Wesley's Letters: 1725

To his Mother [1]

OXON, May 28, 1725.

DEAR MOTHER, -- My brother Charles, I remember, about a month or two since, was bemoaning himself, because my brother and I were to go into the country, and he was to be left behind. But now I hope he has no reason 'to complain, since he had the good fortune to go down in my stead. It was indeed very reasonable that he should, since he had never been at Wroot before, and I have; besides that, my father might probably think it would be an hindrance to my taking Orders, which he designed I should do on Trinity Sunday. But I believe that would have been no impediment to my journey, since I might have taken Bugden [Buckden] in Huntingdonshire, where Bishop Reynolds. ordained, in my way; and by that means I might have saved the two guineas which I am told will be the charge of Letters Dimissory.

I was lately advised to read Thomas Kempis [Wesley says (Journal, May 1738): I read him only in Dean Stanhope's translation. Yet I had frequently much sensible comfort in reading him.' The tenth edition of Stanhope's Christian Pattern, or a Treatise of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, was published in x72t (Roberts.... London). Evidently Stanhope's version did not satisfy him. Later we find him using the Latin text of Sebastian Castalio; and in the letter of April 19, 17654, he quotes from the better text of Lambinet. In 1735 his own version was published. See Moore's Life of Wesley, ii. 401; W.H.S. Proceedings, xii. 33n; and page 131n.] over, which I had frequently seen, but never much looked into before. I think he must have been a person of great piety and devotion, but it is my misfortune to differ from him in some of his main points. I can't think that when God sent us into the world He had irreversibly decreed that we should be perpetually miserable in it. If it be so, the very endeavor after happiness in this life is a sin; as it is acting in direct contradiction to the very design of our creation. What are become of all the innocent comforts and pleasures of life; if it is the intent of our Creator that we should never taste them? If our taking up the cross implies our bidding adieu to all joy and satisfaction, how is it reconcilable with what Solomon so expressly affirms of religion--that her ways are ways of pleasantness and all her paths peace? A fair patrimony, indeed, which Adam has left his sons, if they are destined to be continually wretched! And though heaven is undoubtedly a sufficient recompense for all the afflictions we may or can suffer here, yet I am afraid that argument would make few converts to Christianity, if the yoke were not easy even in this life, and such an one as gives rest, at least as much as trouble.

Another of his tenets, which is indeed a natural consequence of this, is that all mirth is vain and useless, if not sinful. But why, then, does the Psalmist so often exhort us to rejoice in the Lord and tell us that it becomes the just to be joyful? I think one could hardly desire a more express text than that in the 68th Psalm, ' Let the righteous rejoice and be glad in the Lord. Let them also be merry and joyful.' And he seems to carry the matter as much too far on the other side afterwards, where he asserts that nothing is an affliction to a good man, and that he ought to thank God even for sending him misery. This, in my opinion, is contrary to God's design in afflicting us; for though He chasteneth those whom He loveth, yet it is in order to humble them: and surely the method Job took in his adversity was very different from this, and yet in all that he sinned not.

I hope when you are at leisure you will give me your thoughts on that subject, and set me right if I am mistaken [See next letter.] Pray give my service to any that ask after me, and my love to my sisters, especially my sister Emly. I suppose my brothers are gone.--I am Your dutiful Son.

To his Mother [2]

OXON, June 18, 1725.

DEAR MOTHER--I am very much surprised at my sister's behavior towards my brother Charles, [Mrs. Samuel Wesley, jun., had evidently been vexed with Charles at Wroot. She had been a kind friend to John when he was at Charterhouse, and she was a young wife at Westminster. Charles told his brother in 1727 that he had cautioned Hetty “never to contraict my sister, whom she knows,’ and who. had been very kind to her (Stevenson's Wesley Family, p. 304).] and wish it is not in some measure of his own procuring. She was always, as far as I could perceive, apt to resent an affront, and I am afraid some reflection or other upon her, of which I have formerly heard him make several, has by accident come to her knowledge. If so, I don't at all wonder at anything which might follow; for though I believe she does not want piety, I am not of opinion she abounds in charity; having observed her sometimes to retaliate with great bitterness, on imagined contempt or slighting expression.

She has always been particularly civil to me, ever since I was fifteen or sixteen years old; nor do I ever remember to have received an ill word from her, even to the time of her last being at Oxford. We had then a pretty deal of talk together, frequently by ourselves, and sometimes about my brother Charles, and I don't know that she once intimated anything to his disadvantage, so that either she must be a very skilful dissembler or the misunderstanding between them has took its rise very lately.

About a fortnight before Easter, upon my visiting Mr. Leyborn, [Robert Leyborne (or Leyborn), son of Antony Leyborne of London, was educated at Westminster School, and matriculated at Brasenose College in 1711, age 17. He became a student of Christ Church in 1712, Fellow of Brasenose and M.A. 1717, Junior Proctor 1723-4, B.D. and D.D. 1731; Rector of St. Dunstan's, Stepney, 1729, of St. Anne's, Limehouse, 1730, till his death; Principal of St. Alban Hall i736--59. He died at Bath May 12, 1759, and was buried .in the Abbey there in the grave of his second wife. He inherited, with Mr. Leyborne of the British Factory in Lisbon, property of William Shippen, his mother's brother.] he informed me that my brother [Samuel Wesley and his wife seem to have been in Oxford about March before their visit to Wroot.] had writ to him to provide a lodging. Mr. Leyborn immediately made him proffer of Dr. Shippen's,[ Robert Shippen, Principal of Brasenose College 1710-45.] then out of town. But a second letter of my brother's in which he accepted the proffer being answered in three days (Mr. Leyborn says because did not receive it), a third comes from my brother, which indeed was a very strange one, if he had met with no other provocation. It began with words to this purpose: ‘That he well hoped Mr. Leyborn had been wiser than to express his: anger against his humble servant though but by silence, since he knew it would be to no purpose; and that now he need not fear his troubling him, for lodgings would be taken for his wife and him elsewhere.’ How the matter was made up I don't know; but he was with them the day after they came to town, and almost every one of the succeeding. We were several times entertained by him, and I thought very handsomely, nor was there the least show of dislike on either side. But what I heard my sister say once, on our parting with Mr. Leyborn, made the former proceedings a little clearer, ‘Thus should we have been troubled with that girl's attendance everywhere, if we had gone to lodge at Dr. Shippen's.’

You have so well satisfied me as to the tenets of Thomas of Kempis, that I have ventured to trouble you once more on a more dubious occasion. I have heard one I take to be a person of good judgment say that she would advise no one very young to read Dr. Taylor Of Living and Dying[See next letter.]: she added that he almost put her out of her senses when she was fifteen or sixteen year old; because he seemed to exclude all from being in a way of salvation who did not come up to his rules, some of which are altogether impracticable. A fear of being tedious will make me confine myself to one or two instances, in which I am doubtful, though several others might be produced of almost equal consequence.

In his fourth section of the second chapter, where he treats of Humility, these, among others, he makes necessary parts of that virtue:

Love to be little esteemed, and be content to be slighted or undervalued.

Take no content in praise when it is offered thee.

Please not thyself when disgraced by supposing thou didst deserve praise though they understood thee not or enviously detracted from thee.

We must be sure in some sense or other to think ourselves the worst in every company where we come.

Give God thanks for every weakness, deformity, or imperfection, and accept it as a favor and grace, an instrument to resist pride.

In the ninth section of the fourth chapter he says:

Repentance contains in it all the parts of an holy life from our return to our death.

A man can have but one proper repentance -- viz. when the rite of baptism is verified by God's grace coming upon us and our obedience. After this change, if we ever fall into the contrary state there is no place left for any more repentance.

A true penitent must all the days of his life pray for pardon and never think the work completed till he dies. Whether God has forgiven us or no we know not, therefore still be sorrowful for ever having sinned.

I take the more notice of this last sentence, because it seems to contradict his own words in the next section, where he says that by the Lord's Supper all the members are united to one another and to Christ the head: the Holy Ghost confers on us the graces we pray for, and our souls receive into them the seeds of an immortal nature. Now, surely these graces are not of so little force, as that we can't perceive whether we have them or no; and if we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us, which He will not do till we are regenerate, certainly we must be sensible of it. If his opinion be true, I must own I have always been in a great error; for I imagined that when I communicated worthily, i.e. with faith, humility, and thankfulness, my preceding sins were ipso facto forgiven me. I mean, so forgiven that, unless I fell into them again, I might be secure of their ever rising in judgment against me at least in the other world. But if we can never have any certainty of our being in a state of salvation, good reason it is that every moment should be spent not in joy but fear and trembling; and then undoubtedly in this life WE ARE of all men most miserable!

God deliver us from such a fearful expectation as this! Humility is undoubtedly necessary to salvation; and if all these things are essential to humility, who can be humble, who can be saved?

Your blessing and advice will much oblige and I hope improve

Your dutiful Son.

To his Mother

OXON, July 29, 1725

DEAR MOTHER, -- I must in the first place beg you to excuse my writing so small, since I shall not otherwise have time to make an end before the post goes out; as I am not sure I shall, whether I make haste or no.

The King of Poland has promised what satisfaction shall be thought requisite in the affair of Thorn [In 1724 a riot occurred at Thorn in Poland between Jesuit students and Protestants who were accused of sacrilege. The aged President of the City Council and several leading citizens were executed in December. The Protestant Powers of Europe were indignant, and the Poles especially annoyed by the speech of the English minister at Ratisbon. See Morfill's Poland, p. 2o3; and letter of Nov.]; so that all Europe seemed now disposed for peace as well as England, though the Spaniards daily plunder our merchantmen as fast as they can catch them in the West Indies. [Spain was hoping to regain her lost possessions across the Atlantic, and sought to monopolize the commerce of the most important part of the New World, and the rigid exercise of the right of search on the high seas gave rise to many acts of violence and barbarity (Lecky's England. in the Eighteenth Century, i. 449). In 1727 she besieged Gibraltar.]

You have much obliged me by your thoughts on Dr. Taylor, [See letter of Feb. 28, 1730.] especially with respect to humility, which is a point he does not seem to me sufficiently to dear. As to absolute humility (if I may venture to make a distinction, which I don't remember to have seen in any author), consisting in a mean opinion of ourselves, considered simply, or with respect to God alone, I can readily join with his opinion. But I am more uncertain as to comparative, if I may so term it; and think some, plausible reasons may be alleged to show it is not in our power, and consequently not a virtue, to think ourselves the worst in every company.

We have so invincible an attachment to truth already perceived, that it is impossible for us to disbelieve it. A distinct perception commands our assent, and the will is under a moral necessity of yielding to it. It is not, therefore, in every case a matter of choice whether we will believe ourselves worse than our neighbor or no; since we may distinctly perceive the truth of this proposition, He is worse than me; and then the judgment is not free. One, for instance, who is in company with a free-thinker, or other person signally debauched in faith and practice, can't avoid knowing himself to be the better of the two; these' propositions extorting our assent, --An Atheist is worse than a Believer; A man who endeavors to please God is better than he who defies Him.

If a true knowledge of God be necessary to absolute humility, a true knowledge of our neighbor should be necessary to comparative. But to judge oneself the worst of all men implies a want of such knowledge. No knowledge can be, where there is not certain evidence; which we have not, whether we compare ourselves with acquaintance or strangers. In the one case we have only imperfect evidence, unless we can see through the heart and reins; in the other we have none at all. So that the best can be said of us in this particular, allowing the truth of the premises, is that we have been in a pious error, if at least we may yield so great a point to free-thinkers as to own any part of piety to be grounded on a mistake.

Again, this kind of humility can never be well-pleasing to God, since it does not flow from faith, without which it impossible to please Him. Faith is a species of belief, and belief is defined 'an assent to a proposition upon rational grounds.' Without rational grounds there is therefore no belief, and consequently no faith.

That we can never be so certain of the pardon of our sins as to be assured they will never rise up against us, I firmly believe. We know that they will infallibly do so if ever we apostatize, and I am not satisfied what evidence there can be, of our final perseverance till we have finished our course. But I am persuaded we may know if we are now in a state of salvation, since that is expressly promised in the Holy Scriptures to our sincere endeavors, and we are surely able to judge of our own sincerity.

As I understand faith to be an assent to any truth upon rational grounds, I don't think it possible without perjury to swear I believe anything, unless I have rational grounds for my persuasion. Now, that which contradicts reason can’t be said to stand on rational grounds; and such undoubtedly is every proposition which is incompatible with the Divine Justice or Mercy. I can therefore never say I believe such a proposition, since 'tis impossible to assent upon reasonable evidence where it is not in being.

What, then, shall I say of Predestination? An everlasting purpose of God to deliver some from damnation does, I suppose, exclude all from that deliverance who are not chosen. And if it was inevitably decreed from eternity that such a determinate part of mankind should be saved, and none beside them, a vast majority of the world were only born to eternal death, without so much as a possibility of avoiding it. How is this consistent with either the Divine Justice or Mercy? Is it merciful to ordain a creature to everlasting misery? Is it just to punish man for crimes which he could not but commit? How is man, if necessarily determined to one way of acting, a free agent? To lie under either a physical or a moral necessity is entirely repugnant to human liberty. But that God should be the author of sin and injustice (which must, I think, be the consequence of maintaining this opinion) is a contradiction to the clearest ideas we have of the divine nature and perfections.

I call faith an assent upon rational grounds, because I hold divine testimony to be the most reasonable of all evidence whatever. Faith must necessarily at length be resolved into reason. God is true; therefore what He says is true. He hath said this; therefore this is true. When any one can bring me more reasonable propositions than these, I am ready to assent to them: till then, it will be highly unreasonable to change my opinion.

I used to think that the difficulty of Predestination might be solved by supposing that it was indeed decreed from eternity that a remnant should be elected, but that it was in every man's power to be of that remnant. But the words of our Article will not bear that sense. I see no other way but to allow that some may be saved who were not always of the number of the elected. Your sentiments on this point, especially where I am in an error, will much oblige and I hope improve

Your dutiful Son.

To his Mother [3]

CHRIST CHURCH, November 22, 1725.

DEAR MOTHER,--I must beg leave to assure you that before I received yours I was fully convinced of two things,-first, that Mr. Berkeley's [George Berkeley, D.D. (1685-1753), Bishop of Cloyne 1734. He published his Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous in 1713. The reference is to the early part of the Second Dialogue.] notion, which at first sight appeared very plausible--as, indeed, an ingenious disputant will make almost anything appear--was utterly groundless; and that he either advanced a palpable falsehood, or said nothing at all: and, secondly, that I had been under a mistake in adhering to that definition of Faith which Dr. Fiddes [Richard Fiddes (1671--July 8, 1725). A critical account of him is given by Hearne in his diary for July 15 of this year. He was author of A Body of Divinity (2 vols. folio, 1718-20) and other works. He and his school defined faith as 'an assent to a proposition on reasonable (or rational) grounds.'] sets down as the only true one. Mr. Berkeley's reasons on a second reading I found to be mere fallacy, though very artfully disguised. From one or two you may easily judge of what kind his other arguments are. He introduces Hylas charging Philonous with skepticism for denying the existence of sensible things: to which Philonous replies that, if denying the existence of sensible things constitute a skeptic, he will prove those to be such who assert sensible things to be material; for if all sensible things are material, then, if it be proved that nothing material exists, it will follow that no sensible thing exists; and that nothing material can exist he undertakes to demonstrate.

Matter, says he (by which you must mean something sensible, or rise how came you to know of it?), you define a solid extended substance, the existence of which is exterior to the mind and does in no ways depend on its being perceived; but if it appear that no sensible thing is exterior to the mind, your supposition of a sensible substance independent on it is a plain inconsistency.

Sensible things are those which are perceived by the senses; everything perceived by the senses is immediately perceived (for the senses make no inferences, that is the province of reason); everything immediately perceived is a sensation; no sensation can exist but in a mind: ergo no sensible thing can exist but in a mind, which was to be proved.

Another of his arguments to the same purpose is this: Nothing can exist in fact the very notion of which implies a contradiction; nothing is impossible to conceive, unless the notion of it imply a contradiction. But 'tis absolutely impossible to conceive anything existing otherwise than in some mind, because whatever any one conceives is at that instant in his mind. Wherefore as matter is supposed to be a substance exterior to all minds, and as 'tis evident nothing can be even conceived exterior to all minds, 'tis equally evident there can be no such thing in being as matter.

Or thus: Everything conceived is a conception, every conception is a thought, and every thought is in some mind; wherefore to say you can conceive a thing which exists in no mind is to say you conceive what is not conceived at all.

The flaws in his arguments, which do not appear at a distance, [may be] easily seen on a nearer inspection. He says, artfully enough in the preface, [in] order to give his proofs their full force, it will be necessary to place them in as many different lights as possible. By this means the object grows too big for the eye; whereas, had he contracted it into a narrower compass, the mind might readily have taken it in at one view and discerned where the failing lay.

How miserably does he play with the words 'idea' and 'sensation'! Everything immediately perceived is a sensation. Why? Because a sensation is what is immediately perceived by the senses -- that is, in plain English, everything immediately perceived is immediately perceived; a most admirable discovery, the glory of which I dare say no one will envy him.

And again: all sensible qualities are ideas, and no idea exists but in some mind -- that is, all sensible qualities are objects of the mind in thinking, and no image of an external object painted on a mind exists otherwise than in some mind. And what then?

Fiddes' definition of faith I perceived on reflection to trespass against the very first law of defining, as not being adequate to the thing defined, which is but a part of the definition. An assent grounded both on testimony and reason takes in science as well as faith, which is on all hands allowed to be distinct from it. I am, therefore, at length come over entirely to your opinion, that saving faith (including practice) is an assent to what God has revealed because He has revealed it and not because the truth of it may be evinced by reason.

Affairs in Poland grow worse and worse. Instead of answering the remonstrances from the Protestant Powers, the Poles remonstrate themselves against their listing troops and meddling with what does not concern them. It seems above fifty schools and near as many churches have been taken from the Protestants in Poland and Lithuania since the treaty of Oliva; so that the guarantees of it would have had reason to interpose though the persecution at Thorn had never happened. [See letter of July 29, 1725.]

The late Bishop of Chester [Francis Gastrell (1662-1725), Bishop of Chester x 7x4-25,and Canon of Christ Church. Hearne, recording his death (Nov. 1725), describes him as 'the very best of the bishops excepting Dr. Hooker of Bath, and had many excenent qualities, among some bad ones.' He was educated at Westminster School. John Wesley went to his funeral, and his Diary says, ' Made a copy of alcaicks on Bishop Gastrell.’ Samuel Wesley, jun., included a glowing eulogy of him in his Poems of 1736 (p: 125). Samuel Peploe 'succeeded him as Bishop. See letter of Sept. 23, 1723,n.] was buried on Friday last, five days alter his death, which was occasioned by the dead palsy and gout in the head and stomach; he was in the sixty-third year of his age. 'Tis said he will be succeeded either by Dr. Foulkes [Peter Foulkes (1676-1747), Canon and Sub-Dean of Exeter.] or Dr. Ganner, Chancellor of Norwich, one whom all parties speak well of.

I have only time to beg yours and my father's blessing on

Your dutiful Son.

Pray remember .me to my sisters, who, I hope, are well. If I knew when my sister Emly would be at home, I would write.

November 23.

Editor's Introductory Notes

[1] Wesley was ordained deacon by Dr. Potter, Bishop of Oxford, on Sunday morning, September 19, 1725, in Christ Church Cathedral. Charles (1707-88) was still at Westminster (see heading to letter of November 26, 1737). Their father had recently received the living of Wroot, and on May 10, 1725, writes from there to John: 'Your brother Samuel with his wife and child are here. I did what I could that you might have been in Orders this Trinity; but I doubt your brother's journey hither has for the present disconcerted our plans, though you will have more time to prepare yourself for ordination.' Charles was with his brother Samuel. The letter is also noteworthy for its reference to à Kempis, which he long afterwards described as next to the Bible.

[2] His mother endorses this letter, 'Jacky's Letter. Humility.' A note inserted by her in the middle of the last page reads thus: ‘Weakness, deformity, or imperfection of body are not evil in themselves, but accidentally become good or evil according as they affect us and. make us good or bad' (see page 19)

Robert Leyborn had been in love with Emilia Wesley. She told John in 1725 (see Stevenson's Wesley Family, p. 263) that their correspondence was broken off through 'ill-fate in the shape of a near relation.' It was the heaviest of many trials at that time. ' For near half a year I never slept half a night.' She afterwards married Robert Harper. See letter of March 18, 1736.

[3] Wesley was elected Fellow of Lincoln on March 17, 1726, and became Lecturer in Logic the same year. The argument of this letter shows how well he was fitted for that post, and helps us to understand the intellectual capacity of the mother to whom such a letter could be sent.

Edited by Michael Mattei
©2000 Wesley Center for Applied Theology. All rights reserved. No for-profit use of this text is permitted without the express, written consent of the Wesley Center for Applied Theology of Northwest Nazarene College, Nampa, Idaho 83686 USA. Contact the webmaster for permission.