit the power
of excommunication (and ♦appointing to preach_――――that is another
question) _to the hands of any private minister_.――――The _powers of
excommunication._――――True; but this was not _excommunication_, but a
quite different thing.
♦ “appointed” replaced with “appointing” per Errata
How far, in what circumstances, and in what sense, I have _appointed
men to preach_, I have explained at large in the third part of the
_Farther Appeal_. But I wait for farther light; and am ready to
consider, as I am able, whatever shall be replied to what is there
advanced.
8. Your general conclusion is, _Whatever your pretences or professions
may be, you can be looked upon by serious and impartial persons, (not
as a_ member, _much less a_ minister _of the church of_ England,) _but
as no other than an enemy to her constitution, worship and doctrine,
raising divisions and disturbances in her communion_, (page 76.)
――――_And yet you say――――“I cannot have greater regard to her
rules”――――“I dare not renounce communion with her.”_ (page 15.)
* I do say so still. I cannot have a greater regard to any _human
rules_, than to follow them in all things, unless where I apprehend
there is a _divine_ rule to the contrary. I dare not _renounce
communion_ with the church of _England_. As a _minister_, I teach
her doctrines. I use her offices. I conform to her rubricks. I
suffer reproach for my attachment to her. As a private _member_ I
hold her doctrines. I join in her offices, in prayer, in hearing, in
communicating. I _expect_ every reasonable man, touching these facts,
to _believe his own eyes and ears_.――――But if these facts are so, how
dare any man of common sense, charge me with _renouncing_ the church of
_England_?
9. Use ever so many exaggerations, still the whole of this matter is, 1.
I often use extemporary prayer. 2. Wherever I can, I preach the gospel.
3. Those who desire to _live the gospel_ I advise how to watch over
each other, and to put from them such as walk disorderly. Now whether
these things are, on other considerations, right or wrong, this single
point I must still insist on; “All this does not prove, either that I
am no _member_, or that I am no _minister_ of the church of _England_.”
Nay, nothing can prove, I am no _member_ of the church, till I either
am _excommunicated_, or _renounce_ her communion, and no longer join
in her doctrine, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayer. Nor can
any thing prove, I am no _minister_ of the church, till I either am
_deposed_ from my ministry, or _voluntarily renounce_ her, and wholly
cease to teach her doctrines, use her offices, and obey her rubricks
for conscience sake.
However I grant, that whatsoever is _urged on this head, deserves my
most serious consideration_. And whensoever I am _convinced_, that by
taking any _methods_, more or less _different_ from those I now take, I
may better _consult the honour of religion, and be able to do more good
in the world_; by the grace of God, I shall not persist in these one
hour, but instantly chuse the more excellent way.
* * * * *
IV. 1. What you urge on the head of _enthusiasm_ also, I think
_deserves my most serious consideration_. (You may add, _and
presumption_. I let it drop once more; because I do not love tautology;
and because I look upon presumption to be ♦essential to enthusiasm,
and consequently contained therein.) I will therefore weigh what you
advance concerning it, and explain myself something more at large.
♦ “assential” replaced with “essential”
_I am to examine_, you say, (page 120.) _How far you have cleared
yourself of enthusiasm. My account of this you set down, making as
many alterations and omissions as there are lines_――――Perhaps more;
for I never designed to recite the whole, but only the material part
of it. _If you did not wholly approve of it, why would you not let me
know, what you disliked in it?_――――Because I do not love many words.
Therefore when the argument stood thus: “He that does this is an
enthusiast: but you do this:” I was generally content with answering
the 2d proposition, and leaving the first as I found it.
_I laid this charge against you and the Methodists in general: between
you every part of the character has been verified._――――I answer for
one; let the rest answer for themselves,――――if they have not better
employment.
That the question between us may be the more fully understood, I shall
briefly compare together, 1. Your remarks. 2. My answer. 3. Your reply:
though still I cannot promise to repeat your words at length.
2. You remark (page 60.) _Though you would be thought an enemy to
enthusiasm and presumption,――――yet in both you are far from being
inferior to the_ Moravians, _or indeed to any others_: [strong
assertions! _not inferior to_ any others? Not to the _French_ prophets,
or _John_ of _Leyden_?] 1. _Enthusiasm is, a false persuasion of an
extraordinary divine assistance, which leads men to such conduct, as is
only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance._ I answer,
(page 38.) “Before this touches me, you are to prove (which I conceive
you have not done yet) that my conduct is such, as is only to be
justified by the supposition of such assistance.” You reply (page 120.)
_This, I think, is proved in the preceding tract._――――I think not.
Let men of candour judge.――――Yet I am persuaded, there was such an
assistance at some times. You have also to prove, that this was _a
false_ persuasion.
You remark, 2. _An enthusiast is then sincere, but mistaken._ (page
61.) I answered, “That I am mistaken, remains to be proved.” You reply,
_The world must judge_. Agreed, if by the world you mean, men of reason
and religion.
You remark, 3. _His intentions must be good: but his actions will
be most abominable._ I answered,――――“What actions of mine are most
abominable?” You reply, _The world must be judge, whether your public
actions have not been――――in many respects abominable_. I am glad
the charge softens. I hope by and by you will think they are only
abominable in some respects.
You remark 4. _Instead of making the word of God――――the rule of his
actions, he follows only secret persuasion or impulse._――――I answered,
“I have declared again and again, that I make the word of God the
rule of all my actions, and that I no more follow any _secret impulse_
instead thereof, than I follow _Mahomet_ or _Confucius_.” You reply
(page 121.) _You fall again into your strain of boasting, as if
declarations could have any weight against facts; assert, that “you
make the word of God the rule of all your actions,” and that I “perhaps
do not know many persons.”_――――Stop, Sir. You are stepping over one or
two points, which I have not done with.
You remark, 5. _Instead of judging of his spiritual estate, by the
improvement of his heart, he rests only on extasies_, &c.――――I answered,
“Neither is this my case. I rest not on them at all. I judge of my
spiritual estate, by the improvement of my heart and the tenor of my
life conjointly.” To this I do not perceive you reply one word. Herein
then I am not an enthusiast.
You remark, 6. _He is very liable to err――――not considering things
coolly and carefully._ I answered, “So indeed I am: I find it every
day more and more. But I do not yet find, that this is owing to my want
of _considering things coolly and carefully_. Perhaps you do not know
many persons (excuse my simplicity in speaking it) who more carefully
consider every step they take (page 39.) Yet I know I am not cool or
careful enough. May God supply this and all my wants!” You reply, _Your
private life I have nothing to do with_: and then enlarge on my _method
of consulting scripture_, and of using lots: of both which by and by.
But mean time, observe this does not affect the question. for I neither
cast lots, nor use that method at all, till I have considered things
with all the care I can. So that, be this right or wrong, it is no
manner of proof, that I do not “carefully consider every step I take.”
But how little did I profit by begging your excuse, suppose I had
spoken a word unguardedly? O Sir, you put me in mind of him who said,
“I know not to shew mercy!” You have need never to fight, but when you
are sure to conquer: seeing you are resolved neither to give nor take
quarter.
You remark, 7. _He is very difficult to be convinced by reason and
argument, as he acts upon a supposed principle superior to it, the
direction of God’s Spirit._ I answered, “I am very difficult to be
convinced by dry blows or hard names.――――But not, by reason or argument.
At least that difficulty cannot spring from the cause you mention.
For I claim no other direction of God’s Spirit than is _common_ to all
believers.”
You reply (page 124) 1.――――_I fear this will not be easily
reconcileable to your past pretences and behaviour._ I believe it
will; in particular to what I speak of the light I received from God in
that important affair. (1 journal page 37.) But as to the directions,
in general of the Spirit of God, we very probably differ in this; you
apprehend those directions to be extraordinary, which I suppose to be
common to all believers.
You remark, 8. _Whoever opposes him will be charged with resisting or
rejecting the Spirit._ I answered, “What! Whoever opposes me, John
Wesley?――――Do I charge every such person with _rejecting the Spirit_?
No more than I charge him with robbing on the highway.――――Do I charge
_you_ with rejecting the Spirit?” You reply, _You deny that you charge
the opposers with rejecting the Spirit, and affirm, that you never said
or thought, that what you do is to be accounted the work of God_. Here
you blend different sentences together, which I must consider apart,
as they were written. And first, where do I charge you with rejecting
the Spirit? If I charge whoever opposes me with this, undoubtedly I
charge you. If I do not charge you, that proposition is false; I do
not so charge whoever opposes me. Your next words are, _You affirm that
you never said or thought, that what you do is ♦to be accounted the
work of God.――――If it be the work of God, you need not deny the other
point._――――Yes, Sir: whether it be or no, I must still deny, that I
ever charged you with rejecting the Spirit in opposing me.
♦ “be” replaced with “to be”
You remark, 9. _His own dreams must be regarded as oracles._――――I
answered, “Whose? I desire neither my dreams nor my waking thoughts,
may be regarded at all, unless just so far as they agree with the
oracles of God.” To this also you make no reply.
You remark, 10. _However wild――――his behaviour may be, whatever
he――――does, is to be accounted the work of God._ It was to this I
answered, “I never said so of what I do: I never thought so.” This
answer was ill expressed. And I might have foreseen, you would hardly
fail, to make your advantage of it. I must therefore explain myself
upon it a little farther. You said, “An enthusiast accounts _whatever
he does_ to be the work of God.” I should have said, “but I do not
account _whatever I do_ to be the work of God.” What that is, which I
do account his work, will be considered by and by.
You remark, 11. _He talks in the stile of inspired persons._ I answered,
“No otherwise inspired, than you are, if you love God.” You reply,
(page 126.) _The point was not, whether you are actually inspired, but
whether you have talked in the stile of those who were so_. That was so
much the point, that if it were allowed, it would overturn your whole
argument. For if I was inspired (in _your_ sense) you could not term
that inspiration enthusiasm without blasphemy: but you again mistake my
words. The plain meaning of them is, that I talk in the stile of those
persons, who are “no otherwise inspired than you are, if you love God.”
You remark, 12. _He applies scripture phrases to himself, without
attending to their original meaning, or once considering the difference
of times and circumstances._ (page 62.) I answered, “I am not conscious
of any thing like this. I apply no scripture phrase (page 39) either to
myself or any other, without carefully considering both the _original
meaning_, and the _secondary_ sense, wherein, allowing for different
times and circumstances, it may be applied to ordinary Christians.”
You reply, _This also you deny to have done; holding however some_
secondary _sense, (what it is you have not told us) in which scripture
phrases may――――be applied to ordinary Christians_. I have largely told
you, what I mean by, a _secondary_ sense, in the first part of the
_Farther Appeal_. You add, (page 126.) _many things which were truly
written of the preaching of Christianity at first, you have vainly
applied to yourselves_. Sir, I am to answer only for myself: as I will
for that expression, _Behold the day of the Lord is come; he is again
visiting and redeeming his people_!
3. I come now to what you expatiate upon at large, as the two grand
instances of enthusiasm. The first is plainly this. * At some rare
times, when I have been in great distress of soul, or in utter
uncertainty how to act, in an important case, which required a speedy
determination: after using all other means that occurred, I have casts
lots, or opened the bible. And by this means I have been relieved from
that distress, or directed in that uncertainty.
Instances of this kind occur in the 12. 14. 15. 28. and 88th pages of
the third journal: as also in the 27. 28. and 80th page of the last
journal. I desire any who would understand this matter throughly, to
read those passages as they stand at length.
As to the particular instances, I would observe, 1. That with regard
to my first journey to _Bristol_, you should in any wise have set
down those words, that preface the scriptures there recited. “I was
intreated, in the most pressing manner, to come to _Bristol_ without
delay. This I was not at all forward to do: and perhaps a little the
less inclined to it――――because of the remarkable scriptures which
offered, as often as we enquired touching the consequence of this
removal: though whether this was permitted only for the trial of our
faith, God knoweth, and the event will shew.”――――From the scriptures
afterwards recited, some inferred, that the event, they apprehended,
was yet afar off.――――I infer nothing at all. I still know not how to
judge; but leave the whole to God.――――* This only I know, that the
continual expectation of death, was then an unspeakable blessing to
me: that I did not dare, knowingly, to waste a moment, neither to throw
away one desire on earthly things: those words being ever uppermost in
my thoughts, and indeed frequently on my tongue,
E’er long, when sov’reign wisdom wills
My soul an unknown path shall tread,
Shall strangely leave, who strangely fills
This frame, and waft me to the dead.
O what is death? ’Tis life’s last shore,
Where vanities are vain no more:
Where all pursuits their goal obtain,
And life is all re-touch’d again.――――
I observe, 2. That in two other of those instances, (_3 journal_ pages
12 and 14.) it is particularly mentioned, that “I was troubled;” and
that by the seasonable application of those scriptures, that trouble
was entirely removed. The same blessing I received (so I must term it
still) from the words set down in the 88th page: and in a yet higher
degree, from that exceeding, ♦apposite scripture mentioned in the 80th
page of the last journal.
♦ “opposite” replaced with “apposite” per Errata
I observe, 3. That at the times to which your other citations refer,
I was utterly uncertain how to act, in points of great importance,
and such as required a speedy determination: and that by this means my
uncertainty was removed, and I went on my way rejoicing, _Journal 3._
pages 12, 15. _Journal 4._ pages 27, 28.
My _own experience_ therefore, which you _think_ should _discourage
me for the future_ from any thing of this kind, does on the contrary
greatly encourage me herein; since I have found much benefit, and no
inconvenience: unless perhaps this be one, that you _cannot acquit me
of enthusiasm_: add, if you please, and presumption.
But you ask, _Has God ever commanded us to_ do _thus_? I believe he
has neither commanded nor forbidden it in scripture. But then remember,
_That scripture_ (to use the words which you cite, from _our learned
and judicious_ Hooker) _is_ not _the only rule of all things, which
in this life, may be done by men_――――All I affirm concerning this, is,
_That it may be done_; and that I have in fact, received _assistance_
and _direction_ thereby.
4. I give the same answer to your assertion, (page 123.) that we are
not ordered in scripture to decide any point in question by _lots_. You
allow indeed, there are _instances of this in scripture_; but affirm,
these _were miraculous: nor can we without presumption_ (a species
of enthusiasm) _apply this method_. I want proof of this: bring one
plain text of scripture, and I am satisfied.――――_This, I apprehend,
you learned from the_ Moravians――――I did; though ’tis true, Mr.
_Whitefield_ thought I went too far therein.――――_Instances of the
same occur in your journals. I will mention only one. It being debated
when you should go to_ Bristol, _you say, “We at length all agreed,
to decide it by lot. And by this it was determined, I should go.”_
(Journal 3, page 28.) _Is this your way of carefully considering every
step you take? Can there be greater rashness and extravagance? Reason
is thus in a manner rendered useless: prudence is set aside, and
affairs of moment left to be determined by chance!_ page 124.
So this you give as a genuine instance of my proceedings――――And, I
suppose, of your own fairness and candour! “We agreed at length, to
decide it by lot.” True; at _length_: after a debate of some hours;
after carefully hearing and weighing coolly, all the reasons which
could be alledged on either side; “Our brethren still continuing the
dispute, without any probability of their coming to one conclusion,
we at length (the night being now far spent) all agreed to this.” _Can
there be greater rashness and extravagance?_――――I cannot but think
there can. _Reason is thus in a manner rendered useless._ No: we had
used it as far as it could go: from _Saturday, March 17_, (when I
received the first letter) to _Wednesday 28_, when the case was laid
before the society. _Prudence is set aside_: Not so; but the arguments
here were so equal, that she saw not how to determine:――――_And affairs
of moment left to be determined by chance_! By chance? What a blunder
then is that, _The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposal
thereof is of the Lord_!
* This I firmly believe is truth and reason, and will be to the end
of the world. And I therefore still subscribe to that declaration of
the _Moravian_ church (laid before the whole body of divines in the
university of _Wirtemberg_, and not by them accounted _enthusiasm_)
“We have a peculiar esteem for _lots_, and accordingly use them both
in public and private, to decide points of importance, when the reasons
brought on each side, appear to be of equal weight. And we believe
this to be then the only way, of wholly setting aside our own will, of
acquitting ourselves of all blame, and clearly knowing what is the will
of God.” Journal 2, page 81.
5. You next _remarked_ several _instances_ of my enthusiasm. The first
was, That of Mrs. _Jones_. The next ran thus. _Again, you say_, “I
expounded out of the fulness that was given me.” (page 64.) I answered,
“I mean, I had then a _fuller_, deeper sense (of what I spoke) than I
_ordinarily_ have.” (page 41.) But if you still think, _It would have
been more decent to have said, according to the best of my power and
ability, with God’s assistance, I expounded_; I will say so another
time.
With regard to the third _instance_ of enthusiasm, you _remarked, If
you would not have us look on this as miraculous, there is nothing
in it worthy of being related_, page 64.――――I answered, “It may be
so. Let it pass then as a trifle not worth relating; but still it
is no proof of enthusiasm. For I would not have you look upon it as
miraculous――――But as a signal instance of God’s particular providence,
page 42.” How friendly and generous is your reply! _You seem ashamed of
it――――I am glad you give this fooling up, and hope for the future, you
will treat your readers better._ (page 131.) Sir, I am not _ashamed
of it_; nor shall I ever give _this fooling_ up, till I give up the
bible. I still look upon this “as a signal instance of God’s particular
providence”――――But _how is this consistent with yielding it to be a
trifle_? (page 132.) My words do not imply, that I _yield_ it so to be.
Being urged with the dilemma, “Either this is related as miraculous,
(and then it is enthusiasm) or it is not worth relating:” I answered
(to avoid drawing the saw of controversy) “Let it pass then as a trifle
not worth relating. But still, (if it be a trifle, which I _suppose_,
not grant) it is no proof of enthusiasm. For I would not have you look
upon it as miraculous.”
And yet I believe I yielded too much, and what might too much favour
your assertion, that _there is a great difference between particular
providences and such extraordinary interpositions_.――――Pray, Sir, shew
me what this difference is. It is a subject that deserves your coolest
thoughts――――_I know no ground――――to hope or pray for such immediate
reliefs.――――These things must be represented either as common accidents
or as miracles._ I do not throughly understand your terms. What is a
common _accident_? That a sparrow falls to the ground? Or something
more inconsiderable than the hairs of your head? Is there no medium
between accident and miracle? If there be, what is that medium?――――When
we are agreed with regard to these few points, I shall be glad to
resume the subject.
6. The fourth instance of my enthusiasm was this, that I _related
judgments inflicted on my opposers_. As to Mr. _Molther_, I must
observe once more, that I do believe there was a particular providence
in his sickness. But I do not believe, (nor did I design to insinuate)
that it was a judgment, for opposing _me_.
You go on. _Again, you mention “as an awful providence, the case of a
poor wretch who was last week cursing and blaspheming, and had boasted
to many, that he would come again on_ Sunday, _and no man should stop
his mouth then――――But on_ Friday _God laid his hand upon him, and on_
Sunday _he was buried_.” (page 66.) I answered, “I look on this as a
manifest judgment of God, on a hardened sinner, for his complicated
wickedness”. (page 42.) You reply, page 133. _Add, if you please, “His
labouring with all his might to hinder the word of God.” Here therefore
is a confest judgment, for his opposition to you._――――There is, for
his _thus_ opposing with curses and blasphemy. This was part of his
complicated wickedness. Here then you _think I plead guilty_.――――Not
of _enthusiasm_; till you prove, this was not “an awful providence.”
_Again, “One was just going to beat his wife (which he frequently did)
when God smote him in a moment, so that his hand dropped, and he fell
down upon the ground, having no more strength than a new-born child.”
Have we any warrant either from scripture, or the common dispensations
of providence, to interpret misfortunes of this nature as judgments?_
page 67. I answered, “Can you, Sir, consider this, as one of the common
dispensations of providence? Have you known a parallel one in your
life? But it was never cited by me (as it is by you) as an immediate
punishment on a man for _opposing me_”. page 42.――――You reply, _As
if what is not common, or what I have not known, must be a miraculous
judgment_.――――I believe it was, whether miraculous or no, a judgment
mixed with mercy.
You now add to the rest the following instance: “One _John Haydon_, a
man of a regular life and conversation, being informed, that _people
fell into strange fits at the_ societies, came to see and judge for
himself. But he was still less satisfied than before; insomuch that he
went about to his acquaintance one after another, and laboured above
measure to convince them, it was a delusion of the devil. We were going
home, when one met us in the street, and informed us, that _J. H._ was
fallen raving mad. It seems he had sat down to dinner, but had a mind
first to end the sermon on salvation by faith. In reading the last page
he changed colour, fell off his chair, and began screaming terribly,
and beating himself against the ground. The neighbours were alarmed,
and flocked into the house. I came in and found him upon the floor,
♦the room being full of people, whom his wife would have kept without,
but he cried aloud, No; let them all come; let all the world see the
just judgment of God. Two or three men were holding him as well as they
could. He immediately fixed his eyes upon me, and cried, Ay, this is
he, who I said was a deceiver of the people. But God has overtaken me.
I said, it was all a delusion. But this is no delusion. He then roared
out, O thou devil! Thou cursed devil! Yea, thou legion of devils! Thou
canst not stay! Christ will call thee out. I know his work is begun.
Tear me to pieces if thou wilt, but thou canst not hurt me. He then
beat himself against the ground again, his breast heaving at the same
time, as in the pangs of death, and great drops of sweat trickling down
his face. We all betook ourselves to prayer. His pangs ceased, and both
his body and soul were set at liberty.” _Journal 3._ page 44.
♦ duplicate word “the” removed
If you had pleased, you might have added from the next paragraph,
“Returning to _J. H._ we found his voice was lost, and his body weak
as that of an infant. But his soul was in peace, full of love, and
rejoicing in hope of the glory of God.”
You subjoin, _this you may desire for ought I know, to pass as a trifle
too_. (page 134.) No: it is so terrible an instance of the judgment of
God, (tho’ at length _mercy rejoiced over judgment_) as ought never to
be forgotten by those who fear God, so long as the sun or moon endureth.
7. The account of people falling down in fits you cite as a fifth
instance of my enthusiasm: it being _plain_, you say, that I _look upon
both the disorders, and the removals of them to be supernatural_. (page
67.) I answered, “It is not quite plain. I look upon some of these
cases, as wholly natural: on the rest, as mixt: both the disorders
and the removals, being partly natural and partly not.” (page 43.)
You reply, _It would have been kind, to have let us know your rule,
by which you distinguish these_.――――I will. I distinguish them, by the
circumstances, that precede, accompany, and follow. _However some of
these you here allow, to be in part, supernatural. Miracles therefore
are not wholly ceased._ Can you prove they are? By scripture, or
reason?――――You then refer to two or three cases related in the 42d and
43d pages of the third journal. I believe there was a _supernatural_
power, on the minds of the persons there mentioned, which occasioned
their bodies to be so affected by the _natural_ laws of the vital union.
This point therefore you have to prove, or here is no enthusiasm; that
there was no _supernatural_ power in the case.
Hereon you remarked, _You leave no room to doubt that you would have
these cases considered, as those of the demoniacks in the new Testament,
in order, I suppose, to parallel your supposed cures of them, with
those highest miracles of Christ and his disciples, the casting out
devils_――――(Remarks, page 68.) I answered, “I should once have wondered
at your making such a supposition. But I now wonder at nothing of the
kind.” You reply, _Why so? What have I done lately, to take off your
surprize? Have I forfeited my character for ingenuous and fair dealing
with you?_ (2d Letter, page 135.) Since you ask me the question, I will
answer it (I hope, in love and in the spirit of meekness.) I scarce
know, of all who have wrote against me, a less ingenuous dealer: or
one who has shewn a more steady, invariable disposition, to put an ill
construction on whatever I say.
_But why would you not particularly explain these cases?_――――I will
explain myself upon them once for all. For more than three hundred
years after Christ, you know demoniacks were common in the church:
and I suppose, ♦you are not unapprised, that during this period, ♠(if
not much longer) they were continually relieved by the prayers of the
faithful. Nor can I doubt, but demoniacks will remain, so long as Satan
is the _God of this world_. I doubt not, but there are such at this day.
And I believe _John Haydon_ was one. But of whatever sort his disorder
was, that it was removed by prayer is undeniable. Now, Sir, you have
only two points to prove, and then your argument will be conclusive.
1. That to think or say, “There are _demoniacks_ now, and they are now
relieved by prayer,” is enthusiasm: 2. That to say “_Demoniacks_ were
or are relieved, on prayer made by _Cyprian_, or their parish-minister,”
is _to parallel_ the actions of _Cyprian_, or that minister, _with
the highest miracles of Christ and his disciples_.”
♦ remove the word “that” per Errata
♠ “if)” replaced with “(if”
8. You remarked, _It will be difficult to persuade any sober person,
that there is any thing supernatural in these disorders_, Remarks,
page 69. The remainder of that paragraph I abridged thus. You attempt
to account for those fits, by _obstructions_ or _irregularities of
the blood and spirits; hysterical disorders; watchings, fastings;
closeness of rooms, great crouds, violent heat_. And lastly by _terrors,
perplexities and doubts, in weak and well-meaning men; which_ you
think _in many of the cases before us, have quite overset their
understandings_, Remarks, page 43.
I answered, “As to each of the rest, let it go as far as it can go.
[Let it be supposed to have _some_ influence in _some_ cases; perhaps,
_fully to account for_ one in a thousand.] But I require proof of the
last way, whereby you would account for these disorders.”――――Why, _the
instances_, you say, of _religious madness have much increased, since
you began to disturb the world_.――――“I doubt the fact.”――――You reply,
_This no way disproves it_, page 137.――――Yes it does, till you produce
some proof. For a bare negation is the proper and sufficient answer
to a bare affirmation. I add, “If these instances had increased daily,
’tis easy to account for them another way,” (as is done in the first
part of the _Farther Appeal_, at the 101st and following pages.) You
say, _Most have heard of or known, several of the_ Methodists, _thus
driven to distraction_: I answered, “_You_ may have _heard_ of five
hundred. But how many have you _known_? Be pleased to name eight or ten
of them. I cannot find them, no, not one of them to this day, either
man, woman, or child,” page 44. You reply, “_This_ (the naming them)
_would be very improper and unnecessary_, page 138.” However, Sir, it
is extremely necessary, that you should name them to me in private,
I will then, if required, excuse you to the public; which till then I
cannot do.
The person I mentioned whom you _threw_ into much _doubt_ and
_perplexity_, then lived in the parish of St. _Ann, Westminster_. I
related the case just as she related it to me. But she is able and
ready to answer for herself.
9. You go on. It _is the most charitable supposition we can make, that
many of the cases you have mentioned in your journals, and some of
which have been represented above, are of this kind_, i. e. instances
of madness,――――2d Letter, page 138. O tender charity! But cannot
your charity reach one hair’s breadth farther than this?――――No: for
_otherwise_ [_i. e._ if those persons were not mad] _the presumption
and despair are terrible indeed_.――――But what if you were to suppose
_John Haydon_ (to instance in one) was not mad, but under a temporary
possession? And that others were deeply convinced of sin, and of the
wrath of God abiding on them? I should think this supposition (be it
true or false) was full as _charitable_ as the other.
I said, “I cannot find one such instance to this day.” You reply,
_Yet once you could not but be under some “Concern, with regard to one
or two persons, who_ seemed _to be indeed_ lunatic, _as well as sore
vexed_”.――――“So they _seemed_: but it soon appeared, they _were not_.”
The very next paragraph mentions, that one of these within a few hours,
was “filled with the spirit of love, and of a sound mind.” _Journal 3._
page 88.
But you are resolved, come what will, to carry this point: and so add,
_Toward the end of your Farther Appeal_, [the first part, page 101.]
You say, “_You have seen one instance of real, lasting madness.
This was one whom you took with you to_ Bristol, _who was afterwards
prejudiced against you, and began a vehement ♦invective both against
your person and doctrines. In the midst of this he was struck raving
mad._” Add, “And so he continued till his friends put him into _Bedlam_:
and probably laid _his_ madness to _my_ charge.”――――If they did not,
it is now done to their hands.
♦ “invection” replaced with “invective” per Errata
10. _As to the cure of these fits, I observed_ (so you, page 139.
proceed) _that you had frequently represented them as miraculous, as
the instantaneous consequences of your prayers_.――――My former answer
to this was, “I have set down the facts just as they were, passing no
judgment upon them myself, and leaving every man else to judge as he
pleases.”
I am glad you give me an occasion of reviewing this answer; for upon
reflection, I do not like it at all. It grants you more than I can
in conscience do. As it can be proved by abundance of witnesses, that
these cures were frequently, (indeed almost always) the _instantaneous_
consequences of prayer; your inference is just. I cannot, dare not
affirm, that they were purely _natural_. I believe they were not. I
believe many of them were wrought by the _supernatural_ power of God.
That of _John Haydon_ in particular: (I fix on this, and will join
issue with you upon it when you please) and yet this is not _bare-faced
enthusiasm_. Nor can you prove it any _enthusiasm_ at all, unless you
can prove, that this is _falsely_ ascribed to a _supernatural_ power.
_The next case_, you say, _relates to the spotted fever, which you
represent as being extremely mortal; but――――you believe there was
not one with whom you were but recovered. I allowed, that here is no
intimation of any thing miraculous_ (_Remarks_ page 72.) _You ask_,
(Answer, page 45.) “_Why then is this cited as an instance of my
enthusiasm?”――――You sure cannot think, that false pretences to miracles
are the_ whole _of enthusiasm_. No; but I think they are _that part_
of enthusiasm, which you here undertook to prove upon me. You are here
to prove, that I _boast of curing bodily distempers by prayer, without
the use of any other means_. (Remarks, page 71.) But if _there is no
intimation_ in my account _of any thing miraculous, or that proper
remedies had not been applied_: how is this a proof, that I _boast of
curing bodily distempers, without applying_ any _remedies_ at all?
_But you seem to desire to have it believed, that an extraordinary
blessing attended your prayers. Whereas if the circumstances could be
particularly inquired into, most probably it would appear, that either
the fury of the distemper was abated, or the persons you visited were
seized with it in a more favourable degree, or were by reason of a good
constitution, more capable of going through it. Neither do I believe,
that they would have failed of an equal blessing and success, had they
had the assistance and prayers of their own parish ministers._
There, Sir; now I have done as you require: I have quoted your whole
remark. But does all this prove, that I _boast of curing bodily
distempers by prayer, without the use of any other means_? If you say,
although it does not prove this, it proves that _you seem to desire to
have it believed, that an extraordinary blessing attended your prayers_:
and this is another sort of enthusiasm:――――’tis very well: so it does
not prove the conclusion you designed; but it proves another, which is
as good!
11. The two last instances of my enthusiasm which you bring (_Remarks_,
72, 73.) I had summed up in two lines thus: “At two several times,
being ill and in violent pain, I prayed to God, and found immediate
ease.” (_Answer_, page 45.) But since you say, I _must not hope
to escape so; these instances must once more be laid before me
particularly_, page 140. I must yield to necessity, and set them down
from the beginning to the end.
“_Saturday, March 21._ I explained in the evening the 33d chapter of
_Ezekiel_: in applying which, I was seized with such a pain in my side,
I could not speak. I knew my remedy, and immediately kneeled down. In
a moment the pain was gone.” _Journal 4._ page 77.
“_Friday, May 8._ I found myself much out of order, however I made
shift to preach in the evening. But on _Saturday_ my bodily strength
failed, so that for several hours I could scarce lift up my head.
_Sunday 10._ I was obliged to lie down most part of the day, being easy
only in that posture.――――In the evening――――beside the pain in my back
and head, and the fever which still continued upon me, just as I began
to pray, I was seized with such a cough, that I could hardly speak.
At the same time came strongly into my mind, _These signs shall follow
them that believe_.――――I called on _Jesus_ aloud, To _increase my
faith_, and to _confirm the word of his grace_. While I was speaking,
my pain vanished away, the fever left me, my bodily strength returned,
and for many weeks I felt neither weakness nor pain. Unto thee, O Lord,
do I give thanks.” _Journal 4._ page 83.
When you first cited these as proofs of enthusiasm, I answered, “I will
put your argument into form.
“He that believes those are miraculous cures which are not so, is a
rank enthusiast: but
“You believe those are miraculous cures which are not so, therefore,
you are a rank enthusiast.”
――――“What do you mean by miraculous? If you term every thing so, which
is _not strictly accountable for by the ordinary course of natural
causes_, then I deny the latter part of the minor proposition. And
unless you can make this good, unless you can prove, the effects in
question, are _strictly accountable for by the ordinary course of
natural causes_, your argument is nothing worth.”
You reply, _Your answer to the objection is very evasive, though you
pretend to put my argument in form. You mistake the major proposition
which should have been_:
_He that represents those cures as the immediate effects of his own
prayers, and as miraculous, which are not so, is a rank enthusiast, if
sincere:_
_But, This you have done: Ergo_, &c.
To this clumsy syllogism I rejoin, 1. That the words, “if sincere,”
are utterly impertinent: for if _insincerity_ be supposed, _enthusiasm_
will be out of the question. 2. That those words, “as the effects of
his own prayers,” may likewise be pared off; for they are unnecessary
and cumbersome, the argument being compleat without them. 3. That
with or without them, the proposition is false; unless so far as it
co-incides with that you reject. For it is _the believing_ those to
be miracles which are not, that constitutes an _enthusiast_: not the
_representing_ them one way or the other; unless so far as it implies
such a _belief_.
12. Upon my answer to the syllogism first proposed, you observe, _Thus_
(by denying the latter part of the minor) _you clear yourself from the
charge of enthusiasm, by acknowledging the cures to be supernatural
and miraculous――――Why then would you not speak out, and directly say,
that you can work real and undoubted miracles? This would put the
controversy between you and your opposers on a short foot, and be an
effectual proof of ♦the truth of your pretences_, page 142.
♦ duplicate word “the” removed
* * * * *
V. 1. I have in some measure explained myself on the head of miracles,
in the third part of the _Farther Appeal_. But ♦since you repeat the
demand (tho’ without taking any notice of the arguments there advanced)
I will endeavour once more to give you a distinct, full and determinate
answer.
♦ “hence” replaced with “since” per Errata
And first, I acknowledge, that I have seen with my eyes, and heard
with my ears, several things, which, to the best of my judgment,
cannot be accounted for by the ordinary course of natural causes, and
which, I therefore believe ought to be _ascribed to the extraordinary
interposition of God_. If any man chuse to stile these _miracles_, I
reclaim not. I have diligently inquired into the facts. I have weighed
the preceding and following circumstances. I have strove to account
for them in a _natural_ way. I could not, without doing violence to
my reason. Not to go far back, I am clearly persuaded, that the hidden
deliverance of _John Haydon_, was one instance of this kind, and
my own recovery, on _May_ the tenth, another. I cannot account for
either of these in a _natural_ way. Therefore I believe they were both
_supernatural_.
* I must, secondly, observe, That the truth of these facts is supported
by the same kind of proof, as that of all other facts is wont to be,
namely, the testimony of competent witnesses: and that the testimony
here is in as high a degree as any reasonable man can desire. Those
witnesses were many in number: they could not be deceived themselves;
for the facts in question they saw with their own eyes, and heard with
their own ears. Nor is it credible, that so many of them would combine
together, with a view of deceiving others; the greater part being men
that feared God; as appeared by the general tenor of their lives. Thus,
in the case of _John Haydon_, this thing was not contrived and executed
in a corner, and in the presence of his own family only, or three or
four persons prepared for the purpose. No; it was in an open street of
the city of _Bristol_, at one or two in the afternoon. And the doors
being all open from the beginning, not only many of the neighbours
from every side, but several others, (indeed whosoever desired it)
went in, till the house could contain no more. Nor yet does the account
of my own illness and recovery _depend_, as you suppose, _on my bare
word_. There were many witnesses both of my disorder on _Friday_
and _Saturday_, and of my lying down most part of _Sunday_ (a thing
which they were well satisfied could not be the effect of a slight
indisposition.) And all who saw me that evening, plainly discerned
(what I could not wholly conceal) that I was in pain: about two hundred
of whom were present when I was seized with that cough, which cut me
short, so that I could speak no more; till I cried out aloud, “Lord,
increase my faith: Lord, confirm the word of thy grace.” The same
persons saw and heard, that at that instant I changed my posture, and
broke out into thanksgiving: that quickly after I stood upright (which
I could not before) and shewed no more sign either of sickness or pain.
* Yet I must desire you well to observe, thirdly, That my will, or
choice, or desire, had no place either in this, or any case of this
kind, that has ever fallen under my notice. Five minutes before I had
no thought of this. I expected nothing less. I was willing to wait
for a gradual recovery, in the ordinary use of outward means. I did
not look for any other cure, till the moment before I found it. And
it is my belief, that the case was always the same, with regard to
the most _real and undoubted miracles_. I believe God never interposed
his miraculous power, but according to his own sovereign will: not
according to the will of man; neither of him by whom he wrought, nor
of any other man whatsoever. The wisdom as well as the power are his:
nor can I find, that ever, from the beginning of the world, he lodged
this power in any mere man, to be used whenever that man saw good.
Suppose therefore, there was a man now on earth, who did work _real and
undoubted miracles_; I would ask, by whose power doth he work these?
And at whose pleasure? His own, or God’s? Not his own; but God’s. But
if so, then your demand is not made on man, but on God. I cannot say
it is modest, thus to challenge God; or well suiting the relation of a
creature to his Creator.
2. However, I cannot but think, there have been already so many plain
interpositions of divine power, as will shortly leave you without
excuse, if you either deny or despise them. We desire no favour, but
the justice that diligent enquiry may be made concerning them. We are
ready to name the persons on whom that power was shewn, which belongeth
to none but God; (not one or two, or ten or twelve only) to point out
their places of abode: and we engage they shall answer every pertinent
question, fairly and directly; and, if required, shall give all
those answers upon oath, before any who are impowered so to receive
them. It is our particular request, that the circumstances which went
before, which accompanied, and which followed after, the facts under
consideration, may be thoroughly examined, and punctually noted down.
Let but this be done (and is it not highly needful it should? at least,
by those who would form an exact judgment) and we have no fear, that
any reasonable man should scruple to say, _This hath God wrought_!
As there have been already so many instances of this kind, far beyond
what we had dared to ask or think, I cannot take upon me to say,
whether or no it will please God to add to their number. I have not
herein _known the mind of the Lord_, neither am I _his counsellor_.
He may, or he may not; I cannot affirm or deny. I have no light, and
I have no desire either way. _It is the Lord, let him do what seemeth
him good._ I desire only to be as clay in his hand.
* 3. But what if there were now to be wrought ever so many _real and
undoubted miracles_? (I suppose you mean by _undoubted_, such as being
sufficiently attested, ought not to be doubted of.) Why, this, you
say, _would put the controversy on a short foot, and be an effectual
proof of the truth of your pretences_. By no means. As common as this
assertion is, there is none upon earth more false. Suppose a teacher
were now, on this very day, to work _real_ and _undoubted miracles_:
this would extremely little _shorten the controversy_ between him and
the greater part of his opposers. For all this would not force them to
believe; but many would still stand just where they did before: seeing
men may _harden their hearts_ against miracles, as well as against
arguments.
So men have done, from the beginning of the world: even against such
signal, glorious miracles, against such interpositions of the power of
God, as may not be again till the consummation of all things. Permit
me to remind you only of a few instances; and to observe, that the
argument holds _a fortiori_: for who will ever be impowered of God
again, to work _such_ miracles as these were? Did _Pharaoh_ look on all
that _Moses_ and _Aaron_ wrought, as an _effectual proof of the truth
of their pretences_? Even when _the Lord made the sea to be dry-land,
and the waters were divided_: when _the children of Israel went into
the midst of the sea, and the waters were a wall, on the right and on
the left_? Exodus xiv. 21, 22. Nay;
The wounded dragon rag’d in vain;
And fierce the utmost plague to brave,
Madly he dar’d the parted main,
And sunk beneath th’ o’erwhelming wave.
Was all this _an effectual proof of the truth of their pretences_, to
the _Israelites_ themselves? It was not. _They were_ still _disobedient,
at the sea; even at the red sea_! Was the giving them day by day
_bread from heaven, an effectual proof_ to those _two hundred and fifty
princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown_,
who said, with _Dathan_ and _Abiram, Wilt thou put out the eyes of
these men? We will not come up._ Numbers xvi. 14. Nay, _when the ground
clave asunder that was under them, and the earth opened her mouth and
swallowed them up_: (verse 32.) Neither was this an _effectual proof_
to those who saw it with their eyes, and heard the cry of those that
went down into the pit: but the very next day they _murmured against_
Moses _and against_ Aaron, _saying, Ye have killed the people of the
Lord_! (verse 41.)
Was not the case generally the same with regard to the prophets that
followed? Several of whom _stopped the mouths of lions, quenched
the violence of fire_, did many mighty works; yet their own people
received them not. Yet _they were stoned, they were sawn asunder,
they_ were _slain with the sword_; they were _destitute_, _afflicted_,
_tormented_! Utterly contrary to the commonly-received supposition,
that the working _real undoubted miracles_, must bring all controversy
to an end, and convince every gainsayer.
Let us come nearer yet. How stood the case between our Lord himself
and his opposers? Did he not work _real and undoubted miracles_? And
what was the effect? Still when _he came to his own, his own received
him not_. Still _he was despised and rejected of men_. Still it was
a challenge not to be answered, _Have any of the rulers, or of the
pharisees believed on him_?――――After this, how can you imagine, that
whoever works miracles, must convince _all men of the truth of his
pretences_?
* I would just remind you of only one instance more. _There sat a
certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his
mother’s womb who never had walked. The same heard Paul speak: who
stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed,
said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and
walked._――――Here was so _undoubted a miracle_, that the people _lifted
up their voices, saying――――The Gods are come down in the likeness
of men_. But how long were even these convinced _of the truth of his
pretences_? Only till _there came thither certain Jews from Antioch
and Iconium_; and then they _stoned him_ (as they supposed) to death!
_Acts_ xiv. 1, &c. So certain it is, that no miracles whatever, which
were ever yet wrought in the world, were _effectual_ to _prove_ the
most glaring truth, to those that hardened their hearts against it.
* 4. And it will equally hold in every age and nation. _If they hear
not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced_ (of what
they desire not to believe) _tho’ one rose from the dead_. Without a
miracle, without one rising from the dead, ἐαν τις θέλει ποιεῖν· _if
any man be willing to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine
whether it be of God_. But if he is not willing to do his will, he will
never want an excuse, a plausible reason for rejecting it. Yea, tho’
ever so many miracles were wrought to confirm it. For let ever so much
_light come into the world_, it will have no effect (such is the wise
and just will of God) on those who _love darkness rather than light_?
It will not convince those who do not simply desire to do the will of
their Father which is in heaven: those who mind earthly things; who (if
they do not continue in any gross outward sin, yet) love pleasure or
ease; yet seek profit or power, preferment, or reputation. Nothing will
ever be an effectual proof to these of the holy and acceptable will of
God, unless first their proud hearts be humbled, their stubborn wills
bowed down, and their desires brought, at least in some degree, into
obedience to the law of Christ.
Hence altho’ it should please God to work a-new, all the wonders that
ever were wrought on the earth, still these men, however _wise and
prudent_ they may be in things relating to the present world, would
fight against God and all his messengers, and that in spite of all
these miracles. Mean while God will reveal his truth _unto babes_, unto
those who are meek and lowly, whose desires are in heaven, who want
to _know nothing save Jesus Christ and him crucified_.――――These need
no outward miracle, to shew them his will: they have a plain rule,
the written word. And _the anointing which they have received of him,
abideth in them, and teacheth them of all things_. (1 John ii. 27.)
Thro’ this they are enabled to bring all doctrines _to the law and
to the testimony_. And whatsoever is agreeable to this they receive,
without waiting to see it attested by miracles. As on the other hand,
whatever is contrary to this they reject: nor can any miracles move
them to receive it.
* 5. Yet I do not know, that God hath any way precluded himself from
thus exerting his sovereign power, from working miracles in any kind
or degree, in any age to the end of the world. I do not recollect any
scripture, wherein we are taught, that miracles were to be confined
within the limits either of the _apostolic_ or the _cyprianic_ age;
or of any period of time, longer or shorter, even till the restitution
of all things. I have not observed, either in the Old Testament or the
New, any intimation at all of this kind. St. _Paul_ says indeed once,
concerning two of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit (so, I think, that
text is usually understood) _whether there be prophecies, they shall
fail, whether there be tongues, they shall cease_. But he does not say,
either that these or any other miracles shall cease, till faith and
hope shall cease also: till they all be swallowed up in the vision of
God, and love be all in all.
I presume you will allow, there is one kind of miracles (loosely
speaking) which are not ceased; namely, τέρατα ψεύδους, lying wonders,
diabolical miracles; or works beyond the virtue of natural causes,
wrought by the power of evil spirits. Nor can you easily conceive that
these will cease, as long as the father of lies is the prince of this
world. And why should you think, that the God of truth is less active
than him, or that he will not have his miracles also? Only, not as man
wills, neither when he wills; but according to his own excellent wisdom
and greatness.
6. But even if it were supposed, that God does now work beyond the
operation of merely natural causes, yet what impression would this make
upon _you_, in the disposition your mind is now in? Suppose the trial
were repeated, were made again to-morrow. One informs you the next day,
“While a clergyman was preaching yesterday, where I was, a man came who
had been long ill of an incurable distemper. Prayer was made for him,
and he was restored to perfect health.”
Suppose now, that this were real fact, perhaps you would scarce have
patience to hear the account of it: but would cut it short, in the
midst, with, “Do you tell this as something _supernatural_? Then
miracles are not ceased!” But if you should venture to ask, where was
this? And who was the person that prayed? And it was answered, “At the
Foundery near _Moorfields_; the person who prayed was Mr. _Wesley_:”
What a damp comes at once! What a weight falls on your mind, at the
very first setting out? ’Tis well if you have any heart or desire
to move one step further. Or if you should, what a strong additional
propensity do you now feel to deny the fact? And is there not a ready
excuse for so doing? “O! they who tell the story, are doubtless _his
own people_: most of whom, we may be sure, will _say_ any thing for
him, and the rest will _believe_ any thing.”――――But if you at length
allowed the fact, might you not find means to account for it by
_natural_ causes? _Great crouds, violent heats, with obstructions
and irregularities of the blood and spirits_, will do wonders.――――If
you ♦could not but allow, it was more than _natural_, might not some
plausible reason be found for ranking it among the _lying wonders_,
for ascribing it to the devil rather than God? And if, after all, you
was convinced it was the finger of God, must you not still bring every
doctrine advanced, to the law and to the testimony, the only sure
and infallible test of all?――――What then is the use of this continual
demand, “Shew us a sign, and we will believe?” What will you believe? I
hope no more than is written in the book of God. And thus far you might
venture to believe, even without a miracle.
♦ “could” replaced with “could not” per Errata
7. Let us consider this point yet a little farther. “What is it you
would have us prove by miracles? The doctrines we preach?” We prove
these by scripture and reason; and, if need be, by antiquity. What else
is it then we are to prove by miracles? At length we have a distinct
reply――――_Wise and sober men will not otherwise be convinced_ (i. e.
unless you prove this by miracles) _that God is, by the means of such
teachers, and such doctrines, working a great and extraordinary work in
the earth_. Preface, page 6.
So then the determinate point which you, in their name, call upon us to
prove by miracles, is this, _That God is, by these teachers, working a
great and extraordinary work in the earth_.
What I mean by a great and extraordinary work, is, the bringing
multitudes of gross notorious sinners, in a short space, to the fear,
and love, and service of God, to an entire change of heart and life.
Now then, let us take a nearer view of the proposition, and see which
part of it we are to prove by miracles.
“Is it, 1. That A. B. was, for many years, without God in the world, a
common swearer, a drunkard, a sabbath-breaker?
“Or, 2. That he is not so now.
“Or, 3. That he continued so, till he heard these men preach, and from
that time was another man?
“Not so. The proper way to prove this fact, is, by the testimony of
competent witnesses. And these witnesses are ready, whenever required,
to give full evidence of them.
“Or would you have us prove by miracles,
“4. That this was not done by our own power or holiness? That God
only is able to raise the dead, to quicken those who are dead in
trespasses and sins?”
Surely no. Whosoever believes the scriptures, will want no new proof of
this.
Where then is the _wisdom_ of those men, who demand miracles in proof
of such a proposition? One branch of which, “That such sinners were
reformed by the means of these teachers,” being a plain fact, can only
be proved by testimony, as all other facts are: and the other, “That
this is a _work of God_, and a _great and more than ordinary_ work,”
needs no proof, as carrying its own evidence to every thinking man.
* 8. To sum up this. No truly _wise_ or _sober_ man can possibly desire
or expect miracles, to prove, either, 1. That these _doctrines_ are
true: this must be decided by scripture and reason; or, 2. That these
_facts_ are true: this can only be proved by testimony; or, 3. That to
_change_ sinners from darkness to light, is the _work of God_ alone;
only using what instruments he pleases: this is glaringly self-evident;
or, 4. That such a change wrought in so many notorious sinners, within
so short a time, is a _great_ and _extraordinary_ work of God. This
also carries its own evidence. What then is it which remains to be
proved by miracles? Perhaps you will say, it is this: “That God hath
_called_ or _sent_ you to do this.” Nay, this is implied in the third
of the foregoing propositions. If God has actually _used_ us therein,
if _his work_ hath in fact prospered in our hands, then he hath
_called_ or _sent_ us to do this. I intreat reasonable men to weigh
this throughly, whether the _fact_ does not plainly prove the _call_:
whether he who _enables_ us thus to save souls alive, does not
_commission_ us so to do? Whether by _giving_ us the _power_ to pluck
these brands out of the burning, he does not _authorize_ us to exert it?
O that it were possible for you to consider calmly, whether the
_success_ of the gospel of Jesus Christ, even as it is preached by
us, the least of his servants, be not itself a _miracle_, never to be
forgotten! One which cannot be denied, as being visible at this day,
not in one but a hundred places: one which cannot be accounted for,
by the ordinary course of any _natural cause_ whatsoever: one which
cannot be ascribed with any colour of reason, to _diabolical_ agency;
and lastly, one which will bear the infallible test, the trial of the
written word.
* * * * *
VI. 1. But here I am aware of abundance of objections. You object,
first, that to speak any thing of myself, of what I have done, or am
doing now, is mere _boasting_ and _vanity_. This charge you frequently
repeat. So, page 102. _The following page is full of_ boasting――――Page
113. _You_ boast _very much of the numbers you have converted_: and
again, _As to myself, I hope I shall never be led to imitate you in_
boasting.――――I think therefore it is needful, once for all, to examine
this charge throughly; and to shew distinctly, what that _good_ thing
is, which you disguise under this _bad_ name.
From the year 1725 to 1729, I preached much, but saw no fruit of my
labour. Indeed it could not be that I should; for I neither laid the
foundation of _repentance_, nor of _believing the gospel_: taking it
for granted, that all to whom I preached, were _believers_; and that
many of them _needed no repentance_. 2. From the year 1729 to 1734,
laying a deeper foundation of repentance, I saw a little fruit. But
it was only a little; and no wonder. For I did not preach faith in the
blood of the covenant. 3. From 1734 to 1738, speaking more of faith in
Christ, I saw more fruit of my preaching, and visiting from house to
house, than ever I had done before: though I know not, if any of those
who were outwardly reformed, were inwardly and throughly converted to
God. 4. From 1738 to this time, speaking continually of Jesus Christ,
laying him only for the foundation of the whole building, making him
all in all, the first and the last: preaching wholly on this plan, _The
kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye and believe the gospel_: The _word
of God ran_ as fire among the stubble; it _was glorified_ more and more:
multitudes crying out, _What must we do to be saved?_ And afterwards
witnessing, _By grace we are saved through faith_. * 5. I considered
deeply with myself, what I ought to do? Whether to declare the things
I had seen or not? I consulted the most serious friends I had. They
all agreed, I ought to declare them: that the work itself was of such a
kind, as ought in no wise to be concealed; and indeed, that the unusual
circumstances now attending it, made it impossible that it should.
6. This very difficulty occurred, “Will not my speaking of this be
_boasting_? At least, will it not be counted so?” They replied, “if
you speak of it as _your own_ work, it will be _vanity_ and _boasting_
all over: but if you ascribe it wholly to God, if you give him all
the praise, it will not. And if, after this, some will account it so
still, you must be content, and bear the burden.” 7. I yielded, and
transcribed my papers for the press; only labouring, as far as possible,
to _render unto God the things which are God’s_, to give him the praise
of his own work.
* 2. But this very thing you improve into a fresh objection. If I
ascribe any thing to God, it is _enthusiasm_. If I do not (or if I do)
it is _vanity and boasting_, supposing me to mention it at all. What
then can I do to escape your censure? “Why, be silent, say nothing at
all.” I cannot. I dare not. Were I thus to _please men_, I could _not
be the servant of Christ_.
* You do not appear to have the least idea or conception of what is
in the heart of one, whom it pleases him that worketh all in all, to
employ in a work of this kind. He is in no wise forward to be at all
employed therein; he starts back, again and again: not only, because
he readily foresees, what shame, care, sorrow, reproach, what loss of
friends and of all that the world accounts dear, will inevitably follow:
but much more, because he (in some measure) knows himself. This chiefly
it is which constrains him to cry out, (and that many times, in the
bitterness of his soul, when no human eye seeth him,) “O Lord! Send by
whom thou wilt send! Only, send not me!――――What am I? A worm! A dead
dog! A man unclean in heart and lips!”――――And when he dares no longer
gainsay or resist, when he is at last _thrust out into the harvest_,
he looketh on the right hand, and on the left, he takes every step with
fear and trembling, and with the deepest sense (such as words cannot
express) of, _who is sufficient for these things_? Every gift which he
has received of God, for the furtherance of his word, whether of nature
or grace, heightens this fear, and increases his jealousy over himself:
knowing that so much the stricter must the enquiry be, when he gives
an account of his stewardship. He is most of all jealous over himself,
when the work of the Lord prospers in his hand. He is then amazed and
confounded before God. Shame covers his face. Yet when he sees, that he
ought _to praise the Lord for his goodness, and to declare the wonders
which he doth for the children of men_, he is in a strait between two:
he knows not which way to turn: he cannot speak: he dares not be silent.
It may be, for a time he _keeps his mouth with a bridle; he holds his
peace even from good. But his heart is hot within him_, and constrains
him, at length, to declare what God hath wrought. And this he then doth
in all simplicity, with _great plainness of speech_, desiring only to
commend himself to him, who _searcheth the heart and trieth the reins_:
and, (whether his words are the _savour of life_ or _of death_ to
others) to have that witness in himself, _as of sincerity, as of God,
in the sight of God, speak we in Christ_.――――If any man counts this
_boasting_, he cannot help it. It is enough, that a higher judge
standeth at the door.
3. But you may say, “Why do you talk of the _success_ of the gospel in
_England_, which was a Christian country before you was born?” Was it
indeed? Is it so at this day? I would explain myself a little on this
head also.
And 1. None can deny, that the people of _England_, in general are
_called_ Christians. They are _called_ so, a few only accepted, by
others, as well as by themselves. But I presume no man will say,
that the _name_ makes the _thing_; that men _are_ Christians, barely
because they are _called_ so. It must be 2. allowed, that the people
of _England_, generally speaking, have been _christened_ or baptized.
But neither can we infer, these were once _baptized_; therefore they
are _Christians_ now. It is 3. allowed, that many of those who were
once _baptized_, and are _called Christians_ to this day, _hear_
the word of God, attend _public prayers_, and partake of the _Lord’s
supper_. But neither does this prove, that they _are Christians_. For
notwithstanding this, some of them live in open sin: and others (though
not conscious to themselves of _hypocrisy_, yet) are utter strangers to
the _religion of the heart_: are full of pride, vanity, covetousness,
ambition; of hatred, anger, malice or envy; and consequently, are no
more _scriptural Christians_, than the open drunkard or common swearer.
Now these being removed, where are the _Christians_, from whom we may
properly term _England_ a _Christian country_? The men who have the
mind which was in Christ, and who walk as he also walked? Whose inmost
soul is renewed after the image of God; and who are outwardly holy, as
he who hath called them is holy? There are doubtless a few such to be
found. To deny this, would be _want of candor_. But how few? How thinly
scattered up and down? And as for a Christian, visible church, or a
body of Christians, visibly united together, where is this to be seen?
Ye different sects, who all declare,
Lo! here is Christ, or Christ is there;
Your stronger proofs _divinely_ give,
And _shew_ me, where _the Christians_ live!
* And what use is it of, what good end does it serve, to term _England_
a _Christian country_? (although ’tis true, most of the natives are
_called_ Christians, have been _baptized_, frequent the _ordinances_:
and although a real Christian is here and there to be found, _as a
light shining in a dark place_:) Does it do any honour to our great
Master, among those who are not _called_ by his name? Does it recommend
Christianity to the _Jews_, the _Mahometans_, or the avowed _Heathens_?
Surely no one can conceive it does. It only makes Christianity stink in
their nostrils. Does it answer any _good end_ with regard to those on
whom this worthy name is called? I fear not; but rather an exceeding
bad one. For does it not keep multitudes easy in their _Heathen
practice_? Does it not make or keep still greater numbers, satisfied
with their _Heathen tempers_? Does it not directly tend to make both
the one and the other imagine, that they _are_ what indeed they _are
not_? That they _are Christians_, while they are utterly without Christ
and without God in the world?――――To close this point: if men are not
_Christians_, till they are renewed after the image of Christ, and if
the _people of England_ in general are not thus renewed, why do we term
them so? _The God of this world hath_ long _blinded their hearts_. Let
us do nothing to increase that blindness: but rather labour to recover
them from that _strong delusion_, that they may no longer _believe a
lie_.
4. Let us labour to convince all mankind, that to be a real Christian,
is, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and to serve him with
all our strength; to love our neighbour as ourselves, and therefore
do unto every man as we would he should do unto us. Nay, you say,
_Had you confined yourselves to these great points, there would have
been no objection against your doctrine. But the doctrines you have
distinguished yourselves by――――are not the love of God and man, but
many false and pernicious errors._ (page 104.)
I have again and again, with all the plainness I could, declared, what
our constant doctrines are; whereby we are _distinguished_ only from
Heathens, or nominal Christians; not from any that worship God in
Spirit and in truth. Our main doctrines, which include all the rest,
are three, that of repentance, of faith, and of holiness. The first
of these we account, as it were, the porch of religion; the next, the
door; the third religion itself.
That repentance, or conviction of sin, which is always previous to
faith (either in a higher or lower degree, as it pleases God) we
describe in words to this effect:
“When men _feel_ in themselves the heavy burthen of sin, see damnation
to be the reward of it, behold with the eye of their mind, the horror
of hell: they tremble, they quake, and are inwardly touched with
sorrowfulness of heart, and cannot but accuse themselves, and open
their grief unto Almighty God, and call unto him for mercy. This being
done seriously, their mind is so occupied, partly with sorrow and
heaviness, partly with an earnest desire to be delivered from this
danger of hell and damnation, that all desire of meat and drink is laid
apart, and loathing of all worldly things and pleasure cometh in place.
So that nothing then liketh them more, than to weep, to lament, to
mourn, and both with words and behaviour of body, to shew themselves
weary of life.”
Now permit me to ask, what if before you had observed, that these
were the very words of our own church, one of _your_ acquaintance or
parishioners had come and told you, that ever since he heard a sermon
at the _Foundery_, he _saw damnation before him, and beheld with the
eye of his mind the horror of hell_? What, if he had _trembled and
quaked_, and been so taken up, _partly with sorrow and heaviness,
partly with an earnest desire to be delivered from the danger of hell
and damnation_, as to _weep, to lament, to mourn, and both with words
and behaviour, to shew himself weary of life_? Would you have scrupled
to say, Here is another _deplorable instance_ of the _Methodists
driving men to distraction_! See, _into what excessive terrors, frights,
doubts and perplexities, they throw weak and well-meaning men! Quite
over-setting their understandings and judgments, and making them liable
to all these miseries._
I dare not refrain from adding one plain question, which I beseech
you to answer, not to me, but to God. Have you ever experienced this
_repentance_ yourself? Did you ever _feel in yourself that heavy
burthen of sin_? Of sin in general; more especially, inward sin? Of
pride, anger, lust, vanity? Of (what is all sin in one) that carnal
mind, which is enmity, essential enmity against God? Do you know by
experience what it is, _To behold with the eye of the mind, the horror
of hell_? Was _your mind_ ever so _taken up, partly with sorrow and
heaviness, partly with an earnest desire to be delivered from this
danger of hell and damnation, that even all desire of meat and drink_
was taken away, and you _loathed all worldly things and pleasure_?
――――Surely if you had known what it is, to have the _arrows of the
Almighty_ thus _sticking fast in you_, you could not so lightly have
condemned those who now cry out, _The pains of hell come about me: the
sorrows of death compass me, and the overflowings of ungodliness make
me afraid_.
5. Concerning the gate of religion (if I may be allowed so to speak)
the true, Christian, saving faith, we believe it implies abundantly
more than an assent to the truth of the bible. “Even the devils believe,
that Christ was born of a virgin; that he wrought all kind of miracles;
that for our sakes he suffered a most painful death to redeem us from
death everlasting. These articles of our faith the very devils believe,
and so they believe all that is written in the Old and New Testament.
And yet for all this faith, they be but devils. They remain still in
their damnable estate, lacking the very true Christian faith.
“The right and true Christian faith is. Not only to believe that the
holy scriptures and the articles of our faith are true, but also to
have a sure trust and confidence to be saved from everlasting damnation
through Christ.” Perhaps it may be expressed more clearly thus, “A sure
trust and confidence which a man hath in God, that by the merits of
Christ his sins are forgiven, and he reconciled to the favour of God.”
For giving this account of Christian faith (as well as the preceding
account of repentance, both which I have here also purposely described,
in the very terms of the homilies) I have been again and again, for
near these eight years past, accused of _enthusiasm_; sometimes by
those who spoke to my face, either in conversation, or from the pulpit:
but more frequently by those who chose to speak in my absence; and not
seldom from the press. I wait for those who judge this to be enthusiasm,
to bring forth their strong reasons. Till then, I must continue to
account all these, the words of truth and soberness.
6. Religion itself (I chuse to use the very words, wherein I described
it long ago) we define, “The loving God with all our heart, and our
neighbour as ourselves, and in that love abstaining from all evil, and
doing all possible good to all men.” The same meaning we have sometimes
expressed a little more at large, thus: “Religion we conceive to be
no other than love; the love of God and of all mankind: the loving God
with all our heart, and soul, and strength, as having first loved us,
as the fountain of all the good we have received, and of all we ever
hope to enjoy: and the loving every soul which God hath made, every man
on earth as our own soul.
“This love we believe to be the medicine of life, the never-failing
remedy for all the evils of a disordered world, for all the miseries
and vices of men. Wherever this is, there are virtue and happiness,
going hand in hand. There is humbleness of mind, gentleness,
long-suffering, the whole image of God, and at the same time, a peace
that passeth all understanding, and joy unspeakable, and full of glory.
“This religion we long to see established in the world, a religion of
love, and joy, and peace; having its seat in the heart, in the inmost
soul, but ever shewing itself by its fruits: continually springing
forth, not only in all innocence (for love worketh no ill to his
neighbour) but likewise in every kind of beneficence, spreading virtue
and happiness all around it.”
If this can be proved by scripture or reason, to be enthusiastic or
erroneous doctrine, we will then plead guilty to the indictment, of
_teaching error and enthusiasm_. But if this be the genuine religion
of Christ, then will all who advance this charge against us, be found
false witnesses before God, in the day when he shall judge the earth.
7. However, with regard to the fruits of our teaching, you say, _It
is to be feared, the numbers of serious men who have been perplext and
deluded, are much greater than the numbers of notorious sinners, who
have been brought to repentance and good life_, (page 113.) _Indeed, if
you could prove,――――that the_ Methodists _were in general, very wicked
people before they followed you, and that all you have been teaching
them is, the love of God and their neighbour, and a care to keep his
commandments, which accordingly they have done since, you would――――stop
the mouths of all adversaries at once. But――――we have great reason to
believe, that the generality of_ Methodists, _before they became so,
were serious, regular, and well-disposed people_, page 103.
If the question were proposed, _Which are greater, the numbers of
serious men who have been perplext and deluded, or of notorious sinners
who have been brought to repentance and good life_ by these preachers,
throughout _England_, within seven years: it might be difficult for
you to fix the conclusion. For _England_ is a place of wide dimensions;
nor is it easy to make a satisfactory computation, unless you confine
yourself within a smaller compass. Suppose then we were to contract the
question, in order to make it a little less ♦unwieldy. We will bound
our enquiry, for the present, within a square of three or four miles.
It may be certainly known by candid men, both what has been, and what
is now done within this distance. And from hence they may judge of
those fruits elsewhere, which they cannot be so particularly informed
of.
♦ “unweildly” replaced with “unwieldy”
* Enquire then, _Which are greater, the numbers of serious men,
perplext and deluded by these teachers, or of notorious sinners brought
to repentance and good life_, within the forest of _Kingswood_? Many
indeed of the inhabitants are nearly as they were; are not much better
or worse for their preaching: because the neighbouring clergy and
gentry have successfully laboured to deter them from hearing it. But
between three and four hundred of those who would not be deterred,
are now under the care of those preachers. Now, what number of these
were _serious Christians_ before? Were fifty? Were twenty? Were ten?
Peradventure, there might five such be found. But ’tis a question,
whether there could or no. The remainder were gross, open sinners,
common swearers, drunkards, sabbath-breakers, whoremongers, plunderers,
robbers, implacable, unmerciful, wolves and bears in the shape of men.
Do you desire instances of more _notorious sinners_ than these? I know
not if _Turkey_ or _Japan_ can afford them. And what do you include in
_repentance and good life_? Give the strictest definition thereof that
you are able: and I will undertake, these once notorious sinners, shall
be weighed in that balance, and not found wanting.
8. Not that all the _Methodists_ (so called) _were very wicked people
before they followed us_. There are those among them, and not a few,
who are able to stop the boasting of those that despise them, and to
say, _Wherein soever any of you is bold, I am bold also_: only they
_count all these things but loss, for the excellency of the knowledge
of Christ Jesus_. But these we found, as it were, when we sought them
not. We went forth to _seek that which was lost_: (more eminently
lost) _to call_ the most flagrant, hardened, desperate _sinners to
repentance_. To this end we preached in _the Horsefair_ at _Bristol_,
in _Kingswood_, in _Newcastle_: among the _colliers_ in _Staffordshire_,
and the _tinners_ in _Cornwall_: in _Southwark_, _Wapping_,
_Moorfields_, _Drury-Lane_, at _London_. Did any man ever pick out
such places as these, in order to find _serious, regular, well-disposed
people_? How many such might then be in any of them I know not. But
this I know, that four in five of those who are now with us, were not
of that number, but were wallowing in their blood, till God by us said
unto them, _live_.
Sir, I willingly put the whole cause on this issue: what are the
_general consequences_ of this preaching? Are there more _tares_ or
_wheat_? More _good men destroyed_ (that is the proper question) or
_wicked men saved_? The last place where we began constant preaching,
is a part of _Wiltshire_ and _Somersetshire_, near _Bath_. Now let any
man enquire at _Rhode_, _Bradford_, _Rexal_, or among the colliers at
_Coleford_, 1. What kind of people were those, _before they followed
these men_? 2. What are the _main doctrines_ they have been teaching
for this twelvemonth? 3. _What effect_ have these doctrines upon their
followers? What manner of lives do they lead now? And if you do not
find, 1. That three in four of these were two years ago notoriously
wicked men. 2. That the main doctrines they have heard since were,
“Love God and your neighbour, and carefully keep his commandments.” And
3. That they have since exercised themselves herein, and continue so
to do: I say, if you or any reasonable man, who will be at the pains to
enquire, does not find this to be an unquestionable fact: I will openly
acknowledge myself an enthusiast, or whatsoever else you shall please
to stile me.
Only one caution I would give to such an enquirer, let him not ask the
_colliers_ of _Coleford_, _Were_ not _the generality_ of you, _before
you followed these men, serious, regular, well-disposed people_? Were
you not _offended at the prophaneness and debauchery of the age_? And
_was it not this disposition, which at first made you liable to receive
these impressions_? (page 103.) Because if he talk thus to some of
those who do not yet _follow these men_, perhaps he will not live to
bring back their answer.
* But will this, or a thousand such instances as this, _stop the mouths
of all adversaries at once_? O Sir, would one expect such a thought as
this, in one that had read the bible? What if you could convert as many
sinners as St. _Paul_ himself? Would that _stop the mouths of all your
adversaries_? Yea, if you could convert three thousand at one sermon,
still you would be so far from _stopping all their mouths at once_,
that the greater part of them would _gnash upon_ you _with their teeth_,
and cry, “Away with such a fellow from the earth.”
I never therefore expect to _persuade the world_, the majority of
mankind, that I _have been_ for some years _advancing nothing_ but
what has a clear, immediate connexion with _the true knowledge and
love of God_: that God hath been pleased to use me, a weak, vile worm,
in _reforming_ many of my fellow sinners, and making them, at this
day, living witnesses of _inward_ and _pure religion_: and that many
of these, _from living in all sin, are quite changed, are become_ so
far _holy, that_ though they are not _free from all sin_, yet no sin
hath dominion over them. And yet I do firmly believe, _it is nothing
but downright prejudice, to deny or oppose any of these particulars_.
Preface, page v.
* _Allow Mr._ Wesley, _you say, but these few points, and he will
defend his conduct――――beyond exception_――――That is most true. If I
_have_ indeed _been advancing nothing but the true knowledge and love
of God_: if God has made me an _instrument_ in _reforming_ many sinners,
and bringing them to _inward and pure religion_: and if many of these
continue _holy_ to this day, and _free from all_ wilful sin, then may
I, even I, use those awful words, _He that despiseth me, despiseth him
that sent me_. But I never expect the world to allow me one of these
points. However, I must go on, as God shall enable me. I must lay out
whatsoever he intrusts me with, (whether others will believe I do it or
no) in advancing the true Christian knowledge of God, and the love and
fear of God among men: in reforming (if so be it please him to use me
still) those who are yet without God in the world; and in propagating
inward and pure religion, righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy
Ghost.
10. But you believe, “I only corrupt those who were good Christians
before, teaching them to revile and censure their neighbours, and to
abuse the clergy, notwithstanding all their meekness and gentleness, as
I do myself.” _I must declare_ (say you) _we have, in general, answered
your pretence, with all meekness and temper――――the railing and reviling
has been chiefly on the side of the_ Methodists, page 16.
Your first charge ran thus, (Remarks, page 15.) _How have such abuses
as these been thrown out by you――――against our――――regular clergy, not
the highest or the worthiest excepted!_――――I answered, “I am altogether
clear in this matter, as often as it has been objected: neither do I
desire to receive any other treatment from the clergy, than they have
received from me to this day.” page 30.
You reply, 1. _One instance of your misrepresenting and injuring a
preacher of our church I mentioned_, (page 105.) Mentioned! Well: but
did you _prove_ it was an _injury_ or _misrepresentation_? I know not
that you once attempted it. 2. You next quote part of a letter from the
third journal; (page 36.) wherein (according to your account) the _most
considerable of our clergy are abused, and at once accused in a very
gross manner_. (page 106.) Set down the whole paragraph, and I will
prove, that this also is naked truth, and no abuse at all. You say, 3.
_You approved of_ Whitefield’s _railing against the clergy_――――i. e. I
say, “Mr. _Whitefield_ preached, concerning the _Holy Ghost which all
who believe are to receive_; not without a just, though severe censure
of those, who preach as if there were no Holy Ghost,” (_Journal 3._
page 65.) Nor is this railing, but melancholy truth. I have myself
heard several preach in this manner. 4. You cite my words, “Woe unto
you, ye blind leaders of the blind! How long will you pervert the
right ways of the Lord?”――――And add, _I appeal to yourself, whether
you did not design this reflection against the clergy in general who
differ from you?_ No more than I did against _Moses_ and _Aaron_. I
expresly specify whom I design: “Ye who tell the mourners in _Zion_,
Much religion hath made you mad.” You say, 5. (with a N. B.) _All the
clergy who differ from you, you stile so_, page 82. _in which and the
foregoing page you causelesly slander them, as speaking of their own
holiness――――as that for the sake of which, on account of which we are
justified before God._
Let any serious person read over those pages. I therein _slander_ no
man. I speak what I know; what I have both heard and read. The men are
alive, and the books are extant. And the same conclusion I now defend,
touching that _part_ of the clergy who preach or write thus, viz. “If
they preach the truth as it is in Jesus, I am found a false witness
before God. But if I preach the way of God in truth, then they are
blind leaders of the blind”. 6. You quote those words, “Nor can I be
said to intrude into the labours of those who do not labour at all; but
suffer thousands of those for whom Christ died, to perish for lack of
knowledge.” (_3 Journal_ page 69.) I wrote that letter near _Kingswood_.
I would to God the observation were not terribly true! 7. The first
passage you cite from the _Earnest Appeal_, page 36. evidently relates
to _a few_ only among the clergy: and if the charge be true, but of
one in five hundred, it abundantly _supports_ my _reasoning_. 8. In the
next, (page 47.) I address all those, and those only, who affirm that
I preach for gain.
You conclude, _The reader has now before him the manner in which you
have been pleased to treat the clergy――――and your late sermon――――is too
fresh an instance of――――the like usage of the universities_――――(page
107.) It is an instance of _speaking the truth in love_. So I desire
all mankind may _use_ me. Nor could I have said less either to the
university or the clergy, without sinning against God and my own soul.
* 11. But I must explain myself a little on that practice, which you
so often term _abusing the clergy_. I have many times great sorrow
and heaviness in my heart, on account of these my brethren. And this
sometimes constrains me to speak to them, in the only way which is now
in my power: and sometimes (though rarely) to speak of them; of a few,
not all, in general. In either case, I take an especial care, 1. To
speak nothing but the truth. 2. To speak this with all plainness; and,
3. With love, and in the spirit of meekness. Now if you will call this,
_abusing_, _railing_, or _reviling_, you must. But still I dare not
refrain from it. I must _thus rail, thus abuse_ sinners of all sorts
and degrees, unless I will perish with them.
When I first read your declaration, That our brethren _in general had
treated us with all meekness and temper_, I had thoughts of spreading
before you a few of the flowers which they have strewed upon us with
no sparing hand. But on reflection, I judged it better to forbear. Let
them die and be forgotten!
As to those of the _people_ called _Methodists_, whom you suppose to
_rail at and abuse the clergy_, and to _revile_ and _censure_ their
neighbours, I can only say, Which are they? Shew me the men. And if
it appear, that any of those under my care, habitually _censure_ or
_revile_ others, whether clergy or laity, I will make them an example,
for the benefit of all the rest.
Touching _you_, I believe I was _afraid_ without cause. I do not think
you advanced a _wilful untruth_. This was a rash word. I hereby openly
retract it, and ask pardon of God and you.
To draw toward a conclusion. Whosoever they are that _despise me, and
make no account of my labours_, I know that they are _not in vain in
the Lord_, and that I have not _fought as one that beateth the air_.
I still see (and I praise _the Father of lights, from whom every good
and perfect gift descendeth_) a continual increase of pure religion,
and undefiled, of the love of God and man, of the _wisdom_ which is
_pure and peaceable, gentle and easy to be intreated, full of mercy,
and of good fruits_. I see more and more of those “who before lived
in a thorough contempt of God’s ordinances, and of all duties, now
zealously discharging their duties to God and man, and walking in
all his ordinances blameless.” A few indeed I have seen draw back to
perdition, chiefly through a fear of being _righteous over-much_. And
here and there one has fallen into _Calvinism_, or turned aside to the
_Moravians_. But I doubt not, these “are in a better state than they
were before they heard us. Admit they are in error, yea and die therein,
yet who dares affirm, they will perish everlastingly? But had they died
in gross sin, we are sure they had fallen into _the fire that never
shall be quenched_.”
I have now considered, as far as my time would permit, (not _every
thing_ in your letter, _whether of moment or no_, but) those points,
which I conceived to be of the greatest weight. That God may lead us
both into all truth, and that we may not drop our love in the pursuit
of it, is the continual prayer of,
_Reverend Sir_,
_Your friend and servant for Christ’s sake_,
JOHN WESLEY.
June 17, 1746.
A
LETTER
To the Right REVEREND the
LORD BISHOP of LONDON:
Occasioned by his Lordship’s late charge to his CLERGY.
_Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person, neither let
me give flattering titles unto man. For I know not to give
flattering titles. In so doing my Maker would soon take me
away._
JOB xxxiii. 21, 22.
MY LORD,
1. WHEN abundance of persons have for several years laid to my charge
things that I knew not, I have generally thought it my duty to pass
it over in silence, to be _as one that heard not_. But the case is
different, when a person of your lordship’s character calls me forth to
answer for myself. Silence now might be interpreted contempt. It might
appear like a sullen disregard, a with-holding honour from him to whom
honour is due, were it only on account of his high office in the church.
More especially, when I apprehend so eminent a person as this, to be
under considerable mistakes concerning me. Were I now to be silent,
were I not to do what was in my power for the removal of those mistakes,
I could not have a conscience void of offence, either towards God or
towards man.
2. But I am sensible, how difficult it is to speak in such a manner
as I ought, and as I desire to do. When your lordship published those
queries, under the title of _observations_, I did not lie under the
same difficulty; because, as your name was not inscribed, I had “the
liberty to stand, as it were, on even ground.” But I must now always
♦remember to whom I speak. And may the God _whom I serve in the gospel
of his Son_, enable me to do it with deep seriousness of spirit, with
modesty and humility; and at the same time, with the utmost plainness
of speech; seeing we must both stand before the judgment seat of
_Christ_.
♦ “rememember” replaced with “remember”
3. In this then I intreat your lordship to bear with me: and in
particular, when I speak of myself, (how tender a point!) just as
freely as I would of another man. Let not this be termed boasting. Is
there not a cause? Can I refrain from speaking, and be guiltless? And
if I speak at all, ought I not to speak (what appears to me to be) the
whole truth? Does not your lordship desire, that I should do this? I
will then, God being my helper. And you will bear with me in my folly
(if such it is) with my speaking in the simplicity of my heart.
4. Your lordship begins, _There is another species of enemies,
who――――give shameful disturbance to the parochial clergy, and use very
unwarrantable methods, to prejudice their people against them, and
to seduce their flocks from them――――the_ Methodists _and_ Moravians,
_who――――agree in annoying the established ministry; and in drawing over
to themselves the lowest and most ignorant of the people, by pretences
to greater sanctity_――――page 4.
But have no endeavours been used to shew them their error? Yes: your
lordship remarks, _Endeavours have not been wanting――――But though
these endeavours have caused some abatement in the_ pomp _and_ grandeur
_with which these people for some time acted_ (truly, one would not
have expected it from them!) _yet they do not seem――――to have made an
impression upon their leaders_. page 6.
Your lordship adds, _Their innovations in points of discipline, I
do not intend to enter into at present_――――But _to enquire what the
doctrines are which they spread_, page 7.――――_Doctrines big with
pernicious influences upon practice_, page 8.
Six of these your lordship mentions, after having premised, _It is
not at all needful, to the end of guarding against them, to charge
the particular tenets upon the particular persons among them_, page
7. Indeed, my lord, it is needful in the highest degree. For if the
minister who is to guard his people, either against _Peter Bohler_,
Mr. _Whitefield_, or me, does not know what our particular tenets are,
he must needs _run, as uncertainly, and fight, as one that beateth the
air_.
I will fairly own, which of these belong to me. The _indirect
practices_ which your lordship charges upon me, may then be considered;
together with the _consequences_ of these doctrines, and your
lordship’s instructions to the clergy.
5. _The first that I shall take notice of_ (says your lordship) _is
the_ antinomian _doctrine_. page 8. The second, _That Christ has done
all, and left nothing for_ us _to do, but to believe_. page 9. These
belong not to me. I am unconcerned therein. I have earnestly opposed,
but did never teach or embrace them.
_There is another notion_ (your lordship says) _which we find
propagated throughout the writings of those people, and that is, the
making_ inward, secret _and sudden_ impulses _the_ guides _of their
actions, resolutions and designs._ page 14. Mr. _Church_ urged the same
objection before. _Instead of making the word of_ God _the rule of his
actions, he follows only his_ secret impulse――――I beg leave to return
the same answer. “In the whole compass of language there is not a
proposition which less belongs to me than this. I have declared again
and again, that I make the word of God _the rule_ of all my actions;
and that I no more follow any _secret impulse_ instead thereof, than I
follow _Mahomet_ or _Confucius_.” _Answer to Mr._ Church, _page 38_.
6. Before I proceed, suffer me to observe, here are three grievous
errors, charged on the _Moravians_, Mr. _Whitefield_ and me conjointly,
in none of which I am any more concerned, than in the doctrine of the
Metempsychosis! But it was _not needful to charge particular tenets
on particular persons_. Just as needful, my lord, as it is not to put
a stumbling-block in the way of our brethren: not to lay them under
an almost insuperable temptation, of condemning the innocent with the
guilty. I beseech your lordship to answer in your own conscience before
God, whether you did not foresee how many of your hearers would charge
these tenets upon _me_? Nay, whether you did not design they should? If
so, my lord, is this Christianity? Is it humanity? Let me speak plain.
Is it honest heathenism?
7. I am not one jot more concerned in instantaneous justification, as
your lordship explains it, viz. _A sudden instantaneous justification,
by which the person receives from_ God, _a certain seal of his
salvation, or absolute_ assurance _of being saved at last_, page 11.
_Such an instantaneous working of the Holy Spirit, as finishes the
business of salvation once for all_, ibid. I neither teach nor believe
♦it, and am therefore clear of all the consequences that may arise
therefrom. I believe, _a gradual improvement in grace and goodness_,
I mean, in the knowledge and love of God, is a good _testimony of our
present sincerity towards_ God: although I dare not say, it is _the
only true ground of humble assurance_, or the only foundation on which
a Christian builds his _hopes of acceptance and salvation_. For I think
_other foundation_ of these _can no man lay, than that which is laid,
even_ Jesus Christ.
♦ add omitted word “it” per Errata
8. To the charge of holding _sinless perfection_ as your lordship
states it, I might likewise plead, not guilty: seeing one ingredient
thereof, in your lordship’s account, is _freedom from temptation_, page
17. Whereas I believe, “there is no such perfection in this life, as
implies an entire deliverance from manifold temptations.” But I will
not decline the charge. I will repeat once more my coolest thoughts
upon this head; and that in the very terms which I did several years
ago, as I presume your lordship cannot be ignorant.
“What, it may be asked, do you mean _by one that is perfect_, or, _one
that is as his master_? We mean, one in whom is _the mind which was
in_ Christ, and who _so walketh as he walked_; a man that _hath clean
hands and a pure heart_; or that is _cleansed from all filthiness of
flesh and spirit_: one _in whom there is no occasion of stumbling_, and
who accordingly _doth not commit sin_. To declare this a little more
particularly, we understand by that scriptural expression, _a perfect
man_, one in whom God hath fulfilled his faithful word, _from all your
filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you――――I will also
save you from all your uncleanness_. We understand hereby, one whom God
hath _sanctified throughout_, even in _body, soul and spirit_: one who
_walketh in the light, as he is in the light_, in whom _is no darkness
at all; the blood of_ Jesus Christ _his Son_ having _cleansed him from
all sin_.”
“This man can now testify to all mankind, _I am crucified with_ Christ;
_nevertheless I live; yet I live not; but_ Christ _liveth in me_.
He _is holy, as_ God _who called him is holy_, both in life, and _in
all manner of conversation_. He _loveth the_ Lord _his_ God _with
all his heart, and serveth him with all his strength_. He _loveth his
neighbour_ (every man) _as himself_; yea, _as_ Christ _loved us_: them
in particular that _despitefully use him and persecute him_, because
_they know not the Son, neither the Father_. Indeed his soul is all
love, filled with _bowels of mercies, kindness, meekness, gentleness,
long-suffering_. And his life agreeth thereto, full _of the work of
faith, the patience of hope, the labour of love_. And _whatsoever he
doth, either in word or deed_, he doth _it all in the name_, in the
love and power _of the_ Lord Jesus. In a word, he doth the will of God
_on earth, as it is done in heaven_.”
“This is to be _a perfect man_, to be _sanctified throughout, created
anew in_ Jesus Christ: even ‘to have a heart so all-flaming with the
love of God,’ (to use archbishop _Usher_’s words,) ‘as continually
to offer up every thought, word, and work, as a spiritual sacrifice,
acceptable unto God through Christ.’ In every thought of our hearts,
in every word of our tongues, in every work of our hands, _to shew
forth his praise who hath called us out of darkness into his marvellous
light_. O that both we, and all who seek the Lord Jesus in sincerity,
may thus _be made perfect in one_.”
9. I conjure you, my lord, by the mercies of God, if these are not the
words of truth and soberness, point me out wherein I have erred from
the truth: shew me clearly, wherein I have spoken either beyond or
contrary to the word of God. But might I not humbly intreat, that your
lordship, in doing this, would abstain from such expressions as these,
_If they will put themselves under their direction and discipline,
――――after their course of discipline is once over_, page 15. as not
suitable either to the weight of the subject, or the dignity of your
lordship’s character. And might I not expect something more than these
loose assertions, that this is _a delusion altogether groundless_,
page 15. _A notion contrary to the whole tenor, both of the old and
new testament_; that _the scriptures forbid all thought of it, as vain,
arrogant and presumptuous_; that they _represent all mankind, without
distinction, as subject to sin and corruption_ (subject to sin and
corruption! strong words!) _during their continuance in this world:
and require no more than an honest_ desire _and_ endeavour, _to find
ourselves less and less in a state of imperfection_? page 16.
Is it not from your lordship’s intirely mistaking the question, not
at all apprehending what perfection I teach, that you go on to guard
against the same imaginary consequences, as your lordship did in _the
Observations_? Surely, my lord, you never gave yourself the trouble
to read the answer given in the _Farther Appeal_, to every objection
which you now urge afresh! seeing you do not now appear to know any
more of my sentiments, than if you had never proposed one question, nor
received one answer upon the subject!
10. If your lordship designed to shew my real sentiments concerning the
last _doctrine which you mention_, as one would imagine by your adding,
_these are his own words_, page 18. should you not have cited all
my own words? At least all the words of that paragraph, and not have
mangled it, as Mr. _Church_ did before?
It runs thus (_Journal_ III. page 47.) “_Saturday 28._ I shewed at
large (in order to answer those who taught, that none but they who are
full of faith and the Holy Ghost, ought ever to communicate) 1. That
the Lord’s _supper_ was ordained by God, to be a _means of conveying_
to men either _preventing_, or _justifying_, or _sanctifying grace_,
according to their several necessities. 2. That the persons for whom
it was ordained, are all those who know and feel that they _want_ the
_grace_ of God, either to _restrain_ them from sin, or to _shew their
sins forgiven_, or to _renew their souls_ in the image of God. 3.
That in as much as we come to his table, not to _give_ him anything,
but to _receive_ whatsoever he sees best for us, there is _no previous
preparation_ indispensably necessary, but _a desire_ to receive
whatsoever he pleases to give. And 4. that _no fitness_ is required
at the time of communicating, but _a sense of our state_, of our utter
sinfulness and helplessness: every one who knows he is _fit for hell_,
being just _fit to come to_ Christ, in this as well as all other ways
of his appointment.”
In the second letter to Mr. _Church_, page 26. I explain myself farther
on this head. “I am sorry to find you still affirm, that with regard
to the Lord’s _supper_ also, I _advance many injudicious, false and
dangerous things. Such as_, 1. _That a man ought to communicate,
without a sure trust in_ God’s _mercy through_ Christ, page 117.” You
mark these as my words; but I know them not. 2. “_That there is no
previous preparation_ indispensably _necessary, but a desire to receive
whatsoever_ God _pleases to give_.” But I include abundantly more in
that _desire_, than you seem to apprehend; even a willingness to know
and do the whole will of God. 3. _That no fitness is required at the
time of communicating_, (I recite the whole sentence) “_but a sense
of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness! Every one who
knows he is fit for hell, being just fit to come to_ Christ, _in this,
as well as in all other ways of his appointment_.” But neither can this
sense of our utter sinfulness and helplessness subsist, without earnest
desires of universal holiness.
10. And now what can I say? Had your lordship never seen this? That
is hardly to be imagined. But if you had, how was it possible your
lordship should thus explicitly and solemnly charge me, in the presence
of God and all my brethren (only, the person so charged was not present)
with _meaning by those words to_ set aside _self-examination and
repentance for sins past, and resolutions of living better for the time
to come, as things no way necessary to make a worthy communicant_! page
18.
If an evidence at the bar should swerve from truth, an equitable judge
may place the thing in a true light. But if the judge himself shall
bear false witness, where then can we find a remedy?
Actual preparation was here intirely out of the question. It might be
_absolutely_ and _indispensably_ necessary, for any thing I had either
said or _meant_ to the contrary. For it was not at all in my thoughts.
And the habitual preparation which I had in terms declared to be
_indispensably_ necessary, was “a willingness to know and to do the
whole will of God,” and “earnest desires of universal holiness.” Does
your lordship think, this is _meant to set aside all repentance for
sins past, and resolutions of living better for the time to come_?
11. Your lordship next falls with all your might upon that strange
assertion, as you term it, “We come to his table, not to give him any
thing, but to receive whatsoever he sees best for us”. _Whereas_, says
your lordship, _in the exhortation_ at the time _of receiving, the
people are told, that they must_ give _most humble and hearty thanks,
――――and immediately_ after _receiving, both minister and people join,
in_ offering _and_ presenting _themselves before_ God, pages 20, 21. O
God! in what manner are the most sacred things here treated! The most
venerable mysteries of our religion! What quibbling, what playing upon
words is here! “Not to _give_ him any thing,”――――“Yes, to _give_ him
thanks.” O my lord, are these the words of a father of the church?
12. Your lordship, goes on, _To the foregoing account of these modern
principles and doctrines――――it may not be improper to subjoin a few
observations upon the indirect_ practices _of the same people in
gaining proselytes_, pages 23, 24.
* * * * *
I. _They persuade the people, that the_ established _worship, with a
regular attendance upon it, is not sufficient to answer the ends of
devotion_.
Your lordship mentioned this likewise in the _observations_. In your
fourth _query_ it stood thus: “Whether a due and regular attendance
on the public offices of religion, paid in a serious and composed way,
does not answer the true ends of devotion?” Suffer me to repeat part of
the answer then given.
“I suppose, by devotion you mean public worship; by the _true ends_ of
it, the love of God and man: and by _a due and regular attendance on
the public offices of religion, paid in a serious and composed way_,
the going as often as we can to our parish church, and to the sacrament
there administered. If so, the question is, ‘Whether _this attendance_
on _those offices_, does not produce the love of God and man’? I answer
sometimes it does; and sometimes it does not. I myself thus attended
them for many years; and yet am conscious to myself, that during that
whole time, I had no more of the love of God than a stone. And I know
many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of serious persons, who are ready to
testify the same thing.”
I subjoined, 1. “We continually exhort all who attend on our preaching,
to attend the offices of the church. And they do pay a more regular
attendance there than ever they did before. 2. Their attending the
church did not, in fact, answer those ends at all, till they attended
this preaching also. 3. It is the preaching remission of sins through
Jesus Christ, which alone answers the true ends of devotion.”
* * * * *
II. 13. _They censure the clergy_, says your lordship, _as less
zealous than themselves, in the several branches of the ministerial
function_――――For this _they are undeservedly reproached by these noisy,
itinerant leaders_, pages 24, 25.
My lord, I am not conscious to myself of this. I do not willingly
compare myself with any man, much less do I reproach my brethren of the
clergy, whether they deserve it or not. But it is needless to add any
more on this head than what was said above a year ago. [2d letter to
Mr. _Church_, page 78.]
“I must explain myself a little on that practice, which you so often
term _abusing the clergy_. I have many times great sorrow and heaviness
in my heart, on account of these my brethren. And this sometimes
constrains me to speak to them, in the only way which is now in my
power: and sometimes (though rarely) to speak of them; of a few, not
all in general. In either case, I take an especial care, 1. To speak
nothing but the truth. 2. To speak this with all plainness; and, 3.
With love, and in the spirit of meekness. Now, if you will call this
_abusing_, _railing_, or _reviling_, you must. But still I dare not
refrain from it. I must _thus rail, thus abuse_ sinners of all sorts
and degrees, unless I will perish with them.”
* * * * *
III. 14. _♦They value themselves upon extraordinary strictnesses
and severities in life, and such as are beyond what the rules of
Christianity require. They captivate the people by such professions and
appearances of_ uncommon _sanctity――――But that which can never fail of
a general respect――――is a quiet and exemplary life, free from the many_
follies _and_ indiscretions _which those restless and vagrant teachers
are apt to fall into_, page 25.
♦ “Thy” replaced with “They”
By “extraordinary strictnesses and severities,” I presume your lordship
means, the abstaining from wine and animal food; which, it is sure,
Christianity does not require. But if you do, I fear your lordship
is not throughly informed of the matter of fact. I began to do this,
about twelve years ago, when I had no thought of “annoying parochial
ministers,” or of “captivating any people” thereby, unless it were the
_Chicasaw_ or _Choctau Indians_. But I resumed the use of them both,
about two years after, for the sake of some who thought I made it
a point of conscience; telling them, _I_ will _eat flesh while the
world standeth_, rather than _make my brother to offend_. Dr. _Cheyne_
advised me, to leave them off again, alluring me, “Till you do, you
will never be free from fevers.” And since I have taken his advice,
I have been free (blessed be God) from all bodily disorders.¹ Would
to God I knew any method of being equally free from all _follies_ and
_indiscretions_. But this I never expect to attain, till my spirit
returns to God.
¹ I continued this about two years.
15. But in how strange a manner does your lordship represent this?
What a construction do you put upon it? _Appearances of an_ uncommon
_sanctity_, in order to _captivate the people――――Pretensions to more
exalted degrees of strictness, to make their way into weak minds and
fickle heads_, page 25. _Pretences to greater sanctity_, whereby _they
draw over to themselves the most ignorant of the people_, page 4. If
these are _appearances of uncommon sanctity_ (which indeed might bear a
dispute) how does your lordship know, that they are only _appearances_?
That they do not spring from the heart? Suppose these were _exalted
degrees of strictness_, is your lordship absolutely assured, that
we practise them only _to make_ our _way into weak minds and fickle
heads_? Where is the proof, that these _pretences to greater sanctity_
(as you lordship is pleased to phrase them) are mere _pretences_, and
have nothing of reality or sincerity in them?
My lord, this is an accusation of the highest nature. If we are
guilty, we are not so much as moral Heathens. We are monsters, not
only unworthy of the Christian name, but unfit for human society. It
tears up all _pretences_ to the love of God and man: to justice, mercy,
or truth. But how is it proved? Or does your lordship read the heart,
and so pass sentence without any proof at all? O my lord, ought an
accusation of the lowest kind to be thus received, even against the
lowest of the people? How much less can this be reconciled with the
apostolical advice to the bishop of _Ephesus_, _Against a presbyter,
receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses_; and
those face to face. When it is thus proved, _them that sin, rebuke
before all_. Your lordship, doubtless remembers the words that follow
(how worthy to be written in your heart!) _I charge thee, before God
and the_ Lord Jesus Christ, _and the elect angels, that thou observe
these things, without preferring one before another, doing nothing by
partiality_, _1 Timothy_ v. 19, 20, 21.
* * * * *
IV. 16. They _mislead the people into an opinion of the_ high merit
_of punctual attendances on their performances, to the neglect of
the business of their station_, page 26. My lord, this is not so. You
yourself, in this very charge, have cleared us from one part of this
accusation. You have born us witness, page 10. that we ♦disclaim all
_merit_, even in (really) good works: how much more, in such works
as we continually declare are not good, but very evil? Such as the
attending sermons, or any public offices, whatever, _to the neglect of
the business of our station_.
♦ “disclain” replaced with “disclaim”
When your lordship urged this before, in the _observations_, I openly
declared my belief (_Farther Appeal_, part I. page 19.) “That true
religion cannot lead into a disregard or disesteem of the common duties
and offices of life: that, on the contrary, it leads men to discharge
all those duties with the strictest and closest attention: that
Christianity requires this attention and diligence, in all stations and
in all conditions: that the ♦performance of the lowest offices of life,
_as unto_ God, is truly _a serving of_ Christ; and that this is the
doctrine I preach continually;” a fact, whereof any man may easily be
informed. Now if after all this, your lordship will repeat the charge,
as if I had not once opened my mouth concerning it, I cannot help it.
I can say no more. I commend my ♠cause to God.
♦ “preformance” replaced with “performance”
♠ “case” replaced with “cause” per Errata
17. Having considered what your lordship has advanced, concerning
dangerous _doctrines_ and indirect _practices_, I now come to the
instructions your lordship gives to the clergy of your diocese.
* How awful a thing is this! the very occasion carries in it a
solemnity not to be expressed. Here is an angel of the church of
Christ, one of the stars in God’s right-hand, calling together all the
subordinate pastors, for whom he is to give an account to God; and
directing them (in the name and by the authority of _the great Shepherd
of the sheep_, Jesus Christ, _the first begotten from the dead, the
Prince of the kings of the earth_) how to _make full proof of their
ministry_, that they may be _pure from the blood of all men_; how
to _take heed unto themselves and to all the flock over which the
Holy Ghost hath made them overseers_; how to _feed the flock of_ God,
_which he hath purchased with his own blood_! To this end they are all
assembled together. And what is the substance of all his instructions?
“Reverend ♦brethren, I charge you all, lift up your voice like a
trumpet! and _warn_ and _arm_ and _fortify_ all mankind――――against a
people called _Methodists_.”
♦ “brethen” replaced with “brethren”
True it is, your lordship gives them several advices; but all in order
to this end. You direct them, to _inculcate the excellency of our
liturgy, as a wise, grave and serious service_: to shew _their people,
that a diligent attendance on their business, is a serving of God;
punctually to perform both the public offices of the church, and all
other pastoral duties_: and to _engage the esteem of their parishioners,
by a constant regularity of life_. But all these your lordship
recommends _eo nomine_, as means to that great end, “The _arming_ and
_fortifying_ their people against the _Moravians_ or _Methodists_, and
their doctrines.”
Is it possible! Could your lordship discern no other enemies of the
gospel of Christ? Are there no other heretics or schismatics on earth?
Or even within the four ♦seas? Are there no papists, no deists in the
land? Or are their errors of less importance? Or, are their numbers in
_England_ less considerable? Or less likely to increase? Does it appear
then that they have lost their zeal for making proselytes? Or, are
all the people so _guarded_ against them already, that their labour is
in vain? Can your lordship answer these few, plain questions, to the
satisfaction of your own conscience?
♦ “sees” replaced with “seas” per Errata
Have the _Methodists_ (so called) already monopolized all the sins,
as well as errors, in the nation? Is _Methodism_ the only sin, or the
only fatal or spreading sin, to be found within the bills of mortality!
Have two thousand (or more) _ambassadors of_ Christ _and stewards of
the mysteries of_ God, no other business than to _guard, warn, arm,
and fortify_ their people against this? O my lord, if this engrosses
their time and strength (as it must, if they follow your lordship’s
instructions) they will not give an account with joy, either of
themselves or of their flock in that day!
11. Your lordship seems in some measure sensible of this, when you very
gently condemn their opinion, who think the _Methodists might better
be disregarded and despised, than taken notice of and opposed――――if
it were not for the disturbance they give to the parochial ministers,
and their unwarrantable endeavours to seduce the people from their
lawful pastors_, page 22. The same complaint with which your lordship
opened your charge. _They give shameful disturbances to the parochial
clergy――――they annoy the established ministry, using very unwarrantable
methods, first, to prejudice their people against them, and then to
seduce their flocks from them_, page 4.
Whether we seduce them or no (which will be presently considered) I am
sorry your lordship should give any countenance to that low, senseless,
and now generally exploded slander, that we do it for a maintenance.
This your lordship insinuates, by applying to us those words of bishop
_Saunderson_, “And all this, _to serve their own belly_, to make a
prey of the poor deluded _proselytes_: for by this means _the people
fall unto them, and thereout suck they no small advantage_,” page 15.
Your lordship cannot but know, that my fellowship, and my brother’s
studentship, afford us more than sufficient for life and godliness:
especially, for that manner of life which we chuse, whether out of
ostentation or in sincerity.
19. But do we willingly _annoy the established ministry_, or _give
disturbance to the parochial clergy_? My lord, we do not. We trust,
herein, to have a conscience void of offence. Nor do we designedly
_prejudice their people against them_. In this also our heart
condemneth us not. But you _seduce their flocks from them_. No, not
even from those who feed themselves, not the flock. All who hear us
attend the service of the church, at least as much as they did before.
And for this very thing, are we reproached as “bigots to the church,”
by those of most other denominations.
* Give me leave, my lord, to say, you have mistook and misrepresented
this whole affair from the top to the bottom. And I am the more
concerned to take notice of this, because so many have fallen into the
same mistake. It is indeed, and has been from the beginning, the πρῶτον
ψεῦδος, the capital blunder of our bitterest adversaries: though how
they can advance it, I see not, without _loving_, if not _making a lie_.
It is not our care, endeavour, or desire, to _proselyte_ any from one
man to another, or from one church (so called) from one congregation,
or society to another: (we would not move a finger to do this; to make
ten thousand such proselytes) but from darkness to light, from Belial
to Christ; from the power of Satan to God. Our one aim is, to proselyte
sinners to repentance, the servants of the devil to serve the living
and true God. If this be not done in fact, we will stand condemned; not
as well-meaning fools, but as devils incarnate. But if it be, if the
instances glare in the face of the sun, if they increase daily, maugre
all the power of earth and hell: then, my lord, neither you nor any man
beside (let me use great plainness of speech) can _oppose_ and _fortify
people against us_, without being found _even to fight against_ God.
20. I would fain set this point in a clearer light. Here are, in
and near _Moorfields_, ten thousand poor souls for whom Christ died,
rushing headlong into hell. Is Dr. _Bulkely_, the parochial minister,
both willing and able to stop them? If so, let it be done, and I have
no place in these parts. I go and call other sinners to repentance.
But if after all he has done, and all he can do, they are still in the
broad way to destruction, let me see if God will put a word, even in
my mouth. True, I am a poor worm that of myself can do nothing. But if
God sends, by whomsoever he will send, his word shall not return empty.
All the messenger of God asks, is Δὸς ποῦ στῶ; (no help of man!) καὶ
γῆν κινήσω· The arm of the Lord is revealed. The lion roars, having the
prey plucked out of his teeth. And _there is joy in the presence of the
angels of_ God, _over_ more than _one sinner that repenteth_.
21. Is this any _annoyance_ to the parochial minister? Then what manner
of spirit is he of? Does he look on this part of his flock as lost,
because they are found of the great Shepherd?――――My lord, great is my
boldness toward you. You speak of the _consequences_ of our doctrines.
You seem well pleased with the success of your _endeavours_ against
them, because (you say) they _have pernicious consequences, are big
with pernicious influences upon practice,――――dangerous to religion
and the souls of men_, pages 8, 22. In answer to all this, I appeal
to plain fact. I say once more, “What have been the _consequences_
(I would not speak, but I dare not refrain) of the doctrines I have
preached for nine years last past? By the fruits shall ye know those of
whom I speak: even the cloud of witnesses, who at this hour experience
the gospel which I preach, to be the power of God unto salvation.
The habitual drunkard, that was, is now temperate in all things.
The whoremonger now flees fornication. He that stole steals no more,
but works with his hands. He that cursed or swore, perhaps at every
sentence, has now learned to serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice unto
him with reverence. Those formerly inslaved to various habits of sin,
are now brought to uniform habits of holiness. These are demonstrable
facts. I can name the men, with their places of abode. One of them was
an avowed _♦Atheist_ for many years; some were _Jews_; a considerable
number _Papists_: the greatest part of them as much strangers to the
form, as to the power of godliness.”
♦ “Athiest” replaced with “Atheist”
My lord, can you deny these facts? I will make whatever proof of
them you shall require. But if the facts be allowed, who can deny the
doctrines to be (in substance) the gospel of Christ? _For is there
any other name under heaven given to men, whereby they may_ thus _be
saved_? Or is there any other word that thus _commendeth itself to
every man’s conscience in the sight of_ God?
* 22. But I must draw to a conclusion. Your lordship has without doubt
had some success in _opposing_ this doctrine. Very many have, by your
lordship’s unwearied _endeavours_, been deterred from hearing at all:
and have thereby probably escaped the being _seduced_ into holiness,
have lived and died in their sins. My lord, the time is short. I am
past the noon of life, and my remaining years flee away as a shadow.
Your lordship is old and full of days, having past the usual age of
man. It cannot therefore be long before we shall both drop this house
of earth, and stand naked before God: no, nor before we shall see
the great white throne coming down from heaven, and him that sitteth
thereon. On his left-hand shall be those who are shortly to dwell in
everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. In that number
will be all who died in their sins: and among the rest, those whom you
_preserved_ from repentance. Will you then rejoice in your success? The
Lord God grant it may not be said in that hour, “These have perished in
their iniquity: but their blood I require at thy hands.”
I am,
_Your lordship’s dutiful son and servant_,
JOHN WESLEY.
LONDON,
_June 11, 1747_.
A
LETTER
To a CLERGYMAN.
TULLAMORE, _May 4, 1748_.
_Rev. Sir_,
I HAVE at present neither leisure nor inclination to enter into a
formal controversy: but you will give me leave, just to offer a few
loose hints, relating to the subject of last night’s conversation.
1. Seeing life and health are things of so great importance, it is,
without question, highly expedient, that physicians should have all
possible advantages of learning and education.
2. That trial should be made of them by competent judges, before they
practise publicly.
3. That after such trial, they be authorized to practise by those who
are impowered to convey that authority.
4. And that while they are preserving the lives of others, they should
have what is sufficient to sustain their own.
5. But supposing a gentleman bred at the university in _Dublin_, with
all the advantages of education: after he has undergone all the usual
trials, and then been regularly authorized to practise.
6. Suppose, I say, this physician settles at ―――― for some years, and
yet makes no cures at all: but after trying his skill on five hundred
persons, cannot shew that he has healed one; many of his patients dying
under his hands, and the rest remaining just as they were before he
came.
7. Will you condemn a man, who having some little skill in physic, and
a tender compassion for those who are sick or dying all-around him,
cures many of those, without fee or reward, whom the doctor could not
cure?
8. At least, _did_ not (which is the same thing as to the case in hand)
were it only for this reason, because he did not go to them, and they
would not come to him.
9. Will you condemn him, because he has not learning? Or has not had an
university education?
What then? He cures those whom the man of learning and education cannot
cure.
10. Will you object, That he is no physician, nor has any authority to
practise?
I cannot come into your opinion. I think, he is a physician who heals;
_Medicus est qui medetur_: and that every man has authority to save the
life of a dying man.
But if you only mean, he has no authority to take fees, I contend not:
for he takes none at all.
11. Nay, and I am afraid it will hold, on the other hand, _Medicus non
est qui non medetur_: I am afraid, if we use propriety of speech, he is
no physician who works no cure.
12. “O, but he has taken his degree of doctor of physic, and therefore
has authority.”
Authority to do what? “Why, to heal all the sick that will employ him.”
But (to wave the case of those who will not employ him: and would you
have even _their_ lives thrown away?) He does not heal those that do
employ him. He that was sick before, is sick still; or else he is gone
hence, and is no more seen.
Therefore his authority is not worth a rush; for it serves not the end
for which it was given.
13. And surely he has no authority to kill them, by hindering another
from saving their lives!
14. If he either attempts or desires to hinder him, if he condemns or
dislikes him for it, it is plain to all thinking men, he regards his
own fees, more than the lives of his patients.
* * * * *
II. Now to apply. 1. Seeing life everlasting and holiness, or health of
soul, are things of so great importance, it is highly expedient, that
ministers being physicians of the soul, should have all advantages of
education and learning.
2. That full trial should be made of them, in all respects, and that by
the most competent judges, before they enter on the public exercise of
their office, The saving souls from death.
3. That after such trial, they be authorized to exercise that office,
by those who are impowered to convey that authority: (I believe,
bishops are impowered to do this, and have been so, from the apostolic
age.)
4. And that those whose souls they save, ought mean time to provide
them what is needful for the body.
5. But suppose a gentleman bred at the university in _Dublin_, with all
the advantages of education: after he has undergone the usual trials,
and been regularly authorized to save souls from death.
6. Suppose, I say, this minister settles at ―――― for some years, and
yet saves no soul at all; saves no sinners from their sins; but after
he has preached all this time to five or six hundred persons, cannot
shew, that he has converted one from the error of his ways.
Many of his parishioners dying as they lived and the rest remaining
just as they were before he came.
7. Will you condemn a man, who having compassion on dying souls, and
some knowledge of the gospel of Christ, without any temporal reward,
saves many from their sins, whom the minister could not save?
8. At least _did_ not: nor ever was likely to do it; for he did not go
to them, and they would not come to him.
9. Will you condemn such a preacher, because he has not learning? Or
has not had an university education?
What then? He saves those sinners from their sins, whom the man of
learning and education cannot save.
A peasant being brought before the college of physicians at _Paris_, a
learned doctor accosted him, “What, friend, do you pretend to prescribe
to people that have agues? Dost thou know what an ague is?”
He replied, “Yes, Sir, an ague is, what I can cure, and you cannot.”
10. Will you object, “But he is no minister; nor has any authority to
save souls?”
I must beg leave to dissent from you in this. I think, he is a true,
evangelical minister, διάκονος, servant of Christ and his church, who
οὕτως διακονεῖ, so ministers, as to save souls from death, to reclaim
sinners from their sins: and that every Christian, if he is able to do
it, has authority to save a dying soul.
But if you only mean, he has no authority to take tythes, I grant it.
He takes none. As he has freely ♦received, so he freely gives.
♦ “recieved” replaced with “received”
11. But to carry the matter a little farther, I am afraid, it will
hold on the other hand, with regard to the soul as well as the body,
_Medicus non est qui non medetur_. I am afraid, reasonable men will be
much inclined to think, he that saves no souls is no minister of Christ.
12. “O, but he is ordained, and therefore has authority.”――――
Authority to do what? To save all the souls that will put themselves
under his care. True; but (to wave the case of them that will not.
And would you desire that even those should perish?) he does not, in
fact, save them that are under his care. Therefore, what end does his
authority serve? He that was a drunkard, is a drunkard still. The same
is true of the sabbath-breaker, the thief, the common swearer. This is
the best of the case: for many have died in their iniquity, and their
blood will God require at the watchman’s hand.
13. For surely he has no authority to murder souls: either by
his neglect, by his smooth if not false doctrine, or by hindering
another from plucking them out of the fire, and bringing them to life
everlasting.
14. If he either attempts or desires to hinder him, if he condemns or
is displeased with him for it, how great reason is there to fear, that
he regards his own profit, more than the salvation of souls?
_I am, Rev. Sir,_
_Your affectionate brother_,
J. W.
A
LETTER
To the AUTHOR of the
_Enthusiasm_ of _Methodists_ and _Papists_ compared.
_Agedum! Pauca accipe contra._
HORACE.
SIR,
1. IN your late pamphlets you have undertaken to prove, that Mr.
_Whitefield_ and _I_, are gross enthusiasts; and that our _¹whole
conduct is but a counter-part of the most wild fanaticisms of the most
abominable communion in its most corrupt ages_.
¹ Preface, page 3.
You endeavour to support this charge against us, by quotations from our
own writings: compared with quotations from celebrated writers of the
_Romish_ communion.
2. It lies upon me answer for one. But I must not burden you with too
long an answer; lest ¹(_for want either of leisure or inclination_)
you should not give this, any more than my other tracts, a reading.
In order therefore to spare both you and myself, I shall at present
consider only your first part; and that as briefly as possible.
Accordingly I shall not meddle with your other quotations; but leaving
them to whom they may concern, shall only examine, whether those you
have made from my writings, prove the charge of enthusiasm, or no.
¹ Preface, page 5.
This, I conceive, will be abundantly sufficient, to decide the question
between you and me. If these do prove the charge, I am cast: if they
do not, if they are the words of truth and soberness, it will be an
objection of no real weight, against sentiments just in themselves,
though they should also be found in the writings of _Papists_: yea, of
_Mahometans_ or _Pagans_.
3. Let the eight pages you _borrow_, stand as they are. I presume they
will do neither good nor harm. In the tenth you say, _The_ Methodists
_act on the same plan with the_ Papists――――_not perhaps from compact
and design; but a similar configuration and texture of brain, or the
fumes of imagination producing similar effects. From a commiseration
of horror, arising from the grievous corruptions of the world, perhaps
from a real motive of sincere piety, they both set out with warm
pretences to a reformation._ Sir, this is an uncommon thought! That
sincere piety should arise from the _configuration and texture of the
brain_! As well as, that _pretences_ to a reformation should spring
from a _real motive_ of _sincere piety_!
4. You go on, ¹_both commonly begin their adventures with
field-preaching_. Sir, do you condemn field-preaching _toto genere_,
as evil in itself? Have a care! or you (I should say, the gentleman
that assists you) will speak a little too plain, and betray the _real_
motives of his _sincere_ antipathy to the people called _Methodists_.
¹ Enthusiasm, &c. page 11.
Or do you condemn the preaching on _Hannam-mount_, in particular, to
the colliers of _Kingswood_? If you doubt, whether this has _done any
real good_, it is a very easy thing to be informed. And I leave it
with all impartial men, whether the good which has in fact been done
by preaching there, and which could not possibly have been done any
other way, does not abundantly ¹_justify the irregularity of it_.
¹ Page 15.
5. But you think I am herein _inconsistent_ with myself. For I say,
“_The uncommonness is the very circumstance that recommends it._” (I
mean that recommended it to the colliers in _Kingswood_:) And yet I
said, but a page or two before, “_We are not suffered to preach in the
churches: else we should prefer them to any places whatsoever._”
Sir, I still aver both the one and the other. I do _prefer_ the
preaching in a church when I am suffered: and yet, when I am not, the
wise providence of God over-rules this very circumstance for good: many
coming to hear, because of the uncommonness of the thing, who would
otherwise not have heard at all.
6. Your second charge is, That I ¹_abuse the clergy, throw out so much
gall of bitterness against them! And impute this black art of calumny
to the spirit and power given from_ God.
¹ Page 15.
Sir, I plead not guilty to the whole charge. And you have not cited
one line to support it. But, if you could support it, what is this to
the point in hand? I presume calumny is not enthusiasm. Perhaps you
will say, “But it is something as bad.” True: but it is nothing to the
purpose: even the _imputing this to the Spirit of_ God, as you here
represent it, is an instance of _art_, not of _enthusiasm_.
7. You charge me thirdly, with ¹_putting on a sanctified appearance,
in order to draw followers, by a demure look, precise behaviour, and
other marks of external piety. For which reason_, you say, _Mr._ Wesley
_made and renewed that noble resolution, not willingly to indulge
himself in the least levity of behaviour, or in laughter, no, not for
a moment――――to speak no word not tending to the glory of_ God; _and not
a tittle of worldly things_.
¹ Pages 18, 19.
Sir, You miss the mark again. If this _sanctified appearance_ was
_put on_ to _draw followers_, if it was for _this reason_, (as you
flatly affirm it was) that _Mr._ Wesley _made and renewed that noble
resolution_: (it was made eleven or twelve years before, about the
time of my removal to _Lincoln-College_) then it can be no instance of
_enthusiasm_, and so does not fall within the design of your present
work.――――Unless your title page does not belong to your book: for that
confines you to the _enthusiasm_ of the _Methodists_.
8. But to consider this point in another view. You accuse me of
_putting on a sanctified appearance, a demure look, precise behaviour,
and other marks of external piety_. How are you assured, Sir, this was
barely _external_? And that it was a bare _appearance_ of sanctity? You
affirm this as from personal knowledge. Was you then acquainted with
me three or four and twenty years ago? _He made and renewed that noble
resolution_, in order to _draw followers_.――――Sir, How do you know
that? Are you in God’s place, that you take upon you to be the searcher
of hearts? _That noble resolution, not willingly to indulge himself in
the least levity of behaviour._ Sir, I acquit you of having any concern
in this matter. But I appeal to all who have the love of God in their
hearts, whether this is not a rational, scriptural resolution, worthy
of the vocation wherewith we are called――――_or in laughter, no, not
for a moment_. No, nor ought I to indulge it at all: if I am conscious
to myself, it hurts my soul. In which, let every man judge for himself.
_To speak no word not tending to the glory of_ God――――A _peculiar_
instance of enthusiasm this! _And not a tittle of worldly things._
The words immediately following are, _Others may, nay must. But what
is that to me?_ (Words which in justice you ought to have inserted)
who was then entirely disengaged from worldly business of every kind.
Notwithstanding which, I have often since engaged therein, when the
order of Providence plainly required it.
9. Though I did not design to meddle with them, yet I must here take
notice of three of your instances of _Popish_ enthusiasm. The first,
is, That ¹_Mechtildis tortured herself, for having spoken an idle word_.
(The point of comparison lies not in torturing herself; but in her
doing it, on such an occasion;) the second, _That not a word fell from
St._ Katharine _of_ Sienna, _that was not religious and holy_: the
third, _That the lips of_ Magdalen di Pazzi, _were never opened but to
chant the praises of_ God. I would to God the comparison between the
_Methodists_ and _Papists_ would hold in this respect! Yea, that you,
and all the clergy in _England_, were guilty of just such _enthusiasm_.
¹ Page 19.
10. You cite as a fourth instance of my enthusiasm, that I say, ¹_A
Methodist (a real Christian) cannot adorn himself on any pretence, with
gold or costly apparel_. If this be enthusiasm, let the apostle look to
it. His words are clear and express. If _you_ can find a _pretence_ to
set them aside, do: I cannot; nor do I desire it.
¹ Page 21.
11. My ¹_seeming contempt of money_ you urge as a fifth instance of
enthusiasm. Sir, I understand you. You was obliged to call it _seeming_,
lest you should yourself confute the allegation brought in your
title-page. But if it be only _seeming_, whatever it prove besides, it
cannot prove that I am an _enthusiast_.
¹ Page 26.
12. Hitherto you have succeeded extremely ill. You have brought five
accusations against me: and have not been able to make one good.
However, you are resolved to throw dirt enough, that some may stick. So
you are next to prove upon me, ¹_a restless impatience and insatiable
thirst of travelling, and undertaking dangerous voyages, for the
conversion of infidels; together with a declared contempt, of all
dangers, pains and sufferings_: and the _designing, loving and praying
for ill usage, persecution, martyrdom, death and hell_.
¹ Page 27.
In order to prove this uncommon charge, you produce ¹four scraps of
sentences, which you mark as my words, though as they stand in your
book, they are neither sense nor grammar. But you do not refer to the
page or even the treatise, where any one of them may be found. Sir,
’tis well you hide your name: or you would be obliged to hide your
face, from every man of candour, or even common humanity.
¹ Page 31.
13. ¹_Sometimes indeed_, you say, _Mr._ Wesley _complains of the scoffs
both of the great vulgar and the small_: to prove which, you disjoint
and murder (as your manner is) another of my sentences. _But at other
times the note is changed, and “till he is despised no man is in a
state of salvation.” The note is changed!_ How so? When did I say
otherwise than I do at this day, _viz._ “That none are children of God,
but those who are hated, or despised by the children of the devil.”
¹ Page 32.
I must beg you, Sir, in your third part to inform your reader, that
whenever any solecism or mangled sentences, appear in the quotations
from my writings, they are not chargeable upon _me_: that if the sense
be mine (which is not always; sometimes you do me too much honour, even
in this:) yet I lay no claim to the manner of expression: the _English_
is all your own.
14. ¹_Corporal severities or mortification by tormenting the flesh_,
is the next thing you charge upon me. Almost two sentences you bring
in proof of this. The one, “_Our bed being wet_ (it was in a storm at
sea) _I laid me down on the floor, and slept sound till morning: and I
believe I shall not find it needful to go to bed, as ’tis called, any
more_.” But whether I do or not, how will you prove, that my motive is,
To _gain a reputation for sanctity_? I desire (if it be not too great a
favour) a little evidence for this.
¹ Page 31.
The other fragment of a sentence speaks, ¹_of bearing cold on the naked
head, rain and wind, frost and snow_.” True; but not as matter of
_mortification, by tormenting the flesh_. Nothing less. These things
are not spoken of there, as voluntary instances of _mortification_:
(you yourself know perfectly well, they are not; only you _make free_
with your friend:) but as some of the unavoidable inconveniences, which
attend preaching in the open air.
¹ Page 32.
Therefore you need not be so ¹_sure that the apostle condemns that_
ἀφειδία σώματος, _not sparing the body, as useless and superstitious,
and that it_ is _a false shew of humility. Humility_ is entirely out of
the question, as well as _chastity_; in the case of hardships endured
(but not properly chosen) out of _love_ to the souls for which Christ
died.
¹ Page 33.
15. You add a _word or two_ of my _ardent desire of going to hell_,
which you think, I ¹_adopted from the Jesuit_ Nieremberg. Sir, I know
not the man. I am wholly a stranger both to his person and to his
doctrine. But if this is his doctrine, I disclaim it from my heart.
I ardently desire, that both you and I may go to heaven.
¹ Page 34.
But _Mr._ Wesley _says_, “¹_A poor old man decided the question of
disinterested love.――――He said, I do not care what place I am in. Let_
God _put me where he will, or do with me what he will, so I may set
forth his honour and glory._”
¹ Page 35.
He did so. And what then? Do these words imply, _an ardent desire of
going to hell_? I do not suppose the _going to hell_ ever entered into
his thoughts. Nor has it any place in my notion of _disinterested love_.
How you may understand that term, I know not.
But you will prove, I have this desire, whether I will or no. You
are sure, this was my ¹_original meaning_, in the words cited by Mr.
_Church_,
“Doom if thou canst to endless pain,
Or drive me from thy face;”
God’s _power or justice_, you say, _must be intended; because he speaks
of God’s love in the very next lines_,
“But if thy stronger love constrains,
Let me be sav’d by grace.”
¹ Page 36.
Sir, I will tell you a secret. Those lines are not mine. However,
I will once more venture to defend them, and to aver, that your
consequence is good for nothing, “If this love is spoken of in the
latter lines, then it is not in the former.” No! Why not? I take it to
be spoken of in both. The plain meaning of which is, “If thou art not
love, I am content to perish. But if thou art, let me find the effects
thereof: let me be saved by grace.”
16. You next accuse me of maintaining _a stoical insensibility_. This
objection also you borrow from Mr. _Church_. You ought likewise to have
taken notice, that I had answered it, and openly disowned that doctrine:
I mean, according to the rules of common justice. But that is not your
failing.
17. Part of your thirty-ninth page runs thus: _with respect to all
this patient enduring hardships_, &c. _it has been remarked by_ learned
_authors_, “_That some persons by_ constitutional temper, _have been
fond of bearing the worst that could befall them: that others from_ a
sturdy humour, _and the force of_ education, _have made light of the
most exquisite tortures: that when_ enthusiasm _comes in, in aid of
this natural ♦or acquired_ sturdiness, _and men fancy they are upon_
God’s work, _and intituled to his_ rewards, _they are immediately all
on fire, for rushing into sufferings and pain_.”
♦ added the word “or” per Errata
I take knowledge of your having faithfully abridged, your own book
shall I say? Or the _learned_ Dr. _Middleton_’s? But what is it you
are endeavouring to prove?
_Quorsum hæc tam putida tendunt?_
The paragraph _seems_ to point at me. But the plain, natural tendency
of it, is to invalidate that great argument for Christianity, which is
drawn from the constancy of the martyrs. Have you not here also spoken
a little too plain? Had you not better have kept the mask on a little
longer?
Indeed you lamely add, _The solid and just comforts which a true martyr
receives from above, are groundlesly applied to the counterfeit_. But
this is not enough even to save appearances.
18. You subjoin a truly surprizing thought. ¹_It may moreover be
observed, that both antient and modern enthusiasts always take care
to secure some advantage by their sufferings._ O rare enthusiasts! So
they are not such fools neither, as they are vulgarly supposed to be.
This is just of a piece with the _cunning epileptic demoniacs_, in your
other performance. And do not you think (if you would but speak all
that is in your heart, and let us into the whole secret) that there was
a _compact_, likewise between bishop _Hooper_ and his _executioner_, as
well as between the _ventriloquist_ and the _exorcist_?
¹ Page 40.
But what _advantage_ do _they take care to secure_? A good salary? A
handsome fortune? No; quite another matter: ¹_free communications with_
God, and _fuller manifestations of his goodness_. I dare say, you do
not envy them: no more than you do those _self-interested enthusiasts_
of old, who _were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might
obtain a better resurrection_.
¹ Ibid.
19. You proceed to prove my enthusiasm from my notions of conversion.
And here great allowances are to be made: because you are talking of
things quite out of your sphere: you are got into an unknown world! Yet
you still talk as magisterially, as if you was only running down the
fathers of the primitive church.
And, first, you say, I ¹_represent conversion as sudden and
instantaneous_. Soft and fair! Do you know what _conversion_ is?
(A term indeed which I very rarely use, because it rarely occurs in
the New Testament.) “Yes; it is, To ²_start up perfect men at once_.”
(Indeed, Sir, it is not. A man is usually converted, long before he is
a perfect man.) ’Tis probable, most of those _Ephesians_, to whom St.
_Paul_ directed his epistle, were converted. Yet they were not _come_
(few, if any) _to a perfect man_, to the measure of the stature of the
fulness of Christ.
¹ Page 40.
² Page 41.
20. I do not, Sir, indeed, I do not undertake to make you understand
these things. I am not so vain as to think it is in my power. ’Tis the
utmost of my hope, to convince you, or at least, those who read your
works, that you understand just nothing about them.
To put this out of dispute, you go on, ¹_Thus faith and being born of
God, are said to be an instantaneous work, at once, and in a moment, as
lightning. Justification, the same as regeneration, and having a lively
faith, this always in a moment._ I know not which to admire most, the
_English_ or the sense, which you here father upon me: but in truth
’tis all your own: I do not thus confound _faith_ and _being born of_
God. I always speak of them as different things: ’tis you that thus
jumble them together. ’Tis you who discover _justification_ also to be
the _same as regeneration, and having a lively faith_. I take them to
be three different things; so different as not ever to come under one
_genus_. And yet ’tis true, that each of these, “as far as I know,” is
at first experienced suddenly: although two of them (I leave you to
find out which) gradually increase from that hour.
¹ Page 42.
21. ¹_After these sudden conversions_, say you _they receive their
assurances of salvation_. Sir, Mr. _Bedford_’s ignorance in charging
this doctrine upon me, might be _involuntary_, and I am persuaded was
_real_. But yours cannot be so. It must be _voluntary_; if it is not
rather _affected_. For you had before you, while you wrote, the very
tract, wherein I corrected Mr. _Bedford_’s mistake, and explicitly
declared, “The assurance whereof I speak, is not an assurance of
salvation.” And the very passages you cite from me, prove the same:
every one of which (as you yourself know in your own conscience)
relates wholly and solely to present pardon, not to future salvation.
¹ Page 43.
Of ¹_Christian perfection_ I shall not say any thing to _you_, till you
have learned a little Heathen honesty.
¹ Page 45.
22. That this is a lesson you have not yet learned, appears also from
your following section: wherein you roundly affirm, _Whatever they
think, say, or do_, (i. e. the _Methodists_, according to their own
account) _is from_ God. _And whatever opposeth, is from the devil._ I
doubt not, but Mr. _Church_ believed this to be true when he asserted
it. But this is no plea for _you_: who having read the answer to Mr.
_Church_, still assert what you know to be false.
¹_Here we have_, say you, _the true spirit and very essence of
enthusiasm, which sets men above carnal reasoning, and all conviction
of plain scripture_. It may, or may not; that is nothing to me. I am
not above either reason or scripture. To either of these I am ready to
submit. But I cannot receive scurrilous invective, instead of scripture:
nor pay the same regard to low buffoonery, as to clear and cogent
reasons.
¹ Page 49.
23. With your two following pages, I have nothing to do. But in the 52d,
I read as follows. _A Methodist, says Mr._ Wesley, _went to receive the
sacrament――――when_ God _was pleased to let him see a crucified Saviour_.
Very well; and what is this brought to prove? Why, 1. That I am an
enthusiast: 2. That _I encourage the notion of the real, ♦corporal
presence, in the sacrifice of the mass_. How so? Why ¹_this is as good
an argument for transubstantiation, as several produced by Bellarmin_.
Very likely it may; and as good as several produced by you, for the
enthusiasm of the _Methodists_.
♦ “corporeal” replaced with “corporal” per Errata
¹ Page 57.
24. In that _seraphic rhapsody of divine love_, as you term it,
which you condemn in the lump, as rant and madness, there are several
scriptural expressions, both from the Old and New Testament. At first
I imagined you did nor know them; those being books which you did not
seem to be much acquainted with. But upon laying circumstances together,
I rather suppose, you was glad of so handsome an opportunity, to make
as if you aimed at _me_, that you might have a home stroke at some of
those old enthusiasts.
25. The next words which you cite from me, as a proof of my enthusiasm,
are, ¹_The power of_ God _was in an unusual manner present_. I mean,
many found an unusual degree of that peace, joy and love, which St.
_Paul_ terms, _the fruit of the Spirit_. And all these, in conformity
to his doctrine, I ascribe to the _power of_ God. I know you, in
conformity to your principles, ascribe them to the power of nature.
But I still believe, according to the old, scriptural hypothesis, that
whenever in hearing the word of God, men are filled with peace and love,
God _confirms that word by the Holy Ghost given unto those that hear
it_.
¹ Page 61.
26. As a further proof of my enthusiasm you mention ¹_special
directions, missions, and calls by immediate revelation_. For an
instance of which, you cite those words, “_I know, and am assured,
that_ God _sent forth his light and his truth_.” I did know this. But
do I say, by immediate revelation? Not a tittle about it. This is your
own ingenious improvement upon my words.
¹ Page 67.
“However, it was by a _special direction_.” For your own words in the
same paragraph are, ¹_From the direction I received from_ God _this day,
touching an affair of the greatest importance_.
¹ Pages 68, 99.
What, are these words in the same paragraph with those, _I know, and
am assured_, God _sent forth his light and his truth_? Why then do
you tear the paragraph in two, and put part in your 67th, part in your
68th and 69th pages? O, for a plain reason: to make it look like two
instances of enthusiasm, otherwise it could have made but one at the
most.
But you cannot make out one, till you have proved, that these
directions were by _immediate revelation_. I never affirmed they were.
I now affirm they were not. Now, Sir, make your best of them.
You add, ¹_Let me mention a few directions coming by way of command
――――Mr._ Wesley _says_, “_I came to Mr._ Delamotte_’s, where I expected
a cool reception. But_ God _had prepared the way before me_.” What by
a command to Mr. _Delamotte_? Who told you so? Not I: nor any one else:
only your own fruitful imagination.
¹ Page 69.
27. Your next discovery is more curious still: that ¹“_itinerants order
what they want at a public house, and then tell the landlord, that he
will be damned, if he takes any thing of them_.”
¹ Page 69.
I was beating my brain, to find out what _itinerant_ this should be!
as I could not but imagine, some silly man or other, probably stiling
himself a _Methodist_, must some where or other have given some ground
for a story so punctually delivered. In the midst of this, a letter
from _Cornwall_ informed me, it was I: I myself was the very man, and
acquainted me with the place, and the person to whom I said it. But as
there are some particulars in that letter (sent without a name) which I
did not well understand, I transcribe a few words of it, in hopes that
the author will give me fuller information.
“As to the bishop’s declaring, what the landlord of _Mitchel_ says, in
respect to your behaviour, I do not at all wonder at the story.” The
bishop’s declaring! Whom can he mean? Surely not the Right Reverend
Dr. _George Lavington_, lord bishop of _Exeter_! When, or to whom did
he declare it? At _Truro_, in _Cornwall_? Or in _Plymouth_, at his
visitation? To all the clergy who were assembled before God, to receive
his pastoral instructions? His lordship of _Exeter_ must certainly have
more regard to the dignity of the episcopal office!
28. But to proceed. I was not _offended with the_ Moravians, for
warning men, ¹_against mixing nature with grace_; but for their doing
it in such a manner as tended to destroy all the work of grace in their
souls. I did not blame the thing itself, but their _manner_ of doing it.
And this you know perfectly well. But with you, truth must always give
way to wit. At all events, you must have your jest.
¹ Page 71.
29. Had you had any regard to truth, or any desire to represent
things as they really are, when you repeated Mr. _Church_’s objection
concerning _lots_, you would have acknowledged, that I have answered it
at large. When you have replied to that answer, I may add a word more.
30. You are sadly at a loss under the article of _extasies_ and
_raptures_, to glean up any thing that will serve your purpose. At
last, from ten or twelve tracts, you pick out two lines; and those
the same you had mentioned before. “_My soul was got up into the holy
mount. I had no thought of coming down again into the body._” And truly
you might as well have let these alone. For if by _extasy_ you mean
_trance_, here is no account of any such: but only of one _rejoicing_
in God _with joy unspeakable and full of glory_.
With the ¹_girl of seven years old_, I have nothing to do: though
you honestly tack that relation to the other, in order to make me
accountable for both. But all is fair toward a _Methodist_.
¹ Page 77.
31. What I assert concerning ¹_Peter Wright_, is this, 1. That he gave
me that relation (whether I believed it no, I did not say.) 2. That
he died within a month after. Now, Sir, give us a cast of your office.
From these two propositions, extract a proof of my being an enthusiast.
¹ Page 79.
You may full as easily prove it from these, as from the words you quote
next, ¹God _does now give remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy
Ghost, and often in dreams and visions of God. But afterwards_, you
say, _I speak more distrustfully_. Indeed I do not. But I guard against
enthusiasm, in those words, part of which you have recited. The whole
paragraph runs thus,
¹ Page 79.
“From those words, _Beloved, believe not every spirit; but try the
spirits, whether they be of_ God: I told them, they were not to judge
of the spirit whereby any one spoke, either by appearances, or by
common report, or by their own inward feelings: no, nor by any dreams,
visions, or revelations, supposed to be made to their souls, any more
than by their tears, or any involuntary effects wrought upon their
bodies. I warned them, all these were in themselves of a doubtful,
disputable nature: they _might be_ from God, and they _might not_,
and were therefore not simply to be relied on (any more than simply to
be condemned) but to be tried by a farther rule; to be brought to the
only certain test, the law and the testimony.” Sir, can you shew them
a better way?
32. The last proof that you produce of my enthusiasm is, ¹_My talking
of the great work which_ God _is now beginning to work upon earth_. I
own the fact. I do talk of such a work. But I deny the consequence. For
if God has begun a great work, then the saying he has, is no enthusiasm.
¹ Page 80.
To bring sinners to repentance, to save them from their sins, is
allowed by all to be the work of God. Yea, and to save one sinner is
a great work of God: much more to save many.
But many sinners are saved from their sins at this day, in _London_,
in _Bristol_, in _Kingswood_, in _Cornwall_: in _Newcastle-upon-Tyne_,
in _Whitehaven_, in many other parts of _England_: in _Wales_, in
_Ireland_, in _Scotland_: upon the continent of _Europe_: in _Asia_,
and in _America_. This I term _a great work of_ God; so great, as I
have not read of for several ages.
You ask, _how I know_, so great a work is wrought now? _By
inspiration?_ No; but by common sense. I know it by the evidence of my
own eyes and ears. I have seen a considerable part of it: and I have
abundant testimony, such as excludes all possible doubt, for what I
have not seen.
33. But you are so far from acknowledging any thing of this, as
to conclude, in full triumph, ¹_That this new dispensation is a
composition of enthusiasm, superstition, and imposture_. It is not
clear what you mean by a new _dispensation_. * But the clear, and
undeniable fact stands thus――――A few years ago, _Great Britain_ and
_Ireland_, were covered with vice from sea to sea. Very little of even
the form of religion was left: and still less of the power of it. Out
of this darkness God commanded light to shine. In a short space, he
called thousands of sinners to repentance. They were not only reformed
from their outward vices, but likewise changed in their dispositions
and tempers; filled with _a serious, sober sense of true religion_,
with love to God and all mankind, with an holy faith producing good
works of every kind, works both of piety and mercy.
¹ Page 81.
What could the god of this world do in such a case, to prevent the
spreading of this _serious, sober religion_? The same that he has done
from the beginning of the world. To hinder the light of those whom
God hath thus changed, from shining before men, he gave them all in
general a nick-name: he called them _Methodists_. And this name, as
insignificant as it was in itself, effectually answered his intention.
For by this means, that light was soon obscured by prejudice, which
could not be withstood by scripture or reason. By the odious and
ridiculous ideas affixed to that name, they were condemned in the gross,
without ever being heard. So that now any scribbler, with a middling
share of low wit, not incumbered with good nature or modesty, may
raise a laugh on those whom he cannot confute, and run them down
whom he dares not look in the face. By this means even a comparer of
_Methodists_ and _Papists_, may blaspheme the great work of God, not
only without blame, but with applause; at least, from readers of his
own stamp. But it is high time, Sir, you should leave your skulking
place. Come out, and let us look each other in the face. I have little
leisure and less inclination for controversy. Yet I promise, if you
will set your name to your third part, I will answer all that shall
concern me, in that, as well as the preceding. Till then I remain, Sir,
_Your friend and well-wisher_,
JOHN WESLEY.
_Canterbury_,
February 1, 1749‒50.
POSTSCRIPT.
WHEN you come to relate those _horrid and shocking things_, there may
be a danger you are not aware of. Even you yourself may fall (as little
as you intend or suspect it) into seriousness. And I am afraid, if once
you put off your fool’s coat, if you stand naked before cool and sober
reason, you yourself may appear as inconsiderable a creature――――to use
your own phrase, “as if _your name was_ Perronet.”
A SECOND
LETTER
To the AUTHOR of the
_Enthusiasm_ of _Methodists_ and _Papists_ compared.
_Ecce iterum Chrispinus!_
JUVENAL.
To the Right Reverend the LORD BISHOP of EXETER.
_My Lord_,
1. I WAS grieved when I read the following words, in the third part
of the enthusiasm of _Methodists_ and _Papists_ compared. “A sensible,
honest woman told the _bishop of Exeter_, in presence of several
witnesses, That Mr. _John Wesley_ came to her house, and questioned her,
whether she had _an assurance of her salvation_?” Her answer was, that
“she _hoped_ she should be saved, but had no absolute _assurance_ of
it.” Why then, replied he, _you are in hell, you are damned already_.
This so terrified the poor woman, who was then with child, that she was
grievously afraid of miscarrying, and could not in a long time, recover
her right mind. For this, and the Methodists asking her to live upon
free cost, she determined to admit no more of them into her house. So
much is _her own account_ to his lordship, on whose authority it is
here published.”
2. This renewed the concern I felt sometime since, when I was informed
(in letters which I have still by me) of your lordship’s publishing
this account, both at _Plymouth_, in _Devonshire_, and at _Truro_,
in _Cornwall_, before the clergy assembled from all parts of those
counties, at the solemn season of your lordship’s visiting your diocese.
But I was not informed, that your lordship shewed a deep concern for
the honour of God, which you supposed to be so dreadfully violated,
or a tender compassion for a presbyter whom you believed to be rushing
into everlasting destruction.
3. In order to be more fully informed, on _Saturday, August 25, 1750_,
Mr. _Trembath_, of _St. Ginneys_, Mr. _Hame_, of _Shaftesbury_, and
_I_, called at Mr. _Morgan_’s at _Mitchell_. The servant telling me
her master was not at home, I desired to speak with her mistress, the
“honest, sensible woman.” ♦I immediately asked, “Did I ever tell you
or your husband, that you would be damned, if you took any money of
me?” (So the story ran in the first part of the comparison: it has
now undergone a very considerable alteration.) “Or did you or he ever
affirm (another circumstance related at _Truro_) that I was rude with
your maid?” She replied vehemently, “Sir, I never said you was, or
that you said any such thing. And I do not suppose my husband did. But
we have been belied as well as our neighbours.” She added, “When the
bishop came down last, he sent us word, that he would dine at our house.
But he did not, being invited to a neighbouring gentleman’s. He sent
for me thither, and said, ‘Good woman, do you know these people that go
up and down? Do you know Mr. _Wesley_? Did not he tell you, you would
♠be damned, if you took any money of him? And did not he offer rudeness
to your maid?’” I told him, “No, my lord. He never said any such thing
to me, nor to my husband that I know of. He never offered any rudeness
to any maid of mine. I never saw or knew any harm of him. But a man
told me once (who I was told was a Methodist preacher) that I should be
damned, if I did not know my sins were forgiven.”
♦ added word “I” per Errata
♠ “de” replaced with “be”
4. This is _her own account_ given to me. And an account it is,
irreconcileably different (notwithstanding some small resemblance in
the last circumstance) from that she is affirmed to have given your
lordship. Whether she did give that account to your lordship or no,
your lordship knows best. That the comparer affirms it, is no proof
at all; since he will affirm any thing that suits his purpose.
5. Yet I was sorry to see your lordship’s authority cited on such an
occasion; inasmuch as many of his readers, not considering the man,
may think your lordship did really countenance such a writer: one that
turns the most serious, the most awful, the most venerable things into
mere farce; that makes the most essential parts of real, experimental
religion, matter of low buffoonery; that beginning at the very rise
of it in the soul, namely, _Repentance towards God, a broken and a
contrite heart_, goes on to _faith in our Lord Jesus Christ_, whereby
_he that believeth is born of God_, to _the love of God shed abroad
in the heart_, attended with _peace and joy in the Holy Ghost_; to
our subsequent _wrestling not_ only _with flesh and blood, but with
principalities and powers and wicked spirits in high places_, and
thence to _perfect love_, the _loving the Lord our God, with all our
heart, mind, soul and strength_: and treats every one of these sacred
topics with the spirit and air of a merry-andrew. What advantage the
common enemies of Christianity may reap from this, your Lordship cannot
be insensible.
6. Your lordship cannot but discern, how the whole tenor of his book
tends to destroy the holy scriptures, to render them vile in the eyes
of the people, to make them stink in the nostrils of infidels. For
instance. After reading his laboured ridicule of the sorrow and fear
which usually attend the first repentance (called by St. _Chrysostom_,
as well as a thousand other writers, _The pangs_ or _throes of the new
birth_) what can an infidel think of those and the like expressions
in scripture, _I have roared for the very disquietness of my heart?
Fearfulness and trembling are come upon me, and an horrible dread hath
overwhelmed me?_ After his flood of satire on all kind of conflicts
with Satan, what judgment can a Deist form, of what St. _Paul_ speaks
concerning the various wrestlings of a Christian with the wicked one?
Above all, how will his bringing the lewd Heathen poets, to expose the
pure and spiritual love of God, naturally cause them to look with the
same eyes on the most elevated passages of the inspired writings? What
can be more diverting to them, than to apply his ♦Γλυκύπικρον ἔρωτος
(bittersweet of love) to many expressions in the _canticles_? (On
which undoubtedly he supposes _the fair circassian_ to be a very just
paraphrase!) “Ay, say they, the very case: stay me with apples: for I
am _sick of love_.”
♦ “Γλυακύπικρον” replaced with “Γλυκύπικρον”
7. Probably the comparer will reply, “No; I do not ridicule the things
themselves: repentance, the new birth, the fight of faith, or the love
of God; all which I know are essential to religion: but only the folly
and the enthusiasm which are blended with these by the Methodists.”
But how poor a pretence is this? Had this really been the case, how
carefully would he have drawn the line under each of these heads,
between the sober religion of a Christian, and the enthusiasm of a
Methodist? But has he done this? Does he take particular care to shew
under each, what is true, as well as what is false religion? Where the
former ends and the latter begins? What are the proper boundaries of
each? Your lordship knows he does not so much as endeavour it, or take
any pains about it: but indiscriminately pours the flood out of his
unclean mouth, upon all repentance, faith, love and holiness.
8. Your lordship will please to observe, that I do not here touch
in the least on the merits of the cause. Be the Methodists what they
may, fools, madmen, enthusiasts, knaves, impostors, papists, or any
thing, yet your lordship perceives, this does not in any degree affect
the point in question. Still it behoves every Christian, nay every
reasonable Heathen to consider the subject he is upon, and to take
care, not to bring this into contempt (especially if it be of the last
importance) however inexcusable or contemptible his opponents may be.
9. This consideration, my Lord, dwelt much upon my mind when I read
the former parts of the comparison. I immediately saw there was no
incountering a buffoon, by serious reason and argument. This would
naturally have furnished both him and his admirers with fresh matter
of ridicule. On the other hand, if I should let myself down to a level
with him, by a less serious manner of writing than I was accustomed to,
I was afraid of debasing the dignity of the subject. Nay, and I knew
not but I might catch something of his Spirit. I remembered the advice,
¹_Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto
him_. And yet I saw there must be an exception in some cases, as the
words immediately following shew. _Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own conceit._ I conceive, as if he had said, Yet
it is needful in some cases, to _answer a fool according to his folly_,
otherwise he will be _wiser in his own conceit, than seven men that can
render a reason_. I therefore constrained myself to approach as near
as I dared, to his own manner of writing. And I trust the occasion will
plead my excuse with your Lordship, and all reasonable men.
¹ Proverbs xxvi. 45.
10. One good effect of my thus meeting him on his own ground, is
visible already. Instead of endeavouring to defend, he intirely gives
up the first part of his comparison. Indeed I did not expect this,
when I observed, that the third part was addressed to me. I took it
for granted, that he had therein aimed at something like a reply to
my answer. But going on, I found myself quite mistaken. He never once
attempts a reply to one page, any otherwise than by screaming out,
“Pertness, scurrility, effrontery, and in subjoining that deep remark,
‘Paper and time would be wasted on such stuff.’”¹
¹ Third part, Preface, page 15.
11. I cannot but account it another good effect, that he is something
less confident than he was before. He is likewise (not more angry or
more bitter, for that cannot be) but a few degrees more serious. So
that I plainly perceive, this is the way I am to take, if I should have
leisure to answer the third part; although it is far from my desire
to write in this manner; it is as contrary to my inclination as to my
custom.
12. But is it possible, that a person of your lordship’s character,
should countenance such a performance as this? It cannot be your
lordship’s desire, to put contempt on all that is truly venerable among
men! To stab Christianity to the heart, under the colour of opposing
enthusiasm! And to increase and give a sanction to the prophaneness,
which already overspreads our land as a flood.
13. Were the Methodists ever so bad, yet are they not too despicable
and inconsiderable for your lordship’s notice? _Against whom is the
king of_ Israel _come out? Against a flea? Against a partridge upon the
mountains?_ Such they undoubtedly are, if that representation of them
be just which the comparer has given. Against whom (if your lordship
espouses his cause) are you stirring up the supreme power of the
nation? Against whom does your lordship arm the ministers of all
denominations, particularly our brethren of the established church;
inciting them to paint us out to their several congregations, as not
fit to live upon the earth? The effects of this have already appeared
in many parts both of _Devonshire_ and _Cornwall_. Nor have I known any
considerable riot in any part of _England_, for which such preaching
did not pave the way.
14. I beg leave to ask, would it be a satisfaction to your lordship,
if national persecution were to return? Does your lordship desire to
revive the old laws, _De hæretico comburendo_? Would your lordship
rejoice, to see the Methodists themselves, tied to so many stakes in
_Smithfield_? Or would you applaud the execution, though not so legally
or decently performed by the mob of _Exeter_, _Plymouth-Dock_ or
_Launceston_? My lord, what profit would there be in our blood? Would
it be an addition to your lordship’s happiness? Or any advantage to the
Protestant cause? Or any honour either to our church or nation?
15. The comparer doubtless would answer, “Yes; for it would prevent the
horrid _consequences_ of your preaching.” My lord, give me leave to say
once more, “I willingly put the whole cause upon this issue. What are
the _general consequences_ of our preaching?” Are there more _tares_ or
_wheat_? More _good men destroyed_, (as Mr. _Church_ once supposed) or
_wicked men saved_? The last places in your lordship’s diocese, where
we began constant preaching, are near _Liskeard_ in _Cornwall_, and
at _Tiverton_ in _Devonshire_. Now let any man enquire here, 1. What
kind of people were those a year ago, who now constantly hear this
preaching? 2. What are the _main doctrines_ the Methodists have been
teaching this twelvemonth? 3. _What effect_ have these doctrines had
upon their hearers? And if you do not find, 1. That the greater part
of these were a year or two ago notoriously wicked men, 2. Yet the main
doctrines they have heard since were, “Love God and your neighbour, and
carefully keep his commandments,” and 3. That they have since exercised
themselves herein, and continue so to do: I say, if any reasonable
man, who will be at the pains to inquire does not find this to be an
unquestionable fact, I will openly acknowledge myself an enthusiast, or
whatever else he shall please to stile me.
16. I beg leave to conclude this address to your lordship with a few
more words transcribed from the same letter. ¹“_Allow Mr._ Wesley,
says Mr. _Church, but these few points, and he will defend his conduct
beyond expectation_.” That is most true. If I _have_ indeed _been
advancing_ nothing but the true knowledge and love of God; if God has
made me an _instrument_ in _reforming_ many sinners, and bringing them
to _inward and pure religion_; and if many of these continue holy to
this day, and free from all wilful sin: then may I, even I, use those
awful words, _He that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me_. But
I never expect the world to allow me one of these points. However, I
must go on as God shall enable me. I must lay out whatsoever talents
he intrusts me with (whether others will believe I do it or no) in
advancing the true Christian knowledge of God, and the love and fear
of God among men; in reforming (if so be it please him to use me still)
those who are yet without God in the world; and in propagating inward
and pure religion, righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.”
¹ Second letter to Mr. Church, page 74.
Sincerely wishing your lordship all happiness in time and in eternity,
_I remain_,
_Your lordship’s most Obedient servant_,
JOHN WESLEY.
_November 27, 1750._
* * * * *
_SIR_,
1. YOU have undertaken to prove (as I observed in my former letter, a
few sentences of which I beg leave to repeat) That the ¹_whole conduct
of the Methodists, is but a counter-part of the most wild fanaticisms
of popery_.
¹ Preface to the first part, page 3.
You endeavour to support this charge, by quotations from our own
writings, compared with quotations from _Popish_ authors.
It lies upon me to answer for one. But in order to spare both you and
myself, I shall at present consider only your _second part_, and that
as briefly as possible. Accordingly I shall not meddle with your other
quotations, but leaving them to whom they may concern, shall examine,
Whether those you have made from my writings, prove the charge for
which they were made or no.
If they do, I submit. But if they do not, if they are _the words of
truth and soberness_, it is an objection of no real weight, against
any sentiment, just in itself, though it should also be found in the
writings of _Papists_; yea, of _Mahometans_ or _Pagans_.
2. In your first section, in order to prove the “Vain boasting of the
_Methodists_,” you quote a part of the following sentence. “When hath
religion, I will not say, since the reformation, but since the time
of _Constantine the Great_, made so large a progress in any nation,
within so short a space?” (I beg any impartial person to read the
whole passage, from the 84th to the 90th page of the _Third Appeal_.)
I repeat the question, giving the glory to God. And, I trust, without
either boasting or enthusiasm.
In your second, you cite (and murder) four or five lines ¹from one
of my _journals_, “as instances of the persuasive eloquence of the
_Methodist preachers_.” But it unfortunately happens, that neither of
the sentences you quote, were spoke by any preacher at all. You know
full well, the one was used only in a private letter; the other by a
woman on a bed of sickness.
¹ Pages 1, 9.
3. You next undertake to prove ¹“the most insufferable _pride_ and
_vanity_ of the _Methodists_.” For this end you quote five passages
from my _journals_, and one from the _Third Appeal_.
¹ Section 3, page 12, &c.
The ¹first was wrote in the anguish of my heart, to which I gave vent
(between God and my own soul) by breaking out, not into “confidence of
boasting,” as you term it, but into those expressions of bitter sorrow.
“I went to _America_ to convert the _Indians_. But O! who shall convert
me!”――――Some of the words which follow, you have picked out, and very
honestly laid before your reader, without either the beginning or end,
or one word of the occasion or manner wherein they were spoken.
¹ 1 Journal, page 67, &c.
Your next quotation is equally fair and generous. ¹“Are they read in
philosophy? So was I, &c.” This whole “string of self-commendation,”
as you call it, being there brought, _ex professo_, to prove, that
notwithstanding all this, which I once piqued myself upon, I was at
that hour in a state of damnation!
¹ Ibid. page 68, &c.
¹The third is a plain narrative of the manner wherein many of _Bristol_
expressed their joy on my coming unexpectedly into the room, after I
had been some time at _London_. And this, I conceive, will prove the
charge of high treason, as well as that of “insufferable _pride_ and
_vanity_.”
¹ 4 Journal, page 85.
You say, fourthly, A dying woman, who had earnestly desired to see me,
cried out, as I entered the room, “Art thou come, thou blessed of the
Lord?” ¹She did so. And what does this prove?
¹ 4 Journal, page 96.
The fifth passage is this: “In applying which, my soul was so inlarged,
that methought I could have cried out (in another sense than poor, vain
♦_Archimedes_) ‘Give me where to stand, and I will shake the earth.’”
My meaning is, I found such freedom of thought and speech (jargon,
stuff, enthusiasm to you) that methought could I have then spoken to
all the world, they would all have shared in the blessing.
♦ “Archimede” replaced with “Archimedes” per Errata
The passage which you quote from the _Third Appeal_, I am obliged to
relate more at large.
“There is one more excuse for denying this work of God, taken from the
instruments employed therein: that is, that they are wicked men; and a
thousand stories have been handed about to prove it.”
“Yet I cannot but remind considerate men, in how remarkable a manner
the wisdom of God, has, for many years, guarded against this pretence,
with regard to my brother and me in particular.” This pretence i. e.
“_of not employing fit instruments_.” These words are yours, though
you insert them as mine. The pretence I mentioned, was, “That they were
wicked men.” And how God guarded against this, is shewn in what follows.
“From that time, both my brother and I (utterly against our will) came
to be more and more observed and known; till we were more spoken of
than perhaps two so inconsiderable persons ever were before in the
nation. To make us more public still, as _honest_ madmen at least, by
a strange concurrence of providences, overturning all our preceding
resolutions, we were hurried away to _America_.”
Afterward it follows, “What persons could in the nature of things,
have been (antecedently) less liable to exception, with regard to
their moral character at least, than those the all-wise God hath now
employed? Indeed I cannot devise what manner of men could have been
more unexceptionable on all accounts. Had God indued us with greater
natural or acquired abilities, this very thing might have been turned
into an objection. Had we been remarkably defective, it would have been
matter of objection on the other hand. Had we been _dissenters_ of any
kind, or even _Low-Church-Men_ (so called) it would have been a great
stumbling-block in the way of those who are _zealous for the church_.
And yet, had we continued in the impetuosity of our _high-church
zeal_, neither should we have been willing to converse with dissenters,
nor they to receive any good at our hands.” Sir, Why did you break
off your quotation in the middle of this paragraph, just at “more
unexceptionable on all accounts?” Was it not on purpose to give a wrong
turn to the whole? To conceal the real and obvious meaning of my words,
and put one upon them that never entered into my thoughts?
5. You have reserved your strong reason for the last, namely, my
own confession. “Mr. _Wesley_ says himself, ‘by the most infallible
of proofs, _inward feeling_, I am convinced of pride, &c.’” Sir, he
pleased to decypher that, &c. Or I will spare you the pains and do it
myself, by reciting the whole sentence.
“By ¹the most infallible of proofs, inward feeling, I am convinced,
¹ 1 Journal, page 64.
1. “Of unbelief, having no such faith in Christ as will prevent my
heart from being troubled, which it could not be, if I believed in God,
and rightly believed also in him.”
2. “Of pride throughout my life past, inasmuch as I thought I had, what
I find I have not.”
Now, Sir, you have my whole confession. I intreat you to make the best
of it.
“But I myself acknowledge, three _Methodists_, to have fallen into
pride.” Sir, I can tell you of three more. And yet it will not
follow, that the doctrines I teach, “lead men into _horrid pride and
blasphemy_.”
6. In the close of your fourth section, you charge me with “_shuffling_
and _prevaricating_, with regard to extraordinary gifts, and miraculous
powers.” Of these I shall have occasion to speak by and by. At present
I need only return the compliment, by charging you with gross, wilful
prevarication, from the beginning of your book to the end. Some
instances of this have appeared already. Many more will appear in due
time.
7. Your ¹fifth, charges me with an _affectation of prophesying_. Your
first proof of it is this.
¹ 4 Journal, page 30.
“It was about this time that the soldier was executed. For some time I
had visited him every day. But when the love of God was shed abroad in
his heart, I told him, do not expect to see me any more.――――I believe
Satan will separate us for a season. Accordingly, the next day, I was
informed, the commanding officer had given strict orders, that neither
Mr. _Wesley_, nor any of his people, should be admitted.” I did believe
so, having seen many such things before: yet without affecting a spirit
of prophecy.
But that I do claim it, you will prove, secondly, from my mentioning
“the great work, which God _intends_, and is now _beginning_ to work
over all the earth.” By what art you extract such a conclusion out of
such premises, I know not. That God _intends_ this, none, who believe
the scripture, doubt. And that he has _begun_ it, both in _Europe_
and _America_, any who will make use of their eyes and ears, may know
without any “miraculous gift of prophesying.”
8. In your sixth section, you assert, ¹That I lay claim to other
_miraculous gifts_. As you borrow this objection from Mr. _Church_,
I need only give the same answer I gave before.
¹ Page 45, &c.
¹“_I shall give_ (says Mr. _Church_) _but one account more, and that is,
what you give of yourself_.” The sum whereof is, “At two several times,
being ill, and in violent pain, I prayed to God, and found immediate
ease.” I did so. I assert the fact still. _But if these_ (you say) _are
not miraculous cures, all this is rank enthusiasm._
¹ First Letter to Mr. _Church_, page 45.
“I will put your argument in form:”
He that believes those are miraculous cures, which are not, is a rank
enthusiast.
But you believe those to be miraculous cures, which are not:
Therefore you are a rank enthusiast.
“Before I answer, I must know what you mean by _miraculous_? If you
term every thing so, which is _not strictly accountable for, by the
ordinary course of natural causes_: then I deny the latter part of
the second proposition. And unless you can make this good, unless you
can prove the effects in question are strictly accountable for, by the
ordinary course of natural causes, your argument is nothing worth.”
Having largely answered your next objection relating to what I still
term ¹“a signal instance of God’s particular providence,” I need only
refer you to those answers, not having leisure to say the same thing
ten times over.
¹ A Letter to Mr. _Church_, page 42. 2 Letter, page 46.
Whether I sometimes claim, and sometimes disclaim miracles, will be
considered by and by.
In your seventh section, you say, “¹I shall now give some account,
of their grievous _conflicts and combats_ with Satan.” O, Sir, spare
yourself, if not the _Methodists_! Do not go so far out of your
depth. This is a subject you are as utterly unacquainted with, as with
justification, or the new-birth.
¹ Page 51, &c.
But I attend your motions. “Mr. _Wesley_, you say, was advised, to a
very high degree of silence.――――And he spoke to none at all for two
days, and travelling fourscore miles together.”
“The same whim (you go on) has run through several of the religious
orders――――Hence St. _Bonaventura_ says, That silence in all the
religious, is necessary to perfection――――St. _Agatho_ held a stone
in his mouth for three years, till he had learned taciturnity――――St.
_Alcantara_ carried several pebbles in his mouth for three years
likewise, and for the same reason――――_Theon_ observed a continual
silence for thirty years.――――St. _Francis_ observed it himself, and
enjoined it upon his brethren. The rule of silence was religiously
observed by St. _Dominic_.”
I have repeated more of your words than I otherwise should, in order to
shew to a demonstration, that a man of a lively imagination, may run a
parallel to any length, without any foundation in nature.
You begin, “The same whim (which led Mr. _Wesley_ to observe an
absolute silence for two days) and so run on to St. _Bonaventura_,
St. _Agatho_, and I know not whom.” But did Mr. _Wesley_ “observe an
absolute silence for two days?” No; not for one hour. My words, “I
¹spoke to none at all for fourscore miles together,” imply neither more
nor less, than that I spoke to none “concerning the things of God,” as
it is in the words immediately preceding. And you know this as well as
I. But it is all one for that. Wit, not truth, is the point you aim at.
¹ 4 Journal, page 86.
My supposed inconsistency, with regard to the _Moravians_, which you
likewise drag in (as they say) by head and shoulders, I have shewn
again and again, to be no inconsistency at all: particularly in both
the letters to Mr. _Church_.
10. Well, but as to _conflicts_ with Satan. “Nor can Mr. _Wesley_, you
say, escape the attacks of this infernal spirit,” namely, suggesting
distrustful thoughts, and buffeting him with inward temptations.” Sir,
did you never hear of any one so attacked, unless among the _Papists_
or _Methodists_? How deeply then are you experienced both in the ways
of God, and the devices of Satan?
You add, with regard to a case mentioned in the ¹_fourth journal_,
“Though I am not convinced that these _fits of laughing_, are to be
ascribed to Satan, yet I entirely agree, that they are _involuntary and
unavoidable_.” I am glad we agree so far. But I must still go farther;
I cannot but ascribe them to a preternatural agent: having observed so
many circumstances attending them which cannot be accounted for by any
natural causes.
¹ Page 37.
Under the head of conflicts with Satan, you observe farther, “Mr.
_Wesley_ says, while he was preaching, the devil knew his kingdom shook,
and therefore stirred up his servants to make a noise: that, _September
18_, the prince of the air made another attempt, in defence of his
tottering kingdom: and that another time, ‘the devil’s children fought
valiantly for their master.’” I own the whole charge, I did say all
this. Nay, and if need were, I should say it again.
You cite one more instance from my _fourth journal_, “The _many-headed
beast_ began to roar again.” So your head is so full of the subject,
that you construe even poor Horace’s _Bellua multorum capitum_ into the
devil!
These are all the combats and conflicts with Satan, which you can prove
I ever had. O, Sir, without more and greater conflicts than these, none
shall see the kingdom of God.
11. In the following sections, you are equally out of your element. The
¹first of them relates to _spiritual desertions_; all which you make
the subject of dull ridicule, and place to the account of enthusiasm.
And the case of all you give in the following words, “We may look upon
enthusiasm as a kind of drunkenness, filling and intoxicating the brain
with the heated fumes of spirituous particles. Now no sooner does the
inebriation go off, but a coldness and dulness takes place.”
¹ Section 8, page 75, &c.
12. As wildly do you ¹talk of the doubts and fears incident to those
who are _weak in faith_. I cannot prevail upon myself, to prostitute
this awful subject, by entering into any debate concerning it, with
one who is innocent of the whole affair. Only I must observe, that
a great part of what you advance concerning me, is intirely wide of
the question. Such is all you quote from the first, and a considerable
part of what you quote from my _second journal_. This you know in your
own conscience; for you know I speak of myself, during the whole time,
as having no faith at all. Consequently, the “risings and fallings”
I experienced then, have nothing to do with those “doubts and fears,
which many go through, _after they have_ by faith received remission of
sins.”
¹ Section 9, page 79, &c.
The next words which you cite, “thrown into great perplexities,” I
cannot find in the page you refer to: neither those that follow. The
sum of them is, that “at that time I did not feel the love of God, but
found deadness and wanderings in public prayer, and coldness even at
the holy communion.” Well, Sir, and have you never found in yourself,
any such coldness, deadness and wanderings? I am persuaded you
have. And yet surely your brain is always cool and temperate! Never
“intoxicated with the heated fumes of spirituous particles!”
13. If you quote not incoherent scraps (by which you may make any
thing out of any thing) but intire connected sentences, it will appear
that the rest of your quotations make no more for your purpose than
the foregoing. Thus, although I allow, that on ¹_May 24_, “I was much
buffeted with temptations, but I cried to God and they fled away;
that they returned again and again; I as often lifted up my eyes,
and he sent me help from his holy place:” it will only prove the very
observation I make myself. “I was fighting both _under the law_ and
_under grace_. But then I was sometimes, if not often, conquered: now
I was always conqueror.”
¹ 3 Journal, pages 30, 31.
That sometime after, I “was strongly assaulted again, and after
recovering peace and joy, was thrown into _perplexity_ afresh by a
letter, asserting, that no doubt or fear could consist with true faith:
that my weak mind could not then bear, to be thus _sawn asunder_:” Will
not appear strange to any who are not utter novices in experimental
religion. No more than that one night the next year, “I had no life or
spirit in me, and was much in doubt, whether God would not lay me aside,
and send other labourers into his harvest.”
14. You add, “He owns his frequent relapses into sin, for near twice
ten years. Such is the case of a person who tells us, that he carefully
considered every step he took; one of intimate communication with the
Deity.” Sir, I did not tell you that: though, according to custom, you
mark the words as mine. It is well for you, that _forging quotations_
is not felony.
My words are, “O what an hypocrite have I been (if this be so) for near
twice ten years! But I know it is not so. I know every one _under the
law_, is even as I was;” namely, from the time I was twelve years old,
till considerably above thirty.
“And is it strange (you say) that such a one should be destitute of
means to resolve his scruples? Should be ever at variance with himself,
and find no place to fix his foot?”
Good Sir, not too fast. You quite out-run the truth again. Blessed be
God, this is not my case. I am not destitute of means to resolve my
scruples. I have some friends, and a little reason left. I am not ever
at variance with myself; and have found a place to fix my foot.
“Now I have found the ground wherein
Firm my soul’s anchor may remain;
The wounds of Jesus, for my sin
Before the world’s foundation slain.”
And yet one of your assertions I cannot deny: namely, that you “could
run the parallel between me and numbers of fanatical papists.” And that
not only with regard to my _temper_, but my stature, complexion, yea
(if need were) the very colour of my hair.
15. In your ¹next section, you are to give an account of the “spiritual
succours and advantages received either during these trials or very
soon after.” It is no wonder you make as lame work with these, as
with the conflicts which preceded them. _As the heart knoweth its own
bitterness, so a stranger doth not intermeddle with his joy._ But it is
no business of mine, as you have not done me the honour to cite any of
my words in this section.
¹ Section 10, page 29, &c.
16. “The ¹_unsteadiness_ of the _Methodists_ both in sentiments and
practice,” is what you next undertake to prove. Your loose declamation
with which you open the cause, I pass over, as it rests on your own
bare word; and haste to your main reason, drawn from my sentiments and
practice, with regard to the _Moravians_.
¹ Section 11, page 95, &c.
“He represents them, you say, in the blackest colours; yet declares,
in the main they are some of the best people in the world. His love and
esteem for them, increases more and more. His own disciples among the
_Methodists_ go over to them in crowds. But still _Methodism_ is the
strongest barrier against the _Moravian_ doctrines and principles.”
Sir, I bear you witness, you have learnt one principle at least, from
those with whom you have lately conversed; namely, that no faith is to
be kept with hereticks; of which you have given us abundant proof. For
you know I have fully answered every article of this charge, which you
repeat, as if I had not opened my lips about it. You know, that there
is not one grain of truth, in several things which you here positively
assert. For instance, “His love and esteem of them, increases more and
more.” Not so, no more than my love and esteem for _you_. I love you
both; but I do not much esteem either. Again, “His own disciples among
the _Methodists_, go over to them in crowds.” When? Where? I know not
that ten of my disciples, as you call them, have gone over to them for
twice ten months. O Sir, consider! How do you know, but some of your
disciples may tell your name?
17. With the same veracity you go on. “In _the character of a
Methodist_, those of the sect are described as having all the virtues
that can adorn the Christian profession. But in their _journals_ you
find them waspish, condemning all the world, except themselves; and
among themselves, perpetual broils and confusions, with various other
irregularities and vices.”
I answer, 1. The tract you refer to (as is expresly declared in the
_preface_) does not describe what the _Methodists_ are already: but
what they desire to be, and what they will be then, when they fully
practise the doctrine they hear. 2. Be pleased to point the pages in
my _journals_ which mention those “various irregularities and vices.”
Of their “perpetual broils and confusions” I shall speak under their
proper head.
You add, “Sometimes they are so far from fearing death, that they wish
it. But the keenness of the edge is soon blunted. They are full of
dreadful apprehensions, that the clergy _intend to murther them_.” Do
you mean me, Sir? I plead not guilty. I never had any such apprehension.
Yet I suppose, you designed the compliment for _me_, by your dragging
in two or three broken sentences from my _first journal_. But how
little to the purpose? Seeing at the time that was written, I had never
pretended to be above the fear of death. So that this is no proof of
the point in view, of the “unsteadiness of my sentiments or practice.”
18. You proceed, “One day, they fancy it their duty to preach; the next,
they preach with great reluctance.” Very true! But they fancy it their
duty still; else they would not preach at all. This therefore does not
prove any inequality either of sentiment or practice.
“Mr. _Wesley_ is sometimes quite averse from speaking, and then
perplext with the doubt, is it a prohibition from the good Spirit? or
a temptation from nature and the evil one?”
Just of a piece with the rest. The sentence runs thus, “I went several
times with a design to speak to the sailors, but could not.” I mean, I
was quite averse from speaking. Is not this what men commonly mean by,
“I could not speak?” And is this a sufficient cause of silence, or no?
Is it a prohibition from the good Spirit? Or a temptation from nature
or the evil one? Sir, I was in no doubt at all on the occasion. Nor
did I intend to express any in these words; but to appeal to mens
conscience, whether what they call a prohibition from the good Spirit,
be not a mere temptation from nature or the evil-one?
19. In the ¹next section you are to shew, “the _art_, _cunning_, and
_sophistry_ of the _Methodists_, who, when hard prest by argument,
run themselves into inconsistency and _self-contradiction_; and
occasionally either defend or give up some of their favourite notions
and principal points.”
¹ Section 12, page 102.
I dare say, Sir, you will not put them to the trial. _Argument_ lies
out of the way of one.
――――Solutos
Qui captat risus hominem famamque dicacis.
But to the proof. “Mr. _Wesley_, you say, at one time declares for
a disinterested love of God: at another, declares, There is no one
caution in all the bible, against the selfish love of God.”
Nay, Sir, I will tell you what is stranger still. Mr. _Wesley_ holds
_at one time_, both sides of this contradiction. I now declare, both
that “all true love is disinterested, _seeketh not her own_: and that
there is no one caution in all the bible, against the selfish love of
God.”
What have I the _art_ to slip out of your hands again? “Pardon me (as
your old friend says) for being jocular.”
20. You add, (_altius insurgens_) “but it is a considerable offence
to charge another wrongfully and contradict himself about the doctrine
of assurance.” To prove this upon me, you bring my own words. “The
¹assurance we preach, is of quite another kind from that Mr. _Bedford_
writes against. We speak of an assurance of our present pardon; not, as
he does, of our final perseverance.”
¹ 3 Journal, page 9.
“Mr. _Wesley_ might have considered (you say) that when they talk
of _assurance of pardon and salvation_, the world will extend the
meaning of the words, to our eternal state.” I do consider it, Sir.
And therefore I never use that phrase either in preaching or writing.
_Assurance of pardon and salvation_ is an expression that never comes
out of my lips. And if Mr. _Whitfield_ does use it, yet he does not
_preach_ such an _assurance_, as the privilege of all Christians.
“But Mr. _Wesley_ himself says, that though a full _assurance of
faith_ doth not necessarily imply _a full assurance of our future
perseverance_,” yet “some have both the one and the other.” And now
what becomes of his charge against Mr. _Bedford_? And is it not mere
evasion to say afterwards, “This is not ♦_properly_ an assurance of
what is _future_?”
♦ “porperly” replaced with “properly”
Sir, this _argument presses_ me very _hard_! May I not be allowed a
little _evasion_ now? Come, for once I will try to do without it, and
to answer flat and plain.
And I answer, 1. That _faith_ is one thing; the _full assurance of
faith_ another: 2. That even the _full assurance of faith_, does not
imply the _full assurance of perseverance_. This bears another name;
being stiled by St. _Paul_, _the full assurance of hope_. 3. Some
Christians have only the first of these. They have faith: but mixt
with doubts and fears. Some have also _the full assurance of faith_;
a full conviction of _present pardon_: and yet not the _full assurance
of hope_; not a full conviction of their _future perseverance_. 4. The
faith which we preach, as necessary to all Christians, is the first
of these, and no other. Therefore, 5. It is no evasion at all to say,
“This (the faith which we preach as necessary to all Christians) is not
_properly_ an assurance of what is future.” And consequently, my charge
against Mr. _Bedford_ stands good, “That his sermon on _assurance_, is
an _♦ignoratio elenchi_ (an ignorance of the point in question) from
beginning to end.” Therefore neither do I “charge another _wrongfully_,
nor _contradict myself_, about the doctrine of assurances.”
♦ “ingoratio” replaced with “ignoratio” per Errata
21. To prove my _art_, _cunning_ and _evasion_, you instance next
in the case of _impulses, and impressions_. You begin “With what
pertinacious confidence, have _impulses_, _impressions_, _feelings_,
&c. been advanced into _certain rules_ of conduct? Their followers
have been taught to depend upon them, as sure guides and _infallible
proofs_.”
To support this weighty charge, you bring one single scrap, about a
line and a quarter from one of my _journals_. The words are these.
“By the most _infallible of proofs, inward feeling_, I am convinced.”
Convinced of what? It immediately follows, “Of unbelief, having no such
faith as will prevent my heart from being troubled.”
I here assert, that _inward feeling_ or consciousness, is the _most
infallible of proofs_, of unbelief, of the want of such a faith,
as will prevent the heart’s being troubled. But do I here “advance
impressions, impulses, feelings, &c. into _certain rules_ of conduct?”
Or any where else? You may just as well say, I advance them into
certain proofs of transubstantiation.
Neither in writing, nor in private conversation, have I ever “taught
any of my followers, to depend upon them as sure guides or infallible
proofs” of any thing.
Nay, you yourself own, I have taught quite the reverse: and that at
my very first setting out. Then as well as ever since, I have told the
societies, “They were not to judge by their own _inward feelings_. I
warned them, all these were in themselves of a doubtful, disputable
nature. They might be from God, or they might not, and were therefore
to be tried by a farther rule, to be brought to the only certain test,
the law and the testimony”.¹
¹ 3 Journal, pages 60, 61.
This is what I have taught from first to last. And now, Sir, what
becomes of your heavy charge? On which side lies the “pertinacious
confidence” now? How clearly have you made out, my _inconsistency_ and
_self-contradiction_? And that I “occasionally either defend or give
up, my favourite notions and principal points?”
22. “¹_Inspiration and the extraordinary calls and guidances of the
Holy Ghost_, are what you next affirm to be _given up_.” Not by me.
I do not _give up_ one tittle on this head, which I ever maintained.
But observe. Before you attempt to prove my _giving them up_, you
are to prove, that I laid claim to them: that I laid claim to some
_extraordinary_ inspiration, call, or guidance of the Holy Ghost.
¹ Section 13, page 106, &c.
You say, “My _concessions_ on this head (to Mr. _Church_) are
_ambiguous_ and _evasive_.” Sir, you mistake the fact. I make no
concessions at all, either to him or you. I give up nothing that ever
I advanced on this head. But when Mr. _Church_ charged me with what
I did not advance, I replied, “I claim no other _direction of God’s_,
but what is common to all believers.” I pretend to be no otherwise
_inspired_, than you are, if you love God. Where is the _ambiguity_ or
_evasion_ in this? I meant it for a flat denial of the charge.
23. ¹Your next section, _Spirat tragicum satis_, charges the
_Methodists_; “with _scepticism and infidelity_, with doubts and
denials of the truth of revelation, and atheism itself.” The passages
brought from my _journals_ to prove this charge, which you have
prudently transposed, I beg leave to consider in the same order, as
they stand there.
¹ Section 14, page 110, &c. 1 Journal, page 14.
The first, you preface thus: “Upon the people’s _ill usage_ (or
_supposed_ ill usage) of Mr. _Wesley_ in _Georgia_, and their speaking
of all manner of evil, _falsely_ (as he says) against him; and
trampling under foot the word, after having been very attentive to
it: what an emotion in him is hereby raised? ‘I do hereby bear witness
against myself, that _I could scarce refrain from giving the lie to
experience and reason and scripture all together_.’”
The passage, as I wrote it, stands thus: “_Sunday, March 7._ I entered
upon my ministry at _Savannah_. In the second lesson, _Luke 18._
was our Lord’s prediction of the treatment which he himself, and
consequently his followers, were to meet with from the world.”
“Yet notwithstanding these plain declarations of our Lord,
notwithstanding my own repeated experience, notwithstanding the
experience of all the sincere followers of Christ, whom I ever talked
with, read or heard of, nay and the reason of the thing, evincing to
a demonstration, that all who love not the light, must hate him who is
continually labouring to pour it in upon them: I do here bear witness
against myself, that when I saw the number of people crowding into
the church, the deep attention with which they received the word, and
the seriousness that afterwards sat on all their faces: I could scarce
refrain from giving the lie to experience, and reason, and scripture,
all together. I could hardly believe, that the greater, the far
greater part of this attentive, serious people, would hereafter trample
underfoot that word, and say all manner of evil falsely of him that
spoke it.”
Sir, does this prove me guilty of _scepticism_ or _infidelity_?
Of _doubting_ or _denying_ the _truth of revelation_? Did I speak
this, “upon the peoples _using_ me _ill_, and saying _all manner of
evil_ against me”? Or am I here describing any _emotion, raised in
me hereby_? Blush, blush, Sir, if you _can_ blush. You had here no
possible room for mistake. You grosly and wilfully falsify the whole
passage, to support a groundless, shameless accusation.
¹24. The second passage (written _January 24, 1737‒8_,) is this. “In a
storm I think, What if the gospel be not true? Then thou art of all men
most foolish. For what hast thou given thy goods, thy ease, thy friends,
thy reputation, thy country, thy life? For what art thou wandering over
the face of the earth? A dream? A cunningly devised fable?”
¹ 1 Journal, page 67.
I am here describing the thoughts which past through my mind, when I
was confessedly an unbeliever. But even this implies no _scepticism_,
much less _atheism_; no _denial of the truth of revelation_: but barely
such transient doubts as I presume may assault any thinking man that
knows not God.
The third ¹passage, (which you tack to the former, as if they were
one and the same) runs thus. “I have not such a peace as excludes the
possibility either of doubt or fear. When holy men have told me, I had
no faith, I have often doubted whether I had or no? And those doubts
have made me very uneasy, till I was relieved by prayer and the holy
scriptures.”
¹ 3 Journal, page 12.
Speak frankly, Sir, does this prove me guilty of _scepticism_,
_infidelity_ or _atheism_? What else does it prove? Just nothing at
all, but the “pertinacious confidence” of him that cites it.
25. You recite more at large one passage more. The whole paragraph
stands thus.
¹“St. _Paul_ tells us, _the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,
long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, temperance_. Now although by the
grace of God in Christ, I find a measure of some of these in myself,
_viz._ of peace, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, temperance;
yet others I find not. I cannot find in myself the love of God or of
Christ. Hence my deadness and wanderings in public prayer. Hence it
is, that even in the holy communion, I have rarely any more than a cold
attention. Hence when I hear of the highest instance of God’s love, my
heart is still senseless and unaffected. Yea, at this moment (_October
14, 1738_,) I feel no more love to him, than one I had never heard of.”
¹ 3 Journal, pages 11, 12.
To any who knew something of inward religion I should have observed,
that this is what serious divines mean by _desertion_. But all
expressions of this kind are jargon to you. So allowing it to be
whatever you please, I ask only, do you know how long I continued in
this state? How many years, months, weeks or days? If not, how can
you infer, what my state of mind is now, from what it was above eleven
years ago?
Sir, I do not tell you, or any man else, that “I cannot _now_ find the
love of God in myself:” or that _now_, in the year 1751, “I rarely feel
more than a cold attention in the holy communion.” So that your whole
argument, built on this supposition, falls to the ground at once.
26. Sensible, I presume, of the weakness of this _reason_, you
immediately apply to the _passions_, by that artful remark, “Observe,
reader, this is the man, who charges _our religion_, as no better than
the _Turkish pilgrimages to Mecca_, or the _Popish worship of our Lady
of Loretto_!” _Our religion!_ How naturally will the reader suppose,
that I fix the charge either on the _Protestant religion_ in general,
or on that of the _church of England_ in particular? But how far is
this from the truth?
My words concerning those who are commonly called religious, are,
¹“Wherein does their religion consist? In righteousness and true
holiness? In love stronger than death? Fervent gratitude to God, and
tender affection to all his creatures? Is their religion the religion
of the heart? A renewal of the soul in the image of God? Do they
resemble him they worship? Are they free from pride, from vanity,
from malice, from envy? From ambition and avarice, from passion and
lust, from every uneasy and unlovely temper? Alas! I fear neither
they (the greater part at least) nor you have any more notion of this
religion, than the peasant that holds the plow, of the religion of a
_Gymnosophist_.”
¹ Farther Appeal, third Part, page 82.
“’Tis well if the _genuine religion_ of Christ, has any more alliance
with what _you call religion_, than with the _Turkish_ pilgrimages to
_Mecca_, or the _Popish_ worship of our lady of _Loretto_. Have not
you substituted in the place of the religion of the heart, something
(I do not say, equally _sinful_, but) equally vain and foreign to the
worshipping of God in spirit and in truth? What else can be said even
of prayer, public or private, in the manner wherein _you_ generally
perform it? As a thing of _course_, running round and round, in the
same dull track, without either the knowledge or the love of God?
Without one heavenly _temper_, either attained or improved?”
Now, Sir, what room is there for your “_own exclamations_,” what sort
of heavenly temper is his? How can he possibly, consistently with
charity, call “this our _general_ performance?” Sir, I do not. I only
appeal to the conscience of _you_ (and each particular reader) whether
this is, or is not, the manner wherein _you_ (in the singular number)
_generally_ perform public or private prayer. “How possibly, without
being omniscient, can he affirm, that _we_ (I presume you mean all the
members of our church) pray without one heavenly _temper_? Or know any
thing at all of our _private devotions_? How monstrous is all this!”
Recollect yourself, Sir. If your terror is real, you are more afraid
than hurt. I do not affirm any such thing. I do not take upon me, to
_know_, any thing at all of your _private devotions_. But I suppose,
I may _inquire_, without offence, and beg _you_ seriously to examine
yourself before God.
So you have brought no one proof, “That _scepticism_, _infidelity_ and
_atheism_, are either _constituent parts_ or _genuine consequences_
of _Methodism_.” Therefore your florid declamation in the following
pages, is intirely out of its place. And you might have spared yourself
the trouble of _accounting_ for what has no being, but in your own
imagination.
27. You charge the _Methodists_ next, with ¹“an _uncharitable spirit_.”
All you advance in proof of this, _as if_ it were from my writings,
but without naming either page or book, I have nothing to do with. But
whatever you tell me where to find, I shall carefully consider.
¹ Section 15, page 115, &c.
I observe but one single passage of this sort. And that you have worn
thread-bare already. “By the most infallible of proofs, inward feeling,
I am convinced――――of levity and luxuriancy of spirit――――by speaking
words not tending to edify; but most by my _manner of speaking of
my enemies_.” Sir, you may print this, not only in _Italics_, but
in _CAPITALS_, and yet it would do you no service. For what I was
convinced of then was not _uncharitableness_, but as I expressly
mentioned, “Levity of Spirit.”
28. ¹Of the same _uncharitable nature_, you say, is “their _application
of divine judgments_ to their opposers.” You borrow two instances from
Mr. _Church_. But you omit the answers, which I shall therefore subjoin.
¹ Section 16, page 119, &c.
His words are, “You describe heaven as executing judgments, immediate
punishments, on those who oppose you. You say, ‘Mr. _Molther_ was taken
ill this day. I believe it was the hand of God that was upon him.’” I
do. But I do not say as a judgment for opposing _me_. That _you_ say
for me.¹
¹ First letter to Mr. Church, page 42.
Again, “you mention, says Mr. _Church_, as an ‘awful providence, the
case of a poor wretch, who was last week cursing and blaspheming, and
had boasted to many, that he would come on _Sunday_, and no man should
stop his mouth――――but on _Friday_, God laid his hand upon him, and on
_Sunday_ he was buried.’ I do look on this as a manifest judgment of
God, on a hardened sinner, for his complicated wickedness.”
To repeat these objections, without taking the least notice of the
answers, is one of the usual proofs of your _charitable spirit_.
29. You ¹pass on to “the _Methodist’s uncharitable_ custom of summoning
their opponents _to the bar of judgment_.”
¹ Section 17, page 123. &c.
You bring two passages from my writings to prove this. The first is,
“Calling at _Newgate_ (in _Bristol_) I was informed, that the poor
wretches under sentence of death, were earnestly desirous to speak with
me; but that alderman _Beecher_ had sent an express order, that they
should not. I cite alderman _B._ to answer _for these souls_, at the
judgment seat of Christ.”
Why do you leave out those words, _for these souls_? Because they shew
the sentence means neither more nor less, than “if _these souls_ perish,
he, not I, must answer for them at the great day.”
The second passage is still more wide from the point. The whole of it
is as follows.
¹“I have often inquired, Who were the authors of such report (that I
was a _Papist_) and have generally found, they were either bigotted
dissenters, or (I speak it without fear or favour) ministers of our
own church. I have also frequently considered, what possible ground or
motive they could have thus to speak: seeing few men in the world have
had occasion so clearly and openly to declare their principles, as I
have done both by preaching, printing and conversation, for several
years last past. And I can no otherwise think, than that either they
spoke thus (to put the most favourable construction upon it) from
gross ignorance; they knew not what _Popery_ was: they knew not what
doctrines these are which the _Papists_ teach: or they wilfully spoke
what they knew to be false, probably _thinking_ thereby to do God
service. Now take this to yourselves, whoever ye are, high or low,
dissenters or churchmen, clergy or laity, who have advanced this
shameless charge, and digest it how you can.”
¹ Journal, pages 75, 76.
“But how have ye not been afraid, if ye believe there is a God,
and that he knoweth the secrets of your hearts (I speak now to you
preachers, more especially, of whatever denomination) to declare so
gross, palpable a lie, in the name of the God of truth? I cite you
all _before the Judge of all the earth_, either publicly to prove your
charge; or by publicly retracting it, to make the best amends you can,
to God, to me, and to the world.”
Sir, Do I here “summon my opponents _to the bar of judgment_?” So you
would make me do, by quoting only that scrap, “I cite you all before
the Judge of all the earth!” You then add, with equal charity and
sincerity, “Here you have the _true spirit of an enthusiast_, flushed
with a _modest_ assurance of his own _salvation_, and the _charitable_
prospect of the _damnation_ of others.” O Sir, never name modesty more!
Here end your laboured attempts to shew the _uncharitable spirit_ of
the _Methodists_; who, for any thing you have shewn to the contrary,
may be the most charitable people under the sun.
30. You charge the _Methodists_ next ¹“with _violation and contempt of
order and authority_,” namely, the authority of the governors of the
church. I have answered every article of this charge, in the second and
third parts of the _Farther Appeal_, and the letter to Mr. _Church_.
When you have been so good as to reply to what is there advanced, I may
possibly say something more.
¹ Section 18, page 124.
What you offer of _your own_ upon this head, I shall consider without
delay.
“_Women and boys_ are actually employed in this ministry of _public
preaching_.” Please to tell me where? I know them not, nor ever heard
of them before.
You add, what is more marvellous still, “I speak from _personal
knowledge_, that sometimes, a little before delivering of the elements
at the communion, three or four _Methodists_ together will take it
into their heads to go away: that sometimes while the sentences of the
_offertory_ were reading, they have _called out_ to the minister who
carried the bason, _reproaching_ him for asking _alms of them_: that
sometimes when the minister has delivered the bread into their hands,
instead of _eating_ it they would flip it into their _pockets_.” Sir,
you must shew your face, before these stories will find credit on your
bare asseveration.
“Yet they are surprized, you say, that every man in his senses, don’t
without the least hesitation _join_ them.”
Sir, I am surprized (unless you are not in your senses) at your
advancing such a barefaced falshood.
31. You go on. “Under this head may not improperly be considered, their
undutiful behaviour to the _civil powers_.” What proof have you of
this? Why a single sentence, on which I laid so little stress myself,
that it is only inserted by way of parenthesis, in the body of another
sentence. “Ye learned in the law, what becomes of _Magna Charta_, and
of _English_ liberty and property? Are not these mere sounds, while on
any pretence, there is such a thing as a _press-gang_ suffered in the
land?”
Upon this you descant: “The legislature has at several times made acts
for pressing men. But no matter for this; touch but a _Methodist_, and
all may perish, rather than a soldier be prest.――――He who had before
bound himself, not to speak a tittle of worldly things, is now bawling
for liberty and property.”
(Very lively this!) But I hope, Sir, you do not offer it by way of
_argument_. You are not so unlearned in the law, as not to know, that
the legislature is out of the question. The legislature six years
ago did not appoint _press-gangs_, but legal officers, to press men.
Consequently this is no proof (and find another if you can) of our
_undutiful_ behaviour to the _civil powers_.
32. ¹“Another natural consequence (you say) of _Methodism_, is their
mutual _jealousies_ and _envyings_, their manifold _divisions_, _fierce
and rancorous quarrels_, and ♦accusations of one another.”
¹ 4 Journal, page 14.
♦ “accusation” replaced with “accusations” per Errata
I shall carefully attend whatever you produce on this head. And if you
prove this, I will grant you all the rest.
You first cite those words: “Musing on the things that were past, and
reflecting how many that came after me, were preferred before me, I
opened my testament on those words, _The Gentiles which followed not
after righteousness, have attained to righteousness; but Israel which
followed after the law of righteousness, have not attained to the law
of righteousness_.”
And how does this prove the manifold _divisions_ and _rancorous
quarrels_ of the Methodists?
Your second argument is, “Mr. ¹_Whitefield_ told me, he and I preached
two different gospels: (his meaning was, that he preached particular,
and I universal redemption) and therefore he would, not join with me,
but publicly preach against me.”
¹ Section 19, page 341, &c.
Well, Sir, here was doubtless a _division_ for a time; but no _fierce
and rancorous quarrel_ yet.
You say thirdly, “They write and publish against each other.” True; but
without any degree either of _fierceness_ or _rancor_.
You assert fourthly, “Mr. _Wesley_ in his sermon on _Free-Grace_,
opposes the other for the horrible blasphemies of his horrible
doctrine.”
Sir, away with your flourishes and write plain _English_. I opposed the
doctrine of predestination which he held. But without any degree either
of _rancor_ or _fierceness_. Still therefore you miss the mark.
You quote fifthly these words, “¹I spent an hour with Mr. _Stonehouse_.
O what πιθανολογία (persuasiveness of speech) is here! Surely all the
deceivableness of unrighteousness.” But there was no _fierceness_ or
_rancor_ on either side.
¹ 4 Journal, page 63.
The passage, a fragment of which you produce as a sixth argument,
stands thus. “¹A few of us had a long conference together. Mr. _C._
now told me plainly, he could not agree with me, because I did not
preach the truth, particularly with regard to election.” He did so; but
without any rancor. We had a long conference; but not a _fierce_ one.
¹ 4 Journal, page 77.
You seventhly observe, “What scurrility of language the _Moravians_
throw out against Mr. _Wesley_.” Perhaps so. But this will not prove,
that “the _Methodists_ quarrel with each other.”
“And how does he turn their own artillery upon them?” This is your
eighth argument. But if I do, this no more proves the “_mutual
quarrels_ of the _Methodists_,” than my turning your own artillery
upon _you_.
33. Having by these eight irrefragable arguments, clearly carried
the day, you raise your crest, and cry out, “is this _Methodism_”?
♦Ibid. page 59.
♦ Unmarked in text.
“_And reign such mortal feuds in heavenly minds?_”
Truly, Sir, you have not yet brought one single proof (and yet I dare
say, you have brought the very best you have) of any such feuds among
the _Methodists_, as may not be found among the most heavenly-minded
men on earth.
But you are resolved to pursue your victory, and so go on. “What are
we to think of these charges, of _Whitefield_ and _Wesley_ and the
_Moravians_, one against another?” The _Moravians_, Sir, are out of
the question; for they are no _Methodists_. And as to the rest, Mr.
_Whitefield_ charges Mr. _Wesley_ with holding universal redemption,
and I charge him with holding particular redemption. This is the
standing charge on either side. And now, Sir, what are we to think!
Why, that you have not proved one point of this charge against the
_Methodists_.
However you stumble on. “Are these things so? Are they true, or are
they not true? If not true, they are grievous _calumniators_; if true,
they are detestable _sectarists_. Whether true or false, the allegation
stands good, of their _fierce_ and _rancorous quarrels_, and mutual
_heinous accusations_.”
Sir, has your passion quite extinguished your reason? Have _fierceness_
and ♦_rancour_ left you no understanding? Otherwise how is it possible
you should run on at this senseless, shameless rate? These things
_are true_ which Mr. _Whitefield_ and _Wesley_ object to each
other. He holds the decrees; I do not. Yet this does not prove us
“detestable sectarists.” And whether these things are true or false,
your “allegation of our _fierce_ and _rancorous quarrels_, and mutual
_heinous accusations_” cannot stand good, without better proof than you
have yet produced.
♦ “racour” replaced with “rancour” per Errata
34. Yet with the utmost confidence, _quasi re bene gesta_, you proceed,
“And how stands the matter among their disciples? They are _all_
together by the ears, embroiled and broken with _unchristian quarrels
and confusions_.”
How do you prove this? Why thus. “Mr. _Wesley’s fourth journal_ is
mostly taken up, in enumerating their _wrath_, _dissentions_ and
_apostasies_.” No, Sir, not a tenth part of it: although it gives a
full and explicit account of the greatest dissentions which ever were
among them.
But to come to particulars. You first cite these words, “At _Oxford_
but a few who _had not forsaken them_.”
My words are. “_Monday, October 1, 1738_, I rode to _Oxford_, and found
a few who _had not yet forsaken the assembling themselves together_.”
This is your first proof, “that the _Methodists_ are _all_ together by
the ears.” Your second is its very twin-brother. “_Tuesday 2._ ¹I went
to many who once heard the word with joy; but _when the sun arose, they
withered away_.”
¹ 3 Journal, page 84.
Your third is this. ¹“Many were induced (by the _Moravians_) to deny
the gift of God, and affirm, they never had any faith at all.” You are
at liberty to enjoy this argument also: and let it prove what it can
prove.
¹ 3 Journal, page 85.
You fourthly cite these words. ¹“Many of our sisters are shaken,
grievously torn by reasonings. But few come to _Fetter-lane_, and then
after their names are called over they presently depart. Our brethren
here (those who were proselytes to the _Moravians_) have neither
wisdom enough to guide, nor prudence enough to let it alone. They (the
_Moravians_) have much confounded some of our sisters, and many of our
brothers are much grieved.”
¹ 4 Journal, page 8.
This proves thus much, that _one_ society was _at that time_ divided:
but not “that the _Methodists_ in general, were even _then, all_
together by the ears.”
The passage you quote, in the fifth place, is, ¹“I believe――――are
determined to go on according to Mr. _Molther_’s direction, and I
suppose (says the writer of the letter) above half our brethren are on
their side. But they are so very confused, they do not know how to go
on, and yet are unwilling to be taught, except by the _Moravians_.”
¹ 4 Journal, page 18.
Add to this, (I recite the whole passages in order; not as you had
mangled, and then jumbled them together:) “_Wednesday, December 19._
I came to _London_, though with a heavy heart. Here I found every day
the dreadful effects of our brethrens reasoning and disputing with each
other. Scarce one in ten retained his first love: and most of the rest
were in the utmost confusion” (they were so more or less, for several
months) “biting and devouring one another.”
This also proves so much, neither more nor less, that _some_ of the
_Methodists_ were then in confusion. And just so much is proved by
your sixth quotation. ¹“Many were wholly unsettled (by the _Moravians_,
taking advantage of my absence) and lost in vain reasonings and
doubtful disputations:――――Not likely to come to any true foundation.”
¹ 4 Journal, pages 21, 22.
Your seventh quotation (I recite the whole sentence) runs thus. “_April
19._ I received a letter――――informing me, that our poor brethren at
_Fetter-lane_, were again in great confusion.” This quotation proves
just as much as the preceding: or as the following. ¹The plague (of
false stillness) was now spread to them also――――namely to the “little
society at _Islington_.”
¹ 4 Journal, page 34.
Your ninth is this. “¹I went to the society, but I found their hearts
were quite estranged. _Friday 4._ I met a little handful of them, who
still stand in the old paths.”
¹ Ibid. page 36.
Thus far you have been speaking of the _Methodists_ in _London_. And
what have you proved concerning them? Only that the _Moravians_ mixing
with them _twelve years_ ago, while they were young and unexperienced,
set them a disputing with each other, and thereby occasioned much
confusion for _several months_. But you have not proved, That “the
_Methodists in general_, were even _then, all_ together by the ears”:
and much less, that they have been so _ever since_, and that they are
so _now_.
35. I now attend you to _Kingswood_. Not to “_Bristol_ and _Kingswood_,”
which you artfully join together. The society at _Bristol_ was no more
concerned with the disputes in _Kingswood_, than with those in _London_.
Here the first quotation, though containing but two lines, is extracted
from three different paragraphs; in one of which I say, ¹“I had many
unpleasing accounts (in _December, 1740_) concerning our little society
in _Kingswood_”: in the second, “I went to _Kingswood_, if haply I
might repair the breaches which had been made” (by the predestinarian
preachers:) in the third, “I laboured to heal the jealousies and
misunderstandings which had arisen.”
¹ 4 Journal, page 62.
The second passage, part of which you quote, is this: ¹“I returned
early in the morning to _Kingswood_. But my congregation was gone to
hear Mr. _C._ So that I had not above two or three men and as many
women.”
¹ Ibid. page 64.
The third is, ¹“_January 1._ I explained, _If any man be in Christ
he is a new creature_. But many of our brethren had no ears to hear,
having disputed away both their faith and love.”
¹ Ibid. page 65.
The fourth: ¹“_February 21._ I inquired concerning the divisions
and offences which began afresh to break out in _Kingswood_. In the
afternoon I met a few of the bands; but it was a cold, uncomfortable
meeting.”
¹ 4 Journal, page 70.
You have picked out here and there a word from several pages, in order
to furnish out a fifth quotation. The most material part of it is this:
_Saturday 28._ ¹I read the following paper at _Kingswood_; “For their
scoffing at the word and ministers of God, for their backbiting and
evil-speaking, I――――declare the persons above-mentioned, to be no
longer members of this society.”――――
¹ Ibid. page 73.
“And ¹we had great reason to bless God, that after fifty-two were
withdrawn, we had still upwards of ninety left.”
¹ Page 74.
Who those other “forty were that, you say, left them,” I know not.
Perhaps you may inform me.
Upon the whole, all these quotations prove only this: that about eleven
years ago, Mr. _C._ falling into predestination, set the society in
_Kingswood_ a disputing with each other, and occasioned much confusion
for some months. But still you have not gone one step toward proving
(which is the one point in question) “That the _Methodists_ in general
were even then, _all_ together by the ears;” and much less, “that they
have been so ever since, and that they _are_ so _now_.”
However you fail not to triumph (like _Louis le Grand_, after his
victory at _Blenheim_,) “What shall we say now? Are these the fruits of
_Methodism_?” No, Sir. They are the fruits of opposing it. They are the
tares sown among the wheat. You may hear of instances of the same kind,
both in earlier and later ages.
You add, “This is bad enough; but it is not the worst. For consider
what becomes of those that leave them?” Why, Sir, what if _their last
end be worse than their first_? Will you charge this upon _me_? By the
same rule you must have charged upon the apostles themselves, whatever
befel those who having _known the way of righteousness_, afterwards
_turned back from the holy commandment once delivered to them_.
36. You conclude this section, “Mr. _Wesley_ will probably say, ‘Must
I be answerable for the _Moravians_, against whom I have preached
and written?’ True, since he and the _Moravians_ quarrelled. But who
gives them a box on the ear with the one hand, and embraces them with
the other? Who first brought over this wicked generation? Who made a
_Moravian_ his spiritual guide? Who _fanaticised_ his own followers,
and deprived them of their senses? Whose societies (by his own
confession) run over in shoals to _Moravianism_, forty or fifty at a
time? Would they have split upon this rock, if they had not been first
_Methodists_? Lastly, Where is the spawn of _Moravianism_ so strongly
working, as in the children of _Methodism_?”
Sir, you run very fast. And yet I hope to overtake you by and by.
“Mr. _Wesley_, you say, has preached against the _Moravians_, since he
quarrelled with them.” Sir, I never quarrelled with their persons yet.
I did with some of their tenets long ago. He “gives them a box on the
ear with the one hand, and embraces them with the other.” That is, I
embrace what is good among them, and at the same time reprove what is
evil. “Who _first_ brought over this wicked generation?” Not I, whether
they be wicked or not. I once thought I did; but have since then seen
and acknowledged my mistake. “Who made a _Moravian_ his spiritual
guide?” Not I: though I have occasionally consulted several. “Who
_fanaticised_ his own followers, and deprived them of their senses?”
Not I. Prove it upon me if you can. “Whose societies (by his own
confession) run over in shoals to _Moravianism_, forty or fifty at a
time?” Truly not mine. Two and fifty of _Kingswood_ society ran over to
_Calvinism_, and a year before, part of _Fetter-lane_ society gradually
went over to the _Moravians_. But I know none of ours that went over
_in shoals_. They never, that I remember, gained five at a time: nor
fifty in all (to the best of my knowledge) for these last ten years.
“Would they (of _Fetter-lane_) have split on this rock, if they had not
first been _Methodists_.” Undoubtedly they would; for several of them
had not first been _Methodists_. Mr. _Viney_, for instance (as well as
several others) was with the _Germans_, before ever he saw me. “Lastly,
Where is the spawn of _Moravianism_ working so strongly as in the
children of _Methodism_?” If you mean the errors of _Moravianism_, they
are not working at all in the generality of the children of _Methodism_:
the _Methodists_ in general being thoroughly apprized of, and fully
guarded against them.
So much for your modest assertion, “That the _Methodists in general_,
are _all_ together by the ears:” the very reverse of which is true.
They are, _in general_, in perfect peace. They enjoy in themselves the
peace of God, which passeth all understanding. They are at peace with
each other. And as much as lieth in them, they live peaceably with all
men.
37. Your next charge is, That “Methodism ¹has a tendency to undermine
morality and good works.” To prove this you assert, “1. That the
_Methodists_ are trained up to wait _in quietness_ for sudden
conversion; whence they are naturally led, to neglect _the means of
salvation_.” This is a mistake all over. For neither are they taught to
wait in _quietness_ (if you mean any more than patience by that term)
for either sudden or gradual conversion: neither do they, in fact,
neglect _the means_. So far from it, that they are eminently exact in
the use of them.
¹ Section 20, page 146, &c.
You assert, 2. “The doctrine of _assurance of pardon and salvation_,
present and future, causes a false security, to the neglect of future
endeavours.” Blunder upon blunder again. That all Christians have an
assurance of _future salvation_ is no _Methodist_ doctrine: and an
assurance of present _pardon_, is so far from causing negligence, that
it is of all others the strongest motive to vigorous endeavours after
universal holiness.
You assert, 3. “_Impulses_ and _impressions_, being made the _rule
of duty_, will lead into dangerous errors.” Very true. But the
_Methodists_ do not make _impulses and impressions_ the _rule of duty_.
They totally disclaim any other rule of duty, than the written word.
You assert 4. “A claim of unsinning perfection,” (I mean by perfection,
the loving God with all our heart) “drives some into phrensies, others
into despair.” Sir, I doubt the fact.
You assert 5. “The _Moravian Methodists_ trample down morality, and
multitudes of the _Wesleyans_ have been infected.” The _Moravian
Methodists_! You may as will say the _Presbyterian Papists_. The
_Moravians_ have no connexion with the _Methodists_. Therefore whatever
they do (though you slander them too) they and not we are to answer for.
The _Methodists_ at present, blessed be God, are as little infected
with this plague (of condemning or neglecting good works) as any body
of people in _England_ or _Ireland_.
38. From these loose assertions you proceed to quotations from my
writings, every one of which I shall consider, to shew that not in
one or two, but in every one you are a wilful prevaricator and false
accuser of your neighbour.
You say first, “the _Moravians_.”――――Hold, good Sir! You are out of
the way already. You well know, the _Moravians_ are to answer for
themselves. Our present question concerns the _Methodists_ only.
You say secondly, “A ¹general temptation prevails among _the societies
of Methodists_, of leaving off good works.” Sir, you are wrong again.
_The societies of Methodists_ are not there spoken of: but the _single
society_ of _Fetter-lane_. Among these only that temptation _then_
prevailed.
¹ 4 Journal, page 39.
You quote thirdly, as my words, “The poor confused, shattered society,
_had erred_ from the faith.” My own words are, ¹“I told the poor,
confused, shattered society, _wherein they had erred_ from the faith:”
Namely, with regard to the ordinances: nor in general, as your way of
expressing it naturally imports. Nor had _all_ the society erred even
in this point. Many of them were still unshaken.
¹ 4 Journal, page 39.
You quote fourthly, “A woman of _Deptford_ spoke great words and true.
She ordered Mr. _Humphreys_ to leave off doing good.”
Must not every reader suppose, as you have placed these words, that
they were all spoke at one time? And that “the great words and true”
were those, whereby she “ordered Mr. _Humphreys_ to leave off doing
good?”
What then must every honest man think of you, when he observes, that
one half of the sentence (which you thus artfully put together) stands
in another page, and at a considerable distance from the other? And
that I immediately subjoin to the latter clause, “we talked largely
with her, and she was humbled to the dust, under a deep sense of the
advantage Satan had gained over her.”
You quote fifthly, a part of the following sentence, to prove that I
“undermine morality and good works.”
“His judgment concerning holiness is new. He no longer judges it to be
an outward thing, to consist either in doing no harm, in doing good, or
in using the ordinances of God.” (And yet how strongly do I insist upon
all these? Sir, do not you know this?) “He sees, it is the life of God
in the soul, the image of God fresh stampt on the heart.” It is so. Sir,
can you deny it? What then will you prove by this?
You quote sixthly, part of these words:
“They ¹speak of holiness, as if it consisted, chiefly if not wholly,
in these two points, first the doing no harm, secondly the doing good
(as it is called) _i. e._ the using the means of grace, and helping our
neighbour.”
¹ 4 Journal, page 82.
And this you term “disparaging good works!” Sir, these things,
considered barely as to the _opus operatum_, are not good works. There
must be something good in the heart, before any of our works are good.
Insomuch that, _though I give all my goods to feed the poor, and have
not_ this, _it profiteth me nothing_.
You observe, by the way, “the _mystic divinity_ was once the
_Methodists doctrine_.” Sir, you have stepped out of the way, only
to get another fall. The _mystic divinity_ was never the _Methodists
doctrine_. They could never swallow either _John Tauler_ or _Jacob
Behme_: although they often advised with one that did.
39. You say seventhly, “I do not find, that Mr. _Wesley_ has ever cited
those express passages of St. _James_.” Sir, what if I had not? (I mean,
in print) I do not cite every text from _Genesis_ to the _Revelation_.
But it happens I have. Look again, Sir; and by and by you may find
where.
You say eighthly, Mr. _Wesley_ affirms, that the condition of our
justification, is faith alone and not good works.” Most certainly
I do. And I learnt it from the 11th and 12th _article_, and from the
_homilies_ of our church. If you can confute them do. But I subscribe
to them, both with my hand and heart.
You say ninthly, “Give me leave to make a remark. The _Methodists_
wandered many years, in the new path of salvation by faith and works,
which was the time too of their highest _glory and popularity_.
During this time, they were _seducing their disciples into_ the most
destructive errors.” Excuse me, Sir. While they preached salvation
by faith and works, they had no disciples at all; (unless you term
a few pupils such) nor had they any _popularity_ at all. They then
enjoyed (what they always desired) a quiet, retired life. But whatever
disciples we had, they were not _seduced by us, into_ the error of
justification by works. For they were in it, before ever they saw our
face, or knew there were such men in the world.
You say tenthly, “Mr. _Wesley_ only contends, that it is _possible_, to
_use_ them without _trusting_ in them.” Not in that page; ¹because the
proposition I am confuting is, “’Tis _not possible to use_ them without
_trusting_ in them.”
¹ 4 Journal, page 20.
You added, “And now, are not such disparaging expressions, (a _mere
possibility of using_ them, without _trusting_ in them) a great
discouragement to practice?”
O Sir, when will you deviate into truth? Dare you affirm, without
any regard to God or man, “Mr. _Wesley_ only contends for a _mere
possibility_ of _using_ the means, without trusting in them?”
To go no farther than the very first ¹page you refer to: my express
words are these.
¹ 3 Journal, pages 78, 79.
“I believe the way to attain faith is, to wait for Christ, in using all
the means of grace.”
“Because I believe, these do ordinarily convey God’s grace (even) to
unbelievers.” Is this “contending only for a _mere possibility_ of
_using_ them without _trusting_ in them?”
Not only in this, and many other parts of the journals, but in a sermon
wrote professedly on the subject, I contend, that all the ordinances
of God are the stated channels of his grace to man; and that it is
our bounden duty to use them all, at all possible opportunities. So
that to charge the _Methodists_ in general, or me in particular, with
undervaluing or disparaging them, shews just as much regard for justice
and truth, as if you was to charge us with _Mahometanism_.
40. Tedious as it is to wade through so many dirty pages, I will
follow you, step by step, a little farther. Your eleventh proof that
we “undermine morality and good works,” is drawn from the following
passage.
¹“I know every one _under the law_ is even as I was, for near twice ten
years. Every one when he begins to see his fallen state, and to feel
the wrath of God abiding on him, relapses into the sin that most easily
besets him, _soon after_ repenting of it. Sometimes he avoids, and at
many other times he cannot persuade himself to _avoid_ the _occasions_
of it. Hence his relapses are _frequent_, and of consequence his _heart
is hardened_ more and more. Nor can he, with all his _sincerity_, avoid
any one of these four marks of _hypocrisy_, till _being justified by
faith_, he _hath peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ_.”
¹ 3 Journal, pages 78, 79.
You, Sir, are no competent judge in the cause. But to any who has
experienced what St. _Paul_ speaks in his _seventh chapter_ to the
_Romans_, I willingly submit this whole question. _You_ know by
experience, that if anger was the sin that did so easily beset you, you
relapsed into it (for days, or months, or years) _soon after_ repenting
of it. Sometimes you _avoided the occasions_ of it: at other times
you did not. Hence your relapses were _frequent_, and your heart was
_hardened_ more and more. And yet all this time you was _sincerely_
striving against sin, you could say, without _hypocrisy_, _the thing
which I do, I allow not; the evil which I would not, that I do. To will
is even now present with me; but how to perform that which is good, I
find not._
But the _Jesuits_, you think, “could scarce have granted salvation
upon easier terms. Have no fear, ye Methodists.” Sir, I do not grant
salvation (as you call it) upon so easy terms. I believe a man in
this state, is in a state of damnation. “Have no fear!” Say you? Yea,
but those who are thus _under the law_, are in fear all the day long.
“Was there ever so pleasing a scheme?” Pleasing with a vengeance! As
pleasing as to be in the belly of hell. So totally do you mistake the
whole matter, _not knowing what_ you _speak, nor whereof_ you _affirm_.
You are indeed somewhat pitiable in speaking wrong on this head,
because you do it in ignorance. But this plea cannot be allowed, when
you gravely advance that trite, threadbare objection concerning the
Lord’s supper, without taking any notice, that I have answered it again
and again, both to Mr. _Church_ and to the late Lord bishop of _London_.
41. Your thirteenth proof is this: “Mr. _Wesley_ has taught us, that
_infirmities are no sins_.” Sir, you have taught me to wonder at
nothing you assert; else I should wonder at this. The words, I suppose
you refer to, stand, in _The sermon on salvation by ¹faith_; (though
you do not chuse, for a plain reason, to shew your reader where they
may be found.) “He that is by faith born of God sinneth not; 1. By any
habitual sin, nor 2. By any wilful sin; nor 3. By any sinful desire;
for he continually desireth the holy and perfect will of God; nor 4.
Doth he sin by infirmities, whether in act, word or thought. For his
infirmities have no concurrence of his will, and without this, they are
not properly sins.” And this you seriously declare, “is a loop-hole to
creep out of every moral and religious obligation!”
¹ 2 Journal, page 9.
In the same paragraph you say, I have strongly affirmed, that “all
¹our works and tempers are evil continually: that our ²whole heart is
altogether corrupt and abominable, and consequently our whole life; all
our ³works, the most specious of them, our righteousness, our prayers,
needing an atonement themselves.”
² 1 Journal, page 69.
³ 2 Journal, page 23. 3 Journal, pages 10, 70.
I do strongly affirm this. But of whom? In all these places, but the
last, _of myself only_. In every one, but this, I speak in the singular
number, and of myself, when confessedly _an unbeliever_. And of whom do
I speak in that last place? Of _unbelievers_ and them only. The words
are, “All our tempers and works _in our natural state_ are only evil
continually.”
Now, Sir, where is _your_ loop-hole to creep out? If you have none, I
fear every impartial man will pass sentence upon you, that you have no
regard either to _moral_ or _religious obligations_.
I have now weighed every argument you have brought, to prove “that
the _Methodists undermine morality and good works_.” A grievous charge
indeed! But the more inexcusable is he, who advances it, but is not
able to make it good, in any one single instance. Pardon my pertness,
Sir, in not barely _affirming_ (that is _your_ manner) but _proving_
this: nay, and in telling you, that you cannot make amends to God, to
me, or to the world, without a ♦retractation as public as your calumny.
♦ “retraction” replaced with “retractation” per Errata
42. You add, “How the case stands in _fact_, as to the number of
converts among the _Methodists_, and _real reformation of life_ to
the _certain and known duties_ of the _gospel_, is matter of difficult
determination.” Not at all. What is easier to be determined, than
1. That _A. B._ of _Exeter_ or _Tiverton_, was for many years a
notorious drunkard, common-swearer, or sabbath-breaker? 2. That he is
not so now; that he is _really reformed_ from drunkenness, swearing,
sabbath-breaking, to sobriety, and the other _certain and known duties_
of the _gospel_!
“But from what inquiry you can make, there is no reason to think them,
for the generality, better than their neighbours.” Better than their
neighbours? Why are they no worse than their neighbours? Then what have
you been doing all this time? But whether they are better or worse than
their neighbours, they are undeniable better than themselves: I mean,
better than they were before they heard this preaching, in the _certain
and known duties_ of the gospel.
But you desire us to “consider their black art of calumny; their
uncharitableness; their excessive pride and vanity; their scepticism,
doubts and disbelief of God and Christ; their disorderly practices and
contempt of authority; their bitter envying and inveterate broils among
themselves; their coolness for good works.” Sir, we will consider all
these, when you have proved them. Till then, this is mere _brutum
fulmen_.
43. You ♦proceed. “If we take Mr. _Wesley_’s own account, it falls very
short of any _considerable reformation_.” You mean; if we take _that
part_ of his account, which you are pleased to transcribe. _Atticam
elegantiam_! But let any impartial man read my whole account, and then
judge.
♦ “proved” replaced with “proceed” per Errata
However hence you infer, that “the new reformers have made but a _slow
and slight progress_ in the reformation of manners.”
As a full answer to this, I need only transcribe a page or two from the
_last Appeal_, page 127, &c.
“God begins a glorious work in our land. You set yourself against it
with your might; to prevent its beginning where it does not yet appear,
and to destroy it wherever it does. In part you prevail. You keep many
from hearing the word that is able to save their souls. Others who
have heard it, you induce to turn back from God, and to list under the
devil’s banner again. Then you make the success of your own wickedness
an excuse for not acknowledging the work of God! You urge, ‘That not
_many_ sinners were reformed! And that _some_ of those are now as bad
as ever!’”
“Whose fault is this? Is it ours? Or your own? Why have not thousands
more been reformed? Yea, for every one who is now turned to God, why
are there not ten thousand? Because you and your associates laboured
so heartily in the cause of hell: because you and they spared no pains,
either to prevent or to destroy the work of God. By using all the power
and wisdom you had, you hindered thousands from hearing the gospel,
which they might have found to be the power of God unto salvation.
Their blood is upon your heads. By inventing or countenancing or
retailing lies, some refined, some gross and palpable, you hindered
others from profiting by what they did hear. _You_ are answerable to
God for these souls also. Many who began to taste the good word and run
the way of God’s commandments, by various methods you prevailed on to
hear it no more. So they soon drew back to perdition. But know, that
for every one of these also, God will require an account of _you_ in
the day of judgment!
“And yet in spite of all the malice and wisdom and strength, not only
of men, but of _principalities and powers_, of the _rulers of the
darkness of this world_, of the _wicked spirits in high places_; there
are thousands found, who are _turned from dumb idols to serve the
living and true God_. What a harvest then might we have seen before
now, if all who say they are _on the Lord’s side_, had come, as in all
reason they ought, _to the help of the Lord against the mighty_? Yea,
had they only _not opposed_ the work of God, had they only _refrained
from_ his messengers, might not the trumpet of God have been heard long
since, in every corner of our land? And ♦what thousands of sinners in
every county, been brought to _fear God and honour the king_?”
♦ added word “what” per Errata
44. ¹Without any regard to this, your next assertion is, That the
Methodists are “carrying on the work of popery.” This also being a
charge of a very high nature, I shall particularly consider whatever
you advance in defence of it.
¹ Section 21, page 164, &c.
Your first argument is, “they have a strain of Jesuitical sophistry,
artifice and craft, evasion, reserve, equivocation and prevarication.”
So you _say_. But you do not so much as aim at any proof.
Your second argument is, “Mr. _Wesley_ says, where a Methodist was
receiving the sacrament, God was pleased to let him see a crucified
Saviour.” Sir, Mr. _W._ does not say this. It is one that occasionally
wrote to him. But if he had, what would you infer? That he is a papist?
Where is the consequence? Why, you say, “was not this as good an
argument for transubstantiation, as several produced by the papists?”
Yes, exactly as good as either their arguments or yours. That is, just
good for nothing.
Your third argument runs thus, “We may see in Mr. _W._’s writings
that he was once a _strict church-man_, but gradually put on a more
_catholic spirit_, tending at length to _Roman catholic_. He rejects
any design to convert others from _any communion_; and consequently
_not from popery_.”
This is half true (which is something uncommon with you) and only half
false. It is true, that for thirty years last past, I have “gradually
put on a more _catholic spirit_,” finding more and more tenderness for
those who differed from me, either in _opinions_ or _modes of worship_.
But it is not true, That I “reject any design of converting others
_from any communion_.” I have by the blessing of God, converted several
from _popery_, who are now alive and ready to testify it.
Your fourth argument is, That in a collection of prayers, I cite the
words of an ancient liturgy, “for the faithful departed.” Sir, whenever
I use those words in the burial service, I pray to the same effect.
“That we, with all those who are departed in thy faith and fear, may
have our perfect consummation of bliss, both in body and soul.” Yea,
and whenever I say, _Thy kingdom come_; for I mean both the kingdom
of grace and glory. In this kind of general prayer therefore, for the
faithful departed, I conceive myself to be clearly justified, both by
the earliest antiquity, by the church of _England_, and by the Lord’s
prayer: although the _Papists_ have corrupted this scriptural practice,
into praying for those who die in their sins.
45. Your fifth argument is, “That they use _private confession_, in
which every one is to speak the state of his heart, with his several
temptations and deliverances, and answer as many searching questions
as may be. And what scene, say you, is hereby disclosed? What a filthy
jakes opened, when the most searching questions are answered without
reserve?” Hold, Sir, unless you are answering for yourself. This
undoubtedly you have a right to do. You can tell best, what is in your
own heart. And I cannot deny what you say; it may be a very filthy
jakes, for ought I know. But pray do not measure others by yourself.
The hearts of believers _are purified through faith_. When these open
their hearts one to another, there is no such scene disclosed. Yet
temptations to pride in various kinds, to self-will, to unbelief in
many instances, they often feel in themselves (whether they give any
place to them or no) and occasionally disclose to their brethren.
But this has no resemblance to _Popish confession_; of which you are
very sensible. For you cite my own words: “The Popish confession is,
the confession made by a single person to a priest. Whereas this is,
the confession of several persons conjointly, not to a priest, but to
each other.” You add, “Will Mr. _W._ abide by this, and freely answer
a question?” I will. For I desire only _by manifestation of the truth,
to commend myself to every man’s conscience, in the sight of God_.
Your question is, “After private confessions taken in their bands, are
not _reports_ made to Mr. _W._?” I answer, no: No _reports_ are made to
me, of the particulars mentioned in private bands. “Are no delinquents,
male and female, _brought before him separately, and confessed_ by
him?” No: none at all. You ask, “How then do I know the outward and
inward states of those under my care?” I answer, by examining them once
a quarter, more or less, not separately, but ten or fifteen together.
Therefore every unprejudiced person must see that there is no analogy
between the Popish confession to a priest, and our _confessing our
faults one to another, and praying one for another_, as St. _James_
directs. Consequently neither does this argument, though urged with
all your art and force, amount to any shadow of proof, that “the
_Methodists_ are carrying on the work of popery.”
46. Your sixth argument, such as it is, stands thus. “Another tendency
to _Popery_ appears, by the notion of _a single drop of Christ’s blood
being a sufficient atonement for the sins of the whole world_. For
however pious this may appear, it is absolutely false and papistical.”
Sir, this argument is perfectly new, and intirely your own. It were
great pity to disturb you in the enjoyment of it.
A seventh argument you ground on those words in the _Plain account
of the people called_ Methodists, “’Tis a point we chiefly insist
upon, that _orthodoxy_ or right opinions, is _a very slender part_ of
religion, if _any part of it at all_.” “The plain consequence whereof
is (so you affirm) that teaching and believing the fundamental errors
of popery, with the whole train of their abominations and idolatries,
are of very little moment, if any.” Strain again, Sir: pull hard; or
you will never be able to drag this conclusion out of these premises.
I assert, “1. That in a truly religious man, right opinions _are a very
slender part_ of religion. 2. That in an irreligious, a profane man,
they are not _any part of religion at all_: such a man not being one
jot more religious, because he is _orthodox_.” Sir, it does not follow
from either of these propositions, that _wrong opinions_ are not an
hindrance to religion: and much less, that “teaching and believing
the fundamental errors of popery, _with the whole train of their
abominations and idolatries_ (practised, I presume you mean, as well
as taught and believed) are of very little moment, if any.”
I am so far from saying or thinking this, that in my printed letter
to a priest of that communion (did you never read it, or hear of it
before?) are these express words, “I pity you much, having the same
assurance, that Jesus is the Christ, and that no _Romanist_ can expect
to be saved, according to the terms of his covenant.” 3d _journal_ page
77. Do you term this “An extenuation of their abominations? A reducing
them to almost a ♦mere nothing.”
♦ “meer” replaced with “mere”
47. You argue, eighthly, thus; “The _Methodist_ doctrine of impressions
and assurances, holds equally for popish _enthusiasts_.” This needs no
answer; I have already shewn, that the _Methodist_ doctrine in these
respects is both scriptural and rational.
Your ninth argument is, “Their sudden conversions stand upon the same
footing with the _popish_.” You should say, “Are a proof that they are
promoting _popery_.” I leave you to enjoy this ♦argument also.
♦ “argment” replaced with “argument” per Errata
But the dreadful one you reserve for the last, namely, our
“recommending popish books. One is the life of Mr. _de Renty_, of which
Mr. _Wesley_ has published _an extract_.” To prove your inimitable
fairness here, you scrape up again all the trash, wherein the weak
writer of that life abounds, and which I had pared off and thrown away.
Sir, could you find nothing to your purpose in the _extract_ itself? I
fancy you might; for I have purposely left in two or three particulars,
to shew of what communion he was, which I did not think it right to
conceal.
You go on. “_Francis_ of _Sales_ is another papist, much commended
by Mr. _W._; and who he doubts not is in _Abraham_’s bosom. He is the
_Methodist_’s bosom friend.”
I believe he is in _Abraham_’s bosom. But he is no bosom friend of the
_Methodists_. I question whether one in five hundred of them, ♦has so
much as heard his name. And as for me, neither do I “commend him much,
nor recommend” him at all. His life I never saw, nor any of his works,
but his “Introduction to a Holy Life.” This the late Dr. _Nichols_
translated into _English_, published and strongly _recommended_.
Therefore if this be a proof of promoting popery, that censure falls
not on me but him.
♦ “have” replaced with “has” per Errata
I have now considered all the arguments you have brought to prove,
“That the _Methodists_ are carrying on the work of popery.” And I am
persuaded, every candid man, who rightly weighs what has been said,
with any degree of attention, will clearly see not only, that no one
of those arguments is of any real force at all, but that you do not
believe yourself; you do not believe the conclusion, which you _make as
if_ you would prove. Only you keep close to your laudable resolution,
of throwing as much dirt as possible.
48. It remains only to gather up some of your fragments, as still
further proofs of your integrity.
You graciously say, “I do not lay much stress upon the charge of some
of the angry _Moravians_, against Mr. _W._ and brother, for preaching
popery.” Sir, if you had, you would only have hurt yourself. For 1.
The _Moravians_ never, that I know of, brought this charge at all. 2.
When Mr. _C._ and two other predestinarians (these were the persons)
affirmed “they had heard both my brother and me preach _popery_:” they
meant neither more nor less thereby, than the doctrine of universal
redemption.
“Some connection between the doctrines of the _Methodists_ and
_Papists_, hath been shewn through this whole comparison.” Shewn! But
how? By the same art of wiredrawing and decyphering, which would prove
an equal connection between the _Methodists_ and _Mahometans_.
“_Jesuits_ have often mingled, and been the ringleaders among our
_enthusiastic sectaries_.” Sir, I am greatly obliged to you for your
compliment, as well as for your parallel of Mr. _Faithful Commin_.
And pray, Sir, at what time do you think it was, that I first _mingled
with those enthusiastic sectaries_? When I came back from _Germany_?
Or when I returned from _Georgia_? Or while I was at _Lincoln-College_?
――――Although the plot itself might be laid before, when I was at
_Christ-Church_, or at the _Charter-house_ school.
But “a _Jesuit_’s or enthusiast’s declaring against _popery_, is
no test of their sincerity.” Most sure; nor is a nameless person’s
declaring against _Methodism_, any proof that he is not a _Jesuit_.
I remember well, when a well-dressed man, taking his stand not far
from _Moorfields_, had gathered a large company, and was vehemently
asserting, That “those rogues the _Methodists_ were all _Papists_:”
till a gentleman coming by, fixed his eye on him and cried, “Stop that
man: I know him personally: he is a _Romish priest_.”
I know not that any thing remains on this head, which bears so much as
the face of an argument. So that of all the charges you have brought
(and truly you have not been sparing) there is not one wherein your
proof falls more miserably short, than in this, That “the _Methodists_
are advancing _popery_.”
49. I have at length gone through your whole performance, weighed
whatever you cite from my writings, and shewn at large how far
those passages are from proving all, or any part of your charge. So
that all you attempt to build on them, ¹“of the pride and vanity of
the _Methodists_; of their ²shuffling and prevaricating, of their
³affectation of prophesying, ⁴laying claim to the miraculous favours
of heaven, unsteadiness ⁵of temper, ⁶unsteadiness in sentiment and
practice, ⁷art and cunning, ⁸giving up inspiration and extraordinary
calls, ⁹scepticism, infidelity, atheism, ¹⁰uncharitableness to their
opponents, ¹¹contempt of order and authority, ¹²and fierce, rancorous
quarrels with each other, ¹³of the tendency of _Methodism_ to undermine
morality and good works, and to ¹⁴carry on the good work of _popery_:”
all this fabric falls to the ground at once, unless you can find some
better foundation to support it.
¹ Section 3.
² Section 4.
³ Section 5.
⁴ Section 6.
⁵ Section 9.
⁶ Section 11.
⁷ Section 12.
⁸ Section 13.
⁹ Section 14.
¹⁰ Section 15, &c.
¹¹ Section 18.
¹² Section 19, &c.
¹³ Section 20.
¹⁴ Section 21.
50. These things being so, what must all unprejudiced men think of you
and your whole performance? You have advanced a charge, not against
one or two persons only, but indiscriminately against a whole _body
of people_, of his Majesty’s subjects, _Englishmen_, protestants,
members I suppose, of your own church: a charge containing abundance of
articles, and most of them of the highest and blackest nature. You have
prosecuted this with unparalleled bitterness of spirit and acrimony
of language; using sometimes the most coarse, rude, scurrilous terms,
sometimes the keenest sarcasms you could devise. The point you have
steadily pursued in _thus_ prosecuting _this_ charge, is, first, To
expose the whole people to the hatred and scorn of all mankind; and
next, to stir up the _civil powers_ against them. And when this charge
comes to be fairly weighed, there is not a single article of it true!
The passages you cite to make it good, are one and all such, as prove
nothing less than the points in question: most of them such as you have
palpably maimed, corrupted, and strained to a sense never thought of
by the writer: many of them such as are flat against you, and overthrow
the very point they are brought to support. What can they think, but
that this is the most shocking violation of the Christian rule, _Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself_; the most open affront to all
justice, and even common humanity, the most glaring insult upon the
common sense and reason of mankind, which has lately appeared in the
world.
If you say, “But I have proved the charge upon Mr. _Whitefield_:”
admit you have (which I do not allow) Mr. _Whitefield_ is not _the
Methodists_; no, nor the societies under his care; they are not a third,
perhaps not a tenth part of the _Methodists_. What then can excuse your
ascribing _their_ faults (were they proved) to the _whole body_? You
indict ten men. Suppose you prove the indictment upon one, will you
_therefore_ condemn the other nine? Nay, let every man bear his own
burden, since every man must give an account of himself to God.
I had occasion once before to say to an opponent, you know not to shew
mercy. Yet that gentleman did regard truth and justice. But you regard
neither mercy, justice nor truth. To vilify, to blacken is your one
point. I pray God, it may not be laid to your charge! May he shew you
mercy, though you shew none!
_I am, Sir_,
_Your friend and well-wisher_,
JOHN WESLEY.
_The End of the_ Sixteenth Volume.
ERRATA, Volume XVI.
Page 9, line 3, replace Consider_ing_
Page 24, _After_ line 28, insert _Five paragraphs are left out,
which stand in the 24th Volume_, page 32 _to_ 35
Page 28, line 7, replace now _only_
Page 59, line 10, replace _with_ a
Page 79, line 22, replace wretch_les_ness
Page 91, line 2, replace _w_rought
Page 94, line 14, replace re_sist_ing
Page 96, line 7, replace M_a_y
Page 96, line 17, replace re_sist_ing
Page 97, line 8, replace both _the_
Page 117, line 22, replace any _wise_
Page 122, line 7, replace _has_
Page 150, line 8, replace _Part_ of
Page 158, line 5, replace appoint_ing_
Page 168, line 24, replace _a_pposite
Page 177, line 24, delete _that_
Page 180, line 23, replace invect_ive_
Page 185, line 19, replace _si_nce
Page 196, line 10, replace could _not_
Page 227, line 1, replace believe _it_
Page 239, line 9, replace c_au_se
Page 240, line 19, replace se_a_s
Page 264, line 20, replace natural _or_
Page 268, line _penultimate_, replace corpo_ral_
Page 279, line 1, replace _I_ immediately
Page 290, line 18, replace Archimede_s_
Page 307, line 6, replace i_gnor_atio
Page 321, line 2, replace accusation_s_
Page 323, line _antepenultimate_, replace ra_n_cour
Page 340, line 27, replace retract_at_ion
Page 341, line _penultimate_, replace pro_ce_ed
Page 343, line 28, replace _what_ thousands
Page 349, line 5, replace arg_u_ment.
Page 349, line 25, replace _has_ so
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE WORKS OF THE REV. JOHN WESLEY, VOL. 16 (OF 32) ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg
Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
