1755

To James Hutton [1]

January 7, 1755.

SIR--You justly observe in your letter of December 31, published in the London Daily Advertiser, that several friends and well-wishers of the Moravians into whose hands the writings of their adversaries have fallen ‘are somewhat impatient that the Moravians have hitherto published no direct answer to any wrote in this country and wish they would at last resolve to answer because their adversaries cry out in all companies that they have nothing to answer, and that their silence must be taken for confession.’

I myself am ‘not fond of finding the Moravians guilty without trial I take no pleasure in any abuses thrown out upon them.’ Yet I confess ‘I begin to be almost staggered that so little answer is still given to the many accusations against them.’

In order, therefore, to bring this matter to a short and clear issue, I have ‘summed up’ as briefly as possible the most material parts of ‘the charge against the Moravian’s by reducing of them into the form of Queries at an Examination.’ And I do indeed ‘hope to get plain, positive, and categorical answers’; as this is, you say, ‘the very method the Moravians had so repeatedly desired, in order to enable them to give a reason of the hope that is in them.’

You add: ‘I am glad that at last somebody will be so much concerned for the truth as to make some inquiry. For are not the charges against the Moravians of such a nature as to render an indolent indifference whether things are true or false almost unpardonable And should any man be listened to for a moment who would have the assurance to persuade the world, before he has seen the Queries and their Answers, that they will not come to the point’

None, I think, will have the assurance to deny that the Queries subjoined do ‘come to the point.’ And as ‘this is the very method which the Moravians have so repeatedly desired, who can doubt but they will give without delay plain, positive, categorical answers’

I might have drawn up the Queries with more accuracy, had I not considered, as you ‘hoped I would, the impatience in the public for an answer a close one to every point.' I have therefore, as you desired, ‘used all possible speed,’ and yet have ‘taken care to form my Queries in such a manner that they might deserve the utmost attention, and come dose to the point.’

Is it needful to remind you of that frank engagement to the public wherewith you close your letter ‘As soon as these Queries are finished, the Moravians, who expect them with earnest longing, will lose no time in answering them.’ --I am, &c.

You see the impropriety of adding my name.

To Samuel Furly [2]

LONDON March, 20 1755.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Of those things which are lawful in themselves, such only are lawful to me as are sfta, conducive either directly or indirectly to my holiness or usefulness. Many things not conducive directly to either, yet may be so remotely, as the learning of languages or arithmetic. And of this kind are most academical exercises. They remotely (a Hough not directly) conduce to our usefulness in the world; by enabling us to take degrees, or to do other things which are (in the present state of things) necessary as means to higher ends. I wish Mr. Hallifax [Spelt with one l by Wesley.] had a little tract of Bishop Bull’s [Wesley deals more fully with this little tract (which he says ‘was of much service to me’) in the letter of May 13, 1764. For his reference to Bishop Bull see Journal, ii. 470, 473-7d; Works, vii. 455; and letter of Aug. 22, 1744.] entitled A Companion for the Candidates for Holy Orders.

I dreamed an odd dream last night, that five-and-twenty persons of Peterhouse in Cambridge were deeply awakened. Fight your way through! -- I am

Your affectionate brother.

To Samuel Lloyd

BRISTOL March 20, 1755.

DEAR SIR, -- The bearer has behaved extremely well from the very time that he left London. I do not perceive that he is addicted to drinking or any other vice. I am apt to think he would make a good servant. Wishing you the best happiness,

I am, dear sir,

Your affectionate servant.

To Samuel Lloyd Esq, In Devonshire Square, London.

To Ebenezer Blackwell

MANCHESTER April 9, 1755.

DEAR SIR, -- Being fully persuaded that my brother would gladly embrace any overture of peace, I told him almost as soon as we met what my wife had agreed to. He answered not a word. After a day or two I spoke to him again. It had the same success. The Sunday before he left Bristol I desired to speak to him, but he did not come. Just as I was going out of town the next morning he sent to me to can at his house. But I could not then; and before I came back he was set out for London, only leaving a note that he had left his answer with Lady Huntingdon. It may be so; but I saw her twice afterwards, and she said nothing of it to me. Nether am I (any more than my wife) willing to refer the matter to her arbitration. [See next letter.] From the whole I learn that there is no prospect of peace. When one is willing, then the other flies off. I shall profit by both; but I am sorry to do it at the expense of others.

I have another favor to beg of you -- to procure Mr. Belcher's [See letters of March 15, 1748, and May 28, 1757.] leave for me to enclose my proof-sheets [Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament. The work was begun on Jan. 6, 1754. See Journal, iv. 91; Green’s Bibliography, No. 172; and letter of June 20.] to him. Mr. C. Perronet [Charles Perronet had charge of the Notes, which Wesley was passing through the press. See Jackson’s Ch~s Wesley, ii. 87; and letter of Sept. 12 to Blackwell.] sends them down to me in thanks; then I correct and send them back to him. The next week I am to spend at Liverpool. Toward the end of the week following I hope to be at Haworth, near Keighley, in Yorkshire.

God has blessed me with a prosperous journey hither, though the roads and the weather were rough. I hope both Mrs. Blackwell and you are making the best use of a~ things, rough and smooth. That is the part of a good solder of Jesus Christ, --

To trace His example, the world to disdain,

And cheerfully trample on pleasure and pain. [Poetical Works v. 427.]

--I am, dear sir,

Your very affectionate servant.

To Ebenezer Blackwell [3]

KEIGHLEY, NEAR LEEDS, April 29, 1755.

DEAR SIR, -- [I am exceedingly puzzled, as my brother would never give me any answer, good, bad, or indifferent.] I do not at all know what his judgment is or what are his intentions. I can only conjecture that his design is never to speak to her at all. And I suppose this is Lady Huntingdon's advice, because he referred me to her for an answer. But I cannot submit to her arbitration. I do not think she is a competent judge. You love both the contending parties; but I am afraid she does not.

Another difficulty is rising from the opposite quarter. From her last letter I learn that my poor wife has just found out ‘my carrying her to Bristol was all a trick concerted between my brother and me in order to prevent her coming to Leeds.’ And where she is I cannot tell; for she says not a word whether she intends staying at London or coming forward. If she was willing to come, I should much desire it, were it only on poor Jenny’s account. For if anything in the world recovers her, it would be exercise and change of air. But I must not press her to it; for ff I did, I should hear of it another day.

What a blessing it is to have these little crosses, that we may try what spirit we are of! We could not live in continual sunshine. It would dry up all the grace of God that is in us. I doubt not but Mrs. Blackwell and Mrs. Dewal find advantage both from bodily weakness and every other trial. Let us fight the good fight of faith together, and more resolutely lay hold on eternal life!

Your most affectionate servant.

To Mrs. Hall [4]

LEEDS May 9, 1755.

DEAR SISTER, -- I suppose my brother has informed you of our conversation together. The poor child will, I hope, be no farther burthensome to you. But then you must not interfere, but leave him to our disposal, who consider him just as if he were our own. Nether will you want the things we have needful for life and godliness. At the same time I doubt not but you will endeavor to be as frugal as may be. I am glad you and my sister Harper are to live together and to come nearer the Foundry. O bear with one another! Pray for the spirit of peace and love. -- I am

Your very affectionate Brother.

[Hall added to this letter the following message to his wife:]

MY DEAR, -- I hope ere this you may have heard from my brother, and that he will pay you the twenty pounds due on his draught. Mr. Allen owes me about fifty pound, as I believe you will find by the account as settled with my brother; and before that sum be expended, if you use the necessary economy, you will hear perhaps of my arrival at Barbados and the measures I am taking to provide for all, and how to direct to your best friend,

WESTLEY.

To Samuel Furly [5]

LEEDS, May 10, 1755.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- We are to become all things to all men, just so far as God's Word permits. But we may not on this principle vary an hair’s breadth from the written rule. Therefore I dare not trifle with any, because the Word of God expressly forbids it. But I may talk on subjects indirectly useful, such as languages or points of philosophy. That young man was commanded literally to sell all; he could not otherwise escape from covetousness. But we are nowhere commanded so to do. Let any man show the contrary if he can. The general rule of interpreting Scripture is this: the literal sense of every text is to be taken, if it be not contrary to some other texts; but in that case the obscure text is to be interpreted by those which speak more plainly. If any desires you to walk faster than your strength will allow, you have no leave from God to comply with it. If any desires you to go farther when you are already tired, you must desire him either to let you ride or to go on foot with you. Be instant in prayer.

Your affectionate brother.

Letters directed to the Foundry will find me wherever I am.

To his Brother Charles [6]

LONDON, June. 30 1755.

DEAR BROTHER, -- Do not you understand that they all promised by Thomas Walsh not to administer even among themselves I think that an huge point given up -- perhaps more than they could give up with a clear conscience. They ‘showed an excellent spirit’ in this very thing. Likewise when I (not to say you) spoke once, and again spoke, satis pro imperio. [Terence’s Phormio, I. iv. 19: ‘With authority enough.’] When I reflected on their answer I admired their spirit and was ashamed of my own.

The practical conclusion was ‘Not to separate from the Church.’ Did we not all agree in this Surely either you or I must have been asleep or we could not differ so widely in a matter of fact!

Here is Charles Perronet raving ‘because his friends have given up all’ and Charles Wesley ‘because they have given up nothing’; and I in the midst, staring and wondering both at one and the other. I do not want to do anything more, unless I could bring them over to my opinion; and I am not in haste for that.

I have no time to write anything more till I have finished the Notes. [His Notes upon the New Testament were finished this year. See letter of April 9, 1755, and June 18, 1756.] Nor am I in haste. I stand open to the fight. Let it be worded any way. I will give ten pounds between this and Christmas; -- this I think I can do, though I am just now saddled with Suky Hare, [Jackson calls Suky Hare ‘a relation of the Wesleys.’ She was probably the child of the young seamstress whom Hall seduced. See Stevenson’s Wesley Family, p. 370; and letter of April 24, 1776.] to pay for her board as well as learning her trade. Why do not you send for the boy to Bristol I do not object.

If Mr. Lampe’s tunes [John F. Lampe was a musical composer engaged at Covent Garden Theatre. He received much spiritual blessing through the Wesleys, and composed tunes for their hymns.] are in print already, it is enough. I wish you had told me this six months ago, and the rest (which only we want) should have, been printed before now. Pray send them by Michael Fenwick to me hem. He will be in Bristol next week.

Cyprian is a terrible witness of the sense of the then Church. For he speaks it not as his own private sense, but as incontestable, allowed rule. And by Antistes [The passage of Cyprian, cited in the letter of June 23, 1739 is Populus a scelerato antistite separare se debet.] there I really believe he means the minister of a parish. That pinches me; nevertheless I think with you till I see more light, though I should be hard set to defend myself against a skilful adversary. When I am convinced it is my duty, I will follow Cyprian’s advice. The same say you, and no more. I do not fluctuate yet. But I can’t answer the arguments on that side the question. Jos. Cowley says, ‘For such and such reasons I dare not hear a drunkard preach or mad prayers.’ I answer, ‘I dare.’ But I can’t answer his reasons. Adieu!

I can stay here four or five weeks. Then I purpose for Cornwall. Can you come hither when I go Or will you go into Cornwall for me My love to my sister.

What could put it into your head to recommend (if you did recommend) that rude, boisterous clown to Mr. Lloyd [See letter of March 20.]

To his Brother Charles [7]

LONDON, June 23, I755.

DEAR BROTHER -- A gentleman who keeps an academy at Brompton offers to take Westley Hall for nothing, to teach him the ancient and modern tongues, and when he has learnt them, to give him thirty pounds a year and his board if he will stay and assist him. His mother thinks (and I can’t say much to the contrary) that such an offer is not to be slighted. Send us your judgment upon the matter as soon as possible. [See letter of May 9. The boy is lovingly commemorated in Charles Wesley’s Funeral Hymns, published in 1759 (Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, vi. 234-5): Unspotted from the world and pure, And saved and sanctified by grace]

Jam proximus ardet Ucalegon! [Virgil’s Aeneid, ii. 311: ‘And now the flames Spread to Ucalegon’s, our neighbor’s house.’] The good Bishop of London has excommunicated Mr. Gardiner for preaching without a license. It is probable the point will now speedily be determined concerning the Church: for if we must either dissent or be silent, actum est. We have no time to trifle. [That is Wesley’s spirit from first to last. He loves the Church of England but he cannot be silenced.] Adieu.

To Rev. Mr. C. Wesley, In Bristol.

To Dr. Sherlock, Bishop of London () [8]

[LONDON, June 23, 1755.]

MY LORD, -- Several years ago the churchwardens of St. Bartholomew’s informed Dr. Gibson, then Lord Bishop of London, ‘My Lord, Mr. Bateman, our rector, invites Mr. Wesley very frequently to preach in his church.’ The Bishop replied, ‘And what would you have me do I have no right to hinder him. Mr. Wesley is a clergyman regularly ordained and under no ecclesiastical censure.’ -- I am, my Lord,

Your Lordship’s obedient servant.

To his Brother Charles

LONDON, June 28 1755.

DEAR BROTHER, -- Let G. Stonehouse [On May 28 Charles Wesley wrote to his wife from ‘George Stonehouse’s other lodgings’ in London and gives their route for the journey towards Bristol. He expects to ‘rest my beast' at Dornford, where Stonehouse lived. See Jackson's Charles Wesley, ii. 80-1, 87.] write and welcome. When we are both together, I trust we may read safely.

Go to Ireland if you think so, and save Ireland. Wherever I have been in England, the Societies are far more firmly and rationally attached to the Church than ever they were before. I have no fear about this matter. I only fear the preachers’ or the people’s leaving not the Church but the love of God and inward or outward holiness. To this I press them forward continually. I dare not in conscience spend my time and strength on externals. If (as my lady [Charles Wesley had stayed at Donnington Park after the Leeds Conference, and was expecting to meet Lady Huntingdon at Clifton in July.] says) all outward establishments are Babel, so is this Establishment. Let it stand for me. I nether set it up nor pulled it down. But let you and I build up the City of God.

I have often desired our preachers to bury a corpse at Wapping. I mean to give an exhortation, closed with a prayer. I do not know that this is any breach of the sacerdotal office.

None of our Societies have received James Wheatley yet. I suppose none will. Yet we may give a caution wherever we write. T. Walsh [See Tyerman's Wesley, ii. 200; and letter of June 20.] (I will declare it on the housetop) has given me a~ the satisfaction I desire, and all that an honest man could give. I love, admire, and honor him, and wish we had six preaches in all England of his spirit.

But enough of this. Let us draw the saw no longer, but use all our talents to promote the mind that was in Christ. ‘Not yet’ is rotary out of the question. We have not one preacher who either proposed or desires or designs (that I know) to separate from the Church ‘at all.’ Their principles (in the single point of ordination) I do not approve. But I pray for more and more of their spirit (in general) and their practice.

I have talked with Mr. Graves, [Charles Caspar Graves one of Charles Wesley's clerical friends, whom he describes in 1739 as ‘thoroughly awakened.’ See Journal, iii. 40-2; C. Wesley's Journal, i. 160, 422.] and shall do again. Driving me may make me fluctuate; though I do not yet. ‘When the preachers in Ireland set up for themselves, must you not disown them’ I answer ‘When.’

I thought you said my sister expected to lie in in May; now it is the end of June. [Martha Maria, their second child, was born on June 23, but lived only a month and two days.] If you can go to Cornwall in the end of July, it is soon enough. I wish you-would see each of the country Societies; and why not New Kingswood too Adieu.

[Note at back: ‘Robert Windsor. Given to Chas. He set out for Norwich on Monday.’]

To Richard Tompson [9]

LONDON, June 28 1755.

Some days since, I received your favor of the 22nd instant, which came exceeding seasonably; for I was just revising my Notes on the 5th chapter to the Romans; one of which I found, upon a closer inspection, seemed to assert such an imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity as might make way for the ‘horrible decree.’ I therefore struck it out immediately; as I would willingly do whatsoever should appear to be any way inconsistent with that grand principle, ‘The Lord is loving to every man; and His mercy is over all His works.’

If you have observed anything in any of the tracts I have published which you think is not agreeable to Scripture and reason, you will oblige me by pointing it out, and by communicating to me any remarks you have occasionally made.

I seek two things in this world -- truth and love. Whoever assists me in this search is a friend indeed, whether personally known or unknown to,

Your humble servant.

To his Brother Charles [10]

LONDON, July 16, 1755.

DEAR BROTHER, -- Are there not more of the same kind who are not dissevered How will you know It deserves all diligence. I wish you had mentioned only his drunkenness in the Society. It was pity to add anything more.

Keep to that, and we are agreed. Some time you may spend in recommending outward modes of worship; ‘but not all, not the most, not much of it.’ There are many greater things and more immediately necessary for our people. Holiness of heart and life they want most, and they want it just now.

I have often heard that word ‘Babel’ [See letter of June 28.] used, and I do not understand it yet. What does it mean I cannot see one jot of it Of I guess at its meaning) in the Rules either of our Society or bands.

I do not myself, and dare not, give that under my hand, to you or any man living. And I should count any one either a fool or a knave that would give it under his hand to me. You are by no means free from temptation. You are acting as if you had never seen either Stillingfleet, Baxter, or Howson. [John Howson (1556-1631); educated at St. Paul’s School and Christ Church; Chaplin to Elizabeth and James I; Bishop of Oxford 1619, Durham 1628; distinguished writer and preacher against Popery. His four polemical discourses against the Supremacy of St. Peter were published by order of James I in 1622.]

I am very calm and cool, determining nothing but to do nothing rashly. Now, which is more in the temptation To my thought you are in it over head and ears.

Whoever is convinced or not convinced, ordination and separation are not the same thing. If so we have separated already. Herein I am the fifteenth.

Your gross bigotry lies here -- in putting a man on a level with an adulterer because he differs from you as to Church government.

Ne scutica dignum horribili sectere flagello! [Horace’s Satires, I. iii. 119: ‘What merits but the rod punish not with the cat.’] What miserable confounding the degrees of good and evil is this!

I should wonder if Wales or Margate or something did not hinder your taking any step which I desire or which might save my time or strength. Then I will go to Cornwall [Wesley set out for Cornwall on Aug. 18.] myself; that is all.

For a wife and a partner you and I may challenge the world together. But love is rot. Adieu.

To Richard Tompson [11]

LONDON July 25, 1755.

SIR, -- It would be a pleasure to me to write more largely than my time will now permit. Of all the disputants I have known, you are the most likely to convince me of any mistakes I may be in, because you have found out the great secret of speaking the truth in love. When it is thus proposed, it must surely win its way into every heart which is not purposely shut against it.

That you may deafly see wherein we agree or wherein we differ, I have sent you the Minutes of some of our late Conferences. Several concessions are made therein, both with regard to Assurance and Christian Perfection; some difficulties cleared, and a few arguments proposed, though very nakedly and briefly. When you have read these, you may come directly to any point of controversy which may still remain; and ff you can show me that any farther concessions are needful, I shall make them with great pleasure.

On the subject of your last I can but just observe, first, with regard to the assurance of faith, I apprehend that the whole Christian Church in the first centuries enjoyed it. For though we have few points of doctrine explicitly taught in the small remains of the ante-Nicene Fathers, yet I think none that carefully reads Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Origen, or any other of them, can doubt whether either the writer himself possessed it or all whom he mentions as real Christians. And I ready conceive, both from the Harrnonia Confessionurn and whatever else I have occasionally read, that all the Reformed Churches in Europe did once believe ‘Every true Christian has the divine evidence of his being in favor with God.’

So much for authority. The point of experience is touched upon in the Conferences.

As to the nature of the thing, I think a divine conviction of pardon is directly implied in the evidence or conviction of things unseen. But if not, it is no absurdity to suppose that, when God pardons a mourning, broken-hearted sinner, His mercy obliges Him to another act -- to witness to his spirit that He has pardoned him.

I know that I am accepted; and yet that knowledge is sometimes shaken, though not destroyed, by doubt or fear. If that knowledge were destroyed or wholly withdrawn, I could not then say I had Christian faith. To me it appears the same thing to say, ‘I know God has accepted me,’ or “I have a sure trust that God has accepted me.’

I agree with you that justifying faith cannot be a conviction that I am justified; and that a man who is not assured that his sins are forgiven may yet have a kind or degree of faith which distinguishes him not only from a devil but also from an heathen, and on which I may admit him to the Lord’s Supper. But still I believe the proper Christian faith, which purifies the heart implies such a conviction. -- I am, sir,

Your Servant for Christ’s sake.

To Ebenezer Blackwell [12]

REDRUTH, August, 31, 1755.

DEAR SIR, -- Experience confirms your advice both ways. In my last journey into the North, all my patience was put to the proof again and again; and all my endeavors to please, yet without success. In my present journey I leap as broke from chains. I am content with whatever entertainment I meet with, and my companions are always in good humor ‘because they are with me.’ This must be the spirit of all who take journeys with me. If a dinner ill dressed, or hard bed, a poor room, a shower of 'rain, or a dusty road will put them out of humor, it lays a burthen upon me greater than all the rest put together. By the grace of God I never fret, I repine at nothing I am discontented with nothing. And to hear persons at my ear fretting and murmuring at every thing is tike tearing the flesh off my bones. I see God sitting upon His throne and ruling all things well. Although, therefore, I can bear this also -- to hear His government of the world continually found fault with (for in blaming the things which He alone can alter we in effect blame Him); yet it is such a burthen to me as I cannot bear without pain, and I bless God when it is removed.

The doctrine of a Particular Providence is what exceeding few persons understand -- at least, not practically, so as to apply it to every circumstance of life. This I want, to see God acting in everything and disposing all for His own glory and His creatures good. I hope it is your continual prayer that you may see Him, and love Him more, and glorify Him with all you are and all you have! Peace be with you all! I am, dear sir,

Your affectionate servant.

I shall be in or near St. Ives till the 13th of September.

To Ebenezer Blackwell [13]

ST. IVES September 12, 1755.

DEAR SIR, -- It seems there was a remarkable providence [See previous letter for his trust in Providence.] in this, that Michael Fenwick [This is high praise for Fenwick. The severe snub to his vanity came later (Journal, iv. 229 293; vi. 279). See Wesley’s Veterans, v. 193, where he spreads abroad a secret about Thomas Walsh (W.H.S. v. 185-6).] was so often hindered from settling in business because God had other work for him to do. He is just made to travel with me, being an excellent groom, vakt de chamber, nurse, and upon occasion a tolerable preacher. We have hitherto had an extremely prosperous journey: almost everything has been just as we desired; and I have no care upon my mind but what properly belongs to me -- to feed and guide the flock of Christ.

Charles Perronet being out of town last Saturday, my pacquet directed to him fell into other hands. [Into Mrs. Wesley’s whose jealousy was growing.] This has raised a violent storm; for it contained a few lines which I writ to Mrs. Lefevre in answer to a letter she sent me the week before concerning Mr. Furly. So now ‘all the intrigue is discovered and the reason why I direct my letters to Mr. Perronet.’ ‘Tis pity! I should be glad if I had to do with reasonable people. But this likewise is for good.

A wonderful odd circumstance has fallen out here. A young gentleman, [John Knill. See Journal, iv. 134.] nephew to the present Mayor, began some time since to attend our preaching, and last week fell raving mad. This incident (so deep is the wisdom of God!) has opened me a way into the Mayor’s family, brought me much acquainted with his wife, who is not easy if I do not call once or twice a day and alarmed the whole town with such a concern for their souls as was never known here before. The particulars I hope to send to Mr. Perronet in my next Journal. Who is so wise a God as our God! I trust you will have Him more and more in your thoughts and in your affections. -- I am, dear sir,

Your ever affectionate servant.

In about ten days I hope to be at Bristol.

To Christopher Hopper

ST. IVES September 12, 1755.

MY DEAR BROTHER -- The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away [Mrs. Hopper died in August. James Massiot preached her funeral sermon on the 27th ‘to a very large congregation of true mourners.’ The same evening she was interred amongst her ancestors in Ryton Church, where she had been married on May 28, 1745. See Stamp's Orphan House, p. 103; Wesley’s Veterans, i. 168.]; and wise are all His ways. The great point is to understand the design of His gracious wisdom, and to answer and fulfill that design. One thing is certain: He calls you to a more full and absolute dedication of your soul and body to Him. He calls you to converse with Him more in prayer and meditation. In the former we more directly speak to God; in the latter He speaks to us. And every possible loss is gain if it produces this blessed effect.

Consider yourself as now more than ever married to Christ and His dear people: then even for this kindly-severe dispensation you should praise Him for ever. -- I am

Your affectionate friend and brother.

To John Trembath [14]

TIVERTON, September 21, 1755.

The plain reason why I did not design to speak with you at Launceston was because I had no hope of doing you good. I observed long ago that you are not patient of reproof; and I fear you are less so now than ever. But since you desire it, I will tell you once more what I think, real or hear concerning you.

I think you tasted of the powers of the word to come thirteen or fourteen years ago, and was then simple of heart and willing to spend and be spent for Christ. But not long after, not being sufficiently on your guard, you suffered loss by being applauded. This revived and increased your natural vanity, which was the harder to be checked because of your constitutional stubbornness -- two deadly enemies which have lain in wait for you many years and have given you many deep if not mortal wounds.

I fear it is near ten years since you was so weakened by these, that you no longer set a watch over your mouth, but began frequently to speak what was not strictly true, to excuse yourself, divert others, or gain applause. I am afraid this has prevailed over you more and more as there was less and less of the life of God in the soul; so that I should almost wonder if you do not judge a diverting lie to be a very innocent thing.

After your first marriage, being not used to nor fond of reading, and not spending many hours in private prayer, time grew heavy on your hands; especially as you could not bear the cross of being a regular traveling preacher: so you betook yourself to farming and other country employments, and grew more and more dead to God; especially when you began to keep company (whether by necessity or choice) with the men ‘whose talk is of bullocks,’ who have little to do either with religion or reason, and have but just wit enough to smoke, drink, and fisher you.

By these dull wretches you have been an unspeakable loser. Perhaps it was in company with some of these that you first thought of taking a little sport, and catching a few fish, or killing a partridge or an hare. Miserable employment for a preacher of the gospel! for a Methodist preacher, above all others! Though I do not at all wonder if, after practicing it for some time, you should be so infatuated as even to defend it. I am afraid these same poor creatures afterwards taught you (if that report be true) even to countenance that wickedness for which Cornwall stinks in the nostrils of all who fear God or love King George; I mean that of smuggling: though surely they could not persuade you to receive stolen goods! That is an iniquity to be punished by the Judges. Is there any truth in that other charge (you must not ask who tells me so; if so, I have done), that you imposed on Mrs. H--- in the writings, and fraudulently procured 100 a year to be engaged for instead of fourscore I hope this was a mistake; as well as that assertion that you encouraged drunkenness by suffering it in your company, if not in your own house.

O remember from whence you are fallen! Repent, and do the first works! First recover the life of God in your own soul and walk as Christ walked. Walk with God as you did twelve years ago. Then you might again be useful to His children. Supposing you was truly afire to God yourself, how profitably then (leaving the dead to bury their dead) might you spend three months in a year at Bristol or London, three in Cornwall, and six in spreading the gospel wherever it might be needful. I have now told you all that is in my heart: I hope you will receive it not only with patience but profit. You must be much in the way or much out of the way, a good soldier for God or for the devil. O choose the better part! – now! – to-day ! – I am

Your affectionate brother.

To Samuel Walker [15]

BRISTOL September 24, 1755

REVEREND DEAR SIR, -- 1. You greatly oblige me by speaking your thoughts so freely, and the more by giving me hopes of seeing your farther sentiments on so nice and important an affair. I did not delay one day to follow your advice with regard to Mr. Adam, but sent him by the very next post a copy of those papers; although I am satisfied already as to the publishing them, and have laid aside that design, the reasons you urge against the expediency of it being abundantly sufficient. But you seem a little to misapprehend what we speak of hearing predestinarian preachers. We find by long experience that this is ‘deadly poison,’ not in itself but to the members of our Societies. This we know to be unquestionable truth; and it is a truth necessary to be observed, nay, and strongly insisted on (though without any deign of bearing hard on any particular person), when many were enlarging on ‘the poisonous doctrines’ which they heard at many of their parish churches.

2. All that you say concerning the inexpediency of a separation from the Church I readily allow; as likewise that the first and main question must be, ‘Is it lawful to separate’ Accordingly this was debated first, and that at large, in seven or eight long conversations. And it was then only, when we could not agree concerning the, that we proceeded to weigh the expediency of it.

3. As to the grounds on which those who plead for separation from the Church proceed, some of them have weighed the point long and deeply. They have very particularly, and with earnest and continued prayer, considered the lawfulness of it. And they allow, ‘If it be lawful to abide therein, then it is not lawful to separate.’ But they aver, ‘It is not lawful to abide therein’; and that for the following reasons: --

First. With regard to the Liturgy itself: though they allow it is in the general one of the most excellent human compositions that ever was, yet they think it is both absurd and sinful to declare such an assent and consent as is required to any merely human composition. Again: though they do not object to the use of forms, yet they dare not confine themselves to them. And in this form (The Book of Common Prayer) there are several things which they apprehend to be contrary to Scripture.

Secondly. As to the laws of the Church, if they include the Canons and Decretals, both which are received as such in our Courts, they think ‘the latter are the very dregs of Popery, and that many of the former, the Canons of 1603, are as grossly wicked as absurd.’ And, over and above the objections which they have to several particular ones, they think ‘(1) that the spirit which they breathe is throughout truly Popish and antichristian; (2) that nothing can be more diabolical than the ipso-facto excommunication so often denounced therein; (3) that the whole method of executing these Canons, the process used in our Spiritual Courts, is too bad to be tolerated not in a Christian but in a Mahometan or Pagan nation.’

Thirdly. With respect to the ministers, they doubt ‘whether there are not many of them whom God hath not sent; inasmuch as they neither live the gospel nor teach it; neither indeed can, seeing they do not know it.’ They doubt the more, ‘because themselves disclaim that inward call to the ministry which is at least as necessary as the outward.’ And they are not dear ‘whether it be lawful to attend the ministrations of those whom God has not sent to minister.’

Fourthly. The doctrines actually taught by these, and indeed by a great majority of the Church ministers, they think ‘are not only wrong, but fundamentally so, and subversive of the whole gospel.’ They therefore doubt ‘whether it be lawful to bid them God-speed or to have any fellowship with them.’

I will freely acknowledge that I cannot answer these arguments to my own satisfaction. So that my conclusion (which I cannot yet give up), that it is lawful to continue in the Church, stands, I know not how, almost without any premises that are able to bear its weight.

My difficulty is very much increased by one of your observations. I know the original doctrines of the Church are sound; I know her worship is (in the main) pure and scriptural. But if ‘the essence of the Church of England considered as such, consists in her orders and laws’ (many of which I myself can say nothing for), ‘and not in her worship and doctrines’ those who separate from her have a far stronger plea than I was ever sensible of.

4. At present I apprehend those, and those only, to separate from the Church who either renounce her or refuse to join in her pubic worship. As yet we have done neither; nor have we taken one step farther than we were convinced was our bounden duty. It is from a full conviction of this that we have (1) preached abroad, (2) prayed extempore, (3) formed Societies, and (4) permitted preachers who were not episcopally ordained. And were we punished on this side, were there no alternative allowed, we should judge it our bounden duty rather wholly to separate from the Church than to give up any one of these points. Therefore, if we cannot stop a seperation without stopping lay preachers, the case is clear – we cannot stop it at all.

5. ‘But if we permit them, should we not do more Should we not appoint them rather Since our bare permission puts the matter quite out of our hands and deprives us of all our influence.’ In a great measure it does; therefore to appoint them is far more expedient, if it be lawful. But is it lawful for presbyters circumstanced as we are to appoint our ministers This is the very point wherein we desire advice, being unafraid of leaning to our own understanding.

It is undoubtedly ‘needful,’ as you observe, to come to some resolution in this point’; and the sooner the better. I therefore rejoice to hear that you think ‘that this matter may be better and more inoffensively ordered; and that a method may be found which, conducted with prudence and patience, will reduce the constitution of Methodism to due order, and render the Methodists under God more instrumental to the ends of practical religion.'

This, sir, is the very thing I want. I must therefore beg your sentiments on this head, and that as particularly as your other engagements will allow. Wishing you more and more of the wisdom from above, I remain, reverend dear sir,

Your obliged and affectionate brother and servant.

To Samuel Furly

BRISTOL September 25, 1755.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It fell out extremely well that I received yours just as I was writing to York. So I have desired one to inquire when that young gentleman is to enter Cambridge. [Probably young Mr. Drake. See Journal, iv. 18-19; and letter of Nov. 20 1756, also Nov. 26, 1762.]

What I want of you h to be always steady, always consistent with yourself, to follow divinity, and to beware of worldly wisdom, in which many Methodists abound, though they know it not. -- I am

Your affectionate brother.

To Paul Greenwood [16]

BRISTOL October 8, 1755.

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- In a multitude of counselors there is safety. This is a general rule. But your case is an exception. You must not consult with many persons. It would only puzzle and confound you. If you advise with another beside me, it should be he that is as myself, that is Thomas Walsh. [See letter of June 28 to Charles Wesley.]

Unless there should be a very particular call you should not act publicly till you are ordained. [See W.H.S. vii. 20-1; and letter of June 16 about ordination.] Give yourself to reading, meditation, prayer; and do all the good you can in a private manner. Pride and impetuosity of temper will be apt to lead you out of the way. But what is faith, if it will not destroy the one and regulate the other --I am

Your affectionate brother.

To Christopher Hopper

BRISTOL, October 8, 1755

MY DEAR BROTHER, -- There is something of an openness and frankness in your temper which I love; but that very same temper will sometimes expose you to inconveniences, unless you always have an eye to God, that He may give you steadiness and resolution. O keep your heart with all diligence, and do not take one step without first consulting your best friend.

You have one business on earth -- to save souls. Give yourself wholly to this. Fulfill the work of a preacher and of an Assistant as you never did before. Be another Thomas Walsh. Pursue the whole of scriptural Christianity. Stand

Upon the edge of this world, ready to take wing; having your feet on the earth, eyes and heart in heaven. –I am

Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Henry Rimius [17]

READING October 24, 1755.

SIR, -- I never saw or heard of any writing published in England wherein the Moravian Hymns were exposed, except (1) that you mention published in 1749; (2) those you have since published; (3) the Bishop of Exeter’s~ late book [The Moravians Compared and Detected, 1755.]; and (4) the Queries addressed to Count Zinzendorf.

Although I hope to be in town tomorrow night, yet, as you desired an immediate answer, I would not lose one day; because I am glad of any opportunity of showing myself, sir,

Your most obedient servant.

To Mr. Rimius, Next door to Oxenden Chapel, In Coventry Court, Haymarket, London.

To Thomas Adam [18]

LONDON October 31, 1755,

REVERAND SIR, -- One good effect at least has arisen already from the moving of the present question. It has been the occasion of my having some little acquaintance with Mr. Walker and you; which I doubt not would be enlarged, were it not for what you probably think to be Christian I think to be worldly prudence.

You have much obliged me by your clear and friendly answer, with the main of which I fully agree. For I am still in my former sentiment, -- ‘We will not go out: if we are thrust out, well.’ And of the same judgment are, I believe, at least nineteen of twenty of our preachers and an equal majority of the people. We are fully convinced that to separate from an Established Church is never lawful but when it is absolutely necessary; and we do not see any such necessity yet. Therefore we have at present no thoughts of separation.

With regard to the steps we have hitherto taken, we have used all the caution which was possible. We have done nothing rashly, nothing without deep and long consideration, hearing and weighing all objection, and much prayer. Nor have we taken one deliberate step of which we as yet see reason to repent. It is true in some things we vary from the rules of our Church; but no father than we apprehend is our bounden duty. It is upon a full conviction of this that we preach abroad, use extemporary prayer, form those who appear to be awakened into Societies, and permit laymen whom we believe God has called to preach.

I say permit, because we ourselves have hitherto viewed it in no other light. This we are clearly satisfied we may do: that we may do more we are not satisfied. It is not clear to us that presbyters so circumstanced as we are may appoint or ordain others, but it is that we may direct as well as suffer them to do what we conceive they are moved to by the Holy Ghost. It is true that in ordinary cases both an inward and an outward call are requisite. But we apprehend there is something far from ordinary in the present case. And upon the calmer view of things we think they who are only called of God and not of man have more right to preach than they who are only called of man and not of God. Now, that many of the clergy, though called of man, are not called of God to preach His gospel is undeniable, (1) because they themselves utterly disclaim, nay, and ridicule, the inward call; (2) because they do not know what the gospel is, of consequence they do not and cannot preach it.

Dear sir, coolly and impartially consider this, and you will see on which side the difficulty lies. I do assure you this at present is my chief embarrassment. That I have not gone too far yet I know; but whether I have gone far enough I am extremely doubtful. I see those running whom God hath not sent, destroying their own souls and those that hear them, perverting the right ways of the Lord, blaspheming the truth as it is in Jesus. I see the blind leading the blind and both falling into the ditch. Unless I warn in all ways I can these perishing souls of their danger, am I clear of the blood of these men Soul-damning clergymen lay me under more difficulties than soul-saying laymen.

Those among ourselves who have been in doubt whether they ought so to beware of these false prophets as not to hear them at all are not men of a ‘forward uncharitable zeal’ but of a calm, loving, temperate spirit. They are perfectly easy as to their own call to preach; but they are troubled for those poor uncaged, blind guides. And they are sometimes afraid that the countenancing these is a dead weight even on those clergymen who are ready called of God. ‘Why else,’ say they, ‘does not God bless their labors Why do they still stretch forth their hands in vain ‘We know Mr. Piers, Perone, Manning, and several regular clergymen who do preach the genuine gospel, but to no effect at all. There is one exception in England -- Mr. Walker at Truro. We do not know one more who has converted one soul in his own parish. If it be said, ‘Has not Mr. Grimshaw and Mr. Baddeley [John Baddeley, Rector of Hayfield in Derbyshire, was converted in 1748 and ‘preaches the pure gospel of Jesus Christ.’ He was ‘a sort of second Grimshaw.’ He formed. Societies, and appointed laymen to assist him. Wesley visited him in April 1755; and after the Leeds Conference, Baddeley wrote him an affectionate letter about separation from the Church of England. See Journal, iv. 110-11, v. 109; Arminian Mag. 1779 p. 319; Tyerman's Wesley, ii. 195. For William Grimshaw, see letter of Nov. 2, 1748.] No, not one, till they were irregular -- till both the one and the other formed irregular Societies and took in laymen to assist them. Can there be a stronger proof that God is pleased with irregular even more than with regular preaching

‘But might not the Methodists in general serve the interests of Christ better as witnesses and examples of a living faith by returning to a closer union with the Church than by separating still farther’ We have no design at present of separating father (if we have yet separated at all). Neither dare we return to a closer union, if that means either prohibiting lay preachers or ceasing to watch over each other in love, and regularly meeting for that purpose.

If there be any father advices, whether with regard to doctrines or practice, which you judge might be of service to us, they would be thankfully received and considered by, reverend dear sir,

Your obliged and affectionate brother and servant.

To Samuel Walker

LONDON, November 20, 1755.

REVEREND AND DEAR SIR, -- I return you many thanks for the welcome letter from Mr. Adam [The reply to the Rev. Thomas Adam (p. 149) is dated Oct. 31. The interval was spent in London, where he stayed until Jan 26.] as well as for your own. I have answered his (which is wrote in a truly Christian spirit), and now proceed to consider yours, after having observed that two of our preachers [Samuel Larwood, John Edwards, Charles Skelton, and John Witford left Wesley. See Journal, iv. 95n; and letters of July 17, 1751, and Aug. 4, 1769.] are gone from us; and none of the remaining (to my knowledge) have at present any desire or design of separating from the Church. Yet I observe, --

1. Those ministers who truly feared God near an hundred years ago had undoubtedly much the same objections to the Liturgy which some (who never read their Works) have now. [Both his grandfathers were among the sufferers of 1662.] And I myself so far allow the force of several of those objections that I should not dare to declare my assent and consent to that book in the terms prescribed. Indeed, they are so strong that I think they cannot safely be used with regard to any book but the Bible. Neither dare I confine myself wholly to forms of prayer, not even in the church. I use, indeed, all the forms; but I frequently add extemporary prayer either before or after sermon.

2. In behalf of many of the Canons I can say little; of the Spiritual Courts nothing at all. I dare not, therefore, allow the authority of the former or the jurisdiction of the latter. But I am not required to do it. So the difficulty does not lie yet.

3. ‘Whether it be lawful to attend the ministrations of one whom God has not sent me to minister, seeing he expressly disclaims the call of God, which is at least as necessary as the call of man,’ is really a question which (as I said before) I cannot answer to my own satisfaction. Neither can I tell –

4. How far that command of our Lord, ‘Beware of false prophet,’ obliges me to refrain from hearing such who put darkness for light and light for darkness. I am still in doubt whether quietly attending them while they do this be not in effect the bidding them God-speed, the strengthening their hands in evil, and encouraging others to hear them till they fall into hell together.

I am still desirous of knowing in what particular manner you think the present work of God could be carried on without the assistance of lay preachers. [See letter of Sept. 24.] This I will fairly weigh, and give you my thoughts upon it.

Some little things occurred to me in reading your Sermons [The volume of sermons published two years befog, entitled The Christian] which I had a desire to communicate to you. In the great points I cannot observe any difference between us. We both contend for the inward kingdom, the mind that was in Christ Jesus, the image of God to be new stamped upon the heart. I am sometimes much discouraged at finding so little of this in myself. Assist, both with your advice and prayers, dear sir,

Your very affectionate brother and servant.

All but the last passage of this I had wrote three weeks ago. But the dangerous illness of my wife prevented my finishing it sooner.

Editor’s Introductory Notes

[1] This letter is prefixed to a pamphlet, Queries Humbly Proposed to the Right Reverend and Right Honorable Count Zinzendorf (1755, 8vo, 32 pages). It has no author’s name; but James Huron believed it to be the work of Wesley, and it appears in the catalogues among the books published by the Wesleys. Severe charges had been made against the Moravians; and on December 31, 1734 James Huron published an advertisement in the London Daily Advertiser calling for queries in reference to these charges, and indicating that answers would be forthcoming. The Queries were published seven days after the advertisement; but they cannot be said to have been answered. Happily they have long ceased to have any relevance. See Tyerman's Wesley, ii. 220-3; Green’s Bibliography, No. 169; and letter of October 24.

[2] Furly's tutor, Samuel Hallifax (1733-90), was ordained deacon at Ely on September 21, 1755; hence Wesley’s interest as shown by this reference to Bishop Bull. Dr. Hallifax was the son of an apothecary at Mansfield. He was third Wrangler and Chancellor’s medallist 1754, Fellow of Jesus College 1756, Professor of Arabic and Civil Law, Bishop of Gloucester 1781-9, Bishop of St. Asaph 1789-90.

[3] Wesley preached at Keighley on the 28th and at Bradford on the 29th when ‘my brother met me at Birstall in the afternoon.’ Next day ‘we began reading together A Gentleman’s Reasons for his Dissent from the Church of England,’ in view of the Conference which met at Leeds on May 6. See letter of January 10, 1758.

The estrangement between Wesley and his wife was beginning. Charles did speak to his sister-in-law. He writes to his wife: ‘This evening I expect to find my brother at Bristol. I pity his poor wife, if now upon the road. There she is likely to stick till the warm weather comes. The roads are almost impassable for wheel.’ He asks as to Mrs. John Wesley ‘What shall you and I do to love her better “Love your enemies” is with man impossible; but is anything too hard for God I fear you do not constantly pray for her. I must pray, or sink into the spirit of revenge.’ In the next letter he tells his wife: ‘On my way to Wakefield I met my good angel and sister. I have done her honor before the people and behaved (though I say it) very much like a gentleman; only that I took a French leave this morning -- that is, left Leeds without telling either her or her husband.’ See C. Wesley’s Journal ii. 201-2; and previous letter.

[4] Westley Hall was now going to the West Indies with another woman. The child referred to lived to be fourteen. Wesley described Mrs. Harper as ‘the best reader of Milton I ever knew.’ The sisters were probably to live together in the house at West Street. Mrs. Hall afterwards became an intimate friend of Dr. Johnson, to whom she introduced her brother in 1784. See letters of December 22, 1747 and June 20 and 23, 1755 (to his brother).

[5] This letter shows how free Wesley was from anything like enthusiasm in the dangerous sense. It is levelheaded and sagacious advice to a young beginner.

[6] This letter belongs to a critical period in the history of Methodism. Some of the preachers had administered the Lord’s Supper to those who felt unwilling or unable to go to trek parish churches. The two Perronets, sons of the Vicar of Shoreham, who were both Methodist preachers, Joseph Cownley, and Thomas Walsh were leaders of this movement. After three days’ consideration, the Leeds Conference decided ‘that, whether it was lawful or not to separate it was no ways expedient.’ Walsh and his friends promised not to administer the sacraments. Charles Wesley was much disturbed. He saw that many of the preachers were unconvinced. Immediately after the Conference he wrote An Epistle to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, by Charles Wesley, Presbyter of the Church of England. He tells his wife (Jackson’s Charles’s Wesley, ii. p. 81): ‘On Thursday I read my Epistle a second time to a crowded audience and yesterday at the watch-night. Seven hundred are sent by this day’s carrier.’ Jackson prints this poetical essay in the Life. Four thousand copies were printed by William Strahan at a cost of eight guineas. His love of the Church of England stands forth in such lines as these:

Thrust out as from her pale, I gladly roam,

Banish myself to bring her wanderers home.

[7] Thomas Sherlock (1678-1761) was Bishop of London from 1748 to 1761. He wrote against Hoadly in the Bangorian Controversy. As Bishop of London he cultivated friendly relations with Dissenters, and this inhibition of Gardiner evidently surprised Wesley. Charles Wesley has chromed this letter, ‘B[rother]. June 23, 1755. Passing Gardiner’s doom.’ See next letter.

[8] There is neither name nor date to this letter. It may have been sent to Dr. Sherlock, whose action in regard to Mr. Gardner is referred to in the previous letter. Wesley preached at St. Bartholomew’s in December 1738 and May and June 1747. Richard Bateman, the Rector, was converted under the preaching of Howel Davies in Wales, and was one of Wesley's college friends. See Journal ii. 117; iii. 300, 302.

[9] Richard Tompson, who corresponded with Wesley under the initials ‘P. V.,’ revealed his real name in the letter of February 25, 1756 and said that to avoid prejudice, ‘I chose to conceal myself under the Latin initials of a Lover of Truth.’ This correspondence, edited by someone who had long known Tompson, was published in 1760 as a pamphlet of 52 pages, entitled ‘Original Letters between the Reverend Mr. John Wesley and Mr. Richard Tompson, respecting the Doctrine of Assurance as held by the former: wherein that Tenet is fully examined; with some Strictures on Christian Perfection.’

The editor says: ‘Mr. Tompson in his youth was induced to join himself to Mr. Wesley and his associates, and upon that first institution of their Societies became a member; but soon, through the force of superior judgment, found it necessary to withdraw himself. Being of a very serious and speculative mind, he applied himself with great assiduity to reading; and, though not blest with the advantages of education, made no small progress in literature, especially in that branch which respects divinity. The editor of these Letters hath long been acquainted with him; and hath not the pleasure of knowing many men either of a more sober and exemplary life, or of a more acute understanding and clear judgment.... Hearing that Mr. Wesley was about to print Annotations upon the New Testament, he wrote an anonymous letter to him respecting the doctrine of Original Sin, which Mr. Wesley received so well that he sent him the following answer.’

Tompson had mentioned this correspondence to the editor, who suggested that it should be published, and got him to ask Wesley’s permission. In 1750 Wesley told Samuel Furly that Tompson said to him, ‘I want a little money, and I can have it by printing the letters which passed between you and me.’ Unfortunately ‘P. V.’s’ first letter is not included. The editor says: ‘This letter deserves to be made known, and may perhaps appear on some other occasion.’ Tompson lived in Prince’s Square, Ratcliff Highway. See letters of July 25, 1755; August 22, 1759 (to Tompson); and December 9 1760.

[10] Charles Wesley had apparently excluded someone from the Society for not going to church, and had not based his action solely on the moral offence of drunkenness. That leads Wesley to criticize his brother’s attitude to the question of ordination. Lord Mansfield told his old friend and schoolfellow in 1784 that ordination was separation. John Wesley had thought out the problem already, and reached the conclusion on which he finally took action in his ordinations. Stilling-fleet’s Irenicon had convinced him of his mistake in holding that only Episcopal ordination was valid, and he tells his brother on June 8, 1780: ‘Read Bishop Stillingfleet's Irenicon or any impartial history of the ancient Church, and I believe you will think as I do.’ ‘I am the fifteenth’ seems to rear to his Nonconformist ancestry on both his father’s and mother's side. It is interesting to note Joseph Cownley’s admission as a preacher in 1747. He knelt down; and Wesley, putting the New Testament into his hands, said, ‘Take thou authority to preach the gospel.’ See Wesley’s Veterans, iv. 128; and letter of July 3, 1756. [The last paragraph is in shorthand.]

[11] Wesley replied to Tompson’s first letter on June 28. Tompson wrote again on July 10, saying that he differed from Wesley, especially concerning ‘Assurance being essential to saving faith’ and ‘Sinless Perfection.’ He says it has great weight with him that he ‘cannot learn that either of these opinions hath ever been the general doctrine of the Primitive Church.’ He does not dispute whether assurance of forgiveness of past Sins is attainable in this life, but argues against the proposition ‘that no person is a true believer in Christ but he who either certainly knows, or has known by the immediate revelation of the Holy Ghost, that his sins are forgiven.’ Wesley deals with this in his reply , and asks him to study the Doctrinal Minutes. Wesley does not answer him as to Christian Perfection, nor does he refer to Tompson’s supposition that, if two persons absolutely free from the corruption of human nature should marry and have children, these children would have no corruption of nature and would stand in no need of a Savior.

[12] Blackwell was Wesley’s chief confidant in his domestic affairs. Mrs. Wesley had been with her husband in May. This letter shows how Wesley rested on the providence of God. ‘I see God sitting upon His throne’ almost anticipates Browning’s

God's in His heaven,

All’s right in the world.

See Journal iv. 115; and letter of April 29.

[13] Mrs. Lefevre was the means of leading the Rev. William Dodd to write to Wesley on Christian Perfection (see heading to letter of February 5, 1756). She died on July 6, 1756, apparently at the age of thirty-three Charles Wesley’s poem on her death speaks of her as

A spotless soul, a sinless saint,

In perfect love renewed;

and describes her as

Darling of every heart that knew

Thy short-lived excellence.

On September 21, 1755, Charles Wesley writes from the Foundry: ‘Poor Mr. Lefevre breakfasted with me this morning and lamented that he cannot love her’ (Mrs. Wesley). No doubt he was smarting from the trouble referred to in this letter Mrs. Lefevre had evidentially taken an interest in Mr. Furly’s spiritual struggles. She would know his sister intimately in London. See C. Wesley’s Journal, ii 217, 334; and for Mrs. Wesley’s jealousy of Mrs. Lefevre, the letter of July 15, 1774.

Mrs. Lefevre’s Letters upon Sacred Subjects (London, 1757) show strong sense and deep piety. She was a woman of great gifts and great influence. About 1752 Miss Bosanquet says: ‘One day my sister, visiting Mrs. Lefevre, found her truly awakened and in earnest to save her soul.’ Her parents had no suspicion that she was a Methodist. At her house the Bosanquets ‘got opportunities of conversation with religious persons which a good deal strengthened our hands’ She was ‘the greatest comfort’ of Miss Bosanquet’s life. Her last words were, ‘I have comforts indeed.’ See Moore’s Mrs. Fletcher pp. 19-21.

[14] On September 18 Wesley had preached at Launceston in ‘a gentleman's dining-room capable of containing some hundreds of people’ and at five the next morning in the Town Hall. Trembath became one of Wesley’s preachers in 1743. He was with Wesley at Newcastle in 1745, and accompanied him to Ireland in August 1747 when he preached in Marlborough Street, Dublin, ‘to a large congregation both of laity and clergy, who behaved with much decency.’ On January 28 1748 they escaped a serious accident when on their way to Longbridge Deverill. Wesley met him at Cork on August 16 1760 and wrote to him a letter the following day in which he expresses his pleasure that the most serous charges here referred to were not true. In September 1782 he told Wesley at Launceston, ‘I am happier than ever I was in my life.’ See Journal, iii. 257, 330 vi. 366; Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 385; Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland i. 15; and letter of August 17, 1760.

[15] This is one of the most momentous of Wesley’s letters. He could not consent to give up his lay preachers, who had been so greatly blessed; and he clearly saw that to do so would be an end to the Evangelical Revival. He was awake to the situation, deeply anxious to do nothing inconsistent with his position as a clergyman, yet utterly unable to take any step that would destroy his work. He consulted Mr. Walker as to separation from the Church, and at his suggestion also wrote on the subject to the Rev. Thomas Adam, Rector of Wintringham, near Barton-on-Humber. Walker was a naive of Exeter and a graduate of Exeter College, Oxford. He had been ordained fourteen years, and was now Vicar of Truro, where he was the means of the conversion of eight hundred persons, whom he had gathered into Socities. Walker replied to Wesley on September 5. This is Wesley's answer. For Walker's Societies, see Journal, iv. 130, v. 185n.

[16] Greenwood became a Methodist preacher in 1746 and died in 1767. He and his colleagues began to administer the sacrament in Norwich in 1760. About the time of this letter Thomas Taylor found special blessing ‘in hearing that plain, honest man Paul Greenwood, whose word left a lasting impression on my mind.’ See Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 381; Wesley's Veterans vii. 20.

[17] This letter is preserved in the Library of Lambeth Palace, in a copy of Sheridan’s translation of The Satyrs of Persius, which has the inscription, ‘C. Wesley, Aed. X’ti Alum. Dec. 1, 1733. E. Dono Fratris.’ On the fly-leaf of the letter Rimius has written: ‘Gambold’s words in the preface to the Ordinary’s Remarks, &c.: “The Ordinary” (i.e. Zinzendorf) “is declared with the utmost impudence the author of Stanzas he had not so much as seen .”’ Then follow Zinzendorf’s words from his ‘Exposition, P. 2, p. 24’: ‘The Stanzas mentioned in Mr. Gambold’s Preface &c., as never seen by me, though charged on me, were truly such as I had never seen; and in order to render that assertion still more intelligible, let me add to it that I saw in the very controversial books published in England songs and verses confidently charged on me which I saw then the first time in my life.' Reference is made to calumnies against the Brethren: ‘This nowhere has been of less effect than in England. For, when in this year (1749) the Brethren Hymn-Book was so treated there, it scarce met with a week's attention, and immediately fell into that contempt which usually all pasquils and street-news meet with in that country.’ See W.H.S. xiv. 114-17.

In June 1753 Wesley found London ‘much alarmed with Mr. Rimius's Narrative and Mr. Whitefield's Letter to Count Zinzendorf.’ William Parker, the Mayor of Bedford, said he knew a hundred times more than Rimius had written. Whitefield quoted Rimius in an Expostulatory Letter to Count Zinzendorf. The answers of Bhler and the Count are in Benham's Hutton, pp. 304-6, and a reply to Whitefield and Rimius in the Appendix, pp. 561-5. One of the Queries Proposed to Count Zinzendorf (page 27), published in January 1755, is ‘Did Mr. Cossart suggest to Mr. Lynde, “It would be as good as 300 in his way if Mr. Rimius’s book would be suppressed”’ Rimius was evidently a German pastor in London. See Journal iv. 68, 72-3, 86; and letter of January 7.

[18] Thomas Adam was born in Leeds in 1701, and graduated at Christ’s College, Cambridge. He was appointed Rector of Wintringham, near Barton-on-Humber, when twenty-three, and held the living till his death in 1784. Acing on the advice of the Rev. Samuel Walker of Truro, Wesley sent him a copy of the papers relating to separation from the Church of England. Adam read on October 10. See Journal, v. 278; Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 209; and letter of September 24.

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.