The Methodist Quarterly Review
1870

ART. VII-WESLEY'S SEPARATION FROM THE MORAVIANS.

An Appendix to Dr. L. S. Jacoby's new History of Methodism.*

TRANSLATED BY W. F. WARREN
WE have already stated the causes on account of which Wesley separated from the Moravian Brethren; nevertheless, for the sake of placing the character of the Founder of Methodism and the real nature of these causes in their proper light, we will here explain them more at length.

John Wesley freely acknowledged that he had been led to a living faith by these brethren, and be cherished feelings of warm affection and regard toward them. He greatly desired to personally acquaint himself with the Church, members of which had become such loved instrumentalities to the salvation of his soul. Hence his journey in 1738 to Marienborn and

Herrnhut. Of the ensuing events an impartial author, Dr. K. H. Sack, Professor and Councilor of the Consistory at Bonn, has recently given the following account. "What delightful, yea, blessed impressions Wesley received from this people, appears in every paragraph of his Diary.+ But, alas! it did not, perhaps could not and should not, so continue. From the close of the year 1739 Wesley believed he saw dangerous Antinomian and mystical opinions in the London Moravian Society with which he and his friends had united, also opinions which involved the doctrine of the universal restorationism. This pained him the more, from the fact that a portion of his hearers and adherents were disturbed and alienated from him by these opinions. In view of Wesley's profound conviction, that those who by grace have obtained justification through faith must feel themselves impelled to the greatest

* Gesehiebte des Methodismos seiner Entatehung und Anabreitung in den verschiedenen Theilen der Erde. Erster Theil: Geschichte des Brittisehen Methodismos, und der Ausbreitnng desseihen in den Brittisehen Colonien. So wie die Geschichte seiner Missionen. Von L. S. Jacoby. Bremen. 187O.

+ The following remark, therefore, in the History of the Renewed Church of the Brethren must be pronounced incorrect, as far 55 it relates to Wesley: "At this time there came to Marienborn, from England, the Methodists Benjamin Ingham and John Wesley; the former was mightily attracted by the spirit of the Society and the frankness of the brethren, not so the latter-he found more in Halle." Part I, p. 330.

moral earnestness and to a zealous observance of God's commandments, there is no sort of necessity for assuming any selfish motive in explanation of the opposition which he now commenced.* During the first half of the year 1740 Wesley exerted himself to combat, by sermons and conversations, the errors which showed themselves in the Society. But the dissension became ever greater until Wesley, whom his opponents had repeatedly charged with heresy, on the 20th of July of that year publicly read, in a meeting in Fetter Lane, a paper in which he designated those points in their doctrine which, according to his judgment, were contrary to the word of God. On that day he disconnected himself from the Society, and from that time forward held his own meetings in another place. Thereupon he addressed a letter, under date of Aug. 8, 1740, to the Society in Herrnhut, with this superscription, "John Wesley, a presbyter of the Church of God in England, to the Church of God at Herrnhut, in Upper Lusatia." In this epistle he shows them what is taught among them contrary to the Gospel, or what it is, at least, not forbidden to teach. His language is free, and here and there strong; but most of the propositions and opinions quoted in the letter are, beyond a question, suspicious in the highest degree, while others perhaps could be condemned only from a one-sidedly moral standpoint. He especially declared himself against the following doctrines and practices, to wit: that believers properly. have nothing more to perform as commandment or duty; that one can have justifying faith and not know it; that there is no such thing as weak faith; that one need not use the means of grace, not even prayer and the reading of the Scriptures, until by faith one has obtained a pure heart; that the brethren were not open enough toward such as sinned before their eyes; that they undervalued good works, etc. Nevertheless, love beams through the earnestness of the warning, for he writes at the commencement, "I believe you to be dear children of God, through faith which is in Jesus."

In the spring of 1741 Spangenberg came to London, and having been commissioned by Count Zinzendorf to seek for a reconciliation,

* We may therefore designate as an unfair judgment what Risler says in his Life of Spangenberg, p. 178, (Barby, 1794,) namely, that Wesley was envious of the Moravian Brethren because many of his followers joined them.

exerted himself to effect it. To use his own language, "On account of our mother's children who are still angry with us, we have given ourselves great pains." * All was in vain. The divergence of Opinions and modes of feeling had already become too considerable. Toward the end of this year the last attempt at reconciliation took place, but it also failed. Zinzendorf had come to London the first of September, 1741, and already on the third of the month he made appointment for a conference with Wesley.+

Of the conversation, which was held in Latin, the following is a literal translation. The Original is found not only in Wesley's diary, but also in Buding's "Collections," published under Zinzendorf's own supervision, in which it appeared in the year 1745.

Zinzendorf. Why have you changed your religion.

Wesley. I am not aware that I have changed my religion. Why do you think so? Who has told you this?

Z. Plainly, yourself. I see it from your letter to us. In that, having abandoned the religion which you professed among us, you profess a new one.

W. How so? I do not understand you.

Z. Yea, you say there that true Christians are not miserable sinners. This is most false. The best of men are most miserable sinners, even unto death. If any say otherwise, they are either wholly impostors, or diabolically led astray. Our brethren, teachers of better things, you have opposed; and have refused peace to them desiring it.

W. I do not yet understand what you mean.

Z. When you wrote to me from Georgia I loved you very much. I perceived that you were then simple in heart. You wrote again; I saw that you were still simple in heart, but disordered in your ideas. You came among us; your ideas were then still more disordered and confused. You returned to England. Some time after I heard that our brethren were contending with you. I sent Spangenberg to effect a reconciliation between you. He wrote to me that the Brethren had injured you. I wrote back that they should not only desist, but even ask your pardon. Spangenberg wrote again that they had asked it; but that you, hoisting of these things, were unwilling to be at peace. Now, being come, I hear the same.

W. The matter by no means turns on that point. Your brethren

* See "Life of Spangenberg," p. 178 The remark on page 177, "when others preach of their perfection, we glory in our misery and weakness, and that a lamb is slain for us," must he understood as referring to Wesley.

+ The diary of John Wesley on his journey to Germany in 1738, and his conference with Zinzendorf, anno 1741. Niedner's "Zeitschrift fur historische Theologie." 1864 2d Heft. [The foot-notes are all by Dr. Sack. Tr.]

(it is so far true) did treat me ill. Afterward they asked my pardon. I answered that that was superfluous; that I had never been angry with them, but was afraid, 1. That there was error in their doctrine. 2. That there was sin (allowed) in their practice. This was then, and is at this day, the only question between them and me.

Z. Speak more plainly.

W. I feared that there was error in their doctrine: 1. Concerning the end of our faith in this life, to wit, Christian Perfection. 2. Concerning the means of grace, so called by our Church.

Z. I acknowledge no inherent perfection in this life. This is the error of errors. I pursue it through the world with fire and sword-I trample it under foot-I exterminate it. Christ is our only perfection. Whoever follows after inherent perfection denies

Christ.

W But I believe that the Spirit of Christ works perfection in true Christians.

Z. Not at all. All our perfection is in Christ. All Christian perfection is imputed, not inherent. We are perfect in Christ-in ourselves never.

W. We contend, I think, about words. Is not every true believer holy?

Z. Certainly. But he is holy in Christ, not in himself.

W. But does he not live holily?

Z. Yes, he lives holily in all things.

W. Has he not also a holy heart?

Z. Most certainly.

W. Is he not, consequently, holy in himself?

Z. No, no. In Christ only. He is not holy in himself. In himself he has no holiness at all.

W. Has he not the love of God and his neighbor in his heart? Yea, even the whole image of God?

Z. He has. But these constitute legal, not evangelical, holiness. Evangelical holiness is-faith.

W. The dispute is altogether about words. You grant that the whole heart and the whole life of a believer are holy; that he loves God with all his heart, and serves him with all his strength. I ask nothing more; I mean nothing else by Christian perfection or holiness.

Z. But this is not his holiness. lie is not more holy if he loves more, nor less holy if he loves less.

W. What! Does not a believer, while he increases in love, in crease equally in holiness?

Z. By no means. The moment he is justified he is sanctified wholly. From that time, even unto death, he is neither more nor less holy.

W. Is not, then, a father in Christ more holy than a new-born babe?

Z. No. Entire sanctification and justification are in the same instant; and neither is increased or diminished.

W. Bet does not a believer grow daily in the love of God? Is be perfect in love as soon as he is justified?

Z. He is. He never increases in the love of God; he loves entirely in that moment, as he is entirely sanctified.

W. What, then, does the Apostle Paul mean by "We are renewed day by day?"

Z. I will tell you. Lead, if it be changed into gold, is gold the first day, and the second, and the third; and so it is renewed day by day. But it is never more gold than on the first day.

W. I thought we ought to grow in grace.

Z. Certainly; but not in holiness. As soon as any one is justified, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit dwell in his heart; and in that moment his heart is as pure as it ever will be. A babe in Christ is as pure in heart as a father in Christ. There is no difference.

W Were not the Apostles justified before the death of Christ?

Z. They were.

W. But were they not more holy after the day of Pentecost than before the death of Christ?

Z. Not in the least.

W. Were they not on that day filled with the Holy Ghost?

Z. They were. But that gift of the Spirit had no reference to their holiness; it was the gift of miracles only.

W. Perhaps I do not understand you. Do we not, while we deny ourselves, more and more die to the world and live to God?

Z. We spurn all (self) denial; we trample it under foot. Being believers, we do whatever we will, and nothing more. We ridicule all mortification. No purification precedes perfect love.

W. What you have said, God assisting me, I will thoughtfully consider.

On this conversation the author of an article on Methodism, in the "Evangelische Kirchenzeitung" for 1840, (the late Professor Hengstenberg's organ,) very justly remarks "It is truly astonishing how Zinzendorf could himself have caused this conversation, passages of which sound like a malevolent caricature of his doctrines, to be copied just as it stands, word for word, into the "Buding Collection." Into what dangerous phantasies did his excessive pressure of the doctrine of the atonement here betray him! He not merely maintains what the Evangelical Church has ever taught, that before justification there can be no sanctification; that before and apart from the righteousness of faith there can be no righteousness of life; but lie denies, out and out, all righteousness of life, and places himself upon a stand-point so ideal as to represent the believer as no longer living in time, but as already in full possession of what lie is to receive hereafter. To hold fast this fantastical idealism, how must the Moravian brotherhood at that time have forsaken the healthful nourishment of Scripture, which so often speaks of a becoming more perfect in love-of a race toward the mark, during which one has not yet attained-of a perfecting of holiness in the fear of God. How must they have turned away from all this to intoxicate their feelings with their morbid hymns, in which the words ‘blood and wounds' are a hundred times repeated! God be thanked, that they afterward purged themselves from this dross, and thus became a blessing to so many. In no case, however, can we justify Spangenberg, who certainly was acquainted with this conversation, (he refers to the 'Buding Collection,') when he represents in his 'Life of Zinzendorf,' (Part IV, p. 1046,) that the grand point of difference between Wesley and the Brotherhood was the doctrine of the former respecting sinless perfection."

The same writer shows that the other declarations of the Moravians were as little satisfactory to Wesley as those of the Count in this conversation-the diversity of doctrine with respect to faith and its fruits was too great.

" In the manifesto of the Moravian Society at Marienborn with respect to the Methodistic movement, which document was undoubtedly the production of Zinzendorf, it is stated 'Jesus's passion is our proper fides justificans-our justifying faith ; his faithfulness, his intercession, his acquired right, justified us through the election of grace before the foundation of the world. In this sense all children of God are justified before they have knowledge of it; from the hour when they believe it they know it. This faith, however, is no work nor proper merit by which we can, as it were, force God to be gracious as certain divines have incautiously taught, sometimes confounding miracle-faith with faith in the merits of Jesus. In order to faith in Jesus nothing is needed but the heart; the understanding only makes the enjoyment of it sensible, distinct, and en-during. Miracle-faith, on the other hand, has its seat in the understanding, and with it one 'nay be lost. 1 Cor. xiii. It demands an absolute plerophoria, without the least doubt. The faith which is unto salvation remains in the heart ever the same, and cleaves inseparably to Jesus's wounds ; in the under-standing, however, especially according to the current method of conversion, it is subject to all sorts of offenses, through which there may result an oligopistia with respect to hours and days. We, however, in our Societies esteem it a precious and gracious gift of the Saviour that he has permitted us to find the simple old way, in which one stops with his heart, holds himself to the grace which he has obtained, to the forgiveness of sins which he has received, to the death of Jesus, which has become present with us, and counts all that the understanding, temperament, constitution, tile tabernacle may from that time on object as unworthy a moment's thought, only letting one's self be driven ever anew to sigh for the Lamb that is slain for us. One has not seen it.' but one loves it. That is what we call an abiding witness of the Holy Spirit, who 110 more ceases to make intercessions for us with groanings than the Saviour does to pray for us.'-Buding's Collection.

"It is no wonder that this representation did not satisfy a man of so sharp an understanding as Wesley. In fact, the witness of the Holy Spirit is too completely subjectified, when it is said that 'one holds himself to the grace which he has obtained,' a thing that must of necessity weaken tile assurance of faith: and worse yet, at the outset justification is con-founded with satisfaction, for it is wholly false that 'the children of God are just before they have knowledge of it; from that hour when they believe it, they know it.' According to this, the forgiveness of sin would be no act of God, but something occurring merely in the consciousness of man; all men (or the elect, according as one connects a particularistic doctrine of election with it or not) would be from eternity forgiven their sins, and the prayer 'Forgive us our debts,' rest upon a misunderstanding. That Zinzendorf here and there betrays a tendency toward this Antinomian doctrine of restorationism (which in our day has found new dissemination in certain quarters through Erskine's book on "The Unconditional Freeness of the Gospel") is well known. Still one must not press his language too far, since ill employing it he had glimpses of something most true and correct.

"From the principle which Zinzendorf asserts in the above quotation one might imagine that Wesley regarded faith as something in itself meritorious, after the fashion of the Remonstrant Grotius, for instance, or Menken, as a well-doing on the part of man, for the sake of which God does not regard his other sins, and which, in principle, as inner disposition of the man, already includes all good works. This, however, is not the ease. indeed, his whole life through, Wesley held fast to tile doctrine that justification is nothing but the forgiveness of sins,* and be contradicted precisely the above cited assertion

"Justificari est consequi remissionem peccatorum," says Melanchthon, in the Apology.

of Zinzendorf; that justification and regeneration are the same. He always taught that the two are inseparable, but that regeneration is the immediate effect and consequence of justification. The same representation is given by Richard Watson in his Theological Institutes, a work of high authority among the Methodists. He says, 'Faith is that qualifying condition to which the promise of God annexes justification; that without which justification would not. take place; and in this sense it is that we are justified by faith; not by the merit of faith, but by faith instrumentally as this condition, for its connection with the benefit arises from the merits of Christ and the promise of God. If Christ had not merited, God had not promised, and justification had never followed upon this faith; so that the indissoluble connection of faith and justification is from God's institution, whereby lie bath bound himself to give the benefit upon performance of the condition. Yet there is an aptitude in this faith to be made a condition, for no other act can receive Christ as a priest propitiating, and pleading the propitiation, and the promise of God for his sake to give the benefit. As receiving Christ and the gracious promise in this manner, it acknowledgeth man's guilt, and so man renounceth all righteousness in himself; and honoreth God the Father, and Christ the Son, the only Redeemer.'

"The antagonism between Wesley and the Moravian Brotherhood," continues the same writer, "referred, so far as it respected doctrine, to the relation between justification and sanctification, and to the doctrine of the imputation of the merits of Christ. While in the Moravian Society there grew up out of the feeling of vital communion with the Saviour the conception that the sinful soul. is to view itself as every moment clothed, as it were, in the righteousness of Christ, and as represented by him before God, Wesley, though holding fast to the doctrine that forgiveness, or justification before God, is imparted to man on account of the satisfaction of Christ, and especially on account of his atoning death, nevertheless repudiates decidedly the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active righteousness as unscriptural, maintaining that the believer continually needs, indeed, the forgiveness of sins or the confirmation of his justification, but that, in virtue of this new and ever renewed relationship to God, he must also in himself grow ii) holiness, and without this continual growth his supposed justification itself must rest on self-deception."

Besides this doctrinal antithesis between Wesley and the Moravians, there was a more general one with respect to the respective missions which Wesley and Zinzendorf proposed to themselves. The latter desired simply to collect sinners, who had obtained mercy, into a Church; the former proposed to preach repentance to the unconverted and worldly-minded in the Church or out of it, wherever be could gain their ear. This divergence of aim is apparent in the above mentioned declaration of the Moravian Society in Marienborn, and to it Dr. Sack makes the following reference:

"Zinzendorf says expressly, 'We are no preachers of repentance for the world; by no means. Our proper business, that in which the Saviour seems to use and bless us, is to summon people, who know no other refuge, to the grace, the merits, the wounds of Jesus Christ, and then to give them counsel, and so far forth it may be said of us, Sinunt mundum vadere sicut vadit.' Wesley's yearning, aim, and effort, on the contrary, was from the beginning, in all places, through the preaching of the Gospel of free grace, proffered them in the merits of Christ, to call the lost, the wandering, the accursed to repentance; and to this end the application of the most universal instrumentalities, the presentation of a consistent and reasonable doctrine, the persistent assault of the hardest hearts, debuts in the noisy market-places of life, and finally a social unification and obligation to a common worship and moral discipline could but appear advisable, and in view of the exceeding diversity of individual tendencies of mind, and grades of culture, faith, and knowledge, even necessary. Zinzendorf collected around an already existing germ a community of believers, who were impelled to a morally pure cohabitation by an individually related feeling of love for the object of their faith. Wesley founded a society of confessors, who, prepared by a common religious experience, and for the sake of escaping the wrath to come, united them-selves together to hear a pure testimony before each other, and before the world, and to walk with strictness in the commands of God."

With such diversities of doctrine and aim, a separation of the Methodists and Moravians was inevitable. Indeed, had it not occurred, Methodism could never have become such a blessing to the world. But that Wesley, in this separation, was prompted solely by the dictates of his conscience, and by no means by ambition or envy, must be apparent to every unprejudiced reader. And though Wesley, after the separation, decidedly opposed the errors into which the Moravian brethren had at that period fallen, and was himself rudely treated by them, be, nevertheless, never forgot his obligations to them. The errors which had crept into the English Societies, and which were in part defended for a time by Count Zinzendorf, never obtained a controlling influence in the Moravian Church. In later years the sharpness of the antagonism wore off, and Wesley never ceased to cherish the most cordial feelings toward the Brotherhood, which feelings his followers have also inherited. God's all-over-watching providence has caused the division to redound to the good of his Church.

Proofreading, HTML conversion, and other modifications by Brandon Boyd.

© Copyright 1999 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology. Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes or
mirrored on other web sites, provided this notice is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is
strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686.
Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.