1758

 

To George Merryweather [1]

LONDON, January 16, 1758.

MY DEAR BROTHER,--If the work of God does so increase at Yarm, we must not let the opportunity slip. Therefore let the travelling preacher be there either every Sunday evening, or at least every other Sunday.

No person must be allowed to preach or exhort among our people whose life is not holy and unblameable, nor any who asserts anything contrary to the gospel which we have received. And if he does not own his fault and amend it, he cannot be a leader any longer. Peace be with you all.--I am Your affectionate brother.

To Mrs. Ryan LONDON, January 20, 1758. MY DEAR SISTER,--How did you feel yourself under your late trial Did you find no stirring of resentment, no remains of your own will, no desire or wish that things should be otherwise [He had been at Kingswood School on Jan. 4.] In one sense you do desire it, because you desire that God should be glorified in all things. But did not the falling short of that desire lessen your happiness Had you still the same degree of communion with God, the same joy in the Holy Ghost I never saw you so much moved as you appeared to be that evening. Your soul was then greatly troubled, and a variety of conflicting passions--love, sorrow, desire, with a kind of despair--were easy to be read in your countenance. And was not your heart unhinged at all Was it not ruffled or discomposed Was your soul all the time calmly stayed on God, waiting upon Him without distraction Perhaps one end of this close trial was to give you a deeper knowledge of yourself and of God, of His power to save, and of the salvation He hath wrought in you.

Most of the trials you have lately met with have been of another kind; but it is expedient for you to go through both evil and good report. The conversing with you, either by speaking or writing, is an unspeakable blessing to me. I cannot think of you without thinking of God. Others often lead me to Him; but it is, as it were, going round about: you bring me straight into His presence. [Miss Bosanquet had the same feeling: 'The more I conversed with Mrs. Ryan, the more I discovered of the glory of God breaking forth from within, and felt a strong attraction to consider her the friend of my soul.' See Moore's Mrs. Fletcher, p. 29.] Therefore, whoever warns me against trusting you, I cannot refrain, as I am clearly convinced He calls me to it.--I am Your affectionate brother.

To Mrs. Ryan LONDON, January 27, 1758. MY DEAR SISTER,--Last Friday, [Jan. 20, the day the previous letter was written. See letter of Dec. 23.] after many severe words, my wife left me, vowing she would see me no more. As I had wrote to you the same morning, I began to reason with myself, till I almost doubted whether I had done well in writing or whether I ought to write to you at all. After prayer that doubt was taken away. Yet I was almost sorry that I had written that morning. In the evening, while I was preaching at the chapel, she came into the chamber [Of the chapel house at West Street, Seven Dials. See letter of July 12.] where I had left my clothes, searched my pockets, and found the letter there which I had finished but had not sealed. While she read it, God broke her heart; and I afterwards found her in such a temper as I have not seen her in for several years. She has continued in the same ever since. So I think God has given a sufficient answer with regard to our writing to each other.

I still feel some fear concerning you. How have you found yourself since we parted Have you suffered no loss by anything Has nothing damped the vigour of your spirit Is honour a blessing, and dishonour too the frowns and smiles of men Are you one and the same in ease or pain, always attentive to the voice of God What kind of humility do you feel What have you to humble you, if you have no sin Are you wise in the manner of spending your time Do you employ it all, not only well, but as well as it is possible What time have you for reading I want you to live like an angel here below, or rather like the Son of God. Woman, walk thou as Christ walked; then you cannot but love and pray for Your affectionate brother.

To Dorothy Furley LEWISHAM, February 9, 1758. Undoubtedly you may arise now and receive power from on high. You are hindered chiefly by not understanding the freeness of the gift of God. You are perpetually seeking for something in yourself to move Him to love and bless you. But it is not to be found there; it is in Himself and in the Son of His love. He did then give you a proof of this in that fresh evidence of pardon; and He is ready to give it you again to-day, for He is not weary of well doing. But even after this you may or you may not use the power which attends that peace. And if you ask for more power, it shall be given you; for you have an Advocate with the Father. O cast yourself upon Him; learn more of that lesson,-- Thy salvation to obtain Out of myself I go; Freely Thou must heal my pain, Thy unbought mercy show. [From Hymns and Sacred Poems, 1742, Part I. See Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, ii. 76. The hymn is headed Salvation by Grace.] How much of it may you find in this hour! Look up and see redemption near!--I am Your affectionate brother and servant.

To Mrs. Ryan LONDON, February 10, 1758. MY DEAR SISTER,--Your last letter was seasonable indeed. I was growing faint in my mind. The being continually watched over for evil; the having every word I spoke, every action I did (small and great) watched over with no friendly eye; the hearing a thousand little, tart, unkind reflections in return for the kindest words I could devise,-- Like drops of eating water on the marble, At length have worn my sinking spirits down. Yet I could not say, 'Take Thy plague away from me,' but only, 'Let me be purified, not consumed.' [See letter of Jan. 27.]

What kind of humility do you feel Is it a sense of sinfulness Is it not a sense of helplessness, of dependence, of emptiness, and, as it were, nothingness How do you look back on your past sins, either of heart or life What tempers or passions do you feel while you are employed in these reflections Do you feel nothing like pride while you are comparing your present with your past state, or while persons are showing their approbation of or esteem for you How is it that you are so frequently charged with pride Are you careful to abstain from the appearance of it O how important are all your steps! The Lord God guide and support you every moment!--I am Your affectionate friend.

To Mrs. Ryan MALDON, February 20, 1758, MY DEAR SISTER,--Is your eye altogether single Is your heart entirely pure I know you gave up the whole to God once; but do you stand to the gift Once your will was swallowed up in God's. But is it now, and will it be so always The whole Spirit and power of God be upon you; stablish, strengthen, settle you; and preserve your spirit, soul, and body, spotless and unblameable unto the coming of Jesus Christ!--I am Yours, &c.

To Samuel Furley SUNDON, March 7, 1758. DEAR SAMMY,--You have done well in writing to me the first week of this month. I should be glad if you would continue that regularly. And you have done exceeding well in giving me the full, particular account of that (shall I say unlucky) accident. For really non satis mihi constiterat cum aliquane animi mei molestia an potirer libenter accepi. [Cicero to Caius Memmius, Epistolae ad diversos, xiii. 1: 'It is not clear whether I should receive it with a certain feeling of distress or accept it cheerfully.'] I am grieved, I am troubled for the consequences that may ensue. But I am pleased, I rejoice that the Lord has carried on such a work of conviction in that poor Pharisee. Yea, I cannot but be exceeding glad me non laborem inanem cepisse. ['That I have not begun a useless task'] Neither am I sorry but rather well satisfied that you lent her [See letter of Nov. 20, 1756.] that little 'awakening tract.' Upon the first hearing of this, indeed, my spirit was troubled; confusion of mind seized me, struck partly with fear, partly with sorrow, and partly with astonishment. But what need we fear or wherefore are we cast down The Lord God Omnipotent reigneth. And cannot He make all things turn to His glory How long shall the boasting enemy triumph Not longer (at least) than the breath is in his nostrils; and then shall all his vain thoughts perish. But they have not yet won the day. Who knoweth but the Lord may give peace and love and power and the spirit of a sound mind to her who for a season is sorely vexed with the cruel overwhelming power of Satan At a moment when the ungodly think not of it, the Lord may arise and maintain His own cause and put to silence the vauntings of the proud. So that all that are around may see it and fear, and acknowledge, 'This is the Lord's doing.' What He does now we know not yet. It is our part to wait patiently to see what He will do. Quietus esto. Be calm in the midst of this storm. I pity you, indeed, who are in the very midst of it. For my own part I leave the matter without concern in His hands who will not, cannot do wrong; but not without taking much shame unto myself. I did not order my conversation aright all the time I was in the place; I was afraid of giving offence: therefore I assumed too much the appearance of one of them. I did not dare to be altogether singular, to be constantly, steadily serious before them. Now by this circumstance the Lord has rebuked me and taught me wisdom. Here He has permitted no small offence to arise from a quarter I could neither foresee nor prevent. Where now is all my worldly prudence What is become of my fearful caution The Lord hath blasted it. Not, indeed, with the breath of His mouth, but with the rushing torrent of His sudden providence. Mark this, and settle it in shine heart: that the Lord will be feared, honoured, and obeyed even in the midst of lions; or will make us feel the weight of His uplifted hand. I feel this moment my just punishment for my base cowardice. This sin sets heavier upon my conscience at this time than almost all my crimes and all the transgressions of my youth. And one sin lying upon the conscience is a load of misery.

There is not now time to give you any particular relation of myself, that affair having spun out my letter too long. In study at present I make but a slow progress. I am not at all content with myself in this point. I have just entered upon Lord Clarendon's History, which is such an account of the ways, vices, and passions of men as one who did not know the corruption of human nature could scarce be induced to believe of his fellow creatures. I shall conclude this letter with affirming that I would to God such a deep work of conviction was wrought in your heart and mine as God has begun in that poor distressed woman, I wish we also felt the arrows of the Lord fastened in our conscience even as she has done. O when shall we with that piercing sense repent of all our sins and all our backslidings Is not the time now come We are spared to-day. God knoweth whether we shall be to-morrow. But this we know, that whatever knowledge, whatever gifts we have, purity of heart alone will be of true worth in the end. To the earnest pursuit of which I commend your being. Yours, &c. (1) It is the love of God. It hath in it heights, depths, strength stronger than death. (2) Of God in Christ. Sweetness of it. Better than all. Subject to no change.

To Jonathan Pritchard Liverpool March 25, 1758. DEAR JONATHAN,--I am persuaded what you say is true. John Nelson may be useful at Chester, and at other places in this circuit [See letter of Jan. 16, 1753]. So I have appointed him to come without delay. If there be a supply for other places, he may spend a week with you; but no place must be neglected. O Jonathan, make the best of life! With love to your wife and all the brethren, I am Your affectionate brother.

To Mrs. Ryan DUBLIN, April 4, 1758. MY DEAR SISTER,--Oh that I could be of some use to you! I long to help you forward in your way. I want to have your understanding a mere lamp of light, always shining with light from above! I want you to be full of divine knowledge and wisdom, as Jordan in the time of harvest. I want your words to be full of grace, poured out as precious ointment. I want your every work to bear the stamp of God, to be a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour; without any part weak, earthly, or human; all holy, all divine. The great God, your Father and your Love, bring you to this selfsame thing! Begin, soldier of Christ, child of God! Walk worthy of the vocation wherewith thou art called! Remember the faith! Remember the Captain of thy salvation! Fight! conquer! Die,--and live for ever!--I am Yours, &c.

To Elizabeth Hardy [2]

DUBLIN, April 5, 1758. It is with great reluctance that I at length begin to write [See letter to her in May.]: first, because I abhor disputing, and never enter upon it but when I am, as it were, dragged into it by the hair of the head; and, next, because I have so little hope that any good will arise from the present dispute. I fear your passions are too deeply interested in the question to admit the force of the strongest reason. So that, were it not for the tender regard I have for you, which makes your desire a motive I cannot resist, I should not spend half an hour in so thankless a labour, and one wherein I have so little prospect of success.

'The doctrine of Perfection,' you say, 'has perplexed me much since some of our preachers have placed it in so dreadful a light: one of them affirming, A believer till perfect is under the curse of God and in a state of damnation; another, If you die before you have attained it, you will surely perish.'

By 'perfection' I mean 'perfect love,' or the loving God with all our heart, so as to rejoice evermore, to pray without ceasing, and in everything to give thanks. I am convinced every believer may attain this; yet I do not say he is in a state of damnation or under the curse of God till he does attain. No, he is in a state of grace and in favour with God as long as he believes. Neither would I say, 'If you die without it, you will perish'; but rather, Till you are saved from unholy tempers, you are not ripe for glory. There will, therefore, more promises be fulfilled in your soul before God takes you to Himself.

'But none can attain perfection unless they first believe it attainable.' Neither do I affirm this. I know a Calvinist in London who never believed it attainable till the moment she did attain it, and then lay declaring it aloud for many days till her spirit returned to God. 'But you yourself believed twenty years ago that we should not put off the infection of nature but with our bodies.' I did so. But I believe otherwise now, for many reasons, some of which you afterwards mention. How far Mr. Rouquet [James Rouquet said of perfection in a letter of 1763, 'To me it is the one thing needful' (Arminian) Mag. 1782, p. 105). See letter of March 30, 1761.] or Mr. Walsh [Through illness Thomas Walsh was detained in Bristol from the latter part of February till April 13, 1758. He then went to Ireland, where he died of consumption on April 8, 1759, at the age of twenty eight. Just before his last illness he said in his sermon on 1 John iv. 18: 'My mind was more clearly enlightened than ever to see that "perfect love" is Christian perfection.' See letters of Jan. 8, 1757, and July 28, 1775 (to John King).] may have mistaken these I know not: I can only answer for myself.

'The nature and fitness of things' is so ambiguous an expression that I never make use of it. Yet if you ask me, 'Is it fit or necessary in the nature of things that a soul should be saved from all sin before it enters into glory' I answer, It is. And so it is written, 'No unclean thing shall enter into it.' Therefore, whatever degrees of holiness they did or did not attain in the preceding parts of life, neither Jews nor heathens any more than Christians ever did or ever will enter into the New Jerusalem unless they are cleansed from all sin before they enter into eternity.

I do by no means exclude the Old Testament from bearing witness to any truths of God. Nothing less. But I say the experience of the Jews is not the standard of Christian experience; and that therefore, were it true 'The Jews did not love God with all their heart and soul,' it would not follow 'Therefore no Christian can,' because he may attain what they did not.

'But,' you say, 'either their words do not contain a promise of such perfection, or God did not fulfil this promise to them to whom He made it.' I answer, He surely will fulfil it to them to whom He made it--namely, to the Jews after their dispersion into all lands: and to these is the promise made; as will be clear to any who impartially considers the 30th chapter of Deuteronomy, wherein it stands.

I doubt whether this perfection can be proved by Luke vi. 40. From 1 John iii. 9 (which belongs to all the children of God) I never attempted to prove it; but I still think it is clearly described in those words, 'As He is, so are we in this world.' And yet it doth not now appear 'what we shall be' when this vile body is 'fashioned like unto His glorious body,' when we shall see Him, not in a glass, but face to face, and be transformed into His likeness.

Those expressions (John xiii. 10), 'Ye are clean, clean every whit,' are allowed to refer to justification only. But that expression, 'If we walk in the light as He is in the light,' cannot refer to justification only. It does not relate to justification at all, whatever the other clause may do. Therefore those texts are by no means parallel; neither can the latter be limited by the former, although it is sure the privileges described in both belong to every adult believer.

But not only abundance of particular texts, but the whole tenor of Scripture declares, Christ came to 'destroy the works of the devil, to save us from our sins'--all the works of the devil, all our sins, without any exception or limitation. Indeed, should we say we have no sin to be saved or cleansed from, we should make Him come in vain. But it is at least as much for His glory to cleanse us from them all before our death as after it.

'But St. James says, "In many things we offend all"; and whatever "we" might mean, if alone, the expression "we all" was never before understood to exclude the person speaking.' Indeed it was. It is unquestionably to be understood so as to exclude Isaiah, the person speaking, 'We are all as an unclean thing; we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away' (lxiv. 6). For this was not the case with Isaiah himself. Of himself he says, 'My soul shall be joyful in my God; for He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness' (lxi. 10). Here the Prophet, like the Apostle, uses the word 'we' instead of 'you,' to soften the harshness of an unpleasing truth.

In this chapter the Apostle is not cautioning them against censuring others, but entering upon a new argument; wherein the second verse has an immediate reference to the first, but none at all to the thirteenth of the preceding chapter.

I added, '"We offend all" cannot be spoken of all Christians; for immediately there follows the mention of one who offends not, as the "we" before-mentioned did.' You answer, 'His not offending in word will not prove that he does not offend "in many things."' I think St. James himself proves it in saying, 'He is able to bridle also the whole body'; to direct all his actions as well as words according to the holy, perfect will of God; which those, and those only, are able to do who love God with all their hearts. And yet these very persons can sincerely say, 'Forgive us our trespasses.' For as long as they are in the body, they are liable to mistake and to speak or act according to that mistaken judgement. Therefore they cannot abide the rigour of justice, but still need mercy and forgiveness.

Were you to ask, 'What if I should die this moment' I should answer, I believe you would be saved, because I am persuaded none that has faith can die before he is made ripe for glory. This is the doctrine which I continually teach which has nothing to do with justification by works. Nor can it discourage any who have faith, neither weaken their peace, nor damp their joy in the Lord. True believers are not distressed hereby, either in life or in death; unless in some rare instance, wherein the temptation of the devil is joined with a melancholy temper.

Upon the whole, I observe your great argument turns all along on a mistake of the doctrine. Whatever warm expressions may drop from young men, we do not teach that any believer is under condemnation. So that all the inferences drawn from this supposition fall to the ground at once. Your other letter I hope to consider hereafter; though I have great reason to apprehend your prejudice will still be too strong for my arguments. However, whether you expect it or not, I must wish for your perfection. You of all people have most need of perfect love, because this alone casts out fear.--I am, with great sincerity, Your affectionate brother and servant.

To Samuel Furly DUBLIN, April 8, 1758. DEAR SAMMY,--Very probably I may procure your admission into Orders with a title or without. [See letters of Sept. 25, 1757, and May 3, 1758.]

It is not strange that any one [See letter of March 7.] should stifle the first convictions; neither ought that to discourage you at all. Speak again. Be instant eukairws akairws, [2 Tim. iv. 2: 'in season, out of season.'] and by-and-by you will see the effect.

Ten, perhaps twenty people, being dissatisfied they know not why, cry out, 'Everybody is dissatisfied.' Far from it. There wanted a little evil report to balance the good report.

O Sammy, be all in earnest! Press through things temporal! Expect not happiness from any creature! Here we are, whether for life or for death we know not. But God knows, and that is enough!--I am Your affectionate brother.

To Dorothy Furly DUBLIN, April 13, 1758. But if you find such a surprising alteration at Bonner's Hall, [She was apparently at Bonner's Hall, near Hackney, formerly a seat of the Bishop of London. Wesley retired there in Oct. 1754. See Journal, iv. 101, 127] what need have you of removing to Bristol Perhaps a lodging there might answer the purpose of health full as well as one at Clifton, and the purpose of religion considerably better. There are few in that neighbourhood from whom I should hope you would receive much profit, except Sarah Ryan. If she abides in her integrity, she is a jewel indeed; one whose equal I have not yet found in England.

You ought not to drink much tea, and none without pretty much cream (not milk) and sugar. But I believe, were you to drink nettle-tea for a few mornings, it would do you more good than any other. It seems best for you to have frequent returns of weakness: it may be needful to fix seriousness upon your spirit by a lasting impression that there is but one step between you and eternity. But sickness alone will not do this--no, nor even the near approach of death. Unless the Spirit of God sanctify both, a man may laugh and trifle with his last breath.

You will overcome trifling conversation and the fear of man, not by yielding, but by fighting. This is a cross which you cannot be excused from taking up: bear it, and it will bear you. By prayer you will receive power so to do, to be a good soldier of Jesus Christ. But it is more difficult to resist hurtful desire; I am most afraid you should give way to this. Herein you have need of all the power of God. O stand fast! Look up and receive strength! I shall be glad to hear that you are more than conqueror, and that you daily grow in the vital knowledge of Christ. Peace be with your spirit.--I am Your affectionate servant.

To Dr. Free [3]

 

TULLAMORE, May 2, 1758. REVEREND SIR,--1. A little tract appearing under your name was yesterday put into my hands. You therein call upon me to speak, if I have any exceptions to make to what is advanced; and promise to reply as fairly and candidly as I can expect, 'provided those exceptions be drawn up, as you have set the example, in a short compass, and in the manner wherein all wise and good people would choose to manage a religious dispute' (page 22).

2. 'In a short compass,' sir, they will certainly be drawn up, for my own sake as well as yours; for I know the value of time, and would gladly employ it all in what more immediately relates to eternity. But I do not promise to draw them up in that manner whereof you have set the example. I cannot, I dare not; for I fear God, and do really believe there is a judgement to come. Therefore I dare not 'return evil for evil,' neither 'railing for railing.' Nor can I allow that your manner of treating this subject is that 'wherein all wise and good people would choose to manage a religious dispute.' Far, very far from it. I shall rejoice if a little more fairness and candour should appear in your future writings. But I cannot expect it; for the nigrae succus loliginis, [Horace's Satires, 1 iv. 100: 'The dark secretion of the cuttlefish.'] 'wormwood and gall,' seem to have infected your very vitals.

3. The quotation from Bishop Gibson (which takes up five out of nineteen pages) I have answered already, [See letter of June 11, 1747.] and in a manner wherewith I have good reason to believe his lordship was entirely satisfied. With his lordship, therefore, I have no present concern; my business now is with you only: and seeing you are 'now ready,' as you express it, 'to run a tilt,' I must make what defence I can. Only you must excuse me from meeting you on the same ground or fighting you with the same weapons: my weapons are only truth and love. May the God of truth and love strengthen my weakness!

4. I waive what relates to Mr. Vowler's [See letter of Sept. 19, 1757.] personal character, which is too well known to need my defence of it; as likewise the occurrence (real or imaginary, I cannot tell) which gave birth to your performance. All that I concern myself with is your five vehement assertions with regard to the people called Methodists. These I shall consider in their order and prove to be totally false and groundless.

5. The first is this: 'Their whole ministry is an open and avowed opposition to one of the fundamental Articles of our religion' (page 4). How so Why, 'the Twentieth Article declares we may not so expound one scripture that it be repugnant to another. And yet it is notorious that the Methodists do ever explain the word "faith" as it stands in some of St. Paul's writings so as to make his doctrine a direct and flat contradiction to that of St. James.' (Page 5.)

This stale objection has been answered an hundred times, so that I really thought we should have heard no more of it. But since it is required, I repeat the answer once more: by faith we mean 'the evidence of things not seen'; by justifying faith, a divine evidence or conviction that 'Christ loved me and gave Himself for me.' St. Paul affirms that a man is justified by this faith; which St. James never denies, but only asserts that a man cannot be justified by a dead faith: and this St. Paul never affirms.

'But St. James declares, "Faith without works is dead." Therefore it is clearly St. James's meaning that a faith which is without virtue and morality cannot produce salvation. Yet the Methodists so explain St. Paul as to affirm that faith without virtue or morality will produce salvation.' (Page 6.) Where In which of their writings This needs some proof: I absolutely deny the fact. So that all which follows is mere flourish and falls to the ground at once, and all that you aver of their 'open and scandalous opposition to the Twentieth Article' (ibid.) is no better than open and scandalous slander.

6. Your second assertion is this: 'The Methodist, for the perdition of the souls of his followers, openly gives our Saviour the lie, loads the Scripture with falsehood and contradiction' (and pray what could a Mahometan or infidel or the devil himself do more), 'yea, openly blasphemes the name of Christ, by saying that the works of men are of no consideration at all, that God makes no distinction between virtue and vice, that He does not hate vice or love virtue. What blasphemy, then, and impiety are those wretches guilty of who in their diabolical frenzy dare to contradict our Saviour's authority, and that in such an essential article of religion!' (Pages 7-9.) Here also the Methodists plead, Not guilty, and require you to produce your evidence, to show in which of their writings they affirm that God 'will not reward every man according to his works, that He makes no distinction between virtue and vice, that He does not hate vice or love virtue.' These are positions which they never remember to have advanced. If you can, refresh their memory.

7. You assert, thirdly, the Methodists by these positions 'destroy the essential attributes of God and ruin His character as Judge of the world.' Very true--if they held these positions. But here lies the mistake. They hold no such positions. They never did. They detest and abhor them. In arguing, therefore, on this supposition, you are again 'beating the air.'

8. You assert, fourthly, the Methodists 'teach and propagate downright Atheism--a capital crime; and Atheists in some countries have been put to death. Hereby they make room for all manner of vice and villany, by which means the bands of society are dissolved. And therefore this attempt must be considered as a sort of treason by magistrates.' (Pages 10-11.)

Again we deny the whole charge, and call for proof; and, blessed be God, so do the magistrates in Great Britain. Bold, vehement asseverations will not pass upon them for legal evidence; nor, indeed, on any reasonable men. They can distinguish between arguing and calling names: the former becomes a gentleman and a Christian; but what is he who can be guilty of the latter

9. You assert, lastly, that any who choose a Methodist clergyman for their lecturer 'put into that office, which should be held by a minister of the Church of England, an enemy, who undermines not only the legal establishment of that Church, but also the foundation of all religion' (page 13).

Once more we must call upon you for the proof--the proof of these two particulars: first, that I, John Wesley, am 'an enemy to the Church, and that I undermine not only the legal establishment of the Church of England, but also the very foundation of all religion'; secondly, that 'Mr. Vowler is an enemy to the Church, and is undermining all religion as well as the Establishment.'

10. Another word, and I have done: are there 'certain qualifications required of all lecturers before they are by law permitted to speak to the people' (Page 14.) And is a subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles of religion one of these qualifications And is a person who does not 'conform to such subscription' disqualified to be a lecturer or who 'has ever held or published anything contrary to what the Church of England maintains' Then certainly you, Dr. John Free, are not 'permitted by law to speak to the people'; neither are you 'qualified to be a lecturer' in any church in London or England as by law established. For you flatly deny and openly oppose more than one or two of those Articles. You do not in any wise conform to the subscription you made before you was ordained either priest or deacon. You both hold and publish (if you are the author and publisher of the tract before me) what is grossly, palpably 'contrary to what the Church of England maintains' in her Homilies as well as Articles; those Homilies to which you have also subscribed in subscribing the Thirty-sixth Article. You have subscribed them, sir; but did you ever read them Did you ever read so much as the first three Homilies I beg of you, sir, to read these at least, before you write again about the doctrine of the Church of England. And would it not be prudent to read a few of the writings of the Methodists before you undertake a farther confutation of them At present you know not the men or their communication. You are as wholly unacquainted both with them and their doctrines as if you had lived all your days in the islands of Japan or the deserts of Arabia. You have given a furious assault to you know not whom; and you have done it you know not why. You have not hurt me thereby; but you have hurt yourself--perhaps in your character, certainly in your conscience: for this is not doing to others 'as you would they should do unto you.' When you grow cool, I trust you will see this clearly; and will no more accuse, in a manner so remote from fairness and candour, reverend sir, Your servant for Christ's sake.

To Samuel Furly TULLAMORE, May 3, 1758. DEAR SAMMY,--Two conversations I have had with the Bishop of Londonderry, [William Barnard (1697-1768), Bishop of Derry 1747. See letters of April 8 and July 28.] and processimus pulchre. ['We made good progress.'] I intend to write to him in a few days, and then I shall be able to form a better judgement. He loves the Methodists from his heart, but he is not free from the fear of man. Yet I have much hope that love will conquer fear. Will it not conquer all sin Why do you not go every afternoon to visit the sick Can you find a more profitable employment--I am Your affectionate brother. To Rev. Mr. Furly, At Mr. Greenwood's.

To Elizabeth Hardy [May 1758.] Without doubt it seems to you that yours is a peculiar case. [See letters of April 5, 1758, and Dec. 26, 1761, to her.] You think there is none like you in the world. Indeed there are. It may be ten thousand persons are now in the same state of mind as you. I myself was so a few years ago. I felt the wrath of God abiding on me. I was afraid every hour of dropping into hell. I knew myself to be the chief of sinners. Though I had been very innocent in the account of others, I saw my heart to be all sin and corruption. I was without the knowledge and the love of God, and therefore an abomination in His sight.

But I had an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous. And so have you. He died for your sins; and He is now pleading for you at the right hand of God. O look unto Him and be saved! He loves you freely, without any merit of yours. He has atoned for all your sins.

See all your sins on Jesus laid! His blood has paid for all. Fear nothing; only believe. His mercy embraces you; it holds you in on every side. Surely you shall not depart hence till your eyes have seen His salvation.--I am, madam, Your affectionate brother.

To Ebenezer Blackwell [4]

CASTLEBAR, June 5, 1758. DEAR SIR,--I suppose my wife is now in London, as the letters I received thence in the last frank were open; for she still insists on her right of reading all the letters which are sent to me. And I have no friend or servant where she is who has honesty and courage to prevent it. I find since I left England all my domestics have changed their sentiments, and are convinced she is a poor, quiet creature that is barbarously used. I should not at all wonder if my brother and you were brought over to the same opinion. [See next letter.]

Since I came into this kingdom I have wrote several times; but I have not received one line in answer. So I sit still. I have learned by the grace of God in every state to be content. I have in this respect done what I ought and what I could. Now let God do what seemeth Him good. What a peace do we find in all circumstances when we can say, 'Not as I will, but as Thou wilt'!

I have now gone through the greatest part of this kingdom --Leinster, Ulster, and the greater half of Connaught. Time only is wanting. If my brother could take care of England and give me but one year for Ireland, I think every corner of this nation would receive the truth as it is in Jesus. They want only to hear it; and they will hear me, high and low, rich and poor. What a mystery of Providence is this! In England they may hear, but will not. In Ireland they fain would hear, but cannot. So in both thousands perish for lack of knowledge. So much the more blessed are your ears, for they hear; if you not only hear the word of God, but keep it.

I hope you find public affairs changing for the better. In this corner of the world we know little about them; only we are told that the great little king in Moravia is not swallowed up yet. [Frederick the Great began the campaign of 1758 by invading Moravia and attempting to take Olmutz. It was defended by Marshal Daun, who cut off the supplies of the Prussian Army.]

Till near the middle of next month I expect to be at Mr. Beauchamp's in Limerick. [There he met Thomas Walsh,'alive, and but just alive.' See Journal, iv. 275.] I hope you have a fruitful season in every respect. My best wishes attend you all.--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant.

To Ebenezer Blackwell [5]

BANDON, July 12, 1758. Really, sir, you had made me almost angry at an innocent person--I mean, innocent of the fault supposed. I wrote to Mr. Downing [See letter of April 6, 1761.] nearly at the time I wrote to you; and seeing no name, I read part of your letter as from him, and thought my wife did very wrong to trouble him'with matters of this kind, which might do him more harm than good.' Time and patience will remove many other troubles, and show them to have no more foundation than this.

While you have so eloquent a person [Mrs. Wesley.] at your elbow, and I am two or three hundred miles off, I have little to say: it may be time enough when I return to London. At present I would only make two or three cursory remarks.

(1) That letter was not left on a chair, but taken out of my pocket. [See letter of Jan. 27.]

(2) It was not letters, but a letter of mine (and one which did not signify a straw) which Sarah Crosby some time since showed to three or four persons, and of which she will hear these ten years. I write to her when I judge it my duty so to do; but I have not wrote these ten or twelve weeks.

(3) If you softened or salved over anything I wrote in the letter from Bedford, [He was in Bedford on March 9, and had to wait a day before he could preach his 'Great Assize' sermon. See Journal, iv. 254.] you did her an irreparable damage. What I am is not the question there, but what she is; of which I must needs be a better judge than you, for I wear the shoe: as you must needs be a better judge of Mrs. Blackwell's temper than I.

(4) 'She is now full of anger.' Heigh day! Anger! For what Why, because, when Captain Dancey called upon me in Dublin (on the 7th of April) and asked, 'Sir, have you any commands I am just sailing for Bristol,' I said, 'Yes; here is a letter. Will you deliver it with your own hands' He promised he would; and that was our whole conversation.

(5) But suppose he delivered this about the 12th of April, why did she not write for a month before What excuse or presence for this

(6) I certainly will, as long as I can hold a pen, assert my right of conversing with whom I please. Reconciliation or none, let her look to that. If the unbeliever will depart, let her depart. That right I will exert just when I judge proper, giving an account only to God and my own conscience. Though (as it happens) the last letter I wrote to Sarah Ryan was in the beginning of May.

(7) My conscience bears me witness before God that I have been as 'cautious as I ought to have been'; for I have rigorously kept my rule, 'To do everything and omit everything which I could with a safe conscience for peace' sake.'

But there is no fence against a flail, against one that could tell T. Walsh calmly and deliberately (he begs this may not be mentioned again, nor his name brought into the question), 'His parting words to me were, "I hope I shall see your wicked face no more."' Can you ever be safe against being deceived by such an one but by not believing a word you hear

In a week or two I shall be looking out for a ship. You people in England are bad correspondents. Both Mr. Downing, Mr. Venn, [Henry Venn.] and Mr. Madan [Martin Madan (1726-90), cousin to Cowper the poet, was converted under Wesley's ministry, became a clergyman, and Chaplain of the Lock Hospital in London 1750-80. His book in favour of polygamy made him notorious. See Journal, iv. II n, vi. 313.] are a letter in my debt; and yet I think they have not more business than I have. How unequally are things distributed here! Some want time, and some want work! But all will be set right hereafter. There is no disorder on that shore.

Wishing all happiness to you and all that are with you, I remain, dear sir, Yours most affectionately.

To Samuel Furly CORK, July 28, 1758.

DEAR SAMMY,--Your conjecture is right. I never received the letter you speak of, nor heard before that you was in Holy Orders. [See letter of May 3.] I hope you are also in great earnest to save your own soul as well as those that hear you. You have need to pray much for steadiness of spirit and seriousness in conversation. If there be added to this the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, your words will not fall to the ground. There will be danger, if you write so much, of writing in a dry and formal manner. We may suffer loss either by writing too little or too much. Observe every step you take, walk circumspectly, and God will be with you.--I am Your affectionate brother. We expect to sail in three or four days.

To Dr. Free [6]

FONMON CASTLE, August 24, 1758. REVEREND SIR,--In the preface to your sermon, lately printed, you mention your having received my former letter, and add that 'if the proofs you have now brought do not satisfy me as to the validity of your former assertions, if I am not yet convinced that such positions are held by people who pass under the denomination of Methodists, and will signify this by a private letter, I shall have a more particular answer.' I desire to live peaceably with all men; and should therefore wish for no more than a private answer to a private letter, did the affair lie between you and me. But this is not the case: you have already appealed to the Archbishop, the University, [Dr. Secker.] the nation. Before these judges you have advanced a charge of the highest kind, not only against me, but an whole body of people.

Before these, therefore, I must either confess the charge or give in my answer.

But you say, 'I charge blasphemy, impiety, &c., upon the profession of Methodism in general. I use no personal reflections upon you nor any invective against you but in the character of a Methodist.' That is, you first say, 'All Methodists are pickpockets, rebels, blasphemers, Atheists'; and then add, 'I use no reflections upon you but in the character of a Methodist,' but in the character of a pickpocket, blasphemer, Atheist. None but! What can you do more

But this, you say, is the practice of all honest men, and a part of the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free. Nay, surely there are some honest men who scruple using their opponents in this manner--at least, I do. Suppose you was an Atheist, I would not bring against you a railing accusation. I would still endeavour to 'treat you with gentleness and meekness,' and thus to 'show the sincerity' of my faith. I leave to you that exquisite 'bitterness of spirit and extreme virulence of language,' which, you say, is your duty, and term 'zeal' (Preface, p. 5). And certainly zeal, fervour, heat, it is. But is this heat from above Is it the offspring of heaven or a smoke from the bottomless pit

O sir, whence is that zeal which makes you talk in such a manner to his Grace of Canterbury 'I lay before you the disposition of an enemy who threaten our Church with a general alteration or total subversion; who interrupt us as we walk the streets' (Whom when where) 'in that very dress which distinguishes us as servants of the State' (altogether servants of the State) 'in the now sad capacity of ministers of the falling Church of England. Such being the prostrate, miserable condition of the Church, and such the triumphant state of its enemies, none of the English priesthood can expect better security or longer continuance than the rest. They all subsist at mercy. Your Grace and those of your order will fare no better than those of our own.' Sir, are you in earnest Do you really believe Lambeth is on the point of being blown up

You go on: 'In the remote counties of England I have seen an whole troop of these divines on horseback, travelling with each a sister behind him.' O sir, O sir, What should be great you turn to farce! Have you forgot that the Church and nation are on the brink of ruin But pray when and where did you see this In what year, or in what county I cannot but fear you take this story on trust; for such a sight I will be bold to say was never seen.

With an easy familiarity you add: 'My Lord, permit me here to whisper a word' (is not this whispering in print something new) 'that may be worth remembering. In our memory some of the priesthood have not proved so good subjects as might have been expected, till they have been brought over with preferments that were due to other people.' Meaning, I presume, to yourself. Surely his Grace will remember this, which is so well worth remembering, and dispose of the next preferment in his gift where it is so justly due. If he does not, if he either forgets this or your other directions, you tell him frankly what will be the consequence: 'We must apply to Parliament' (page 6), or to His Majesty; and, indeed, how can you avoid it 'For it would be using him,' you think, 'extremely ill not to give him proper information that there' are now a set of people offering such indignity to his crown and Government.

However, we are not to think your opposing the Methodists was 'owing to self-interest' alone. Though, what if it was 'Was I to depart from my duty because it happened to be my interest Did these saints ever forbear to preach to the mob in the fields for fear lest they should get the pence of the mob Or do not' the pence and the preaching 'go hand in hand together' No, they do not: for many years neither I nor any connected with me have got any 'pence,' as you phrase it, 'in the fields.' Indeed, properly speaking, they never did. For the collections which Mr. Whitefield made, it is well known, were not for his own use, either in whole or part. And he has long ago given an account in print of the manner wherein all that was received was expended.

But it is not my design to examine at large either your dedication, preface, or sermon. I have only leisure to make a few cursory remarks on your 'definition' of the Methodists (so called), and on the account you give of their first rise, of their principles and practice; just premising that I speak of those alone who began, as you observe, at Oxford. If a thousand other sets of men 'pass under that denomination,' yet they are nothing to me. As they have no connexion with me, so I am in no way concerned to answer either for their principles or practice, any more than you are to answer for all who 'pass under the denomination of Church of England men.'

The account you give of their rise is this. The Methodists began at Oxford. 'The name was first given to a few persons who were so uncommonly methodical as to keep a diary of the most trivial actions of their lives--as how many slices of bread-and-butter they ate, how many country dances they danced at their dancing-club, or after a fast how many pounds of mutton they devoured. For upon these occasions they ate like lions, having made themselves uncommonly voracious.' Of this not one line is true; for (1) It was from an ancient sect of physicians, whom we were supposed to resemble in our regular diet and exercise, that we were originally styled Methodists. [See letter of Nov. 26, 1762, to Bishop Warburton, p. 350.] (2) Not one of us ever kept a diary of 'the most trivial actions' of our lives. (3) Nor did any of us ever set down what or how much we ate or drank. (4) Our 'dancing-club' never existed; I never heard of it before. (5) On our 'fast-days' we used no food but bread; on the day following we fed as on common days. (6) Therefore our voraciousness and eating like lions is also pure, lively invention.

You go on: 'It was not long before these gentlemen began to dogmatize in a public manner, feeling a strong inclination to new-model almost every circumstance or thing in the system of our national religion.' Just as true as the rest. These gentlemen were so far from feeling any inclination at all 'to new-model' any 'circumstance or thing,' that, during their whole stay at Oxford, they were High Churchmen in the strongest sense, vehemently contending for every 'circumstance' of Church order according to the old 'model.' And in Georgia, too, we were rigorous observers of every Rubric and Canon, as well as (to the best of our knowledge) every tenet of the Church. Your account, therefore, of the rise of the Methodists is a mistake from beginning to end.

I proceed to your definition of them: 'By the Methodists was then and is now understood a set of enthusiasts, who, pretending to be members of the Church of England, either offend against the order and discipline of the Church or pervert its doctrines relating to faith and works and the terms of salvation.'

Another grievous mistake. For whatever 'is now, by the Methodists then was' not 'understood any set of enthusiasts,' or not enthusiasts, 'offending against the order and discipline of the Church.' They were tenacious of it to the last degree, in every the least jot and little. Neither were they 'then understood to pervert its doctrines relating to faith and works and the terms of salvation.' For they thought and talked of all these, just as you do now, till some of them, after their return from Georgia, were 'perverted' into different sentiments by reading the book of Homilies. Their perversion, therefore (if such it be), is to be dated from this time. Consequently your definition by no means agrees with the persons defined.

However, 'as a Shibboleth to distinguish them at present, when they pretend to conceal themselves, throw out this or such-like proposition, " Good works are necessary to salvation."' You might have spared yourself the labour of proving this; for who is there that denies it Not I; not any in connexion with me. So that this Shibboleth is just good for nothing.

And yet we firmly believe that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law; that to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith, without any good work preceding, is counted to him for righteousness. We believe (to express it a little more largely) that we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Good works follow after justification, springing out of true, living faith; so that by them living faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit. And hence it follows that as the body without the soul is dead, so that faith which is without works is dead also. This, therefore, properly speaking, is not faith, as a dead man is not properly a man.

You add: 'The original Methodists affect to call themselves Methodists of the Church of England; by which they plainly inform us there are others of their body who do not profess to belong to it. Whence we may infer that the Methodists who take our name do yet, by acknowledging them as namesakes and brethren, give themselves the lie when they say they are of our communion.' Our name! Our communion! Apage cum ista tua magnificentia! ['Away with this your grandiloquent verbiage!' Adapted by Wesley from Terence's Phormio, v. vii. 37 : I in malam rem hinc cum istac magnificentia Fugitive! which Dr. Patrick has rather broadly translated, 'Go, be hanged, you rascal, with your vain rodomontades!'] How came it, I pray, to be your name any more than Mr. Venn's But (waiving this) here is another train of mistakes. For (1) We do not call ourselves Methodists at all. (2) That we call ourselves members of the Church of England is certain. Such we ever were, and such we are to this day. (3) Yet we do not by this plainly inform you that there are others of our body who do not belong to it. By what rule of logic do you infer this conclusion from those premises (4) You have another inference full as good: 'Hence one may infer that, by acknowledging them as namesakes and brethren, they give themselves the lie when they say they are of our communion.' As we do not take the name of Methodists at all, so we do not acknowledge any 'namesakes' in this. But we acknowledge as 'brethren' all Dissenters (whether they are called Methodists or not) who labour to have a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man. What lies upon you to prove is this: whoever acknowledges any Dissenters as brethren does hereby give himself the lie when he says he is a member of the Church of England. However, you allow there may be place for repentance: 'For if any of the founders of this sect renounce the opinions they once were charged with, they may be permitted to lay aside the name.' But what are the opinions which you require us to renounce What are, according to you, the principles of the Methodists

You say in general, 'They are contradictory to the gospel, contradictory to the Church of England, full of blasphemy, impiety, and ending in downright Atheism.' For '(1) They expound the Scripture in such a manner as to make it contradict itself. (2) With blasphemy, impiety, and diabolical frenzy they contradict our Saviour by denying that He will judge man according to His works. (3) By denying this they destroy the essential attributes of God and ruin His character as Judge of the world.'

In support of the first charge you say: 'It is notorious; and few men of common sense attempt to prove what is notorious till they meet with people of such notorious impudence as to deny it.'

I must really deny it. Why, then you will prove it by Mr. Mason's [See letter of June 19, 1746.] own words. Hold, sir. Mr. Mason's words prove nothing. For we are now speaking of original Methodists: but he is not one of them; nor is he in connexion with them, neither with Mr. Whitefield nor me. So that what Mr. Mason speaks, be it right or wrong, is nothing to the present purpose. Therefore, unless you can find some better proof, this whole charge falls to the ground.

Well, 'here it is: Roger Balls.' [Roger Ball, the Antinomian. See Journal, iii. 238, iv. 285; and letter of April 12, 1750.] Pray who is Roger Balls No more a Methodist than he is a Turk. I know not one good thing he ever did or said beside the telling all men, 'I am no Methodist,' which he generally does in the first sentence he speaks when he can find any one to hear him. He is therefore one of your own allies, and a champion worthy of his cause!

If, then, you have no more than this to advance in support of your first charge, you have alleged what you are not able to prove. And the more heavy that allegation is, the more unkind, the more unjust, the more unchristian, the more inhuman it is to bring it without proof.

In support of the second charge you say: 'Our Saviour declares our works to be the object of His judgement. But the Methodist, for the perdition of the souls of his followers, says our works are of no consideration at all.'

Who says so Mr. Whitefield, or my brother, or I We say the direct contrary. But one of my 'anonymous correspondents says so.' Who is he How do you know he is a Methodist For aught appears, he may be another of your allies, a brother to Roger Balls.

Three or threescore anonymous correspondents cannot yield one grain of proof any more than an hundred anonymous remarkers on Theron and Aspasio. Before these can prove what the Methodists hold, you must prove that these are Methodists--either that they are original Methodists, or in connexion with them.

Will you say, 'If these were not Methodists themselves, they would not defend the Methodists' I deny the consequence. Men may be far from being Methodists, and yet willing to do the Methodists justice. I have known a clergyman of note say to another who had just been preaching a very warm sermon, 'Sir, I do not thank you at all for this. I have no acquaintance with Mr. Whitefield or Mr. Wesley, and I do not agree with them in opinion; but I will have no more railing in my pulpit.'

From the principles of the Methodists you proceed to their practice. 'They hunt,' say you, 'for extraordinary marks and revelations whereby to know the state of the soul.' The marks by which I know the state of any soul are the inward fruit of the Spirit--love, joy, peace, and meekness, gentleness, goodness, longsuffering, temperance, patience, shown, not by words only, but by the genuine fruit of outward holiness.

Again: 'They magnify their office beyond the truth by high presences to miraculous inspiration.' To this assertion we have answered over and over, We pretend to no other inspiration than that which not only every true gospel minister but every real Christian enjoys.

Again: 'The end of all impostors is some kind of worldly gain, and it is difficult for them to conceal their views entirely. The love of filthy lucre will appear either by the use they make of it or the means of getting it.' As to the use made of it you are silent. But as to the means of getting it you say, 'Besides inhumanly wringing from the poor, the helpless widows, the weeping orphans' (the proof! the proof!), 'they creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with divers lusts.' It is easy to say this and ten times more; but can you prove it And ought you to say it till you can

I shall not concern myself with anything in your Appendix but what relates to me in particular. This premised, I observe on No. 1. There are several instances in my Journals of persons that were in agonies of grief or fear and roared for the disquietness of their heart; of some that exceedingly trembled before God, perhaps fell down to the ground; and of others whom God in His adorable providence suffered to be lunatic and sore vexed. The particular instances hereof to which you refer have been largely vindicated already in the two letters to the Rev. Dr. Church as well as that to the late Bishop of London. [See letters of Feb. 2, 1745, June 17, 1746, June 11, 1747.]

In the six following numbers I am not concerned. The eighth contains those words from my Second Journal: 'The rest of the day we spent in hearing the wonderful work which God is beginning to work all over the earth.' Of this likewise I have spoken at large to Dr. Church and Bishop Gibson. The sum is, it is a great work when one notorious sinner is throughly changed in heart and life. It is wonderfully great when God works this entire change in a large number of people; particularly when it is done in a very short time. But so He hath wrought in Kingswood, Cornwall, Newcastle. It is therefore a truly wonderful work which God hath now more than begun to work upon earth.

I have now, sir, briefly answered for myself, which, if required, I will do more at large. But I trust it does already appear to every impartial reader that, of the many and heavy allegations you have brought with an unparalleled bitterness of spirit and an acrimony of language almost without precedent, you have not yet proved one. How far you are to be commended for this (unless by Messrs. Balls and the Monthly Reviewers) it is not fit for me to judge. Let all lovers of truth, of humanity, and candour determine. At present I have no more to add than that I beseech the Father of everlasting compassion to show more mercy to you than you have shown to, reverend sir, Your servant for Christ's sake.

To Samuel Furly BRISTOL, September 2, 1758. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I know no way to cure men of curiosity but to fill them with the love of God.

If a great majority of those who attended the Thursday sermon were Methodists, I know not but it was right to put Mr. Charles in your place. Otherwise it would be wrong; for him that escapes the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay. Every preacher whom God has sent will have a message to some souls who have not been reached by any other. And the more persons attend his preaching the better; the more room there is for God to work.

Mr. Jones's book I have found, and will send by Jemmy Morgan. [Evidently books borrowed from Mr. Jones and Mr. Holloway. Morgan had come with Wesley from Ireland. See Journal, iii. 335, 459; and letters of Jan. 8, 1757, and April 26, 1760.] Mr. Holloway's probably I shall find by-and-by. I wish you would carefully read over the Directions for Married Persons. [See Green's Bibliography, No. 163.] It is an excellent tract. You need to have your heart full of grace, or you will have your hands full of work. Universal watchfulness is absolutely necessary in order to our victory over any evil. Whatever you do, do it with your might.--I am Your affectionate brother.

To Francis Okeley [7]

SALISBURY, October 4, 1758.

DEAR SIR,--The plain reason why I did not answer you before is, I had no heart to write. For I had no expectation of doing any good. And why should I trouble myself or you to no purpose However, I will once more cast my bread upon the waters, and leave the event to God.

1. You say, 'I cannot preach because I have not faith.' That is not the thing; you do not speak simply. The direct reason why you did not preach at Bristol was because you would not displease the Brethren. They have still hold of your heart; the chain enters into your soul: therefore you could not even seem to act against them.

2. 'I am not convinced, and cannot be so, that what now passes for faith-' Hold! Do you mean that what now passes for faith among the Methodists is not true Christian faith that we have not a right conception of faith I know the teachers among the Brethren have not. But the conception which we now have of faith is the same which the Apostles had; for we conceive faith to be a divine elegcos of things not seen, particularly of this, that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me. Did St. Paul conceive it to be either less or more You know he did not.

'But I am not convinced, and cannot be so, that this is experienced by most that profess it'--suppose in the United Society at Bristol. I know you are not convinced of this, and that you cannot be so; but the hindrance lies in your heart, not your understanding: you cannot because you will not; so much of the old prejudice still remains, and says, nor persuadebis etiamsi persuaseris. ['Nor will you convince, though you have persuaded.'] But you ought to be convinced that most of them who there profess it truly experience what they profess. For (unless they are an whole heap of wilful liars, which you ought not to think without proof) they have those fruits which cannot possibly subsist without true Christian faith: they have a peace that passes all understanding and banishes the fear of death; they have the love of God shed abroad in their heart, overcoming the love of the world; and they have abiding power over all sin, even that which did easily beset them. Now, what excuse have you for not being convinced that they have faith, who have fruits which nothing but faith can produce

3. 'But they seem at best to have the letter of the new covenant and the spirit of the old.' How so What is the spirit of the new covenant Is it not love the love of God and man This spirit they have; it is the great moving spring both of their desires, designs, words, and actions. This also cannot be denied, unless they are the vilest liars upon earth. I speak now more confidently, having last week (together with my brother) examined all one by one.

4. 'But still you have not found what you expected among the Methodists, nor can you see your way clear to join them.' I think this was the sum of what you wrote to my brother. But what did you expect to have found among them Faith and love and holiness (whether in your own soul or not) you did find among them--at least, you ought to have found them; for there they are, which neither men nor devils can deny. What else did you expect to find Or why cannot you see your way clear to join them I will tell you why. You have at least five strong reasons to the contrary: (1) a wife; (2) a mother; (3) children; (4) cowardice; (5) love of ease. But are these reasons good in the sight of God I will not affirm that.

5. However, the Brethren are good men, and I dare not oppose them. 'If they are not the only people of God (which they cannot be if the Scriptures are true), they are not good men; they are very wicked men. They are as a body deceiving and being deceived; they are liars, proud, boasters, despisers of those that are good, slaves to an ungodly man, and continually labouring to enslave others to him. O take warning at last! Have no commerce with them! Come not near the tents of these wicked men, whose words are smoother than oil, and yet they are very swords! I dare not but oppose them; for in many places they have wellnigh destroyed the work of God. Many souls, once full of faith and love, they have caused to draw back to perdition. Many they have driven into the deep and then trampled over them. Beware it be not so with you. You have greatly resisted the Spirit in this matter! Remember Richard Viney--a pillar of salt; not because he came out of Sodom, but because he looked back!--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother and servant.

To his Wife COLCHESTER, October 27, 1758.

MY DEAR LOVE,--I had a pleasant ride to Ingatstone in the coach. I then took horse and came to Maldon by dinnertime. [See Journal, iv. 289.] Between ten and eleven this morning we set out from Maldon, and in three hours found honest Brother Arvin here. If I find no particular reason to alter my design, I purpose going on toward Norwich on Monday.

You obliged me on Tuesday afternoon by inviting my sister Hall [The 24th, the day before he left London] to drink tea with you; and likewise by leaving Betty Duchesne 3 with me till she had said what she had to say. My dear, this is the way (as I have often told you) to secure a person's affections. Let all his ways be unconfined, And clap your padlock on his ['her' in Prior's English Padlock.] mind. Believe me, there is no other way: leave every one to his own conscience. For why am I judged, says St. Paul, of another's conscience Every one must give an account of himself to God. And even if a man acts contrary to good conscience, can you reclaim him by violent methods Vain thought! By force beasts act, and are by force restrained: The human mind by gentle means is gained. Either by gentle means or by none at all. Or if there be an exception, if a rod be for a fool's back, the wife is not the person who is to use it towards her husband.

If it please God to bring me safe to Norwich, I hope to have a letter from you there. Peace be with your spirit.--I am

Your affectionate Husband. To Mrs. Wesley, at the Foundery, London.

To Thomas COLCHESTER, October 28, 1758. DEAR TOMMY,--I hope you will set out for Wednesbury on Monday. But from thence I would not have . .

To Mr. Potter, Vicar of Reymerston [8]

NORWICH, November 4, 1758. REVEREND SIR,--1. Till to-day I had not a sight of your sermon on the Pretended Inspiration of the Methodists. Otherwise I should have taken the liberty some days sooner of sending you a few lines. That sermon, indeed, only repeats what has been often said before, and as often answered. But as it is said again, I believe it is my duty to answer it again. Not that I have any acquaintance with Mr. Cayley [Cornelius Cayley (1729-80), born in Hull; clerk in treasury of Prince of Wales; published his autobiography in 1758. He was a friend of James Hervey, and a preacher. He wrote an answer to Potter's sermon.] or Osborn: I never exchanged a word with either. However, as you lump me and them together, I am constrained to speak for myself, and once more to give a reason of my hope that I am clear from the charge you bring against me.

2. There are several assertions in your sermon which need not be allowed; but they are not worth disputing. At present, therefore, I shall only speak of two things: (1) your account of the new birth; and (2) 'the pretended inspiration' (as you are pleased to term it) 'of the Methodists.'

3. Of the new birth you say: 'The terms of being regenerated, of being born again, of being born of God are often used to express the works of gospel righteousness' (pages 10-11). I cannot allow this. I know not that they are ever used in Scripture to express any outward work at all. They always express an inward work of the Spirit, whereof baptism is the outward sign. You add: 'Their primary, peculiar, and precise meaning signifies' (a little impropriety of expression) 'our redemption from death and restoration to eternal life through the grace of God' (page 13). It does not, unless by death you mean sin, and by eternal life holiness. The precise meaning of the term is 'a new birth unto righteousness,' an inward change from unholy to holy tempers. You go on: 'This grace our Lord here calls " entering into the kingdom of God."' If so, His assertion is, 'Except a man be born again, he cannot' be born again. Not so. What He says is, Except a man experience this change, he cannot enter into My kingdom.

4. You proceed: 'Our holy Church doth teach us that . . . by the laver of regeneration in baptism we are received into the number of the children of God.... This is the first part of the new birth.' What is the first part of the new birth baptism It is the outward sign of that inward and spiritual grace; but no part of it at all. It is impossible it should be. The outward sign is no more a part of the inward grace than the body is a part of the soul. Or do you mean that regeneration is a part of the new birth Nay, this is the whole of it. Or is it the 'laver of regeneration' which is the first part of it That cannot be; for you suppose this to be the same with baptism.

5. 'The second part, the inward and spiritual grace, is a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness.' What! is the new birth the second part of the new birth I apprehend it is the first and second part too; and surely nothing could have prevented your seeing this but the ardour of your spirit and the impetuosity with which you rush along and trample down all before you. Your manner of writing reminds me of an honest Quaker in Cornwall, whose words I would recommend to your consideration. Being consulted by one of the Friends whether he should publish a tract which he had read to many in private, he replied, 'What! art thou not content with laying John Wesley on his back, but thou must tread his guts out too' [See letter of Sept. 15, 1762, to Samuel Furly.]

6. So much for your account of the new birth. I am, in the second place, to consider the account you give of 'the pretended inspiration' (so you are pleased to term it) 'of the Methodists.'

'The Holy Ghost sat on the Apostles with cloven tongues as of fire; . . . and signs and wonders were done by their hands' (pages 16-18). Wonders indeed! For they healed the sick by a word, a touch, a shadow! They spake the dead alive and living dead.

'But though these extraordinary operations of the Spirit have been long since withdrawn, yet the pretension to them still subsists in the confident claim of the Methodists.' This you boldly affirm, and I flatly deny. I deny that either I or any in connexion with me (for others, whether called Methodists or anything else, I am no more concerned to answer than you are) do now, or ever did, lay any claim to 'these extraordinary operations of the Spirit.'

7. But you will prove it. They 'confidently and presumptuously claim a particular and immediate inspiration' (ibid.).

I answer, first: So do you, and in this very sermon, though you call it by another name. By inspiration we mean that inward assistance of the Holy Ghost which 'helps our infirmities, enlightens our understanding, rectifies our will, comforts, purifies, and sanctifies us' (page 14). Now, all this you claim as well as I; for these are your own words. 'Nay, but you claim a particular inspiration.' So do you: do not you expect Him to sanctify you in particular 'Yes; but I look for no immediate inspiration.' You do; you expect He will immediately and directly help your infirmities. Sometimes, it is true, He does this by the mediation or intervention of other men; but at other times, particularly in private prayer, He gives that help directly from Himself. 'But is this all you mean by particular, immediate inspiration' It is; and so I have declared a thousand times in private, in public, by every method I could devise. It is pity, therefore, that any should still undertake to give an account of my sentiments without either hearing or reading what I say. Is this doing as we would be done to

8. I answer, secondly: There is no analogy between claiming this inspiration of the Spirit, who, you allow, 'assists, and will assist, all true believers to the end of the world' (page 18), and claiming those extraordinary operations of the Spirit which were vouchsafed to the Apostles. The former both you and I pretend to--yea, and enjoy, or we are not believers. The latter you do not pretend to; nor do I, nor any that are in connexion with me.

9. 'But you do pretend to them. For you pray that " signs and wonders may still be wrought in the name of Jesus."' True; but what signs and wonders The conversion of sinners; the 'healing the broken in heart; the turning men from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto God.' These, and these only, are the signs and wonders which were mentioned in that prayer. And, did I not see these signs and wonders still wrought, I would sooner hew wood or draw water than preach the gospel. For those are to me very awful words which our Lord speaks of prophets or teachers: 'Ye shall know them' (whether they are true or false prophets) 'by their fruits. Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire.' What fruit you have brought forth at Reymerston I know not; God knoweth.

10. 'Your followers, however, do pretend to the grace of a miraculous conversion.' Is there any conversion that is not miraculous Is conversion a natural or supernatural work I suppose all who allow there is any such thing believe it to be supernatural. And what is the difference between a supernatural and a miraculous work I am yet to learn.

'But they say that at such a time and in such a manner the divine illumination shone upon them, Jesus knocked at the door of their hearts, and the Holy Ghost descended upon their souls'--that is, in plain terms, raillery apart, at a particular time, which they cannot easily forget, God did, in so eminent a manner as they never experienced before, 'enlighten their understanding' (they are your own words), 'comfort and purify their hearts, and give His heavenly Spirit to dwell in them.' But what has all this to do with those extraordinary operations of the Holy Spirit

11. 'Under these pretended impressions their next advance is to a call to preach the word themselves; and forth they issue, as under the immediate inspiration of God's Spirit, with the language of apostles and zeal of martyrs, to publish the gospel as if they were among our remotest ancestors, strangers to the name of Christ' (pages 20-1).

The plain truth is this: one in five hundred of those whom God so enlightens and comforts, sooner or later believes it to be his duty to call other sinners to repentance. Such an one commonly stifles this conviction till he is so uneasy he can stifle it no longer. He then consults one or more of those whom he believes to be competent judges, and under the direction of these goes on step by step from a narrower to a larger sphere of action. Meantime he endeavours to use only 'the language of the apostles,' to speak the things of the Spirit in the words of the Spirit. And he longs and prays for 'the zeal of martyrs,' continually finding the need thereof, seeing our present countrymen are as great strangers to the mind that was in Christ as our ancestors were to His name.

12. 'But the Holy Spirit no longer comes from heaven like a rushing mighty wind. It no longer appears in cloven tongues as of fire.' I wonder who imagines it does. 'We now discern not between His suggestions and the motions of our own rational nature.' Many times we do not; but at other times God may give such peace or joy and such love to Himself and all mankind as we are sure are not 'the motions of our own nature.' 'To say, then, that the Holy Spirit began His work at such a time, and continued it so long in such a manner, is as vain as to account for the blowing of the wind.' Hold! accounting for is not the thing. To make a parallel it must be, 'is as vain as to say that the wind began to blow at such a time and continued so long in such a manner.' And where is the vanity of this Why may I not say, either that the wind began to blow at such a time and blew so long in such a manner, or that God began at such a time to comfort my soul, that He continued that consolation so long and in such a manner, by giving me either peace and joy in believing or a lively hope of the glory of God

13. 'Not that we are without a memorable instance of this instantaneous impulse in the sudden conversion of St. Paul' (page 23). A poor instance this; for it does not appear that his was a sudden conversion. It is true 'a great light suddenly shone round about him'; but this light did not convert him. After he had seen this, 'he was three days without sight and neither did eat nor drink.' And probably during the whole time God was gradually working in his heart, till he 'arose, and, being baptized, washed away his sins, and was filled with the Holy Ghost.'

14. But to return. 'Their teachers claim a particular and immediate inspiration in their nauseous effusions' (page 22). Certainly they claim either a particular and immediate inspiration (as above explained) or none at all. But this is no other inspiration (call it influence if you please, though it is a far stronger term) than every one must have before he can either understand or preach or live the gospel. 'But there is not in Scripture the least promise or encouragement to expect any particular inspiration.' Yes, surely such an inspiration as this: you have allowed it over and over. And what external evidence of this would you have I will believe you are thus inspired, if you convert sinners to God, and if you yourself are 'holy in all manner of conversation.'

15. Is there 'no need of this inspiration now, because the prejudices of mankind are in favour of the gospel and the profession of it is under the protection and encouragement of the civil power' 'The prejudices of mankind are in favour of the gospel'! What! the prejudices of the bulk of mankind To go no farther than England: are the bulk of our nation prejudiced in favour of the genuine gospel, of the holiness which it enjoins, of chastity and temperance, of denying ourselves and taking up our cross daily, of dying to the world and devoting all our heart and all our life to God Are they prejudiced in favour of presenting our souls and bodies a constant, holy sacrifice to God What less than this is gospel holiness And are the prejudices of mankind in favour of this

16. Likewise, how far this real Christianity is 'under the protection and encouragement of the civil power' I know not. But I know 'all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution'--domestic persecution, if no other; for 'the foes of' such 'a man shall be they of his own household. There shall be,' and there are now, 'five in one house, three against two, and two against three'; and that not for being Methodists, for having a nickname (although that may be the presence, for want of a better; for who scruples to throw a man into the ditch and then beat him because his clothes are dirty), but for living godly, for loving and serving God, according to the best light they have. And certainly these need the assistance of God's Spirit to strengthen and comfort them, that they may suffer all things rather than turn aside in any point from the gospel way.

17. 'But the Scriptures are a complete and a sufficient rule. Therefore to what purpose could any farther inspiration serve All farther inspiration is unnecessary; the supposed need of it is highly injurious to the written Word. And the pretension thereto (which must be either to explain or to supply it) is a wicked presumption, with which Satan hath filled their hearts to lie of the Holy Ghost.' (Pages 22-8.) High-sounding words! But, blessed be God, they are only brutum fulmen; they make much noise, but do not wound. 'To what purpose could any farther inspiration serve' Answer yourself: 'To enlighten the understanding and to rectify the will.' Else, be the Scriptures ever so complete, they will not save your soul. How, then, can you imagine it is unnecessary, and that 'the supposed need of it is injurious to the written Word' And when you say yourself, 'The Spirit is to teach us all things and to guide us into all truth,' judge you whether this is 'to explain or to supply the written Word.' 'Oh, He does this by the written Word.' True; but also 'by His holy inspiration.' So the compilers of our Liturgy speak; who therefore, according to you, are guilty of 'wicked presumption, with which Satan filled their hearts to lie of the Holy Ghost.'

18. These also are the men upon whom you fall in the following warm words: 'The power of enthusiasm over an heated imagination may be very great. But it must be under the ferment of that old, sour leaven, hypocrisy, to rise to that daring height.' I think not: I think they were neither hypocrites nor enthusiasts, though they teach me to pray for, and consequently to expect (unless I am an hypocrite indeed), 'God's holy inspiration,' both in order to 'think the things that be good,' and also 'perfectly to love Him and worthily to magnify His holy name.'

19. You go on: 'They boast that their heart is clean and their spirit right within them.' Sir, did you ever read Morning Prayer on the tenth day of the month You then said, 'Make me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.' Did you mean what you said If you did not, you was guilty of the grossest hypocrisy. If you did, when did you expect God would answer that prayer When your body was in the grave Too late! Unless we have clean hearts before we die, it had been good we had never been born.

20. 'But they boast they are pure from sin, harmless, and undefiled.' So in a sound sense is every true believer. 'Nay, they boast that their bodies are a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God.' Sir, is not yours Are not your soul and body such a sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God As the Lord God liveth, before whom we stand, if they are not, you are not a Christian. If you are not an holy, living sacrifice, you are still 'dead in trespasses and sins'; you are an 'alien from the commonwealth of Israel, without' Christian 'hope, without God in the world'!

21. You add: 'Thus have I exposed their boasted claim to a particular and immediate inspiration' (page 30). No, sir, you have only exposed yourself; for all that we claim you allow. 'I have shown what a miserable farce is carrying on beneath the mask of a more refined holiness.' No tittle of this have you shown yet; and before you attempt again to show anything concerning us, let me entreat you, sir, to acquaint yourself better with our real sentiments. Perhaps you may then find that there is not so wide a difference as you imagined between you and, reverend sir, Your servant for Christ's sake.

To Mrs. Ryan NORWICH, November 4, 1758. . . . Yesterday I transcribed Charles Perronet's questions, with a little alteration. A few of them I will put to you, which I know you will answer with all plainness. (The first four questions.)

As to myself, I am still cold and faint, though (as I told you) a little revived since I wrote freely. Pray that God may at length lift up the hands that hang down and the feeble knees!

[9]

REVEREND SIR,--I will answer your questions with plainness and uprightness of heart. God did testify that He had saved me from all sin. By this shall I know it right to write to you, by your being free and trusting me as before.

To Sarah Moore [10]

LONDON, November 22, 1758. MY DEAR SISTER,--Praise God for what He hath already done. Let those give thanks whom the Lord hath redeemed and delivered from the hand of the enemy [This refers apparently to the sudden death of a young man at Totley, who had pulled 'the preacher from his stand' and offered other acts of violence. 'The wicked themselves viewed it as a judgement.' See Everett's Methodism in Sheffield, pp. 80, 126.]; but you know a greater deliverance is at hand. What have you to do but to fight your way through the world, the flesh, and the devil It is a good though a painful fight. Unless you yield, you cannot but conquer. It is true you will first conquer by little and little. For More of this life and more we have

As the old Adam dies. But there is also an instantaneous conquest: in a moment sin shall be no more. You are gradually dying for a long time. But you will die in a moment. O hasten to that happy time! Pray, strive, hope for it!--I am Your affectionate brother.

To James Hervey [11]

LONDON, November 29 1758. DEAR SIR,--A week or two ago, in my return from Norwich, [He left Norwich on Nov. 6.] I met with Mr. Pierce of Bury, who informed me of a conversation which he had had a few days before. Mr. Cudworth, he said, then told him that he had prevailed on Mr. Hervey to write against me, who likewise, in what he had written, referred to the book which he (Mr. Cudworth) had lately published.

Every one is welcome to write what he pleases concerning me. But would it not be well for you to remember that, before I published anything concerning you, I sent it to you in a private letter; that I waited for an answer for several months, but was not favoured with one line; that when at length I published part of what I had sent you, I did it in the most inoffensive manner possible--in the latter end of a larger work, purely designed to preserve those in connexion with me from being tossed to and fro by various doctrines [A Preservative against Unsettled Notions in Religion. See Green's Bibliography, No. 191.] What, therefore, I may fairly expect from my friend is to mete to me with the same measure; to send to me first in a private manner any complaint he has against me; to wait as many months as I did; and if I give you none or no satisfactory answer, then to lay the matter before the world, if you judge it will be to the glory of God.

But, whatever you do in this respect, one thing I request of you: give no countenance to that insolent, scurrilous, virulent libel which bears the name of William Cudworth. Indeed, how you can converse with a man of his spirit I cannot comprehend. O leave not your old, well-tried friends! The new is not comparable to them. I speak not this because I am afraid of what any one can say or do to me. But I am really concerned for you: an evil man has gained the ascendant over you, and has persuaded a dying man, who had shunned it all his life, to enter into controversy as he is stepping into eternity! Put off your armour, my brother! You and I have no moments to spare: let us employ them all in promoting peace and goodwill among men. And may the peace of God keep your heart and mind in Christ Jesus! So prays Your affectionate brother and servant.

To Augustus Montague Toplady [12]

LONDON, December 9, 1758. DEAR SIR,--I verily believe no single person since Mahomet has given such a wound to Christianity as Dr. Taylor. They are his books, chiefly that upon Original Sin, which have poisoned so many of the clergy, and indeed the fountains themselves--the Universities in England, Scotland, Holland, and Germany.

If you do not immediately see the fruit of your labour in conversing with this or that person, still there is no reason to think it lost. The wind bloweth when as well as where it listeth. We know, the help that is done, God doth it Himself. And it is fit He should do it in His own time as well as manner.

If you continue to walk humbly and simply with God, there is no need the darkness should ever return. God is willing to give the love, the joy, the peace always which He gives once. Only, hear His voice, and follow it with all diligence. Do whatever He calls you to, be it ever so grievous to flesh and blood, and shun whatever you find lessens your communion with Him.

Nothing but almighty grace can amend that child. She had a taste of it once; and she may again. It would be well to put her in the way of it as frequently as may be.

I have not had my health so well for many years. How many are the mercies of God! We want only thankful hearts.

Have you had yet any thoughts as to your future life in what way you might most glorify God--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant.

To Mr. Toplady, In Trinity College, Dublin.

To Mr. --- LONDON, December 9, 1758. MY DEAR BROTHER,--From time to time I have had more trouble with the Society at Leeds than with all the other Societies in Yorkshire. And now I hear that the leaders insist that such and such persons be put out of the Society! I desire the leaders may know their place, and not stretch themselves beyond their line. Pray let me judge who should be put out of a Methodist Society and who not. I desire Faith and Ann Hardwick may not be put out of the Society, unless some fresh matter appear against them; and if any new matter does appear, let it be laid before me. He shall have judgement without mercy who hath shown no mercy.--I am Your affectionate brother.

To his Wife NORWICH, December 23, 1758. DEAR MOLLY,--I was much concerned, the night before I left London, [He left London on Dec. 18. See letters of Jan. 27, 1758, and March 2, 1759.] at your unkind and unjust accusation. You accused me of unkindness, cruelty, and what not. And why so Because I insist on choosing my own company! because I insist upon conversing, by speaking or writing, with those whom I (not you) judge proper! For more than seven years this has been a bone of contention between you and me. And it is so still. For I will not, I cannot, I dare not give it up. 'But then you will rage and fret and call me names.' I am sorry for it. But I cannot help it. I still do and must insist that I have a right to choose my own company. Then 'you will denounce against me all the curses from Genesis to the Revelation.' You may so. But you gain no ground hereby; for still I cannot give up my right. Nay, but 'you will say all manner of evil of me.' Be it so; but still I stand just where I was. Then 'you will show my private letters to all the world.' If you do, I must assert my right still. All this will not extort it from me; nor anything else which you can do. You may therefore as well allow it now as after we have squabbled about it (if we live so long) seven years longer. For it is my right by all the laws of God and man, and a right which I never can part with. O do not continue to trouble yourself and me and to disturb the children of God by still grasping at a power which must be denied you by him who is nevertheless Your truly affectionate Husband.

To Dorothy Furly COLCHESTER, December 28, 1758. MY DEAR SISTER,--I thought it long since I heard from you; but I imputed it to your illness. And I did not desire you should do anything which would put you to pain or increase your bodily weakness.

When you seemed confident of receiving the promise in a few days, I did not judge it needful to say anything to the contrary; both because I was persuaded that expectation would be a quickening to your soul, and because I knew you had one near you who was able to advise you in any emergency. See that your desires do not cool, and you shall not be ashamed of this confident expectation. So long as it is tempered with resignation it can do you no disservice. And what else is there worthy of a desire Health you shall have if health be best, even bodily health. But what is that in comparison of an healthful mind And this you are sure to have.

I scruple Sarah Ryan's drinking tar-water because it is so extremely nauseous. Neither will it profit if it occasion costiveness, unless stewed prunes be taken every second or third night instead of it. I rather wish she would resume the medicine I formerly prescribed, only taking care not to catch cold with it. Perhaps in a few days [He got to Bristol on Jan. 2.] you may see

Your affectionate brother.

1998 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.