Page images
PDF
EPUB

ers, turning faith into fancy, the gospel into farce, thus adding blasphemy to enthusiasm," (p. 66, 68.)

"The abet

Take breath, Sir, there is a long paragraph behind. ters of these wild and whimsical notions, are 1. Close friends to the Church of Rome, agreeing with her in almost every thing, but the doctrine of merit: 2. They are no less kind to infidelity, by making the Christian religion a mere creature of the imagination: 3. They cut up Christianity by the roots, frustrating the very end for which Christ died, which was, that by holiness we might be made meet for the inheritance of the saints: 4. They are enemies not only to Christianity, but to every religion whatsoever, by labouring to subvert or overturn the whole system of morality: 5. Consequently they must be enemies of society, dissolving the band by which it is united and knit together," (p. 101, 102.) In a word, "All ancient heresies have, in a manner, concentrated in the Methodists: particularly those of the Simonians, Gnostics, Antinomians, (as widely different from each other as Predestinarians from Calvinists!) Valentinians, Donatists, and Montanists." While your hand was in, you might as well have added, Carpocrations, Eutychians, Nestorians, Sabellians. If you say, "I never heard of them;" no matter for that you may find them as well as the rest in Bishop Pearson's index.

Well, all this is mere flourish; raising a dust, to blind the eyes of the spectators. Generals, you know, prove nothing. So leaving this as it is, let us come to particulars.

But, first, give me leave to transcribe a few words from a tract published some years ago. Your lordship premises, It is not at all needful to charge the particular tenets upon the particular persons among them,' (Letter to the Bishop of London, Vol. VIII. p. 458.) Indeed it is needful in the highest degree. Just as needful 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.

And it is now far more needful than it was then; as that title of reproach, Methodist, is now affixed to many people who are not under my care, nor ever had any connexion with me. And what have I to do with these? If you give me a nick-name, and then give it to others whom I know not, does this make me accountable for them? Either for their principles or practice? In nowise. I am to answer for myself, and for those that are in connexion with me. This is all that a man of common sense can undertake, or a man of common humanity require. Let us begin then upon even ground: and if you can prove upon me, John Wesley, any one of the charges which you have advanced, call me not only a wolf, but an otter if you please.

8. Your first particular charge (which indeed runs through your book, and is repeated in twenty different places) is, that we make the way to heaven too broad, teaching, men may be saved by faith, without works. Some of your words are, "They set out with forming

a fair and tempting model of religion, so flattering the follies of de, generate man, that it could not fail to gain the hearts of multitudes, especially of the loose and vicious, the lazy and indolent," (p. 52.) "They want to get to heaven the shortest way, and with the least trouble now a reliance on Christ and disclaiming of good works, are terms as easy as the merest libertine can ask. They persuade their people that they may be saved by the righteousness of Christ, without any holiness of their own: nay, that good works are not only unnecessary, but also dangerous, (p. 31:) that we may be saved by faith without any other requisite," such as "gospel obedience, and holy life," (p. 38.) Lastly, "The Valentinians pretended, that if good works were necessary to salvation, it was not only to animal men, that is, to all who were not of their clan; and that although sin might damn others, it could not hurt them. In consequence of which they lived in all lust and impurity, and wallowed in the most unheard-of bestialities. The Methodists distinguish much after the same manner," p. 14.

Sir, you are not awake yet. You are dreaming still, and fighting with shadows of your own raising. The "model of religion with which the Methodists set out," is perfectly well known, if not to you, yet to many thousands in England who are no Methodists. I laid it before the university of Oxford, at St. Mary's, on January 1, 1738. You may read it when you are at leisure, for it is in print, entitled The Circumcision of the Heart. And whoever reads only that one discourse, with any tolerable share of attention, will easily judge, whether "that model of religion flatters the follies of degenerate man," or is likely to "gain the hearts of multitudes, especially of the loose and vicious, the lazy and indolent !" Will a man choose this, as "the shortest way to heaven, and with the least trouble ?" Are these "as easy terms, as any libertine or infidel can desire?" The truth is, we have been these thirty years continually reproached for just the contrary to what you dream of: with making the way to heaven too strait: with being ourselves righteous over much, and teaching others, they could not be saved without so many works as it was impossible for them to perform. And to this day, instead of teaching men, that they may be saved by a faith which is without good works, without "gospel-obedience and holiness of life," we teach exactly the reverse, continually insisting on all outward as well as all inward holiness. For the notorious truth of this we appeal to the whole tenor of our sermons, printed and unprinted: in particular to those upon our Lord's sermon on the Mount, wherein every branch of gospel-obedience is both asserted and proved to be indispensably necessary to eternal salvation.

Therefore, as to the rest of the "Antinomian trash" which you have so carefully gathered up, as, "That the regenerate are as pure as Christ himself; that it would be criminal for them to pray for pardon; that the greatest crimes are no crimes in the saints," &c. &c. (p. 17,) I have no concern therewith at all, no more than with any that teach it. Indeed I have confuted it over and over, in tracts pubJished many years ago.

9. A second charge which you advance, is, That "we suppose every man's final doom to depend on God's sovereign will and pleasure" (I presume you mean, on his absolute, unconditional decree:) that we consider man as a mere machine:" that we suppose believers "cannot fall from grace," (p. 31.) Nay, I suppose none of these things. Let those who do, answer for themselves. I suppose just the contrary, in Predestination calmly considered, a tract published ten years ago.

10. A third charge is, "They represent faith as a supernatural principle, altogether precluding the judgment and understanding, and discerned by some internal signs; not as a firm persuasion, founded on the evidence of reason, and discernible only by a conformity of life and manners to such a persuasion,” p. 11.

We do not represent faith "as altogether precluding, or at all precluding the judgment and understanding:" rather as enlightening and strengthening the understanding, as clearing and improving the judgment. But we do represent it as the gift of God, yea, and a "supernatural gift," yet it does not preclude "the evidence of reason" though neither is this its whole foundation. "A conformity of life and manners" to that persuasion, Christ loved me, and gave himself for me, is doubtless one mark by which it is discerned; but not the only one. It is likewise discerned by internal signs, both by the witness of the Spirit and the fruit of the Spirit, namely, 'love peace, joy, meekness, gentleness:' by all the mind which was in Christ Jesus.'

11. You assert, fourthly, "They speak of grace, that it is as perceptible to the heart as sensible objects are to the senses: whereas the Scriptures speak of grace, that it is conveyed imperceptibly: and that the only way to be satisfied whether we have it or not, is to appeal, not to our inward feelings, but our outward actions," p. 32.

We do speak of grace, (meaning thereby, that power of God which worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure,) that it is "as perceptible to the heart" (while it comforts, refreshes, purifies, and sheds the love of God abroad therein) "as sensible objects are to the senses." And yet we do not doubt, but it may frequently be "conveyed to us imperceptibly." But we know no scripture which speaks of it as always conveyed, and always working in an imperceptible manner. We likewise allow, that outward actions are one way of satisfying us, that we have grace in our hearts. But we cannot possibly allow, that "the only way to be satisfied of this, is to appeal to our outward actions, and not to our inward feelings." On the contrary, we believe that love, joy, peace, are inwardly felt, or they have no being: and that men are satisfied they have grace, first, by feeling these, and afterward by their outward actions.

12. You assert, fifthly, "They talk of regeneration in every Christian, as if it were as sudden and miraculous a conversion, as that of St. Paul and the first converts to Christianity, and as if the signs of it were frightful tremors of body, and convulsive agonies of Mind: not as a work graciously begun and gradually carried on by VOL. 8-XX

[ocr errors]

the blessed Spirit, in conjunction with our rational powers and fa¬ culties; the signs of which are, sincere and universal obedience," p. 33.

This is partly true, partly false. We do believe regeneration, or in plain English, the new birth, to be as miraculous or supernatural a work now as it was seventeen hundred years ago. We likewise believe, that the spiritual life, which commences when we are born again, must in the nature of the thing, have a first moment as well as the natural. But we say again and again, we are concerned for the substance of the work, not the circumstance. Let it be wrought at all, and we will not contend, whether it be wrought gradually or instantaneously. "But what are the signs that it is wrought?" We never said or thought, that they were either "frightful tremors of body," or "convulsive agonies of mind:" I presume you mean, agonies of mind attended with bodily convulsions. Although we know many persons who before this change was wrought, felt much fear and sorrow of mind which in some of these had such an effect on the body as to make all their bones to shake. Neither did we ever deny, that it is a "work graciously begun by the Holy Spirit, enlightening our understanding," (which I suppose you call "our rational powers and faculties,")" as well as influencing our affections." And it is certain, he gradually carries on this work," by continuing to influence all the powers of the soul: and that the outward sign of this inward work, is "sincere and universal obedience."

[ocr errors]

13. A sixth charge is, "They treat Christianity as a wild enthusiastic scheme, which will bear no examination," (p. 30.) Where or when? In what sermon? In what tract, practical or polemical? 1 wholly deny the charge. I have myself closely and carefully examined every part of it, every verse of the New Testament, in the original, as well as in our own and other translations.

14. Nearly allied to this is the thread-bare charge of enthusiasm, with which you frequently and largely compliment us. But as this also is asserted only, and not proved, it falls to the ground of itself. Meantime your asserting it, is a plain proof, that you know nothing of the men you talk of. Because you know them not, you so boldly say, "One advantage we have over them, and that is reason." Nay, that is the very question. I appeal to all mankind, whether you have it or not? However, you are sure, we have it not, and are never likely to have. For "reason, you say, cannot do much with an enthusiast, whose first principle is, to have nothing to do with reason, but resolve all his religious opinions and notions into immediate inspiration." Then, by your own account, I am no enthusiast; for I resolve none of my notions into immediate inspiration. I have something to do with reason; perhaps as much as many of those who "make no account of my labours.' And I am ready to give up every opinion, which I cannot by calm, clear reason, defend. Whenever, therefore, you " will try what you can do by argument," which you have not done yet, I wait your leisure, and will follow you step by step, which way soever you lead.

15. "But is not this plain proof of the enthusiasm of the Method

[ocr errors]

men

ists, that they despise human learning, and make a loud and terrible outcry against it?" Pray, Sir, when and where was this done? Be so good as to point out the time and place; for I am quite a stran→ ger to it. I believe indeed, and so do you, that many make an ill use of their learning. But so they do of their Bibles: therefore, this is no reason, for despising or crying out against it. I would use it just as far as it will go; how far I apprehend it may be of use, how far I judge it to be expedient at least, if not necessary for a clergyman, you might have seen, in the Earnest Address to the Clergy. But in the mean time I bless God, that there is a more excellent gift than either the knowledge of languages or philosophy. tongues, and knowledge, and learning, will vanish away; but love never faileth.

For

16. I think this is all you have said which is any way material concerning the doctrines of the Methodists. The charges you bring .concerning their spirit or practice, may be despatched in fewer words.

And first, you charge them with pride and uncharitableness. "They talk as proudly as the Donatists, of their being the only true preachers of the gospel, and esteem themselves, in contra-distinction to others, as the regenerate, the children of God, and as having arrived at sinless perfection," p. 15.

All of a piece. We neither talk nor think so. We doubt not but there are many true preachers of the gospel, both in England and elsewhere, who have no connexion with, no knowledge of us. Neither can we doubt, but that there are many thousands of the children of God, who never heard our voices, or saw our faces. And this may suffice for an answer to all the assertions of the same kind, which are scattered up and down your work. Of sinless perfection, here brought in by head and shoulders, I have nothing to say at present.

17. You charge them, secondly, "with boldness and blasphemy, who triumphing in their train of credulous and crazy followers, the spurious (should it not be rather genuine) offspring of their insidious craft, ascribe the glorious event to divine grace, and in almost every page of their paltry harangues, invoke the blessed Spirit to go along with them, in their soul-awakening work, that is, to continue to assist them in seducing the simple and unwary," p. 41.

What we ascribe to divine grace is this, the convincing sinners of the errors of their ways, and the turning them from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God.' Do not you yourself "ascribe this to grace?" And do not you too "invoke the blessed Spirit, to go along with you in every part of your work?" If you do not, you lose all your labour.-Whether we "seduce men into sin," or by his grace save them from it, is another question.

18. You charge us, thirdly, with "requiring a blind and implicit trust from our disciples," (p. 10,) who accordingly "trust as implicitly in their Preachers, as the Papists in their Pope, councils, or church," (p. 51.) Far from it: neither do we require it; nor do they that hear us place any such trust in any creature. They search

« PreviousContinue »