Wesley Center Online
The Letters of John Wesley
1761
To the Editor of the 'London Chronicle'
January 2, 1761,
SIR, --Of all the seats of woe on this side hell few, I suppose, exceed or even equal Newgate. If any region of horror could exceed it a few years ago, Newgate in Bristol did; so great was the filth, the stench, the misery, and wickedness which shocked all who had a spark of humanity left. How was I surprised, then, when I was there a few weeks ago! (1) Every part of it, above stairs and below, even the pit wherein the felons are confined at night, is as clean and sweet as a gentleman's house; it being now a rule that every prisoner wash and clean his apartment throughly twice a week. (2) Here is no fighting or brawling. If any thinks himself ill-used, the cause is immediately referred to the Keeper, who hears the contending parties face to face and decides the affair at once. (3) The usual grounds of quarrelling are removed; for it is very rarely that any one cheats or wrongs another, as being sure, if anything of this kind is discovered, to be committed to a closer confinement. (4) Here is no drunkenness suffered, however advantageous it might be to the Keeper as well as the tapster. (5) Nor any whoredom, the women prisoners being narrowly observed and kept separate from the men; nor is any woman of the town now admitted --no, not at any price. (6) All possible care is taken to prevent idleness: those who are willing to work at their callings are provided with tools and materials, partly by the Keeper, who gives them credit at a very moderate profit; partly by the alms occasionally given, which are divided with the utmost prudence and impartiality. Accordingly at this time, among others, a shoemaker, a tailor, a brazier, and a coachmaker are working at their several trades. (7) Only on the Lord's Day they neither work nor play, but dress themselves as clean as they can, to attend the public service in the chapel, at which every person under the roof is present. None is excused unless sick; in which case he is provided gratis both with advice and medicines. (8) And, in order to assist them in things of the greatest concern (besides a sermon every Sunday and Thursday), they have a large Bible chained on one side of the chapel, which any of the prisoners may read. By the blessing of God on these regulations the prison now has a new face: nothing offends either the eye or ear; and the whole has the appearance of a quiet, serious family. And does not the Keeper [Samuel Johnson, in his Lives of the Poets, says that Abel Dagge, the keeper, treated savage with the utmost tenderness and civility, when confined in Newgate jail, Bristol, for debt. Dagge was one of the firstfruits of Whitefield's ministry in Bristol prison in 1737, and adorned his profession. see Journal, ii. 173; Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon, ii. 356-7; and letter of May 7, 1739.] of Newgate deserve to be remembered full as well as the Man of Ross? May the Lord remember him in that day! Meantime will not one follow his example? --I am, sir,
Your humble servant.
To the Author of the 'Westminster Journal' [The New Weekly Miscellany, or Westminster Journal.] [1]
LONDON, January 7, 1761.
SIR, --I hope you are a person of impartiality; if so, you will not insert what is urged on one side of a question only, but likewise what is offered on the other.
Your correspondent is doubtless a man of sense, and he seems to write in a good humour; but he is extremely little acquainted with the persons of whom he undertakes to give an account.
There is 'gone abroad,' says he, 'an ungoverned spirit of enthusiasm, propagated by knaves and embraced by fools.' Suffer me now to address the gentleman himself. Sir, you may call me both a knave and a fool; but prove me either the one or the other if you can. 'Why, you are an enthusiast.' What do you mean by the term? A believer in Jesus Christ? An asserter of His equality with the Father and of the entire Christian revelation? Do you mean one who maintains the antiquated doctrines of the New Birth and Justification by Faith? Then I am an enthusiast. But if you mean anything else, either prove or retract the charge.
The enthusiasm which has lately gone abroad is faith which worketh by love. Does this 'endanger government itself'? Just the reverse. Fearing God, it honours the King. It teaches all men to be subject to the higher powers, not for wrath, but for conscience' sake.
But 'no power in England ought to be independent of the supreme power.' Most true; yet 'the Romanists own the authority of a Pope, independent of civil government.' They do, and thereby show their ignorance of the English Constitution. 'In Great Britain we have many popes, for so I must call all who have the souls and bodies of their followers devoted to them.' Call them so, and welcome. But this does not touch me; nor Mr. Whitefield, Jones, [Thomas Jones, M.A., of St. Saviour's, Southwark, died of fever on June 6, 1762, in his thirty-third year. He set up a weekly lecture in his church: but before long this was stopped by his enemies. See letter to Wesley in Arminian Mag. 1780, p. 165; Tyerman's Wesley, ii. 324-5.] or Romaine; nor any whom I am acquainted with. None of us have our followers --thus devoted to us. Those who follow the advice we constantly give are devoted to God, not man. But 'the Methodist proclaims he can bring into the field twenty-five thousand men.' What Methodist? Where and when? Prove this fact, and I will allow you I am a Turk.
(1) 'But it is said they are all good subjects. Perhaps they are; because under a Protestant Government they have all the indulgence they can wish for.' And do you seriously wish for a Popish Government to abridge them of that indulgence? 'But has not a bad use been made of this? Has not the decency of religion been perverted?' Not in the least: the decency of religion is never so well advanced as by advancing inward and outward religion together. (2) 'Have not the minds of the vulgar been darkened to a total neglect of their civil and social duties?' Just the contrary. Thousands in London as well as elsewhere have been enlightened to understand and prevailed on to practice those duties as they never did before. (3) 'Has not the peace of many families been ruined?' The lost peace of many families has been restored. In others a furious opposition to true religion has occasioned division, as our Lord foretold it would. (4) 'Have not the circumstances of many industrious tradesmen been hurt?' I believe not. I know no instance; but I know an hundred tradesmen in London who began to be industrious since they began to fear God, and their circumstances, low enough till then, are now easy and affluent.
I am almost ashamed to spend time upon these threadbare objections, which have been answered over and over. But if they are advanced again, they must be answered again, lest silence should pass for guilt.
'But how can the Government distinguish between tenderness of conscience and schemes of interest?' Nothing more easy. 'They may withdraw the licenses of such.' Sir, you have forgot the question. Before they withdraw them they are to distinguish whether they are such or no. And how are they to do this? 'Oh, it is very easy'! So you leave them as wise as they were before.
But 'the Methodist who pretends to be of the Church of England in forms of worship and differs from her in point of doctrine is not, let his presences be what they will, a member of that Church.' Alas, sir! your friends will not thank you for this. You have broke their heads sadly. Is no man of the Church, let him pretend what he will, who differs from her in point of doctrine? Au! obsecro; cave dixeris! [Terence's Eunuchus, IV. iii. 14: 'Stop, I beseech you; beware what you say.'] I know not but you may stumble upon scandalum magnatum. [Terence's Adelphi, 111. iv. 12: 'Libel against persons of exalted rank.'] But stay; you will bring them off quickly. 'A truly good man may scruple signing and swearing to Articles that his mind and reason cannot approve of.' But is he a truly good man who does not scruple signing and swearing to Articles which he cannot approve of? However, this does not affect us, for we do not differ from our Church in point of doctrine. But all do who deny justification by faith; therefore, according to you, they are no members of the Church of England.
'Methodists preachers', you allow, 'practice, sign, and swear whatever is required by law' --a very large concession; 'but the reserves they have are incommunicable and unintelligible.' Favour us, sir, with a little proof of this; till then I must plead, Not guilty. In whatever I sign or swear to I have no reserve at all. And I have again and again communicated my thoughts on most heads to all mankind; I believe intelligibly, particularly in the Appeals to Men of Reason and Religion.
But 'if Methodism, as its professors pretend, be a new discovery in religion' This is a grievous mistake; we pretend no such thing. We aver it is the one old religion; as old as the Reformation, as old as Christianity, as old as Moses, as old as Adam.
'They ought to discover the whole ingredients of which their nostrum is composed; and have it enrolled in the public register, to be perused by all the world.' It is done. The whole ingredients of Methodism (so called) have been discovered in print over and over; and they are enrolled in a public register, the Bible, from which we extracted them at first. 'Else they ought not to be tolerated.' We allow it, and desire toleration on no other terms. 'Nor should they be suffered to add or alter one grain different from what is so registered.' Most certainly. We ought neither to add or diminish, nor alter whatever is written in that Book.
I wish, sir, before you write concerning the Methodists again, you would candidly read some of their writings. Common report is not a sure rule of judging; I should be unwilling to judge of you thereby.
To sum up the matter. The whole ingredients of our religion are love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, temperance. Against these, I think, there is no law; and, therefore, I still apprehend they may be tolerated --at least, in a Christian country. --I am, sir,
Your sincere well-wisher.
To Dorothy Furly
NORWICH, January 18, 1761.
MY DEAR SISTER, --I have sometimes wondered that not one of all the clergymen we have known should ever cleave to me for God's sake, nor one man of learning, which would ease me exceedingly. Tommy Walsh designed it;
But death had quicker wings than love.
Perhaps it was not best, because I am so immeasurably apt to pour out all my soul into any that loves me.
It is well for Sister Clarke [Mary Clarke had a small house in Christopher Alley, Moorfields, where Sarah Ryan and Sarah Crosby boarded with her, and where Miss Bosanquet stayed as a girl. See Tyerman's Wesley, ii. 286.] that she is landed safe. And it is well for us, who are still amidst the waves, that He is with us whom the winds and the seas obey. He is steering you to the haven where you would be. You may well trust your soul with Him and let him do with you as seemeth Him good.
Certainly nothing can be of greater importance than the behaviour both of those who are renewed and of those who are known to be pressing after it. You have need to weigh every step you take. When and where do you meet now? and who are they that meet? Pray send the enclosed to your neighbour; and let all of you love and pray for
Your affectionate brother.
To Mrs. Crosby [2]
LONDON, February 14, 1761.
MY DEAR SISTER, --Miss Bosanquet gave me yours on Wednesday night. Hitherto, I think you have not gone too far. You could not well do less. I apprehend all you can do more is, when you meet again, to tell them simply, 'You lay me under a great difficulty. The Methodists do not allow of women preachers; neither do I take upon me any such character. But I will just nakedly tell you what is in my heart.' This will in a great measure obviate the grand objection and prepare for J. Hampson's coming. I do not see that you have broken any law. Go on calmly and steadily. If you have time, you may read to them the Notes on any chapter before you speak a few words, or one of the most awakening sermons, as other women have done long ago.
The work of God goes on mightily here both in conviction and conversion. This morning I have spoken with four or five who seem to have been set at liberty within this month. I believe within five weeks six in one class have received remission of sins and five in one band received a second blessing. [Wesley had been visiting the classes in London during the week.] Peace be with you all! --I am Your affectionate brother.
To the Editor of the 'London Magazine'
To Mr. G. R., alias R. A., alias M. K., alias R. W.
LONDON, February 17, 1761.
DEAR SIR, --As you are stout, be merciful; or I shall never be able to stand it. Four attacks in one month! and pushed so home! Well, I must defend myself as I can.
Indeed, your first attack under the character of G. R. is not very desperate. You first give a short history of Montanism, and innocently say: 'It would fill a volume to draw a parallel between Montanism and Methodism.' According as it was drawn; but if it contained nothing but truth, it would not fill a nutshell. You add: 'Such a crude composition is this Methodism, that there is scarce any one pestilent heresy that has infested the Church but what is an actual part of their doctrine.' This is easily said: but, till you can prove it, it will pass for nothing.
In your second letter you say: 'The present troublers of our Israel are that heterogeneous mass, the Methodists.' 'Heterogeneous'! an hard word, a very hard word! Pray, sir, what is the meaning of it? 'They are avowed enemies to the doctrine and discipline of the Church.' Surely not avowed enemies (if they are secret ones, which no man can prove): they flatly disavow any such thing. 'Have faithfully copied the worst of men in the worst of times.' This means nothing; it is mere garniture of the dish. 'If such men's enthusiastical notions be the true doctrine of Jesus Christ, better would it be to be a Jew, a Turk, an infidel, than a Christian.' This proves nothing but what was pretty plain before --namely, that you are very angry. 'Notions repugnant to common sense and to the first principles of truth and equity.' My fundamental notions are that true religion is love, the love of God and our neighbour; the doing all things to the glory of God, and doing to all men as we would be done to. Are these notions repugnant to common sense or to the first principles of truth and equity? 'What punishment do they deserve?' they who walk by this rule? By nature they deserve hell; but by the grace of God, if they endure to the end, they will receive eternal life.
In your third letter you say: 'None of the principles of the Methodists have a more fatal tendency than the doctrine of Assurance.' I allow it; and it is past your skill to prove that this has any fatal tendency at all, unless as you wonderfully explain it in the following words: 'They insist that themselves are sure of salvation, but that all others are in a damnable state!' Who do? Not I, nor any that I know but Papists. Therefore all that you add to disprove this, which no one affirms, is but beating the air, 'But St. Paul commands us to pass the time of our sojourning here in fear.' Indeed, he does not; your memory fails: but St. Peter does, and that is as well.
Your fourth (for want of a better) is to serve for a reply to my answer. In this you stoutly say: 'Sir, your performance is frivolous and fallacious.' Very well; but others must judge of that. 'Shocks, sir, or violent operations of the Spirit are too fully evidenced by your trances, ecstasies, and I know not what.' I assure you, neither do I; but if you please to tell me, when you do know a little of the matter, I will give you what satisfaction I can. 'These appear in the practices of your followers, and as such must destroy free agency.' Nay, sir, you are now too severe, especially in that keen 'as such.' 'As you then assert such practices, you are (excuse the harshness of the expression) an enemy to religion and a deceiver of the people.' Sir, I do excuse you. I am pretty well used to such expressions: if they hurt not you, they hurt not me. 'Until you publish in plain, intelligible words your scheme of principles, it is impossible to say what you are.' I have done it ten times over, particularly in The Principles of a Methodist, the Appeals to Men of Reason and Religion, and (what I am not without hope might be intelligible even to you) Instructions for Children. 'I must be plain with you: you seem, sir, to have as much knowledge of the Scriptures as a Mahometan.' Sir, I thank you; and I presume you do not expect any other answer to this. 'That you are an enthusiast, a very great enthusiast, not I, let your own Journals demonstrably prove.' Nay, why not you? I fear my Journals will not give such proof as will satisfy any impartial person. 'As to dogmas, I do not know that it is good English: I know it is false dog-Latin.' Now, I really thought it was neither Latin nor English: I took it to be mere heathen Greek.
Whenever you please to favour the public with your name and place of abode, you may perhaps (if I have leisure) hear farther from
Your humble servant and well-wisher.
To the Editor of the 'London Chronicle' [3]
LONDON, February 19, 1761.
SIR, --Is it not surprising that every person of understanding does not discern -- at the very first view that the tract entitled A Caveat against the Methodists is in reality a Caveat against
the Protestants? Do not the arguments conclude (if they conclude at all), not against the Methodists only, but against the whole body of Protestants? The names, indeed, of Mr. Whitefield and Mr. Wesley are used; but this is mere finesse! Greater men are designed, and all along are wounded through our sides.
I was long in hopes of seeing an answer to this artful performance from someone of more leisure as well as abilities, and some whose name would have recommended his work. For that thought has something of truth in it, --
Oh what a tuneful wonder seized the throng
When Marlbro's conquering name alarmed the foe!
Had Whiznowisky [Duke Michael Wisnowiski, son of a famous general, was a weak man elected king in 1668 by the Poles, and was a mere puppet in their hands: 'infirm in body and weak in mind, without influence, because without courage and riches,' 'an object of somewhat contemptuous homage.' He died in 1674. See W.H.S. vii. 115-16.] 1ed the armies on, The General's scarecrow name had foiled each blow.
However, who knows but reason for once may be stronger than prejudice? And many may forget my scarecrow name, and mind not who speaks but what is spoken. I am pleading now not for Methodists only, but for the whole body of Protestants; first for the Church of England, then for the Protestants of every denomination: in doing which I shall first give the substance of each section of the Romish tract; secondly an answer, and retort it upon the members of the Church of Rome. Oh that this may incite some more skilful advocate to supply my lack of service!
SECTION I
'The Methodists' (Protestants) 'are not the people of God; they are not true gospel Christians; nor is their new raised Society the true Church of Christ, nor any part of it' (page 3).
'This is demonstrated by the Word of God marking out the people of God, the true Church of Christ, by such characters as cannot agree to the Methodists or any other new-raised sect or community' (ibid.).
'The Old Testament is full of prophecies relating to the Church; and the New Testament makes glorious promises to it, and gives glorious characters of it' (page 4).
'Now, all those prophecies, promises, and characters point out a society founded by Christ Himself, and by His commission propagated throughout the world, which should flourish till time should end, ever one, ever holy, ever orthodox; secured against error by the perpetual presence of Christ; ever directed by the Spirit of Truth; having a perpetual succession of pastors and teachers divinely appointed and divinely assisted. But no part of this character is applicable to any new-raised sect, who have no succession from or connexion with that one holy society; therefore no modern sect can be any part of the people of God.' (Page 5.)
I answer: It is true 'all these promises, prophecies, and characters point out a society founded by Christ Himself, and by His commission propagated throughout the world, which should flourish till time should end.' And such is the Catholic Church --that is, the whole body of men, endued with faith working by love, dispersed over the whole earth, in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America. And this Church is 'ever one.' In all ages and nations it is the one body of Christ. It is 'ever holy'; for no unholy man can possibly be a member of it. It is 'ever orthodox'; so is every holy man in all things necessary to salvation; 'secured against error' in things essential 'by the perpetual presence of Christ; and ever directed by the Spirit of Truth' in the truth that is after godliness. This Church has 'a perpetual succession of pastors and teachers divinely appointed and divinely assisted.' And there has never been wanting in the Reformed Churches such a succession of pastors and teachers, men both divinely appointed and divinely assisted; for they convert sinners to God --a work none can do unless God Himself doth appoint them thereto and assist them therein; therefore every part of this character is applicable to them. Their teachers are the proper successors of those who have delivered down through all generations the faith once delivered to the saints; and their members have true spiritual communion with the 'one holy' society of true believers. Consequently, although they are not the whole 'people of God,' yet are they an undeniable part of His people.
On the contrary, the Church of Rome in its present form was not 'founded by Christ Himself.' All the doctrines and practices wherein she differs from us were not instituted by Christ; they were unknown to the ancient Church of Christ; they are unscriptural, novel corruptions: neither is that Church 'propagated throughout the world.' Therefore, if either antiquity or universality be essential thereto, the Church of Rome cannot be 'the true Church of Christ.'
Nor is the Church of Rome one; it is not in unity with itself; it is to this day torn with numberless divisions. And it is impossible it should be 'the one Church,' unless a part can be the whole; seeing the Asiatic, the African, and the Muscovite Churches (to name no more) never were contained in it.
Neither is it holy. The generality of its members are no holier than Turks or heathens. You need not go far for proof of this. Look at the Romanists in London or Dublin. Are these the holy, the only holy Church? Just such holiness is in the bottomless pit.
Nor is it 'secured against error' either 'by Christ' or 'His Spirit': witness Pope against Pope, Council against Council, contradicting, anathematizing each other. The instances are too numerous to be recited.
Neither are the generality of her 'pastors and teachers' either 'divinely appointed' or 'divinely assisted.' If God had sent them, He would confirm the word of His messengers. But He does not; they convert no sinners to God; they convert many to their own opinion, but not to the knowledge or love of God. He that was a drunkard is a drunkard still; he that was filthy is filthy still: therefore neither are they 'assisted' by Him; so they and their flocks wallow in sin together. Consequently (whatever may be the case of some particular souls) it must be said, if your own marks be true, the Roman Catholics in general are not 'the people of God.'
It may be proper to add here the second section, which is all I had leisure to write, though it was not published till the following week
SECTION II
'The Methodist' (Protestant) 'teachers are not the true ministers of Christ; nor are they called or sent by Him' (page 6).
'This appears from what has been already demonstrated; for if the Protestants are not the true people of Christ, their ministers cannot be the true ministers of Christ' (ibid.).
Farther, 'The true ministers came down by succession from the Apostles; but the Protestant teachers do not: therefore they are not the true ministers of Christ' (ibid.).
'All power in the Church of Christ comes from Him; so that whoever without a commission from Him intrudes into the pastoral office is a thief and a robber. Now, the commission can be conveyed but two ways: either immediately from God Himself, as it was to the Apostles, or from men who have the authority handed down to them from the Apostles.
'But this commission has not been conveyed to Protestant preachers either of these ways. Not immediately from God Himself; for how do they prove it? By what miracles? Neither by men deriving authority from the Apostles through the channel of the Church. And they stand divided in communion from all Churches that have any pretensions to antiquity. Their doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone was anathematized at its first appearance by the undoubted heirs of the Apostles, the pastors of the apostolic Churches; consequently they are sent by no other but him who sent all the false prophets from the beginning.' (Pages 8-9.)
I answer, 'from what has been already demonstrated,' that nothing will follow; for you have demonstrated just nothing.
Now for your 'farther' proof. 'The true ministers came down by succession from the Apostles.' So do the Protestant ministers if the Romish do; the English in particular; as even one of yourselves, F. Courayer, [Peter F. Courayer (1681-1776), the Roman Catholic professor, wrote A Defence of the Validity of the English Ordinations in 1723; and had to take refuge in England in 1728, where he joined the English Church.] has irrefragably proved.
'All power in the Church of Christ comes from Him; either immediately from Himself, or from men who have the authority handed down to them from the Apostles. But this commission has not been conveyed to the Protestant preachers either of these ways: not immediately; for by what miracles do they prove it?' So said Cardinal Bellarmine long ago. Neither 'by men deriving authority from the Apostles.' Read F. Courayer, and know better. Neither are the Protestants 'divided from' any 'Churches' who have true 'pretensions to antiquity.' But 'their doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone was anathematized at its first appearance by the undoubted heirs of the Apostles, the pastors of the apostolic Church.' By the prelates at the Council of Trent it was; who thereby anathematized the Apostle Paul, to all intents and purposes. Here you throw off the mask; otherwise you might have passed for a Protestant a little longer. 'Consequently they are sent by no other but him who sent all the false prophets from the beginning.' Sir, we thank you. This is really a very modest assertion for the subject of a Protestant king.
But to turn the tables: I said, 'If the Romish bishops do.' For this I absolutely deny. I deny that the Romish bishops came down by uninterrupted succession from the Apostles. I never could see it proved; and I am persuaded I never shall. But unless this is proved, your own pastors on your principles are no pastors at all.
But farther: it is a doctrine of your Church that the intention of the administrator is essential to the validity of the sacraments which are administered by him. Now, are you assured of the intention of every priest from whom you have received the Host? If not, you do not know but what you received as the sacrament of the altar was no sacrament at all. Are you assured of the intention of the priest who baptized you? If not, perhaps you are not baptized at all. To come close to the point in hand: if you pass for a priest, are you assured of the intention of the bishop that ordained you? If not, you may happen to be no priest, and so all your ministry is nothing worth: nay, by the same rule he may happen to be no bishop. And who can tell how often this has been the case? But if there has been only one instance in a thousand years, what becomes of your uninterrupted succession?
This ad hominem. But I have a word more ad rem. Can a man teach what he does not know? Is it possible a man should teach others what he does not know himself? Certainly it is not. Can a priest, then, teach his hearers the way to heaven marked out in our Lord's Sermon on the Mount if he does not know or understand the way himself? Nothing is more impossible. But how many of your priests know nothing about it! What avails, then, their commission to teach what they cannot teach, because they know it not? Did God, then, send these men on a fool's errand? send them to do what they cannot do? O say not so! And what will be the event of their attempting to teach they know not what? Why, 'if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the pit.'
To Sarah Moore
LONDON, March 3, 1761.
MY DEAR SISTER, --I hope to spend a night or two with you at Sheffield [Wesley preached at Sheffield on July 29. He had not been able to visit there the previous year. See letter of May 29.] in my return from Newcastle. Probably I may see Hallam too. I am glad to hear you are athirst for God. Look for Him. Is He not nigh at hand? Beware of unbelief. Receive a blessing now. --I am
Your affectionate brother.
To Christopher Hopper [4]
LEEDS, March 24, 1761.
MY DEAR BROTHER, --I stepped over from Manchester hither yesterday, and am to return thither to-morrow. [He preached at Manchester at 5 a.m., and reached Leeds about 5 p.m. See Journal, iv. 445.] I cannot fix my route through Scotland till I hear from Mr. Gillies [Dr. John Gillies, of the College Church, Glasgow. See Journal, iv. 62-3, 117.]; but I expect to be at Aberdeen in four or five weeks and at Newcastle about the middle of May. My best friend (such she undoubtedly is in a sense) remains still in London. [See next letter.] I do not expect any change till the approach of death; and I am content. With regard to me all is well.
John Nelson and John Manners [John Manners's health gave way under the strain of a preacher's life. He died at York in 1764. See Journal, iv. 515-18, v. 58, 67; and letter of July 28, 1775, to John King.] both write to me from York that they wish T. Olivers [See letters of March 24, 1757, and April 25, 1761, to him.] would spend some time longer in the Newcastle Circuit. I wish so too. I think it would be better for himself and for many others. O let us follow after the things which make for peace! --I am
Yours affectionately.
Alas! Alas! So poor Jacob Rowell says: 'Mr. Wesley has nothing to do with his Round; and all the Societies in it but Barnard Castle are willing to separate.' In God's name, let one of you go into that Round without delay!
To James Rouquet >[5]
MANCHESTER, March 30, 1761.
DEAR JEMMY, --The thing you mention has been much in my thoughts, and indeed for some years last past. The dreadful consequences which have arisen from the disunion of Christian ministers, especially those whom God has lately employed, are too glaring to be hid from any who do not wilfully shut their eyes. How often has this put a sword into the hand of the common enemy! how often has it made the children of God go heavily! and how many of them has it turned out of the way! On the other hand, how many and how great are the advantages which would flow from a general union, of those at least who acknowledge each other to be messengers of God! I know nothing [but sin] which I would not do or leave undone to promote it; and this has been my settled determination for at least ten years last past. But all my overtures have been constantly rejected; almost all of them stand aloof, and at length they have carried their point. I let them alone.
I'll give the fruitless contest o'er.
However, if you can think of any expedient which is likely to avail, I will make a fresh trial. God has lately done great things. Mr. Berridge and Whitefield were much knit to us. The grand breach is now between the irregular and regular clergy. The latter say: 'Stand by yourselves; we are better than you!' And a good man is continually exhorting them so to do, whose steady advice is so very civil to the Methodists. But we have nothing to do with them. And this man of war is a dying man --it is poor, honest Mr. Walker.
Finding all other means ineffectual, on Monday the 2nd instant I opened my wife's bureau and took what I found of my own. (No notes, bills, or papers of hers: in saying this, she only does as she uses to do.) Some hours after, she talked like an Empress Queen; on which I told her plainly, 'While you are in this mind I will neither bed nor board with you.' On .... following I found her of a better mind; so on Saturday and Sunday [He was then in London. ] we were together as usual. But if we should live to meet again, and she behaves as she did on that day, I should think it my bounden duty to do as I did then. I judge her case to be proper lunacy; but it is a preternatural, a diabolical lunacy, and therefore at those times (I know what I say) I do not think my life is safe with her. And yet I feel just as much resentment toward her as I do to Sall. Roqt.
Peace be with you and yours.
To Dr. Green [6]
LONDON, April 2, 1761.
REVEREND SIR, --I have no desire to dispute, least of all with one whom I believe to fear God and work righteousness. And I have no time to spare. Yet I think it my duty to write a few lines with regard to those you sent to Mr. Bennet.
You therein say: 'If you sent me the books to inform me of an error which I had publicly advanced, pardon me if I say I know numbers who call themselves Methodists assert their assurance of salvation at the very time they wallow in sins of the deepest dye.' Permit me, sir, to speak freely. I do not doubt the fact. But (1) Those who are connected with me do not call themselves Methodists. Others call them by that nickname, and they cannot help it; but I continually warn them not to pin it upon themselves. (2) We rarely use that ambiguous expression of 'Christ's righteousness imputed to us.' (3) We believe a man may be a real Christian without being 'assured of his salvation.' (4) We know no man can be assured of salvation while he lives in any sin whatever. (5) The wretches who talk in that manner are neither Methodists nor Moravians, but followers of William Cudworth, James Relly, and their associates, who abhor us as much as they do the Pope, and ten times more than they do the devil. If you oppose these, so do I; and have done privately and publicly for these twenty years.
But you say: 'Such as do not profess this doctrine will not be affected by my sermon.' Indeed they will; for the world (as you yourself did) lump all that are called Methodists together. Consequently whatever you then said of Methodists in general falls on us as well as them; and so we are condemned for those very principles which we totally detest and abhor: a small part of the Preservative (had you taken the pains to read it) would have convinced you of this. 'Did you send them to convince me of some important truth? I have the New Testament.' So have I; and I have read it for above these fifty years, and for near forty with some attention. Yet I will not say that Mr. Green may not convince me of some truth which I never yet learned from it. I want every help, especially from those who strive both to preach and to live the gospel. Yet certainly I must dissent from you or you from me wherever either conceives the other to vary from it. Some of my writings you 'have read.' But allow me to ask, Did not you read them with much prejudice or little attention? Otherwise surely you would not have termed them 'perplexing.' Very few lay obscurity or intricacy to my charge. Those who do not allow them to be true do not deny them to be plain. And if they believe me to have done any good at all by writing, they suppose it is by this very thing --by speaking on practical and experimental religion more plainly than others have done.
I quite agree we 'neither can be better men nor better Christians than by continuing members of the Church of England.' And not only her doctrines but many parts of her discipline I have adhered to at the hazard of my life. If in any point I have since varied therefrom, it was not by choice but necessity. Judge, therefore, if they do well who throw me into the ditch, and then beat me because my clothes are dirty!
Wishing you much of the love of God in your heart and much of His presence in your labours, I remain, reverend sir,
Your affectionate brother.
To George Downing [7]
LIVERPOOL, April 6, 1761.
DEAR SIR, --Let who will speak, if what is spoken be true, I am ready to subscribe it. If it be not, I accept no man's person. Magis amica veritas. ['I prefer truth to the dearest friend.'] I had an agreeable conversation with Mr. Venn, [On March 25 he breakfasted with Henry Venn, recently appointed Vicar of Huddersfield.] who, I suppose, is now near you. I think he is exactly as regular as he ought to be. I would observe every punctilio of order, except where the salvation of souls is at stake. There I prefer the end before the means.
I think it great pity that the few clergymen in England who preach the three grand scriptural doctrines --Original Sin, Justification by Faith, and Holiness consequent thereon --should have any jealousies or misunderstandings between them. What advantage must this give to the common enemy! What an hindrance is it to the great work wherein they are all engaged! How desirable is it that there should be the most open, avowed intercourse between them! So far, indeed, as they judge it would be for the glory of God, they may openly declare wherein they disagree.
But surely, if they are ashamed to own one another in the faces of all mankind, they are ashamed of Christ, they are ashamed of Him that sends if they dare not avow whom He has sent. Excuses, indeed, will never be wanting. But will these avail before God? For many years I have been labouring after this --labouring to unite, not scatter, the messengers of God. Not that I want anything from them. As God has enabled me to stand almost alone for these twenty years, I doubt not but He will enable me to stand either with them or without them. But I want all to be helpful to each other, and all the world to know we are so. Let them know who is on the Lord's side. You, I trust, will always be of that number. O let us preach and live the whole gospel! The grace of our Lord be with your spirit! --I am, dear sir,
Your ever affectionate brother and servant.
To the Earl of Dartmouth (?)
LIVERPOOL, April 10, 1761.
DEAR SIR, --1. In order to answer the question more clearly which Mr. [Downing [See previous letter.']] has proposed to you, it may be well look a little backward. Some years since, two or three clergymen of the Church of England, who were above measure zealous for all her rules and orders, were convinced that religion is not an external thing, but 'righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost,' and that this righteousness and peace and joy are given only to those who are justified by faith. As soon as they were convinced of these great truths, they preached them; and multitudes flocked to hear. For these reasons, and no others, real or pretended (for as yet they were strictly regular), because they preached such doctrine, and because such multitudes followed them, they were forbid to preach in the churches. Not daring to be silent, they preached elsewhere, in a school, by a river-side, or upon a mountain; and more and more sinners forsook their sins and were filled with peace and joy in believing.
2. But at the same time huge offence was taken at their 'gathering congregations' in so irregular a manner; and it was asked, --
(1) 'Do you judge that the Church with the authority of the State has power to enact laws for her own government?'
I answer: If a dispensation of the gospel is committed to me, no Church has power to enjoin me silence. Neither has the State; though it may abuse its power and enact laws whereby I suffer for preaching the gospel.
(2) 'Do you judge it your duty to submit to the laws of the Church and State as far as they are consistent with a good conscience?'
I do. But 'woe is me if I preach not the gospel': this is not consistent with a good conscience.
(3) 'Is it a law of the Church and State that none of her ministers shall gather congregations but by the appointment of the bishop? If any do, does not she forbid her people to attend them? Are they not subversive of the good order of the Church? Do you judge there is anything sinful in such a law?'
I answer: (I) If there is a law that a minister of Christ who is not suffered to preach the gospel in the church should not preach it elsewhere, I do judge that law to be absolutely sinful. (ii) If that law forbids Christian people to hear the gospel of Christ out of their parish church when they cannot hear it therein, I judge it would be sinful for them to obey it. (iii) This preaching is not subversive of any good order whatever. It is only subversive of that vile abuse of the good order of our Church whereby men who neither preach nor live the gospel are suffered publicly to overturn it from the foundation, and in the room of it to palm upon their congregations a wretched mixture of dead form and maimed morality.
(4) 'If these premises be allowed.'
They cannot be allowed. So, from nothing, nothing follows.
3. It was objected farther, --
(1) 'In every nation there must be some settled order of government, ecclesiastical and civil.'
There must; but put civil out of the question. It only tends to puzzle the cause.
(2) 'The Scriptures likewise enjoin this.'
They do, that all things in the church be done in order.
(3) 'There is an ecclesiastical order established in England, and it is a lawful one.'
I believe it is in general not only lawful but highly commendable.
(4) 'But Mr. [Downing] tells you: " You are born under this Establishment. Your ancestors supported it, and were ennobled on that account." These points, I think, are not very material; but that which follows is. " You have by deliberate and repeated acts of your own engaged yourself to defend it. Your very rank and station constitute you a formal and eminent guardian of it."'
A guardian of what? What is it that you have 'deliberately engaged yourself to defend'? The constitution of the Church of England. And is not her doctrine a main part of this constitution? a far more essential part thereof than any rule of external order? Of this, then, you are a formal guardian; and you have deliberately engaged yourself to defend it. But have you deliberately engaged to defend her orders to the destruction of her doctrine? Are you a guardian of this external circumstance when it tends to destroy the substance of her constitution? And if you are engaged, at all events, to defend her order, are you also to defend the abuse of it? Surely no. Your rank, your station, your honour, your conscience, all engage you to oppose this.
(5) 'But how can it consist with the duty arising from all these to give encouragement, countenance, and support to principles and practices that are a direct renunciation of the established constitution, and that in their genuine issue' (or natural tendency) 'are totally subversive of it?'
Are the principles of those clergymen a direct renunciation of the established constitution? Are their practices so? Are either the one or the other 'totally subversive of it'? Not so: their fundamental principles are the very principles of the Established Church. So is their practice too; save in a very few points, wherein they are constrained to deviate. Therefore it is no ways inconsistent with your duty to encourage, countenance, and support them; especially seeing they have no alternative. They must either be thus far irregular or destroy their own souls, and let thousands of their brethren perish for lack of knowledge.
(6) Nay, but their 'principles and practices are of this character. For (I) They gather congregations and exercise their ministerial office therein in every part of this kingdom, directly contrary to the restraint laid on them at their ordination and to the design of that parochial distribution of duty settled throughout this nation. (ii) They maintain it lawful for men to preach who are not episcopally ordained, and thereby contradict the Twenty-third Article. (iii) They disclaim all right in the bishops to control them in any of these matters, and say that, rather than be so controlled, they would renounce all communion with this Church. (iv) These principles they industriously propagate among their followers.'
I answer: (I) They do gather congregations everywhere and exercise their ministerial office therein. But this is not contrary to any restraint which was laid upon them at their ordination; for they were not ordained to serve any particular parish. And it is remarkable that Lincoln College was founded ad propagandam Christianam fidem et extirpandas haereses. ['For propagating the Christian faith and extirpating heresies.' See letter of June 17, 1746, sect. 111. 5.] But were it otherwise, suppose a parish minister to be either ignorant or negligent of his duty, and one of his flock adjures me for Christ's sake to tell him what he must do to be saved, was it ever the design of our Church that I should refuse to do it because he is not of my parish? '(ii) They maintain it lawful for men to preach who are not episcopally ordained.' In some circumstances they do; particularly where thousands are rushing into destruction, and those who are ordained and appointed to watch over them neither care for nor know how to help them. 'But hereby they contradict the Twenty-third Article, to which they have subscribed.' They subscribed it in the simplicity of their hearts, when they firmly believed none but Episcopal ordination valid. But Bishop Stillingfleet has since fully convinced them this was an entire mistake. [See letter of July 16, 1755. ] '(iii) They disclaim all right in the bishops to control them in any of these matters.' In every point of an indifferent nature they obey the bishops for conscience' sake; but they think Episcopal authority cannot reverse what is fixed by divine authority. Yet they are determined never to renounce communion with the Church unless they are cast out headlong. If it be said, 'Nay, but if I varied from the Church at all, I would throw off my gown and be a professed Dissenter,' --what! would you profess to dissent when you did not? If you would, they dare not do it. They love the Church, and therefore keep to all her doctrine and rules as far as possibly they can; and if they vary at all, it shall not be an hair's breadth farther than they cannot help. '(iv) These principles they industriously propagate among their followers.' Indeed they do not: the bulk of their followers know just nothing of the matter. They industriously propagate among them nothing but inward and outward holiness.
(7) 'Now these are oppositions to the most fundamental principles and essentially constituent parts of our Establishment; and not of ours only, but of every ecclesiastical Establishment that is or ever has been in the Christian world.'
'The most fundamental principles'! No more than the tiles are the most fundamental principles of an house. Useful, doubtless, they are; yet you must take them off if you would repair the rotten timber beneath. 'Essentially constituent parts of our Establishment'! Well, we will not quarrel for a word. Perhaps the doors may be essentially constituent parts of the building we call a church. Yet, if it were on fire, we might innocently break them open or even throw them for a time off the hinges. Now this is really the case. The timber is rotten--yea, the main beams of the house; and they want to place that firm beam, salvation by faith, in the room of salvation by works. A fire is kindled in the Church, the house of the living God: the fire of love of the world, ambition, covetousness, envy, anger, malice, bitter zeal--in one word, of ungodliness and unrighteousness. Oh who will come and help to quench it? Under disadvantages and discouragements of every kind, a little handful of men have made a beginning; and I trust they will not leave off till the building is saved or they sink in the ruins of it.
4. To sum up the whole. A few irregular men openly witness those truths of God which the regular clergy (a few excepted) either suppress or wholly deny.
Their word is accompanied with the power of God, convincing and converting sinners. The word of those is not accompanied with power: it neither wounds nor heals.
The former witness the truth and the power of God by their own life and conversation: therefore the world, men who know not God, hate them and speak all manner of evil against them falsely. The latter are of the world: therefore the world loves its own and speaks honourably of them.
Which of these ought you to hear,--those who declare or those who deny the truth of God? that word which is the power of God unto salvation, or that which lulls men on to destruction? the men who live as well as preach the gospel, or those whose lives are no better than their doctrine?
'But they are irregular.'
I answer: (1) That is not their choice. They must either preach irregularly or not at all. (2) Is such a circumstance of weight to turn the scale against the substance of the gospel? If it is, if none ought to speak or hear the truth of God unless in a regular manner, then (to mention but one consequence) there never could have been any reformation from Popery. For here the entire argument for Church order would have stood in its full force. Suppose one had asked a German nobleman to hear Martin Luther preach; might not his priest have said (without debating whether he preached the truth or not): 'My lord, in every nation there must be some settled order of government, ecclesiastical and civil. There is an ecclesiastical order established in Germany. You are born under this Establishment. Your ancestors supported it, and your very rank and station constitute you a formal and eminent guardian of it. How, then, can it consist with the duty arising from all these to give encouragement, countenance, and support to principles and practices that are a direct renunciation of the established constitution?' Had the force of this reasoning been allowed, what had become of the Reformation?
Yet it was right; though it really was a subversion of the whole ecclesiastical constitution with regard to doctrine as well as discipline. Whereas this is no such thing. The doctrine of the Established Church, which is far the most essential part of her constitution, these preachers manifestly confirm, in opposition to those who subvert it. And it is the opposition made to them by those subverters which constrains them in some respects to deviate from her discipline; to which in all others they conform for conscience. Oh what pity that any who preach the same doctrine, and whom those subverters have not yet been able to thrust out, should join with them against their brethren in the common faith and fellow witnesses of the common salvation!--I am, dear sir,
Your willing servant for Christ's sake.
To his Wife
WHITEHAVEN, April 24, 1761.
MY DEAR MOLLY,--Although I have not had any answer to my former letters, yet I must trouble you once more, and repeat the advice I gave you before, 'Beware of tale-bearers.' God has given you plenty of temporal blessings; and if you only avoid this snare (to which your natural temper lays you open), you may have plenty of spiritual too. Indeed, He mingles afflictions with your cup. But may not these be blessings also? May they not be admirable means to break the impetuosity and soften the harshness of your spirit? Certainly they may. Certainly they have this effect on many; and why not on you likewise? Is not everything contrary to your will intended to conquer it, and to bring it into a full subordination to the will of God? And when once this is done, what can hurt you? Then you are invulnerable; you are defended from head to foot by armour which neither the world nor the devil can pierce. Then you will go on unmoved, through honour and dishonour, through evil report and good report. You will happily experience in your own soul the truth of that fine observation, 'In the greatest afflictions which can befall the just, either from heaven or earth, they remain immovable in virtue, and perfectly submissive to God, by an inward, loving regard to Him uniting all the powers of their soul.'--I am with much sincerity, dear Molly,
Your affectionate Husband.
What is become of the Chancery suit? Of Noah [Noah and Anthony Vazeille, her sons.]? Of John [See letter of April 24, 1757.] and Jenny Matthews, and poor Anthony?
To Mrs. Wesley, At the Foundery, London. [8]
To Thomas Olivers
WHITEHAVEN, April 25, 1761.
MY DEAR BROTHER,--I have a desire to ask you some questions on two or three heads, which you may answer as particularly as you please. (1) Have you read over The Doctrine of Original Sin? I mean the book wrote in answer to Dr. Taylor? Have you read it with attention and prayer? Do you understand it? Have you seriously considered it? Is there anything in it which you think wrong? or does it express your own judgement? (2) Have you read over the sermons in the first and fourth volumes on Justification and the New Birth? Do you think you throughly understand them? Is there anything in them which you cannot agree to? (3) Have you read over the Thoughts upon Perfection in the fourth volume? Did you read them with humility and prayer? with calmness and deliberation? Have you considered them again and again, crying to God for help? Is there anything in them which you do not understand, or which you think is not right? On all these heads you may speak freely to, dear Tommy,
Your affectionate friend and brother.
Direct to Newcastle.
To Mrs. Booth [9]
SUNDERLAND, May 29, 1761.
MY DEAR SISTER,--It is a long time to the 1st of August. Before that time many of us may be in Abraham's bosom. If I am at Sheffield that morning, very probably I may be at Woodseats the same day at noon. I do not know but George Tizard [Tizard became a preacher in 1759, and was afterwards a clergyman.] may be on that Round some time longer. Oh what cause have we to praise God for all the wonders He has wrought!--I am, with love to Brother Booth,
Your affectionate brother.
I return to Newcastle in a day or two.
To John Hosmer [10]
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 7, 1761.
MY DEAR BROTHER,--I apprehend, if you will give another careful reading to those four pages, 244-7, [Thoughts on Christian Perfection. See letter of June 23, 1760.] you will find all your objections anticipated or answered. However, I do not think much of answering them over again. Your words are: 'You say, "A mistake is not a sin, if love is the sole principle of action; yet it is a transgression of the perfect law"; therefore perfect love is not the perfect law'! Most sure; for by 'the perfect law' I mean that given to Adam at his creation. But the loving God with all his heart was not the whole of that law: it implied abundantly more; even thinking, speaking, and acting right in every instance, which he was then able, and therefore obliged, to do. But none of his descendants are able to do this; therefore love is the fulfilling of their law.
Perhaps you had not adverted to this. The law of love, which is the whole law given to us, is only one branch of that perfect law which was given to Adam in the beginning. His law was far wider than ours, as his faculties were more extensive. Consequently many things might be transgressions of the latter which were not of the former.
'But if ignorance be a transgression of the perfect law.' Whoever said or thought so? Ignorance is not, but mistake is. And this Adam was able to avoid; that kind of ignorance which was in him not constraining him to mistake, as ours frequently does.
'But is "a voluntary transgression of a known law" a proper definition of sin?' I think it is of all such sin as is imputed to our condemnation. And it is a definition which has passed uncensured in the Church for at least fifteen hundred years.
To propose any objections that naturally arise is right; but beware you do not seek objections. If you once begin this, you will never have done. Indeed, this whole affair is a strife of words. The thing is plain. All in the body are liable to mistakes, practical as well as speculative. Shall we call them sins or no? I answer again and again, Call them just what you please.
To George Merryweather
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 7, 1761.
MY DEAR BROTHER,--I had allotted two nights for Yarm; but by the advice of our brethren here I have made a little alteration in my plan. On Wednesday and Thursday the 18th instant I am to be at Stockton. On Friday evening and Saturday noon I purpose (with God's leave) to preach at Yarm. [He preached at Yarm on the Friday evening at seven, and on Saturday at noon 'applied those words, "Now abide faith, hope, love; but the greatest of these is love."' See Journal, iv. 464; and letter of Jan. 24, 1760.] On Saturday evening I am to be at Hutton Rudby, which is nearer the centre of our Societies.--I am
Your affectionate brother.
To Mrs. Hall
NEAR NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 14, 1761.
DEAR PATTY--Why should any of us live in the world without doing a little good in it? I am glad you have made a beginning. See that you are not weary of well doing; for it will often be a cross. But bear the cross, and it will bear you. The best fruit grows under the cross.
I have often thought it strange that so few of my relations should be of any use to me in the work of God. My sister Wright was, of whom I should least have expected it; but it was only for a short season. My sister Emly and you, of whom one might have expected more, have, I know not how, kept at a distance, and sometimes cavilled a little, at other times as it were approved, but never heartily joined in the work. Where did it stick? Did you not throughly understand what my brother and I were doing? Did you not see the truth? Or did the cause lie in your heart? You had no will to join hand in hand. You wanted resolution, spirit, patience. Well, the day is far spent. What you do, do quickly. 'Life for delay no time will give!'
[My] work in the country cannot be finished before the latter end of August, as the circuit is now larger by [some] hundred miles than when I was in the North two [years] ago. O let the one thing be ever uppermost in our thoughts!
To promote either your temporal or eternal good will always be a pleasure to, dear Patty,
Your affectionate Brother. [Wesley was much concerned about his sister. See letter of Dec. 26 to his brother.]
Endorsed 'I am obliged to my dear B[rother] for [this].'
To Miss March
STOCKTON, June 17, 1761.
I apprehend your great danger now is this--to think you never shall receive that blessing because you have not received it yet; nay, perhaps you may be tempted to believe that there is no such thing, and that those who thought they had received it were mistaken as well as you. This danger will be increased if some who professed to be sanctified long ago, and yet have not received this blessing, affirm there is no such thing, and begin to warn others against falling into this delusion. But keep close to your rule, the Word of God, and to your guide, the Spirit of God, and never be afraid of expecting too much. As yet you are but a babe. Oh what heights of holiness are to come! I hope you do not forget to pray for me. Adieu!
To Alexander Coates [11]
OTLEY, July 7, 1761.
MY DEAR BROTHER,--The perfection I teach is perfect love: loving God with all the heart; receiving Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King, to reign alone over all our thoughts, words, and actions. The Papists neither teach nor believe this: give even the devil his due. They teach there is no perfection here which is not consistent with venial sins; and among venial sins they commonly reckon simple fornication. Now, I think this is so far from the perfection I teach, that it does not come up to any but Mr. Relly's perfection. To say Christ will not reign alone in our hearts in this life, will not enable us to give Him all our hearts--this in my judgement is making Him an half-Saviour. He can be no more, if He does not quite save us from our sins. I pray, then, be not quite so peremptory. Who exalts Christ most? those who call on Him to be the sole Monarch of the heart, or those who allow Him only to share the power and to govern most of the thoughts and tempers? Who honour Him most? those who believe He heals all our sickness, takes away all our ungodliness, or those who say, He heals only the greater part of it, till death does what He cannot do? I know no creature (of us) who says, 'Part of our salvation belongs to Christ and part to us.' No; we all say, Christ alone saves us from all sin; and your question is not about the Author but the measure of salvation. Both agree it is all Christ; but is it all salvation or only half salvation He will give? Who was Pelagius? By all I can pick up from ancient authors, I guess he was both a wise and an holy man. But we know nothing but his name; for his writings are all destroyed, not one line of them left. But, Brother Coates, this way of talking is highly offensive. I advise you (1) If you are willing to labour with us, preach no doctrine contrary to ours. I have preached twenty years in some of Mr. Whitefield's Societies; yet to this day I never contradicted him among his own people. I did not think it honest, neither necessary at all. I could preach salvation by faith, and leave all controversy untouched. I advise you (2) Avoid all those strong, rhetorical exclamations 'Oh horrid! Oh dreadful!' and the like, unless when you are strongly exhorting sinners to renounce the devil and all his works. (3) Acquaint yourself better with the doctrine we preach, and you will find it not dreadful but altogether lovely. (4) Observe that if forty persons think and speak wrong, either about justification or sanctification (and perhaps fancy they have attained both), this is no objection to the doctrines themselves. They must bear their own burthen. But this does not at all affect the point in question. (5) Remember, as sure as you are that 'believers cannot fall from grace,' others (wise and holy men too) are equally sure they can; and you are as much obliged to bear with them as they are to bear with you. (6) Abstain from all controversy in public. Indeed, you have not a talent for it. You have an honest heart, but not a clear head. Practical religion is your point; therefore (7) Keep to this: repentance toward God, faith in Christ, holiness of heart and life, a growing in grace and in the knowledge of Christ, the continual need of His atoning blood, a constant confidence in Him, and all these every moment to our life's end. In none of these will any of our preachers contradict you or you them.
When you leave this plain path and get into controversy, then they think you 'invade the glories of our adorable King and the unspeakable rights and privileges and comforts of His children'; and can they then 'tamely hold their peace'?
O Sander, know the value of peace and love!--I am
Your affectionate brother.
To Ebenezer Blackwell
BRADFORD, July 16, 1761.
DEAR SIR,--Methinks it is a long time since I saw or heard anything of you. I hope, however, that Mrs. Blackwell and you are not only alive, but more alive than ever, seeking and enjoying something more than King George is likely to find either at his wedding or his coronation. [George III was married to Princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz on Sept. 8, and crowned on Sept. 22.] And can you likewise give me a comfortable account of Miss Freeman, both as to her health and her spirit? I often think of her, and sometimes have a mind to send her another letter, though she is one in my debt already.
Mr. Venn was so kind as to come over hither yesterday and spend the evening with us. [This visit of Henry Venn is not mentioned in the Journal, but another is noticed on July 24. See next letter.] I am a little embarrassed on his account, and hardly know how to act. Several years before he came to Huddersfield some of our preachers went thither, carrying their lives in their hands, and with great difficulty established a little, earnest Society. These eagerly desire them to preach there still; not in opposition to Mr. Venn (whom they love, esteem, and constantly attend), but to supply what they do not find in his preaching. It is a tender point. Where there is a gospel ministry already, we do not desire to preach; but whether we can leave off preaching because such an one comes after is another question, especially when those who were awakened and convinced by us beg and require the continuance of our assistance. I love peace, and follow it; but whether I am at liberty to purchase it at such price I really cannot tell.
I hear poor Mr. Walker is near death. [Samuel Walker, of Truro. He died at Blackheath on the 19th.] It seems strange that, when there is so great a want of faithful labourers, such as him should be removed; but the will of God is always best, and what He does we shall know hereafter! I have been for some days with Mr. Grimshaw, an Israelite indeed. A few such as him would make a nation tremble. He carries fire wherever he goes. Mr. Venn informs me that Mr. Whitefield continues very weak. [Whitefield took a serious cold in Bristol, and was laid aside in March and April. He was an invalid for twelve months, and obliged with a few exceptions to refrain from preaching. See Tyerman's Whitefield, ii. 441-3.] I was in hope, when he wrote to me lately, that he was swiftly recovering strength. Perhaps, sir, you can send me better news concerning him. What need have we, while we do live, to live in earnest!--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant.
If you have not a mind for me to write again, you must not write yourself. For about a fortnight I shall be at or near Leeds.
To Ebenezer Blackwell
NORWICH, August 15, 1761.
DEAR SIR,--As you are encompassed with a thousand temptations, and some of them of the most dangerous kind, it is an unspeakable blessing that you still continue with your face heavenward. And if you have resolution to break through a thousand hindrances and allow some time every day for private prayer, I doubt not but you will receive every gospel blessing in this world and in the world to come.
Mr. Venn [See previous letter, and that of June 22, 1763. Venn was present at the Conference in Leeds on Aug. 10, 1762.] and I have had some hours' conversation together, and have explained upon every article. I believe there is no bone of contention remaining, no matter of offence, great or small. Indeed, fresh matter will arise if it be sought; but it shall not be sought by me. We have amicably compromised the affair of preaching. He is well pleased that the preachers should come once a month.
That story was one of those which we cleared up. But Mr. Oddie [James Oddie, one of Wesley's ablest and most judicious preachers. He entered into trade at Yarm, and married, as his second wife, Mrs. Colbeck, of Keighley, from whom he was separated in 1785. For a short time he preached at Dewsbury in connexion with John Atlay. see Journal, iv. 531; Atmore's Memorial, pp. 298-300; and letter of Feb. 13, 1762.] (the person of whom it was told) will be in town next week, and can himself give you full satisfaction concerning it. On this day se'nnight I hope to be in town, and tomorrow se'nnight at West Street Chapel. With sincere love to Mrs. Blackwell and Mrs. Dewal, I am, dear sir,
Your very affectionate servant.
I thank you for sending me the letters.
To his Brother Charles
LONDON, September 8, 1761.
DEAR BROTHER,--Our Conference [The Conference in London began on Tuesday, Sept. 1, and closed on Saturday.] ended, as it began, in peace and love. All found it a blessed time:
Excepto, quod non simul esses, caetera laeti. [Horace's Epistles, 1. x. 50: 'Our minds with this exception gay, That you, our friend, were far away.'] The Minutes John Jones can help you to, who sets out hence in two or three days. The right hand of the Lord bringeth mighty things to pass. Not the least of them is that my wife cordially loves T. Maxfield.
Why should not Bath be supplied from Bristol? Order it so. I have no objection. They will by that means often have a more able preacher than they would otherwise have. If he does not linger by the way, a preacher may be at Bristol on Thursday night.
I do not at all think (to tell you a secret) that the work will ever be destroyed, Church or no Church. What has been done to prevent the Methodists leaving the Church you will see in the Minutes of the Conference. I told you before, with regard to Norwich, dixi. I have done at the last Conference all I can or dare do. Allow me liberty of conscience, as I allow you.
On Monday se'nnight I hope to set out for Bristol.
My love to Sally. Adieu!
I know not what you will do with an exceeding honest mad woman, Mrs. Greer, of Newry, in Ireland, who, I hear, is embarking for Bristol. She comes without her husband's consent.
P. Jaco desires to take a journey to Canterbury before he returns to Bristol.
I doubt not the Moravians will be courteous. And I fear that is all. Pray tell Brother Sheen [See letter of Dec. 26 to Charles Wesley.] I am satisfied with his letter. He may stay at Bristol till I come. And be so kind as to tell Isaac I approve of his reasons, and think he ought to go home; but have the Stewards found one fit to succeed him?
To Samuel Furly [12]
LONDON, September 8, 1761.
DEAR SAMMY,--I hope we have effectually provided against that evil disease the scribendi cacoethes in our preachers, as we have agreed that none shall publish anything for the time to come till he has first submitted it to the judgement of his brethren met in Conference.
That is really a fine passage which you cite from Mr. Ridley. He is an excellent writer. I have often seen that text cleared up before, but never in so convincing a manner.
What all our brethren think concerning that circumstance of entire sanctification--that it is instantaneous, although a gradual growth in grace both precede and follow it, you may see in the Minutes of the Conference, wherein it was freely debated. Any of the good old Puritans would have been no less amazed had they come into one of our congregations and heard us declare that God willeth every man without exception to be saved.
O Sammy, shake off the disputandi cacoethes, and be a quiet, simple, loving Christian!--I am, with love to Nancy,
Your affectionate friend and brother.
You seem to fear receiving any hurt from Mr. Venn. Therefore I fear he does hurt you.
To the Rev. Mr. Furly, At Kippax, Near Ferry Bridge, Yorks.
To Matthew Lowes
LONDON, September 8, 1761.
MY DEAR BROTHER,--If local preachers who differ from us will keep their opinions to themselves, then they may preach in our Societies; otherwise they must not. And upon this condition we are all willing to receive William Darney into connexion with us. The sooner you set out for Whitehaven the better. The Society there need not be frightened at a married preacher, considering we have paid forty pounds of their debt out of the collection. And if the expense for wives be too heavy, I will help them out.
Do all you can to propagate the books in that circuit and to fulfil the office of an Assistant.--I am, with love to Sister Lowes,
Your affectionate friend and brother. [See letters of March 6, 1759 (to him), and Oct. 30, 1761.]
Mr. Lowes, At the Orphan House, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
To Grace Walton
LONDON, September 8, 1761.
SISTER,--If a few more persons come in when you are meeting, either enlarge four or five minutes on the question you had, with a short exhortation (perhaps for five or six minutes, sing and pray). [See letters of Feb. 14, 1761, and March 18, 1769.] I think, and always, its meaning is this: 'I suffer not a woman to teach in a congregation, nor thereby to assert authority over the man . . . God has invested with this prerogative; whereas teaching .
I ask you some more questions, which you may answer as soon as you have opportunity: Had you then, or have you had since, a witness that you would never finally perish? Have you a witness that sin shall never enter more? Have you a witness that you shall no more offend God? If so, what need have you to watch against sin! Do you ever use self-examination? At what times or in what meaning? Do you always see God? Does no cloud ever interpose? Are you as sure you see Him as that you are living? Does nothing ever dim your sight of God? Have you an experimental proof of the ever-blessed Trinity? Is your mind always stayed on God? Do your thoughts never wander from Him in prayer, in business, or in travelling? What are you looking for now?--I am
Your affectionate brother.
To Matthew Lowes
LONDON, October 30, 1761.
MY DEAR BROTHER,--The thing is settled. Thomas Newall [Thomas Newall became a preacher in 1761, and retired in 1780 .] is to labour with you in the Whitehaven Circuit, and see that you break up fresh ground. In the meantime William Darney is to divide the Allendale Circuit with T. Hanby. [Thomas Hanby, born in Carlisle in 1733; President in 1794. Wesley ordained him on Aug. 1, 1785, with John Pawson and Joseph Taylor, 'three of our well-tried preachers,' to minister in Scotland. See Wesley's Veterans, ii. 51-77.]
As to maintenance, first let the Society do what they can. And they have good encouragement. Secondly, at Christmas I will make up what is wanting to you and Sister Lowes.
'Dwell in the land, and be doing good, and verily thou shalt be fed.'--I am
Your affectionate friend and brother. [See letters of Sept. 8, 1761, and Jan. 25, 1762, to him.]
See that you perform the whole office of an Assistant.
To Mrs. Ryan
LONDON, November 12, 1761.
MY DEAR SISTER,--Your letter gave me much satisfaction. You answer me simply and clearly. So much the rather I will ask you some more questions, which you may answer as soon as you have opportunity. [See letter of Nov. 4, 1758, to her.]
Had you then, or have you had since, a witness that you should never finally perish? Have you a witness that you shall no more offend God? If so, what need have you to watch against sin! Do you ever use self-examination? At what times or in what manner? Do you always see God? Does no cloud ever interpose? Are you as sure you see Him as that you are alive? Does nothing ever dim your sight of God? Have you an experimental proof of the ever-blessed Trinity? Is your mind always stayed on God? Do your thoughts never wander from Him in prayer, in business, or in travelling? What are you looking for now?--I am
Your affectionate brother.
To his Brother Charles
LONDON, December 26, 1761.
DEAR BROTHER,--Spend as many hours in the congregation as you will or can. But exercise alone will strengthen your lungs. Or electrifying, which I wonder you did not try long ago. Never start at its being a quack medicine. I desire no other, particularly since I was so nearly murdered by being cured of my ague secundum artem. You should always (and I hope you do) write standing and sloping.
We are always in danger of enthusiasm, but I think no more now than any time these twenty years. The word of God runs indeed, and loving faith spreads on every side. Don't take my word or any one's else, but come and see. 'Tis good to be in London now.
It is impossible for me to correct my own books. I sometimes think it strange that I have not one preacher that will and can. I think every one of them owes me so much service.
Is it right that my sister Patty should suffer Mr. Hall to live with her? I almost scruple giving her the sacrament, seeing he does not even pretend to renounce Betty Rogers. [Mrs. Hall. Westley Hall died in 1776. Betty Rogers seems to be the young seamstress by whom he had an illegitimate child. See Stevenson's Wesley Family, pp. 370-3; and letter of June 14.] Was it right for W. Baynes [William Baynes had been a preacher (1749-56), and was a master at Kingswood School at the time of the fire in 1757. See Journal, iv. 242, vi. 177-8; C. Wesley's Journal, I;. 256.] to carry on his affair with Sammy Whittaker without consulting either you or me?
Pray tell Brother Sheen I am hugely displeased at his reprinting the Nativity hymns [Hymns for the Nativity of our Lord, sixth edition, was printed in Bristol in 1761. Sheen was probably a master at Kingswood, as Charles Wesley wants him to be told there was 'a hue and cry' in London because parents had not been informed of the safe arrival of their boys at school (about 1757). See C. Wesley's Journal, ii. 266; and letter of Sept. 8 to him.] and omitting the very best hymn in the collection, 'All glory to God in the sky, &c.' I beg they may never more be printed without it. Omit one or two, and I will thank you. They are namby-pambical.
I wish you would give us two or three invitatory hymns. We want such exceedingly. My love to Sally. My wife gains ground. Adieu!
To Elizabeth Hardy
LONDON, December 26, 1761.
DEAR SISTER,--The path of controversy is a rough path. But it seems smoother while I am walking with you; so that I could follow you through all its windings, only my time will not permit.
The plain fact is this: I know many who love God with all their heart, mind, soul, and strength. He is their one desire, their one delight, and they are continually happy in Him. They love their neighbour as themselves. They feel as sincere, fervent, constant a desire for the happiness of every man, good or bad, friend or enemy, as for their own. They 'rejoice evermore, pray without ceasing, and in everything give thanks.' Their souls are continually streaming up to God in holy joy, prayer, and praise. This is plain, sound, scriptural experience; and of this we have more and more living witnesses.
But these souls dwell in a shattered, corruptible body, and are so pressed down thereby that they cannot exert their love as they would by always thinking, speaking, and acting precisely right. For want of better bodily organs, they sometimes inevitably think, speak, or act wrong. Yet I think they need the advocacy of Christ, even for these involuntary defects; although they do not imply a defect of love, but of understanding. However that be, I cannot doubt the fact. They are all love; yet they cannot walk as they desire. 'But are they all love while they grieve the Holy Spirit?' No, surely; they are then fallen from their steadfastness; and this they may do even after they are sealed. So that, even to such, strong cautions are needful. After the heart is cleansed from pride, anger, and desire, it may suffer them to re-enter; therefore I have long thought some expressions in the Hymns are abundantly too strong, as I cannot perceive any state mentioned in Scripture from which we may not, in a measure at least, fall.
Persons who talked of being emptied before they were filled were for some time a great stumbling-block to me too; but I have since considered it thus: The great point in question is, Can we be saved from all sin or not? Now, it may please God to act in that uncommon manner, purposely to clear this point--to satisfy those persons that they are saved from all sin before He goes on in His work.
Forgive me, dear Miss Hardy, that I do but just touch upon the heads of your letter. Indeed, this defect does not spring from the want of love, but only from want of time. I should not wonder if your soul was one of the next that was filled with pure love. Receive it freely, thou poor bruised reed! It is able to make thee stand.--I am
Your affectionate friend and brother.