Notes:
Sermon 38: A Caution Against Bigotry
Part of the price of peace in eighteenth-century Britain, after the bitter quarrels of Civil War and Restoration, was a general lessening of partisan zeal and bigotry. The latitudinarians had made a positive virtue of toleration. Others had accepted it grudgingly as the lesser of two evils. The main concern of all, in both church and civil state, was surcease from religious turmoil. It was, therefore, inevitable that the Methodist Revival should revive fears of new religious disruptions; and Wesley’s claim to an extraordinary vocation, his blithe disregard for parish boundaries and for the conventions of ministerial courtesy, along with his employment of lay preachers in busy rotation across the three kingdoms, did nothing to allay such fears. In his interview with Joseph Butler
See above, p. 44.
Moore, Wesley, I.465.
He had already made a similar declaration in a letter to an unnamed 02:062critic (March 28, 1739) in reply to a complaint that he was invading other men’s parishes:
“‘A dispensation of the gospel is committed to me, and woe is me if I preach not the gospel.’ But where shall I preach it upon the principles you mention? [Answer: Nowhere.]… Suffer me now to tell you my principles in this matter. I look upon all the world as my parish; thus far I mean, that in whatever part of it I am, I judge it meet, right, and my bounden duty, to declare unto all that are willing to hear the glad tidings of salvation. This is the work which I know God has called me to. And sure I am that his blessing attends it.Letters, 25:615-16 in this edn.
Thus, in much the same way that the Methodists had come by the label ‘enthusiasts’, they also had come to be regarded as ‘bigots’ in the current general sense of ‘excessive or irrational zealots’; cf. Johnson’s definition in his Dictionary, and see also Chambers’s Cyclopaedia, for a quaint story about the term’s coinage, viz., in a courtly outburst of outraged dignity: ‘No, by-God!’. With the Revival now in full flood, and with Wesley as sole head of a tightly organized, highly partisan group of zealous preachers and people, there was an obvious occasion for a carefully considered statement about proper and improper zeal addressed to critics and to Methodists alike—‘a caution against bigotry’, defined as ‘too strong an attachment to, or fondness for, our own party, opinion, church, and religion’.
For other uses by Wesley of ‘bigotry’, cf. Notes on 1 John 4:21. and Hymns and Spiritual Songs (1753), Preface, for which see Bibliog, No. 199; and Vol. 7 of this edn., pp. 736-37.
In this sermon Wesley studiously avoids an apologetic stance. Rather, he will redefine the problem by asking about the proper business of true apostles and answering it by reference to the gospel story of the casting out of devils (taken here as a metaphor for the whole conflict between Christ and the forces of evil and also for the ministry of salvation). Does it really matter who may venture this task and who may be forbidden it—and on what grounds? Would it really be better for evil to go unchallenged, souls to go unsaved, if this were not to be done ‘properly’? Given his predictable answers to such questions, Wesley is then able to argue that valid ministry should be measured by fruits rather than forms. Further, he will imply that churchmen might, indeed, be actually grateful for the work of the Methodists and that, in their turn, the Methodists should renounce all bigotry discovered within themselves. In effect, this is a positive, if also indirect, plea for a carefully considered religious pluralism both in theology and praxis.
There is no record of any other instance of Wesley’s using Mark 02:0639:38-39 as a sermon text—from which we may infer that it was written on purpose for this particular time and occasion. But its underlying pragmatism can be seen as essential in Wesley’s concepts of theological method and of Christian community-in-diversity. Thus, it was a useful rejoinder to those who took Methodist bigotry as a matter of course and yet also a timely antidote to Methodist ‘zeal without knowledge’; for a sequel, see No. 92, ‘On Zeal’.
A Caution Against BigotryMark 9:38-39
And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not us.
And Jesus said, Forbid him not.
1. In the preceding verses we read that after the twelve had been disputing ‘which of them should be the greatest’, Jesus ‘took a little child, and set him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms said unto them, Whosoever shall receive one of these little children in my name receiveth me; and whosoever receiveth me receiveth not me (only), but him that sent me.’
See Mark 9:34, 36-37.
22. The same passage is recited by St. Luke, and almost in the same words. But it may be asked: ‘What is this to us? Seeing no man now “casts out devils”. Has not the power of doing this been withdrawn from the church for twelve or fourteen hundred years? How then are we concerned in the case here proposed, or in our Lord’s decision of it?’
302:0643. Perhaps more nearly than is commonly imagined, the case proposed being no uncommon case. That we may reap our full advantage from it I design to show, first, in what sense men may, and do now, ‘cast out devils’; secondly, what we may understand by, ‘He followeth not us.’ I shall, thirdly, explain our Lord’s direction, ‘Forbid him not,’ and conclude with an inference from the whole.
11I. 1. I am, in the first place, to show in what sense men may, and do now, ‘cast out devils’.
In order to have the clearest view of this we should remember that (according to the scriptural account) as God dwells and works in the children of light, so the devil dwells and works in the children of darkness. As the Holy Spirit possesses the souls of good men, so the evil spirit possesses the souls of the wicked. Hence it is that the Apostle terms him ‘the god of this world’
2 Cor. 4:4.
John 12:31, etc.
1 John 5:19.
Cf. No. 12, ‘The Witness of Our Own Spirit’, §10 and n.
22. For the devil is not to be considered only as ‘a roaring lion, going about seeking whom he may devour’;
Orig. (1750), ‘and seeking’; cf. 1 Pet. 5:8.
Cf. 2 Tim. 2:26.
Cf. Eph. 6:12.
Cf. Luke 11:21, 24, 26.
Cf. Eph. 2:2.
33. It is therefore an unquestionable truth that the god and prince of this world still possesses all who know not God. Only the manner wherein he possesses them now differs from that wherein he did it of old time. Then he frequently tormented their bodies as well as souls, and that openly, without any disguise; now he torments their souls only (unless in some rare cases) and that as covertly as possible. The reason of this difference is plain. It was then his aim to drive mankind into superstition. Therefore he wrought as openly as he could. But ’tis his aim to drive us into infidelity. Therefore he works as privately as he can; for the more secret he is, the more he prevails.
44. Yet if we may credit historians there are countries even now where he works as openly as aforetime. ‘But why in savage and barbarous countries only? Why not in Italy, France, or England?’ For a very plain reason: he knows his men. And he knows what he hath to do with each. To Laplanders
This stereotype of Laplanders as notoriously superstitious was a fixture in English folklore, reinforced by reports such as Giles Fletcher, Of the Russe Commonwealth…with the manners and fashion of the People of that Country (1591); Sir Jerome Horsey’s ‘treatise’ ‘of Russia and other Northeastern Regions’; in the 4th edn. of Samuel Purchas, Purchas His Pilgrimage (1626); and by Milton’s simile, ‘riding through the air…to dance with Lapland witches’ (Paradise Lost, ii. 663-65). The likeliest direct source for Wesley was Thomas Salmon, Modern History, I.654-58; but see also Aubry de la Motraye, Travels Through Europe, II.283 ff.; and John Ray, Wisdom of God Manifested in the Work of Creation, Pt. II, p. 402. For other remarks by Wesley on Laplanders, cf. No. 69, ‘The Imperfection of Human Knowledge’, II.7; and his Survey, IV.109.
55. He reigns, therefore, although in a different way, yet as absolute in one land as in the other. He has the gay Italian infidel in his teeth as sure as the wild Tartar. But he is fast asleep in the mouth of the lion, who is too wise to wake him out of sleep. So he 02:066only plays with him for the present, and when he pleases swallows him up.
The god of this world holds his English worshippers full as fast as those in Lapland. But it is not his business to affright them, lest they should fly to the God of heaven. The prince of darkness therefore does not appear while he rules over these his willing subjects. The conqueror holds his captives so much the safer because they imagine themselves at liberty. Thus the ‘strong one armed keepeth his house, and his goods are in peace’:
Cf. Luke 11:21.
66. All this while he works with energy in them. He blinds the eyes of their understanding so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ cannot shine upon them.
See 2 Cor. 4:4.
77. But how easily may we know the cause from its effects! These are sometimes gross and palpable. So they were in the most refined of the heathen nations. Go no farther than the admired, the virtuous Romans. And you will find these, when at the height of their learning and glory, ‘filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, despiteful, proud, boasters, disobedient to parents, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful’.
Cf. Rom. 1:29-31; see also later negative judgments on Roman degeneracy from their ancient virtues in Tacitus, Annals, I, III, IV, VI; and his De origine et situ Germanorum (A.D. 98); Juvenal, Satires, I, II, IV; and Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars (121).
88. The strongest parts of this description are confirmed by one whom some may think a more unexceptionable witness. I mean their brother heathen, Dion Cassius, who observes that before Caesar’s return from Gaul not only gluttony and lewdness of every kind were open and barefaced; not only falsehood, injustice, and unmercifulness abounded in public courts as well as private families; but the most outrageous robberies, rapine, and murders were so frequent in all parts of Rome that few men 02:067went out of doors without making their wills, as not knowing if they should return alive.
Cf. Cassius Dio Cocceianus (c. A.D. 150-c. AD. 235), Dio’s Roman History, xl. 44-50 (Loeb, 53:476-83).
99. As gross and palpable are the works of the devil among many (if not all) the modern heathens. The natural religion of the Creeks, Cherokees, Chicasaws, and all other Indians bordering on our southern settlements (not of a few single men, but of entire nations) is to torture all their prisoners from morning to night, till at length they roast them to death; and upon the slightest undesigned provocation to come behind and shoot any of their own countrymen. Yea, it is a common thing among them for the son, if he thinks his father lives too long, to knock out his brains; and for a mother, if she is tired of her children, to fasten stones about their necks, and throw three or four of them into the river one after another.
Wesley had been frustrated in his intentions to go to the native Americans as a missionary; Oglethorpe and the Georgia Trustees wanted his work restricted to Savannah. His first-hand contacts with the Indians were, therefore, limited. Here, obviously, he is passing on hearsay about them to readers who would have had no way of knowing that later scholars would conclude that his condemnations of the Indians ‘were extremely harsh and unrealistic’; cf. J. Ralph Randolph, ‘John Wesley and the American Indian: A Study in Disillusionment’, Meth. Hist., X.3:11 (Apr. 1972); see also Randolph’s fuller study of Wesley on the Indians in his British Travelers Among the Southern Indians (Norman, Oklahoma, Univ, of Oklahoma Press, 1973). For further comments by Wesley on the Indians, cf. No. 69, ‘The Imperfection of Human Knowledge’, II.6; and JWJ, Feb. 18, 1773.
1010. It were to be wished that none but heathens had practised such gross, palpable works of the devil. But we dare not say so. Even in cruelty and bloodshed, how little have the Christians come behind them? And not the Spaniards or Portuguese alone, butchering thousands in South America. Not the Dutch only in the East Indies, or the French in North America, following the Spaniards step by step. Our own countrymen, too, have wantoned in blood, and exterminated whole nations: plainly proving thereby what spirit it is that dwells and works in the children of disobedience.
See Eph. 2:2.
1111. These monsters might almost make us overlook the works of the devil that are wrought in our own country. But, alas! We cannot open our eyes even here without seeing them on every side. Is it a small proof of his power that common swearers, drunkards, whoremongers, adulterers, thieves, robbers, sodomites, 02:068murderers, are still found in every part of our land? How triumphant does the prince of this world reign in all these children of disobedience!
1212. He less openly but no less effectually works in dissemblers, talebearers, liars, slanderers; in oppressors and extortioners; in the perjured, the seller of his friend, his honour, his conscience, his country. And yet these may talk of religion or conscience still! Of honour, virtue, and public spirit. But they can no more deceive Satan than they can God. He likewise knows those that are his: and a great multitude they are, out of every nation and people,
See Rev. 7:9, used here ironically.
1313. If you consider this you cannot but see in what sense men may now also ‘cast out devils’; yea, and every minister of Christ does cast them out, if his Lord’s work prosper in his hand.
See Isa. 53:10.
By the power of God attending his Word he brings these sinners to repentance: an entire inward as well as outward change, from all evil to all good. And this is in a sound sense to ‘cast out devils’, out of the souls wherein they had hitherto dwelt. The strong one can no longer keep his house. A stronger than he is come upon him, and hath cast him out, and taken possession for himself,
See Luke 11:21-22.
See Eph. 2:22.
Cf. 1 John 3:8.
1414. All this is indeed the work of God. It is God alone who can cast out Satan. But he is generally pleased to do this by man, as an instrument in his hand, who is then said to ‘cast out devils in his name’—by his power and authority. And he sends whom he will send
See Exod. 4:13; also cf. No. 4, Scriptural Christianity, IV.2 and n.
Cf. Isa. 55:8.
See 1 Cor. 1:27.
Cf. Rom. 3:20.
102:069II. 1. But shall we not forbid one who thus ‘casteth out devils’, if ‘he followeth not us’? This it seems was both the judgment and practice of the Apostle, till he referred the case to his Master. ‘We forbade him’, saith he, ‘because he followeth not us,’ which he supposed to be a very sufficient reason. What we may understand by this expression, ‘He followeth not us,’ is the next point to be considered.
The lowest circumstance we can understand thereby is, ‘He has no outward connection with us. We do not labour in conjunction with each other. He is not our fellow-helper in the gospel.’ And indeed whensoever our Lord is pleased to send many labourers into his harvest, they cannot all act in subordination to, or connection with, each other. Nay, they cannot all have personal acquaintance with, nor be so much as known to, one another. Many there will necessarily be in different parts of the harvest, so far from having any mutual intercourse that they will be as absolute strangers to each other, as if they had lived in different ages. And concerning any of these whom we know not we may doubtless say, ‘He followeth not us.’
22. A second meaning of this expression may be, ‘He is not of our party.’ It has long been matter of melancholy consideration to all who pray for the peace of Jerusalem
Ps. 122:6.
As the Tory son of a Tory family, Wesley had been involved in the turmoils of party strife all his life. When this sermon was written, he had lived under ‘the Whig supremacy’ for thirty-five disapproving years.
33. That expression may mean, thirdly, ‘He differs from us in our religious opinions.’
Another sample of Wesley’s doctrinal pluralism; cf. No. 7, ‘The Way to the Kingdom’, I.6 and n.
See Acts 4:32.
44. He may differ from us, fourthly, not only in opinion, but likewise in some points of practice. He may not approve of that manner of worshipping God which is practised in our congregation, and may judge that to be more profitable for his soul which took its rise from Calvin, or Martin Luther.
A casual reflection of Wesley’s unselfconscious Anglicanism; his own tradition is not Calvinist or Lutheran, not even Puritan. In other places he freely passes judgment on Calvin and on Luther (cf. No. 104, ‘On Attending the Church Service’, §25; and his letter to Mrs. Hutton, Aug. 22, 1744: ‘I love Calvin a little, Luther more…’), but in typical Anglican fashion regards them both as aliens. For other references to Luther see No. 14, The Repentance of Believers, I.9 and n.
55. But in a far stronger sense ‘he followeth not us’ who is not only of a different church, but of such a church as we account to be in many respects antiscriptural and antichristian:
Wesley’s fears of ‘popery’ and detestation of ‘the errors of the Church of Rome’ were inherited from a long tradition of Anglican anti-Roman polemics. Despite his generally tolerant spirit, best shown in his open Letter to a Roman Catholic, 1749 (cf. Michael Hurley, ed ., John Wesley’s Letter to a Roman Catholic, 1968), he followed in the familiar succession of John Jewel, An Apology or Answer in Defence of the Church of England (1562); Richard Hooker, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (1594-97); William Chillingworth, The Religion of Protestants (1637); Edward Stillingfleet, Origines Sacrae (1662); and John Tillotson, Works.
In 1753, he published a slight pamphlet of his own, The Advantage of the Members of the Church of England over those of the Church of Rome (Bibliog, No. 205; Vol 13 of this edn.). Then in 1756 he published A Roman Catechism with a Reply Thereto (Bibliog, No. 218; Vol. 13 of this edn.), an unacknowledged abridgement of Bishop John Williams, A Catechism Truly Representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome (1st edn, 1686; 3rd edn., 1713). In 1779, he returned to the attack once more with Popery Calmly Considered (Bibliog, No. 401; Vol. 13 of this edn.). Even so, he had always considered the piety and devotion of Roman Catholics like De Renty, Lopez, Fénelon, et al., authentic; thus, he always insisted that truly ‘catholic spirit’ must also include the Romans.
See Jude 3.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests (1566) takes the whole of Exod. 20:2-6 as ‘The First Commandment’ and makes 20:17 into ‘The Ninth’ and ‘Tenth Commandments’ (distinguishing between two kinds of covetousness). The Douai Bible (1582, 1609) has the following note on Exod. 20:4-5: ‘All such images…are forbidden by this [first] commandment as are made to be adored and served…. But otherwise, images, pictures, or representations even in the house of God, even in the very sanctuary, so far from being forbidden, are expressly authorized by the Word of God.’ The Childes Catechism (Paris, 1678) had followed this line of division. Thus, anti-Romans could claim that the Romans had dropped ‘the second commandment’; the Romans could claim that their official documents had been misunderstood.
66. And yet there may be a still wider difference than this. He who differs from us in judgment or practice may possibly stand at a greater distance from us in affection than in judgment. And this indeed is a very natural and a very common effect of the other. 02:072The differences which begin in points of opinion seldom terminate there. They generally spread into the affections, and then separate chief friends. Nor are any animosities so deep and irreconcilable as those that spring from disagreement in religion. For this cause the bitterest enemies of a man are those of his own household.
See Matt. 10:36.
See Matt. 10:21, etc.
77. I do not indeed conceive that the person of whom the Apostle speaks in the text (although we have no particular account of him either in the context or in any other part of Holy Writ) went so far as this. We have no ground to suppose that there was any material difference between him and the apostles; much less that he had any prejudice either against them or their Master. It seems we may gather thus much from our Lord’s own words which immediately follow the text, ‘There is no man which shall do a miracle in my name that can lightly speak evil of me.’
Mark 9:39.
An echo here of Gamaliel’s warning (Acts 5:39) against religious persecution as ‘fighting against God’.
1III. 1. Suppose then a man have no intercourse with us, suppose he be not of our party, suppose he separate from our Church, yea, and widely differ from us both in judgment, practice, and affection; yet if we see even this man ‘casting out 02:073 devils’ Jesus saith, ‘Forbid him not.’ This important direction of our Lord, I am, in the third place, to explain.
22. If we see this man casting out devils—but ’tis well if in such a case we would believe even what we saw with our eyes, if we did not give the lie to our own senses. He must be little acquainted with human nature who does not immediately perceive how extremely unready we should be to believe that any man does cast out devils who ‘followeth not us’ in all or most of the senses above recited. I had almost said, in any of them; seeing we may easily learn even from what passes in our own breasts how unwilling men are to allow anything good in those who do not in all things agree with themselves.
33. ‘But what is a sufficient, reasonable proof that a man does (in the sense above) cast out devils?’ The answer is easy. Is there full proof, first, that a person before us was a gross, open sinner? Secondly, that he is not so now; that he has broke off his sins, and lives a Christian life? And thirdly, that his change was wrought by his hearing this man preach? If these three points be plain and undeniable, then you have sufficient, reasonable proof, such as you cannot resist without wilful sin, that this man casts out devils.
44. Then ‘forbid him not.’ Beware how you attempt to hinder him, either by your authority or arguments or persuasions. Do not in any wise strive to prevent his using all the power which God has given him. If you have authority with him, do not use that authority to stop the work of God. Do not furnish him with reasons why he ought not any more to speak in the name of Jesus. Satan will not fail to supply him with these if you do not second him therein. Persuade him not to depart from the work. If he should give place to the devil
Eph. 4:27.
See 2 Pet. 2:12.
See 2 Sam. 4:11.
55. ‘But what if he be only a layman who casts out devils? Ought I not to forbid him then?’
Is the fact allowed? Is there reasonable proof that this man has or does ‘cast out devils’? If there is, forbid him not; no, not at the peril of your soul. Shall not God work by whom he will work? ‘No man can do these works unless God is with him’
Cf. John 3:2.
602:0746. ‘But I do not know that he is sent of God.’ ‘Now herein is a marvellous thing’ (may any of the seals of his mission say, any whom he hath brought from Satan to God) ‘that ye know not whence this man is, and behold he hath opened mine eyes! If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.’
Cf. John 9:30, 33.
Cf. Acts 4:16-17.
77. I allow that it is highly expedient, whoever preaches in his name should have an outward as well as an inward call; but that it is absolutely necessary I deny.
‘Nay, is not the Scripture express? “No man taketh this honour unto himself, but
he that is called of God, as was Aaron.”’
Heb. 5:4.
Numberless times has this text been quoted on the occasion, as containing the very strength of the cause.
Cf. Wesley’s own sermon on this text, written at Cork in 1789 (No. 121, ‘Prophets and Priests’).
Cf. Heb. 5:1.
88. ‘But what was the practice of the apostolic age?’ You may easily see in
the Acts of the Apostles. In the eighth chapter we read: ‘There was a great
persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all
scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the
apostles.’
[Acts 8], Ver. 1. Ver.
4.
Is Wesley here recalling the case of his own grandfather, John Wesley, of Whitchurch? See Adam Clarke, Memoirs of the Wesley Family (1823), p. 353.
99. Indeed so far is the practice of the apostolic age from inclining us to
think it was unlawful for a man to preach before he was
ordained, that we have reason to think it was then accounted necessary. Certainly the practice and the direction of the Apostle
Paul was to prove a man before he was ordained at all.
‘Let these’ (the deacons), says he, ‘first be proved; then let them use the
office of a deacon.’
1 Tim. 3:10.
A reference to the sometimes inadequate canonical examinations for Holy Orders; cf. Norman Sykes, Church and State in England in the XVIIIth Century (Cambridge, England, Univ. Press, 1934), pp. 106-10.
1010. ‘But what if a man has these? And has brought sinners to repentance? And yet the bishop will not ordain him?’ Then the bishop does ‘forbid him to cast out devils’. But I dare not forbid him. I have published my reasons to all the world.
See A Farther Appeal, Pt. III (1745), ΙII.8-17 (11:294-303 in this edn.).
See Acts 5:39.
1111. And whosoever thou art that fearest God, ‘forbid him not,’ either directly or indirectly. There are many ways of doing this. You indirectly forbid him if you either wholly deny, or despise and make little account of the work which God has wrought by his hands.
See Mark 6:2.
1212. Yea, if you would observe our Lord’s direction in its full meaning and extent, then remember his word, ‘He that is not for us is against us, and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.’
Cf. Luke 11:23.
1IV. 1. If we willingly fail in any of these points, if we either directly or indirectly forbid him ‘because he followeth not us’, then we are ‘bigots’. This is the inference I draw from what has been said. But the term ‘bigotry’, I fear, as frequently as it is used, is almost as little understood as ‘enthusiasm’. It is too strong an attachment to, or fondness for, our own party, opinion, Church, and religion. Therefore he is a bigot who is so fond of any of these, so strongly attached to them, as to forbid any who casts out devils, because he differs from himself in any or all these particulars.
22. Do you beware of this. Take care, first, that you do not 02:077convict yourself of bigotry by your unreadiness to believe that any man does cast out devils who differs from you. And if you are clear thus far, if you acknowledge the fact, then examine yourself, secondly: ‘Am I not convicted of bigotry in this, in forbidding him directly or indirectly? Do I not directly forbid him on this ground, because he is not of my party? Because he does not fall in with my opinions? Or because he does not worship God according to that scheme of religion which I have received from my fathers?’
33. Examine yourself: ‘Do I not indirectly, at least, forbid him on any of these grounds? Am I not sorry that God should thus own and bless a man that holds such erroneous opinions? Do I not discourage him because he is not of my Church? By disputing with him concerning it, by raising objections, and by perplexing his mind with distant consequences? Do I show no anger, contempt, or unkindness of any sort, either in my words or actions? Do I not mention behind his back his (real or supposed) faults? His defects or infirmities? Do not I hinder sinners from hearing his word?’ If you do any of these things you are a bigot to this day.
44. ‘Search me, O Lord, and prove me. Try out my reins and my heart.’
Cf. Ps. 26:2.
Cf. Ps. 139:24 (BCP).
55. O stand clear of this. But be not content with not forbidding any that casts out devils. ’Tis well to go thus far, but do not stop here. If you will avoid all bigotry, go on. In every instance of this kind, whatever the instrument be, acknowledge the finger of God. And not only acknowledge but rejoice in his work, and praise his name with thanksgiving. Encourage whomsoever God is pleased to employ, to give himself wholly up thereto. Speak well of him wheresoever you are; defend his character and his mission. Enlarge as far as you can his sphere of action. Show him all kindness in word and deed. And cease not to cry to God in his behalf, that he may save both himself and them that hear him.
See 1 Tim. 4:16.
602:0786. I need add but one caution. Think not the bigotry of another is any excuse for your own. ’Tis not impossible that one who casts out devils himself may yet forbid you so to do. You may observe this is the very case mentioned in the text. The apostles forbade another to do what they did themselves. But beware of retorting.
Cf. No. 42, ‘Satan’s Devices’, §5, proem and n.
Cf. 1 Thess. 5:15.
See Matt. 5:11.
Cf. Calvin’s letter to Bullinger (in Opera, XI.586:774): ‘Saepe dicere solitus sum: etiam si me diabolum vocaret, me tamen hoc illi honoris habiturum, ut insignem Dei servum agnoscam…’. In a MS letter from Charles Wesley to George Whitefield, Sept. 1, 1740, this same quotation is paraphrased differently: ‘I would adopt that noble saying of Calvin, “Etsi Lutherus centum diabolos nuncuperavit, ego illum nihilominus agnoscam et diligam ut ministrum et angelum Dei”’ (MA). This obvious discrepancy here between two similar texts suggests an intermediary source for the Wesleys; but none has yet been located. Calvin’s letter to Bullinger had not been published in English in 1750; this translation here may have been Wesley’s own.
How to Cite This Entry
Bibliography:
, “.” In , edited by . , 2024. Entry published February 27, 2024. https://wesleyworks.ecdsdev.org/sermons/Sermon038.About this Entry
Entry Title: Sermon 38: A Caution Against Bigotry