_Bristol, February 2, 1744‒5_.
The PRINCIPLES of a METHODIST Farther explained:
Occasioned by the Rev. Mr. CHURCH’s _Second Letter_ to Mr. WESLEY.
In a _Second Letter_ to that GENTLEMAN.
Reverend Sir,
* 1. AT the time that I was reading your former letter, I expected to hear from you again. And I was not displeased with the expectation; believing it would give me a fresh opportunity of weighing the sentiments I might have too lightly espoused, and the actions which perhaps I had not enough considered. Viewing things in this light, I cannot but esteem you, not an enemy, but a friend; and one, in some respects, better qualified to do me real service than those whom the world accounts so; who may be hindered, by their prejudice in my favour, either from observing what is reproveable, or from using that freedom and plainness of speech, which are requisite to convince me of it.
2. It is at least as much with a view to learn myself, as to shew others (what I think) the truth, that I intend to set down a few reflections on some parts of the tract you have lately published. I say, _some_ parts; for it is not my design to answer every sentence in this, any more than in the former. Many things I pass over, because I think them true; many more, because I think them not material: and some, because I am determined not to engage in a useless, if not hurtful controversy.
* 3. Fear indeed is one cause of my declining this: fear (as I said elsewhere¹) not of my _adversary_, but of _myself_. I fear my own spirit, lest “I fall where many mightier have been slain.” I never knew one (or but one) man write controversy with what I thought a right spirit. Every disputant seems to think (as every soldier) that he may hurt his opponent as much as he can; nay, that he _ought_ to do his worst to him, or he cannot make the best of his own cause: that so he do not bely, or wilfully misrepresent him, he must expose him as much as he is able. It is enough, we suppose, if we do not shew heat or passion against our adversary. But, not to despite him, or endeavour to make others do so, is quite a work of supererogation.
¹ In the preface to the answer to Mr. _Tucker_.
* 4. But ought these things to be so? (I speak on the Christian scheme.) Ought we not to love our neighbour as ourselves? And does a man cease to be our neighbour, because he is of a different opinion? Nay, and declares himself so to be? Ought we not, for all this, to do to him as we would he should do to us? But do we ourselves love to be _exposed_, or set in the worst light? Would we willingly be treated with contempt? If not, why do we treat others thus? And yet, who scruples it? Who does not hit every blot he can, however foreign to the merits of the cause? Who, in controversy, casts the mantle of love over the nakedness of his brother? Who keeps steddily and uniformly to the question, without ever striking at the person? Who shews in every sentence, that he loves his brother only less than the truth?
5. I fear neither you nor I have attained to this. I believe brotherly love might have found a better construction than that of _unfairness_, _art_, or _disingenuity_, to have put either on my not answering _every part_ of your book (a thing which never once entered my thoughts) or on my not reciting _all the words_ of those parts which I did answer. I cannot yet perceive any blame herein. I still account it _fair_ and _ingenuous_, to pass over both what I believe is right, and what I believe is not dangerously wrong. Neither can I see any _disingenuity_ at all, in quoting only _that part_ of any sentence, against which I conceive the objection lies: nor in _abridging_ any part of any treatise to which I reply, whether in the author’s, or in my own words.
6. If indeed it were so abridged as to alter the sense, this would be _unfair_. And if this were designedly done, it would be _artful_ and _disingenuous_. But I am not conscious of having done this at all; although you speak as if I had done it a thousand times. And yet I cannot undertake now, either to transcribe your whole book, or every page or paragraph, which I answer. But I must generally abridge before I reply: and that not only to save time (of which I have none to spare) but often to make the argument clearer, which is best understood when couched in few words.
7. You complain also, of my mentioning, all at once, sentences which you placed at a distance from each other. I do so; and I think it quite _fair_ and _ingenuous_, to lay together what was before scattered abroad. For instance: you now speak of the conditions of justification, in the 18th and following pages: again, from the 89th to the 102d: and yet again, in the 127th page. Now I have not leisure to follow you to and fro. Therefore what I say on one head, I set in one place.
* * * * *