The which he makes upon this change, show ture nixed with grace. 4 Satan likewise mimicked this work of God, in order to discredit the whole work: and yet it is not wise to give up this part, any more than to give up the whole. At first it was dochtless, wholly from God: it is partly so at this day; and He will enable us to discera how far, in every case, the work is pure, and when it mixes or degenerates. Let us even suppose that, in some few ca ses, there was a mixture of dissimulation; that persons pretended to see or feel what they did not, and toitated the cries or convulsive motions of those who were really overpowered by the Spirit of God; yet even this should not make us either deny or undervalue the real work of the Spirit. The shadow is no disparagement of the substance, nor the counterfeit of the real diamond.'"--Vol. II. pp. 150-151. When Wesley was from thirty-five years of age to forty, his doctrinal opinions which had before been unsteady and wavering, began to be fixed, and of course, to be supported by him with his constitutional pertinacity. Some of the most important of these opinions were scriptural, and were often expressed by him with great force and correctness. The principal of them were the doctrine of regeneration, or "the new birth," as he was accustomed to term it, and the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ. On the latter especially, he is sometimes unusually clear, in his statements, which exclude wholly all merit of good works, and all merit even in that faith itself by which we are justified, while they ascribe all the glory of our pardon, and restoration to the favour of God, to his free grace, through the atonement of Christ. These two doctrines which were held in common by Wesley and Whitefield, with their companions, were considered as the foundation of Methodism. Wesley, however, was equally tenacious of other opinions, some of which were peculiar, and on that account were defended with a zeal disproportionate to their real importance; and were therefore productive of serious differences between him and many with whom he had hitherto been accustomed to associate Among these were the doctrines of 'Christian perfection,'—of the assurance of faith, to which was added a violent opposition to all the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism, and more especially to the doctrines of Election and the Perseverance of the saints. His zeal for the former opinions caused a separation between him and his admired instructors and friends the Moravians; while his opposition to Calvinistic sentiments, separated him from his dear friend and fellow labourer, George Whitefield. The sentiments and practices of the Moravians were not only opposed to the very spirit of Methodism, but some of them were equally opposed to what we believe to be the truth. They seem to have denied the use of what are called the means of grace, to the unconverted, while they denied, as it would seem from Wesley's statement, the necessity of self denial, sacrifices, and laborious duties to those who are converted and have faith. Wesley accordingly, formally separated from the Moravians, and found, to his mortification, that of the society in London, not one in ten followed him. However he remodelled the bands of the small minority, and began again. This separation was not desired by the Moravians. Upon the first intelligence of it in Germany, Count Zinzendorf sent over Spangenburg to act as mediator; who, after inquiring into the affair, declared that the Moravians in London had been blameable in their conduct towards Wesley, though he would by no means consent to the peculiar sentiments of the lat ter. "Some of Wesley's disciples, women as well as men, who were present at this conference, bore testimony to the possibility of attaining that Christian pertection which was at this time Wesley's favourite tenet, and which was so flattering to the pride of his followers. But Spangenberg answered this with great truth, as well as great emotion, and the old man's hand 'rembled as he spake: You all deceive your own souls! There is no bigher state than that I have described. You are in a very dangerous error. You know not your own hearts. You fancy your corruptions are taken away, whereas they are only covered. Inward corruption never can be taken away, till our bodies are in the dust.' The same opinion was afterwards expressed to Wesley, in familiar conversation, by Boehler, but with characteristic vigour: Sin will and must always remain in the soul. The old man will remain till death. The old nature is like an old tooth: you may break off one bit, and another, and another but you can never get it all away. The stump will stay as long as you live, and sometimes will ache too.'" - Vol. I. p. 170. The Moravians, at the command of Count Zinzendorf, asked forgiveness of Wesley, but he rejected the proffered reconciliation. The Count then came to England himself, and held a conversation with Wesley, on the subject of perfection, which only shewed that their differences were too great ever to be healed, and their opinions too firmly fixed ever to be altered by argument. It appears from Southey, that the personal characters of the leaders of the two Societies, made a union impossible. Neither Count Zinzendorf nor John Wesley could be second, or bear a rival in the circle of their disciples and followers. Both possessed, if not too much ambition, at least too much of a constitutional and habitual disposition to direct others, to live peaceably as members of the same community. After this breach, the Moravians, according to their principles and uniform practice, remained silent concerning it, but Wesley departed from his usual candour and charity, in his attacks upon the Moravians, and their illustrious leader. Wesley's separation from Whitefield, was more painful to him, and was productive of more important consequences, yet it was occasioned solely by himself, and by his persevering attack upon the sentiments of his friend. In particular, Wesley had written a sermon on" free grace," which, however, he was persuaded by Whitefield, before he left England the second time, for America, not to publish. After Whitefield's depar ture, however, he did publish it, and scattered copies of it, not only over England, but in the different parts of America, where his friend was at that time travelling and preaching with great success and applause. That our readers may see what cause Whitefield had to be grieved at this conduct, and at the same time may notice the manner in which the Methodist preachers, from the beginning, have endeavoured to support their opposition to Calvinistic doctrines, we shall add a few extracts from this most celebrated of their printed discourses. "Call it by whatever name you please," said he, attacking the Calvinistic doctrine, "Election, Preterition, Predestination, or Reprobation, it comes to the same thing. The sense is plainly this; by virtue of an eternal, unchangeable, irresistible decree of God, one part of mankind are infallibly saved, and the rest infallibly damned; it being impossible that any of the former should be damned, or that any of the latter should be saved."--Vol. II p. 174. "Such blasphemy as this, as, one would think, might make the ears of a Christian to tingle! But there is yet more behind; for, just as it honours the Son, so doth this doctrine bonour the Father. It destroys all his attributes at once: it overturns both his justice, mercy and truth. Yes, it represents the Most Holy God as worse than the devil; as more false, more cruel, and more unjust. More false, because the devil, liar as he is, hath never said be willeth all mankind to be saved; more unjust, because the devil cannot, if be would, be guilty of such injustice as you ascribe to God, when you say, that God ting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, for continuing in sin, which, for condemned millions of souls to everlas want of that grace he will not give them, they cannot avoid and more cruel, because that unhappy spiritseeketh rest, and findeth none, so that his own restless misery is a kind of temptation to him to tempt others. But God 'resteth in his high and holy place;' so that to suppose him out of his mere motion, of his pure will and pleasure, happy as he is, to doom his creatures, whether they will or not, to endless misery, is to impute such cruelty to him, as we cannot impute even to the great enemy of God and man. It is to represent the Most High God (he that hath ears to bear, let him bear!) as more cruel, false, and unjust, than the devil. "This is the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible decree of Predestination. And here I fix my foot. On this I join issue with every asserter of it. You represent God as worse than the devil; more false, more cruel, more unjust. But you say, you will prove it by scripture. Hold! What will you prove by scripture? that God is worse than the devil? It cannot be. Whatever that scripture proves, it never proves this: whatever be its true meaning, it cannot mean this. Do you ask what is its true meaning then? If I say, I know not, you have gained nothing; for there are many scriptures, the true sense whereof neither you nor I shall know, till death is swallowed up in victory But this I know, better it were to say it had no sense at all, than to say it had such a sense as this. It cannot mean, whatever it mean beside, that the God of truth is a liar. Let it mean what it will, it cannot mean that the Judge of all the world is unjust. No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works: that is, whatever it proves beside, no scripture can prove Predestination.-Vol. II. p. 175. Then follows an address to the Devil, and a long apostrophe, or soliloquy of the Devil himself, which is so characteristical of the manner and spirit of the writer, that we tempted to extract the passage. are "This is the blasphemy for which I abhor the doctrine of Predestination; a doctrine, upon the supposition of which, if one could possibly suppose it for a moment, call it election, reprobation, or what you please, (for all comes to the same thing,) one might say to our adversary the devil, Thou fool, why dost thou roar about any longer? Thy lying in wait for souls is as needless and useless as our preaching.-Hearest thou not, that God hath taken thy work out of thy hands, and that he doth it more effectually? Thoo, with all thy principalities and powers, canst only so assault that we may re sist thee; but he can irresistibly destroy both body and soul in hell! Thou canst only entice; but his unchangeable decree to leave thousands of souls in death, compels them to continue in sin, till they drop into everlasting burnings. Thou tempt. est he forceth us to be damned, for we cannot resist his will. Thou fool! why goest thou about any longer, seeking whom thou mayest devour? Hearest thou not that God is the devouring lion, the destroyer of souls, the murderer of men? Moloch caused only children to pass through the fire, and that fire was soon quenched; or, the corruptible body being consumed, its torments were at an end; but God, thou art told, by his eternal decree, fixed before they had done good or evil, causes not only children of a span long, but the parents also, to pass through the fire of bell; that fire which shall nev er be quenched: and the body which is cast thereinto, being now incorruptible and immortal, will be ever consuming and never consumed; but the smoke of their torment, because it is God's good pleasure ascendeth up forever. "Oh, how would the enemy of God and man rejoice to hear these things were so! How would he cry aloud, and spare not! How would he lift up his voice, and say, To your tents, O Israel! flee from the face of this God, or ye shall utterly perish. But whither will ye flee! Into heaven? He is there. Down to hell? He is there also. Ye cannot flee from an omnipresent, almighty tyrant. And whether ye flee or stay, I call heaven his throne, and earth his footstool, to witness against you: ye shall perish, ye shall die eternally! Sing, O hell, and rejoice, ye that are under the earth! for God, even the mighty God, hath spoken and devoted to death thousands of souls, from the rising of the sun, unto the going down thereof. Here, O death, is thy sting! They shall not, cannot escape, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. Here, O grave, is thy victory! Nations yet unborn, or ever they have done good or evil, are doomed never to see the light of life, but thou shalt gnaw upon them for ever and ever. Let all those morning stars sing together, who fell with Lucifer, son of the morning! Let all the sons of hell shout for joy; for the decree is past, and who shall annul it? Vol. II. pp. 175, 176. The whole discourse, is declared by Southey, to be "one of the most able and eloquent of all his discourses; a triumphant specimen of impassioned argument." The "memorable passage" from which we have extracted, he considers "the most remarkable and the most powerful in all his works"" a tremendous strain of eloquence." That it is "mpassioned" cannot be doubted. In deed, the attacks of Methodism, upon Calvinism, like those of its author, are too often impassioned." They too often indicate passion in the speaker, and are addressed principally to the passions and prejudices of the hearers. A manner more mild more deliberate, more humble, indicating greater candor, a sincere desire to know the truth as it is in Jesus, and a greater willingness to receive it, would give much more hope of its being discovered and embraced. We remark also, in the passages above quoted, as in the attacks of many others, upon the doctrines of the Calvinists, a total and continual misrepresentation of the sentiments of their antagonists. They never represent faithfully the sentiments which they undertake to oppose. They are never contented with the language which is used by those who hold these sentiments, when stating their opinions, but always make their own inferences from them and then attack those inferences although they know that they are not maintained, but on the contrary rejected by their opponents, with as much abhorence as by themselves. We are often astonished at this conduct, and in some cases, are at a loss how to account for it. Wesley, many years after the publication of the sermon, when the controversy was still carried on, after Whitefield's death, with perhaps too much warmth and some indiscretion by Augustus Toplady, thus summed up the amount of a volume published by the latter. "The sum of all is this: one in twenty (suppose) of mankind are elected; nineteen in twenty are reprobated. The elect shall be saved, do what they will; the reprobate shall be damned do what they can. Reader believe this or be damned. Witness my hand A-T-." Toplady of course denied the correctness of this summary and accused Mr. Wesley of intending to palm the paragraph on the world as his. "In almost any other case" said he, “a similar forgery would transmit the criminal to Virginia, to Maryland. if not to Tyburn. The Satanic guilt of the person who could excogitate and publish to the world a position like that, baffles all power of description, and is only to be exceeded, (if exceedable) by the Satanic shamelessness, which dares to lay the black position at the door of other men.” We are far from approving the language of the irritated Toplady, but the indignation which he felt, ought to have convinced Wesley of the deep injustice of his own misrepresentations; and would if he had possessed the least particle of candour, or charity in this controversy, have prevented him from again repeating the injury. He Another remark, on the foregoing extract, is, that Wesley does not fairly submit the question of the truth of the Doctrine of Election, to the decision of the word of God. does not attempt to shew directly that the doctrine is not taught in those numerous passages of the Gospel which are believed to teach it. He does not pretend that the scriptures any where declare that it is not true. He makes no dispassionate appeal to Revelation, but grounds his objections on the supposed inconsistency of such a doctrine with the attributes of God and with other doctrines of the Gospel. Here we see that undue reliance on his own logical skill to which we before adverted. He fancies himself capable of deciding what conduct in God would be consistent and what inconsistent with the divine attributes; what doctrines he ought to reveal; and what he cannot reveal. He says expressly, "no scripture can prove Predestination."— Now, not to mention the manifest inconclusiveness of his own reasonings, for those very attributes of God to which he supposes Election is opposed, are clearly known only by that same revelation which also declares Election; the other doctrines of the Gospel, to which it is believed by him to be opposed, rest on the same authority with this doctrine, as they all rest on the authenticity of the word of God; the principle itself on which his reasonings proceed is in its nature at war with the principle of faith. We say it on the firmest conviction of Wesley's own sincere belief in the scriptures, while his conduct, in this instance, really harmonizes only with infidelity. It is the very principle, on which the Socinians proceed to deny every doctrine which is peculiar to the Gospel. If we may take up the word of God, with the declaration that "no scripture can prove" this doctrine or that; if we may settle previously on the strength of our own reasonings, what the Bible can prove and what it can not, and may then open it only to confirm opinions derived from other sources, it ceases to be regarded as a Revelation from God, and we are already, though we may not be aware of it, discarding its authority, and in our reasonings arranging ourselves on the side of infidelity. It may well be supposed that Whitefield, saw this publication with no small degree of pain. He wrote to Wesley in the following strain: "My honoured friend and brother, for once hearken to a child who is willing to wash your feet. I beseech you, by the mercies of God in Christ Jesus our Lord, if you would have my love confirmed towards you, write no more to me about misrepresentations wherein we differ. To the best of my knowl edge, at present no sin has dominion over me, yet I feel the strugglings of in-dwelling sin day by day. The doctrine of election, and the final perseverance of those who are in Christ, I am ten thousand times more convinced of if possible, that when I saw you last. You think otherwise. Why then should we dispute, when there is no probability of convincing? Will it not, in the end, destroy brotherly love, and insensibly take from us that cordial union and sweetness of soul, which I pray God may always subsist between us? How glad would the enemies of the Lord be to see us divided! How many would rejoice, should I join and make a party against you! And in one word, how would the cause of our common Master every way suffer, by our raising disputes about particular points of Vol. 3.-No. X. 68 doctrine! Honoured Sir, let us offer salvation freely to all by the blood of Jesus ; and whatever light God has communicated to us, let us freely communicate to others. I have lately read the life of Lu ther, and think it in no wise to his honour, that the last part of his life was so much taken up in disputing with Zwinglius and others, who in all probability equally lov ed the Lord Jesus, though they might differ from him in other points. Let this, dear sir, be a caution to us; I hope it will to me; for, by the blessing of God, provoke me to it as much as you please, I do not think ever to enter the lists of contro versy with you on the points wherein we you judge me, the more I may love you, differ. Only I pray to God, that the more and learn to desire no one's approbation, but that of my Lord and Master Jesus Christ."-Vol. Í. pp. 174, 175. Perhaps the doctrine of election and of final perseverance hath been abused, (and what doctrine has not?) but notwithstanding, it is children's bread and ought not in my opinion to be withheld from them, supposing it is always mentioned with proper cautions against the abuse. Dear and honoured Sir, I write not this to enter into disputation. I hope at this time I feel something of the meekness and gentleness of Christ. I cannot bear the thoughts of opposing you: but how can I avoid it if you go about, as your brother Charles once said, to drive John Calvin out of Bristol? Alas I never read any thing that Calvin wrote: my doctrines I bad from Christ and his Apostles; I was taught them of God; and as God was pleased to send me out first, and to enlighten me first, so I think he still continues to do it.-I wish I knew your principles fully; did you write oftener and more frankly, it might have a better effect than silence and reserve.”—Vol. I. p. 177. The conclusion of one of his letters to Wesley, even Southey admits to be remarkable for the honest confidence and the warmth of affection which it breathes. "Dear, dear Sir, Oh be not offended! For Christ's sake be not rash! Give yourself to reading. Study the covenant of grace. Down with your carnal reason. ing! Be a little child; and then instead of pawning your salvation, as you have done in a late hymn book, if the doctrine of universal redemption be not true; instead of talking of sinless perfection, as as you have done in the preface to that hymn book, and making man's salvation to depend on his own free will, as you have done in this sermon, you will compose a hymn in praise of sovereign distinguishing love. You will caution believers |