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.