1753

To Jonathan Pritchard [1]

LONDON, January, 16, 1753.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- If there are two preachers in the Round (as I suppose there are now if Jonathan Maskew [See letter of Feb. 22.] is come), then you may tell Mr. Haughton I desire the preaching may be constantly at Chester in the manner I settled it when I was in the country. [Wesley paid his third visit to Chester, on his way to the North, on March 27, 1753. See Journal, iv. 56.] I hope to set out for the North about the beginning of March. I am not yet determined whether I go down toward Newcastle by Chester or endeavor to see you in my return. I hope Sister Roughly, Brother Jones, and all our friends are pressing on and walking in love. Ought I not to have heard something from you rather than from others concerning Sister Barlow of Manchester If she does remove to Chester, I trust it will be for the good of many; for she has both a searching and a healing spirit. -- I am

Your affectionate brother.

To Thomas Capiter [2]

LONDON February 6, 1753.

MY DEAR BROTHER -- It is a constant rule with us that no preacher should preach above twice a day, unless on Sunday or on some extraordinary time; and then he may preach three times. We know nature cannot long bear the preaching oftener than this, and therefore to do it is a degree of self-murder. Those of our preachers who would not follow this advice have all repented when it was too late.

I likewise advise all our preachers not to preach above an hour at a time, prayer and all; and not to speak louder either in preaching or prayer than the number of hearers requires.

You will show this to all our preachers; and any that desire it may take a copy of it. --I am

Your affectionate brother.

To Jonathan Maskew [3]

LONDON February 22, 1753.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I cannot blame you at all for writing to me before you determined anything. I believe your staying so long in the Newcastle Circuit has been for good, both for you and for others; and you are still wanted there. But you are wanted more elsewhere. I do not mean you should go to Mr. Grimshaw's circuit [The Haworth Round.] (although you might stay a fortnight there, not more, but to Manchester. I promised you should set out to help Brother Haughton as soon as Brother Hopper could go to Newcastle. So that you are sadly beyond your time; the blame of which is probably (as usual) laid upon me. Therefore the sooner you are at Manchester the better. [See letter of Jan. 16.] Peace be with your spirit. -- I am

Your affectionate brother.

To Ebenezer Blackwall

YORK, May 16 1753.

DEAR SIR, -- For some time I have had a desire to send you a few fines. I have often observed with a sensible pleasure your strong desire to be not almost only but altogether a Christian. And what should hinder it What is it that prevents those good desires from being brought to good effect Is it the carrying a fight principle too far -- I mean a desire to please all men for their good Or is it a kind of shame -- the being ashamed not of sin but of holiness, or of what conduces thereto I have often been afraid lest this should hurt you. I have been afraid that you do not gain ground in this respect; nay, that you rather go backward by yielding to this than forward by conquering it. I have feared that you are not so bold for God now as you was four or five years ago. If so, you are certainly in great danger. For in this case, who knows where he shah stop The giving way in one point naturally leads us to give way in another and another, till we give up all. O sir, let us beware of this! Whereunto we have attained let us hold fast! But this can only be by pressing on. Otherwise we must go back. You have need of courage and steady resolution; for you have a thousand enemies -- the flattering, frowning world, the rulers of the darkness of this world, and the grand enemy within. What need have you to put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day! I often tremble for you. And how few will honestly and plainly tell you of your danger! O may God warn you continually by His inward voice, and with every temptation make a way for you to escape!

My wife joins me in wishing all blessing both to Mrs. Blackwell and you. -- I am, dear sir,

Your affectionate servant.

If you favor me with a line, you will please to direct to Leeds.

To Ebenezer Blackwell

BIRSTALL. May 28, 1753.

DEAR SIR, -- Your speaking so freely encourages me to write once more. [The letter of May 16 had been graciously received by this true-hearted friend. See also June 27.] Ever since I had the pleasure of knowing you, I have observed in you a real desire to please God and to have a conscience void of offence. But at the same time I have observed you had many enemies. Perhaps one was a natural cheerfulness of temper, which, though in itself it be highly desirable, yet may easily slide into an extreme. And in this case we know too well it may hurt us extremely. It may be, another hindrance in your way has sometimes been a kind of shame, which prevented your executing good and commendable deigns. Was it not owing to this that you who had received such blessings by means of field-preaching grew unwilling to attend it But is there any end of giving way to this enemy Will it not encroach upon us more and more I have sometimes been afraid that you have not gained ground in this respect for these two or three years. But the comfort is that in a moment God can repair whatever is decayed in our souls and supply whatever is wanting. What is too hard for Him Nothing but our own will. Let us give up this, and He will not withhold from us any manner of thing that is good.

I believe the harvest has not been so plenteous for many years as it is now in all the North of England; but the laborers are few. I wish you could persuade our friend [Charles Wesley.] to share the labor with me. One of us should in any wise visit both the North and Ireland every year. But I cannot do both. The time will not suffice, otherwise I should not spare myself. I hope my life (rather than my tongue) says, I desire only to spend and to be spent in the world. Our love and service always attend Mrs. Blackwell and you. -- I am, dear sir,

Your very affectionate servant.

To George Whitefield [4]

BIRSTALL, May [28], 1753.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Between forty and fifty of our preachers lately met at Leeds, all of whom, I trust, esteem you in love for your work's sake. I was desired by them to mention a few particulars to you, in order to a still firmer union between us.

Several of them had been grieved at your mentioning among our people (in private conversation, if not in public preaching) some of those opinions which we do not believe to be true, such as ‘a man may be justified and not know it,’ that ‘there is no possibility of falling away from grace,’ and that ‘there is no perfection in this fife.’ They conceived that this was not doing as you would be done to, and that it tended to create not peace but confusion.

They are likewise concerned at your sometimes speaking lightly of the discipline received among us, of societies, classes, bands, and of our rums in general, of some of them in particular. This they apprehended to be neither kind nor just, nor consistent with the profession which you at other times make.

Above all, they had been troubled at the manner wherein your preachers (so I call those who preach at the Tabernacle) had very frequently spoken of my brother and me, partly in the most scoffing and contemptuous manner, relating an hundred shocking stories (such as that of Mary Popplestone and Eliz. Story) as unquestionable facts, and propagating them with diligence and with an air of triumph wherever they came.

These things I was desired by all our brethren to mention. Two or three of them afterwards desired me in private to mention farther that when you were in the North your conversation was not so useful as was expected; that it generally turned not upon the things of God, but on trifles and things indifferent; that your whole carriage was not so serious as they could have desired, being often mixed with needless laughter; and that those who scrupled any levity of behavior, and endeavored always to speak and act as seeing God, you rather weakened than strengthened, intimating that they were in bondage or weak in faith.

I am persuaded you will receive these short lines in the same lo, e wherein I write them. That you may prosper more and more, both in your soul and in your labors, is the hearty desire of, my dear brother, [Wesley endorsed this letter ‘My letter to G. Whitd. He denies all!’]

Your affectionate fellow laborer.

To Ebenezer Blackwell [5]

LONDON June. 27 1753.

DEAR SIR, -- Your speaking so freely lays me under a new obligation of speaking without any reserve. And the rather because you receive what is spoken in the manner which I desire -- that is, not so much regarding the person who speaks as the thing which is spoken. If there is truth and weight in this, let it stand; if not, let it fall to the ground.

Some time since, I was considering what you said concerning our wanting a plan in our Societies. There is a good deal of truth in this remark; for although we have a plan as to our spiritual economy (the several branches of which are particularly recited in the Plain Account of the People called Methodists [See letter in Dec. 1748 to Vincent Perronet.]), yet it is certain we have barely the first outlines of a plan with regard to temporals. The reason is, I had no design for several years to concern myself with temporals at all. And when I began to do this, it was wholly and solely with a view to relieve not employ the poor, unless now and then with respect to a small number; and even this I found was too great a burthen for me, as requiring both more money, more time, and more thought than I could possibly spare: I say, than I could spare; for the whole weight laid on me. If I left it to others, it surely came to nothing. They wanted either understanding, or industry, or love, or patience to bring anything to perfection.

Thus far I thought it needful to explain myself with regard to the economy of our Society. I am still to speak of your case, of my own, and of some who are dependent on me.

I do not recollect (for I kept no copy of my last) that I charged you with want of humility or meekness. Doubtless these may be found in the most splendid palaces. But did they ever move a man to build a splendid palace Upon what motive you did this I know not; but you are to answer it to God, not to me.

If your soul is now as much alive to God, if your thirst after pardon and holiness is as strong, if you are as dead to the desire of the eye and the pride of life as you was six or seven years ago, I rejoice; if not, I pray God you may. And then you will know how to value a real friend.

With regard to myself, you do well to warn me against ‘popularity, a thirst of power and of applause, against envy producing a seeming contempt for the conveniences or grandeur of this life, against an affected humility, against sparing from myself to give to others from no other motive than ostentation.’ I am not conscious to myself that this is my case. However, the warning is always friendly, and it is always seasonable, considering how deceitful my heart is and how many the enemies that surround me.

What follows I do not understand. ‘Your beholding me in the ditch wherein you helped (though involuntarily) to cast me, and with a Levitical pity passing by on the other side’; ‘He (who) and you, sir, have not any merit; though Providence should permit all these sufferings to work together for my good.’ I do not comprehend one fine of this, and therefore cannot plead either guilty or not guilty.

I presume they are some that are dependent on me, who (you say) ‘keep not the commandments of God; who show a repugnance to serve and obey; who are as full of pride and arrogance as of filth and of nastiness; who do not pay lawful debts, nor comply with civil obligations; who make the waiting on the offices of religion a plea for sloth and idleness; who, after I had strongly recommended them, did not perform their moral duty, but increased the number of those encumbrances, which they forced on you against your will.’ To this I can only say (1) I know not whom you mean. I am not certain that I can so much as guess one of them. (2) Whoever they are, had they followed my instructions they would have acted in a quite different manner. (3) If you will tell me them by name who have acted thus, I will renounce all fellow-ship with them. [See letters of May 16 and 28 to him.]

Dear sir, for the time to come (if you choose we should convene at all) let us convene with absolute openness and unreserve. Then you will find and know me to be

Your very affectionate friend and servant.

To Dr. Robertson [6]

BRISTOL, September 24 1753.

DEAR SIR, -- I have lately had the pleasure of reading Mr. Ramsay's Principles of Religion, with the notes you have annexed to them. Doubtless he was a person of a bright and strong understanding, but I think not of a very clear apprehension. Perhaps it might be owing to this that, not distinctly perceiving the strength of some of the objections to his hypothesis he is very peremptory in his assertions and apt to treat his opponent with an air of contempt and disdain. This seems to have been a blemish even in his moral character. I am afraid the using guile is another: for surely it is a mere artifice to impute to the Schoolmen the rise of almost every opinion which he censures; seeing he must have known that most if not all of those opinions preceded the Schoolmen several hundred years.

The treatise itself gave me a stronger conviction than ever I had before both of the rapaciousness and unsatisfactoriness of the mathematical method of reasoning on religious subjects. Extremely rapacious it is; for ff we slip but in one line, an whole train of errors may follow: and utterly unsatisfactory, at least to me, because I can never be sufficiently assured that this is not the case.

The first two books, although doubtless they are a fine chain of reasoning, yet gave me the less satisfaction, because I am clearly of Mr. Hutchinson's [John Hutchinson. See letter of Nov. 26 1756.] judgment, that all this is beginning at the wrong end; that we can have no idea of God, nor any sufficient proof of His very being, but from the creatures; and that the meanest plant is a far stronger proof hereof than all Dr. Clarke’s [Samuel Clarke (1675-1729). He delivered the Boyle Lectures, on The Being and Attributes of God, in 1704-5. See letter of Dec, 6 1726.] or the Chevalier’s demonstrations.

Among the latter I was surprised to find a demonstration of the manner how God is present to all beings (page 57), how He begat the Son from all eternity (page 77), and how the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son (page 85). Quanto satius est fateri nescire quae nescias, quam ista effutientern nauseare, et ipsurn tibi displicere! [‘How much more laudable would it be to acknowledge you do not know what you do not know, than to follow that blunderer whom you must surely despise!’ See Cicero’s De Natura Deorum, i. 30.] How much better to keep to his own conclusion (page 95), ‘Reason proves that this mystery is possible’! Revelation assures us that it is true; Heaven alone can show us how it is.

There are several propositions in his second book which I cannot assent to, particularly with regard to the divine foreknowledge. I can by no means acquiesce in the twenty-second proposition, ‘That it is a matter of free choice in God to think of finite ideas.’ I cannot reconcile this with the assertion of the Apostle, ‘Known unto God are all His works p’ a, from eternity.’ And if any one ask, ‘How is God's foreknowledge consistent with our freedom’ I plainly answer, I cannot tell.

In the third book (page 209) I read, ‘The desire of God, purely as beatifying, as the source of infinite pleasure, is a necessary consequence of the natural love we have for happiness.’ I deny it absolutely. My natural love for happiness was as strong thirty years ago as at this instant. Yet I had then no more desire of God, as the source of any pleasure at all, than I had of the devil or of hell. So totally false is that, ‘That the soul inevitably loves what it judges to be the best.’

Equally false is his next corollary -- that ‘if ever fallen spirits see and feel that moral evil is a source of eternal misery, they cannot continue to will it deliberately' (ibid.). I can now show living proofs of the contrary. But I take knowledge, both from this and many other of his assertions, that Mr. R. never rightly understood the height and depth of that corruption which is in man, as well as diabolical nature.

The doctrine of Pure Love as it is stated in the fourth book and elsewhere (the loving God chiefly is not solely for His inherent perfections) I once firmly espoused. But I was at length unwillingly convinced that I must give it up or give up the Bible. And for near twenty years I have thought, as I do now, that it is at least unscriptural, if not anti-scriptural; for the Scripture gives not the least intimation, that I can find, of any higher, or indeed any other, love of God than that mentioned by St. John – ‘We love Him, because He first loved us.’ And I desire no higher love of God till my spirit returns to Him.

Page 313: ‘There can be but two possible ways of curing moral evil -- the sensation of pleasure in the discovery of truth, or the sensation of pain in the love of error.’

So here is one who has searched out the Almighty to perfection! who knows every way wherein He can exert His omnipotence!

I am not clear in this. I believe it is very possible for God to act in some third way. I believe He can make me as holy as an archangel without any sensation at all preceding.

Page 324: ‘Hence it is that the chaos mentioned in the 1st chapter of Genesis cannot be understood of the primitive state of nature.’

Why not, if God created the world gradually as we are assured He did

In the fifth book (page 334) I read a more extraordinary assertion than any of the preceding: ‘The infusion of such supernatural habits by one instantaneous act is impossible. We cannot be confirmed in immutable babes of good but by a long-continued repetition of free acts.’ I dare not say so. I am persuaded God can this moment confirm me immutably good.

Page 335: ‘Such is the nature of finite spirits that, after a certain degree of good habits contracted, they become unpervertible and immutable in the love of order.’ If so, ‘after a certain degree of evil habits contracted, must they not become unconvertible and immutable in the hatred of order’ And if Omnipotence cannot prevent the one, neither can it prevent the other.

Page 343: ‘No creature can suffer but what has merited punishment.’ This is not true: for the man Christ Jesus was a creature. But He suffered; yet He had not merited punishment, unless our sins were imputed to Him. But if so, Adam's sin might be imputed to us; and on that account even an infant may suffer.

Now, if these things are so, if a creature may suffer for the sin of another imputed to him, then the whole frame of reasoning for the pre-existence of souls, raised from the contrary supposition, falls to the ground.

Page 347: ‘There are but three opinions concerning the transmission of original sin.’ That is, there are but three ways of accounting how it is transmitted. I care not if there were none. The fact I know, both by Scripture and by experience. I know it is transmitted; but how it is transmitted I nether know nor desire to know.

Page 353: ‘By this insensibility and spiritual lethargy in which all souls remain, ere they awake into mortal bodies, the habits of evil in some are totally extinguished.’

Then it seems there is a third possible way of curing moral evil. And why may not all souls be cured this way without any pain or suffering at all

‘If any impurity remains in them, it is destroyed in a middle state after death’ (ibid.).

I read nothing of either of these purgations in the Bible. But it appears to me, from the whole tenor of his writings, that the Chevalier's notions are about one quarter scriptural, one quarter Popish, and two quarters Mystic.

Page 360: ‘God dissipated the chaos introduced into the solar system by the fall of angels.’ Does sacred Writ affirm this Where is it written, except in Jacob Behmen

Page 366: ‘Physical evil is the only means of curing moral evil.’ This is absolutely contrary both to Scripture, experience, and his own words (page 353). And ‘this great principle,’ as he terms it, is one of those fundamental mistakes which run through the whole Mystic divinity.

Almost all that is asserted in the following pages may likewise be confuted by simply denying it.

Page 373: ‘Hence we see the necessity of sufferings and expiatory pains in order to purify lapsed beings, the intrinsic efficacy of physical to cure moral evil.’

‘Expiatory pains’ is pure, unmixed Popery; but they can have no place in the Mystic scheme. This only asserts ‘the intrinsic efficacy of physical to cure moral evil and the absolute necessity of sufferings to purify lapsed beings’: nether of which I can find in the Bible; though I really believe there is as much of the efficacy in sufferings as in spiritual lethargy.

Page 374: ‘If beasts have any souls, they are either material or immaterial, to be annihilated after death; or degraded intelligences.’ No; they may be immaterial, and yet not to be annihilated.

If you ask, ‘But how are they to subsist after death’ I answer, He that made them knows.

The sixth book, I fear, is more dangerously wrong than any of the preceding, as it effectually undermines the whole scriptural account of God’s reconciling the world unto Himself and turns the whole redemption of man by the blood of Christ into a mere metaphor. I doubt whether Jacob Behmen does not do the same. I am sure he does, if Mr. Law understands him right.

I have not time to specify all the exceptionable passages; if I did, I must transcribe part of almost every page.

Page 393: ‘The Divinity is unsusceptible of anger.' I take this to be the pt ed [‘The prime fallacy.’] of all the Mystics. But I demand the proof I take anger to have the same relation to justice as love has to mercy.

But if we grant them this, then they will prove their point. For if God was never angry, His anger could never be appeased; and then we may safely adopt the very words of Socinus, Tota redemptionis nostrae per Christum metaphora, ['The whole of our redemption by Christ is a metaphor.’ See letter of April 27, 1741.] seeing Christ died only to ‘show to all the celestial choirs God’s infinite aversion to disorder.’

Page 394: ‘He suffered, because of the sin of men, infinite agonies, as a tender father suffers to see the vices of his children. He for all that lapsed angels and men should have suffered to all eternity. Without this sacrifice celestial spirits could never have known the horrible deformity of vice. In this sense He substituted Himself as a victim to take away the sins of the world; not to appease vindictive justice, but to show God's infinite love of justice.’

This is as broad Socinianism as can be imagined. Nay, it is more. It is not only denying the satisfaction of Christ, but supposing that He died for devils as much and for the angel in heaven much more than He did for man.

Indeed, he calls Him an expiatory sacrifice, a propitiatory victim; but remember, it was only in this sense: for you are told again (page 399), ‘See the deplorable ignorance of those who represent the expiatory sacrifice of Christ as destined to appease vindictive justice and avert divine vengeance. It is by such frivolous and blasphemous notions that the Schoolmen have exposed this divine mystery.’

These ‘frivolous and blasphemous notions’ do I receive as the precious truths of God. And so deplorable is my ignorance, that I verily believe all who deny them deny the Lord that bought them.

Page 400: ‘The immediate, essential, necessary means of reuniting men to God are prayer mortification, and self-denial.’ No; the immediate, essential, necessary mean of reuniting me to God is living faith, and that alone: without this I cannot be reunited to God; with this I cannot but be reunited.

Prayer, mortification, and self-denial are the fruits of faith and the grand means of continuing and increasing it.

But I object to the account Mr. R. and all the Mystics give of those. It is far too lax and general. And hence those who receive all he says will live just as they did before, in all the ease, pleasure, and state they can afford.

Page 403: ‘Prayer, mortification, and self-denial produce necessarily in the soul faith, hope, and charity.’

On the contrary, faith must necessarily precede both prayer, mortification, and self-denial, if we mean thereby ‘adoring God in spirit and in truth, a continual death to all that is visible, and a constant, universal suppression and sacrifice of all the motions of fate love.’ And the Chevalier talks of all these tike a mere parrot, if he did not know and feel in his inmost soul that it is absolutely false that any of these should subsist in our heart till we truly believe in the Son of God.

‘True faith h a divine light in the soul that discovers the laws of eternal order, the all of God, and the nothingness of the creatures.’ It does; but is discovers first of all that Christ loved me, and gave Himself for me, and washes me from my sins in His own blood. -- I am, dear sir,

Your affectionate brother.

To Mr. ---- [7]

LONDON October 11, 1753.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- The most effectual way to proceed with the rioters, and what will probably prevent any disturbance for the time to come, is to move for an information in the King's Bench against as many of them as possible. You must not lay upon the constables only, but upon every one whom you can prove to be concerned, By this means, being made parties themselves, they cannot forswear themselves for their fellows. The main point is this: take a full and clear account of all that relates to the pulling down the house. And see that you have evidences enough to prove on oath every particular. Then, by the Riot Act you are empowered to require the Mayor of Nantwich and any two aldermen to build it up again. If they refuse, you can compel them. You would do well to have affidavits made immediately of the riot and the damage done. --I am

Your affectionate brother.

Pray much, and you will prosper.

To his Brother Charles [8]

LONDON October 20, 1753.

DEAR BROTHER, -- I firmly believed that young woman would die in peace; though I did not apprehend it would be so soon. We have had several instances of music heard before or at the death of those that die in the Lord. May we conceive that this is literally the music of angels Can that be heard by ears of flesh and blood [See next letter.]

It was not possible for me to send Jane Bates’s [Mrs. Bate (or Bates), of Wakefield. See Journal, iii. 112, 221-4 (her letter to Wesley); and C. Wesley’s Journal, i. 351, for his conversation with her husband.] letter before my return to London. I sent it last week to Ted Perronet. But whether he be now on earth or in paradise I know not. [Perronet soon recovered, and outlived Wesley. Briggs married his sister Elizabeth in 1749. See Journal viii. 52; and next letter.] He was believed to be dying some days since at Epworth, and vehemently rejoicing in God. William Briggs set out for Epworth last night in order to see him, either alive or dead.

It is much easier for me to hope than to despair of any person or thing. I never did despair of John Hutchinson. For with God no word is impossible. And if he testifies a full and deep sense of his long revolt from God, I shall hope he will either live or die happy. But let me hear the particulars of your Journals, and I may have a stronger hope.

I came back from Bedford [Bedford greatly needed a visit. The Moravians had caused trouble, and ‘the little Society just escaped with the skin of their teeth.’ See Journal, iv. 84-7.] last night. I know not whether it was your will or no (I believe not), but I am sure it was God's will for you to call there. How do you judge whether a thing be God's will or no I hope not by inward impressions. Let us walk warily. I have much constitutional enthusiasm, and you have much more

.

Now I have nether more nor less faith in human testimony than I had ten or fifteen years ago. I could suspect every man that speaks to me to be either a blunderer or a liar But I will not. I dare not till I have proof.

I give you a dilemma. Take one side or the other. Either act really in connection with me, or never pretend to it. Rather disclaim it, and openly avow you do and will not.

By acting in connection with me, I mean take counsel with me once or twice a year as to the places where you will labor. Hear my advice before you fix whether you take it or no.

At present you are so far from this that I do not even know when and where you intend to go; so far are you from following any advice of mine -- nay, even from asking it. And yet I may say without vanity that I am a better judge of this matter than either Lady Huntingdon, Sally, [Charles wrote his wife in the autumn of 1753: ‘The more heavily I labor in the vineyard, the longer I shag continue with you.’ See Telford’s Charles Wesley, pp. 195-6.] Jones [John Jones. See letter of April 16 1748.], or any other -- nay, than your own heart, that is will.

I wish you all peace, zeal, and love.

To his Brother Charles [9]

LONDON October 31, 1753.

DEAR BROTHER, -- My fever intermitted after twelve hours. After a second fit of about fourteen hours, I began taking the bark, and am now recovering my strength.

I cannot apprehend that such music has any analogy at all to the inward voice of God. I take it to differ from this toto genere and to be rather the effect of an angel affecting the auditory nerves, as an apparition does the optical nerve or retina. [See previous letter.]

Ted Perronet is now thoroughly recovered. I had a letter from him a day or two ago.

You say, ‘That is not the will of God which His providence makes impracticable. But His providence made my going to Bedford impracticable.’ Prove the minor and I shall be content.

In journeying, which of us lays his plan according to reason Either you move (quite contrary to me) by those impressions which you account divine, or (which is worse) pro ratione voluntas.

[The next four paragraphs are omitted in the letter as printed in Wesley’s Works.] ‘I will not believe evil till I am forced.’ They are very good words.

‘I wonder you should ever desire it.’ What I have desired any time these ten years is, either that you would really act in connection, or that you would never say you do. Either leave off professing or begin performing.

How can I say, ‘I do not know your intentions, when you had told me you intended to winter in Bristol’ I answer: (1) I heard of your intending to be at Bristol before ever I heard it from you. (2) Did you consult with me in this Was my approbation ever inquired after in the matter Or any other of the traveling preachers or stewards (3) Had you previously consulted with me (which you did not) in this one point, yet one swallow makes no summer.

O brother, pretend no longer to the thing that is not. You do not, will not act in concert with me. Not since I was married only (the putting it on that is a mere finesse), but for ten years last past and upwards you have no more acted in connection with me than Mr. Whitefield has done. I would to God you would begin to do it now; or else talk no more as if you did.

My love to my sister. Adieu.

You told W. Briggs ‘that you never declined going to any place because my wife was there.’ I am glad of it. If so, I have hope we may some time spend a little time together.

Why do you omit giving the sacrament in Kingswood What is reading prayers at Bristol in comparison of this I am sure, in making this vehement alteration, you never consulted with me.

My love to my sister. Adieu!

To A. B.

LONDON November 9, 1753.

SIR, -- Partly business and partly illness prevented my acknowledging your favor of October the 11th. I have not yet had leisure to read the book. When I have, I will trouble you with a few lines more. I have always approved of the German method of practicing physic far beyond the English, which (so far as I can see) is in numberless respects contrary both to experience, common sense, and common honesty. --

I am, sir,

Your obliged servant.

A. B., At the Essex Coffee House, In Whitechappel

To Mr. Gillespie

LONDON, November 9 1753.

I have never done so much for any of our preachers (except my brother) as for William Prior. [One of the preachers. See list Wesley had been at Newport on in Tyerman's Wesley, ii. 126-7. Oct. 3-5.] And one of my reasons for it was, that scarce any of our preachers had used me so ill. Therefore I was resolved to be more abundant in kindness toward him, if haply I might overcome evit with good. I am much in hopes I shall (by applying to a great man in town) set him and his family quite above want. His greatest temptation will then be removed, and I trust he will serve God with all his strength.

I will order a little box of books to Portsmouth, whence you may be farther supplied at Newport. But take care to keep a clear account of what are sold; otherwise the Stewards [The first Book Stewards were appointed in April of this year.] will send no more. If Brother Williams sees good, you might preach sometimes at the Common. Mr. Larwood [Samuel Larwood traveled with Wesley in Lincolnshire in 1747 and did good service in England and Ireland. He became an Independent minister at Zoar Chapel, Southwark, where he died of fever. Wesley buried him on Nov. 5, 1755. See Journal, iii. 281, iv. 140; Atmore’s Memorial, p. 239; Wesley’s Veterans i. x82, iii. 86, iv. 130; and next letter.] intended to call there in his return from Bristol; but the illness of his horse prevented. I hope he will be able to come in a little time. If we can spare Sister Aspernell [Bilhah Aspernell found peace with God in 1738, and soon after purity of heart. Wesley’s Diary for 1740 shows that he often visited her in London and had ‘tea, conversed, prayer.’ Thomas Walsh in Aug. 1754 said the reason why he was not ‘as serious as Sister Aspernell’ was ‘not because I do not bear so high a character, but because I am not so high in the grace of God.’ On Jan. 28, 1774, Wesley buried ‘the remains of that venerable mother in Israel.’ See Journal ii. 372-460& vi. 9-10; Arminian Mag. 1798, p. 360.] to visit her sister at Portsmouth for a few days, her conversation will do more good than all our preaching has yet done.

Be mild; be patient toward all men. See that none return railing for railing. Be much in private prayer. Live in peace, and the God of peace shall be with you. -- I am, with love to all the brethren,

Your affectionate brother.

To Mr. Gillespie At Mr. Seaman’s

In Newport, Isle of Wight.

To Samuel Lloyd [10]

DEAR SIR, -- If the goods now in Mr. Larwood’s hands are hiss own, I suppose you cannot attach them. If they are Mr. Alexander’s, why should you ask any leave Why should you not attach them without delay The comfort is that God is able to turn all these crosses likewise into blessings.

Your company would at any time be agreeable to, dear sir,

Your very affectionate servant.

To Mr. --

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- When a preacher travels without his wife, he is exposed to innumerable temptations. And you cannot travel with your wife till she is so changed as to adorn the gospel. It seems, therefore, all you can do at present is to act as a local preacher.

If at any time you have reason to believe that the goods then offered to you are stolen, you cannot buy them with a safe conscience. When you have no particular reason to think so, you may proceed without scruple. -- I am

Your affectionate brother.

Editor’s Introductory Notes

[1] Chester was part of the Manchester Round, of which John Haughton was in charge. This letter is addressed to ‘Mr. Jonathan Pritchard, in Boughton, near Chester.’ Pritchard was Steward there. Richard Barlow represented Manchester at the Booth Bank Quarterly Meeting. See Bretherton’s Early Methodism in and around Chester, pp. 35, 39, 112.

John Haughton was a weaver who became an itinerant in 1741. He showed great courage in facing the mob in Staffordshire and at Cork. He ceased to travel in 1760, and was made Rector of Kilrea and a magistrate. He cordially received Wesley on June 4, 1778. See Journal, iii. 471, vi. 194; Atmore’s Memorial, p. 202; and letter of December 20, 1751.

[2] Thomas Capiter was largely the means of the erection of the new room at Grimsby in 1757, and for between twenty and thirty yean was ‘a pillar and an ornament of the Society’ See Journal, iv. 227, m 479; Arminian Magazine, 1785, p. 199; Methodism in Grimsby, p. 43; Methodist Recorder, December 8, 1898.

[3] Jonathan Maskew was born near Bingley in 1713. He lived and traveled with the Vicar of Haworth and was known as ‘Mr. Grimshaw’s man.’ He was appointed to Newcastle in 1752, and in 1753 labored in Manchester with John Haughton. Some time after, he traveled in the Haworth Round. He married Mrs. Clegg, and settled at Dean Head near Rochdale, where he died in 1793. Wesley used to say, ‘Ten such men as Jonathan Maskew would carry the world before them.’ See Atmore's Memorial, pp. 253-6; Early Methodist Preachers, iv. 198-227.

In the Quarterly Accounts of the Manchester Round are these entries: ‘1753, May 18. Jonat. Maskew, Trayell charge 5/; Stockens 2/9; Oct. 27, Stockens 3/; Nov. 2, traveling charge 1/. 1753. Mar. 3, Cheerham Cropper for J. Maskew 1/-; Mar. 26 traveling ch. 2/6; Ap. 27, shoes 5/6 and mending his old ones 6d.; spit boots 14/-, traveling charges to London 15/, hatt 12/.’ There are frequent entries for John Haughton.

[4] The copy of this letter is in Michael Fenwick's handwriting. The Conference met on May 22, and agreed ‘that a loving and respectful letter should be written to Mr. Whitefield desiring him to advise his preachers not to reflect (as they had done continually, and that both with great bitterness and rudeness) either upon the doctrines discipline, or person of Mr. Wesley among his own Societies; to abstain himself (at least, when he was among Mr. Wesley's people) from speaking against either the doctrines, rules, or preachers; and not to declare war anew, as he had done by a needless digression in his late sermon.’ For the sermons published in 1753, see Tyerman’s Whitefield ii. 296.

[5] Whitehead says this letter was apparently written to a gentleman of rank and influence, and points out that it ‘gives us a pleasing view of the command Mr. Wesley had acquired over his own temper: nothing but kindness and civility appear in it; there is no keen retort for any charge brought against himself; and nothing but tender concern for those who had not acted worthy of the character which he had given them.’ It was evidently sent to Blackwell. See Whitehead’s Wesley, ii. 272,4; and letters of December 20, 1751, and May 28, 1753.

[6] John Robertson, M.D., of Wells, married Mrs. Webb of Pitcombe, where Wesley visited him on September 10, 1754. His wise advice as to Kingswood School is printed in the Arminian Magazine 1779, p. 89. See also W.H.S. v. 15-16.

Andrew Michael Ramsay, LL.D. (1686-1743), was tutor to Prince Charles Edward. He was Chevalier as Knight of the Order of St. Lazarus. In September 1753 Wesley read with great attention his Philosophical Principles of Natural and Revealed Religion explained and unloved in a General Order (1749, 2 vols.). ‘He undertakes to solve all the difficulties in the Christian revelation, allowing him only a few postulata.... Amazing work this!' See Journal, iv. 82.

[7] Wesley was at Chester on March 27, where ‘there is now no talk of pulling down houses.’ He reached Nantwich the next day. ‘We were saluted with curses and hard names as soon as we entered the town. But from the time I alighted from my horse, I heard no one give us an ill word.’ See Journal, iv. 56; Methodist Recorder, November 29, 1900.

[8] This letter and that which follows were written when Wesley felt his strength failing On October 20 he writes in his Journal: ‘I found myself out of order, but believed it would go off. On Sunday the 21st I was considerably worse, but could not think of sparing myself that day.’ He sorely longed for closer alliance with Charles, who acted without consulting him as to the places visited. Charles was essentially a free-lance.

John Hutchinson, of Leeds, though in a very delicate condition, came to London in December with Charles Wesley when they heard of Wesley's illness. Hutchinson died on July 23, 1754. Charles Wesley wrote three poems about him, one of which was ‘For a Backslider (Mr. John Hutchinson) near Death.’ He says Sir. Thomas I’Anson’s ‘love for me is beyond description, almost as vehement as poor J. Hutchinson’s.’ On April 29, 1756 he sends from Leeds the cordial greeting of ‘poor, old, declining Mrs. Hutchinson. I have been crying in the chamber whence my J. H. ascended. My heart is full of him, and I miss him every moment; but he is at rest.’ See C. Wesley's Journal ii. 202, 258, 317-23.

[9] Wesley had returned from a tour in Kent on October 27, ‘having received no hurt but rather benefit by the journey’ When he began visiting the classes, the day after he wrote this letter, he found by the loss of his voice that he had not recovered his bodily strength so far as he imagined. He struggled against his growing weakness till November 26, when Dr. Fothergill told him he must not stop in town a day longer; so he took coach for Lewisham. Charles Wesley endorsed this letter with the words, ‘Brother, Oct. 31, 1753. Trying to bring me under his yoke’

[10] This letter was written during Wesley’s retreat at Lewisham, a month after he had drawn up his own epitaph. It probably refers to some furniture Larwood had when he left the itinerancy. The following letter, which is without date or name, speaks of ‘goods’ and may be placed here. See previous letter.

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.