Taylor, John. Calumny Refuted and the Truth Defended; Being a Reply to the Second Address of the Rev. Robert Heys, Wesleyan Minister to the Wesleyan Methodist Societies in Douglas and Its Vicinity, 1–12. Liverpool: J. Tompkins, 1840.
THAT “if any man will live godly in Christ Jesus he shall suffer persecution,” is a truth which stands prominent in the oracles of God; and every age of the church bears testimony that a man has only conscientiously to observe the precepts, and carefully to imitate the example of the Redeemer, to be branded with infamy and stigmatized as an impostor. It is, therefore, no proof that a man is a deceiver, the adherent of a fallacious system, or under the influence of erroneous principles, if he is “every where spoken against;” but it is rather an evidence of the purity of his faith, and the rectitude of his character. The heaven-born doctrines of christianity are so opposite to the vain, grovelling, and selfish sentiments of corrupt human nature, and the self-denying practices of genuine believers are so repugnant to the feelings of those whose nature is “earthly, sensual, and devilish,” that it is utterly unreasonable to suppose that anything like amity, concord or peace, can possibly exist between the church and the world. Enmity, in the beginning, was placed between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, and as that enmity has existed, and still does exist, so it shall exist till sin shall be destroyed from the earth, and primeval innocence and holiness be restored to mankind. I make these remarks merely that men may be enabled to form a true estimate of those by whom I am so gratuitously maligned, and of the position in which I stand as a persecuted follower of the Saviour.
As Mr. Heys’s “SECOND ADDRESS” has come forth, and the public will naturally expect an answer, I would just remark that my design in writing this second reply is not to evince a love for controversy, or to gratify popular curiosity, but, so far as I am able, to defend the principles of Eternal Truth in opposition to the “horrid systems” and absurd dogmas of men. As it is evidently the design of Mr. Heys, by his “Addresses” to prejudice the religious public against the Book of Mormon and the Latter-day-Saints, with a view the better to effect his object, he has published certain malicious and contradictory statements, which he calls “documents,” the publication of which he considers sufficient evidence to invalidate all our claims to the support and respect of an enlightened public. But all the evidence he has produced—if such evidence was ever given—only amounts to this;—one Mr. Hale, from a spirit of revenge against his son-in-law, Joseph Smith, made certain statements relative to the Book of Mormon, before a Justice of the Peace and two Associate Judges; conse- [2] quently Mr. Hale, the avowed inveterate enemy of Joseph Smith, is the only authority produced by Mr. Heys, and the evidence of this authority has been neutralized by a counter statement published by his rev. brother, Mr. Livesey. His saying that the “document” was obtained from a “very respectable volume published in America,” is no proof in favour of the matter it contains. It may be that any mercenary publication in which all classes of men, except Methodists, are despised and calumniated is, in his opinion, very respectable, and of course, very acceptable, as affording him an abundant supply of material for the propagation of slander with something like the semblance of authority.
But, not satisfied with the information contained in his “important document,” he introduces “another document,” which it appears is not “important,” because unauthenticated. Instead, therefore, of producing the stronger evidence to confirm the weaker, he has produced the weaker to confirm the stronger, and thereby has thrown an air of suspicion over all the statements of Mr. Hale! His later evidence should have been better authenticated than the former, and contained in a more important document, and obtained from a more respectable volume, to afford him any essential service in his crooked cause. With regard to the matter contained in this “other document,” I would just observe, to say nothing of its libellous, slanderous, and malicious character, that it is so replete with absurdities and improbabilities, as to carry within itself its own refutation.
It would appear to me that Mr. Heys’s pretended belief in the statements referred to does not so much depend on the veracity of the evidence, and the respectability of its attestation, as on the nature of the statements, and his inveterate hatred to the cause they were designed to subvert.
Had statements affecting the well-being of Methodism been made under less suspicious circumstances, and of a less equivocal character, would Mr. Heys have believed them? He would not only not have believed them, but he would have denounced them as wicked and palpable falsehoods, and classed their propagators among the most abandoned of mankind. It was only very recently a certain distinguished individual published reports which seriously reflected on the character of the founder of Methodism. I would ask does Mr. Heys believe them to be true? O no! And why? They were published by good authority, by an eminent lawyer, by a man of family, education, talent, influence and respectability—by a member of the British Parliament, and yet Mr. Heys does not believe them! But had they been made against Joseph Smith, with an intention to overthrow what is called “Mormonsim,” Mr. Heys would not only believe them, but he would publish them, and maintain them to be true.
It will be recollected that, in my “Answer” to Mr. Heys’s First “Address,” I left him involved in a difficulty,—from that difficulty he has not yet extricated himself, although he seems to have called all his cunning and false reasoning to his assistance. He, and his rev. coadjutor, are still exposed to the severe, but merited censure, due to all who attempt to subvert the truth by propagating falsehood without previous consultation. As contrarieties are eternally irreconcilable, so it not only difficult to re- [3] duce two contradictory statements to uniformity, but absolutely impossible. It is, therefore, no matter of surprise that Mr. Heys has not succeeded, though so powerfully aided by his logic, alias sophistry. He more than once admits that his account and Mr. Livesey’s are different, but contends that “certainly they are not contradictory.”
But, with all due deference to his apparent confidence in the correctness of his opinion, I still maintain that they are as opposite to each other as light is to darkness; and, in support of the truth of this position, I need no other evidence than what Messrs. Heys and Livesey themselves have supplied. Mr. Hey’s published deposition of Mr. Hale unequivocally sets forth Joseph Smith, jun. as the publisher and author of the Book of Mormon; Mr. Livesey’s account positively asserts that the Book of Mormon was originally written by Solomon Spaulding! Now, leaving inspiration out of the question, and considering the work as a mere human production, as the author of a book, and the original writer of the same book, or, as the author of the Book of Mormon, and the author of the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon, must be one and the same person,—I defy Mr. Heys even by the help of all the sophistry of which he is capable, to substantiate the undivided identity of two different persons,—that is, by proving Joseph Smith, jun, and Solomon Spaulding to be one and the same individual. For instance, Mr. Heys could not persuade me, if he were to use all his reasoning powers, that the circumstances which took place at Leeds, when the Methodist connexion cut off a thousand people because they would not have an organ forced upon them, contrary to the laws of Wesley and of Methodism, was the same circumstance as occurred when so many thousands were cut off without judge, or jury, or trial, at the time of the commencement of the New Association. Why?—because they transpired at different places, were done by different individuals, and at different times. Neither could he persuade me, if he were to try, that the circumstance which transpired in Manchester, when Mr. Newton had to get a constabulary force to protect him in the pulpit from the personal abuse of his brother Methodists, was the same circumstance that took place in Douglas, when a Prophetess (not a Latter day Saint as he would insinuate) attempted to drag him out of the pulpit.
Mr. Heys seems fully sensible of the perplexity of his situation. He would escape, but how he knows not. To acknowledge his own statement to be incorrect would militate against himself; to express a doubt respecting the accuracy of that of his rev. brother would prove detrimental to the cause of Methodism; to suspect the sufficiency of the authority by which their statements are supported, would betray want of discrimination, or impurity of design, and consequently subject them to the to the suspicion of the church, and the censure of the world.
But, despite of his embarrassment, he has attempted to maintain the semblance of truth, he has laboured, and hard too, to keep up the appearance of consistency, while every effort, far from effecting his disentanglement, has only bound him more securely to the horns of his delemma!
Whoever will be at the trouble to inspect that chaos of false reasoning, tergiversation, incoherency and nonsense, on the 4th page [4] and in the 5th paragraph of his “Second Address,” must be compelled to pity the circumstances of deep humiliation, and the painful state of mental confusion under which it was produced.
There I am represented as saying what I never said, and as rising arguments which I never used. As Mr. Heys seems to not entertain a very high opinion of his reasoning powers, I would not presume to insult him by suspecting the competency of his knowing faculties; but I must say that a certain spirit, manifested by the Chief Priests of the Jews at the time of our Saviour’s resurrection is rather too conspicuous in the temper and conduct of many professed Drs. Revds., and holy men at the present day. I never meant it should be inferred, “that because one story is known to be a lie, another must therefore be a lie”—but that another may be a lie. It would not be a lie if any person were to state that a Methodist preacher, in the Southern States of America, went at the head of a mob with a gun on his shoulder to draw off two of the Latter-day Saints, because he could not meet them with the weapons of truth; and it would not be a lie if any person were to state that another Methodist preacher by the name of Bogard, in the state of Missourie, went as captain of a mob, to rob, plunder, and kill, the Latter-day Saints! But it would be a lie if I were to say that Mr. Heys or Mr. Livesey had done this. All that I charge them with is misrepresentation, with vending falsehood and loving lies. I never said, or intended it should be inferred, “that, when there is a difference between two statements of a case, the one supplying additional matter which the other does not contain, the statements must, on that account, be diametrically opposed to each other.” But I did say, and still maintain, that the statements given by Messrs. Heys and Livesey are diametrically opposed to each other. I stated ans. p. 8., “I shall leave Messres. Heys and Livesey to settle this difficulty, and when one has proved the other’s statement false I will prove his to be false.” Those fallacious arguments, so ostensibly given as mine, were never used by me; and, and Mr. Heys has employed them in support of other arguments equally absurd, I consider it necessary to observe that, as his premises are false, his conclusions must be false also. I am not now at a loss to know why Mr. Heys so tauntingly sneers at my mode of reasoning, for I am led to see that his and mine are so far apart as the east is from the west. If what he calls reasoning consists of falsehood and misrepresentation, I candidly confess that I am totally ignorant of the art. His cause may require such unholy aid, but the cause I have espoused can be supported by plain statement, simple truth, and impartial reason.
In the paragraph to which reference has been made above, “The members of the Wesleyan Societies” are informed that the original manuscript was “nothing more than a novel,” and that it (the original manuscript) “as it exists at present, after having been altered by Smith and others, is found to be a perfect romance!” There they are also told that “both accounts represent Joseph Smith as the author of the Book;” that is, one represents Spaulding as the writer of the original manuscript, and the other represents Smith as its author!! This, then, is a fair specimen of the [5] very able manner in which Mr. Heys has employed the weapons of his logic in the defence of false statements and glaring contradictions. Indeed so difficult is it to defend falsehoods and absurdities, there is no wonder that, after labouring so strenuously, without the least probability of success, to make crooked things straight, and rough places plain, he should the second time say, “I admit, then, that Mr. Livesey’s account and mine are different.”
It appears that Mr. Heys himself is not satisfied with the external evidence against the inspiration of the Book of Mormon afforded, either by his own statement, or that of his friend Mr. Livesey, for he proceeds in quest of internal evidence! And how does he hope to effect this object? Why, by comparing it with the Bible! Yes, by comparing what he supposes to be “nothing more than a novel,” “a perfect romance,” with the pure, unerring WORD OF TRUTH!
What consummate folly—what madness—not to say presumption and blasphemy—to attempt such a comparison! If it is “found to be a perfect romance,” surely it must contain within itself ample evidence to deprive it of every pretention to divine inspiration; even one passage from its romantic composition would be quite sufficient to expose the imposture, and consign it for ever to deserved opprobrium. But I shall follow Mr. Heys in all his wanderings, lest he “pervert the truth,” and “darken counsel by words without knowledge;” and, while pursuing him, it will afford me no small degree of satisfaction and delight to observe the mists of error, which he has spread around him, dissipated by the clear light of the gospel, and to behold the fair flowers of paradise rising again unhurt, in all their native beauty, from beneath the ruthless tread of his unhallowed feet.
But before he attempts the destruction, the utter annihilation of what he terms “Mormonism,” he boasts in an amazing manner, and makes wonderful professions of what he is able to accomplish. I quote the following as a specimen:—“I happen to possess this volume, (meaning the volume from which his “important document” was extracted) and could easily have given you some precious morsels from the revelation of these Latter-day Saints’, and in the very language of their prophets too, which any man who is not deranged, or deluded, or intent upon imposing a lie upon the unwary, would readily admit to be sheer nonsense and highly blasphemous. This, however, I judged unnecessary in an Address which was intended to be short, for the purpose of gratuitous (?) distribution.” From this intimation great things are to be expected in the “Second Address.” We shall presently see if it is equal to its pretentions:—surely by his able assistance we shall be enabled to discover the “naked, manifest, barefaced, unblushing fictions. ”
With astonishing confidence in the infallibility of his skill in biblical lore, he rapidly carries his readers along with him through the Old and New Testaments, and then, after showing them why they were written, and by whom they were written, he reveals the perfection of his knowledge by giving publicity to the following, which for aught I know, he may consider a new discovery:—“Now, of this complete and infallible rule (meaning the HOLY BIBLE) [6] God has decreed and declared that nothing shall be either added to it or taken from it!” This certainly must be a new revelation, for such a decree or declaration is not to be found in the whole of the Sacred Writings! It is true he quotes three passages—one from Deut., one from Prov., and another from Rev.; but not one of them contains the decree! Those in Deut., refer exclusively to the Books of the Law. If they declared the revelation of God to be complete, the other Scriptures could never have been written. That in Prov., refers to the portion of the Sacred Writings then in existence. If it declared the Holy Scriptures were complete, there would not have been afterwards a continued written revelation. That in the Rev., refers to the Apocalypse alone, it being when written, a separate book, unconnected with the other books of the New Testament which were not then collected; it could not therefore have reference to any other book or books of the Holy Scriptures. According to his interpretation of the above Scriptures, in quoting from Prov., he would reject the New Testament and all the prophets that prophesied after Solomon’s day; and in his quotation from Deut., he would reject all the Bible but the five books of Moses. But let Mr. Heys take care that he himself is not incurring the curse, by altering the meaning of the words of the very books to which the prohibition positively and particularly refers!
Having shown the inefficiency of the evidence he has adduced in support of his notion respecting the origin of the Book of Mormon, and his failure in the attempt to prove the completion of divine revelation, I shall now notice his observations relative to the doctrines of the Latter-day Saints; and let it be borne in the mind that it is the “horrid system” we are now going to investigate, Mr. Heys having kindly lent his assistance to unveil the dark secrets! The curtain being withdrawn! come! we shall now be favoured with a choice sample of his “precious morsels”! “damnable heresies”! “awful blasphemies”! “sheer nonsense” and “naked, manifest, barefaced, unblushing fictions!” Those fictions, or whatever else Mr. Heys is pleased to call them, are, it appears, eight in number,—only eight from the Book of Mormon!
With regard to the first he makes the following complaint:—“Mormonism represents the fifteen books of Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni &c., which constitute the romantic Book of Mormon, as being divinely inspired books, and as possessing equal authority, and equal claims with the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. But of this there is no evidence either in the Bible or out of it.” Having failed in his attempt to prove that there is evidence against the Book of Mormon, he now contents himself by merely saying there is no evidence in its favour! But still he seems to have one consolation, for he adds “and the evidence which appears in the books themselves clearly demonstrates the contrary.” As this is what he is now going to prove, it shall soon appear whether he can “clearly demonstrate the contrary.”
His second objection is, “Mormonism asserts of the commandments of the Book of Mormon, “by them (viz., the Bible and the Book of Mormon) shall the world be judged, even as many as shall hereafter come to the knowledge of this work.’ This,” he [7] observes, “is a direct contradiction to St. Paul, who says, ‘God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to MY gospel.’” I should like to know if Paul contradicts himself when he says, “The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the gospel of OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST,” 2 Thes. i. 7, 8.
He most assuredly does not. But here, according to Mr. Heys’s mode of reasoning, are two gospels! By which of them is the world to be judged? I answer—men shall be judged according to the gospel of Jesus Christ, whether their knowledge of it be derived from the writings of St. Paul, or any other writer of the New Testament, or from the Book of Mormon, according to John’s testimony, Rev. xx. 12, “and the books were opened….and the dead were judged out of those things that were written in the books.”
His third objection is, “Mormonism declares, in an epistle from Mormon to Moroni, that ‘little children are whole,’ and that ‘ they are not capable of committing sin.’” And does the Bible assert the contrary? It is true that Mr. Heys has produced a number of texts to prove the depravity of human nature.’ But has he proved that little children are not proper subjects for the kingdom of God? No! and never can. If not, how can he prove that they are not whole? “Nothing that is unholy can enter heaven,” and Jesus Christ has said, in reference to little children, “of such is the kingdom of God.” Therefore little children must be accounted holy. But it is said “they are incapable of committing sin.” “Sin is the transgression of the law,” and sin, properly so called, which bringeth condemnation, cannot be committed without the assent of the understanding and the concurrence of the will, and this cannot be the case with little children. Therefore they are incapable of committing sin.
His fourth objection is, “Mormonism asserts that ‘all who are without the law,’ ‘are alive in Christ,’ that they are ‘ not condemned,’ and that they ‘cannot repent.’” He also tells us that it “states the contrary.” And is this contradictory with itself or contrary to the Bible? Certainly not.
There is a “light which lighteth every man which cometh into the world.” As this is a spiritual light, and it lighteth every man that cometh into the world, it naturally follows that every man must be put in possession of a degree of spiritual life, for spiritual light to one spiritually dead would be the same as darkness. But how is this? Why the Bible asserts the same as the Book of Mormon—“When there is no law there is no sin, for sin is the transgression of the law,” and if there is no sin, there is according to the testimony of the Book of Mormon, no condemnation, and yet say the Scriptures, “He that believeth not shall be damned.” “But how shall they believe on him of whom they have not heard, and how can they hear without a preacher, and how can he preach except he be SENT?” “But they are not condemned.” And how can they? Can men without the law be condemned by the law? “But they cannot repent.” How can they? Can men repent of the violation of a law they never received, and with the requirements of which they are unacquainted? [8]
His fifth objection is, “Mormonism asserts that ‘ the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins;’ he then gives it as his opinion that “the remission of sins is so far from being obtained by fulfilling the command ments of the Book of Mormon, that it is not obtained even by fulfilling the commandments of God, but solely by the faith of Jesus Christ.” Here Mr. Heys appears unable to distinguish between the commandments of the moral law and those of the gospel. Is he aware that by the gospel men are commanded to repent, to believe and to be baptized, the observing and fulfilling of which bringeth remission of sins? Is he aware that Christ shall “take vengeance on them who obey not his gospel”—that “if a man says he loves Christ and keeps not his commandments he is a liar, and the truth is not in him?” Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.” But if Abraham had said, I believe God, and had not offered up his son, would he have been justified? Surely not. “By works,” James says, “his faith was made perfect.”
His sixth objection is, “Mormonism represents faith as going before repentance.” I should like to know what Mr. Heys means by repentance. If by repentance he means sorrow, I admit that sorrow can exist without faith, but, then, it is the “sorrow which worketh death.” But if by repentance is understood a change of mind, with a corresponding change of conduct, a turning away from sin, it is impossible such a change can take place unpreceded, and unaccompanied by faith. “He that cometh unto God must believe that he is, and that he is the rewarder of all them that diligently seek him.” As repentance must necessarily be preceded by conviction, repentance without faith would be conviction without evidence. As there can be no repentance without conviction, nor conviction without evidence, nor evidence without faith, for “faith is the evidence of things not seen,” faith must therefore precede repentance. As the pentitent expects what he does not enjoy, he possesses a hope, and as hope is inseparable from faith, for “faith is the substance of things hoped for,” repentance must necessarily be accompanied by faith. But, then, why is repentance, when spoken of in connexion with faith, frequently mentioned first in the Word of God? There is a difference between a general principle and a particular one, “repentance and remission of sins” were to be “preached unto all nations;” but did all nations repent? No. It was preached to them, but they did not accept of it. Why? Because they did not believe the testimony. Paul while preaching at Athens said—“and the times of this ignorance God winked at, but now calls upon all men everywhere to repent;” but did the Athenians repent?
No.—Why? Because they did not believe. Peter, on the day of Pentecost told the people to repent, and why did he not tell them to believe? because they did believe that Jesus whom they had crucified was both Lord Christ, and they were pricked to the heart. Faith in all these instances was requisite as a first principle. Faith not only precedes and accompanies, but also follows repentance; it exists after the change has been effected, and continues increasing till the believer arrives to “the fullness of the stature of a perfect man in Christ Jesus,” hence, although it pre- [9] cedes repentance it is properly represented as following it. Repentance is not an abiding state; but faith is the work of the Christian’s life, and by it he is designated a believer.
His seventh objection is, “Mormonism asserts that the only proper mode of baptism is that of immersion,” and with regard to this he asserts with strong emphasis, “It is no where said so in the Word of God.” To this I answer,—we have not the least intimation in the Word of God that sprinkling was used in baptism; but that immersion was the mode adopted in the apostolic age we have certain evidence, for we read “they went down into the water,” and that “they came up out of the water,” consequently, the only proper mode of baptism is, and ought to be, that of immersion. His attempt to prove that baptism was “always by affusion” is false reasoning, and a mere trifling with the Word of God. Another might as well argue that, because Christ, speaking of the Spirit under the figure of water, said, “if any man thirst let him come unto me and drink,” and from the fact that the Scriptures represent men as being “filled with the Holy Ghost,” that the drinking of water is the proper mode of baptism; and I might as well contend in favour of immersion, because men are represented in the New Testament as being “in the Spirit.” But this I say would be merely trifling with the Word of God. Religious ordinances should be observed in the manner in which God has appointed them; and no man should make himself “wise above what is written,” by a vain attempt to make the sign agree with his views of the thing signified.
His eighth objection is, “Mormonism asserts that ‘it is solemn mockery before God that ye baptize little children.’” Little children are already qualified for heaven; baptism cannot add to that qualification, it being performed without their knowledge or consent. We have already seen that little children are incapable of committing sin,—John says, “he that committeth sin is of the devil;” but Christ says in reference to little children, “of such is the kingdom of God,” then little children are not of the devil, but of the kingdom of God,—and, if they are not of the devil, they do not commit sin, for he that committeth sin is of the devil. As little children are incapable of committing sin, and also of obeying the commands of the gospel, it is no more necessary that they should be baptized than that they should repent and believe, both of which, according to Scripture, invariably precede baptism. To suppose that baptism can purge away original sin, is to suppose that a few drops of water can do what only can be done by the blood of Christ. “The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin.” The sentiment objected by Mr. Heys I maintain for the following reasons:—1. As infant baptism is not commanded in the Word of God, we have no authority for its observance. 2. If infant baptism were necessary, its observance would have been commanded; but, as this is not the case, it is not therefore necessary. 3. “The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin;” but, infant baptism is supposed to wash away original sin, therefore so far it supersedes the blood of Christ, and supposes the inefficiency of the atonement.
4. The delusive belief in the validity of infant baptism prevents adults from ful- [10] filling the commands of the gospel. 5. To believe that infant baptism is essentially necessary implies a belief in that horrible doctrine, the damnation of unbaptised infants, which horrible doctrine is a reflection on the moral government of Jehovah, whom it supposes to consign to eternal damnation millions of helpless innocents incapable of sin, for the non-performance of what, on their part, is absolutely impossible, and the omission of a duty never enjoined on mankind.
Mr. Heys in his concluding paragraph says, “Thus I have pointed out a few of the ‘damnable heresies’ of a romantic system profanely called religion.” We have closely followed him, we have witnessed all his disclosures, but where, alas! where are the “damnable heresies?” doubtless they exist no where except in his own bewildered imagination! Instead of showing the Book of Mormon to contain “heresies,” he has only proved, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that his own creed is at variance with the Bible! Mr. H. states that “the Apostles whose visions and revelations were real, gave a decided preference to the written Word of God as an evidence of divine truth, and recommended their hearers to do the same.” I certainly am surprised that he can make such a statement with any design to militate against me, when, in my Answer, p. 10, I expressed my perfect willingness “to meet Mr. Heys before the public, and discuss the subject of the Book of Mormon with him, the Word of God should be the test of its truth or falsehood, and not newspaper stories.” I find, however, that it is much easier for him to cry “false prophet,” “imposter,” “deceiver,” “delusion,” “blasphemy,” &c., than to do this.
It now becomes my business to enquire who is this Mr. Heys, and what is the character of the religion of the bible-loving people, to whom he directs his epistles; and in doing this I shall act rationally, consistently, and impartially. It would be unjust to test their religion by the gospel, its precepts they do not profess directly to follow. Mr. H. p. 8, S. A. says, “Therefore to the law and to the testimony, (with regard to the ministers of Mormonism) if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” As the “law and the testimony” is not a test to try Methodist ministers by, but only the ministers of Mormonism, (as he terms them,) I shall therefore bring them to the standard of Methodism, and see if they are the strict observers of even the commandments of Wesley. Wesley has commanded that the members of his societies shall neither buy nor sell ardent spirits. Now, I ask Mr. Heys, is this commandment fulfilled?
Here he is silent, for he knows well there are venders of ardent spirits filling the most important offices in his society in Douglas, and that it is his duty as a minister of Wesleyanism to expel them. But in order that this Heyso-wesleyan inconsistency may appear in it most glaring light, it becomes necessary to enquire what Wesley and Wesleyanism say relative to ardent sprit is and those who vend them:—“All who sell them in the common way, to any that will buy, are POISONERS-GENERAL. They MURDER his majesty’s subjects by WHOLESALE, neither do they ever pity or spare. They drive them to HELL like sheep, and what is their GAIN? Is it not the BLOOD of these men? Who, then, would envy their [11] large estates and sumptuous palaces? A CURSE is in the midst of them: the CURSE OF GOD cleaves to the stones, the timber, the furniture of them. The CURSE OF GOD is in their gardens, their walks, their groves; a fire that burns to the nethermost hell.—BLOOD! BLOOD IS THERE!! the foundations, the floor, the walls, the roof, are STAINED WITH BLOOD!!! And canst thou hope, O THOU MAN OF BLOOD, though thou art ‘clothed in scarlet and fine linen, and farest sumptuously every day;’ canst thou hope to deliver down the FIELDS OF BLOOD to the third generation? —Not so; for there is a GOD IN HEAVEN: therefore, thy name shall be rooted out. Like as those whom thou hast DESTROYED, BODY AND SOUL, ‘ thy MEMORIAL SHALL PERISH WITH THEE.’”
These sentiments are truly Wesleyan, they are Wesleyan’s own words; and, yet, strange to say, spirit-sellers, men so awfully denounced by Wesley, are permitted by Mr. Heys to fill the most important offices in what is called a Wesleyan Society! “O Shame! where is thy blush?”
Padore amisso, omnis virtus ruit. Though heresies ought ever to be exposed, yet mere heresies, erroneous dogmas, latent in the mind, are innocent compared with practices which lead tens of thousand direct to hell. Alas! alas! what inconsistency marks the character of infatuated man!—
While Mr. Heys has the audacity to represent the Latter-day Saints as holding “damnable heresies” without being able to produce one fact or argument in proof of his assertions, he himself countenance’s openly in his own Society, practices, which, according to Wesley and Wesleyanianism are cruel, cursed, bloody, murderous and damnable!!!—Cruel.—Wesley says “Neither do they over pity or spare!”—Cursed.—Wesley says “The curse of God is in the midst of them!!”—Bloody—Wesley says “Blood! Blood is there!!!”—Murderous.—Wesley says “they are poisoners—general.” And that “They murder the people by wholesale!!!!”—Damnable.—
Wesley says “They drive the people to bell like sheep,”—“Like as those whom thou hast destroyed, body and soul, thy memorial shall perish with thee!!!!!” Therefore, O Mr. Heys! as John Wesley shall be a witness against thee and thy Preachers, Leaders, and Society, “Repent and do thy first works.”
I intended to enter more fully into these things, and to point out other inconsistencies equally glaring, but I shall reserve them for my reply to Mr. Hey’s “Third Address,” and as he has come forth and wantonly and maliciously attacked the principles that I believe in, and teach, without being able to adduce the shadow of a proof against them, I shall in my answer to his “Third Address;” bring Wesleyan Methodism (as it is), to the touch stone of divine truth, and show this is at variance with the words of eternal life.
I shall now take my leave of Mr. Heys, hoping that he may soon forsake the path of error, and be guided by HIM who alone can lead him into all truth.
Douglas, Oct 29, 1840.
JOHN TAYLOR.