I.

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 favor, either from observing what is reprovable, or from using that freedom or 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 show 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 elsewhere,f44 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 belie, or wilfully misrepresent, him, he must expose him as much as he is able. It is enough, we suppose, if we do not show heat or passion against our adversary. But not to despise him, or endeavor to make others do so, is quite a work of supererogation.

4. But ought these things to be so? (I speak on the Christian scheme.) Ought we not to love our neighbor as ourselves? And does a man cease to be our neighbor, 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 shows 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 eighteenth and following pages; again, from the eighty-ninth to the hundred and second; and yet again, in the hundred and twenty-seventh 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, “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.

“‘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 you not represent Mr. Molther, and other Moravians in England, as teaching the same? In short, I have not charged the Moravian Church with anything; 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.” (Second Letter, page 79.)

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 anything; 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 entreat 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 hear 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., Vol. I. p. 328,) ‘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 anything; 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 a 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.

5. You say, “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.’” (Page 80.) “You now would have it thought!” Yes, and always, as well as now. For my original charge was, “I have found this in many of you; that is, much subtlety, much evasion and disguise.” (Vol. I.) 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 behavior, 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.

6. “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 inquiry,) the Count himself had been in England. “You ‘still think, 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.’” (Page 81.) 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 irreconcilable with each other. Let any one read them in the Journal, and judge.

7. “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 anything.’ 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 anything 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.” (Page 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 anything.” 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 color to remark, on my saying, “I did not dare to determine anything:” “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 anything 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.

8. “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 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.” (Page 17.) 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 chastity; 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.

9. “‘The Moravians excel in sweetness of behavior.’ 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.

“‘To this multitude of crimes I am also an utter stranger.’ Then you have charged them wrongfully. What do you account guile?” etc. (Second Letter, p. 84.) 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.

“The honor 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: — “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 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.’ After this, are you the person who complains of me for imperfect and partial quotations?” (Page 10.)

I added, “‘You surprise 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. Sp — 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.

10. 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.

11. “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, — to distinguish either between the Moravians and the English brethren, though these had been their disciples,” this has been abundantly answered, — “or between some of the Moravians and others.” (Page 86.) 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.

12.

(1.) “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 connection 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 Second Journal,’ Vol. I. pp. 115-147. It is no sign of good discipline to permit such abominations; that is, 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.’”

You reply, “Such excellent discipline, for all that I know, they may have;” (that is, as the Jesuits;) “but I cannot agree that this is scarce inferior to that of the apostolical age.” It may be, for anything 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