1762

 

To Christopher Hopper NORWICH, January 18, 1762.

MY DEAR BROTHER,--Public affairs do look exceeding dark, and the clouds gather more and more. [See letter of March 1 to him.] Yet the Lord sitteth above the water-floods, and remaineth a King for ever. And He (whatever be the lot of His enemies) shall give His people the blessing of peace.

If you do not establish good order in the Orphan House, it is pity you should go there. This is the very design of your Master; for this end are you sent. Do just as I would do in every instance if I were in your place. Act just the thing that is right, whoever is pleased or displeased. I hereby give it under my hand I will stand by you with all my might.

I am glad you have had a free conversation with T. Olivers. [See letter of March 24, 1761.] There is good in him, though he is a rough stick of wood. But love can bow down the stubborn neck. By faith and love we shall overcome all things.

Peace be with you and yours.--I am Your ever affectionate brother. I set out for London to-morrow.

To Samuel Furly LONDON, January 25, 1762.

DEAR SAMMY,--But that I have pretty near attained to the happiness nil admirari, I should have a little wondered at your long silence. But it is not strange, if 'Time changes Thought,' and it would not surprise me much, if in a year or two more, you should wonder at the strange man's face as one you ne'er had known. If you entangled yourself with no kind of promise to the Archbishop, I doubt not but your ordination will prove a blessing. [Wesley hoped to get him ordained as Fletcher's curate. See letter of Dec. 9, 1760.] The care of a parish is indeed a weighty thing, which calls for much and earnest prayer. In managing it you must needs follow your own conscience, whoever is pleased or displeased. Then, whether your success be less or more, you will by-and-by give up your account with joy.

I myself hear frequently unscriptural as well as irrational expressions from those at whose feet I shall rejoice to be found in the day of the Lord Jesus; but blasphemy I never heard from one of them, either teacher or hearer. What is wide of Scripture or reason I mildly reprove; and they usually receive it in love. Generally they are convinced; when I cannot convince, I can bear them, yea, and rejoice at the grace of God which is in them.

Sammy, beware of the impetuosity of your temper! It may easily lead you awry. It may make you evil affected to the excellent ones of the earth. Don't expect propriety of speech from uneducated persons. The longer I live the larger allowances I make for human infirmities. I exact more from myself and less from others. [A beautiful sign of mellowing character.] Go thou and do likewise!-- I am, with love to Nancy, Your ever affectionate friend and brother. Take nothing, absolutely nothing, at second hand.

To Matthew Lowes LONDON, January 25, 1762.

DEAR MATTHEW,--I ordered Mr. Franks [His Book Steward. See letter of Nov. 6, 1773.] to pay the £8 bill to-day, which is £4 more than I had in my hands. What we shall do for money till the next Conference I do not know. But the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof.

You do well to be exact in discipline. Disorderly walkers will give us neither credit nor strength. Let us have just as many members as walk by one rule. I will beg or borrow from William Newall [See letters of Oct. 30, 1761, and Feb.13, 1762.]--anything but steal. My wife joins in love to you and yours.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Miss J. C. March

[1] LONDON, January 30, 1762.

When you was justified, you had a direct witness that your sins were forgiven; afterward this witness was frequently intermitted, and yet you did not doubt of it. In like manner, you have had a direct witness that you are saved from sin; and this witness is frequently intermitted, and yet even then you do not doubt of it. But I much doubt if God withdraws either the one witness or the other without some occasion given on our part. I never knew any one receive the abiding witness gradually; therefore I incline to think this also is given in a moment. But there will be still after this abundant room for a gradual growth in grace.

To Matthew Lowes LONDON, February 13, 1762.

MY DEAR BROTHER,--Order concerning Brother Newall as you see good. If he is not wanted in the Manchester Round, I believe he would be welcome in James Oddie's. [See letters of Aug. 15, 1761, and of Jan. 25, 1762 (to Lowes).]

You must not be surprised if there is a deadness in many places during the winter season. But the spring will return. Fear nothing. Hope belongs to us. Fight on, and conquer.-- I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Thomas Rankin

[2] LONDON, February 20, 1762.

MY DEAR BROTHER,--By all means go into Sussex again. And you may continue in that circuit till another preacher comes. I trust God has sent you thither for the good of others and of your own soul. Be exact in observing and in enforcing all the Rules of our Society. Then you will see more and more fruit of your labour.--I am Your affectionate brother.

To Henry Brooke

[3] LONDON, March 1, 1762.

MY DEAR BROTHER,--I rejoice to hear that you continue in the good way. Never leave off a duty because you are tempted in it. You may be more tempted than usual on fasting days; and yet you may receive a blessing thereby. I expect to be either in Dublin or Cork about the end of this month. I have not, since I have been in London, heard anything of Tommy Bethel. [The Diary for Oct. 15, 1785, has: '1 dinner, conversed, prayer, Mr. Bethell.'] I believe the letters are safely delivered.--I am Your affectionate brother.

To Christopher Hopper LONDON, March I, 1762.

MY DEAR BROTHER,--Public commotions fill the minds and hands of those who might otherwise employ themselves in hindering the course of the gospel. And probably they are of great use to give more seriousness and thoughtfulness to a young and inexperienced Prince. [See letter of Jan. 18.]

I am glad you are in the Orphan House, were it only that you may drop a word in season to T. Olivers. This day fortnight I am to set out for Ireland. When will you set out for Scotland They want you sadly at Aberdeen. Shall I send you two or three guineas for your journey James Kershaw [See letter of Feb. 17, 1759.] may spend a month or two in Newcastle Circuit to supply your place. I think it is of importance. Much good may be done, by you in particular. We join in love to you all.--I am Ever yours.

To Dr. Horne

[4] LEWISHAM, March 10, 1762.

REVEREND SIR,--When you spoke of 'heresies making their periodical revolutions,' of 'Antinomianism rampant among us,' and immediately after of 'the new lights at the Tabernacle and Foundery,' must not your hearers naturally think that Mr. Whitefield and I were reviving those heresies But do you know the persons of whom you speak Have you ever conversed with them Have you read their writings If not, is it kind, is it just, to pass so severe a censure upon them Had you only taken the trouble of reading one tract, the Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, you would have seen that a great part of what you affirm is what I never denied. To put this beyond dispute, I beg leave to transcribe some passages from that treatise; which will show not only what I teach now, but what I have taught for many years. I will afterward simply and plainly declare wherein I as yet differ from you; and the rather that, if I err therein, you may by God's assistance convince me of it.

I. 1. 'Justification sometimes means our acquittal at the last day (Matt. xii. 37). But this is altogether out of the present question; that justification whereof our Articles and Homilies speak meaning present forgiveness, pardon of sins, and consequently acceptance with God, who therein "declares His righteousness," or mercy, by or "for the remission of the sins that are past," saying, "I will be merciful to thy unrighteousness, and shine iniquities I will remember no more" (Rom. iii. 25; Heb. viii. 12).

'I believe the condition of this is faith (Rom. iv. 5, &c.): I mean, not only that without faith we cannot be justified, but also that, as soon as any one has true faith, in that moment he is justified.

'Good works follow this faith, but cannot go before it (Luke vi. 43); much less can sanctification, which implies a continued course of good works springing from holiness of heart. But it is allowed that entire sanctification goes before our justification at the last day (Heb. xii. 14).

'It is allowed also that repentance and "fruits meet for repentance" go before faith (Mark i. 15; Matt. iii. 8). Repentance absolutely must go before faith; fruits meet for it, if there be opportunity. By repentance I mean conviction of sin, producing real desires and sincere resolutions of amendment; and by "fruits meet for repentance," forgiving our brother (Matt. vi. 14-15), ceasing from evil, doing good (Luke iii. 8-9, &c.), using the ordinances of God, and in general obeying Him according to the measure of grace which we have received (Matt. vii. 7, xxv. 29). But these I cannot as yet term good works, because they do not spring from faith and the love of God.'[A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, Part I. See Works, viii. 46-7.]

2. 'Faith alone is the proximate condition of present justification.'

II. 1. I have shown here at large what is the doctrine I teach with regard to justification, and have taught ever since I was convinced of it myself by carefully reading the New Testament and the Homilies. In many points I apprehend it agrees with yours: in some it does not; these I come now to consider. May God enable me to do it in love and meekness of wisdom!

You say: 'Happy times when faith and a good life were synonymous terms!' (page 7). I conceive they never were. Is not faith the root, a good life the tree springing therefrom

'That good works are a necessary condition of our justification may be proved, first, from express testimonies of Scripture. So Isaiah i. 16-17: "Cease from evil, learn to do well." Then "your sins that were as scarlet shall be white as snow." Here ceasing from evil and learning to do well are the conditions of pardon.' I answer: Without them there is no pardon; yet the immediate condition of it is faith. He that believeth, and he alone, is justified before God. 'So Ezekiel xxxiii. 14-16: If the sinner "turn from his evil ways" and "walk in the statutes of life," then "all his sins shall not be once mentioned to him."' Most sure--that is, if he believe; else, whatever his outward walking be, he cannot be justified.

The next scripture you cite, Matthew xi. 28 (Sermon, p. 10), proves no more than this--that none find 'rest to their souls' unless they first come to Christ (namely, by faith) and then obey Him.

But 'He says, "Ye are My friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you."' He does so; but how does it appear that this relates to justification at all

'St. Peter also declares, "In every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of Him" (Acts x. 35).' He is; but none can either fear God or work righteousness till he believes according to the dispensation he is under. 'And St. John: "He that doeth righteousness is righteous."' I do not see that this proves anything. 'And again: "If we walk in the light, as God is in the light, then have we communion with Him, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin" (I John i. 7).' This would prove something, if it could be proved that 'cleansing us from all sin' meant only justification.

'The Scriptures insist upon the necessity of repentance in particular for that purpose. But repentance comprehends compunction, humiliation, hatred of sin, confession of it, prayer for mercy, ceasing from evil, a firm purpose to do well, restitution of ill-got goods, forgiveness of all who have done us wrong, and works of beneficence.' (Pages 11-12.) I believe it does comprehend all these, either as parts or as fruits of it and it comprehends 'the fear' but not 'the love of God' that flows from an higher principle. And he who loves God is not barely in the right way to justification: he is actually justified. The rest of the paragraph asserts just the same thing which was asserted in those words: 'Previous to justifying faith must be repentance, and, if opportunity permits, "fruits meet for repentance."' But still I must observe that 'neither the one nor the other is necessary either in the same sense or in the same degree with faith.' No scripture testimony can be produced which any way contradicts this.

2. 'That works are a necessary condition of our justification may be proved, secondly, from scripture examples; particularly those recited in the 11th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. These all 'through faith wrought righteousness: without working righteousness, they had never obtained the promises.' (Page 13.) I say the same thing: none are finally saved but those whose faith 'worketh by love.'

'Even in the thief upon the cross faith was attended by repentance, piety, and charity.' It was: repentance went before his faith; piety and charity accompanied it. 'Therefore he was not justified by faith alone.' Our Church, adopting the words of St. Chrysostom, expressly affirms in the passage above cited he was justified by faith alone. And her authority ought to weigh more than even that of Bishop Bull, or of any single man whatever. Authority, be pleased to observe, I plead against authority, reason against reason.

It is no objection that the faith whereby he was justified immediately produced good works.

3. How we are justified by faith alone, and yet by such a faith as is not alone, it may be proper to explain. And this also I choose to do, not in my own words, but in those of our Church: 'Faith does not shut out repentance, hope, love, and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified; but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying. So that although they be all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not all together. Neither doth faith shut out good works, necessarily to be done afterwards, of duty towards God. That we are justified only by this faith in Christ speak all the ancient authors; specially Origen, St. Cyprian, St. Chrysostom, Hilary, Basil, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine.' (Homily on the Salvation of Man.)

4. You go on: 'Thirdly, if we consider the nature of faith, it will appear impossible that a man should be justified by that alone. Faith is either an assent to the gospel truths or a reliance on the gospel promises. I know of no other notion of faith.' (Sermon, p. 15.) I do;--an elegcos of things not seen; which is far more than a bare assent, and yet toto genere different from a reliance. Therefore, if you prove that neither an assent nor a reliance justifies, nor both of them together, still you do not prove that we are not justified by faith, even by faith alone. But how do you prove that we cannot be justified by faith as a reliance on the promises Thus: 'Such a reliance must be founded on a consciousness of having performed the conditions. And a reliance so founded is the result of works wrought through faith.' No: of works wrought without faith; else the argument implies a contradiction. For it runs thus (on the supposition that faith and reliance were synonymous terms): Such a reliance is the result of works wrought through such a reliance.

5. Your fourth argument against justification by faith alone is drawn from the nature of justification. This, you observe, 'implies a prisoner at the bar, and a law by which he is to be tried; and this is not the law of Moses, but that of Christ, requiring repentance and faith, with their proper fruits' (page 16); which now through the blood of Christ are accepted and 'counted for righteousness.' St. Paul affirms this concerning faith, in the 4th chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. But where does he say that either repentance or its fruits are counted for righteousness Nevertheless I allow that the law of Christ requires such repentance and faith before justification as, if there be opportunity, will bring forth the 'fruits of righteousness.' But if there be not, he that repents and believes is justified notwithstanding. Consequently these alone are necessary, indispensably necessary, conditions of our justification.

6. Your last argument against justification by faith alone 'is drawn from the method of God's proceeding at the last day. He will then judge every man "according to his works." If, therefore, works wrought through faith are the ground of the sentence passed upon us in that day, then are they a necessary condition of our justification' (page 19): in other words, 'if they are a condition of our final, they are a condition of our present, justification.' I cannot allow the consequence. All holiness must precede our entering into glory. But no holiness can exist till, 'being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.'

7. You next attempt to reconcile the writings of St. Paul with justification by works. In order to this you say: 'In the first three chapters of his Epistle to the Romans he proves that both Jews and Gentiles must have recourse to the gospel of Christ. To this end he convicts the whole world of sin; and having stopped every mouth, he makes his inference, "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified. We conclude," then, says he, "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." But here arise two questions: first, What are the works excluded from justifying secondly, What is the faith which justifies' (Pages 20-2.)

'The works excluded are heathen and Jewish works set up as meritorious. This is evident from hence--that heathens and carnal Jews are the persons against whom he is arguing.' Not so: he is arguing against all mankind; he is convicting the whole world of sin. His concern is to stop 'every mouth' by proving that 'no flesh,' none born of a woman, no child of man, can be justified by his own works. Consequently he speaks of all the works of all mankind antecedent to justification, whether Jewish or any other, whether supposed meritorious or not, of which the text says not one word. Therefore all works antecedent to justification are excluded, and faith is set in flat opposition to them. 'Unto him that worketh not, but believeth, his faith is counted to him for righteousness.'

'But what is the faith to which he attributes justification That "which worketh by love"; which is the same with the "new creature," and implies in it the keeping the commandments of God.'

It is undoubtedly true that nothing avails for our final salvation without kainh ktisis 'a new creation,' and, consequent thereon, a sincere, uniform keeping of the commandments of God. This St. Paul constantly declares. But where does he say this is the condition of our justification In the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians particularly he vehemently asserts the contrary, earnestly maintaining that nothing is absolutely necessary to this but 'believing in Him that justifieth the ungodly'--not the godly, not him that is already a 'new creature,' that previously keeps all the commandments of God. He does this afterward: when he is justified by faith, then his faith 'worketh by love.'

'Therefore there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus,' justified by faith in Him, provided they 'walk in Him whom they have received, not after the flesh, but after the Spirit' (page 23). But, should they turn back and walk again after the flesh, they would again be under condemnation. But this no way proves that 'walking after the Spirit' was the condition of their justification.

Neither will anything like this follow from the Apostle's saying to the Corinthians, 'Though I had all faith, so as to remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.' This only proves that miracle-working faith may be where saving faith is not.

8. To the argument, 'St. Paul says "Abraham was justified by faith,"' you answer, 'St. James says "Abraham was justified by works"' (page 24). True; but he neither speaks of the same justification, nor the same faith, nor the same works. Not of the same justification: for St. Paul speaks of that justification which was five-and-twenty years before Isaac was born (Genesis); St. James of that wherewith he was justified when he offered up Isaac on the altar. It is living faith whereby St. Paul affirms we are justified; it is dead faith whereby St. James affirms we are not justified. St. Paul speaks of works antecedent to justification; St. James of works consequent upon it. This is the plain, easy, natural way of reconciling the two Apostles.

The fact was manifestly this: (1) When Abraham dwelt in Haran, being then seventy-five years old, God called him thence: he 'believed God,' and He 'counted it to him for righteousness'--that is, he 'was justified by faith,' as St. Paul strenuously asserts. (2) Many years after Isaac was born (some of the ancients thought three-and-thirty) Abraham, showing his faith by his works, offered him up upon the altar. (3) Here the 'faith' by which, in St. Paul's sense, he was justified long before, 'wrought together with his works'; and he was justified in St. James's sense--that is (as the Apostle explains his own meaning), 'by works his faith was made perfect.' God confirmed, increased, and perfected the principle from which those works sprang.

9. Drawing to a conclusion, you say: 'What pity so many volumes should have been written upon the question whether a man be justified by faith or works, seeing they are two essential parts of the same thing!' (page 25). If by works you understand inward and outward holiness, both faith and works are essential parts of Christianity: and yet they are essentially different, and by God Himself contradistinguished from each other; and that in the very question before us-- 'Him that worketh not, but believeth.' Therefore whether a man be justified by faith or works is a point of the last importance; otherwise our Reformers could not have answered to God their spending so much time upon it. Indeed, they were both too wise and too good men to have wrote so many volumes on a trifling or needless question.

10. If in speaking on this important point (such at least it appears to me) I have said anything offensive, any that implies the least degree of anger or disrespect, it was entirely foreign to my intention; nor, indeed, have I any provocation: I have no room to be angry at your maintaining what you believe to be the truth of the gospel; even though I might wish you had omitted a few expressions, Quas aut incuria fudit, Aut humana parum cavit natura. [Horace's Ars Poetica, 11. 352-3: 'Such as escaped my notice, or such as may be placed to the account of human infirmity.'] In the general, from all I have heard concerning you, I cannot but very highly esteem you in love. And that God may give you both 'a right judgement in all things, and evermore to rejoice in His holy comfort,' is the prayer of, reverend sir, Your affectionate brother and servant.

To Matthew Lowes LONDON, March 11, 1762.

DEAR MATTHEW,--I have enclosed that part of the Minutes of the Conference which relates to discipline. On the other paper (which you may read in every Society just before you visit the classes) you will see the design of the General Yearly Collection, [See Works, viii. 335-6.] to which every Methodist in England is to contribute something. If there is any who cannot give an halfpenny in a year, another will give it for him.

The Society here has subscribed near £300. Your affectionate friend and brother.

[For letter to S. Furly, March 20, see end of vol. viii.]

To Thomas Rankin BRISTOL, March 20, 1762. MY DEAR BROTHER,--You should act as an Assistant in Sussex. Therefore see that our Rules be everywhere observed; and spread our books wherever you go, particularly Kempis, Primitive Physick, and Instructions for Children. [See letters of Feb. 20, 1762, and Sept. 21, 1764.]

Before eight weeks are ended the Societies will be able to secure you an horse. O be simple! Be a little child before God!--I am Your affectionate brother. Read and pray much. To Mr. Thomas Rankin, At Mr. Barker's, In Sevenoaks, Kent.

To Miss March ATHLONE, May 13, 1762.

You did well to write. 'It is good to hide the secrets of a king, but to declare the loving-kindness of the Lord.' [See Tobit xii. 7.] Have you never found any wandering since Is your mind always stayed on God Do you find every thought brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ Do no vain thoughts (useless, trifling, unedifying) lodge within you Does not the corruptible body at some times more or less press down the soul Has God made your very dreams devout I have known Satan assault in their sleep (endeavouring to terrify or affright) those whom he could not touch when they were awake.

As to your band, there are two sorts of persons with whom you may have to do--the earnest and the slack: the way you are to take with the one is quite different from that one would take with the other. The latter you must search, and find out why they are slack; exhort them to repent, be zealous, do the first works. The former you have only to encourage, to exhort to push forward to the mark, to bid them grasp the prize so nigh! And do so yourself. Receive a thousand more blessings; believe more, love more: you cannot love enough. Beware of sins of omission. So shall you fulfil the joy of Your affectionate brother.

To Samuel Furly May 21, 1762.

DEAR SAMMY,--This morning I came hither, and received yours. The post-boys in Ireland do not ride Pegasus.

A sermon of Ab. Sharp's [John Sharp, Archbishop of York sermon on Rom. xiv. I 7, preached on Aug. 23, 1674, before the Lord Mayor in the Guildhall Chapel: 'Another thing that would make for peace is this--never to charge upon men the consequences of their opinions when they expressly disown them.'] fully convinced me about thirty years ago that it is inconsistent with charity to charge any man with those consequences of his doctrine which he disavows. I always did so before, but not since. Otherwise what work should I make with poor George Whitefield.

Another thing I was not so soon nor so easily convinced of, namely, that in spite of all my logic I cannot so prove any one point in the whole compass of Philosophy or Divinity as not to leave room for strong objections, and probably such as I could not answer. But if I could, my answer, however guarded, will give room to equally strong objections. And in this manner, if the person is a man of sense, answers and objections may go on in infinitum. I am therefore weary of altercation. Once or twice I give my reasons. If they do not convince, I have done. My day is far spent, so that I have no hours to spare for what I verily believe will profit nothing.

As to that particular expression, 'Dying at the feet of mercy,' I have only farther to add, I do not care, as it is not a scriptural phrase, whether any one takes or leaves it. It is enough for me if he says from the heart Every moment, Lord, I need, The merit of Thy death; Never shall I want it less When Thou the grace hast given, Filled me with Thy holiness And sealed the heir of heaven. I shall hang upon my God, Till I Thy perfect glory see, Till the sprinkling of Thy blood Shall speak me up to Thee.

I wish Mr. Venn may have more and more success. Has he published his book concerning gospel ministers I still think it is not prudence, but high imprudence, for any of those who preach the essential gospel truths to stand aloof from each other. I cannot but judge there ought to be the most cordial and avowed union between them. But I rejoice that the shyness is not, and never was, on my side. I have done all I could; and with a single eye. For as long as God is pleased to continue with me, I want no man living. I have all things and abound. How happy is the man that trusts in Him!

I expect our Conference will begin at Leeds on Tuesday the 10th of August. Peace be with you and yours!--I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev. Mr. Furly, At Slaithwaite, Near Huddersfield, Yorks.

To Jenny Lee

[5] LIMERICK, June 7, 1762.

MY DEAR SISTER,--You did well to write freely. The more largely you write the more welcome your letters will be; and your soul is now so feeble and tender that it needs every help.

It is certain that God has made bare His arm and wrought a great deliverance for you. He has more fully revealed His Son in you. He has purified your heart. He has saved you from pride, anger, desire. Yea, the Son has made you free, and you are free indeed. Stand fast, then, my dear friend, in this glorious liberty. Stand fast by simple faith! Look unto Jesus! Trust Him, praise Him for ever. Lean upon Him alone! And be not careful about this or that name for the blessing you have received. Do not reason one moment what to call it, whether perfection or anything else. You have faith: hold it fast. You have love: let it not go. Above all, you have Christ! Christ is yours! He is your Lord, your love, your all! Let Him be your portion in time and in eternity! Send word just how you are in every particular to Your affectionate brother.

To Christopher Hopper CORK, June 18, 1762.

MY DEAR BROTHER,--So your labour has not been in vain. I shall expect an account of the remaining part of your journey too. And you will be able to inform me of the real character and behaviour of Robert Miller also. I do not rightly understand him. But I see James Kershaw and he do not admire one another.

Pray let me know as particularly as you can how William Fugill [Fugill, a native of Rothwell, near Leeds, was at first useful and acceptable; but he fell into 'some grievous sins,' and was excluded in 1764. See Atmore's Memorial, pp. 147-8.] has behaved in Scotland, and what has hindered the increase of the work at Edinburgh. I thought the Society would have been doubled before now.

I expect to be in Dublin on Saturday, July 24. Then Providence will determine how I shall go forward, and whether I am to embark for Parkgate, Liverpool, or Holyhead in my way to Leeds, where I hope to meet you all on August 10. [Hopper was appointed to the Leeds Circuit at this Conference.]--I am Yours affectionately. I hope you will all exert yourselves in the Midsummer Collection for Kingswood.

To Jenny Lee CORK, June 18, 1762.

MY DEAR SISTER,--It is observed in Mr. De Renty's Life that God Himself does often give desires that He will not suffer to take effect. Such probably may be your desire of death. God may make it a blessing to you, though He does not intend to fulfil it soon. But He will withhold no manner of thing that is good. Do you now find a witness in yourself that you are saved from sin Do you see God always and always feel His love and in everything give thanks My dear Jenny, you shall see greater things than these! The Lord is your Shepherd; therefore can you lack nothing. O cleave close to Him I Christ is yours! All is yours! Trust Him, praise Him evermore. Pray for Your affectionate brother.

To Ebenezer Blackwell

[6] DUBLIN, July 28, 1762.

DEAR SIR,--It was seven or eight weeks before I could prevail upon any of our brethren in England to let me know whether 'Mr. Blackwell, an eminent banker, died at his house in Lewisham or not.' John Maddern was the first who occasionally told me he was alive. Now, a messenger of good news should be rewarded. But what can be done for this poor man, in truth I cannot tell. He hinted at a distance as if he would be much obliged if I would be bound for his behaviour. But how could I be bound for a thousand pounds who am not worth a groat I could not, therefore, but advise him to give up the thought of being in a banker's shop; as I see no manner of probability of his procuring such sureties as are requisite. Indeed, I heartily wish he was in any way of business, as he is capable of almost anything.

The people in this kingdom have been frightened sufficiently by the sickness and by the Levellers, whose design undoubtedly was deep-laid, and extended to the whole kingdom. But they broke out too soon: nothing should have appeared till a French or Spanish squadron came. The nation is not now in the same state as it was in 1641. Then there were not four thousand soldiers in the kingdom: now there are near twenty thousand.

I hope you and yours have escaped the general disorder or have found it a blessing. It little matters whether we escape pain or suffer it, so it be but sanctified. Without some suffering we should scarce remember that we are not proprietors here, but only tenants at will, liable to lose all we have at a moment's warning. Happy it were if we continually retained a lively impression of this on our minds; then should we more earnestly seek that portion which shall never be taken from us.

In two or three days I am likely to embark in order to meet our brethren at Leeds. There I hope to have it under your own hand that both you, Mrs. Blackwell, Mrs. Dewal, and Miss Freeman are alive in the best sense.--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant.

To Samuel Furly DUBLIN, July 30, 1762.

DEAR SAMMY,--'If I am unanswered, then I am unanswerable.' Who can deny the consequence By such an argument you carry all before you and gain a complete victory. You put me in mind of the honest man who cried out while I was preaching, 'Quid est tibi nomen' and, upon my giving no answer, called out vehemently, 'I told you he did not understand Latin!'

I do sometimes understand, though I do not answer. This is often the case between you and me. You love dispute, and I hate it. [See letter of Sept. 15 to him.] You have much time, and I have much work. Non sumus ergo pares. But if you will dispute the point with Nicholas Norton, he is your match. He has both leisure and love for the work.

For me, I shall only once more state the case. Here are forty or fifty people who declare (and I can take their word, for I know them well), each for himself, 'God has enabled me to rejoice evermore, and to pray and give thanks without ceasing. He has enabled me to give Him all my heart, which I believe He has cleansed from all sin. I feel no pride, no anger, no desire, no unbelief, but pure love alone.' I ask, 'Do you, then, believe you have no farther need of Christ or His atoning blood' Every one answers, 'I never felt my want of Christ so deeply and strongly as I do now. I feel the want of Christ my Priest as well as King, and receive all I have in and through Him. Every moment I want the merit of His death, and I have it every moment.'

But you think, 'They cannot want the merit of His death if they are saved from sin.' They think otherwise. They know and feel the contrary, whether they can explain it or no. There is not one, either in this city or in this kingdom, who does not agree in this.

Here is a plain fact. You may dispute, reason, cavil about it, just as long as you please. Meantime I know by all manner of proof that these are the happiest and the holiest people in the kingdom. Their light shines before men. They are zealous of good works, and labour to abstain from all appearance of evil. They have the mind that was in Christ, and walk as Christ also walked.

And shall I cease to rejoice over these holy, happy men because they mistake in their judgement If they do, I would to God you and I and all mankind were under the same mistake; provided we had the same faith, the same love, and the same inward and outward holiness!--I am, dear Sammy, Yours affectionately. Will not you meet us at Leeds on the 10th of August [The Conference met there on that date.]

To his Brother Charles

[7] [September 1762.]

Some thoughts occurred to my mind this morning, which I believe it may be useful to set down, the rather because it may be a means of our understanding each other clearly, that we may agree as far as ever we can and then let all the world know it.

I was thinking on Christian perfection, with regard to the thing, the manner, and the time.

1. By perfection I mean the humble, gentle, patient love of God and man ruling all the tempers, words, and actions, the whole heart and the whole life.

I do not include a possibility of falling from it, either in part or in whole. Therefore I retract several expressions in our hymns which partly express, partly imply, such an impossibility. And I do not contend for the term 'sinless,' though I do not object against it. Do we agree or differ here If we differ, wherein

2. As to the manner, I believe this perfection is always wrought in the soul by faith, by a simple act of faith; consequently in an instant. But I believe a gradual work both preceding and following that instant. Do we agree or differ here

3. As to the time, I believe this instant generally is the instant of death, the moment before the soul leaves the body. But I believe it may be ten, twenty, or forty years before death. Do we agree or differ here

I believe it is usually many years after justification, but that it may be within five years or five months after it. I know no conclusive argument to the contrary. Do you

If it must be many years after justification, I would be glad to know how many. Pretium quotus arrogat annus [Horace's Epistles, II. i. 35: How many years should claim the prize'] And how many days, or months, or even years can you allow to be between perfection and death How far from justification must it be and how near to death

If it be possible, let you and me come to a good understanding, both for our own sakes and for the sake of the people.

To Dorothy Furly ST. IVES, September 15, 1762.

MY DEAR SISTER,--Whereunto you have attained hold fast. But expect that greater things are at hand; although our friend [Apparently her brother. See letter of July 30, and the next one.] talks as if you were not to expect them till the article of death.

Certainly sanctification (in the proper sense) is 'an instantaneous deliverance from all sin,' and includes 'an instantaneous power then given always to cleave to God.' Yet this sanctification (at least, in the lower degrees) does not include a power never to think an useless thought nor ever speak an useless word. I myself believe that such a perfection is inconsistent with living in a corruptible body; for this makes it impossible 'always to think right.' While we breathe we shall more or less mistake. If, therefore, Christian perfection implies this, we must not expect it till after death.

I want you to be all love. This is the perfection I believe and teach. And this perfection is consistent with a thousand nervous disorders, which that high-strained perfection is not. Indeed, my judgement is that (in this case particularly) to overdo is to undo, and that to set perfection too high (so high as no man that we ever heard or read of attained) is the most effectual (because unsuspected) way of driving it out of the world.

Take care you are not hurt by anything in the Short Hymns contrary to the doctrines you have long received. Peace be with your spirit!--I am Your affectionate brother.

To Samuel Furly ST. IVES, September 15, 1762.

DEAR SIR,-- Spectatum satis, ac donatum jam rude quaeris, Maecenas, iterum antiquo me includere ludo Non eadem est aetas, non mens. [Horace's Epistles, 1. i. 2-4: 'Wherefore, Maecenas, would you thus engage Your bard, dismissed with honour from the stage Again to venture in the lists of fame, His youth, his genius, now no more the same'] I have entirely lost my taste for controversy. [See previous letter and that of Oct. 13.] I have lost my readiness in disputing; and I take this to be a providential discharge from it. All I can now do with a clear conscience is not to enter into a formal controversy about the new birth or justification by faith any more than Christian perfection, but simply to declare my judgement, and to explain myself as clearly as I can upon any difficulty that may arise concerning it.

So far I can go with you, but no farther. I still say, and without any self-contradiction, I know no persons living who are so deeply conscious of their needing Christ both as Prophet, Priest, and King as those who believe themselves, and whom I believe, to be cleansed from all sin--I mean from all pride, anger, evil desire, idolatry, and unbelief. These very persons feel more than ever their own ignorance, littleness of grace, coming short of the full mind that was in Christ, and walking less accurately than they might have done after their divine Pattern; are more convinced of the insufficiency of all they are, have, or do to bear the eye of God without a Mediator; are more penetrated with the sense of the want of Him than ever they were before.

If Mr. Maxfield or you say that 'coming short is sin,' be it so; I contend not. But still I say: 'There are they whom I believe to be scripturally perfect. And yet these never felt their want of Christ so deeply and strongly as they do now.' If in saying this I have 'fully given up the point,' what would you have more Is it not enough that I leave you to 'boast your superior power against the little, weak shifts of baffled error' 'Canst thou not be content,' as the Quaker said, 'to lay J. W. on his back, but thou must tread his guts out'[See letter of Nov. 4, 1758, sect. 5 (to Potter).]

Here are persons exceeding holy and happy; rejoicing evermore, praying always, and in everything giving thanks; feeling the love of God and man every moment; feeling no pride or other evil temper. If these are not perfect, that scriptural word has no meaning. Stop! you must not cavil at that word: you are not wiser than the Holy Ghost. But if you are not, see that you teach perfection too. 'But are they not sinners' Explain the term one way, and I say, Yes; another, and I say, No. 'Are they cleansed from all sin' I believe they are; meaning from all sinful tempers. 'But have they then need of Christ' I believe they have in the sense and for the reasons above mentioned. Now, be this true or false, it is no contradiction; it is consistent with itself, and I think consistent with right reason and the whole oracles of God.

O let you and I go on to perfection! God grant we may so run as to attain!--I am Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Miss March BRISTOL, October 9, 1762.

Though I have very little time, I must write a few lines. I thank you for your comfortable letter. Some have more of heat and some of light. The danger is that one should say to the other, 'I have no need of thee,' or that any should mistake his place and imagine himself to be what he is not. Be not backward to speak to any whom you think are mistaken either in this or other things. A loving word spoken in faith shall not fall to the ground; and the more freely you speak to me at any time or on any head the more you will oblige Your ever affectionate brother.

To Samuel Furly BRISTOL, October 13, 1762.

MY DEAR BROTHER,--In general, when I apprehend, 'Certainly this is a contradiction,' if I find other persons of equal sagacity with myself, of equal natural and acquired abilities, apprehend it is not, I immediately suspect my own judgement; and the more so because I remember I have been many times full as sure as I am now, and yet afterwards I found myself mistaken.

As to this particular question, I believe I am able to answer every objection which can be made. But I am not able to do it without expending much time which may be better employed. For this reason I am persuaded it is so far from being my duty to enter into a formal controversy about it that it would be a wilful sin; it would be employing my short residue of life in a less profitable way than it may be employed.

The proposition which I will hold is this: 'A person may be cleansed from all sinful tempers, and yet need the atoning blood.' For what For 'negligences and ignorances'; for both words and actions (as well as omissions) which are in a sense transgressions of the perfect law. And I believe no one is clear of these till he lays down this corruptible body. [See letter of Sept. 15 to him.]

Now, Sammy, dropping the point of contradiction or no contradiction, tell me simply what you would have more. Do you believe evil tempers remain till death all, or some if some only, which

I love truth wherever I find it; so if you can help me to a little more of it, you will oblige, dear Sammy, Yours, &c.

To Thomas Maxfield

[8] CANTERBURY, November 2, 1762.

Without any preface or ceremony, which is needless between you and me, I will simply and plainly tell what I dislike in your doctrine, spirit, or outward behaviour. When I say yours, I include Brother Bell and Owen and those who are most closely connected with them.

1. I like your doctrine of Perfection, or pure love; love excluding sin; your insisting that it is merely by faith; that consequently it is instantaneous (though preceded and followed by a gradual work), and that it may be now, at this instant.

But I dislike your supposing man may be as perfect as an angel; that he can be absolutely perfect; that he can be infallible, or above being tempted; or that the moment he is pure in heart he cannot fall from it.

I dislike the saying, This was not known or taught among us till within two or three years. I grant you did not know it. You have over and over denied instantaneous sanctification to me; but I have known and taught it (and so has my brother, as our writings show) above these twenty years.

I dislike your directly or indirectly depreciating justification, saying a justified person is not in Christ, is not born of God, is not a new creature, has not a new heart, is not sanctified, not a temple of the Holy Ghost, or that he cannot please God or cannot grow in grace.

I dislike your saying that one saved from sin needs nothing more than looking to Jesus; needs not to hear or think of anything else; believe, believe is enough; that he needs no self-examination, no times of private prayer; needs not mind little or outward things; and that he cannot be taught by any person who is not in the same state.

I dislike your affirming that justified persons in general persecute them that are saved from sin; that they have persecuted you on this account; and that for two years past you have been more persecuted by the two brothers than ever you was by the world in all your life.

2. As to your spirit, I like your confidence in God and your zeal for the salvation of souls.

But I dislike something which has the appearance of pride, of overvaluing yourselves and undervaluing others, particularly the preachers: thinking not only that they are blind and that they are not sent of God, but even that they are dead--dead to God, and walking in the way to hell; that they are going one way, you another; that they have no life in them. Your speaking of yourselves as though you were the only men who knew and taught the gospel; and as if not only all the clergy, but all the Methodists besides, were in utter darkness. I dislike something that has the appearance of enthusiasm, overvaluing feelings and inward impressions: mistaking the mere work of imagination for the voice of the Spirit; expecting the end without the means; and undervaluing reason, knowledge, and wisdom in general.

I dislike something that has the appearance of Antinomianism, not magnifying the law and making it honourable; not enough valuing tenderness of conscience and exact watchfulness in order thereto; using faith rather as contradistinguished from holiness than as productive of it.

But what I most of all dislike is your littleness of love to your brethren, to your own Society; your want of union of heart with them and bowels of mercies toward them; your want of meekness, gentleness, longsuffering; your impatience of contradiction; your counting every man your enemy that reproves or admonishes you in love; your bigotry and narrowness of spirit, loving in a manner only those that love you; your censoriousness, proneness to think hardly of all who do not exactly agree with you: in one word, your divisive spirit. Indeed, I do not believe that any of you either design or desire a separation; but you do not enough fear, abhor, and detest it, shuddering at the very thought. And all the preceding tempers tend to it and gradually prepare you for it. Observe, I tell you before. God grant you may immediately and affectionately take the warning!

3. As to your outward behaviour, I like the general tenor of your life, devoted to God, and spent in doing good.

But I dislike your slighting any, the very least rules of the bands or Society, and your doing anything that tends to hinder others from exactly observing them. Therefore--

I dislike your appointing such meetings as hinder others from attending either the public preaching or their class or band, or any other meeting which the Rules of the Society or their office requires them to attend.

I dislike your spending so much time in several meetings, as many that attend can ill spare from the other duties of their calling, unless they omit either the preaching or their class or band. This naturally tends to dissolve our Society by cutting the sinews of it.

As to your more public meetings, I like the praying fervently and largely for all the blessings of God; and I know much good has been done hereby, and hope much more will be done.

But I dislike several things therein,--(1) The singing or speaking or praying of several at once: (2) the praying to the Son of God only, or more than to the Father: (3) the using improper expressions in prayer; sometimes too bold, if not irreverent; sometimes too pompous and magnificent, extolling yourselves rather than God, and telling Him what you are, not what you want: (4) using poor, flat, bald hymns: (5) the never kneeling at prayer: (6) your using postures or gestures highly indecent: (7) your screaming, even so as to make the words unintelligible: (8) your affirming people will be justified or sanctified just now: (9) the affirming they are when they are not: (10) the bidding them say, 'I believe': (11) the bitterly condemning any that oppose, calling them wolves, &c.; and pronouncing them hypocrites, or not justified.

Read this calmly and impartially before the Lord in prayer. So shall the evil cease and the good remain, and you will then be more than ever united to Your affectionate brother.

To Mrs. Moon

[9] CANTERBURY, November 5, 1762.

MY DEAR SISTER,--Ten times I believe I have been going to answer your last, and have been as often hindered. Surely Satan does not approve of our corresponding together. And no wonder, seeing he does not like what tends to the furtherance of the kingdom of God. And this your letters always do. I find an animating, strengthening power in them. And this is what I particularly want; for I often feel a feebleness of soul, a languor of spirit, so that I cannot as I would press forward toward the mark. This I am particularly sensible of when I am in company with serious, good-natured people, who are not alive to God, and yet say nothing that one can well reprove. I am then apt to sit silent, and make as it were a drawn battle. I want vigour of spirit to break through, whether they will hear or whether they will forbear. Help me forward, my friend, by your prayers.

If that fever continues in the country still, you may cure all that are taken ill near you. But it must be helped at the beginning. (1) No bleeding, no blistering: these are extremely hurtful. (2) Give the patient a pint of spring water sweetened with a large spoonful of treacle, lying down in bed. If this is taken at the beginning of the fever, I never once knew it fail.

How does the work of God now go on round about you Is Brother Cotty [James Cotty was a preacher from 1767 to 1780.] able to preach And can John Manners [See letter of March 24, 1761.] do anything I want much to know the particulars of Miss Romaine's [Probably a relative of the Rev. William Romaine, who was born at Hartlepool in 1714.] experience. I wish she would write to me. Do you find a growth in grace in lowliness, meekness, patience May our Lord make all grace to abound in you!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To Dr. Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester

[10]

To his Brother Charles LONDON, December 11, 1762.

DEAR BROTHER,--For eighteen or twenty days I heard with both ears, but rarely opened my mouth. I think I now understand the affair at least as well as any person in England.

The sum is this: (1) The meeting in Beech Lane, [The meeting was apparently in Joseph Guilford's house (see Journal, v. 7). On visiting the classes in November, Wesley found 'some were vehement for, some against, the meetings for prayer which were in several parts of the town. I said little, being afraid of taking any step which I might afterwards repent of' (ibid. iv. 538). Thomas Maxfield was making much trouble.] before I came to town, was like a bear-garden; full of noise, brawling, cursing, swearing, blasphemy, and confusion. (2) Those who prayed were partly the occasion of this, by their horrid screaming, and unscriptural, enthusiastic expressions. (3) Being determined either 'to mend them or end them,' I removed the meeting to the Foundery. (4) Immediately the noise, brawling, cursing, swearing, blasphemy, and confusion ceased. (5) There was less and less screaming and less of unscriptural and enthusiastic language. (6) Examining the Society, I found about threescore persons who had been convinced of sin and near fourscore who were justified at these meetings. So that on the whole they have done some hurt and much good. I trust they will now do more good, and no hurt at all. Seven persons had left the Society on this account; but four of them are come back already.

I bought the ground before Kingswood School of Margaret Ward, and paid for it with my own money. [This plot was divided into pastures and gardens, in the latter of which the boys worked. See Kingswood School, p. 19.] Certainly, therefore, I have a right to employ it as I please. What can any reasonable man say to the contrary

I have answered the Bishop, and had advice upon my answer. If the devil owes him a shame, he will reply. He is a man of sense; but I verily think he does not understand Greek! [See heading to letter on p. 338.]

I should be glad to see Mr. Nitchman. [David Nitschmann, who had sailed with the Wesleys to Georgia as bishop in charge of the Moravian emigrants. See Journal, i.111, ii.37.] What is all beside loving faith! We join in love to Sally and you. Adieu!

To Jonah Freeman

[11] CITY ROAD, December 20, 1762.

MY DEAR BROTHER,--That you have received a considerable blessing from God is beyond all dispute. Hold fast whereunto you have attained, and do not reason about it. Do not concern yourself whether it should be called by this or another name. It is right as far as it goes. And whatsoever is yet lacking, God is able and willing to supply.--I am Your affectionate brother. Mr. Jonah Freeman, At Mr. Clark's, Hosier, In Farr's Alley, Aldersgate Street.

To Samuel Furly LONDON, December 20, 1762.

DEAR SAMMY,--Charles Perronet, the author of that remark on 2Peter iii. 13, does not believe Christ will reign at all upon earth, nor any millennium [See letter of March 10, 1763.] till we come to heaven. The argument by which he endeavours to prove that St. Peter there speaks only to what will precede the Day of Judgement is this: 'If those expressions, a new heaven and a new earth, refer only to this world when they occur in Isaiah, then they refer to nothing more where they are used by St. Peter.'

I should never have suspected Dr. Sherlock [William Sherlock (1641-1707) was then Prebendary of St. Paul's, and became Dean in 1691; he was Master of the Temple 1685-1704. His Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity in 1690 was answered by Robert South (1633-1716) in his Animadversions. Sherlock replied with his Defence (1694), and in 1695 Dr. South wrote his Tritheism, accusing Sherlock of that heresy. The contest was sharp, and men of note took part in it on both sides.] of writing anything in a burlesque way. He never aimed at it in his controversy with Dr. South, and seemed exceeding angry at his opponent for doing so. Probably he knew himself to be overmatched by the Doctor, and therefore did not care to engage him on his own ground. 'But why should you be angry,' says Dr. South, 'at wit It might have pleased God to make you a wit too.'

I think the danger in writing to Bishop Warburton is rather that of saying too much than too little. The least said is the soonest amended, and leaves an ill-natured critic the least to take hold of. I have therefore endeavoured to say as little upon each head as possible. If he replies, I shall say more. But I rather think he will not, unless it be by a side stroke when he writes on some other subject. [See letters of Dec. 11, 1762, and March 10,1763.]

How does the work of God prosper at Huddersfield and Slaithwaite [Furly was at Slaithwaite 1762-6.] Do you begin to see the fruit of your labours and does your own soul prosper What signifies all but this-- to save our own souls and them that hear us--I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother.

To his Brother Charles LONDON, December, 23, 1762.

DEAR BROTHER,--But how to come to the speech of the colliers is the question; as there are an hundred miles between us; as this is too critical a time for me to be out of London.

I am satisfied with the learning of John Jones (as there is no point of learning in debate between us) and the judgement of John Matthews, Charles Perronet, and James Morgan. Yet it is certain his admirers will still think him unanswerable.

I believe several in London have imagined themselves saved from sin 'upon the word of others'; and these are easily known. For that work does not stand. Such imaginations soon vanish away. Some of these and two or three others are still wild. But I think Mrs. Garbrand [For Mrs. Garbrand (whose name is in shorthand), see heading to letter of Sept. 29, 1764, to Ann Foard.] exceeds them all. But the matter does not stick here. I could play with all these if I could but set Thomas Maxfield right. He is mali caput et fons ['The head and fountain of the evil.']; so inimitably wrong-headed, and so absolutely unconvincible! And yet (what is exceeding strange) God continues to bless his labours.

My kind love to Sally! Adieu! I shall soon try your patience with a long letter.

Edited by Jerry James (Pastor), and converted to HTML by Steven F. Johnson. 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. Contact the webmaster for permission.