From 3e773dd90883094441cfd449154e794fadea5fbd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jenna G <98617115+jennaG2@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2025 18:56:04 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Create Sermon055 --- data/sermons/tei/Sermon055 | 697 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 697 insertions(+) create mode 100644 data/sermons/tei/Sermon055 diff --git a/data/sermons/tei/Sermon055 b/data/sermons/tei/Sermon055 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..90f6efc6b --- /dev/null +++ b/data/sermons/tei/Sermon055 @@ -0,0 +1,697 @@ + + + + + + Sermon 55: On the Trinity + Wesley, John + Van Buskirk, Gregory P. + Taylor, Michelle M. + + + The Wesley Works Digitzation Project + Tampa, FL + 2024-02-29 + + + + + + Sermon 55: On the Trinity + + + The Works of John Wesley, Volume II: Sermons II, + 34-70 + Outler, Albert + + Abingdon Press + Nashville, TN + 1985-11-01 + + + + + + The Works of John Wesley + Baker, Frank + + + + + + +

Greg Van Buskirk created Word docs for all of Wesley's sermons using a combination of + OCR software and manual proofing. Michelle Taylor converted these docx into XML + using Oxygen's DITA automatic transformation scenario, then touched them up + manually.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + An Introductory Comment + +

This sermon was written and published in Ireland in 1775 under the title, A Sermon on 1st John, v. 7, and, despite its six further + editions in Wesley’s lifetime, it was not reprinted in the Arminian Magazine. (For details of its publishing history and variant + reading, see Appendix, Vol. 4, and Bibliog, No. 353.) The + text (1 John 5:7), and so also presumably the topic, must have been a favourite + in Wesley’s oral preaching, for its use is recorded twenty-three times. There + are, however, very few references to the doctrine, as such, in Wesley’s writing; + this is his only extended comment on it. This suggests that for Wesley, as for + pietists generally, abstruse doctrines are better believed devoutly than + analysed rationally.

+

Thus, the crucial point here is that the mystery of ‘the Three-One God’ is better + left as mystery, to be pondered and adored. Speculations must not be overblown + nor exalted to the rank of definitive statements. This, obviously, is a reaction + to certain tendencies in Anglican rationalism (e.g., Richard Hooker, George + Bull, Thomas Sherlock); it may have been a partial warrant for Wesley’s mildly + surprising judgment that ‘one of the best tracts which that great man Dean + [Jonathan] Swift ever wrote was his sermon upon the Trinity.’ Swift had argued + in that sermon for the reality of the Trinity and for implicit belief even as he + insisted that its understanding lay beyond the range of reason. Some of Wesley’s + other references to Swift are less admiring (cf. JWJ, June 14, 1771; July 12, + 1773; and especially October 27, 1775, five months after this sermon had been + written).

+

Despite these disavowals of rationalism, however, it is plain enough that the substance of Wesley’s own trinitarian doctrine follows + faithfully in the traditional Anglican line hewed out by Bishop John Pearson, of + Chester, in An Exposition of the Creed (first edition, + 1659; fifth edition [last in Pearson’s lifetime], 1683; but see also the + enlarged folio edition of 1732, which Wesley would have seen at Oxford). The + admission of the problems about the textual evidence for 1 John 5:7 is + interesting; so also is Wesley’s appeal to J. A. Bengel’s authority, rather than to such English critics as Matthew Poole, Matthew + Henry, or Henry Hammond. Even more interesting, however, is the high incidence + of ‘learned allusions’ in this particular sermon. Simplified as its argument may + be, was it meant to be ad populum? But if not, why so + blithe a disregard of the tradition?

+ + On the Trinity +

Advertisement

+

Some days since I was desired to preach on this text. I did so yesterday morning. In + the afternoon I was pressed to write down and print my sermon; if possible before I + left Cork. I have wrote it this morning: but I must beg the reader to make allowance + for the disadvantages I am under, as I have not here any books to consult, nor + indeed any time to consult them.

+

Cork, May 8, 1775

+ +

1 John 5:7

+

+ There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the + Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. +

+ +

1. Whatsoever the generality of people may think, it is certain that opinion is + not religion: no, not right opinion, assent to one or to ten thousand truths. There + is a wide difference between them: even right opinion is as distant from religion as + the east is from the west. Persons may be quite right in their opinions, and yet + have no religion at all. And on the other hand persons may be truly religious who + hold many wrong opinions. Can anyone possibly doubt of this while there are + Romanists in the world? For who can deny, not only that many of them formerly have + been truly religious (as à Kempis,

One of the three principal influences mentioned by + Wesley in his own spiritual autobiography (JWJ, May 24, 1738). He knew à + Kempis (1380-1471) chiefly as the author of De Imitatione + Christi, which in 1738 he said he had read ‘in Dean Stanhope’s + translation’ (see JWJ, ibid.). Born in Kempen, near + Cologne, Thomas (Hemerken) lived most of his life in the Augustinian + monastery of St. Agnes near Zwolle (Netherlands). He was a disciple of + Groote and Ruysbroeck and became the most famous of the spokesmen for the + ‘Devotio Moderna’ (if, indeed, he was the author of the Imitation). Wesley translated and published the Imitation in 1735. (Moore writes that Wesley was ‘dissatisfied + with Stanhope’s translation and determined to give a full view of the + self-denying purity of his favourite guide’; cf. Wesley, II.401).

For some of Wesley’s + repeated references to à Kempis see Nos. 73, ‘Of Hell’, II.7; 79, ‘On + Dissipation’, §17; 125, ‘On a Single Eye’, §1. Cf. also his letter to his + mother, May 28, 1725; to Joseph Taylor, Sept. 24, 1782; and to James + Macdonald, Oct. 23, 1790. He used Castellio’s Ciceronian translation of it + (e Latino in Latinum) as a Latin text for the + students at Kingswood.

Gregory Lopez,

An obscure Spanish mystic (1542-96), + discovered by Wesley in Francisco Losa’s Holy Life of + Gregory Lopez, A Spanish Hermite in the West Indies (orig. in + Spanish, 1618?; Eng. tr., 1675). This he abridged and published in the Christian Lib., L. 337-406. Wesley must have been + impressed by Lopez’s ‘conversion’ in Toledo (age 20) and his resolution ‘to + quit both the court, his friends and native country’. Lopez arrived in ‘New + Spain’ (Mexico) in 1562, and shortly found a hermitage in the wilderness of + Amajac and lived in great austerity for seven years in un + alto puro nudo di amore de Dios (‘in an exalted state of the pure, + unadorned love of God’). Then came a period of itinerancy (Guasteca, + Atrisco, Mexico City, etc.) but always in a severely ascetic lifestyle. His + last seven years were spent in a little house near Santa Fé (‘two leagues + from the city’ [Mexico City]) where he died. Before one of his infrequent + communions, Losa records that Lopez ‘fell on his knees before Fr. Vincent + and, striking his breast, said, “Through the mercy of God, I do not remember + to have offended him in anything. Give me, if you please, the most holy + Sacraments.” Fr. Vincent asked in amazement, “Is it possible a man should + have attained so high a degree of virtue, as not to be conscious of + [sin]?”’

It is easy to see how Lopez’s example + affected Wesley: (1) their mutual source in Scupoli’s Spiritual Combat; (2) Lopez’s voyage to Mexico had parallels to + the Georgia mission; (3) ‘holy living’ as a lifelong quest; (4) stress on + self-denial; (5) tranquillity of soul; (6) contemptus + mundi; (7) identification with the poor; (8) Lopez’s practice of + ‘primitive physick’; (9) ‘perfection’ as purity of intention in this life; (10) the equation of holiness and + happiness.

Lopez’s influence had already been + acknowledged by Molinos and Madame Guyon. Cf. No. 114, On + the Death of John Fletcher, III.12, as well as repeated references + in JWJ and Letters.

 and the Marquis de + Renty

Gaston Jean + Baptiste de Renty (1611-49), a highborn Frenchman turned ascetic, known to + Wesley through the Life by Saint-Jure, (see No. 14, + The Repentance of Believers, n. 70). A precocious + youth, de Renty was ‘converted’ by a reading of à Kempis and resolved to + become a Carthusian hermit. His parents dissuaded him from this, encouraging + him to marry and enter a career of public service. In 1638, however, he + abandoned his career to devote himself wholly to ascetic piety (e.g., + wearing an iron girdle, etc.) and to charity. He also influenced Henry Buch + (1590-1666) to found a religious congregation of Les + Frères Cordonniers, one of the models for Wesley’s societies. + Wesley’s references to de Renty are numerous; cf. No. 14, The Repentance of Believers, I.15 and n.

), but that + many of them even at this day are real, inward Christians? And yet what an heap of + erroneous opinions do they hold, delivered by tradition from their fathers! Nay, who + can doubt of it while there are Calvinists in the world—asserters of + absolute predestination? For who will dare to affirm that none of these are truly + religious men? Not only many of them in the last century were burning and shining + lights,

See John + 5:35.

 but many of them are now real Christians, loving God and + all mankind. And yet what are all the absurd opinions of all the Romanists in the + world compared to that one, that the God of love, the wise, just, merciful Father of + the spirits of all flesh, has from all eternity fixed an absolute, unchangeable, + irresistible decree that part of mankind shall be saved, do what they will, and the + rest damned, do what they can!

A bitter echo of the Calvinist controversy and of + Wesley’s caricature of Augustus M. Toplady’s Doctrine of + Absolute Predestination, ch. 5, §9 (see Bibliog, No. 322): ‘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[ugustus] T[oplady].’

+

2. Hence we cannot but infer that there are ten thousand mistakes which may + consist with real religion; with regard to which every candid, considerate man will + think and let think.

Cf. No. 7, ‘The Way to the Kingdom’, I.6 and n.

But there are + some truths more important than others. It seems there are some which are of deep + importance. I do not term them fundamental truths, because + that is an ambiguous word, and hence there have been so many warm disputes about the + number of ‘fundamentals’.

An echo of another bitter controversy from the + sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (‘adiaphoristic’); cf. J. L. von + Mosheim, Institutiones Historiae Ecclesiasticae + (1726; Eng. tr. by J. Murdock, 1841),‘Century XVI’, iii.2.28; see also + Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, p. 688. In England the + Parliament of 1653 had drawn up a list of sixteen ‘fundamental articles’, + which narrowly missed enactment as church law; cf. Daniel Neal, History of the Puritans (1754), II.143-44. In 1734 + Daniel Waterland had also drawn up a list of seven ‘fundamentals’ which had + not included a formal doctrine of the Trinity. Here, as elsewhere, Wesley is + reacting against the tendencies of both orthodoxy and pietism (viz., Lange, Spener, et al.); + he is taking the narrowest possible view of the irreducible ‘fundamentals’ + and a consciously tolerant view of a broad spectrum of theological opinions + (i.e., adiaphora).

 But surely there are + some which it nearly concerns us to know, as having a close connection with vital + religion. And doubtless we may rank among these that contained in the words above + cited: ‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the + Holy Ghost: and these three are one.’

+

3. I do not mean that it is of importance to believe this or that explication of these words. I know not that any well-judging + man would attempt to explain them at all. One of the best tracts + which that great man Dean Swift ever wrote was his sermon upon the Trinity.

Jonathan Swift + (1667-1745), Dean of St. Patrick’s, Dublin, from 1713; his sermon ‘On the + Trinity’ was first published in 1744, in Three + Sermons; there is no record of when or where it was ever preached. + The singling out of Swift’s sermon for praise reflects Wesley’s approval of + Swift’s contention that the doctrine of the Trinity is a ‘mystery’, so far + above reason as precludes rational explication altogether. Here, they were + both dissenting from men like Robert South (‘The Doctrine of the Blessed + Trinity Asserted’, in Sermons, 1844, II.174-91) who, + with many Anglicans, believed the doctrine could be shown as not contrary to + reason. Cf. Joseph Trapp, ‘On the Trinity’ (London, 1730), where it was + argued that the doctrine is demonstrably rational. See also Louis A. Landa, + ‘Swift, the Mysteries, and Deism’, in Studies in + English (Austin, Tex., Univ. of Texas Press, 1944), pp. 239-56; + Landa’s thesis is that Swift’s ‘antirationalism’ with regard to the + ‘mystery’ of the Trinity is aimed at the rationalism of the + Deists.

Herein he shows that all who endeavoured to explain it at all + have utterly lost their way; have above all other persons hurt the cause which they + intended to promote, having only, as Job speaks, ‘darkened counsel by words without + knowledge’.

Cf. + Job 38:2.

 It was in an evil hour that these explainers began + their fruitless work. I insist upon no explication at all; no, not even on the best + I ever saw—I mean that which is given us in the creed commonly ascribed to + Athanasius.

Cf. + BCP, Athanasian Creed, directing that it ‘shall be said or sung at Morning + Prayer instead of the Apostles’ Creed on Christmas Day, the Epiphany’, and + eleven other festival days, including Trinity Sunday. Wesley was aware that + Athanasian authorship of this Western creed had been abandoned by most + scholars for more than a century (since G. J. Voss, 1642), and he must have + known the conclusions of Daniel Waterland’s Critical + History of the Athanasian Creed (1723), where its date is placed in + the decade A.D. 430-40 and its authorship attributed to St. Hilary of Arles; + see the list of other possible authors in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York, Harper and Harper, 1881-82), + I, §10. The first certain witness to this creed is Caesarius of Arles (c. A.D. 542). What is noteworthy about Wesley’s + comments here is his qualified approval of this Creed’s positive statement + on the Trinity and his rejection of the ‘damnatory clauses’ with which it + opens and closes. In 1755, he had declined to ‘defend the damnatory clauses and the speaking of “this faith” (i.e., these + opinions) as if it were the ground term of salvation’; see Frank Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England, pp. 18-19, + 331. Cf. also Hooker, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, + Bk. V, ch. 42.

 I am far from saying, he who does not assent to + this ‘shall without doubt perish everlastingly’. For the sake of that and another + clause I for some time scrupled subscribing to that creed, till I considered, (1), + that these sentences only relate to wilful, not involuntary + unbelievers—to those who, having all the means of knowing the truth, nevertheless + obstinately reject it; (2), that they relate only to the substance of the doctrine there delivered, not the philosophical illustrations of it.

+

4. I dare not insist upon anyone’s using the word ‘Trinity’ or + ‘Person’. I use them myself without any scruple, because I know of none better. + But if any man has any scruple concerning them, who shall constrain him to use them? + I cannot; much less would I burn a man alive—and that with moist, green wood—for + saying, ‘Though I believe the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is + God, yet I scruple using the words “Trinity” and “Persons” because I do not find + those terms in the Bible.’ These are the words which merciful John Calvin cites as + wrote by Servetus in a letter to himself.

A remote paraphrase, apparently based on ‘Sententiae vel Propositionum Excerptae Ex Libris Michaelis + Serveti’ in Calvin’s Defensio Orthodoxae Fidei de + Sacra Trinitate (1554); see Calvini Opera, + VIII.501-8. These excerpts should be compared with Servetus’s own words: + ‘The doctrine of the Trinity can be neither established by logic nor proved + from Scripture…. The Scriptures and the Fathers teach one God the Father and + Jesus Christ his Son; but scholastic philosophy has introduced terms which + are not understood and do not accord with Scripture. Jesus taught that he + himself was the Son of God…. But the doctrine of the Trinity incurs the + ridicule of the Mohammedans [Servetus was a Spaniard] and the Jews. It arose + out of Greek philosophy…, whereas the church should be founded on the belief + that Jesus Christ is the Son of God’ (The Two Treatises of + Servetus on the Trinity [no date for the orig.; Eng. tr. by E. M. + Wilbur, 1932], pp. 3-5). Wesley (JWJ, July 9, 1741) recounts his discovery + of a history of the Calvin-Servetus affair in the Bodleian Library, and in + Some Remarks on a Defence of Aspasio Vindicated, + §6, cites ‘Dr. Chandler, an eminent Presbyterian divine in London’ as having + given ‘a circumstantial account of the whole affair’ (Samuel Chandler, The History of Persecution in Four Parts, London, + 1736, espec. pp. 315-25); in the same Remarks, §6, + Wesley had already said very nearly what he repeats here.

Calvin has, of course, been condemned and defended for + his part in Servetus’s condemnation and death. In the ‘Dedicatory Preface’ + to The Eternal Predestination of God (1552; Eng. tr. + 1856), pp. 20-21, Calvin denies that he was responsible for Servetus’s death + and adds, in The Secret Providence of God (1558; Eng. + tr. 1856), p. 346: ‘That I myself earnestly entreated that Servetus might + not be put to death, his judges themselves are witnesses.’ See also Actes du Procès de Michael Servète (1553), in Calvini Opera Omnia, VIII.725-856. But see Sebastian + Castellio in Concerning Heretics, ed. and tr. by R. + H. Bainton (1935), pp. 265-87.

I would insist only on the direct + words unexplained, just as they lie in the text: ‘There are three that bear record + in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.’

+

5. ‘As they lie in the text’—but here arises a question. Is that text genuine? + Was it originally written by the Apostle or inserted in later ages? Many have + doubted of this; and in particular that great light of the Christian church, lately + removed to the church above, Bengelius—the most pious, the most judicious, and the + most laborious, of all the modern commentators on the New Testament.

John Albert Bengel + (1687-1752), whose Gnomon Novi Testamenti (1742) was + Wesley’s principal source for his Explanatory Notes Upon + the New Testament (1755). Bengel’s comments on 1 John 5:7-9 run for + sixteen pages in the Gnomon and conclude that TR of 5:7 is required by the context rather than by + the weight of MS evidence. Wesley’s summary of Bengel’s argument seems to + have been based, not upon the Gnomon, but on a + separate ‘dissertation’ in Bengel’s Apparatus + Criticus (1734). The words between ‘bear record’ (ver. 7) and ‘the + spirit’ (ver. 8) are included in no modern critical edn.

For some + time he stood in doubt of its authenticity, because it is wanting in + many of the ancient copies. But his doubts were removed by three considerations: + (1). That though it is wanting in many copies yet it is found in more, abundantly + more, and those copies of the greatest authority. (2). That it is cited by a whole + train of ancient writers from the time of St. John to that of Constantine. This + argument is conclusive; for they could not have cited it had it not then been in the + sacred canon. (3). That we can easily account for its being after that time wanting + in many copies when we remember that Constantine’s successor

Constantius, who became sole ruler + of the Empire in A.D. 353 and who died in A.D. 361; cf. the vivid and + circumstantial account of this period in William Cave, Ecclesiastici: Or, the History of the…Fathers of the Church + (1716), pp. 399-441 (‘The Life of St. Athanasius’).

 was a zealous + Arian, who used every means to promote his bad cause, to spread Arianism throughout + the empire; in particular the erasing this text out of as many copies as fell into + his hands. And he so far prevailed that the age in which he lived is commonly styled + seculum Arianum, the Arian age; there being then only one + eminent man who opposed him at the peril of his life. So that it was a proverb, Athanasius contra mundum—‘Athanasius against the world’.

Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church (1884), + pp. 224-29, quotes a long section from Hooker’s Law of + Ecclesiastical Polity, V.xlii.5, which concludes: ‘So that this was + the plain condition of those times: the whole world against Athanasius and + Athanasius against it.’ From which he then infers: ‘It is probably from the + Latin version of this celebrated passage that we derive the proverb, Athanasius contra mundum.’ Cf. Wesley’s letter to + William Wilberforce (commending his heroic struggles against slavery), as + well as Charles’s letter to John, Jan. 2, 1738. Cf. also No. 88, ‘On Dress’, + §23, where Wesley quotes from his brother Samuel’s verse which makes this + same point in different words.

+

6. But itis objected: ‘Whatever becomes of the text, we cannot believe what we + cannot comprehend. When therefore you require us to believe mysteries, we pray you + to have us excused.’

+

Here is a twofold mistake. (1). We do not require you to believe any mystery in this, + whereas you suppose the contrary. But (2), you do already believe many things which + you cannot comprehend.

+

7. To begin with the latter. You do already believe many things which you + cannot comprehend. For you believe there is a sun over your + head. But whether he stands still in the midst of his system, or not + only revolves on his own axis but ‘rejoiceth as a giant to run his course’,

Ps. + 19:5(BCP).

you cannot comprehend either one or the other—how he moves, or how he rests. By what + power, what natural, mechanical power, is he upheld in the fluid ether? You cannot + deny the fact; yet you cannot account for it so as to satisfy a rational inquirer. + You may indeed give us the hypotheses of Ptolemy, Tycho Brahe, Copernicus,

A shorthand reference + to the knowledge explosion in the physical sciences in his own and preceding + centuries and a reflection of his interest in the impact of the new science + upon religion. The Ptolemaic (geocentric) model of astronomy had dominated + medieval world views until the sixteenth century when they were challenged, + less radically by the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) and much + more radically by the heliocentrism of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543). It + is interesting that Wesley here ignores Brahe’s more famous and influential + assistant and successor, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630). What is important for + him here is the development of the changing world views from the geocentrism + of Ptolemy, the fixed earth theories of Brahe, to the radical heliocentrism + of Copernicus. Wesley had also read (how carefully one can only guess) Sir + Isaac Newton’s Opticks (1704), and the Principia Mathematica (1687), along with Bernard Le + Bovier de Fontenelle’s Conversations on the Plurality of + Worlds (1686). He was equally interested in the speculations of + Thomas Burnet (Sacred Theory of the Earth) and John + Keill’s critique (An Examination of Dr. Burnet’s + Theory, 1698), as well as the controversies generated by William + Whiston’s A New Theory of the Earth, and John + Woodward’s Natural History of the Earth (1695). He + was even drawn into the eccentric notions of John Hutchinson’s Moses’s Principia (1724), chiefly as a foil against + what he regarded as the naturalistic tendencies of Newton and the + Newtonians. His chief reliance, perhaps, was on John Rogers, Dissertation on the Knowledge of the Antients in + Astronomy (1755). His gleanings from these various excursions into + ‘contemporary science’ may be seen in Nos. 69, ‘The Imperfection of Human + Knowledge’, I.5; 77, ‘Spiritual Worship’, I.6; 103, ‘What is Man? Ps. + 8:3-4’, I.3-6, II.9-12; 132, ‘On Faith, Heb. 11:1’, §3; cf. also his letter + ‘To the Editor of The London Magazine’, Jan. 1, 1765. His summary of ‘modern astronomy’ + appears in the Survey, espec. III.279, 296, 328-40. + His consistent point, in all these passages, is that science cannot + penetrate the mysteries of faith and should not presume to try. Its positive + function is to extend and verify our knowledge of creation as the exhibition + of the Creator’s providence, wisdom, and glory.

 and twenty more. + I have read them over and over. I am sick of them I care not three straws for them + all.

+ + Each new solution but once more affords + New change of terms, and scaffolding of words: + In other garb my question I receive, + And take my doubt the very same I gave. + +

Prior, Solomon, I.477-80, + beginning, ‘Yet this solution…’. See also Wesley, Moral + and Sacred Poems (1744), I.111.

+ + +

Still I insist, the fact you believe, you cannot deny. But the + manner you cannot comprehend.

+

8. You believe there is such a thing as light, whether + flowing from the sun or any other luminous body. But you cannot + comprehend either its nature or the manner wherein it flows. How does it move from + Jupiter to the earth in eight minutes—two hundred thousand miles in a moment?

Cf. Chambers’s Cyclopaedia, on ‘Jupiter’, ‘Planets’, and ‘Light’. + Cf. also No. 69, ‘The Imperfection of Human Knowledge’, I.5 (where Wesley + speaks of Rogers’s efforts to discredit Newton) and n. Even so, Wesley + maintains a sceptical attitude toward all these claims: ‘With regard to [the + planets’] distance from the earth, there is such an immense difference in + the calculations of the astronomers…that it is wisest to confess our + ignorance and to acknowledge we have nothing to rest on here but uncertain + conjecture’ (Survey, III.296). Thus Wesley stands + closer to Rogers than he ever did to Newton.

How do the rays of + the candle brought into the room instantly disperse into every corner? Again: here + are three candles, yet there is but one light. Explain this, and I will explain the + Three-One God.

+

9. You believe there is such a thing as air. It both + covers you as a garment, and

+ + Wide interfused + Embraces round this florid earth. + +

Milton, Paradise Lost, vii.89-90. + Cf. No. 89, ‘The More Excellent Way’, V.5.

+ + +

But can you comprehend how? Can you give me a satisfactory account of its nature, or + the cause of its properties? Think only of one, its elasticity. Can you account for + this? It may be owing to electric fire

Cf. No. 15, The Great Assize, + III.4 and n.

attached to each particle of it: it may not—and + neither you nor I can tell. But if we will not breathe it till we can comprehend it, + our life is very near its period.

+

10. You believe there is such a thing as earth. Here, + you fix your foot upon it You are supported by it. But do you comprehend what it is + that supports the earth? ‘O, an elephant’, says a Malabarian philosopher; ‘and a + bull supports him.’

Cf. Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, + II.xiii.19, xxiii.2 (which discusses this Malabarian philosophy); cf. also + Soame Jenyns, A Free Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of + Evil (1757) for a later discussion of the ‘fable’. Jeremy Taylor, + Works, I.lix (intro.) makes mention of this ‘sage + system of Indian cosmogony’. See Wesley’s ‘Remarks on Mr. H.’s Account of + the Gentoo Religion in Hindostan’, first published in Lloyd’s Evening Post, Nov. 30, 1774, and afterwards in AM (1785), VIII.425-28, 474-76.

But what + supports the bull? The Indian and the Briton are equally at a loss for an answer. We + know it is God that ‘spreadeth the north over the empty space, and hangeth the earth + upon nothing’.

Cf. + Job 26:7.

 This is the fact. But how? Who can account for this? + Perhaps angelic, but not human creatures.

+

I know what is plausibly said concerning the powers of projection and + attraction.

Key + terms in the wide-ranging debates about the ‘new science’, the theory of + gravitation in particular. Cf. Chambers’s Cyclopaedia, on ‘Attraction’ (running to eight quarto columns); see + also ‘Force’, ‘Projectile’, ‘Projection’, and ‘Gravitation’. The ‘cobweb + hypothesis’ may refer here to the gossamer character of the various theories + being spun out so profusely. One of them would have been the odd theory of + biblical symbolism of John Hutchinson, who had found, in the unpointed text of the Hebrew Bible, clues to a + complete cosmology based on the physical interaction of light, fire, and air + (analogous to the Trinity). This was the project of Moses’s Principia and his other prolific writings. Wesley + appreciated Hutchinson as a counterweight to Newton, but the empirical turn + of his mind quickly turned him away from Hutchinson’s fanciful theorizings; + cf. No. 77, ‘Spiritual Worship’, I.6 and n.

But spin as fine as + we can, matter of fact sweeps away our cobweb hypothesis. Connect the force[s] of + projection and attraction how you can, they will never produce a circular motion. + The moment the projected steel comes within the attraction of the magnet, it does + not form a curve, but drops down.

+

11. You believe you have a soul. ‘Hold there’, says the + Doctor;

Dr. + Bl—ir, in his late tract [i.e., Patrick Blair, M.D., of Cork, Thoughts on Nature and Religion (1774); cf. pp. + 61-63: ‘(since) all (animals) have a “mind” or faculty of thinking and + judging…, they must have as equal a right to an immortal director as the + human species.’ Wesley and Blair, however, have little else in common in + their assumptions and conclusions].

‘I believe no such + thing. If you have an immaterial soul, so have the brutes too.’ I will not quarrel + with any that think they have; nay, I wish he could prove it. And surely I would + rather allow them souls than I would give up my own. In this + I cordially concur in the sentiment of the honest heathen: Si + erro, libenter erro; et me redargui valde recusem

A conflation of bits from two + different passages in Cicero’s De Senectute (On Old + Age), xxiii.85 and xxiii.83.

—if I err, I err willingly; + and I vehemently refuse to be convinced of it. And I trust most of those who do not + believe a Trinity are of the same mind. Permit me then to go on. You believe you + have a soul connected with this house of clay.

See Job 4:19. Cf. No. 28, ‘Sermon on the Mount, + VIII’, §21 and n.116.

 But can you comprehend how? What are the + ties that unite the heavenly flame with the earthly clod? You understand just + nothing of the matter. So it is; but how none can tell.

+

12. You surely believe you have a body together with + your soul, and that each is dependent on the other. Run only a thorn into your hand: + immediately pain is felt in your soul. On the other side, is shame felt in your + soul? Instantly a blush overspreads your cheek. Does the soul feel fear or violent + anger? Presently the body trembles. There also are facts which you + cannot deny; nor can you account for them.

+

13. I bring but one instance more. At the command of your soul your hand is + lifted up. But who is able to account for this, for the connection between the act + of the mind, and the outward actions? Nay, who can account for ‘muscular motion’ at + all, in any instance of it whatever? When one of the most ingenious physicians in + England had finished his lecture upon that head he added: ‘Now, gentlemen, I have + told you all the discoveries of our enlightened age. And now, if you understand one + jot of the matter, you understand more than I do.’

A similar comment may be found in Christ Crucified, §11, the sermon preached by Wesley + at Wakefield, Apr. 28, 1774 (see Appendix C, Vol. 1 of this edn.; also Bibliog, No. 624), attributed to a ‘Dr. Hunter’, + which could have been either of the two brothers, William (1718-83) or John + (1728-93). One may guess (on the basis of his reputation as a popular + lecturer) that this anecdote came from William. The idea may be found, + earlier, in James Keill (another Scottish physician), Account of Animal Secretion: the Quantity of Blood in the Human Body + and Muscular Motion (1708), with its frequent disclaimers of + definitive knowledge.

+

The short of the matter is this. Those who will not believe anything but what they + can comprehend must not believe that there is a sun in the + firmament, that there is light shining around them, that + there is air, though it encompasses them on every side, that + there is any earth, though they stand upon it. They must not + believe that they have a soul, no, nor that they have a body.

+

14. But, secondly, as strange as it may seem, in requiring you to believe, + ‘there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy + Ghost; and these three are one,’ you are not required to believe any mystery. Nay, + that great and good man, Dr. Peter Browne, sometime Bishop of Cork, has proved at + large that the Bible does not require you to believe any mystery at all.

Peter Browne (d. + 1735), The Procedure, Extent, and Limits of Human + Understanding (1728). Wesley read this in 1729 and drew up a précis + of it for his further use. Cf. his letter to William Law, Jan. 6, 1756; his + ‘Remarks on Mr. Locke’s Essay on Human Understanding’, printed in the AM (1782-83), VI-VII; and his Survey, V.171-223. For Wesley, Browne’s essay stood as the most + effective rejoinder to Hume and to the faithless sort of scepticism that + cuts even the nerve of rational analysis of religious mysteries.

+ The Bible barely requires you to believe such facts, not the + manner of them. Now the mystery does not lie in the fact, but + altogether in the manner.

+

For instance, ‘God said, Let there be light; and there was light.’

Gen. 1:3.

I believe it: + I believe the plain fact; there is no mystery at all in this. The mystery lies in the manner of + it. But of this I believe nothing at all; nor does God require it of me.

+

Again. ‘The word was made flesh.’

John 1:14.

I believe this fact also. There + is no mystery in it; but as to the manner, how he was made flesh, wherein the mystery lies, I know nothing about it; + I believe nothing about it. It is no more the object of my faith than it is of my + understanding.

+

15. To apply this to the case before us. ‘There are three that bear record in + heaven…: and these three are one.’ I believe this fact also + (if I may use the expression)—that God is Three and One. But the manner, how, I do not comprehend; and I do not + believe it. Now in this, in this manner, lies the mystery. + And so it may; I have no concern with it. It is no object of my faith; I believe + just so much as God has revealed and no more. But this, the manner, he has not revealed; therefore I believe nothing about it. But + would it not be absurd in me to deny the fact because I do not understand the + manner? That is, to reject what God has revealed because I do + not comprehend what he has not revealed?

+

16. This is a point much to be observed. There are many things which ‘eye hath not + seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man to + conceive’.

Cf. 1 + Cor. 2:9.

Part of these God hath ‘revealed to us by his + Spirit’

1 Cor. + 2:10.

—revealed, that is, unveiled, + uncovered. That part he requires us to believe. Part of them he has not revealed. + That we need not, and indeed cannot, believe; it is far above, out of our sight.

+

Now where is the wisdom of rejecting what is revealed because we do not understand + what is not revealed? Of denying the fact which God has + unveiled because we cannot see the manner, which is veiled + still?

+

17. Especially when we consider that what God has been pleased to reveal upon this + head is far from being a point of indifference, is a truth of the last importance. + It enters into the very heart of Christianity; it lies at the root of all vital + religion.

+

Unless these three are one, how can ‘all men honour the Son, even as they honour the + Father’?

John + 5:23.

I know not what to do, says Socinus in a letter to his + friend, with my untoward followers. They will not worship Jesus Christ. I tell them, + it is written, ‘Let all the angels of God worship him.’

Heb. 1:6.

 + They answer, ‘However that be, if he is not God we dare not worship him. “For it is + written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”’

Matt. 4:10. Cf. Fausti Socini Senensis Opera Omnia (Irenopoli, 1656), + ‘Epistolae ad amicos’, Ad + Matthaeum Radecium, Epistola III, pp. 387-88. This would have been + the Polish historian, Matthew Radecius.

+

But the thing which I here particularly mean is this: the knowledge of the Three-One + God

This phrase + had been used by Samuel Wesley, Sen., in his Life of + Christ (1697), II.778 (p. 53), VI.62 (p. 185), IX.833 (p. 318). It + was repeated by Samuel Wesley, Jun., in his Poems + (1736), p. 234. See also John Wesley’s Notes on Luke + 4:18.

is interwoven with all true Christian faith, with all vital + religion.

+

I do not say that every real Christian can say with the Marquis de Renty, ‘I bear + about with me continually an experimental verity, and a plenitude of the presence of + the ever blessed Trinity.’

Cf. Saint-Jure, Life, p. 28. De + Renty has ‘ordinarily’ for Wesley’s ‘constantly’ and speaks of ‘the most + Holy Trinity’. Cf. Henri Bremond, A Literary History of + Religious Thought in France, II.431, where (in review of French + mysticism, including de Renty) Bremond quotes Pére Poulain, from his Les graces d’oraison (5th edn.), p. 66: ‘God no + longer contents himself with helping us to think of him and putting us in + mind of his Presence, but he imparts to us an experimental + intellectual knowledge of that Presence.’ Bremond adds: ‘This + indeed is the fundamental mystical phenomenon.’ Cf. also No. 117, ‘On the + Discoveries of Faith’, §17; and the ascriptions to Nos. 133, ‘Death and + Deliverance’; and 134, ‘Seek First the Kingdom’; see also his letter to + Hester Ann Roe, June 22, 1776; and the Notes on Matt + 3:17; 6:13; Luke 4:18.

I apprehend this is not the experience of + babes, but rather fathers in + Christ.

Cf. + No. 13, On Sin in Believers, III.2 and + n.

+

But I know not how anyone can be a Christian believer till ‘he hath’ (as St. John + speaks) ‘the witness in himself’;

1 John 5:10.

till ‘the Spirit of God + witnesses with his spirit that he is a child of God’

Cf. Rom. 8:16.

—that is, + in effect, till God the Holy Ghost witnesses that God the Father has accepted him + through the merits of God the Son—and having this witness he honours the Son and the + blessed Spirit ‘even as he honours the Father’.

Cf. John 5:23.

+

18. Not that every Christian believer adverts to this; perhaps + at first not one in twenty; but if you ask any of them a few questions you will + easily find it is implied in what he believes. +

+

Therefore I do not see how it is possible for any to have vital religion who denies + that these three are one. And all my hope for them is, not that they will be saved + during their unbelief (unless on the footing of honest heathens, upon the plea of + invincible ignorance),

Cf. No. 39, ‘Catholic Spirit’, I.5 and n.

+ but that God, before they go hence, will ‘bring them to the knowledge of the + truth’.

Cf. 1 + Tim. 2:4; 2 Tim. 3:7; Heb. 10:26.

+ + +