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?_