..... ... ...... Page Three Letters to Rev. William Law 616 448 Six Letters to Mr. John Smith...... 622 467 477 CHAPTER V. From his leaving Tre vecka, to his going to Bristol CHAPTER VI. From his leaving New- ington, till his return from Swit- CHAPTER VII.--Of his Marriage. CHAPTER VIII.--From his Marriage, to the beginning of his last Illness 463 A Plain Account of Christian Perfec- tion, as believed and taught by the Reverend Mr. John Wesley, from the year 1725, to the year 1777... Brief Thoughts on Christian Perfec- Some Thoughts on an Expression of St. Paul, in the First Epistle to the On Christian Perfection. To the Rev. An Answer to the Rev. Mr. Dodd Some Account of the late Dr. Dodd.. Advice to the People called Metho- A Clear and Concise Demonstration of the Divine Inspiration of the Holy The Real Character of Montanus... Thoughts on Salvation by Faith.... God's Eyes are over all the Earth An Account of the Brothers' Steps.. Murder Prevented by a threefold A Letter to a Friend concerning Tea Thoughts on Nervous Disorders: par- 531 .... A LETTER ΤΟ A PERSON LATELY JOINED WITH THE PEOPLE CALLED QUAKERS. IN ANSWER TO A LETTER WROTE BY HIM. BRISTOL, February 10, 1747-8. You ask me, "Is there any difference between Quakerism and Christianity?" I think there is. What that difference is, I will tell you as plainly as I can. I will, First, set down the account of Quakerism, so called, which is given by Robert Barclay; and, Then, add wherein it agrees with, and wherein it differs from, Christianity. "1. Seeing the height of all happiness is placed in the true knowledge of God, the right understanding of this is what is most necessary to be known in the first place. "2. It is by the Spirit alone that the true knowledge of God hath been, is, and can be, revealed. And these revelations, which are absolutely necessary for the building up of true faith, neither do, nor can, ever contradict right reason or the testimony of the Scriptures." Thus far there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. "Yet these revelations are not to be subjected to the examination of the Scriptures as to a touchstone." Here there is a difference. The Scriptures are the touchstone whereby Christians examine all, real or supposed, revelations. In all cases they appeal "to the law and to the testimony," and try every spirit thereby. "3. From these revelations of the Spirit of God to the saints, have proceeded the Scriptures of truth." In this there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. "Yet the Scriptures are not the principal ground of all truth and knowledge, nor the adequate, primary rule of faith and manners. Nevertheless, they are a secondary rule, subordinate to the Spirit. By him the saints are led into all truth. Therefore, the Spirit is the first and principal leader." If by these words, "The Scriptures are not the principal ground of truth and knowledge, nor the adequate, primary rule of faith and manners," be only meant, that "the Spirit is our first and principal leader;" here is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. But there is great impropriety of expression. For, though the Spirit is our principal leader, yet he is not our rule at all; the Scriptures are the rule whereby he leads us into all truth. Therefore, only talk good English; call the Spirit our guide, which signifies an intelligent being, and the Scriptures our rule, which signifies something used by an intelligent being, and all is plain and clear. "4. All mankind is fallen and dead, deprived of the sensation of this inward testimony of God, and subject to the power and nature of the devil, while they abide in their natural state. And hence not only their words and deeds, but all their imaginations, are evil pervctually in the sight of God, "5. God out of his infinite love hath so loved the world that he gave his only Son, to the end that whosoever believeth on him might have everlasting life. And he enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world, as he tasted death for every man. "6. The benefit of the death of Christ is not only extended to such as have the distinct knowledge of his death and sufferings, but even unto those who are inevitably excluded from this knowledge. Even these may be partakers of the benefit of his death, though ignorant of the history, if they suffer his grace to take place in their hearts, so as of wicked men to become holy." In these points there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. "7. As many as receive the light, in them is produced a holy and spiritual birth, bringing forth holiness, righteousness, purity, and all other blessed fruits. By which holy birth, as we are sanctified, so we are justified.” Here is a wide difference between Quakerism and Christianity. This is flat justification by works. Whereas, the Christian doctrine is, that "we are justified by faith ;" that "unto him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness." The ground of this mistake is, the not understanding the meaning of the word justification. For Robert Barclay takes it in the same sense as the Papists do, confounding it with sanctification. So in page 208 of his "Apology," he says, in express terms, "Justification, taken in its proper signification, is making one just; and is all one with sanctification." "8. In whom this holy birth is fully brought forth, the body of sin and death is crucified, and their hearts are subjected to the truth, so as not to obey any suggestion of the evil one; but to be free from actual sinning and transgressing of the law of God, and, in that respect, perfect. "9. They in whom his grace hath wrought in part to purify and sanctify them, may yet by disobedience fall from it, and make shipwreck of the faith." In these propositions there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. The uncommon expression, "This holy birth brought forth,” is taken from Jacob Behmen. And indeed so are many other expressions used by the Quakers, as are also many of their sentiments. "10. By this light of God in the heart, every true minister is ordained, prepared, and supplied in the work of the ministry." As to part of this proposition, there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. Doubtless, "every true minister is by the light of God prepared and supplied in the work of the ministry." But the Apostles themselves ordained them by "laying on of hands." So we read throughout the Acts of the Apostles. "They who have received this gift, ought not to use it as a trade, to get money thereby. Yet it may be lawful for such to receive what may be needful to them for food and clothing." In this there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. "We judge it noways unlawful for a woman to preach in the assemblies of God's people." In this there is a manifest difference: For the Apostle Paul saith expressly, "Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church," 1 Cor. xiv, 34, 35. Robert Barclay, indeed, says, " Paul here only reproves the inconsiderate and talkative women. But the text says no such thing. It evidently speaks of women in general. Again: The Apostle Paul saith to Timothy, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. For I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man," (which public teaching necessarily implies,) "but to be in silence," 1 Tim. ii, 11, 12. To this Robert Barclay makes only that harmless reply: "We think this is not anyways repugnant to this doctrine." Not repugnant to this, "I do suffer a woman to teach!" Then I know not what is. "But a woman laboured with Paul in the work of the gospel."" Yea, but not in the way he had himself expressly forbidden. "But Joel foretold, your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.' And 'Philip had four daughters which prophesied." And the Apostle himself directs women to prophesy; only with their heads covered." Very good. But how do you prove that prophesying in any of these places means preaching? 11. All true worship to God is offered in the inward and immediate moving of his own Spirit. We ought not to pray or preach where and when we will, but where and when we are moved thereto by his Spirit. All other worship, both praises, prayers, and preachings, which man sets about in his own will, and at his own appointment, which he can begin and end at pleasure, do or leave undone, as himself sees meet, are but superstitions, willworship, and abominable idolatries." Here lies one of the main differences between Quakerism and Christianity. It is true indeed, that "all true worship to God is offered in the inward and immediate moving of his own Spirit;" or, (to speak plain,) that we cannot truly worship God, unless his Spirit move or incline our hearts. It is equally true, that "we ought to pray and preach, only where and when we are moved thereto by his Spirit;" but I fear you do not in anywise understand what the being "moved by his Spirit" means. God moves man whom he has made a reasonable creature, according to the reason which he has given him. He moves him by his understanding, as well as his affections, by light as well as by heat. He moves him to do this or that by conviction, full as often as by desire. Accordingly, you are as really "moved by the Spirit" when he convinces you you ought to feed him that is hungry, as when he gives you ever so strong an impulse, desire, or inclination so to do. In like manner, you are as really moved by the Spirit to pray, whether it be in public or private, when you have a conviction it is the will of God you should, as when you have the strongest impulse upon your heart. And he does truly move you to preach, when in his light you "see light" clearly satisfying you it is his will, as much as when you feel the most vehement impulse or desire to "hold forth the words of eternal life." Now let us consider the main proposition: "All worship which man sets about in his own will, and at his own appointment"-Hold! that is quite another thing. It may be at his own appointment, and yet not in his own will; for instance: It is not my own will to preach at all. It is quite contrary to my will. Many a time have I cried out, "Lord, send by whom thou wilt send; only send not me!" But I am moved by the Spirit of God to preach: He clearly shows me it is his will I should; and that I should do it when and where the greatest number of poor sinners may be gathered together. Moved by him, I give up my will, and appoint a time and place, when by his power I trust to speak in his name. How widely different, then, from true Christianity is that amazing sentence: "All praises, prayers, and preachings which man can begin and end at his pleasure, do or leave undone, as himself sees meet, are superstitions, will-worship, and abominable idolatry in the sight of God!" There is not one tittle of Scripture for this; nor yet is there any sound reason. When you take it for granted, "In all preachings which a man begins or ends at his pleasure, does or leaves undone as he sees meet, he is not moved by the Spirit of God," you are too hasty a great deal. It may be by the Spirit that he sees meet to do or leave it undone. How will you prove that it is not? His pleasure may depend on the pleasure of God, signified to him by his Spirit. His appointing this or that time or place does in nowise prove the contrary. Prove me that proposition if you can: "Every man who preaches or prays at an appointed time, preaches or prays in his own will, and not by the Spirit." That "all such preaching is will-worship, in the sense St. Paul uses the word," is no more true than that it is murder. That it is superstition, remains also to be proved. That it is abominable idolatry, how will you reconcile with what follows but a few lines after? "However it might please God, who winked at the times of ignorance, to raise some breathings and answer them." What! answer the breathings of abominable idolatry! I observe how warily this is worded; but it allows enough. If God ever raised and answered those prayers which were made at set times, then those prayers could not be abominable idolatry. Again: That prayers and preachings, though made at appointed times, may yet proceed from the Spirit of God, may be clearly proved from those other words of Robert Barclay himself, p. 389: "That preaching or prayer which is not done by the actings and movings of God's Spirit cannot beget faith." Most true. But preaching and prayer at appointed times have begotten faith both at Bristol and Paulton. You know it well. Therefore that preaching and prayer, though at appointed times, was "done by the actings and movings of God's Spirit." It follows that this preaching and prayer were far from " abominable idolatry." That expression can never be defended. Say, It was a rash word, and give it up. In truth, from the beginning to the end, you set this matter upon a wrong foundation. It is not on this circumstance, the being at set times or not, that the acceptableness of our prayers depends; but on the intention and tempers with which we pray. He that prays in faith, |