Wesley’s Letters: 1756

To William Dodd

KINGSWOOD, March 12, 1756.

REVERAND, SIR, --You and I the more easily bear with each other, because we are both of us rapid writers, and therefore more the more liable to mistake. I will thank you for showing me any mistake I am in, being not so tenacious of my opinions now as I was twenty or thirty years ago. Indeed, I am not fond of any opinion as such. I read the Bible with what attention I can, and regulate all my opinions thereby to the best of my understanding. But I am always willing to receive more light; particularly with regard to any less common opinions, because the examining and defending them takes up much time, which I can ill spare from other employments. Whoever, therefore, will give me more fight with regard to Christian Perfection will do me a singular favor. The opinion I have concerning it at present I espouse merely because I think it is scriptural; if, therefore, I am convinced it is not scriptural, I shall willingly relinquish it.

2. I have no particular fondness for the term. It seldom occurs either in my preaching or writings. It h my opponents who thrust it upon me continually, and ask me what I mean by it. So did Bishop Gibson, till by his advice I publicly declared what I did not mean by it and what I did. This I supposed might be best done in the form of a sermon, [On Christian Perfection. See Works, vi. 1-19.] having a text prefixed wherein that term occurred. But that text is there used only as an occasion or introduction to the subject. I do not build any doctrine thereon, nor undertake critically to explain it.

3. What is the meaning of the term ‘perfection’ is another question; but that is a scriptural term is undeniable. Therefore none ought to object to the use of the term, whatever they may do to this or that explication of it. I am very willing to consider whatever you have to object to what is advanced under the flint head of that sermon. But I still think that perfection is only another term for holiness or the image of God in man. God made man perfect, I think, is just the same as He made him holy, or in His own image. You are the very first person I ever read of or spoke with who made any doubt of it. Now, this perfection does certainly admit of degrees. Therefore I readily allow the propriety of that distinction, perfection of kinds and perfection of degree. Nor do I remember one writer ancient or modern who excepts against it.

4. In the sermon on Salvation by Faith [See Works, v. 7-16.] I say, ‘He that is born of God sinneth not’ (a proposition explained at large in another sermon, and there everywhere either explicitly or virtually connected with while he keepeth himself.) ‘by any sinful desire; for any unholy desire he stifleth in the birth.’ Assuredly he does while he keepeth himself. ‘Nor doth he sin by infirmities; for his infirmities have no concurrence of his will, and without this they am not properly tins.’ Taking the words as they lie in connexion thus (and taken otherwise they are not my words, but yours), I must still aver they speak both my own experience and that of many hundred children of God whom I personally know. And all this, with abundantly more than this, is contained in that single expression ‘the loving God with all our hearts and serving Him with all our strength.’ Nor did I ever say or mean any more by perfection than thus loving and serving God. But I dare not say less than this; for it might be attended with worse consequences than you seem to be aware of. If there be a mistake, it is far more dangerous on the one ride than on the other. If I set the mark too high, I drive men into needless fears: if you set k too low, you drive them into hell-fire.

5. We agree that true ‘Christianity implies a destruction of the kingdom of sin and a renewal of the soul in righteousness; which even babes in Christ do in a measure experience, though not in so large a measure as young men and fathers.’ But here we divide. I believe even babes in Christ (while they keep themselves) do not commit sin. By sin I mean outward sin; and the word ‘commit’ I take in its plain, literal meaning. And this I think is fully proved by all the texts cited (sect. 3) from the 6th chapter to the Romans. Nor do I conceive there is any material difference between committing sin and continuing therein. I tell my neighbor here, ‘William, you are a child of the devil; for you commit sin: you was drunk yesterday.’ ‘No, sir,’ says the man, ‘I do not live or continue in sin’ (which Mr. Dodd says is the true meaning of the text), ‘I am not drunk continually, but only now and then, once in a fortnight or a month.’ Now, sir how shall I deal with this man? Shah I tell him he is in the way to heaven or to hell? I think he is in the high road to destruction, and that if I tell~ him otherwise him blood will be upon my head; and all that you say of living, continuing in, serving sin, as different from committing it and of its not reigning, not having domain over him who still frequently commits it, is making so many loop-holes whereby any impenitent sinner may escape from all the terrors of the Lord. I dare not, therefore, give up the plain, literal meaning either of St. Paul’s or St. Peter’s words.

6. As to those of St. John’ (cited sect. 5), I do not think you have proved they are not to be taken literally. In every single act of obedience, as well as in a continued coupe of it, p??? d??a??s????; and in eiher an act or a course of sin p??? ?µa?t?a?. Therefore, that I may give no countenance to any kind or degree of sin, I still interpret these words by those in the 5th chapel and believe he that is born of God (while he keepeth himself) sinneth not, doth not commit outward sin.

7. But ‘it is absolutely necessary, as you observe, to add sometimes explanatory words to those of the sacred penmen.’ It is so: to add words explanatory of their sense, but not subversive of it. The words added to that text, ‘Ye know all things,’ are such. And you yourself allow them so to be. But I do not allow the words willfully and habitually to be such. These do not explain but overthrow the text. That the first Fathers thus explained it I deny; as also that I ever spoke lightly of them.

8. You proceed, ‘You allow in another sermon, in evident contradiction to yourself, that the true children of God could and did commit sin.’ This is no contradiction to anything I ever advanced. I everywhere allow that a child of God can and will commit sin, if he does not keep himself. But this, you say, is nothing to the present argument. Yes: it is the whole thing. If they keep themselves they do not, otherwise they can and do commit sin. I say nothing contrary to this in either sermon. But, ‘hence, you say, we conclude, that he who is born of God may possibly commit sin.’ An idle conclusion as ever was formed. For who ever denied it? I flatly affirm it in both the sermons and in the very paragraph now before us. The only conclusion which I deny is that all Christians do and must commit sin as long as they live. Now, this you yourself (though you now seem to start at it) maintain from the beginning of your letter to the end viz. that all Christians do, and cannot but sin, more or less to their lives’ end. Therefore I do not ‘artfully put this conclusion’; but it is your own conclusion from your own premises. Indeed, were I artfully to put in anything in expounding the Word of God, I must be an errant knave. But I do not: my conscience bears me witness that I speak the very truth, so far as I know it, in simplicity and godly sincerity.

9. I think that all this time you are directly pleading for looseness of manners, and that everything you advance naturally tends thereto. This is my grand objection to that doctrine of the necessity of sinning; not only that it is false, but that it is directly subversive of all holiness. The doctrine of the Gnostics was not that a child of God does not commit sin, i.e. act the things which are forbidden in Scripture, but that they are not sin in him, that he is a child of God still; so they contended not for sinless but sinful perfection: just as different from what I contend for as heaven is from hell. What the Donatists were I do not know. But I suspect they were the real Christians of that age, and were therefore served by St. Augustine and his warm adherents as the Methodists are now by their zealous adversaries. It is extremely easy to blacken; and could I give myself leave, I could paint the consequences of your doctrine in at least as dark and odious colors as you could paint mine.

10. The passage of St. Peter (mentioned sect. 12) I still think proves all which I brought it to prove. ‘But you allow' (sect. 14) ‘that Paul and Barnabas did commit sin; and these were without all controversy fathers in Christ.’ That is not without controversy -- that either Barnabas when he left Paul or Peter when he dissembled at Antioch was at that time a father in Christ in St. John’s sense; though by office undoubtedly they were. Their example, therefore, only proves what no one denies – viz. that if a believer keep not himself, he may sin. Would the conclusion there drawn ‘be made only by a very weak opponent’? You are the man who makes them all, either from these or other premises: for you believe and maintain (1) that all the other Apostles committed sin sometimes; (2) that all the other Christians of the apostolic age sometimes committed sin; (3) that all other Christians in all ages do and will commit sin as long as they live; and (4) that every man must comitt sin, cannot help it, as long as he is in the body. You cannot deny one of these propositions, if you understand your own doctrine. It is you, therefore, who ‘cast dust in people’s eyes,’ if you dissemble your real senti­ments. I declare mine with all the plainness I can; that, if I err, I may the sooner be convinced of it. Neither does it appear that St. Paul was ‘an aged father in Christ’ when he had that thorn in the flesh. I doubt whether he was above thirty years of age, fourteen years before he mentioned it to the Corinthians.’ You conclude’ (these are your words) ‘a Christian is so far perfect as not to commit sin, as to be free from all possibility of sinning. That this is your meaning is evident from your whole discourse.’ Not so. The contrary is glaringly evident from that whole discourse to which you before referred, as weR as from many parts of this. I conclude just this much, -- While he keepeth himself, a Christian doth not commit sin.

11. With regard to fathers in Christ, before you enter on the subject, you say I ‘set aside the experience of the best Christians.’ I did not tell you so: I say nothing about them. In a sermon of a single sheet (such it is, printed single) I had no room for anything but plain arguments from Scripture. I have somewhat to say, if need should be, from the head of Authority likewise -- yea, and abundantly more than you seem to apprehend. Sed nunc non erat his locus. [‘But now there was no room for them.’]

12. I think section 23 very closely and directly concerns the present subject. For if you have sinful thoughts still, then certainly every thought is not brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ. With regard to the 24th, you give one interpretation of those words, Every one that is perfect shall be as his Master; I another. You likewise appeal to the context; so do I. Sed adhuc sub judice lis est. [Horace’s Ars Poetica, 1. 78: ‘But just now the matter is in the judge’s hands.’] But I must observe, whether one interpretation or the other be true, to assert God can or does so renew His children as to save them from all evil tempers has no more alliance with blasphemy than with adultery. You make a little mistake as to section 26. I do not cite ‘is purified’ as St. John’s words; you say (in sect. 27) ‘As He is, so are we,’ refers to our being conformed to His patient longsuffering. It may; but it directly refers to our being made perfect in love. You do not answer or attempt to answer either of the arguments whereby I have proved that the cleansing from all unrighteousness does not mean justifica­tion only. Hitherto, therefore, the conclusion stands good -- that it relates chiefly, if not wholly, to sanctification.

13. In your last paragraph you say, ‘You set aside all authority, ancient and modern.’ Sir, who told you so? I never did; it never entered my thoughts. Who it was gave you that rule I know not; but my father gave it me thirty years ago (I mean concerning reverence to the ancient Church and our own), and I have endeavored to walk by it to this day. But I try every Church and every doctrine by the Bible. This is the word by which we are to be judged in that day. Oh that we may then give up our account with joy! Whatever farther thoughts you are pleased to communicate will be seriously considered by, reverend dear sir,

Your affectionate brother and fellow laborer.

To Samuel Furly

KINGSWOOD, March 14, 1756.

DEAR SAMMY, -- You are sick of two diseases: that affection for a poor silly worm like yourself, which only absence (through the grace of God) will cure [See letters of Feb. 21 and April 16.]; and that evil disease which Marcus Antoninus complains of -- the d??a? ß?ß?????. [‘Thirst after books,’ Meditations II. sect. 3. See letter of Nov. 30, 1770.] That you are far gone in the latter plainly appears from your not loving and admiring that masterpiece of reason and religion, the Reflections on the Conduct of Human Life, with Regard to Knowledge and Learning, [Extracts from a work by John Norris, published by Wesley in 1734, 12mo 36 pp. The third edition, issued in 1755, has ‘A Scheme of Books suited to the pre­ceding Reflections’' Wesley alludes to page 33 of the extract: ‘I now intend to follow the advice of the heathen (Marcus Antoninus), as I remembeh ??? t?? ??????? d??a? ‘????? (“Rid thyself of the thirst after books”); and to study nothing at all but what serves to the advance­ment of piety and a good life.’ See letters of April 16, 1756 and Sept. 28, 1745, sect. 21.] every paragraph of which must stand unshaken (with or without the Bible) till we are no longer mortal.

If your French book is The Art of Thinking, the author is a very poor tool. But there is none like Aldrich. [Henry Aldrich (1647-1710), Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, 1689. See Journal iii. 391, 459.] I scarce know one Latin writer who says so much in so few words. Certainly I shall not write much on Metaphysics or Natural Philosophy. My life is too far spent. But if you can tall me of anything (not stuffed with Mathematics) which is worth abridging, well.

Hutcheson’s compendium is entitled Synopsis Metaphysicae Ontologiam et Pneumatologiam complectens. It is a masterly thing. I believe there is nothing yet extant in Natural Philosophy like the abridgement of the Philosophical Transactions. But an abridgement of that abridgement would be far better.

Fight, Sammy, fight. If you do not conquer soon, probably God may send a French army [See letter of March 1 to James West.] to help you. -- I am

Yours affectionately.

To Richard Tompson [1]

COLEFORD, March 16, 1756.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- My belief in general is this -- that every Christian believer has a divine conviction of his reconciliation with God. The sum of those concessions is, ‘I am inclined to think there may be some exceptions.’

Faith implies both the perceptive faculty itself and the act of perceiving God and the things of God. And the expression ‘seeing God’ may include both, the act and the faculty of seeing Him.

Bishop Pearson’s definition [To which he had referred in his letter.] is abundantly too wide for the faith of which we are speaking. Neither does he give that definition either of justifying or saving faith. But if he did, I should prefer the definition of Bishop Paul.

A clear conviction of the love of God cannot remain in any who do not walk closely with God. And I know no one person who has lost this without some voluntary defect in his conduct; though perhaps at the time he was not conscious of it, but upon prayer it was revealed to him.

Your reasons for concealing your name were good. We cannot too carefully guard against prejudice. You have no need of any excuse at all; for you have done no wrong but rather a pleasure to

Your affectionate brother.

To Samuel Furly

DUBLIN, Good Friday, April 16, 1756.

How? going up to town? Are you stark, staring mad? Will you leap into the fire with your eyes open? [See letters of March 14 and Nov. 20.] Keep off. What else have you to do? Fly for your life, for your salvation. If you thus tempt the Spirit of God any more who knows what may be the consequence? I should not wonder at all to hear you was confined in St. Luke’s Hospital; and then, farewell study! Farewell all hope either of intellectual or moral improvement; for after this poor machine has received a shock of that kind, it is never more capable of close thinking.

If you have either sense or religion enough to keep you close to the College, it is well. If not, I see but one possible way to save you from destruction, temporal and eternal. Quit the College at once. Think of it no more, and come away to me. You can take a little advice from me; from other people none at all. You are on the brink of the pit; fly away, or you perish.

There is no disagreement at all between the Reflections and the Address to the Clergy. I have followed Mr. Norris’s advice these thirty years, [He read Norris on Christian Prudence to Mrs. Moore on the voyage to Georgia (Journal, i. 125-6). For An Address to the Clergy, see letter of Jan. 7.] and so must every man that is well in his senses. But whether you study more or less does not signify a pin’s point. You are taking all this pains in a sinking ship. Stop the leak, stop the leak, the first thing you do; else what signifies it to adorn the ship?

As to the qualifications of a gospel minister -- Grace is necessary; learning is expedient. Grace and supernatural gifts are ninety-nine parts in an hundred. Acquired learning may then have its place. -- I am, dear Sammy,

Yours affectionately.

To Ebenezer Blackwell

DUBLIN, April 19, 1756.

DEAR SIR, -- While you in England are under I know not what apprehensions, all here are as safe as if they were already in paradise. We have no fortifying of seaports, no military preparations, but all is in absolute peace and safety. Both high and low seem fully persuaded that the whole talk of an invasion is only a trick to get money. [See letters of Jan. 10 and March 1, 4, and 14.]

I dined at Mrs. Moreland’s last week, and promised to drink tea with her this evening. She has been at the preaching several times, and desires much to be remembered to Mrs. Blackwell and you. She seems to have a liking to the gospel. It may sink deeper. There is nothing too hard for God.

I hope Mrs. Blackwell and you are improving to the utmost these days of tranquility. I purpose going to Cork directly, and after two or three weeks turning back toward the North of Ireland. If it please God that troublous times come between the design and the execution, I shall go as far as I can go, and no farther. But I take no thought for the morrow. To-day I am determined by His grace to do the work of Him that sent me. I find encouragement so to do; for all the people here are athirst for the word of life. -- I am, dear sir,

Your affectionate servant.

Do you at London believe that the danger of an invasion is over?

To his Wife [2]

WAERFORD, May 7, 1756.

MY DEAR MOLLY, -- From Portarlington we rode (twenty miles as they call it) in about eight hours to Kilkenny. There our brethren in the Army received us gladly and opened a door which none were able to shut. Yesterday in the after­noon (through heavy rain; but it was nothing to me) we came hither. Here is a poor, shattered Society, who have been for these seven years tearing one anther in pieces. What I shall be able to do with them I know not; but it is enough if I can deliver my own soul. On Monday I hope to be in Clonmell, and on Wednesday evening in Cork.

From time to time, my love, you should tell me all you know concerning public affairs; for it is hard to depend on the authority of the newspapers for the truth of anything.

If King George recovers, [George II lived till 1760. The future George III came of age on June 4, 1756.] I know there will be a lengthening of our tranquility. If God should take him away, for any­thing I see yet, I should quit this kingdom as soon as possible. In the meantime let you and I improve to-day. The morrow will take thought for the things of itself. [See letter of April 19.]

Sister Cownley [See letter of Jan. 10.] sends her kindest love to you and Jenny. Is there something remarkable in her dream? I have heard of several other uncommon notices which have been given to others in this kingdom. But I shall stay till I can see the Persons concerned and like the accounts from their own mouths.

I dreamed last night that I was carried to execution and had but a few minutes to live. We had not been talking of anything of the kind over-night. What I gather hence is, While we live, let us live; that if we do not meet again here, we may in a better place -- My dear Molly, adieu!

I have now yours of April 29. It is all in all to keep the issues of our heart, and by His strength we are able so to do. Draw us, and we will run after Thee!

Pay the printers yourself; that is the sure way, unless Jo. Spencer [See letters of Jan. 7, March 4, and June 18.] gives you his account as I have written. I hope H. Brown [Brown was apparently engaged at the Book-Room.] will do everything you bid him. Else you must send him home. I have wrote to Mr. Blackwell from Dublin. Peace be with your spirit!

To Mr. ----

CORK, May 14, 1756.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I have consulted the preachers that are with me here, and they have no objection to your proposal; only it might be well if you delayed the putting it in execution till there is another traveling preacher in the Round, because otherwise many of the other Societies will suffer great loss.

You should wherever you are take care of one thing: do not puzzle people about the Church. Those that are there, let them continue there, elsee the gain will not countervail the damage. Take care likewise that you do not buy the favor of the world too dear. -- I am

Your affectionate brother.

To his Wife [3]

LIMERICK, June, 18, 1756.

MY DEAR LOVE -- At Newmarket on Wednesday night and last night at Ballingarrane our lodging was not very warm or elegant. But I do not perceive that I have taken any cold. Rather I am better than when I set out. A week or two ago I was not very strong; but I have now no reason to complain. I preach no more than twice a day, and not once abroad since my coming to Limerick. Let the wind be east, west, or north, we have rain every day; so that I keep to the Abbey [An old abbey at Limerick which the Society had secured and fitted up as a place of worship. See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland i. 50.] whether I will or no.

I think the paper was to be 15s. a ream. I shall not be sorry if an hundred people will return the subscription money. Let not one copy unsubscribed for go under fifteen shinings. Many will be glad of them at any price. They may have the picture (and the errata) or let it alone. It is well done. I saw it before I left London. I am afraid there have not copies enough been sent to Ireland. The money remitted from hence at four payments was between fifty and sixty pounds. Brother Atkinson [See letter of Jan. 7.] can early compute how many subscribers this implies. I hear nothing of any books come to Dublin yet. I hope they were directed to Mr. Powell. [Samuel Powell was his Dublin printer. See W.H.S. vi. 90.]

'Tis not unlikely poor Sister Atkinson may talk so. But (unless you heard them with your own ears) do not believe a word of it concerning Jo. Downes or Rob. Windsor. You did well to send G. Whitefield and my brother the Notes. I will trust you; give a copy to any preacher or any other person you judge proper. Pray pay Mr. Wyat and Brother Birket [Birket may be Bowyer, the printer of the Notes.] as soon as you can. The next money should pay our printing debts. If J. Spencer [See letter, May 7.] can spare you for three weeks, go to Bristol by all means. It is an excellent thought. Now, my Molly, overcome evil with good.

Indeed, I fear our fleets are bought and sold. Poor King George! where will he find an honest man? If I hear of the French landing, or beating our fleet on the 14th of July (the day those sights appeared in the air over Cornwall), I shall endearor to come into England directly; otherwise to go on my way.

My brother does not oppose field-preaching in general; but he does not like preaching in Smithfield: though I know not why any should oppose it, unless they are apprehensive of the mob.

I am now writing on Original Sin [The Doctrine on Original Sin, a reply to Doctor John Taylor of Norwich, was published in Jan 1757. Wesley decided to write it as early as April 10, 1751. See Journal, iii. 520; Green’s Bibliography, No. 182; and letter of July 3, 1759.]; so the papers came in good time. Jo. Haughton is in Dublin. Michael with his little wit does much good. Watch over Jo. Spencer. It win do him a solid kindness. You may perhaps convince him it is his interest to be honest and to save me all the money he can. Should not one preacher go to Norwich immediately and another to Portsmouth?

Molly, let us make the best of it. Oh for zeal! I want to be on the full stretch for God! -- My dear Love adieu!

Pray put Brother Norton’s [See letter of Sept. 3 to Nicholas Norton, which refers to one from him in July.] into the post.

To James Clark [4]

CASTLEBAR July 3, 1756.

REVEREND SIR, -- I am obliged to you for the openness and candor with which you write, and will endeavor to follow the pattern which you have set me.

[I did not know of John Langston’s affair till you gave me an account of it. He is no preacher allowed of by me; I do not believe that God ever called him to it; neither do I approve his conduct with regard to you: I fear he is, or at least was, a real enthusiast. The same character, I fear, may be justly given to poor Mr. Bermingham.] I sent you that sermon with no particular view, but as a testimony of love to a fellow laborer in the gospel.

From the text of that sermon I do not infer that Christians should not inquire into each other’s opinions. Indeed, from the text I infer nothing; I use it to illustrate, not to prove. I am very sensible ‘Jehu had more regard to State policy than to religion’ (page 15); and have no objection to the very fair explication you have made of his words. Accordingly I say (page 13), ‘I do not mean what Jehu implied therein, but what a follower of Christ should understand by it when he proposes it to any of his brethren’: of these only I speak. My general proposition, you may please to remember, was this (page 5): ‘All the children of God may unite in love, notwithstanding their differences in opinion or modes of worship.’ From this persuasion, when I meet with any whom I have reason to believe to be children of God, I do not ask of him (never at our first meeting, seldom till we are better acquainted), ‘Do you agree with me in opinion or modes of worship, particularly with regard to Church Government, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper?’ I let these stand by till we begin to know and confirm our love to each other. Then may come a more convenient season for controversy. My only question at present is, ‘Is thy heart fight with my heart, &c.?’

At present I say, ‘Keep your own opinion’ (page 13); I mine. I do not desire you to dispute these points. Whether we shall dispute them hereafter is another question; perhaps we may, perhaps we may not. This will depend on a great variety of circumstances -- particularly on a probability of success; for I am determined never to dispute at all if I have no hopes of convincing my opponent.

As to my own judgment, I still believe ‘the Episcopal form of Church government to be both scriptural and apostolical’: I mean, well agreeing with the practice and writings of the Apostles. But that it is prescribed in Scripture I do not believe. This opinion (which I once heartily espoused) I have been heartily ashamed of ever since I read Dr. Stillingfleet’s Irenicon. [See letters of July 16, 1755, and April 10, 1761.] I think he has unanswerably proved that neither Christ or His Apostles prescribed any particular form of Church government, and that the plea for the divine right of Episcopacy was never heard of in the primitive Church.

But were it otherwise, I would still call these ‘smaller matters than the love of God and mankind’ (page 18). And could any man answer these questions, -- ‘Dost thou believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, God over all, blessed for evermore?’ (which, indeed, no Arian, semi-Arian, or Socinian can do); ‘Is God the center of thy soul? Art thou more afraid of offending God than of death or hell?’ (page 15) (which no wicked man can possibly do, none that is not a real child of God); -- if, I say, any man could answer these questions in the affirmative, I would gladly give him my hand.

This is certainly a principle held by those that are in derision called Methodist, and to whom a Popish priest in Dublin gave the still more unmeaning title of Swaddlers. They all desire to be of a catholic spirit; meaning thereby, not an indifference to all opinions, not an indifference as to modes of worship: this they know to be quite another thing. ‘Love, they judge, alone gives a rifle to this character. Catholic love k a catholic spirit.’ (Page 25.)

As to heresy and schism, I cannot find one text in Scripture where they are taken in the modern sense. I remember no one scripture where heresy signifies error in opinion, whether fundamental or not; nor any where schism signifies separation from the Church, either with or without cause. I wish, sir, you would reconsider this point, and review the scriptures where these terms occur.

Yet I would take some pains to recover a man from error and reconcile him to our Church: I mean the Church of England; from which I do not separate yet, and probably never shall. The little church, in the vulgar sense, which I occasionally mentioned at Holymount is that wherein I read prayers, preach, and administer the sacrament every Sunday when I am in London. [West Street.]

But I would take much more pains to recover a man from sin. A man who lives and dies in error or in dissent from our Church may yet be saved; but a man who lives and dies in sin must perish. O sir, let us bend our main force against this, against all sin, both in ourselves and those that hear us! I would to God we could a~ agree in opinion and outward worship. But if that cannot be, may we not agree in holiness? May we not all agree in being holy, as He that has called us is holy in heart and conversation? This h the great desire of, reverend sir,

Yours &c.

PS.--Perhaps I have not spoke distinctly enough on one point. Orthodoxy, I say, or right opinion, is but a slender part of religion at best, and sometimes no part at all. I mean, if a man be a child of God, holy in heart and life, his right opinions are but the small part of his religion: if a man be a child of the devil, his right opinions are no part of religion, they cannot be; for he that does the works of the devil has no religion at all. [This postscript and the lines in brackets on page 181 were not given in the Arminian Magazine, 1779, 598-601. See letter of Sept. 18, sect. 7.]

To Thomas Olivers [5]

ATHLOE, July 10, 1756.

DEAR TOMMY, -- I cannot imagine how a letter of yours written March 9 should come to me on the 9th of July. Cer­tainly you should write to me a little oftener, once a month at the least.

Now there are several preachers in town, you should take care to supply Portsmouth, Bedford, Norwich, Leigh, and Canterbury by turns.

O Tommy, how precious are these days! We must not always have this sunshine. But make the best of the present calm [See letters of Jan. 10 March 1 and 4, and April 19.]; and then, if a storm comes, you are ready.

Your affectionate brother.

To Robert Marsden [6]

BRISTOL August 31, 1756.

A careless reader of the Address may possibly think ‘I make it necessary for a minister to have much learning,’ and thence imagine I act inconsistently, seeing many of our preachers have no learning at all. But the answer is easy. (1) I do not-make any learning necessary even for a minister (the minister of a parish, who, as such, undertakes single to guide and feed, to instruct, govern that whole flock) but the know­ledge of the Scriptures; although many branches of learning are highly expedient for him. (2) These preachers are not ministers: none of them undertakes single the care of an whole flock, but ten, twenty, or thirty, one following and helping another; and all, under the direction of my brother and me, undertake jointly what (as I judge) no man in England is equal to alone.

Fight your way through all. God is on your side; and what then can man do to you? Make known all your wants to Him, and you shall have the petitions you ask of Him. -- I am

Your affectionate brother.

To Mr. Rob. Marsden At Mr. Frith's,

Grocer, In Sheffield.

To Mr. ----

[September 3, 1756.]

You give five reasons why the Rev. Mr. P.---- will come no more amongst us: (1) ‘Because we despise the ministers of the Church of England.’ This I flatly deny. I am answer­ing letters this very post which bitterly blame me for just the contrary. (2) ‘Because so much backbiting and err-speaking is suffered amongst our people.’ It is not suffered: all possible means are used both to prevent and remove it.

(3) ‘Because I, who have written so much against hoarding up money, have put out seven hundred pounds to interest.’ I never put sixpence out to interest since I was born; nor had I ever an hundred pounds together my own since I came into the world. (4) ‘Because our lay preachers have told many stories of my brother and me.’ If they did, I am sorry for them; when I hear the particulars, I can answer, and perhaps make those ashamed who believed them. (5) ‘Because we did not help a friend in digress.’ We did help him as far as we were able. ‘But we might have made his case known to Mr. G----, Lady Huntingdon, &c.’ So we did more than once; but we could not pull money from them whether they would or no. Therefore these reasons are of no weight. You conclude with praying that God would remove pride and malice from amongst us. Of pride I have too much; of malice I have none: however, the prayer is good, and I thank you for it.

To Nicholas Norton [7]

KINGSWOOD, September 3, 1756.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- In your letters of July, and August 27, you charge me (1) with self-inconsistency in tole­rating lay-preaching, and not lay-administering; and (2) with showing a spirit of persecution in denying my brethren the liberty of acting (as well as thinking) according to their own conscience.

As to the former charge, the fact alleged is true: I do tolerate unordained persons in preaching the gospel, whereas I do not tolerate them in administrating the sacraments. But it is not true I am inconsistent in so doing. I act on one and the same principle still. My principle (frequently declared) is thus: ‘I submit to every ordinance of man wherever I do not conceive there is an absolute necessity for acting contrary to it.’ Consistently with this I do tolerate lay-preaching, because I conceive there is an absolute necessity for it; inasmuch as, were it not, thousands of souls would perish everlastingly. Yet I do not tolerate lay-administering, because I do not conceive there is any such necessity for it; seeing it does not appear that, if this is not all, one soul will perish for want of it.

I am therefore so far from self-inconsistency in tolerating the former and not the latter, that I readily should be self-inconsistent were I to act otherwise: were I to break, or allow others to break, an ordinance of man, where there is no necessity, I should contradict my own principle as much as if I did not allow it to be broken where there is.

As to the latter change, that ‘I deny my brethren the liberty of acting according to their own conscious, and therefore show a spirit of persecution,’ I again allow for the fact, but deny the consequence. I mean, I allow the fact thus far: some of our preachers who are not ordained think it quite right to administer the Lord’s supper, and believe it would do much good. I think it quite wrong, and belive it would do much hurt. Hereupon I say; ‘I have no right over your conscience , nor over mine; therefore both you and I must follow our own conscience. You believe it is a duty to administer; do so, and therein follow your own conscience. I verily believe it is a sin, which consequentially I dare not tolerate; and herein I follow mine.’ Yet this is no persecution, were I to separate from our Society (which I have not done yet) those who practice what I believe is contrary to the Word and destructive of the work of God.

Last week I had a long letter from William Darney, [See letter of Feb. 9, 1750.] who likewise wonders we should be of so persecuting a spirit as to deny him the liberty of thinking and speaking in our Societies according to his own conscience. How will you answer him, and excuse Ted and Charles Perronet from the charge of persecuting their brother? They then said (as did all), ‘Let him preach Calvinism elsewhere (we have no fight to hinder him); but not among us, because we are persuaded it would do much hurt.’ Take the answer back: if it was good in one case, so was it in the other likewise.

If John Jones, [To assist Wesley in administering the Lord’s Supper, John Jones in 1764 was ordained by Erasmus, Bishop of Arcadia in Crete, and afterwards by the Bishop of London. See Wesley’s Veterans vi. 32; and letter of March 1, 1764.] my brothel or any other preacher has preached sharply on this head, I certainly am a stranger to it, and therefore not answerable for it. I persecute no man on this account, or any other; and yet I cannot consent that any of our lay preachers should either preach predestination or administer the sacraments to those who are under my care.

But is it immoral? It is immoral to think, speak, or act contrary to the love which ‘thinketh no evil.’ Now, of this both Charles and you are palpably guilty in thinking the body of the Methodists (either preachers or people) are fallen from the simplicity and uprightness of the gospel. Whatever seven or eight of the preachers may be who have warmly debated this point with you, whatever two or three hundred of the people may be who have been hurt by the disputants on either side, the main body of the Methodists never were more simple or upright than at this day. Therefore your thinking so ill of both preachers and people is a manifest breach of the law of love. And whoever is or is not fallen from the spirit of the gospel, it is certain you are for one.

But after all this pother, what is the persecution concerning which you make so loud an outcry? Why, some of our lay preachers did what we thought was both ill in itself and likely to do much harm among the people. Of this, complaint was made to me. And what did I do? Did I expel those preachers out of our community? Not so. Did I forbid them to preach any more? Not so neither. Did I degrade them from itinerant to local preachers? Net so much as this. I told them I thought the thing was wrong and would do hurt, and therefore advised them to do it no more. Certainly this is a new species of persecution! I cannot but think you might as well call it murder.

‘Oh, but you would have done more if they had persisted.’ That is, I would have persecuted. Whatever I would have done if things had been which were not, I have not done it yet. I have used no arbitrary, no coercive power -- nay, no power at all in this matter but that of love. I have given no man an ill word or an ill look on the account. I have not withdrawn my confidence or my conversation from any. I have dealt with every man as, if the tables were turned, I should desire he would deal with me.

‘But I would not dispute with you.’ Not for a time; not till your spirits were a little evaporated. But you argue too fast when you infer from hence that I myself cannot confute your favorite notion. You are not sure of that. But, come what will, you are resolved to try. Well, then, move fair and softly. You and Charles Perronet aver that you have a right to administer the Lord’s Supper, and that therefore you ought to administer it among the Methodists or to separate from them. If the assertion were proved, I should deny the consequence. But first, I desire proof of the assertion.

Let him or you give the proof, only without any flourish or rhetorical amplifications (which exceedingly abound in all C. P.’s letters to my brother on this subject), and I will give you an answer, though we are not on even ground; for you have no business, and I have no leisure. And if you continue instant in prayer, particulady for a lowly and teachable spirit, I do not despair of your finding both that life and love which you have not lately enjoyed. -- I am

Your affectionate brother

I shall add a few remarks on C. P.’s letters, though the substance of them is contained in yours. ‘Some of the fundamentals of your constitution are wrong’ Our fundamentals are laid down in the Plain Account. Which of these are wrong, and yet ‘borne by you for eight years’?

‘Oh inconsistency! Oh excuseless tyranny!’ &c. Flourish. Set that down for nothing. ‘These very men who themselves break the laws of the State deny us liberty of conscience.’ In plain terms, These very men who preach the gospel contrary to law do not approve of our administering the sacraments. They do not. They greatly disapprove of it; and that without any inconsistency at all, because the case is not parallel. The one is absolutely necessary to the salvation of thousands; the other not.

‘Your brother has to the last refused me liberty of con­science.’ Under what penalty? This heavy charge amounts in reality to this: I still think you have no fight to administer the Lord’s Supper; in consequence of which I advise you not to do it. Can I do less? or have I done more?

‘I wish I could say that anything of wicked lewdness would have met with the same opposition’! Is not this pretty, Brother Norton? Do you subscribe to this? I think you know us better. Do we not so much as advise our preachers and people to abstain from wicked lewdness? ‘Can it be denied that known wantonness, that deceit and knavery have been among us, and that little notice has been taken of it? ‘I totally deny it. Much notice has been taken, by me in particular, of what evil has been done by any preacher. I have constantly examined all the parties, and have in every instance so far animadverted on the delinquent as justice joined with mercy required.

‘My crime is that I would worship Christ as His word, His Spirit, and my own conscience teach me. Let God and man be witness that we part for this and nothing else.’ Namely, because I am of a different judgment, and cannot approve of what I judge to be wrong. So says W. Darney, ‘My crime is that I would preach Christ as His word, His Spirit, and my own conscience teach me.’ But he has fir more ground for complaint than you: for we ourselves separated him from us; whereas you call God and man to witness that you separate yourself for this and nothing else – that I cannot approve what I judge to be wrong.

But this is not all your crime. You have also drank into the spirit of James Wheatley; and you have adopted his very language: you are become, like him, an accuser of your brethren. O Charles, it was time you should separate from them; for your heart was gone from them before!

‘Whatever motives of another kind might be blended with those that really belonged to your conscience, in your rejecting what I laid before you’ (not consenting that I should administer), ‘God knows.’ I know of none. I have no other motive of acting than the glory of God and the good of souls. Here again you are become not only an accuser but a false accuser and an unjust judge of your brother.

‘You grant more to others. To my certain knowledge both of you have been told for more than two years that James Morris [James Morris left Wesley in 1756. See Myles’s Chronological History; and for his share in the conversion of Toplady this year, Journal, v. 327-8n; Wright’s Life of Toplady, p. 18.] administered.’ You may as well say, ‘To my certain knowledge black is white.’ I was never told it to this, unless by C. Perronet. But whether he does or no, it is nothing to me. He never was in close connexion with us; he is now in no connexion at all. We have totally renounced him. So here is another instance of accusing, yea falsely accusing, your brethren.

‘A man may be circumcised, count his beads, or adore a cross, and still be a member of your society.’ That is, may be Papist or a Jew. I know no such instance in England or Ireland. We have many members in Ireland that were Papists, but not one that continues so.

‘Other reasons than those that could possibly relate to conscience have borne too much share in the late affair.’ I say as before, I am not conscious of it. And who art thou that judgest another’s servant?

‘You have allowed that we are called to this by the Holy Ghost and God was with us in what we did.’ I allow! No more than I allow you to be archangel. I allow neither the one nor the other. I believe you felt joy or power, so called; but I do not know that it was from God, and I said,

‘Supposing you were called of God to this’ (which is exceeding far from granting it), ‘still you ought to waive that privilege out of tenderness to your brethren.’ I do not grant either that God calls you to do this or that He ever blessed you in it.

That Methodism (so called) -- that is, vital religion, loving faith, in the hearts of those who are vulgarly termed Methodists -- should seem to you, sitting snug at London or Bristol, to be ‘very much in its decline,’ is no wonder. But I, who see things in every place with my own eyes, know it is very much in its increase. Many are daily added to them that believe; many more are continually awakened: so that the Societies from east to west, from north to south, in both kingdoms, increase in grace as well as number.

‘I wish the argument’ (which is no argument at all, as being grounded on a palpable mistake) ‘Be not too home to bear a dispute among honest men.’ Very well! Another clear proof of the love that thinketh no evil.

‘If you had consented.’ This is the very point. I could not consent (which implies some degree of approbation) to what I judged to be totally wrong. Yet nether did I persecute. I inflicted no penalty of any kind on those whom I judged to have done wrong; because I believed they acted from con­science though erroneous: I only mildly advised them to desist.

‘I never will be again united with any who will not let others choose their own religion.’ Then you will never unite with any but knaves; for no honest men who preside over any community will let the members of it do what they judge to be wrong and hurtful to that community without endeavoring to prevent it, at least, by mild, loving friendly advice.

‘I go away, not of choice, but of necessity.’ So you must think till God opens your eyes. ‘Your kindness at our first acquaintance, the Providence that brought us together, and the keeping up that acquaintance after so many snares of the enemy to destroy it, make it sacred as well as dear to me.’ And yet for such a reason as this, -- because I advise you to abstain from doing what I think you have no fight to do, what I judge to be both evil in itself and productive of ill consequences, --for this reason you burst all the bonds asunder and cast away the cords from you.

The Lord God enlighten the eyes of your understanding and soften and enlarge your heart!

To Samuel Walker [8]

KINGSWOOD, September 3. 1756.

REVEREND AND DEAR SIR, -- I have one point in view – to promote, so far as I am able, vital practical religion; and by the grace of God to beget, preserve, and increase the life of God in the souls of men. On this single principle I have hitherto proceeded, and taken no step but in subserviency to it. With this view, when I found it to be absolutely necessary for the continuance of the work which God had begun in many souls (which their regular pastors generally used all possible means to destroy), I permitted several of their brethren, whom I believe God called thereto and qualified for the work, to comfort, exhort and instruct those who were athirst for God or who walked in the light of his countenance. But, as the persons so qualified were few and those who waned their assistance very many, it followed it followed that most these were obliged to travel continually from place to place; and this occasion several regulations from time to time, which were chiefly made in our conferences.

So great a blessing has from the beginning attended the labors of the itinerants, that we have been more and more convinced every year of the more than lawfulness of this proceeding, And the inconvenience, most of which we foresaw from the very first, have been both fewer and smaller than were expected. Rarely two in one year out of the whole number of preachers have either separated themselves or been rejected by us. A great majority have all along behaved as becometh the gospel of Christ, and I am clearly persuaded still desire nothing more than to spend and be spent for their brethren.

But the question is, ‘How may these be settled on such a footing as one would wish they might be after my death? ‘It is a weighty point, and has taken up many of my thoughts for several years [The thoughts did not take practical shape till 1784, when the Deed of Declaration was executed. See letter of July 23, 1784.]; but I know nothing yet. The steps I am now to take are plain. I see broad light shining upon them. But the other part of the prospect I cannot see: clouds and darkness rest upon it.

Your general advice on this head to follow my own conscience, without any regard to consequences, or prudence, so called is unquestionably fight; and it is a rule which I have closely followed for many years, and hope to follow to my life’s end. The first of your particular advices is, ‘to keep in full view the interests of Christ’s Church in general and of practical religion; not considering the Church of England or the cause of Methodism but as subordinate thereto.’ This advice I have punctually observed from the beginning, as well as at our late Conference. You advise, secondly, ‘to keep in view also the unlawfulness of a separation from the Church of England.’ To this likewise I agree. It cannot be lawful to separate from it, unless it be unlawful to continue in it. You advise, thirdly, ‘fully to declare myself on this head, and to suffer no dispute concerning it.’ The very same thing I wrote to my brother from Ireland; and we have declared ourselves without reserve. Nor was there any at the Con­ference otherwise minded. Those who would have aimed at dispute had left us before. Fourthly, all our preachers as well as ourselves purpose to continue in the Church of England. Nor did they ever before so freely and explicitly declare them­selves on this subject.

Your last advice is, ‘That as many of our preachers as are fit for it be ordained, and that the others be fixed to certain Societies, not as preachers, but as readers or inspectors.’

You oblige me by speaking your sentiments so plainly: with the same plainness I will answer. So far as I know myself, I have no more concern for the reputation of Methodism or my own than for the reputation of Prester John. I have the same point in view as when I set out -- the promoting as I am able vital, practical religion; and in all our discipline I still aim at the continuance of the work which God has already begun in so many souls. With this view, and this only, I permitted those whom I believed God had called thereto to comfort, exhort, and instruct their brethren. And if this end can be better answered some other way, I shall subscribe to it without dray.

But is that which you propose a better way? This should be coolly and calmly considered.

If I mistake not, there are now in the county of Cornwall about four-and-thirty of these little Societies, part of whom now experience the love of God, part are more or less earnestly seeking it. Four preachers-- Peter Jaco, Thomas Johnson, W. Crabb, and William Alwood [Peter Jaco was a Cornishman who became one of Wesley's preachers in 1754; his portrait and auto­biography are given in the first volume of the Arminian Mag. 1778, p. 541 (See Wesley’s Veterans, ii. 7-17). Thomas Johnson was born at Wake­field in 1720, became an itinerant in 1752, and died in 1797; he was acceptable and useful wherever he went (Atmore’s Memorial, pp 220-3). William Crabb was amiable and devoted; but he suffered much from weakness, and died about 1764 (ibid. p. 94). William Alwood was seized by the press-gang at Stockton in 1759 (Journal, iv. 328-9): see W.H.S. iii. 182, and letter of March 6, 1759, to him.] -- design for the ensuing year, partly to call other sinners to repentance, but crafty to feed and guide those few feeble sheep, to forward them (as of the ability which God giveth) in vital, practical religion.

Now, suppose we can effect that Peter Jaco and Thomas Johnson be ordained and settled in the curacies of Buryan and St. Just, and suppose William Crabb and William Alwood fix at Launceston and Plymouth Dock as readers and exhorters, will this answer the end which I have in view so well as traveling through the county?

It will not answer it so well even with regard to those Societies with whom Peter Jaco and Thomas Johnson have settled. Be their talents ever so great, they will ere long grow dead themselves, and so will most of those that hear them. I know, were I myself to preach one whole year in one place, I should preach both myself and most of my con­gregation asleep. Nor can I believe it was ever the will of our Lord that any congregation should have one teacher only. We have found by long and constant experience that a frequent change of teachers is best. This preacher has one talent, that another. No one whom I ever yet knew has all the talents which are needful for beginning continuing and perfecting the work of grace in an whole congregation.

But suppose this would better answer the end with regard to those two Societies, would it answer in those where W. Alwood and W. Crabb were settled as inspectors or readers? First, who shall feed them with the milk of the Word? The ministers of their parishes? Alas, they cannot! they them­selves neither know, nor live, nor teach the gospel. These readers? Can, then, either they or I or you always find some­thing to read to our congregation which will be as exactly adapted to their wants and as much blessed to them as our preaching? And here is another difficulty still: what authority have I to forbid their doing what I believe God has called them to do? I apprehend, indeed, that there ought, if possible, to be both an outward and inward call to this work; yet, if one of the two be supposed wanting I had rather want the outward than the inward call. I rejoice that I am called to preach the gospel both by God and man. Yet I acknowledge I had rather have the divine without the human than the human without the divine call.

But, waiving this, and supporting these four Societies to be better provided for than they were before, what becomes of the other thirty? Will they prosper as well when they are left as sheep without a shepherd? The experiment has been tried again and again, and always with the same event: even the strong in faith grew weak and faint; many of the weak made shipwreck of the faith; the awakened fell asleep; sinners, changed for a while, returned as a dog to the vomit. And so, by our lack of service, many of the souls perished for whom Christ died. Now, had we willingly withdrawn our service from them by voluntarily settling in one place, what account of this could we have given to the great Shepherd of all our souls?

I cannot therefore see how any of those four preachers or any others in like circumstances can ever, while they have health and strength, ordained or unordained, fix in one place, without a grievous wound to their own conscience and damage to the general work of God. Yet I trust I am open to convic­tion; and your farther thoughts on this or any subject will be always acceptable to, reverend and dear sir,

Your very affectionate brother and fellow laborer.

To the Monthly Reviewers

LONDON, September 9, 1756.

GENTLEMEN, -- For a considerable time I have had a desire to trouble you with a few fines; but have been prevented, partly by a variety of other business, partly by the small probability of your impartially considering what was said. I will, however make the trial. If you can read candidly, well; if not, it is but a little labor lost.

The question I would propose is this: Is it prudent, is it just, is it humane, to jumble whole bodies of people together and condemn them by the lump? Is it not a maxim now almost universally received that there are good and bad in every society? Why, then, do you continually jumble together and condemn by the lump the whole body of people called Methodists? Is it prudent (just to touch even on so low a consideration) to be constantly insulting and provoking those who do you no wrong and had far rather be your friends than your enemies? Is it consistent with humanity to strike again one who gives no provocation and makes no resistance? Is it common justice to treat with such contempt as you have done in the last month’s Review those who are by no means contemptible writers? Be persuaded, gentlemen, to give yourselves the pains of reading either Mr. Herbert’s ‘Providence,’ [Wesley was familiar with Herbert, six of whose poems he had turned into hymns for his Hymn-Book published in Charlestown: O sacred Providence, who from end to end, Strongly and sweetly movest! shall I write, And not of Thee, through whom my fingers bend, To hold my quill? Shall they not do Thee right? (The Temple)] or the verses which Norris entitles ‘The Meditation’ [John Norris (1657-1711), Rector of Bemerton, English Platonist and poet, an idealist of the purest type, sustained by the loftiest inspiration. Professor Sorley says (Cambridge History of English Literature, viii. 348) that ‘he was the only English writer of note who adopted the views of Malebranche. He had thought out -- one may even say he had lived -- the theory for himself.’ Mr. Osmond thinks ‘The Meditation,’ ‘though perhaps a better piece of work technically, is more morbid and low-toned than “The Prophet”’ (Mystical Poets of the English Church, p. 228). See letter of March 14.]; and you will find them scarce inferior either in sense or language to most compositions of the present age. To speak more freely still: where is the justice of coupling the hymns of Methodists and Moravians together? Lay prejudice aside, and read with candor but the very first hymn in our first Hymn-Book [Hymns and Sacred Poems, 1739. These lines are from the opening poem, ‘Eupolis Hymn to the Creator,’ by Samuel Wesley, Rector of Epworth.]; and then say whether your prose is not as nearly allied to John Bunyan’s as our verse to Count Zinzendorf’s.

As probably you have never seen the books which you condemn, I will transcribe a few lines:-

Thee, when morning greets the skies

With rosy cheeks and humid eyes;

Thee when sweet declining day

Sinks in purple waves away;

Thee will I sing, O Parent Jove,

And teach the world to praise and love.

Yonder azure vault on high,

Yonder blue, low, liquid sky,

Earth, on its firm basis placed,

And with circling waves embraced,

All Creating Power confer,

All their mighty Maker bless.

Thou shak’st all nature with Thy nod;

Sea, earth, and air confess the God:

Yet does Thy powerful hand sustain

Both earth and heaven, both firm and main.

The feathered souls that swim the air,

And bathe in liquid ether there;

The lark, precentor of their choir,

Leading them higher still and higher,

Listen and learn; the angelic notes

Repeating in their warbling throats:

And, ere to soft repose they go,

Teach them to their lords below.

On the green turf, their mossy nest,

The evening anthem swells their breast.

Thus, like Thy golden chain from high,

Thy praise unites the earth and sky.

O ye nurses of soft dreams,

Reedy brooks, and winding streams;

Or murmuring o’er the pebbles sheen,

Or sliding through the meadows green,

Or where through matted sedge you creep,

Traveling to your parent deep;

Sound His praise by whom you rose,

That Sea which neither ebs nor flows.

O ye immortal woods and groves,

Which the enamored student loves;

Beneath whose venerable shade,

For thought and friendly converse made,

Famed Hecadem, old hero, lies,

Whose shrine is shaded from the skies

And, through the gloom of silent night,

Projects from far its trembling light;

You, whose roots descend as low

As high in air your branches grow,

Your leafy arms to heaven extend,

Bend your heads, in homage bend;

Cedars and pines that wave above,

And the oak beloved of Jove!

Now, gentlemen, can you say, between God and your own souls, that these verses deserve the treatment you have given them? I think you cannot. You are men of more understanding. You know they are not contemptible. If any of you will strike a real blot, if you will point out even in public (though that is not the most obliging way) anything justly reprovable in our writings, probably we shall acknow­ledge and correct what is amiss -- at least, we shall not blame you. But every impartial man must blame that method of proceeding which neither consists with justice nor humanity.

Perhaps you may say you have been provoked. By whom? ‘By Mr. Romaine.’ I answer, I am not Mr. Romaine [William Romaine (1714-95) was appointed lecturer at St. Dunstan’s-in-the-West in 1749, assistant morning preacher at St. George’, Hanover Square, 1750-6, Curate of St Olave’s, Southwark, 1756-9; Rector of St. Anne’s Blackfriars, 1766-95. He was a frequent visitor at Benjamin Ingham’s and one of the leading Calvinistic clergy of his time.]; neither am I accountable for his behavior. And what equity is this? One man has offended you: therefore you fall upon another. Will it excuse you to say, ‘But he is called by the same name’? especially when neither is this his own name, but a term of derision. Gentlemen, do to others as you would have them do to you: then you will no more injure one who never offended you (unless this offend you, that he
does ready believe Jesus Christ to be God over all, blessed for ever); then you will not return hatred for goodwill, even to so insignificant a person as

JOHN WESLEY.

To Mrs. Hall

LONDON, September 15, 1756.

DEAR SISTER, -- In what path it is best for us to tread God knows better than man. And we are well assured He orders all things for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. Probably He withheld you from prosperity to save you from pride; certainly to rescue you from your own will, and from that legion of foolish and hurtful desires which so naturally attend abundance. Be good and do good to the utmost of your present power, and then happy are you.

I have ordered Betty Duchesne [Wesley buried Elizabeth Duchesne on Dec. 22, 1776. In the Journal, vi. 135, he describes her as ‘a person eminently upright of heart, yet for many years a child of labor and sorrow. For near forty years she was zealous of good works, and at length shortened her days by laboring for the poor beyond her strength.’ Charles Wesley break-fasted with her on Feb. 15, 1759: see his Journal, ii. 259; and letter of Oct. 27, 1758.] to get the things you spoke of, which probably by this time she has done. Therefore you need not delay your return to London. I purposed to have come through Salisbury, but I was so ill [‘For a few days,’ says Wesley (Journal, iv. 186, ‘I was laid up with a flux; but on Sunday, Sept. 5, I crept out again, and preached at Kingswood in the morning and Stokes Croft in the afternoon. Monday, 6, I set out in the machine, and on Tuesday evening came to London.’] that it was judged not safe for me to ride. O make the best of a few days. -- I am

Your affectionate friend and Brother.

To James Clark [9]

LONDON, September 18, 1756.

REVEREND SIR, -- Yesterday I received your favor of July 9. As you therein speak freely and openly, I will endeavor to do the same, at which I am persuaded you will not be displeased.

1. Of the words imputed to Mr. Langston I said nothing because he denied the charge, and I had not the opportunity of having the accuser and the accused face to face.

2. That there are enthusiasts among the Methodists I doubt not, and among most other people under heaven; but that they are made such by our doctrine and discipline still remains to be proved. If they are in such spite of our doctrine and discipline, their madness will not be laid to our charge.

I know nothing of the anonymous pamphlet on Inspiration. [In his second letter Clark refers to ‘a pamphlet wrote by an anonymous author of your Society, wherein he made a collection all the texts of The New Testament where there is any mention of the Spirit or its influences.] How does it appear to be wrote by one of my disciples? Be it good bad or indifferent, I am not concerned or any way accountable for it.

3. I believe several who are not episcopally ordained are nevertheless called of God to preach the gospel. Yet I have no exception to the Twenty-third Article, though I judge there are exempt cases. That the seven deacons were outwardly ordained even to that low office cannot be denied; but when Paul and Barnabas were separated from the work to which they were called, this was not ordaining them. St. Paul was ordained long before, and that was not by man or men. It was inducting him into the providence for which our Lord had appointed him from the beginning. For this end the prophets and teachers fasted and prayed and laid their hand upon them – a rite which was used, not in ordination only, but in blessing many other occasions.

4. Concerning diocesan Episcopacy, there are several questions which I should be glad to have answered: as (1) Where is it prescribed in Scripture? (2) How does it appear that the Apostles settled it in all the Churches which they planted? (3) How does it appear they settled it in any so as to make it of perpetual obligation? It is allowed that Christ and His Apostles settled the Church under some form of government. But (i) Did they put all Churches under the same precise form? If they did, (ii) Can you prove this to be the precise form and the very same which now obtains in England?

5. How Phavorinus [Favorinus, so called from Favera, his birthplace, was a Benedictine, who in 1512 became librarian to the future Leo X. He was made Bishop of Nuceria in 1514, and died in 1537. He compiled a Greek Lexicon.] or many more may define heresy or schism I am not concerned to know. I well know heresy is vulgarly defined ‘a false opinion touching some necessary article of faith, and schism a causeless separation from a true Church.’ But I keep to my Bible, as our Church in her Sixth Article teaches me; therefore I cannot take schism for a separation from a Church, because I cannot find it so taken in Scripture. The first time I meet the term there is 1 Corinthians i. 10: I meet with it again, chap. xi. 18. But it is plain in both places by schism is meant not any separation from the Church but uncharitable divisions in it. For the Corinthians continued to be one Church, notwithstanding then strife and contention; there was no separation of one part from the other with regard to external communion. It is in the same sense the word is used chap. xii. 25. And these are the only places in the New Testament where the term occurs. Therefore the indulging any unkind temper towards our fellow Christians is the true scriptural schism.

Indeed, both heresy and schism (which are works of the flesh, and consequently damnable if not repented) are here mentioned by the Apostle in very near the same sense; unless by schisms be meant rather those inward animosity which occasioned heresies -- that is, outward divisions and parties. So that while one said, ‘I am Paul; another, I am of Apollos,’ this implied both heresy and schism: so wonderfully have latter ages distorted the words ‘heresies’ and ‘schisms’ from their scriptural meaning! Heresy is not in all the Bible taken for an error in fundamentals, nor in anything ere; nor schism for any separation from the communion of others. Therefore heresy and schism in the modern sense of the words are sins that the Scriptures know nothing of.

6. But though I aver this, am I quite indifferent to any man’s principles in religion? Far from it; as I have declared again and again, in the very sermon under present consideration, in the Character of a Methodist, in the Plain Account, and twenty tracts besides, I have written severally against Deists, Papists, Mystics, &c. An odd way to ingratiate myself with them, to strike at the apple of their eye! [The version followed here and in the other letter to Clark is that which appears in Montanus Redivivus. Compare sect. 6 with that in Works, xiii. 214-15.] Nevertheless in all things indifferent (but not at the expense of truth) I rejoice to please all men for their good to edification, if happily I may gain the more proselytes to genuine scriptural Christianity, if I may prevail on the more to love God and their neighbor and to walk as Christ walked. So far as I find them obstructive of these, I oppose opinions with my might; though even then rather by guarding those that are free than by disputing with those that are deeply infected: I need not dispute with many of them to know there is no probability of success or of convincing them. A thousand times I have found my father’s word true: ‘You may have peace with the Dissenters, if you do not so humor them as to dispute with them; if you do, they will outface and outlung you, and at the end you will be just where you were in the beginning.’

I have now, sir, humored you so as to dispute a little with you. But with what probability of success? Suppose you have a single eye in this debate; suppose you aim, not at victory, but at the truth; yet what man of threescore (unless perchance one in an age) was ever convinced? Is not an cid man’s motto, Non persuadebis etiamsi persuaseris? [‘I will not be persuaded, even though you should convince me.’] When we are past middle age, do we not find a kind of stiffness and inflexibility stealing upon the mind as well as on the body?

And does not this bar the gate against all conviction? even before the eye of the soul grows dim, and so less and less capable of diving things which we are not already well acquainted with!

7. Yet on one point I must add a few words, because it is of the last importance. I said orthodoxy, or right opinion, [See letter of Nov. 26, 1762, to Dr. Warburton.] was never more than a slender part of religion, and sometimes no part at all; and this I explained thus: ‘In a child of God it is but a slender part, in a child of the devil it is no part at all of religion.’ The religion of a child of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Now, if orthodoxy be any part of this (which in itself might admit of a question), it is certainly a very slender part; though it is a considerable help of love, peace, and joy. Religion, in other words, is the love of God and man, producing all holiness of conversation. Now, are right opinions any more than a slender part (if they be so much) of this? Once more: religion is the mind that was in Christ and walking as Christ walked. Now, how slender a part of this are opinions, how right soever!

By a child of the devil I mean one that neither loves, fears, or serves God, and has no true religion at all. But it is certain such a man may be still orthodox may entertain right opinions; and yet it is equally certain thee are no parts of religion in him that has no religion at all.

Permit me, sir, to speak exceeding plainly. Are you not an orthodox man? Perhaps there is none more so in the diocese. Yet possibly you may have no religion at all. If it be true that you frequently drink to execs, you may have orthodoxy, but you can have no religion. If, when you are in a passion, you call your brother ‘Thou fool,’ you have no religion at all. If you then even curse and swear by taking God's name in vain, you can have no other religion but orthodoxy; a religion of which the devil and his angels have as much as you. [Clark replied that he could prove the reports to be false.]

O sir, what an idle thing it is for you to dispute about lay preaches! Is not a lay preacher preferable to a drunken preacher, to a cursing, swearing preacher? ‘To the ungody saith God, Why takest thou My covenant in thy mouth, whereas thou hatest to be reformed, and castest My words behind thee? ‘In tender compassionI speak this. May God apply it to your heart! And then you will not receive this as an affront but as the truest instance of brotherly love from, reverend sir,

Yours, &c.

To the Monthly Reviewers

LONDON, October 5, 1756.

Really, gentlemen, you do me too much honor. I could scarce expect so favorable a regard from those who are professed admirers of Mr. Aaron Hill’s verse and Mr. Caleb Flemings prose.

Nevertheless I cannot but observe a few small mistakes in the eight lines with which you favor me. You say, ‘We suppose the specimen of Mr. Wesley’s Hymns’ (the false spelling is of little consequence) ‘was sent us for this purpose’ – namely to publish. Truly it was not: it never entered my thought; as, I apprehend, may appear from: the whole tenor of the letter wherein those lines were inserted. ‘And if the Moravians please to select a like sample of what has been done by them, they may expect from us the same justice.’ [See letters of Oct. 24, 1755, and Sept. 9, 1756.] Another little mistake: those lines are not selected, but are found in the very first hymn (as I observed in my last) that occurs in the first verses which my brother and I have ever published. ‘We have received a letter complaining of our having jumbled the poetry of the Methodists and Moravians in an indiscriminate censure.’ Not so. The Chief thing complained of was, (1) Your ‘jumbling whole bodies of people together and of condemning them by the lump without any regard either to prudence, justice or humanity.’ (2).Your ‘treating with such contempt those who by no means contemptible writers – Mr. Norris and Mr. Herbert.’ The last and least thing was your ‘coupling the hymns of Moravians and Methodists together.’ It was here I added, ‘As probably you have a never few seen the books which you condemn, I will transcribe a few lines’; but neither did I give the least intimation of ‘appealing hereby to the public in proof of our superiority over the Moravians.’ This is another mistake.

At first I was a little inclined to fear a want of integrity had occasioned this misrepresentation; but, upon reflection, I would put a milder construction upon it, and only impute it to want of understanding. Even bodies of men do not see all things; and are then especially liable to err, when they imagine themselves hugely superior to their opponents, and so pronounce ex cathedra.

Another instance of this is just now before me. A week or two ago one put a tract into my hands in which I could discern nothing of the Christian gentleman, or scholar, but much of low, dull, ill-natured scurrility and blasphemy. How was I surprised when I read in your three hundred and fifteenth page, ‘We have read this little piece with great pleasure’! when I found you so smitten with the author’s ‘spirit, sense, and freedom,’ his ‘smart animadversions’ and ‘becoming severity’! O gentlemen! do not you speak too plain? Do not you discover too much at once? especially when you so keenly ridicule Mr. Pike’s supposition [See reference to Samuel Pike’s Philosopha Sacra in Journal, iv. 146-7. 190. Pike (1717? - 1773) adopted the views of Sandeman; he became an Independent minister.] that the Son and Spirit are truly divine? May I ask, If the Son of God is not truly divine, is He divine at all? Is He a little God, or no God at all? If no God at all, how came He to say, ‘I and the Father are one’? Did any prophet before, from the beginning of the world, use any one expression which could possibly be so interpreted as this and other expressions were by aft that heard Jesus speak? And did He ever attempt to undeceive them? Be pleased, then, to let me know, if He was not God, how do you clear Him from being the vilest of men? -- I am, gentlemen,

Your well-wisher, though not admirer.

To James Hervey [10]

October 15, 1756.

DEAR SIR, -- A considerable time since, I sent you a few hasty thoughts which occurred to me on reading the Dialogues between Theton and Aspasio. I have not been favored with any answer. Yet upon another and a more careful perusal of them, I could not but set down some obvious reflections, which I would rather have communicated before these Dialogues were published.

In the First Dialogue there are several just and strong observa­tions, which may be of use to every serious reader. In the Second, is not the description often too labored, the language too stiff and affected? Yet the reflections on the creation, in the thirty-first and following pages, make abundant amends for this. (I cite the pages according to the Dublin edition, having wrote the rough draught of what follows in Ireland.)

Is justification more or less than God's pardoning and accepting a sinner through the merits of Christ? That God herein ‘reckons the righteousness and obedience which Christ performed as our own’ (page 39) I allow; if by that ambiguous expression you mean only, as you here explain it yourself, ‘They are as effectual for obtaining our salvation as if they were our own personal qualifications’ (page 41).

‘We are not solicitous as to any particular set of phrases. Only let men be humbled, as repenting criminals at Christ's feet, let them rely as devoted pensioners on His merits, and they are un­doubtedly in the way to a blissful immortality’ (page 43). Then, for Christ's sake, and for the sake of the immortal souls which He has purchased with His blood, do not dispute for that particular phrase ‘the imputed righteousness of Christ.’ It is not scriptural; it is not necessary. Men who scruple to use, men who never heard, the expression, may yet ‘be humbled, as repenting criminals at His feet, and rely as devoted pensioners on His merits.’ But it has done immense hurt. I have had abundant proof that the frequent use of this unnecessary phrase, instead of ‘furthering men's progress in vital holiness,’ has made them satisfied without any holiness at all--yea, and encouraged them to work all un­cleanness with greediness.

‘To ascribe pardon to Christ's passive, eternal life to His active, righteousness, is fanciful rather than judicious. His universal obedience from His birth to His death is the one foundation of my hope.’ (Page 45.)

This is unquestionably right. But if it be, there is no manner of need to make the imputation of His active righteousness a separate and labored head of discourse. Oh that you had been content with this plain scriptural account, and spared some of the dialogues and letters that follow!

The Third and Fourth Dialogues contain an admirable illus­tration and confirmation of the great doctrine of Christ's satis­faction. Yet even here I observe a few passages which are liable to some exception: -

‘Satisfaction was made to the divine law’ (page 54). I do not remember any such expression in Scripture. This way of speaking of the law, as a person injured and to be satisfied, seems hardly defensible.

‘The death of Christ procured the pardon and acceptance of believers even before He came in the flesh’ (page 74). Yea, and ever since. In this we all agree. And why should we contend for anything more?

‘All the benefits of the new covenant are the purchase of His blood' (page 120). Surely they are. And after this has been fully proved, where is the need, where is the use, of contending so strenuously for the imputation of His righteousness as is done in the Fifth and Sixth Dialogues?

‘If He was our substitute as to penal sufferings, why not as to justifying obedience?’ (page 135). The former is expressly asserted in Scripture; the latter is not expressly asserted there.

‘As sin and misery have abounded through the first Adam, mercy and grace have much more abounded through the Second: so that none can have any reason to complain’ (page 145). No, not if the second Adam died for all: otherwise all for whom He did not die have great reason to complain; for they inevitably fall by the first Adam, without any help from the Second.

‘The whole world of believers’ (page 148) is an expression which never occurs in Scripture, nor has it any countenance there: the world in the inspired writings being constantly taken either in the universal or in a bad sense; either for the whole of mankind or for that part of them who know not God.

‘“In the Lord shah all the house of Israel be justified”’ (page 149). It ought unquestionably to be rendered ‘By or through the Lord’: this argument therefore proves nothing.

‘Ye are complete in Him.’ The words literally rendered are ‘Ye are filled with Him’; and the whole passage (as any unprejudiced reader may observe) relates to sanctification, not justification.

‘They are accepted for Christ’s sake; this is justification through imputed righteousness’ (page 150). That remains to be proved. Many allow the former who cannot allow the latter.

‘The righteousness which justifies us is already wrought out’ (page 151). A crude, unscriptural expression! ‘It was set on foot, carried on, completed.’ Oh vain philosophy! The plain truth is, Christ lived and ‘tasted death for every man’; and through the merits of His life and death every believer is justified.

‘Whoever perverts so glorious a doctrine shows he never believed’ (page 152). Not so. They who ‘turn back as a dog to the vomit’ had once ‘escaped the pollutions of the world by the knowledge of Christ.’

‘The goodness of God leadeth to repentance’ (page 153). This is unquestionably true; but the nice, metaphysical doctrine of Im­puted Righteousness leads not to repentance but to licentiousness.

‘The believer cannot but add to his faith works of righteousness’ (page 154). During his first love this is often true; but it is not true afterwards, as we know and feel by melancholy experience.

‘We no longer obey in order to lay the foundation of our final acceptance’ (page 155). No; that foundation is already laid in the merits of Christ. Yet we obey in order to our final acceptance through His merits; and in this sense by obeying we ‘lay a good foundation that we may attain eternal life.’

‘“We establish the law”; we provide for its honor by the perfect obedience of Christ’ (page 156). Can you possibly think St. Paul meant this? that such a thought ever entered into his mind? The plain meaning is, We establish both the true sense and the effectual practice of it; we provide for its being both understood and practiced in its full extent.

‘On those who reject the atonement, just severity’ (page 157). Was it ever possible for them not to reject it? If not, how is .it just to cast them into a lake of fire for not doing what it was impossible they should do? Would it be just (make it your own case) to cast you into hell for not touching heaven with your hand?

‘Justification is complete the first moment we believe, and is incapable of augmentation’ (page 159). Not so: there may be as many degrees in the favor as in the image of God.

‘St. Paul often mentions a righteousness imputed.’ Not a righteousness, never once; but simply, righteousness. ‘What can this be but the righteousness of Christ?’ (Page 190.) He tells you himself – ‘To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, faith is imputed for righteousness’ (Rom iv. 5). ‘Why is Christ styled Jehovah our Righteousness?’ Because we are both justified and sanctified through Him.

‘My death, the cause of their forgiveness; My righteousness, the ground of their acceptance’ (page 190). How does this agree with page 45? – ‘To ascribe pardon to Christ's passive, eternal life to His active, righteousness, is fanciful rather than judicious.’

‘He commends such kinds of beneficence only as were exercised to a disciple as such’ (page 195). Is not this a slip of the pen? Will not our Lord then commend, and reward eternally, all kinds of beneficence, provided they flowed from a principle of loving faith -- yea, that which was exercised to a Samaritan, a Jew, a Turk, or an heathen? Even these I would not term ‘transient bubbles,’ though they do not procure our justification.

‘How must our righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees? Not only in being sincere, but in possessing a complete righteousness, even that of Christ.’ (Page 197.) Did our Lord mean this? Nothing less. He specifies in the following parts of His sermon the very instances wherein the righteousness of a Christian exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees.

‘He brings this specious hypocrite to the test’ (page 198). How does it appear that he was an hypocrite? Our Lord gives not the least intimation of it. Surely He ' loved him,' not for his hypocrisy, but his sincerity! Yet he loved the world, and there­fore could not keep any of the commandments in their spiritual meaning. And the keeping of these is undoubtedly the way to, though not the cause of, eternal life.

‘“By works his faith was made perfect”; appeared to be true’ (page 200). No; the natural sense of the words is, ‘By’ the grace superadded while he wrought those ‘works his faith was’ literally ‘made perfect.’

‘“He that doeth righteousness is righteous”; manifests the truth of his conversion’ (ibid.). Nay; the plain meaning is, He alone is truly righteous whose faith worketh by love.

‘St. James speaks of the justification of our faith’ (page 201). Not unless you mean by that odd expression our faith being made perfect; for so the Apostle explains his own meaning. Perhaps the word ‘justified’ is once used by St. Paul for manifested; but that does not prove it is to be so understood here.

‘“Whoso doeth these things shall never fall” into total apos­tasy’ (page 202). How pleasing is this to flesh and blood! But David says no such thing. His meaning is, ‘whoso doeth these things’ to the end ‘shall never fall’ into hell.

The Seventh Dialogue is full of important truths. Yet some expressions in it I cannot commend.

‘“One thing thou lackest” -- the imputed righteousness of Christ’ (page 216). You cannot think this is the meaning of the text. Certainly the ‘one thing’ our Lord meant was the love of God. This was the thing he lacked.

‘Is the obedience of Christ insufficient to accomplish our justification?’ (Page 222.) Rather I would ask, Is the death of Christ insufficient to purchase it?

‘The saints in glory ascribe the whole of their salvation to the blood of the Lamb’ (page 226). So do I; and yet I believe ‘He obtained for all a possibility of salvation.’

‘The terms of acceptance for fallen man were a full satisfaction to the divine justice and a complete conformi