1740

To James Huton [1]

BRISTOL, March 21, 1740.

DEAR JEMMY, -- Where are the books I desired you to send -- Mr. Newman's If they are not sent, I wish you would send with them twenty of the Collection of Prayers [A Collection of Forms of Prayer for Every Day in the Week, 1733. Wesley says: 'In the same year I printed (the first time I ventured to print anything) for the use of my pupils A Collection of forms of Prayer.’ See letter of May 14, 1765.] and twenty (if printed) of the Count's Sermons. [Sixteen Discourses on the Redemption of Man by the Death of Christ. Translated from the High Dutch, 1740.]

After my hearing of what Brother Tltschig [Wesley knew John Tltschig intimately in Savannah, and consulted him as to Miss Hopkey. He went with him to Herrnhut. See Journal, i. 478-9n.] said, I had no time to see him before I left London. Therefore I writ it as soon as I thought of it; so that may pass.

What you say in your last concerning justification I have no exception to. But what plots you speak of I don't understand.

When we can no longer speak freely to one another, I verily think we should not speak at all. But I hope that time will never come.

As to Nowers, I doubt not but, if he is wrong, our Savior will show it to him. But I find no sign of it yet. I see all his behavior, and hear almost all his words; for we are seldom apart, sleeping or waking. And I am apt to think every day will give me fresh occasion to stand amazed at the goodness of God in permitting first G. Whitefield and then the Moravians to reject him, and at length giving him to me. He was the man I wanted. I have not yet personally known any other who had so much gentleness and longsuffering toward them that are out of the way, and so impartial a love to all men. Nay (what you will be least ready to believe), I have not had full proof of any one who appeared to have more of the discernment of spirits, and that sometimes without a word being spoken. One instance of it I saw on Wednesday. Many persons were present with whom he had not talked at all. For one of these he prayed, without her asking him, as full of unbelief. I knew she was before full of faith (according to the first gift), and therefore thought him quite wrong. But soon after she declared her state before us all, and I acknowledged (in my heart) by what spirit he spake.

The short of the case is this: I think him to be full of love and Christ and the Holy Ghost. And I think the Brethren wrong in a few things, not because I believe him, but because I believe the Bible. The chief thing wherein I think them wrong is in mixing human wisdom with divine, in adding worldly to Christian prudence. And hence cannot but proceed closeness, darkness,' reserve, diffusing itself through the whole behavior; which to me appears as contrary to Christianity as blasphemy or adultery. I can find no Christianity in the Bible but what is a plain, artless, blunt thing. A Scripture Christian I take to be simple in quite another sense than you do: to be quite transparent, far from all windings, turnings, and foldings of behavior. This simplicity I want in the Brethren; though I know when it comes they will be persecuted in good earnest. And till they witness a good confession, as upon the house-top, whether men will hear or whether they [will forbear], I can in no wise believe them to be perfect, entire, and wanting nothing. -- Dear Jemmy, my love to all.

To James Hutton

BRISTOL, April 12, 1740. DEAR JEMMY, -- I am just come from Wales, where there is indeed a great awakening. God has already done great things by Howell Harris. There is such a simplicity among' the Welsh, who are waiting for salvation, as I have not found anywhere in England.

I have not had time to read the Count's Sermons yet. I have sent you one more hymn. [See Methodist Hymn-Book Illustrated, pp. 264-5. The hymn, ‘I thirst, Thou wounded Lamb of God,’ appeared in Hymns and Sacred Poems, 1740, and in the Moravian Hymn-Book, 1742. It was based on four hymns in the Appendix to the Herrnhut Gesang-Buch, 1735.]

Captain Williams's affidavit [Captain Williams's slanderous affidavit as to Wesley's life in Georgia was sworn before the Mayor of Bristol on March 14, 1740, and led Wesley to publish his Journal. Williams was a Georgia planter, who resented Wesley's attitude as to slavery. See letter of Aug. 3, 1742.] was cried about the streets here. But the hawkers were so complaisant that, when I went by any of them, they stopped till I was a good way off.

I want to hear from C. Delamotte. Does his sugar quite swallow him up

I have little time and much to write to-night. Dear Jemmy, suffer people to use the means of grace. If this caution is needless, I shall rejoice; for I am Your loving brother.

To Philip Henry Molther [2]

[BISTOL, April 12, 1740.]

DEAR BROTHER MOLTHER, -- Our brother Nowers never laid Sutor's behavior to the charge of the Brethren. He is well satisfied with what you say about it, and desires his love may be remembered to them all. It is my great desire that there may be nothing but love between them and you and

Your affectionate brother.

To Howell Harris [3]

LONDON, July 29, 1740.

MY DEAR BROTHER, --- Is the devil a fool Or has he forgot his old maxim, ‘Divide and conquer’ Beware you forget not the royal law, ‘Love thinketh no evil.’ I have no time myself now, so I have desired our brother Purdy [John Purdy was Wesley's companion when he went to begin his field-preaching in Bristol. Wesley lightened his labor by thus using his friend's help. See letters of Dec. 6, 1739, and Feb. 1, 1784.] to transcribe a paragraph or two of my Journal for you.

‘In the evening (after I had explained, “We wrestle not with flesh and blood, &c.”) Mr. Acourt complained that Mr. Nowers had hindered his going into our Society. Mr. Nowers answered, “It was by Mr. C. Wesley's order.” “What,” said Mr. Acourt, “do you refuse admitting a person into your Society only because he differs from you in opinion” I answered, “No; but what opinion do you mean” He said, “That of Election. I hold a certain number is elected from eternity. And these must and shall be saved. And the rest of mankind must and shall be damned. And many of your Society hold the same.” I replied, “I never asked whether they hold it or no. Only let them not trouble others by disputing about it.” He said, “Nay, but I will dispute about it.” “What, wherever you come” “Yes, wherever I come.” “Why, then, would you come among us, who you know are of another mind” “Because you are all wrong, and I am resolved to set you all right.” “I fear your coming with this view would neither profit you nor us.” He concluded, “Then I will go and tell all the world that you and your brother are false prophets. And I tell you, in one fortnight you will all be in confusion.”’ [From Journal, ii. 353.]

I say, So be it, if we do not preach the truth as it is in Jesus.

You see, my brother, that the reason why Mr. Acourt was not admitted into our Society was not holding Election separate from Reprobation, but openly declaring his fixed purpose to introduce and carry on the dispute concerning Reprobation wherever he came. -- I am, my dear brother,

Ever yours.

To the Church at Herrnhut [4]

August 8, 1740.

JOHN WESLEY, A PRESBYTER OF THE CHURCH OF GOD IN ENGLAND, TO THE CHURCH OF GOD AT HERRNHUT IN UPPER LUSATIA.

1. It may seem strange that such an one as I am should take upon me to write to you. You I believe to be dear children of God, through faith which is in Jesus. Me you believe (as some of you have declared) to be ' a child of the devil, a servant of corruption, having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin.' Yet, whatsoever I am or whatsoever you are, I beseech you to weigh the following words; if haply God, who sendeth by whom He will send, may give you light thereby: although the mist of darkness (as one of you affirms) should be reserved for me for ever.

2. My design is freely and plainly to speak whatsoever I have seen or heard among you in any part of your Church which seems not agreeable to the gospel of Christ. And my hope is that the God whom you serve will give you thoroughly to weigh what is spoken, and if in anything ye have been otherwise-minded than the truth is will reveal even this unto you.

3. And first, with regard to Christian salvation, even the present salvation which is through faith, I have heard some of you affirm: (1) That it does not imply the proper taking away our sins, the cleansing our souls from all sin, from all unholiness whether of flesh or spirit, but only the tearing the system of sin in pieces, so that sin still remains in the members if not in the heart. (2) That it does not imply liberty from evil thoughts, neither from wanderings in prayer, neither from the first motions of desire, as (suppose) of ease in pain. (3) That it does not imply an assurance of future salvation, the seal of the Spirit relating only to the present moment.

4. I have heard some of you affirm, on the other hand: (1) That it does imply liberty from the commandments of God, so that one who is saved through faith is not obliged or bound to obey them, does not do anything as a commandment or as a duty. (To support which they have affirmed that there is [ In the answer to this letter, which I received some weeks after, this is explained as follows: ‘All things which are a commandment to the natural man are a promise to all that have been justified. The thing itself is not lost, but the notion which people are wont to have of commandments, duties, &c.’ I reply: 1. If this be all you mean, why do you not say so explicitly to all men 2. Whether this be all, let any reasonable man judge, when he has read what is here subjoined.]* no command in the New Testament but to believe; that there is no duty required therein but that of believing; and that to a believer there is no commandment at all.) (2) That it does imply liberty to conform to the world, [The Brethren answer to this, ‘We believe it much better to discourse out of the newspapers than to chatter about holy things to no purpose.’ Perhaps so. But what is this to the point I believe both the one and the other to be useless, and therefore an abomination to the Lord. This objection, then, stands in full force, the fact alleged being rather defended than denied. The joining in worldly diversions in order to do good (another charge which cannot be denied), I think, would admit of the same defense -- viz. ‘that there are other things as bad.’]* by talking on useless if not trifling subjects; by joining in worldly diversions in order to do good; by putting on of gold and costly apparel, [‘We wear,’ say the Brethren, neither gold nor silver.’ You forget. I have seen it with my eyes. ‘But we judge nobody that does.’ How! Then you must judge both St. Peter and Paul false witnesses before God. ‘And because those professions that minister thereto’ (to sin, to what God has flatly forbidden) ‘relate to trade, and trade is a thing relating to the magistrate, we therefore let all these things alone, entirely suspending our judgment concerning them.’ What miserable work is here! Because trade relates to the magistrate, am I not to consider whether my trade be innocent or sinful Then the keeper of a Venetian brothel is clear. The magistrate shall answer for him to God!]* or by continuing in those professions the gain of which depends on ministering hereto. (3) That it does imply liberty to avoid persecution, by [This fact also you grant, and defend thus: ‘The power of reproving relates either to outward things or to the heart. Nobody has any right to the former but the magistrate.’ (Alas! alas I what casuistry is this!)’ And if one will speak to the heart, he must be first sure that the Savior has already got hold of it.’ What, then, must become of all other men Oh how pleasing is all this to flesh and blood!]* not reproving even those who sin in your sight; by not letting your light shine before those men who love darkness rather than light; by not using plainness of speech, and a frank, open carriage to all men -- nay, by a close, ark, reserved conversation and behavior, especially toward strangers. And in many of you I have more than once found (what you called being wise as serpents) much subtlety, much evasion and disguise, much guile and dissimulation. You appeared to be what you were not, or not to be what you were. You so studied ‘to become all things to all men,’ as to take the color and shape of any that were near you. So that your practice was indeed no proof of your judgment, but only an indication of your design nulli laedere os, [Terence's Adelphi, v. iv. 10: ‘To insult no one to his face.’] and of your conformity to that (not scriptural) maxim, Sinere roun-durn vadere ut vult : ham vult vadere. [‘To let the world go as it will: for it will go.’]*

5. Secondly, with regard to that faith through which we are saved, I have heard many of you say, ‘A man may have justifying faith and not know it.’ Others of you, who are now in England (particularly Mr. Molther), I have heard affirm [In the Preface to the Second Journal the Moravian Church is cleared from this mistake. [See Journal, i. 430. Bhier, in a letter to Wesley, written several years later, denied that Molther ever held the opinions imputed to him (Moore's Wesley, i. 491n).]]* that ‘there is no such thing as weak faith; that there are no degrees in faith; that there is no justifying faith where there is ever any doubt; that there is no justifying faith without the plerophory of faith, the clear, abiding witness of the Spirit; that there is no justifying faith where there is not, in the full, proper sense, a new heart; and that those who have not these two gifts are only awakened, not justified.’

6. Thirdly, as to the way to faith, here are many among us whom your brethren have advised (what it is not to be supposed they would as yet speak to me, or in their public preaching) [The substance of the answer to this and the following paragraphs is: (I) That none ought to communicate till he has faith -- that is, a sure trust in the mercy of God through Christ. This is granting the charge. (2) That ‘if the Methodists hold this sacrament is a means of getting faith, they must act according to their persuasion.’ We do hold it, and know it to be so to many of those who are previously convinced of sin.]* not to use those ordinances which our Church terms means of grace till they have such a faith as implies a clean heart and excludes all possibility of doubting. They have advised them, till then, not to search the Scriptures, not to pray, not to communicate; and have often affirmed that to do these things is seeking salvation by works, and that, till these works are laid aside, no man can receive faith: for ‘no man’ (say they) ‘can do these things without trusting in them; if he does not trust in them, why does he do them’

7. To those who answered, ‘It is our duty to use the ordinances of God,’ they replied, ‘There are no ordinances of Christ the use of which is now bound upon Christians as a duty or which we are commanded to use. As to those you mention in particular (viz. prayer, communicating, and searching the Scripture), if a man have faith he need not, if he have not he must not, use them. A believer may use them, though not as enjoined; but an unbeliever (as before defined) may not.’

8. To those who answered, ‘I hope God will through these means convey His grace to my soul,’ they replied, ‘There is no such thing as means of grace; Christ has not ordained any such in His Church. But if there were, they are nothing to you: for you are dead; you have no faith; and you cannot work while you are dead. Therefore let these things alone till you have faith.’

9. And some of our English brethren, who are joined with yours, have said openly, ‘You will never have faith till you leave running about to church and sacrament and societies.’ Another of them has said (in his public expounding), ‘As many go to hell by praying as by thieving.’ Another, ‘I knew one who, leaning over the back of a chair, received a great gift. But he must kneel down to give God thanks: so he lost it immediately. And I know not whether he will ever have it again.’ And yet another, ‘You have lost your first joy; therefore you pray: that is the devil. You read the Bible: that is the devil. You communicate: that is the devil.’

10. Let not any of you, my brethren, say, ‘We are not chargeable with what they speak.’ Indeed you are; for you can hinder it if you will. Therefore, if you do not, it must be charged upon you. If you do not use the power which is in your hands, and thereby prevent their speaking thus, you do in effect speak thus yourselves. You make their words your own, and are accordingly chargeable with every ill consequence which may flow therefrom.

11. Fourthly, with regard to your Church, ['A religion,' you say, 'and a Church are not all one: a religion is an assembly wherein the Holy Scriptures are taught after a prescribed rule.' This is too narrow a definition. For there are many Pagan (as well as a Mahometan) religions. Rather, a religion is a method of worshipping God, whether in a right or a wrong manner. 'The Lord has such a peculiar hand in the several constitutions of religion that one ought to respect every one of them.' I cannot possibly: I cannot respect either the Jewish (as it is now) or the Romish religion. You add: ‘A Church (I will not examine whether there are any in this present age, or whether there is no other beside ours) is a congregation of sinners who have obtained forgiveness of sins. That such a congregation should be in an error cannot easily happen.’ I find no reason, therefore, to retract anything which is advanced on this or any of the following heads.]* you greatly, yea above measure, exalt yourselves and despise others.

I have scarce heard one Moravian brother in my life own his Church to be wrong in anything.

I have scarce heard any of you (I think not one in England) own himself to be wrong in anything.

Many of you I have heard speak of your Church as if it were infallible, or so led by the Spirit that it was not possible for it to err in anything.

Some of you have set it up (as indeed you ought to do, if it be infallible) as the judge of all the earth, of all persons (as well as doctrines) therein; and you have accordingly passed sentence upon them at once, by their agreement or disagreement with your Church.

Some of you have said that there is no true Church on earth but yours; yea, that there are no true Christians out of it. And your own members you require to have implicit faith in her decisions, and to pay implicit obedience to her directions.

12. Your Church discipline is novel and unprimitive throughout. Your Bishops as such are mere shadows, and are only so termed to please those who lay stress upon the Threefold Order. The Eldest is (in fact) your Bishop, as far as you have arly; but he is only half an ancient Bishop. The ancient Presbyter you have split into Sympresbyters, Lehrers, Aufsehers, and Ermahners; the ancient Deacon into Hilfers, Krankenwarters, Dieners, and so on.

13. The ordination (or whatever it is termed) of your Eldest plainly shows you look upon Episcopal ordination as nothing; although it is true you make use of it at other times, ‘that you may become all things to all men.’ But the Constitution of your Church is indeed congregational, only herein differing from others, -- (1) that you hold neither this nor any other form of Church government to be of divine right: (2) that the Count has, in fact, the whole power which was ever lodged, either in the Bishops and priests of the ancient Church, in the King and Convocation in England, the General Assembly in Scotland, or the Pope in Italy; nay, there is scarce an instance in history of such a stretch of episcopal or royal or papal power, as his causing the Lot to be cast over again in the election of the Eldest at Herrnhut.

14. Fifthly, you receive not the Ancients but the modern Mystics as the best interpreters of Scripture, and, in conformity to these, you mix much of man's wisdom with the wisdom of God; you greatly refine the plain religion taught by the letter of Holy Writ, and philosophize on almost every part of it, to accommodate it to the Mystic theory. Hence you talk much, in a manner wholly unsupported by Scripture, against mixing nature with grace, against imagination, and concerning the animal spirits, mimicking the power of the Holy Ghost. Hence your brethren zealously caution us against animal joy, against natural love of one another, and against selfish love of God; against which (or any of them) there is no one caution in all the Bible. And they have in truth greatly lessened, and had wellnigh destroyed, brotherly love from among us.

15. In conformity to the Mystics, you likewise greatly check joy in the Holy Ghost by such cautions against sensible comforts as have no title of Scripture to support them. Hence also your brethren here damp the zeal of babes in Christ, talking much of false zeal, and forbidding them to declare what God hath done for their souls, even when their hearts burn within them to declare it, and compared those to uncorked bottles who simply and artlessly speak as of the ability which God giveth.

16. Hence, lastly, it is that you undervalue good works (especially works of outward mercy), never publicly insisting on the necessity of them, nor declaring their weight and excellency. Hence, when some of your brethren have spoken of them, they put them on a wrong foot -- viz. If you find yourself moved, if your heart is free to it, then reprove, exhort, relieve. By this means you wholly avoid the taking up your cross in order to do good; and also substitute an uncertain, precarious inward motion in the place of the plain written Word. Nay, one of your members has said of good works in general (whether works of piety or of charity), ‘A believer is no more obliged to do these works of the law than a subject of the King of England is obliged to obey the laws of the King of France.’

17. My brethren, whether ye will hear, or whether ye will forbear, I have now delivered my own soul. And this I have chosen to do in an artless manner, that if anything should come home to your hearts the effect might evidently flow, not from the wisdom of man, but from the power of God.

To George Whitefield [5]

LONDON, August 9, 1740.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I thank you for yours, May the 24th. The case is quite plain. There are bigots both for Predestination and against it. God is sending a message to those on either side. But neither will receive it, unless from one of his own opinion. Therefore for a time you are suffered to be of one opinion and I of another. But when His time is come God will do what man cannot--namely, make us both of one mind. Then persecution will flame out, and it will be seen whether we count our lives dear unto ourselves so that we may finish our course with joy.--I am, my dearest brother,

Ever yours.

Editor’s Introductory Notes

 

[1] Edward Nowers had withdrawn from the Moravians at Herrnhaag. Hutton tells Count Zinzendorf on March 14, 1740: ‘Charles [Wesley] had determined to go to Germany; but now he will not, since he has seen Nowers. John Wesley has carried Nowers wherever he could, speaking against the Brethren. I told Nowers he should smart for speaking against us.’ Mr. and Mrs. Nowers were members of the Foundry. See Benham’s Memoirs of James Hutton, p. 47; Stevenson's City Road Chapel, pp. 34, 37; and letter of July 29.

[2] This note was written at the bottom of the preceding letter. For Molther, see Journal, ii. 312n.

[3] Howell Harris was born at Trevecca in 1714, was converted a few months before the Wesleys left for Georgia, and was the means of a great revival in Wales before Wesley began his work in Bristol. Harris heard him preach there on June 18, 1739, and was ‘so overpowered with joy and love that he had much ado to walk home.’ He had been much dissuaded from hearing or seeing Wesley, but called on him after listening to his sermon. Whitefield, who had met him at Cardiff, says in his Journal, March 8, 1739: ‘A burning and shining light has he been in those parts; a barrier against profaneness and immorality, and an indefatigable promoter of the true gospel of Jesus Christ.’ A beautiful letter from Harris to Wesley is given in W.H.S. xiii. 102-3. See Journal, ii. 223-4; and letter of July 2, 1739.

[4] On July 20, 1740, Wesley had withdrawn from connexion with the Society in Fetter Lane. Molther, who came to London the previous October, had thrown discredit on public ordinances by his doctrine of Stillness, and had maintained that the blessing gained under Bhler's ministry was not justifying faith. Wesley labored earnestly to avoid a breach with his old friends; but after what his brother called ‘our delay and false moderation,’ he made a final protest, and took his members to the Foundry. This letter of remonstrance was sent to Herrnhut three weeks later. On September 3, 1741, he had a long conversation with Zinzendorf in Gray's Inn Walks, when the Count referred to this letter. The conversation (in Latin) and the letter are given in an abbreviated form in the Journal, ii. 488-95. Charles Wesley was in Bristol, but says in his Journal for September 6: ‘I was astonished by a letter from my brother, relating his conference with the Apostle of the Moravians.’ A translation of the conversation is given in Moore's Wesley, i. 481-8.

The footnotes marked by an asterisk, &c., are Wesley's.

[5] Whitefield was in America on May 24. His letter thence to Wesley from 'Cape-Lopen' is given in Tyerman's Whitefield, i. 389-90, expressing his regret that Wesley denied the doctrines of Election and Final Perseverance of the Saints.

Edited by Michael Mattei 2000 Wesley Center for Applied Theology. All rights reserved. No for-profit use of this text is permitted without the express, written consent of the Wesley Center for Applied Theology of Northwest Nazarene College, Nampa, Idaho 83686 USA. Contact the webmaster for permission.