Wesley's defense in the face of bishops' persecution
of Methodism
Odilon
Massolar Chaves
Copyright
© 2026, Odilon Massolar Chaves
All rights
reserved to the author.
It is
allowed to read, copy and share for free.
Article
184 of the Penal Code and Law 96710 of February 19, 1998.
Books
published in the Wesleyan Digital Library: 868
Books
published by the author: 909
Cover:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lavington
Odilon
Massolar Chaves is a retired Methodist pastor, with a doctorate in Theology and
History from the Methodist University of São Paulo.
Son of
Rev. Adherico Ribeiro Chaves and Roza Massolar Chaves.
He is
married to RoseMary.
He has two
daughters: Liliana and Luciana.
His thesis
dealt with the Methodist revival in England in the eighteenth century and its
contribution as a paradigm for our days.
============================
Table
of Contents
·
Introduction
·
Wesley's Statements About Bishops
·
So think, and let think
·
Your argument is worth nothing
· I fear that your Lordship is not fully informed of the
facts
· Your Lordship refuses, and then punishes them for not
having a license
· He is a sensible man; But I really think he doesn't
understand Greek
· Sir, has your passion completely extinguished your
reason?
· God will demand an accountability from you on the day
of judgment
·
These lines are not mine
· Never said a word that would induce anyone to such
evil
· But here there are almost as many errors as you speak
· Allow the poor to enjoy their religious and civil
freedom
· Paralysis after preaching against the Methodists
· A Request to a Bishop to Appoint Pious,
Simple Pastors to America
============================
Introduction
"Wesley's Defense of Bishops'
Persecution of Methodism" is a 40-page book based on Wesley's letters.
Wesley praised and criticized the Anglican
bishops, especially sought to write defending Methodism.
The treatment in a letter to the bishops was
respectful. Wesley said: "Your Lordship"; "Lord"; "My
lord"; "My Lord," etc.
Usually, Wesley began the letter by saying "To the Dr." and quoted the place where the bishop was: "To Dr. Pretyman Tomline, Bishop of Lincoln."
He ended
the letter usually by saying: "Son
and devoted servant of Your Lordship"; " Your
Lordship's most obedient servant," etc.
But this treatment did not prevent Wesley from being frank and direct with the bishops. To Dr. George Lavington, Bishop of Exeter, Wesley wrote in December, 1751, and said: "Many who have begun to taste the good word, and to follow the way of the commandments of God, have by various methods persuaded them to listen no more. Then they soon retreated to perdition. But know that for each of these also God will demand an account of you on the day of judgment!" [1]
Especially, with Dr. George Lavington (1684-1762), Bishop of Exeter, Wesley sought to defend Methodism and defend himself against personal accusations.
"Dr. George
Lavington, Bishop of Exeter between 1747 and 1762, was one of the harshest
critics of John Wesley and the Methodist movement in the eighteenth
century. Lavington wrote the famous work The Enthusiasm of the Methodists
and Papists Compared (1749), in which he attacked Methodist fervor,
compared it to Roman Catholic fanaticism and attributed the conversions to
psychological disorders." [2]
"He was an
ardent opponent of Methodism. On being appointed
bishop of Exeter, which included Cornwall, one of his first
acts was to close the pulpits of North Cornwall to the Methodists."[3]
In December 1751,
Wesley even wrote to him saying: "your argument is worth nothing".
Then he asked, "Sir, has your passion completely extinguished your
reason?" [4]element.
To his brother
Charles, on August 19, 1785, Wesley wrote, "I have always paid some
obedience to the bishops in obedience to the laws of the land. But I do not see
that I have any obligation to obey them beyond what these laws require." [5]
But there were Anglican bishops and clergy sympathetic to Methodism. Of the Bishop of Londonderry, Wesley said, "He loves the Methodists with the heart, but he is not free from the fear of man. Still, I have a lot of hope that love will overcome fear."
We also publish a
letter from Charles Wesley defending himself against accusations that were sent
to Dr. Gibson, Bishop of London.
Some letters are long
and we have summarized them, but they reveal how Wesley struggled and sought
with strong arguments and courage, over the years, to defend Methodism.
The Author
============================
Wesley's Statements About Bishops
In his letters to bishops, Wesley praised and also rebutted criticism or accusations.
Wesley's praise
A sensible Bishop of
considerable erudition
To
Joseph Benson, on December 8,
1777, Wesley said, "No doubt Bishop Newton's book on the Prophecies is
well written. And he is certainly a sensible man of considerable learning. This
he demonstrated in what he writes about the Apocalypse." [6]
Simplicity of the Archbishop of Cambray
"What you desire most at present is simplicity, in the sense of the word of the Archbishop of Cambray: that grace 'by which the soul discards all unnecessary reflections upon itself.'"
Bishop Stratford's Prayer
"I wonder that every preacher does not use
the prayer of Bishop Stratford, [Nicholas Stratford (1633-1707), Bishop of
Chester 1689.]' Lord, don't let me live to be useless."
The Progress, Extent, and Limits of the
Bishop of Cork's Human Understanding
In December 1756, Wesley began to read with
his preachers the Bishop of Cork's "Procedure (or Progress), Extent, and
Limits of Human Understanding."
Never
impose on men the consequences of their opinions
To Samuel Furly, on
May 21, 1762, Wesley said: "A sermon by Ab. [John Sharp, Archbishop of
York, sermon on Rom. xiv. I 7, preached on August 23, 1674, before the Lord
Mayor in the Guildhall Chapel: 'Another thing that would make peace is
this—never to impose on men the consequences of their opinions when they
expressly deny them.'] He thoroughly convinced me about thirty years ago that
it is incompatible with charity to accuse any man of the consequences of his
doctrine which he rejects." [7]
Criticism and defense of Wesley
Wesley defends himself in Lloyd's Evening Post
To the editor of Lloyd's
Evening Post, March 18, 1763, Wesley wrote: "To Bishop Warburton,
presenting specific charges, I gave specific answers; I hope for the
satisfaction of every reasonable and impartial man." [8]
" Lloyd's Evening Post " was a
prominent British evening newspaper published three times a week in London from
1757 to 1808. Also known as The London Packet, Lloyd's Evening Post and British Chronicle,
it offered vital political news, trade updates and global intelligence on
shipping during the Georgian era".[9]
A sensible bishop who does not understand Greek
To his brother
Charles, on December 11, 1762, Wesley said, "I answered the Bishop, and
received counsel concerning my answer. If the devil owes him shame, he will
answer. He is a sensible man; but I really think he doesn't understand
Greek!" [10]
Surprised Bishop Warburton
Ignores the New Testament
To his brother Charles, on
January 5, 1763, Wesley said, "I was a little surprised to find Bishop
Warburton so utterly unknown to the New Testament; and, for all his parade of
knowledge, I believe he is not critical in Greek." [11]
No obligation to obey
a bishop beyond what the laws require
To his
brother Charles, on August 19, 1785, Wesley wrote, "I have always paid
some obedience to the bishops in obedience to the laws of the land. But I do
not see that I have any obligation to obey them beyond what these laws
require." [12]
Most Eminent Bishops
Who Wrote Against the Methodists
To Professor John Liden, of Lund, on November 16, 1769, Wesley said, "The most eminent writers against the Methodists are the late Bishop of London (Dr. Gibson), Dr. Church, the Bishop of Gloucester (Dr. Warburton), and Bishop Lavington." [13]
Bishop who loves Methodists but is afraid of man
To Samuel Furly on 3 May 1758, Wesley said:
" Two conversations I had with the Bishop of Londonderry, [William Barnard
(1697-1768), Bishop of Derry 1747.]. I intend to write to him in a few days,
and then I can form a better judgment. He loves the Methodists with his heart,
but he is not free from the fear of man. Still, I have a lot of hope that love
will overcome fear." [14]
Bishop's sermon with gross
perversions of Scripture and contradictions
To his brother Samuel, in
[January] 1739, Wesley said, "I think Bishop Bull's sermon on the
Testimony of the Spirit (against the Testimony of the Spirit, it should be
entitled) is full of gross perversions of the Scriptures and contradictions
manifested both with the Scriptures and with experience. I meet more and more
people every day who experience clear evidence that they are in a state of
salvation." [15]
A hypercritical
bishop
To his brother
Charles, on February 12, 1767, Wesley said, "What I mean is that
Bishop Lowth is sometimes hypercritical, and finds fault where there are none.
Yet, without a doubt, his is the best English grammar that still exists." [16]
Bishop who thought
that Arianism and Socinianism were the flood
For Miss Helena. March, on
September 16, 1774, Wesley said, "Bishop Browne thought that Arianism and
Socinianism were the deluge which the dragon is at this time coming out of his
mouth to swallow up the woman. Maybe so; especially with Dr. Taylor's
amendment. But still, the main deluge in England seems to be
antinomianism." [17]
Among his letters, especially in response to
the accusations against Methodism, we find:
So think, and let think
You are a man of knowledge; No, I
really believe (which is infinitely more valuable), that you are a godly man.
So think, and let think. I pray God to bless you with the choicest of His
blessings
To Dr.
Pretyman Tomline,
Bishop of Lincoln
MY LORD, -- I am a dying man, already having
one foot in the grave. Humanly speaking, I cannot walk long on earth, being now
near ninety years of age than eighty years old. But I cannot die in peace until
I have fulfilled this office of Christian love to Your Lordship. I write
unceremoniously, for I neither expect nor fear anything from your Lordship or
from any living man. And I ask, in the name and presence of Him to whom both
you and I will render an account, why do you bother those who are quiet on earth,
those who fear God and do justice? Do you know what the Methodists are? That
many thousands of them are zealous members of the Church of England, and
strongly attached not only to His Majesty, but also to his present Ministry.
Why would you, leaving religion out of the question, have such a respectable
group of friends? Is it because of religious feelings? Alas, my Lord! Is this a
time to persecute any man out of conscience? I beg you, my lord, to do what you
would have done. You are a sensible man; You are a man of knowledge; No, I
really believe (which is infinitely more valuable), that you are a godly man.
So think, and let think. I pray God to bless you with the choicest of His
blessings. -- It is I, my Lord, etc. [18]
Your argument is
worth nothing
And unless you can
correct this, unless you can prove that the effects in question are strictly
responsible for the ordinary course of natural causes, your argument is
worthless
To Dr. Lavington,
Bishop of Exeter
London, December
1751.
(...) In your sixth
section, you state that I claim other miraculous gifts (page 45). While you
take this objection from Mr. Church, I need only give the same answer as I gave
before.
'I will give,' says
Mr. Church, 'but one more account, and that is what you will give of yourself.'
The summary is: 'On two and several occasions, sick and in violent pain, I
prayed to God and found immediate relief.' I did it. I still affirm this fact. 'But
if these,' you say, 'are not miracle cures, all this is raw enthusiasm.
'I'll present your
argument in form:
'Anyone who believes
that these are miracle cures that they are not is an avowed enthusiast:
'But do you believe
that these are miraculous cures that are not:
'Therefore, you are a
pure enthusiast.
Before I answer, I
must know what you mean by miraculous: if you call everything that is "not
strictly responsible for the ordinary course of natural causes," then I
deny the last part of the second proposition. And unless you can correct this,
unless you can prove that the effects in question are strictly responsible for
the ordinary course of natural causes, your argument is worthless.' [See letter
of February 2, 1745, section III. 12.] (I...). [19]
I fear that your
Lordship is not fully informed of the facts
By 'extraordinary
rigors and severities', I presume that you refer to abstaining from wine and
foods of animal origin; which, admittedly, Christianity does not require. But
if you do, I fear that you will not be fully informed of the facts.
To Dr. Gibson
Bishop of London
Do not allow me, I
ask you, to accept the person of any man; Nor will he let me give flattering
titles to the man. For I know that I must not give flattering titles; in doing
so, my Creator would soon take me away.--Job xxxii. 21-2.
London, June 11,
1747.
(...) By
'extraordinary rigors and severities', I presume that you refer to abstaining
from wine and foods of animal origin; which, admittedly, Christianity does not
require. But if you do, I fear that you will not be fully informed of the
facts. I began to do this about twelve years ago, when I had no thought of
'bothering parish ministers,' nor of 'captivating' any 'people' for it, unless
it was the Chicasaw or Choctaw Indians. But I went back to using both, about
two years later, for the sake of some who thought I made it a point of
consciousness; saying to them, 'I will eat meat while the world stands' instead
of 'making my brother offend.' Dr. Cheyne advised me to put them aside again,
assuring me, 'As long as you do, you will never be fever-free.' And since I
have followed his advice, I am free (blessed be God) from all bodily disorders.
[I continued like this for about two years (Wesley). See Wesley of Tyerman,
i.28-9; and letter of November 1, 1724.] I wish I knew some method to be
equally free from all 'follies and indiscretions'! But this I never hope to
achieve until my spirit returns to God (...)".[20]
Your Lordship refuses, and then punishes them
for not having a license
You ask, 'Who expels them from the Church?'
Your Lordship asks; And this in the cruelest way—yes, and in the most dishonest
way. They desire a license to worship God according to their own conscience.
Your Lordship refuses, and then punishes them for not having a license! So,
your Lordship leaves them only this alternative: 'Leave the Church or die of
hunger.'
To
Dr. Pretyman Tomline,
Bishop
of Lincoln
HULL, June 26, 1790.
MY LORD, -- It may seem
strange that someone who does not know you should bother him with a letter. But
I'm limited to doing that; I believe it is my duty both to God and to Your
Lordship. It is necessary to speak clearly; having nothing to hope for or fear
in this world, which I am about to leave.
Methodists in general, my
Lord, are members of the Church of England. They hold all its doctrines, attend
its worship, and partake of its sacraments. They do not harm anyone
voluntarily, but they do the good they can to everyone. To encourage each
other, they often spend an hour together in prayer and exhortation to each
other. Let me then ask, Cui bono, 'For what reasonable purpose,' would you
expel these people from the Church? Are they not as silent, as harmless, or
rather as pious, as any of their neighbors, except perhaps here and there a
stubborn man who does not know what he is doing? You ask, 'Who expels them from
the Church?' Your Lordship asks; And this in the cruelest way—yes, and in the
most dishonest way. They desire a license to worship God according to their own
conscience. Your Lordship refuses, and then punishes them for not having a
license! So, your Lordship leaves them only this alternative: 'Leave the Church
or die of hunger.' And it is a Christian, yes, a Protestant bishop, who persecutes
his own flock I say, persecutes; for it is persecution to all intents and
purposes. You don't actually burn them, but you let them starve. And how small
the difference is! And Your Lordship does this under the pretext of a vile and
execrable law, nothing better than that of haeretico cornburendo. [On the
burning of heretics.] Thus persecution, which has been banished from France, is
again tolerated in England!
O my Lord, for God's sake,
for Christ's sake, for God's sake, grant that the poor may enjoy their
religious and civil freedom! I'm on the verge of eternity Maybe your Lordship
is too! How soon will you also be called to give an account of your administration
to the Great Shepherd and Bishop of our souls! May He allow you and me to do
this with joy! So please, my Lord,
Your Lordship's son and
devoted servant. [21]
He is a sensible man; But I
really think he doesn't understand Greek
I answered the Bishop and
received counsel on my answer. If the devil owes him shame, he will answer. He
is a sensible man; But I really think he doesn't understand Greek
To your brother Charles
London, December 11, 1762.
DEAR BROTHER,-- For
eighteen or twenty days I heard with both ears, but I seldom opened my mouth. I
think I now understand the case at least as well as anyone in England.
The sum is this: (1) The
meeting at Beech Lane, [The meeting was apparently at Joseph Guilford's house
(see Diary, v. 7). When visiting the classes in November, Wesley noticed that
'some were vehement in favor, others against, the prayer meetings that were
taking place in various parts of the city. I spoke little, afraid of taking any
step that I might afterwards regret" (ibid., iv. 538). Thomas Maxfield was
causing a lot of trouble.] Before I came to the city, it was like a bear
garden; full of noise, fights, swearing, swearing, blasphemies and confusion.
Those who prayed were partly the occasion of it, by their horrible cries and
enthusiastic and unscriptural expressions. (3) Determined to 'fix them or
finish them off,' I moved the meeting to the Foundation. (4) Immediately the
noise, quarrels, swearing, swearing, blasphemies, and confusion ceased. (5)
There was less and less shouting and less enthusiastic, unscriptural language.
(6) In examining the Society, I found about eighty persons who were convinced of
sin, and nearly eighty who were justified in these meetings. So, overall, they
caused some heartache and very well. I trust that they will do more good now,
and will do no harm. Seven people had left the Company for this reason; But
four of them have already returned.
I bought the land before
the Kingswood School of Margaret Ward and paid for it with my own money. [This
land was divided into pastures and gardens, in which the boys worked. See
Kingswood School, p. 19.] Certainly, therefore, I have the right to use it as I
wish. What any reasonable man can say to the contrary
I would be happy to see Mr.
Nitchman. [David Nitschmann, who had sailed with the Wesleys to Georgia as
bishop responsible for Moravian emigrants. See Diary, i.111, ii.37.] What is
beyond loving the faith! We unite in love with Sally and you. Goodbye! [22]
Sir, has
your passion completely extinguished your reason?
Sir, has
your passion completely extinguished your reason? The ferocity and rancor left
him no understanding. Otherwise, how could it be possible for you to continue
at this senseless and brazen pace?
When Dr. Lavington,
Bishop of Exeter, raised calumnies against Wesley and Whitefield, Wesley wrote
a letter, in December, 1751, defending both.
Among his arguments
are:
If Mr. Whitefield
uses it
'Assurance
of pardon and salvation' is an expression that never leaves my lips; and if Mr.
Whitefield uses it, yet he does not preach such a guarantee as the privilege of
all Christians."
He did not
prove a point of this accusation against the Methodists
"But you are
determined to seek your victory, and so you continue: 'What are we to think of
these charges against Whitefield, Wesley, and the Moravians against each
other?' The Moravians, sir, are out of the question; for they are not
Methodists: and for the rest, Mr. Whitefield accuses Mr. Wesley of withholding
Universal Redemption, and I accuse him of maintaining Particular Redemption.
That's the permanent load on each side. And now, sir, 'what shall we think?'
Why, that you have not proved a point of this charge against the
Methodists."
Calvinism did not
prevail among the Methodists
'His object was to
show that Calvinistic notions did not prevail among the Methodists, or that
they were not the consequence of an unconditional justification.' No, sir, it
was none of my business to show that. It was not my business to prove the
negative, but rather to prove the affirmative. Mr. Whitefield is himself a
Calvinist. So, no doubt, many of his followers are. But Calvinism has not
prevailed among any other of the Methodists (so called), nor is it to this day
the consequence of the unconditional justification of the way I preach
it."
But this does not prove that we are 'detestable
sectarians'
Mr. Whitefield is not
a Methodist
If you say, 'But I
have proved the charge against Mr. Whitefield': admit that you have proved it
(which I do not allow), Mr. Whitefield is not a Methodist; -- no, nor the
Societies under his care; They are not a third, perhaps not even a tenth, of
the Methodists. What, then, can justify your attributing their faults, if they
were proved, to the whole body? You accuse ten men. Suppose you prove the
charge against one, you will condemn the other nine. No, let each bear his own
burden, for each must give an account of himself to God. [23]
God will demand an
accountability from you on the day of judgment
To
Dr. Lavington,
Bishop
of Exeter
London,
December 1751
“(...) ' Who is to blame
for this? Is it ours or yours? Why were thousands more not reformed? Yes, for
every one who has now turned to God, why are there not ten thousand? Because
you and your associates have worked so hard for the cause of hell; because you
and they have spared no effort to hinder or destroy God's work. By using all
the power and wisdom you had, you prevented thousands from hearing the gospel,
which they might have considered the power of God unto salvation. Their blood
is on their heads. By inventing, condoning, or selling lies, some refined, some
crude and palpable, you prevented others from profiting from what they heard.
You also answer to God for these souls. Many who have begun to taste the good
word and follow the way of God's commandments, by various methods you have
persuaded to listen to it no more. Then they soon retreated to perdition. But
know that for each of these too, God will demand an account from you on the day
of judgment! (...)”.[24]
These lines are not mine
Lord, I'm going to tell you a secret. These lines are
not mine. However, once again I risk defending them and stating that their
consequence is worth nothing: 'If this love is mentioned in the last lines,
then it is not in the first.'
To Dr. Lavington,
Bishop of Exeter
Agedum! Little accipe
against. [Satire of Horace, I. iv. 38: 'Now listen to some things in reply.']
CANTERBURY, February
1, 1750.
LORD, -- 1. In your
late pamphlets you have undertaken to prove that Mr. Whitefield and I are
coarse enthusiasts, and that all our 'conduct is but a counterpoint to the
wildest fanaticisms of the most abominable communion in its most corrupt ages'
(Preface, p. 3).
(...) You add a word
or two about my 'ardent desire to go to hell', which, you think, 'I adopted
from the Jesuit Nieremberg' (page 34). Lord, I do not know the man. I am
utterly a stranger both to you and to your doctrine. But if this is his
doctrine, I wholeheartedly deny it. I earnestly wish that both you and I can go
to heaven.
But Mr. Wesley says,
"A poor old man decided the question of disinterested love. He said, I
care not where I am, let God put me where He wills, or do with me what He
wills, that I may exhibit His honor and glory." (Page 35.)
He did it. And then,
what do these words imply 'a burning desire to go to hell'? I don't suppose it
has crossed his thoughts. Nor does it have a place in my notion of selfless
love. How you can understand this term, I don't know.
But you will prove
that I have this desire, whether I want it or not. You are sure that this was
my 'original meaning' (page 36), in the words quoted by Mr. Church [See letter
of June 17, 1746, section II. 8.] --
Condemnation, if you
can, to endless pain,
Or cast me out of
Your face.
'The power or justice
of God,' you say, 'must be intentional; because he speaks of the love of God in
the following lines—
But if Your strongest
love constrains you,
Let me be saved by
grace.'
Lord, I'm going to
tell you a secret. These lines are not mine. However, once again I risk
defending them and stating that their consequence is worth nothing: 'If this
love is mentioned in the last lines, then it is not in the first.' No! Why
don't I think this is mentioned in both; the plain meaning of which is, 'If
Thou art not love, I am content to perish. But if You are, let me find the
effects of this; Let me be saved by grace.' (...)”.[25]
Never said a word
that would induce anyone to such evil
I never did the deed;
He never said a word that would induce anyone to such evil; I never kept such a
design in my heart.
If your Lordship
demands further purge[26], I am ready to
repeat this living statement to you, and to take the oaths in proof of it
Charles Wesley to Dr.
Gibson,
Bishop of London
The Foundry, February
8, 1745.
MY LORD, -- Some time
ago I was informed that your Lordship has received some accusation against me
by a--[Name left blank in letter.] accusing me of committing or offering to act
with her. I have also recently been informed that your Lordship has been
pleased to say that if I solemnly declared my innocence, you would be pleased.
Therefore, I take this liberty and solemnly declare that I have never committed
lewdness with this person, nor have I requested it, but I am innocent in action
and word regarding this matter.
As there are other
calumnies hurled against me, and nothing less than all sorts of ill spoken of
me, I must ask permission to first declare my innocence as to all other women
alike. It has been nearly twenty years since I began to work on my salvation; during
all this time God, in the presence of whom I speak, has prevented me from
committing any act of adultery or fornication or from soliciting anyone to do
so. I never did the deed; He never said a word that would induce anyone to such
evil; I never kept such a design in my heart.
If your
Lordship demands further purge, I am ready to repeat this living statement to
you, and to take oaths in proof of it. -- I am, my Lord,
Your Lordship's son
and servant, Ch. W. [27]
But here there are
almost as many errors as you speak
My Lord, I do not
know who your Lordship's Irish correspondents are; But here there are almost as
many errors as you speak. For (1) None of my correspondents sent this report to
London. (2) It was sent, not to the leaders of Methodism, but to one who was
not a Methodist at all
To Dr. Lavington,
Bishop of Exeter
Newcastle-Upon-Yyne,
8 May 1752.
In my recent letter
to your Lordship I used no ceremony (I suppose it was not expected of one so
deeply wounded: and I hope it was not rude; if I did, I am ready to ask your
Lordship's pardon.
(...) The facts
alleged are (1) that I said to Mrs. Morgan in Mitchell, 'You are in hell; you
are already condemned'; (2) that I asked her to live freely; (3) that he
decided not to admit any more Methodists into his home.
At first, I thought
it was a silly and unlikely story that neither deserved nor needed a rebuttal
She replied
vehemently, "Sir, I never said you were or said such a thing."
'On Saturday, August
25, 1750, Mr. Trembath of St. Gennys, Mr. Haime of Shaftesbury, and I visited
Mr. Morgan at Mitchell. The maid told me that her owner was not at home, I
wanted to talk to her lady, the "honest and sensible woman." I
immediately asked, "Have I ever told you or your husband that you wouldn't
take money from me?" (Then the story was published in the First Part of
the Comparison; it has now undergone considerable change.) "Or have you or
he ever asserted" (another circumstance reported in Truro) "that I
was rude to your maid?" She replied vehemently, "Sir, I never said
that you were or that you said such a thing. And I don't think my husband did
that. But we were denied as were our neighbors." She added: "When the
bishop came down for the last time, he told us that he would dine at our house;
but he did not do so, invited to a neighboring gentleman. He called me there
and said: Good woman, do you know these people who go up and down? Do you know
Mr. Wesley? Didn't he say you'd be cursed if you took money from him? And did
he not offer rudeness to his maid? I said to him, No, my lord; He never said
such a bandit to me, nor to my husband that I know of. He never offered
rudeness to any of my maids. I have never seen or known anything wrong with
him; But a man once told me (who, I was told, was a Methodist preacher) that I
would be condemned if I did not know that my sins were forgiven."'
I believe that; and,
consequently, the lack of accuracy in this impression falls on Mrs. Morgan, not
on your Lordship.
Your Lordship
answers: 'I did not send any message saying that I would dine at their house,
nor did I send for Mrs. Morgan; every word she exchanged between us was in her
own home in Mitchell' (page 7). I believe that; and, consequently, the lack of
accuracy in this impression falls on Mrs. Morgan, not on your Lordship.
Your Lordship will be under more than a suspicion of
having published a falsehood
Your Lordship adds:
'The following attestations will sufficiently exempt me from any imputation or
even suspicion of having published a falsehood.' I don't think it's like that;
renounce the past, if the facts now published by Your Lordship, or any part of
them, are not true, then surely Your Lordship will be under more than a
'suspicion of having published a falsehood.'
The certificates
which Your Lordship presents are (1) those of the Chancellor and Archdeacon of
Your Lordship; 2) those of Mr. Bennet.
I believe so, and
therefore absolve Your Lordship of being the inventor of these falsehoods
The first attests
that in June or July, 1748, Mrs. Morgan said these things to your Lordship
(page 8). I believe so, and therefore absolve Your Lordship of being the
inventor of these falsehoods.
Mr. Bennet asserts
that last January Mrs. Morgan repeated to him what she had already said to Your
Lordship (page 11). She can probably know: after having said these things once,
I don't wonder if she said them again.
Even so, Mr. Trembath
and Mr. Haime denied every word of it.
To overcome this
difficulty, Your Lordship publishes a second letter from Mr. Bennet
To overcome this
difficulty, your Lordship publishes a second letter from Mr. Bennet, in which
he says: 'On the 4th of March last, Mrs. Morgan said: "I was informed by
my servant that I was called upstairs; where, when I arrived, with the door of
the chamber open, I found them" (Mr. Wesley and others) "around the
table, on their knees." He adds: 'That Mrs. Morgan assumed a circumstance
was true; but as to the other parts of Mr. Wesley's letter to the Bishop, it
declares that everything is false.'
I believe that Min.
Morgan said this to Mr. Bennet, and that therefore he is not 'the creator of a
lie'
I believe that Min.
Morgan said this to Mr. Bennet, and that therefore he is not 'the creator of a
lie.' But he is the report of a whole series of falsehoods, and of those told
just for the sake of speaking. I have never been to any of Mrs. Morgan's rooms.
I've never been above life in my entire life. On August 25, 1750, I was with
the stars the entire time I was in the house. When Mrs. Morgan entered, I was
standing in the huge hall; Nor did any of us kneel while we were under the
roof. Both Mr. Trembath and Mr. Haime may attest under oath, whatever Mrs.
Morgan may state to the contrary.
the same fact, I
presume, just a little exaggerated
But she declared her
father (as Mr. Bennet writes, 'That Mr. John Wesley, some time ago, told a
servant of hers such troublemakers as were not worthy to be said' (page 11);
and Mr. Morgan declared that he 'did or said such indecent things to the maid
aforesaid' (the same fact, I presume, only a little exaggerated) 'in her room
at night, that she immediately ran
downstairs and protested that she would not approach him or any of the
Methodists anymore' (page 12).
If you prove that I
ever lay one night at Mrs. Morgan's house
To spare your
Lordship and myself trouble, I will put this cause in a very short matter: If
your Lordship proves that I ever lay one night at Mrs. Morgan's, no, that I was
ever in the town of Mitchell after sunset, I will confess the whole charge.
What you mention 'by
the way' I will now consider
What you mention 'by
the way' I will now consider. "Some of your Western correspondents have
imposed upon the leaders of Methodism by transmitting to London a notoriously
false account of my Charge to the clergy. Later, the Methodists confessed to
having been deceived; but some time afterwards the Methodists at Cork, Ireland,
with their own brother at their head, reprinted the same lying pamphlet as my
presentation.' (Pages 4-5.)
But here there are
almost as many errors as you speak
My Lord, I do not
know who your Lordship's Irish correspondents are; But here there are almost as
many errors as you speak. For (1) None of my correspondents sent this report to
London. (2) It was sent, not to the leaders of Methodism, but to one who was
not a Methodist at all. (3) That it was a false report, I do not know; but Your
Lordship can anticipate withdrawing the dispute. And many have wondered that
Your Lordship did not do this long ago when printing the Cargo in question. (4)
I never confessed that it was a false report; nor any person by my consent or
with my knowledge. (5) This account has never been reprinted in Cork. (6) When
it was reprinted in Dublin, you had not disowned it. (7) My brother was not in
Dublin when this was done; Neither he nor I knew about it until much later.
Therefore, when my brother
was asked how he could reprint such an account after your Lordship had publicly
disowned it
Therefore, when my
brother was asked how he could reprint such an account after you had publicly
disowned it, it does not surprise me that 'he did not offer a single word in
reply.'
Whether this, like my
previous letter, is 'mere outburst and declamation' or clear and sober reason,
I must refer to the world and to your Lordship's own conscience. -- I am, my
Lord,
The most obedient
servant of Your Lordship. [28]
Allow the poor to enjoy
their religious and civil freedom
O my Lord, for God's sake,
for Christ's sake, for God's sake, grant that the poor may enjoy their
religious and civil freedom! I'm on the verge of eternity Maybe your Lordship
is too! How soon will you also be called to give an account of your
administration to the Great Shepherd and Bishop of our souls!
To Dr. Warburton,
Bishop of Gloucester
November 26, 1762.
MY LORD,--Your Lordship
observes well: 'To employ clowning in the service of religion is to violate the
majesty of truth and to deprive it of a fair hearing. To examine, men need to
be serious.' (Preface, p. 11.) I will strive to be so on all the following
pages; and indeed, not only because I am writing to a person who is so far and
in so many respects my superior, but also because of the importance of the
subject: for the question is only: What am I, madman or man in his senses, a
rascal or an honest man? No; This is only brought up by illustration. The
question is about the office and operation of the Holy Spirit; with which is
connected the doctrine of the New Birth, and indeed all royal religion. On a
subject of such deep concern that I wish to be as serious as death. But at the
same time, your Lordship will allow me to use great clarity. And this makes me
feel all the more courageous because, by mentioning my name, your Lordship, so
to speak, despises yourself in finding me on an equal footing.
'But persecution would not
come at his call.' However, he was not called; and more than once or twice it
wasn't 'simulated persecution'
But 'Mr. Wesley wanted to
be persecuted' (page 187). Since this is repeated over and over again, I will
explain myself once and for all. I never wanted or wanted to be persecuted.
Living there who loves your pain, I love and desire to 'live in peace with all
men.' 'But persecution would not come at his call.' However, he was not called;
and more than once or twice it was not 'simulated persecution'. It wasn't just
the screams of the crowd: showers of stones are something more than huzzas. And
anyone who saw the crowd at Walsall or Cork (for instance, no longer at all)
saw that they were not 'joking', but with great sincerity, eagerly thirsty, not
for amusement, as you suppose, but for blood.
But while I don't want
persecution, I expect it. I must, if I believe in St. Paul: 'All who live godly
in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution'
But while I don't want
persecution, I expect it. I must, if I believe in St. Paul: 'All who live godly
in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution' (2 Tim. iii. 12); sooner or later,
more or less, according to the wise providence of God. But I believe that 'all
these things work together for the good of those who love God.' And from the
conviction of this, they can even rejoice when they are "persecuted for
righteousness' sake."
I rarely 'complain about
mistreatment'
Yet, just as I rarely
'complain about mistreatment,' I am never 'dissatisfied with the good' (page
188). But I often wonder about it; and I once expressed my admiration almost in
the words of the old Athenian—'What we have done that the world may be so civilized
to us' [See letter of July 18, 1747.]
'As he who persecutes is
not the tool of him who invites persecution' (I don't know who does), '
You conclude in your head:
'As the one who persecutes is not the tool of the one who invites persecution'
(I don't know who does it), 'crime finally comes to the one who put the
mutineer to work' (page 191). And is this all proof that I am not peaceful? So
let everyone judge if the accusation is fulfilled.
'The persecution at St.
Ives' (which ended before I arrived; what I saw I do not call persecution)
'" was due to the untiring labors of Mr. Hoblyn and Mr. Symonds, gentlemen
worthy to be kept in eternal memory."
3, 'The next sign of
heavenly wisdom is that it is "gentle and easy to be supplicated,"
obediently and even slavishly toward all men.' And as I seem to be lacking in
this Why, he is 'a severe condemner of his fellow-citizens, and a rigorous executor
of conformity to his own observances.' Now the proof: (1) 'He tells us this in
the very denomination he assumes' (page 192). No, I never assumed that. But you
say, "Useless talk is abominations to the Lord." And what is this if
not resisting São Paulo in the face? Why, did St. Paul join or condemn useless
conversations? I think he rebukes that. He condemns as sapros logos, 'putrid
and stinking talk,' all that is not good, all that is not 'for the use of
edifying,' and is fit to 'minister grace to the hearers' (Eph. iv. 29). (3) Mr.
Wesley 'determined never to laugh or speak a little of worldly things' (page
193)—'though others may, they must.' Please add that with the reason for my
decision — namely, that I expected to die in a few days. If I expected it now, I
should probably resume the resolution. But, be that as it may, this proves
nothing against my being at once gentle and easy to be a supplicant. (4) 'He
says that Mr. Griffith was a clumsy, grown and hard-faced man' (page 194). And
he was. And that was the best thing about him. I save him a lot by saying
nothing else. But he is gone: may his ashes rest. (5) 'I heard a very miserable
sermon, full of senseless, senseless, and improbable lies.' It was like that
from beginning to end. I've rarely heard anything like this. [29]
Let me then ask, Cui bono,
'For what reasonable purpose,' would you expel these people from the Church?
Methodists in general, my
Lord, are members of the Church of England. They hold all its doctrines, attend
its worship, and partake of its sacraments. They do not harm anyone
voluntarily, but they do the good they can to everyone. To encourage each
other, they often spend an hour together in prayer and exhortation to each
other. Let me then ask, Cui bono, 'For what reasonable purpose,' would you
expel these people from the Church? Are they not as silent, as harmless, or
rather as pious, as any of their neighbors, except perhaps here and there a
stubborn man who does not know what he is doing? You ask, 'Who expels them from
the Church?' Your Lordship asks; And this in the cruelest way—yes, and in the
most dishonest way. They desire a license to worship God according to their own
conscience. Your Lordship refuses, and then punishes them for not having a
license! So, your Lordship leaves them only this alternative: 'Leave the Church
or die of hunger.' And it is a Christian, yes, a Protestant bishop, who persecutes
his own flock I say, persecutes; for it is persecution to all intents and
purposes. You don't actually burn them, but you let them starve. And how small
the difference is! And Your Lordship does this under the pretext of a vile and
execrable law, nothing better than that of haeretico cornburendo. [On the
burning of heretics.] Thus persecution, which has been banished from France, is
again tolerated in England!
Allow the poor to enjoy
their religious and civil freedom
O my
Lord, for God's sake, for Christ's sake, for God's sake, grant that the poor
may enjoy their religious and civil freedom! I'm on the verge of eternity Maybe
your Lordship is too! How soon will you also be called to give an account of
your administration to the Great Shepherd and Bishop of our souls! May He allow
you and me to do this with joy! So please, my Lord,
Your Lordship's son and
devoted servant. [30]
Paralysis
after preaching against the Methodists
'Thus we rode to Todmorden, where the minister
was slowly recovering from a violent attack of paralysis which struck him
immediately after preaching a virulent sermon against the Methodists.'
To Dr. Warburton,
Bishop of Gloucester
November 26, 1762.
(...) 'I
nailed a den of lions in Darlaston recently. But the fiercest of them God
called for a sequence of astonishing blows.' (Ibid.) But not by me; I wasn't
there. 2. 'I have preached in Roughlee, recently a place of turmoil and furious
persecution, but quiet and calm since the embittered rector has gone to give an
account to God' (page 145). 3. 'Thus we rode to Todmorden, where the minister
was slowly recovering from a violent attack of paralysis which struck him
immediately after preaching a virulent sermon against the Methodists' (page
145). 4. 'Mr. Weston's case was indeed terrible, and too notorious to be
denied' (ibid.). 5. 'One of the principal who came to cause the disturbance on
the 1st of the day hanged himself' (page 146). 6. 'I was quite surprised to
hear Mr. Romley [See Diary, iii. 359, 525.] preach; that soft, soft, melodious
voice, which he so often employed to blaspheme the work of God, was lost, with
no hope of recovery' (ibid.). 7. 'Mr. Cowley spoke so much in favor of the
demonstrators that they were all dismissed. A few days later, walking through
the same field, he came down and spoke no more.' (Page 147) (...). [31]
A Request to a Bishop to
Appoint Pious, Simple Pastors to America
But you observe: 'There are
already three ministers in that country.' True, my
Lord; But what are three to watch over all souls in that vast country?
To Dr. Lowth,
Bishop of London
August 10, 1780.
Imploring your Lordship's favor, after your
Lordship had examined it, to ordain a godly man who might act as your minister
MY LORD,-- Some time ago, I received the
favor of Your Lordship; for which I reciprocate my sincere thanks, Your
Lordship. These people did not apply for the Society (For the Propagation of
the Gospel in Foreign Parts). because they had nothing to ask for. They did not
want a salary for their minister; they themselves were able and willing to
maintain it. Wherefore, they have requested on my part thy Lordship, as members
of the Church of England, and desiring thus to continue, imploring your
Lordship's favor, after your lordship had examined it, to ordain a godly man
who might act as their minister.
They are men who have neither the power of
religion nor the form—men who claim no piety or even decency
Maybe it's the last time I'll bother you
Allow me, my Lord, to speak even more freely:
it may be the last time I shall disturb you. I know your Lordship's abilities
and vast knowledge; I believe, even more, that your Lordship fears God. I have
heard that you are exceedingly diligent in examining candidates for Holy
Orders—yes, that you are generally concerned to examine them personally.
Examining them! In what respects? Why, if they understand a little Latin and
Greek and can answer some banal questions in the science of divinity? Alas, how
little good is that! Do you examine whether they serve Christ or Belial,
whether they love God or the world, whether they have ever had serious thoughts
about heaven or hell, whether they have any real desire to save their own souls
or the souls of others? If not, what do they have to do with Holy Orders and
what will become of the souls entrusted to their care
What is there in a man without religion?
My Lord, I do not in any way despise
learning; I know the value of this very well. But what is this, especially in a
Christian minister, compared with godliness? What is there in a man without
religion? Like a jewel on a pig's snout.
I recommended to you a simple man
Some time ago, I recommended to you a simple
man, whom I had known for more than twenty years as a person of deep piety,
genuine and uncritical conversation. But he understood neither Greek nor Latin;
and he affirmed, in so many words, that he believed it was his duty to preach,
whether he was ordained or not. I also believe that. What has happened to him
since then, I do not know; but I suppose he received Presbyterian ordination,
and I cannot blame him if he did. He might think that any ordination is better
than none.
Your Lordship thought it good to order and
send to America other people who knew something of Greek and Latin, but who
knew no more about saving souls than about whaling
I do not know whether Mr. Hoskins had any
favor to ask of the Society. He asked your Lordship's favor to ordain him so
that he could minister to a small flock in America. But your Lordship did not
see well in ordering it; but your Lordship thought it good to order and send to
America other people who knew something of Greek and Latin, but who knew no
more about saving souls than about hunting whales.
In this sense, I also feel sorry for poor
America, for the sheep scattered inside
In this sense, I also feel sorry for poor
America, for the sheep scattered inside. Some of them have no pastors,
especially in the northern colonies; and the case of the rest is little better,
for their own pastors have no pity on them. They cannot1; for they have no pity
on themselves. They don't think or care about their own souls.
Wishing Your Lordship all the blessings of
the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls, I remain, my Lord,
Your
Lordship's son and devoted servant. [32]
[1]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1751/
[2] Overview of Google's AI Mode
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lavington
[4]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1751/
[5]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1785/
[6]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1777/
[7]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1762/
[8]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1763/
[9] Overview of Google's AI Mode
[10]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1762/
[11]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1763/
[12]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1785/
[13]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1769/
[14]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1758/
[15]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1739/
[16]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1767/
[17]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1774/
[18]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesle/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters/
[19]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1751/
[20]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1747/
[21]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1790a/
[22]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1762/
[23]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1751/
[24]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1751/
[25]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1750/
[26] "The word purging refers to the act of cleansing,
eliminating impurities, or ridding something of unwanted waste" (Google AI
Mode Overview).
[27]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1745/
[28]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1752/
[29]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1762/
[30]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1762/
[31]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1762/
[32]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1780/
Comentários
Postar um comentário