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.